Yea, I corrected my post to reflect "normal fast." Beside that it is the primary issue since everything else worked fine.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Software Slowing Some Wi-Fi File Transfers on New MacBook Air
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yea, I corrected my post to reflect "normal fast." Beside that it is the primary issue since everything else worked fine.
If it works in Windows, it's obviously just a software/driver issue. It will get fixed. 50MB/s that Anand saw is great. I hope I can get that from my NAS! I'm currently only getting about 15MB/s.
Isnt that how apple do all the testing,
Apples process is something like this
step one, J.Ive design a case nothing with a reasonable performance can fit into.
Step Two, the hardware engineers go out and shoehorn whatever they can find that can kind of fit into that case.
Step Three, Apples marketing team has to spin the reason you can get a PC for a tenth the price with 4x the power almost solely on the J.Ive designed case and a load of specs that don't work yet and might be patched in later.
Step four, build a giant ring shaped building to put all the money in the middle of and swim about like Scrooge McDuck.
Now im not an apple hater, i love the OS, i just wish they would u-turn from this sealed unit lockdown, all our products are disposable, kick they are on , when its easier to replace the Harddisk in my PS3 when it fails than my iMac, something is seriously out of whack.
I'd love to fins one of those $100 Windows Ultrabooks that are 4x faster than an Air! Anything comparable that I've seen has been about the same price or more and usually slower.
Nightarchaon, you forgot to add:
Step Five - PC manufacturers copy J.Ive design because that is the only way they can secure a premium price and make money on the device (witness products like HP's iMac and MacBook family clones).
Step Five - PC manufacturers copy J.Ive design because that is the only way they can secure a premium price and make money on the device (witness products like HP's iMac and MacBook family clones).
Nothing beats good ol' GigE.
Uhm.. Prodo123? I've got a Thunderbolt-cable on line three, wanting a word with you. Can I put him through?
Thunderbolt is the absolute worst cable to use for networking since it's limited to 3 meters of copper, whereas Cat-6 cables can go up to 100 meters.
Try wiring a home with either stiff optical fibers or just 3 meters of cabling and you'll quickly see why it's so impractical.
Nightarchaon, you forgot to add:
Step Five - PC manufacturers copy J.Ive design because that is the only way they can secure a premium price and make money on the device (witness products like HP's iMac and MacBook family clones).
i have to give you that one , its a pity though, because some (and it was a rare thing) PCs and laptops had a much nicer feel and look and than the apple "slab of aluminium"
CAT6 does 1Gbit/s, not the 10Gbit/s thunderbolt is capable of. The 'ethernet-cable' that is capable of 10GE is called 10GBASE-CX4 and if you have one and the sfp's to connect it to, you are member of a very small group of people. Also, they are even more expensive than thunderbolt cables.
My NAS tops out at roughly 550Mbyte/s. That would require 5 bonded etherchannels to connect to my Mac mini if such a thing would be possible.
Quickly scanning Wikipedia, eh? I think you missed something:
wikipedia said:
Not to mention that the new category of cables capable of sending 10Gbit signals (the signal itself is known as 10GBASE-T) is called a Category 6a cable (Cat6a for short).
Even with Cat6 cables running 10Gbit Ethernet, the cable can go up to 55 meters. Compare that to the abysmal 3 meters of Thunderbolt.
Your NAS tops out at 550MB/s? You must be either running an SSD-based NAS, which is very dumb because NAS tends to corrupt very easily and don't support TRIM, or a multi-drive RAID 0 setup, in which case assuming that you are attempting to use a Thunderbolt-only wired network your bandwidth will be limited by the wireless connection speed since a Thunderbolt cable will not be long enough to reach your desktop. Are you sure you're not confusing 550Mbit/s for 550MB/s?
It's also very simple if you look at the connectors. Twisted pair ethernet cables have 4 twisted pairs for a total of 8 contacts. Thunderbolt has 20 contacts. Do you really need 12 extra contacts to deliver the same amount of data at the same speeds?
In any way you look at it, Thunderbolt is too impractical for networking. The closest thing to internet that you could make from a Thunderbolt network would be a Beowulf cluster.
I'm not expecting it to mean there won't be bugs, ever. But I do think it's a bit strange that issues like this aren't noticed before the product is released. One would think file transfer is one of the things that would be tested heavily.
And there are/has been other issues in OS X that I would't expect to find since Apple is behind both the hardware and the software.
From Ars, when they tested 10.8.5:
They've fixed the AFP speed in 10.8.5 update, nearly as fast as Window's SMB. Mavericks have SMB2, we'll see if they fixed it when Mavericks is released late next month.
Yeah, except ....
#!, quite a few Linux based projects have slower disk and/or network performance than Windows too. The idea that performance is automatically faster just because it's Unix-based isn't always true. And conversely, recent versions of Windows have come a long way in trying to optimize network and disk performance. (Windows XP has no idea what an SSD drive is, for example, so won't properly support TRIM with one. Windows 7 or 8 will.)
#2, I suspect Apple just *did* make some improvements to AFP that significantly improve transfer speed. Right after I upgraded my Mac Pro to 10.8.5 the other night, I noticed copying large video files to my NAS at home suddenly went FAR quicker than I ever saw it move them before. At first I thought I had a corrupt partial file, or the copy aborted, because it seemed to finish too quickly.
#!, quite a few Linux based projects have slower disk and/or network performance than Windows too. The idea that performance is automatically faster just because it's Unix-based isn't always true. And conversely, recent versions of Windows have come a long way in trying to optimize network and disk performance. (Windows XP has no idea what an SSD drive is, for example, so won't properly support TRIM with one. Windows 7 or 8 will.)
#2, I suspect Apple just *did* make some improvements to AFP that significantly improve transfer speed. Right after I upgraded my Mac Pro to 10.8.5 the other night, I noticed copying large video files to my NAS at home suddenly went FAR quicker than I ever saw it move them before. At first I thought I had a corrupt partial file, or the copy aborted, because it seemed to finish too quickly.
Yup. SMB2 seems pretty quick in Mavericks compared to AFP (I heard from a reliable source who has tested it…).