I am trying to use Windows 10 to set up a quick and easy hotspot. I am able to find and connect to the windows 10 hotspot without any issues but the speed is incredibly slow. When not connected to the hotspot I am getting 140 mbps down and 74 mbps up, but when connected to the hotspot I am getting around 1 mbps down and 300 kbps up.
I downloaded and installed the latest drivers for my wifi drivers and no matter what I do the speed will not reach anywhere near what it should be. I also tried it with another device and that device also had terrible speed so I don't think it is the device specifically, on top of the fact that it has decent speed when connected directly to the internal network.
Does anyone have any ideas why this might be happening and how to fix it?
Related
I just bought a new Lenovo Ideapad 5 pro 16ACH6 with windows 11. Immediately noticed that wi-fi speed was incredible slow. The network adapter is Qualcomm Atheros QCA61x4A. I run the speed test, it starts with 30 Mbps and slows down to 10 Mbps. On my other devices speed test comes out to 200Mbps from the same location.
Link speed : 866/866 (Mbps)
I tried to update drivers and the other solutions what I found on the forums, but the problem was not solved.
It's often something with the router. Try rebooting the router and if issue stays check by connecting to another network.
There seems to be many methods for debugging a windows 10/7, including USB or network or COM
But which of them is the fastest? I have only used COM and it seems to be really slow compared to debugging a local usermode application, was wondering what is the fastest method? is there any method that makes debugging kernel as fast as user-mode apps or close?
by fast I mean for example the amount of time for the single steps to take or amount of time for windbg to execute commands, because right now even the simplest commands sometimes take too long
Also what is the fastest method for windows 7?
There are two factors coming in: baud rate (data transfer rate) and response time (ping time). It depends much on what task you perform.
Creating a full memory kernel crash dump will likely transfer a lot of data, so a higher bandwidth is helpful.
On the other hand side, sending small WinDbg commands like k or | have just small amount of data, but you typically send it and wait for the answer. In that case, the response time has more effect.
For baud rates:
COM port is a serial port and can be configured from 75 baud up to 2 MBit/s.
USB depends on the version and has 12 MBit/s up to 10 GBit/s on USB 3.2 generation 2.
Firewire is available from 100 MBit/s to 3200 MBit/s.
Network, well has typical values from 10 MBit/s to 10 GBit/s. But of course if you debug over the Internet, it won't be faster than your DSL or cable modem.
For ping time:
USB has a response time of less than 1 ms, but that may depend on how many devices you connect.
A local full duplex network also has a response time of less than 1 ms.
Debugging over the Internet is pretty slow with 20 ms up to 300 ms.
From an availability and cost standpoint, I would start with a 1 GBit/s network connection. If you don't have that yet, you can buy a cheap Gigabit USB adapter for 12 € or so.
which of them is the fastest?
As I hopefully explained well enough, that's a question which can only be answered when we know the exact situation
I have only used COM and it seems to be really slow
Yes. It is.
right now even the simplest commands sometimes take too long
From a performance view, that's not something we can work with. If you define performance requirements, we'd need to know a) how fast is it now and b) how fast is acceptable for you.
What is the fastest method for windows 7?
I don't think the operating system matters much here.
1394 is the fastest one I used on Win 7. USB debugging is also possible, but you need to make sure the usb port (usually the onboard one) supports debugging - not all ports support this. On Win 10, KDNet probably is the fastest so far.
However, if you are debugging a virtual machine with VMWare or VirtualBox, VirtualKD is even faster than any above physical connections since it just copies data between the guest and the host. Btw, its implementation is very interesting.
All of the above is way more faster than COM. You won't feel much differences unless you are generating a full memory dump, and even that's the case none of them will seriously cause you real pain.
In Windows XP SP3 is there a registry key or some setting, maybe even at the device level in the registry, that an EHCI USB 2.0 High Speed hub can be enumerated as a UHCI or OHCI full speed device at the host level?
I am seeing an issue where a USB 1.1 full speed device is deadlocked due to infinitely NAKd split transactions with the transaction translator buffer on a high speed hub. This only happens under certain circumstances the full speed device is connected behind a 2.0 high speed hub only in XP SP3. I have opened an issue with Microsoft and they have confirmed this is a known issue and there is no Hotfix for the issue (nor will one be developed). It has been corrected in Vista+.
If the device is connected directly to the host controller, or has a full speed hub upstream of the high speed hub the problem goes away (because there are no split transactions). So, if there is a way to force the high speed hub to enumerate as a full speed device then it may help us out.
Furthermore, the hardware design is set in stone. Systems have been developed and there is no way to insert a full speed hub chip anywhere in the design, or hook up the devices directly to the root hub. And finally, it is not an option to upgrade the OS on the systems.
After some work and research with help of Microsoft the current conclusion is that there is not a way to do this.
The workaround that we will be using is to perform a PnP reset on the bus to stop the infinite NAKs, then reopen the port to begin communication again. This is not very clean, but it will solve the problem.
I'm looking to replace a hardware mixer with software, to increase the flexibility of our system and reduce hardware complexity
We have 4-8 server-class PCs (Windows 7) connected in a local LAN via gigabit Ethernet.
Each PC has a USB sound card which is connected to an 8-input mixer.
The output from the mixer is sent to speakers in a few places.
What I'd like is change is:
route the sound over the network instead
each computer should can thus listen to all others and output it's own "mix"
less cables
If possible, support for really cheap hardware (i.e. raspberry pi or something)
There is no hard requirement on latency and such. Up to 100 ms is acceptable (i.e. way higher than your average quake ping...).
While I prefer open source, I'm also open to redistributable commercial solutions, for this to be economically viable, the license costs can't exceed 30-40 €/server. (Preferrably less..)
Grateful for all help!
(Please also share you experiences if possible, not just post links..)
Related question:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4297102/how-to-create-a-virtual-sound-card-on-windows <- doesn't seem to interconnect over network
I am trying to develop an application that uses a mirror driver, although I am having an issue getting any mirror driver to work properly on my computer. I always seem to get the same issue no matter which driver I user. I have tried the Mirror Driver in UltraVNC and Also the DemoForge Mirage Driver that is included in TightVNC.
These are the issues I seem to receive- this this the issue from DemoForge Mirage. The error from the other drivers are essentially the same just maybe worded slightly different:
Could not create device driver context!
Unable to map memory for mirror driver!
Considering this is happening with all mirror drivers I am thinking maybe it is an issue with my graphics card or Intel HD graphics.
My display adapters are:
Nvidia GeForce GT525M
Intel HD Graphics 3000
Can anyone tell me what the problem could be and how to fix it? I have thought about just developing on another computer but it doesn't change the fact that I am still having an issue and others will too.