Pgoodwin1

Virtually anything (no how bad the design) can be gotten used to. I have only Macs at home but at GE before I retired, I had to use a PC. One thing that drove me nuts was that it seemed like no matter what I was trying to do, it took twice as many mouse clicks as it did on the Mac. And the thing that drove me the most nuts was that whenever I was finally able to find something command related, that I needed to use often, was always buried deep down in some ill-organized hierarchy of menus or buried deep down in some control panel that only had the loosest connection with the function you wanted to command. The MS organizational brain is not like mine. Maybe it's me. But the Mac OS and menu structures are more intuitive - to me anyway. Like I said, if you use something enough, you learn it and it isn't as painful. But when using the PC, after finally finding what I was looking for, my comment to myself was always "why in the hell would ANYBODY ever put it there?", and "what design review committee decided THAT was where it should go?"

MS ruined Office with their whole menu redesign. It's an atrocity. I will never get used to that piece of crap.

HAHAHAHA mudmanc4. There are no real zombies. But there is MS. It eats a little bit of your brain every time you use it.

My real download and upload speeds (measured here) are always about 1/3 of what the Time Warner Roadrunner speed test shows. Their results at times have told me my service was fine when in fact there were signal problems at their amps outside. They and most ISPs advertise falsely. The only thing you can say is that they typically deliver their promised rates as measured on their instruments. When you read the TestMy explanation, all this you will have a better understanding. The reality among many ISPs is that they (as a business) know they are advertising falsely, but each one is advertising not any differently than most other ISPs, so they feel there's a built in immunity to legal action because everyone is doing it. Some are undoubtedly worse than others. In your case, if they "guaranteed " you 20MBPS down, and you're getting 10, you're better off than I am. The only way to fight all of this would be a class action lawsuit. The only solution would be to create a set of specifications for speed measuring (similar to what they did with audio power amplifier power measurements). Then an ISP could either be compliant to the spec or standard or not, and the buyer could decide if he wanted to go with one that didn't claim compliance, or one that did. Right now it's a mess. I don't know if the typical support person you talk to knows anything other than the tools he was given to measure speed at that company. If he/she does know, they're between a rock and a hard place, because they can't tell a customer that their tools are wrong.

Hahahaha

I wonder what Bill Gates really thinks of all this.

Steve Ballmer has gone insane. He's telling his stockholders that the demand for Win8 is "fantastic". I'm not a MS basher at all. I think their Office was one of the greatest pieces of SW ever created (until they screwed up the toolbars). An although I use Macs exclusively, I have great respect for what Windows has been. But MS seems to be floundering badly, kind of like Apple was when Steve Jobs was gone.

I can't vouch for how accurate this article is, but it's an interesting one:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-04/microsoft-intel-push-to-combat-apple-in-tablets-sputtering-tech.html

I still have my original iPhone 1....every once in a while I take it out and just look at it and hold it. It was a marvel.

The picture isn't clear enough for me to read it.

Are those speeds average results or one time test results? I typically get speed test results that vary by 20% to 100% from test to test. Not because of the testmy site or my hardware/OS but because of what's going on out on the Internet.

The right 1/2 of the plot above was taken over a period of about 10 minutes. Some points were using Safari, and some were using Mercury (Firefox on iPad). Time Warner Cincinnati speeds are always all over the place from minute to minute but generally my averages are 8 down, and 0.8 up.

This morning Time Warner's loading seems to be pretty varied. Speeds in the middle of the night usually vary by 20% or less from minute to minute.

And I get similar results to this iPad on my iMac running 10.8, my wife's MacBook Pro running 10.6.8

Hi mikec.....from SW Ohio. I did some coding on the 6502 also...in college. And got to do some on HP's early desktop computers....in HPL.....OMG what a language.

Hi and welcome from SW Ohio

Happy belated birthday. 31 is a great age to be.

Welcome from SW Ohio

What are your average Upload and Dowload speeds on this site? And what are your ISP's guaranteed numbers for Up,and Down?

My download speeds using Europe are ~ 1/2 my typical 8 Mbps using the Central US. Server. Uploads at both were about the same: 0.8 Mbps.. Time Warner Roadrunner in Cincinnati is pretty slow. I have one of their cheap plans.

I had symptoms like that with Time Warner twice. Both times it turned out to be signal integrity issues with their hardware out at a box near the street. Once the signal level was too high. Another time it was too low. On their first trip they'll check the level and integrity of the signal inside your house - going into the modem. Time Warner can test signal levels remotely and identify one that is bad. Comcast can probably do that too. But if it's intermittent, it might not show as out of range during your phone call. One of the times mine failed only when the temperature outside got below 40 F. Insist that they come out and check your modem input. They have sophisticated enough equipment to figure out if the problem is the signal or the modem. If it's other hardware inside the house though they won't help on that. They're responsive to people with troubles, you may have to contact them more than once if they can't detect a problem remotely. Since you can explain all you've tried and they know your problem is real, they may schedule an appointment on the first call.

It does suck. They are broke, and cutting every cost they can. You have to wonder though what the real cost of maintaining it was. It couldn't have been much compared to what it was contributing to.

I'm a little confused with the configuration of that MacBook Pro. The specs you show above look more like a MacBook Pro 5,3 from 2009. When I look up the specs on The MacBookPro1,1 on MacTracker:

Model Identifier MacBookPro1,1

Introduced January 2006 (Shipped February 2006)

Discontinued May 2006

Order Number MA463LL/A (1.83 GHz), MA464LL/A (2.0 GHz)

Processor Intel Core Duo (T2400, T2500, T2600) ("Yonah")

Processor Speed 1.83, 2.0 or 2.16 GHz

Architecture 32-bit

Number of Cores 2

Cache 2 MB on chip shared L2 cache

System Bus 667 MHz

Benchmarks 1.83 GHz: 2291, 2.0 GHz: 2458, 2.16 GHz: 2660

Storage 80, 100, 120 GB (5400-rpm) or 100 GB (7200-rpm)

Maximum Memory 2.0 GB

Memory Slots 2 - 200-pin PC2-5300 (667MHz) DDR2 SO-DIMM

Ethernet 10/100/1000BASE-T (RJ-45) (support for jumbo frames)

The newest OS that this MacBook Pro can run is 10.6.8. Lion was not supported on the Core Duo processors.

I don't know why it would be that much slower since it does have Gigabit Ethernet, unless that older model isn't connecting as 1000 Base T - maybe it's less forgiving about the cable capacitance. Is the cable a CAT 6 ? if it's a CAT 5, maybe it's reverting back to 100 Base T. But even with 100 Base T it doesn't seem like it would be that much lower....not sure.

The only other speed bottlenecks on that machine would be the 2 Meg RAM limit, and the 80 GB hard drive being very full. But I don't know in your case if either is having an effect. Probably not if only the browser is running.

Disregard the above post. Your model is a Mac Pro not a MacBook Pro. I misunderstood.

The only comment above that still would apply would be about the Gigabit Ethernet and the CAT 5 vs CAT 6 cables because that design was released in 2006.

Pleas disregard my comments above. I was confused with the model. Your issue is with a Mac Pro not a MacBook Pro. Sorry about that.

The only comment I made that would still apply would bee the short discussion on the Ethernet and the CAT 5 and CAT 6 cables.

Those times on Comcast are a lot faster than what I get on Time Warner RoadRunner. I'm only on a standard 10 MB min down and 1 MB min up plan. Are you on a high performance plan at Comcast?

Also, on the horizontal bar graphs that come up after running a test, what does it say your host average and your city average is?

Sorry. I didn't realize that CCC was Mac only. I used it upgrade my wife's 2006 MacBook Pro with a 7200 rpm 500 GB 2.5" internal boot drive, and cloned her old 80 GB drive with that SW. It went well, and was very easy and intuitive. This page scores the PC software but I didn't try to figure out how they got their scoring data. At least you could start there, then scan for user reviews.

http://disk-imaging-software-review.toptenreviews.com/

mudmanc4. I get 1/4 of that on a good day from Cincinnati (Time Warner RoadRunner)

I use Carbon Copy Cloner. It's very good.

CA3LE.....amazing day. You get 5 gold stars.....I don't have any, but you get 'em anyway.

CA3LE-I like being able to go back to results farther than 60 days to look at trends. Thanks

I've logged results for about 270 days. My download trend is slightly up (about 10% better than 9 months ago) which is quite astounding given that Cincinnati RoadRunner must be one of the slowest RoadRunners in the country, and very up and down during any given day. My upload trend is flat at a whopping 0.8 Mbps.