Does anyone know the maximum published speed of the IR port on an XDA I? I've been looking all over but have found many conflicting reports.
why don't you give it a try .. connect it to the laptop and check transmission speed, i.e. speed at which connection has been established
regards, monika
I've done it before on a friends laptop, its usually about 14k a second
Negotiated speed of the IR port on my XDA and notebook is 115kbps
Average speed ~85kbps
regards, Slawek
Max IR port speed...
Interesting, when I use Wmodem I only get 9.6K out of the IR port, when I use the IR port for Active Sync, I get 115kbs (less overhead of about 20kbps). Now I've opened up a hornets nest because I want to know why Wmodem has such a low transmission speed. Has anybody else witnessed this strange behavior?
I believe you will not get 115kb transfer speed using wmodem because of the limitation on the wmodem connection (give or take around 9.6k for gsm dialup and 56k for gprs). If you use your infrared port to link to another source for file transfer you may get the 115kb transfer rate on the infrared port if the other source can transfer/receive at that speed. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I in no way claim to be the "know-it-all" in this area. Thanks.
Related
I did a search and couldn't find anything definitive, so hopefully some of you can help me here
I've accepted the fact that my TFP won't get stellar wifi speeds but I guess what I can do is tinker with my router to ensure that it's maximizing its signal and throughput.
I have the Linksys WRT-320N router mounted high up on my wall in my 2 bdrm apt. When I'm next to the router, I get a pretty consistent 15mbps up/down but it trickles off to about 5 from my bedroom about 30 ft. away. My concern is that it's rated for a lot more than 15mbps, and my wired internet gets about 100mbps up/down, so surely it must be a router setting?
I've disabled QoS and tried various channels but besides that, I haven't done much. Are there particular recommended settings that I can play with to try to maximize my speeds? I also made sure my firmware is up to date on the router and have reset it a few times.
A question for you: why did you disable QoS?
How about using QoS to maximize wifi output/priority to your prime when its connected?
Why would you even use qos just for your prime? That's like a 6 lane highway and only allowing one car at a time. It's pretty useless.
I doubt you'll get any difference at all. Qos only prioritizes traffic so that more important traffic can pass first.
Try unlocking your prime and installing another rom, try another router, or move your router to a center location. You could try to update your firmware or even see if you can find any custom firmware for your router.
QoS has always been a pain in the ass so I would disable regardless.
But ASUS does need to publish their findings on recommended settings to optimize performance.
i disabled QoS based off another post about smoothing out the throughput from the router. either way, i've noticed neither a positive or negative result of this.
as far as custom firmware, i'm looking into the dd-wrt route, but would want to tweak the router with the stock firmware as much as possible to see if i have to resort to doing custom
Chances are the limitation will be the transformer's wifi chipset. If you flash your router with dd-wrt you might be able to get slighty better performance.
Don't know that its worth the effort. 5 mb/s is adequate for almost all web except downloading large files and vnc. My experience has been if you want performance your pretty much stuck with something that has gigabit lan.
Sent from my EPAD using XDA Premium HD app
Has anyone experienced getting drastically different speeds measuring either wifi or data with these two apps? With OpenSignalMaps, I'm getting a little over half of what I'm getting with SpeedTest.
Which one's more accurate?
clankfu said:
Has anyone experienced getting drastically different speeds measuring either wifi or data with these two apps? With OpenSignalMaps, I'm getting a little over half of what I'm getting with SpeedTest.
Which one's more accurate?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are many different speed test apps or websites out there. May of them utilize different technologies like Java or Flash and therefore can give different values. This has been an oft debated issue in the internet world. Personally I believe SpeedTest because it usually gives me the speed value I expect. I'll make two points though:
1. You have to be sure you are talking about the same number, i.e. Megabits per second vs. Megabytes per second
2. Depending on the location of servers you are connecting to to run your test, or the sites connected in between you can get different numbers. i.e. One test connect to a server 100 miles away and the other server being 1000 miles away.
both apps give me basically the same results. make sure u account for bits vs bytes. Openmaps is way more advance. the tower map and compass is awesome. especially when trying out prls
raptoro07 said:
There are many different speed test apps or websites out there. May of them utilize different technologies like Java or Flash and therefore can give different values. This has been an oft debated issue in the internet world. Personally I believe SpeedTest because it usually gives me the speed value I expect. I'll make two points though:
1. You have to be sure you are talking about the same number, i.e. Megabits per second vs. Megabytes per second
2. Depending on the location of servers you are connecting to to run your test, or the sites connected in between you can get different numbers. i.e. One test connect to a server 100 miles away and the other server being 1000 miles away.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And don't always trust the server closest to you... I live in Tampa, and be it over the phone nor the PC, I get faster and better pings and speeds using the Atlanta server...
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2
spaceosc said:
both apps give me basically the same results. make sure u account for bits vs bytes. Openmaps is way more advance. the tower map and compass is awesome. especially when trying out prls
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They both measure by bits don't they?
clankfu said:
They both measure by bits don't they?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, I believe so. If one is eight times faster than the other, then one is bits the other bytes. As for different speeds, the server makes a big difference. Speedtest usually uses the closest server so it's speeds tend to be faster for me. I have Bright house in Tampa and they host the local speedtest server, so my home speed always matches my advertised speed .
Save the Drama for your Mama with Tapatalk 2
coal686 said:
Speedtest usually uses the closest server so it's speeds tend to be faster for me. I have Bright house in Tampa and they host the local speedtest server, so my home speed always matches my advertised speed .
Save the Drama for your Mama with Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Gotcha...makes sense.
Depends on methodology
Going to jump in here as one of the developers behind OpenSignalMaps.
When it comes to speed test there isn't really such thing as 'more accurate', its really just a question of the methodology you employ. There are all sorts of different choices you can make, such as, do you use the closest servers? how many http connections do you use? how large of a file do you download? do you discard any data points? The answers to all of these questions really depends on what exactly you are testing. The ethos behind OpenSignalMaps has always been that we are trying to measure the actual user experience as accurately as possible so all the decisions we've made in our speed testing methodology are in order to recreate what a user would experience in general usage of their device. I think the methodology behind Ookla's Speedtest.net app (which is fantastic) could be more accurately described as testing the raw, highest capacity of your network connection. Thus in general you should see higher speeds with the Speedtest.net app than the OpenSignalMaps app, but our aim is that our speeds would more closely mirror what you actually experience on your device.
One example is server choice: SpeedTest.net encourages you to use the nearest server, usually in the same city. We do use many different servers (to remove geographical bias), but in general the server will not be so close to you and we would argue that in general browsing of the web you aren't likely to be served by a server so close to you. We actually host our Speedtests on multiple popular CDNs in order to emulate a large proportion of general web traffic.
Another example is that SpeedTest.net will discard some of the result data before calculating the average speed as they argue its representing the TCP/IP algorithm rather than the raw HTTP throughput of the connection (see page 20 of an excellent paper "Broadband Speed Measurements" by Bauer, Clark and Lehr - google it). At OpenSignalMaps we don't care if the bottleneck is the TCP/IP algorithm or the actual network connection we just want to give you the most accurate representation of your connection speed.
Just to clarify I'm not trying to argue one is better than the other and we have great respect for Ookla and other speedtest providers, just that it depends on what you want to test. If you are looking to see if your ISP is providing you with the max speed that the are advertising, Speedtest.net is probably going to be the best tool for that. If you want to try and gauge what speeds you are actually seeing in day to day usage then we are trying to build OpenSignalMaps as the application for that. We still have a huge amount to do to achieve that but we have a lot of great features in the pipeline
bmdgill said:
Going to jump in here as one of the developers behind OpenSignalMaps.
When it comes to speed test there isn't really such thing as 'more accurate', its really just a question of the methodology you employ. There are all sorts of different choices you can make, such as, do you use the closest servers? how many http connections do you use? how large of a file do you download? do you discard any data points? The answers to all of these questions really depends on what exactly you are testing. The ethos behind OpenSignalMaps has always been that we are trying to measure the actual user experience as accurately as possible so all the decisions we've made in our speed testing methodology are in order to recreate what a user would experience in general usage of their device. I think the methodology behind Ookla's Speedtest.net app (which is fantastic) could be more accurately described as testing the raw, highest capacity of your network connection. Thus in general you should see higher speeds with the Speedtest.net app than the OpenSignalMaps app, but our aim is that our speeds would more closely mirror what you actually experience on your device.
One example is server choice: SpeedTest.net encourages you to use the nearest server, usually in the same city. We do use many different servers (to remove geographical bias), but in general the server will not be so close to you and we would argue that in general browsing of the web you aren't likely to be served by a server so close to you. We actually host our Speedtests on multiple popular CDNs in order to emulate a large proportion of general web traffic.
Another example is that SpeedTest.net will discard some of the result data before calculating the average speed as they argue its representing the TCP/IP algorithm rather than the raw HTTP throughput of the connection (see page 20 of an excellent paper "Broadband Speed Measurements" by Bauer, Clark and Lehr - google it). At OpenSignalMaps we don't care if the bottleneck is the TCP/IP algorithm or the actual network connection we just want to give you the most accurate representation of your connection speed.
Just to clarify I'm not trying to argue one is better than the other and we have great respect for Ookla and other speedtest providers, just that it depends on what you want to test. If you are looking to see if your ISP is providing you with the max speed that the are advertising, Speedtest.net is probably going to be the best tool for that. If you want to try and gauge what speeds you are actually seeing in day to day usage then we are trying to build OpenSignalMaps as the application for that. We still have a huge amount to do to achieve that but we have a lot of great features in the pipeline
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the response and explanation.
I get about 0.5mb/s speed on the local Wi-Fi network. I get up to 8mb/s on the computer (802.11N card). What about you? Maybe it depends on kernel/rom..?
Sent from my GT-I9100
Little answer please
Sent from my GT-I9100
You didn't get an answer because this info is easily found via a Google search Look for the SGS2 entry at Wikipedia, then follow the links to the article on the relevant WiFi standards.
Oh yeah "802.11 a/b/g/n Wifi" is it? Do you know which speed each of these letters is supposed to give..? I do, so i'm going to tell you that with 802.11n (which my router fully support) you're supposed to get up to 450mb/s. In reality you get let less, but it's still up to about 250mb/s, now you can even divide that by eight, which result in 31,25, far from 0.5 (the speed i get, if not lower, which my 1st post mention, did you read it fully..?) isn't it? Now you might see things that others don't, if so just tell me.
Hmm..?
Sent from my GT-I9100
It depends on many things. Bug in the kernel, faulty hardware, the distance from the router (phones have smaller antennae than laptops due to the size constraint, so laptops will constantly get higher strength signal than phones), faulty routers are all factors, if your phone is the only wifi device that's not getting the speed it should.
I don't know what the real life max speed of GS2 is, but I've hit somewhere between 20~50Mbps on a N router that has 1000Mbps internet connection (~750Mbps realistically, and I wasn't the only one connected to the router). So it should be able to get 8Mbps that your computer is getting, assuming the GS2 is right next to the router.
It doesn't change depending on placing.. And I can go faster when downloading. So I don't think hardware is défective..
Sent from my GT-I9100
Does anyone know what the actual wifi chipset(EX broadcom bcm4354) used in the z ultra is?
looks like the kernel source call it the "pronto" and uses the "prima" wifi driver. A google search doesn't really give me much
Answer for posterity:WCN3680
single spatial stream 802.11ac, max throughput 230mbps or roughly half of what is peak for that particular ac configuration.
I just got a gigabit connection, and my 2x2 mimo laptop is able to get close to 600mbps down aI just got a gigabit connection, and my 2x2 mimo laptop is able to get close to 600mbps down and up on wifi, but my phone struggles to even pass 200 (with a link speed of 867). What are the maximum that you guys are seeing, and do you have an tips or settings to achieve that? My sisters' iPhone is able to get over 500mbps down, so my Moto Z should be able to as well.
Even my old LG G4 which has a link speed of 433 can download 270+ with no sweat.nd up on wifi, but my phone struggles to even pass 200. What are the maximum that you guys are seeing, and do you have an tips or settings to achieve that?
Why?
Umm, so I can maximize my speed and download faster? WTF kind of question is that?
ssmaster said:
Umm, so I can maximize my speed and download faster? WTF kind of question is that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, but I can't imagine for what purpose you could use 200+ Mbit/s transferrates on a Smartphone. Regardless of my personal opinion, I have absolutely no clue how to "optimize" the settings to reach these rates. But I will test it for myself so I can provide you some comparative values. :good: