Related
Hi,
the Kaiser has USB-speed specified with 480 Mbit, but the speed to put onto it some MP3s via ActiveSync is not much faster than with my Magician (USB1.1) before. If I put in my computer directly the MicroSD card (max 5MB/sec) it is much faster although 5MB/sec << 480 Mbit. So the weak point is not the card. Is there any idea to increase the speed filling my card via direct USB connection ?
Thanks in advance !
Best,
Hugo
Your usb data speed depends on what your com port is set to. if you have alot of usb ports then they share the bandwidth between them. so you may only get 20% of your actuall bandwidth if you have a few other usb devices sharing the bandwidth. you can go to your device manager on your pc and increase the percentage your com port uses of the bandwidth
Thanks for your answer,
and you may be right, if I had a lot of devices conncted to my PC. But I have not. The point is: If I put the microsd into an USB adaptor and connected to the PC, it is quite fast, if I took the Kaiser connecting it ti the same USB, it is slow.
Any other thoughts?
Best,
Hugo
thehugonline said:
If I put the microsd into an USB adaptor and connected to the PC, it is quite fast, if I took the Kaiser connecting it ti the same USB, it is slow.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This holds true for all PDA devices connected via USB...not just the Kaiser...activesync may be the bottleneck.
Ok,
if ActiveSync may be the bottleneck, how do you work around this slow copy-process? With CardExpord it is quite faster than with ActiveSync (thanks for the hint), but still far away from the limit :
To copy 58 MB from PC to Magician via CardExport - it needed 94 sec
58 MB from PC to Kaiser via CardExport - 69 sec
58 MB from PC to Kaiser via ActiveSync - 235 sec
58 MB from PC to Card via USB Adaptor - 12 sec = 39 MB/ sec
Anybody any idea to increase the speed of CardExport, there is still much room left ?
Thanks for that discussion!
Best,
Hugo
Most SW connecting to your PDA for file transfer do it through Activesync which as stated before is a bad bottleneck (its sloooow).
You are also using the file handling system of the PDA via this method and any number of background tasks will slow this down.
WM5torage (there is a thread running on here) gets around using Activesync so it may be worthwhile contacting the author to see if this will work for you or wether it could be modified for your purposes.
Hope this helps.
Read the specs carefully. It says "USB 2.0 Full Speed". Don't confuse Full Speed (12 Mbps) with High Speed (480 Mbps). What HTC is doing when they say this is commonly called "deception"!
Has anyone tried ActiveSync over Bluetooth to test whether the Kaiser supports EDR?
Ahhh, abu, you seem to be following me to flame!!
Let's just help people please???
EDR (Enhanced data rate) is fully implemented on this device as was not the case with the TyTn (Hermes) and you will find some of my old threads in there about this very subject that you have placed within this thread ( not whatsoever to do with the first post I may add!!)
OH flippin eck! the wine is taking over.
even usb harddisks max out at about 30MB/sec
and as pda's cant keep up with fast flash cards
it's silly to believe that pda's could keep up with
usb2 speeds
Rudegar said:
even usb harddisks max out at about 30MB/sec
and as pda's cant keep up with fast flash cards
it's silly to believe that pda's could keep up with
usb2 speeds
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I love your sig file lol...
Hey good discussion,
I am a bit disappointed of the advertised 480 Mbit (ok in manual there is mentioned USB 2.0 full speed) but I can only see an advatage of 25% against my old Magician with USB 1.1. and even 12 Mbps (USB 2.0 full speed) should result in douple speed as the measured. I did not expect 480 Mbit, but a bit more speed, than currently offered.
Best,
Hugo
well chicks dig it
well some would be bound to somewhere somehow
Farsquidge said:
Ahhh, abu, you seem to be following me to flame!!
Let's just help people please???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry Farsquidge, that my comment about video driver issues was spiced with a pinch of sarcasm. But here I am trying to be purely factual.
EDR is clearly mentioned as supported. I haven't tried this myself yet. But this will probably be slower than ActiveSync over USB as Bluetooth 2.0+EDR is 3 Mbps compared to Full Speed USB at 12 Mbps.
thehugonline said:
I am a bit disappointed of the advertised 480 Mbit (ok in manual there is mentioned USB 2.0 full speed) . . .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Note that they never advertised "480 Mbit". When they say Full Speed then that means 12 Mbps. That they throw in "USB 2.0" in front of this is IMO not entirely honest.
abubasim said:
Sorry Farsquidge, that my comment about video driver issues was spiced with a pinch of sarcasm. But here I am trying to be purely factual.
EDR is clearly mentioned as supported. I haven't tried this myself yet. But this will probably be slower than ActiveSync over USB as Bluetooth 2.0+EDR is 3 Mbps compared to Full Speed USB at 12 Mbps.
Note that they never advertised "480 Mbit". When they say Full Speed then that means 12 Mbps. That they throw in "USB 2.0" in front of this is IMO not entirely honest.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, it could be taken as misleading.
I have never actually synced with BT as I only have my usb cable at work but I have just tried it and it seems much faster than cable connect. May just bring my charger from now on!
USB speeds are the maximum theoretical badwidth of the hardware, and are much highe than what can actually be achieved... Throw in ActiveSync, and USB speed is virtually meaningless...
Understood,
USB 2.0 was missunderstood as 480 Mbit by several (!) professional journals and websites testing mobiles and PDAs and -reading that- by me. Ok my mistake - next time I will directly come here and look for spec...
What I read in the threads above is:
"Mobile has USB 2.0, but do not expect 480 Mbit as it's only full speed, but don't be silly to believe to get real 12 Mbit as there is a big difference between hardware and spec. You really have to be satisfied, if you get real 6.5 Mbit, which is 25% faster than the USB 1.1 Magician."
In the end I am happy, not to get slower...
Thanks for discussion,
Best
Hugo
Hello,
Regarding dual-band Samsung Galaxy Tabs correctly operating on 5Ghz/40mhz...
Is anyone seeing 150mbit (or better) with their Galaxy Tab using 5Ghz at 40Mhz?
Only respond if you have a galaxy tab, and you know that you are using 5ghz. Also please quickly review ALL of the following relevant information before attempting to respond to the above questions;
According to the following search info the galaxy tab supports 5ghz dual-band wireless-n, and the overcome rom v1.6.4 supports 5ghz wireless-n also.
"Dual Band Wi-Fi"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&cat=&meta=&num=&ie=utf-8&q=galaxy+tab+5ghz
"WiFi-N on the 5ghz band now works"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&cat=&meta=&num=&ie=utf-8&q=galaxy+tab+overcome+rom+5ghz
Additional info:
I am using a Linksys e3000 (dual band) router, and can connect at 300mbit stable link-speed (file transfer speeds are 15MegaBYTE/sec average) using a Linksy AE1000 USB adapter (with any pc or notebook) which I purchased to resolve similar (speed/streaming/transfer) issues with the onboard single-band 2.4ghz wireless-n adapter in another device I was working on.
I have both 2Ghz and 5Ghz networks and devices completley seperated. 5ghz is operating at 40Mhz (specifically wireless-n) only (automatic channel) and 2.4ghz operating at 20Mhz (wireless-g only) with a specified channel that is not being used by any neighbors.
I do not have any issues with connection, stability, or speed/transfers with any other N or G devices...
I can connect to the 5ghz (wireless-N only) network with the galaxy tab although it is not very stable. Speed fluctuates btwn 11mbit and 65mbit, and is pretty much bunk for video streaming (standard xvids or mkvs) via smb/cifs using MoboPlayer (and others).
Both video formats (xvid & mkv) play fine locally via (8GB class4) sdcard upto 720p. 1080p mkv (using ext2/ext3 on a second partition on the external sd) are completely unwatchable on (16GB class2) sdcard. For that reason and the flakey 5ghz wireless-N speed which effects the (unwatchable) playback/streaming of even small 30 minute fast-motion (action and/or animated) xvids almost makes me want to return the TAB.
I am running Overcome 1.6.4 rom+kernel (froyo) and have no issues other than the battery life seems to deteriorate rather quickly (and it seems to generate more heat) while using 5ghz for long periods.
Has anyone here successfully connected at 150mbit (stable) or better (using 5ghz) with their Galaxy Tab (P1000) yet? And if so, was there anything extra that you needed to do to accomplish that speed and/or stability with this device?
Please review all of the above before answering, thanks.
bump. Anyone?
Couple of questions for you first.
1- How are you measuring your speed?
2 - You do realize that SMB/CIFS sharing is not the ideal way to stream video? Thereis much more overhead in you bandwidth versus say using a streaming server (ie Plex) or using a DLNA player/server to stream.
3 - The MKVs that you're streaming, are they all 720 or are some 1080? Do some have DTS? Both the 1080 and the DTS will cause playback issues streaming as both need alot of work done to be processed correctly by the device.
For streaming video I have found, after much testing, that anything that has DTS or is high bitrate HD content will cause thetab to stutter. I find that remuxing to an MP4 with AAC 2 channel audio and your streaming problems will disappear even using SMB.
Think of it this way, we don't have 1080 resolution nor surround sound, why even strain the device to process it. I use a Plex setup with an AppleTV using dual band N with a G signal as well and never have issues even over 3G. My router is a Linksys E3000 with Bell Fibe 25 down with 7 up VDSL internet connection.
Lemme know how you make out.
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA Premium App
I just got a Linksys E3000, and I can't seem to get my Galaxy Tab to see the network at 5 GHz at all.
The E3000 is simultaneous dual band, and it's connecting fine to the 2.4 GHz network.
Did you have to do anything to get it to just connect?
Hey slimdizzy, thanks for responding to a question with a question.
If you pay more attention to the post you might notice at least one of your questions was already answered prior to your reply.
Correct me if i am wrong but the overhead in CIFS/SMB is minimal/insignificant in respect to my request/questions.
There is also no need to implement other technologies (client/sever software) to accomplish the task of streaming using pre-existing technlogy that has been used for numerous years over much less powerful (or capable) hardware or infrastructure.
The question is NOT concerning what technolgy to use, but rather what connection (and link) speeds people are getting over 5ghz Wireless-N, with this specific device, so if you cannot answer the question there is really no need to respond.
Thank you.
Again unrelated to my request/questions. (manekineko),
You might want to read the original post again more thoroughly.
See the second paragraph after "additional info" in the first post. Also notice I mentioned a rom/kernel that supports 5GHZ Wireless-N specifically.
Bump from the dead.
commenter, were you able to find a solution to this problem?
I connect Galaxy Note to my 802.11n AP
But the connection speed only 65mbps
My desktop PC connection speed is 270~300mbps
Why Galaxy Note Wifi speed is so slow?
paladinlin said:
I connect Galaxy Note to my 802.11n AP
But the connection speed only 65mbps
My desktop PC connection speed is 270~300mbps
Why Galaxy Note Wifi speed is so slow?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You need to understand how 802.11n works. To achieve 300mbps speed, you will need 2-3 spatial antennas which can be found on modern laptops with Intel Wifi chipset (such as 6300). Our galaxy note has only one antenna (should be 1 for each radio band (a/n, b/g/n), but it is "N" compatible. So your speed is actually pretty good on a single antenna.
Unfortunately this is a case of the manufacturer misleading it's customers (tbh I would say out right lying to us).
As the above poster mentioned the note is compatible with N, however it can not support N speeds, as far as I have seen all phones that claim 802.11n are actually limited to 65mbps. So really are not 802.11n at all, rather just a little faster than 802.11g.
Although having said that unless you are transferring huge files across the network, streaming multiple FullHD streams at the same time, 65mbps is going to be sufficient.
its really misleading, i got upset when found out, also i have the impression that the battery drains faster on n without giving me any faster speed than on bg, maybe one day someone builds a phone with real fast wifi
felixjai said:
You need to understand how 802.11n works. To achieve 300mbps speed, you will need 2-3 spatial antennas which can be found on modern laptops with Intel Wifi chipset (such as 6300). Our galaxy note has only one antenna (should be 1 for each radio band (a/n, b/g/n), but it is "N" compatible. So your speed is actually pretty good on a single antenna.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For further detail on this issue I found this post helpful
I have the same issue with a Galaxy Tab 10.1
does anyone know if it is the same reason ?
how many antennas has is and what should be the max link speed ?
I have a wireless N router, and with my desktop (that's connected via wifi, I have 2, one wifi and one RJ45) I get 300 megs (connection speed) and when I connect via FTP From my phone to my desktop to download files or sync files, I get about 2.7 megs. I'm right next to the router (about 8 feet, clear sight) and the desktop to which I'm syncing is connected via LAN.
I also have this question about what need is for that on a phone. I can view HD videos from Youtube though my slow ADSL and the normal WiFi. You only need 1 - 1.5 Mbps for that.
Even if you were streaming 1080p with 5.1 channel sound, you don't need 100 Mbps.
thelestat said:
Although having said that unless you are transferring huge files across the network, streaming multiple FullHD streams at the same time, 65mbps is going to be sufficient.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello,
I just installed a new 300MBPS wifi n router.
With the usb adapter included used with a notebook and with the notebook antenna itself the range is definitely improved and I can get 300mbps (theoretically of course).
With the LG 2x in the same position its basically the same if not worse than with the old router with wifi G.
So what I don't get is, is the antenna in the phone so bad ? I connect at 72mbps max
wifi module is capped @ 20Mbps.
so 20 * = 160 thats what u can get.
Because Chromecast communicates solely via WiFi, the minimum sustained wireless bandwidth is critical for streaming quality.
This is usually not a problem for "normal" Chromecast applications that pull streams from the Internet - those services are designed to adapt to and scale with the available connection speed.
Content streaming from local devices is a different scenario altogether.
Chromecast doesn't necessarily work the same as traditional set-top media players (Apple TV, WDTV, Roku, etc) when streaming media from your phone/tablet/computer (device-local) and LAN-based (from a server) media can consume more bandwidth than you would expect.
Depending on where the media is located and how it is being sent to Chromecast, up to 3x the media's bitrate may be consumed (and required) on the WiFi network. If you have high bitrate media, this can easily overload an 802.11g connection or even an 802.11n connection.
Keep in mind that connection speed is not constant, and is limited by both your environment and your router.
Other nearby WiFi devices can cause interference, and the 2.4 GHz wireless band that Chromecast uses is "crowded" with many devices like cordless telephones and microwave ovens using overlapping frequencies.
Also, routers vary in the wireless speeds they can maintain. Just because you have a 802.11n 150 Mbps connection, that does not mean your router can truly sustain 150 Mbps throughput.
Better routers advertise use cases for "HD streaming" and have Gigabit LAN ports rather than 100 Mbps LAN ports found on cheaper models.
Just like a Gigabit Ethernet USB 2.0 adapter will never reach full Gigabit speed due the USB 2.0 bottleneck (480 Mbps), cheaper routers often are limited by their internal processor's lack of forwarding speed.
See the attachments for use examples and how the required bandwidth can multiply: Note that the 10 Mbps figure is just an example.
Standard Internet stream example
YouTube, Hulu Plus, HBO Go, VEVO, etc use this methodology
Direct stream from LAN storage example
Plex (from a local Plex server) and fling (from a desktop) work this way. Desktop and Tab casting from Chrome also uses this data flow.
Data is sent from the LAN device via WiFi
Chromecast receives data from the LAN device via WiFi
Streaming from wireless device storage example
Casting content stored on the device (device-local) from Avia or RealPlayer Cloud use this method.
Data is sent from the casting device via WiFi to Chromecast
Chromecast receives data via WiFi
Forwarding from LAN storage example
Casting content stored on a LAN device (DLNA, network share, etc) from Avia uses this method.
Data is sent from the LAN device to casting device running Avia via WiFi
Data is sent from the casting device running Avia via WiFi to Chromecast - this is the forwarding piece, data travels through
Chromecast receives data via WiFi
To optimize available bandwidth for Chromecast:
Use an 802.11n dual-band router and put your other wireless devices on the 5 GHz access point whenever possible
or use a separate WiFi access point connected to the wired network for Chromecast
Use wired connections for cast sources (server/desktop/laptop) wherever possible
Reencode high-bitrate media to lower bitrate (4 Mbps should be fine for most use)
Optimize Chromecast's ability to get a stable WiFi signal - move it away from the TV using the HDMI extender or an HDMI extension cable
and/or move your router so it's closer to Chromecast (but not too close - too close can get into a "drowned in the noise" situation)
Great Post this deserves a Pin!
One big thing a lot of people don't realize is that wireless is half duplex...
If you have 2 devices on the same wireless network transferring data between each other, they will do so at half the speed, because only one device can talk at a time.
Say for example you have a PC wired to your router, and another PC on wireless.. You can copy a file between these computers at around 6MB/sec. Now you take the wired PC and connect it to the same wireless network instead. You will notice your copy speed is now around 3MB/sec.
If you are utilizing a wireless repeater to connect any of your devices to your wifi network, those connected to the repeater will experience the same halving of speed as well.
This is why having your local media source on a different band or wired helps so much.
stevewm said:
One big thing a lot of people don't realize is that wireless is half duplex...
If you have 2 devices on the same wireless network transferring data between each other, they will do so at half the speed, because only one device can talk at a time.
Say for example you have a PC wired to your router, and another PC on wireless.. You can copy a file between these computers at around 6MB/sec. Now you take the wired PC and connect it to the same wireless network instead. You will notice your copy speed is now around 3MB/sec.
If you are utilizing a wireless repeater to connect any of your devices to your wifi network, those connected to the repeater will experience the same halving of speed as well.
This is why having your local media source on a different band or wired helps so much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here's a scenario I would appreciate your comment on:
I have a bridge that connects to my main router. The media source (laptop) is connected direct to the bridge which is in the living room with my CC, the CC is wireless to the bridge. Will the distance the bridge is from the main router come into play if doing local media?
sherdog16 said:
Here's a scenario I would appreciate your comment on:
I have a bridge that connects to my main router. The media source (laptop) is connected direct to the bridge which is in the living room with my CC, the CC is wireless to the bridge. Will the distance the bridge is from the main router come into play if doing local media?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It shouldn't.... Unless the run to the main router is abnormally long.
My current setup has my plex server across the house from my TV room. Two out of three routers are upstairs and one is in the room with my plex server. All but one router is set up as access points. The distance combined between the three routers is roughly 200 feet. The distance is split between the three. Then roughly 25 feet from the closest router to the ccast. I have no more noticeable lag in the TV room than using the ccast in the back bedroom that the plex server is in.
I am sure if I was going to ping test this I would have a higher latency the further away it goes.... But like I said to real world use I can't tell it slows it down.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
rans0m00 said:
I am sure if I was going to ping test this I would have a higher latency the further away it goes.... But like I said to real world use I can't tell it slows it down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly that. For home use, distance of wired connections doesn't matter much, as long as it's within specs and packets aren't being lost.
Distances for wireless connections, on the other hand, make a huge difference both in terms of latency and sustained transfer speed (bandwidth).
I've noticed that video casted from a tab is barely smooth at 480p. I am upstreaming at approx 150kbps.
When I try 720p, it struggles at 300kbps dropping to 150 alot. Using "extreme" it about the same rate but more choppy.
I have a N network with my laptop connected at 300M. I can usually transfer files around 3-6Mbps.
I'm a little confused why with chromcast, I can barely maintain 150kbps. Even if you multiply by 3, I'm not getting over 1mbps.
enricong said:
I've noticed that video casted from a tab is barely smooth at 480p. I am upstreaming at approx 150kbps.
When I try 720p, it struggles at 300kbps dropping to 150 alot. Using "extreme" it about the same rate but more choppy.
I have a N network with my laptop connected at 300M. I can usually transfer files around 3-6Mbps.
I'm a little confused why with chromcast, I can barely maintain 150kbps. Even if you multiply by 3, I'm not getting over 1mbps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's likely not a wireless connection issue but rather a processing limitation on the computer you're casting from.
I just casted a 480p tab of full-tab video and my network utilization ranged from about 1.25 Mbps to bursts of 12 Mbps. The average was around 2-3 Mbps. What's the CPU utilization look like when you're casting?
Do other Chromecast apps like YouTube work okay with 720p or 1080p videos?
bhiga said:
It's likely not a wireless connection issue but rather a processing limitation on the computer you're casting from.
I just casted a 480p tab of full-tab video and my network utilization ranged from about 1.25 Mbps to bursts of 12 Mbps. The average was around 2-3 Mbps. What's the CPU utilization look like when you're casting?
Do other Chromecast apps like YouTube work okay with 720p or 1080p videos?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
CPU is an i5-2520M. Utilization is only around 20-30%. I've tried with and without Nvidia GPU.
Youtube seems ok at 720 and 1080, however, I thought that youtube videos get streamed directly to chromcast vs the laptop.
Also, when I stream a youtube video, I have no idea if chromecast sticks with my browser setting or figures out its own quality setting based on bandwidth. I thought it was the later.
Are you using regular Chrome, or Chrome Canary?
enricong said:
CPU is an i5-2520M. Utilization is only around 20-30%. I've tried with and without Nvidia GPU.
Youtube seems ok at 720 and 1080, however, I thought that youtube videos get streamed directly to chromcast vs the laptop.
Also, when I stream a youtube video, I have no idea if chromecast sticks with my browser setting or figures out its own quality setting based on bandwidth. I thought it was the later.
Are you using regular Chrome, or Chrome Canary?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting... You're correct that YouTube grabs the stream directly and determines the best settings. But if you have a 1080p TV and YouTube is pulling a 480p stream, it'll definitely be noticeable - especially on things like text.
My Chrome is Version 32.0.1700.107 m
and Google Cast Extension is 14.123.1.4
My system is relatively old, but it was a powerhouse in its day and still fine for what I do with it.
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Dual Quad-Core AMD Opteron 8389 2.9 GHz
32 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 7750
bhiga said:
Interesting... You're correct that YouTube grabs the stream directly and determines the best settings. But if you have a 1080p TV and YouTube is pulling a 480p stream, it'll definitely be noticeable - especially on things like text.
My Chrome is Version 32.0.1700.107 m
and Google Cast Extension is 14.123.1.4
My system is relatively old, but it was a powerhouse in its day and still fine for what I do with it.
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Dual Quad-Core AMD Opteron 8389 2.9 GHz
32 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 7750
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm running 35.0.1840.2 of Chrome and 14.123.1.5 of the extension.
I just tried installing regular chrome and had the same results.
your computer is def more powerful than mine, but I don't think thats the issue with such a low cpu utilization.
enricong said:
I'm running 35.0.1840.2 of Chrome and 14.123.1.5 of the extension.
I just tried installing regular chrome and had the same results.
your computer is def more powerful than mine, but I don't think thats the issue with such a low cpu utilization.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Weird... do you have the Automatically resize the browser to best fit the receiver screen when casting a tab option enabled? That should provide lowest impact as it should eliminate the need to scale.
Does it make a difference if your laptop is plugged into wall power, or on a wired instead of wireless connection?
bhiga said:
Weird... do you have the Automatically resize the browser to best fit the receiver screen when casting a tab option enabled? That should provide lowest impact as it should eliminate the need to scale.
Does it make a difference if your laptop is plugged into wall power, or on a wired instead of wireless connection?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ok, I just tried the wired connection and got some results. on 480p I got 150kbps, 720p got 300kbps, and extreme got around 600kbps.
720 and above started looking a little choppy. Picture Quality even at extreme was quite poor.
enricong said:
ok, I just tried the wired connection and got some results. on 480p I got 150kbps, 720p got 300kbps, and extreme got around 600kbps.
720 and above started looking a little choppy. Picture Quality even at extreme was quite poor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My CPU load jumps about 15-20% when casting too, so that seems in-line.
Weird, it's almost like something in Windows is throttling something...
You don't have some kind of third-party firewall or anything, do you?
If you're using the Windows Firewall, check the Advanced Settings for Inbound and Outbound rules on Wireless Portable Devices. My rules for those are disabled, but some folks have reported toggling them helped.
bhiga said:
My CPU load jumps about 15-20% when casting too, so that seems in-line.
Weird, it's almost like something in Windows is throttling something...
You don't have some kind of third-party firewall or anything, do you?
If you're using the Windows Firewall, check the Advanced Settings for Inbound and Outbound rules on Wireless Portable Devices. My rules for those are disabled, but some folks have reported toggling them helped.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have Avast which has some network protection
Tried toggling the settings in Windows firewall
I even tried disabling the firewall and anti-virus completely.
no difference
enricong said:
I have Avast which has some network protection
Tried toggling the settings in Windows firewall
I even tried disabling the firewall and anti-virus completely.
no difference
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only other thing I can think of is to try unbinding Avast's network filter from the network interface (Properties the device itself and try un-checking any extra computer-looking icons) and trying it, often times disabling the firewall doesn't fully disable the network filter.
bhiga said:
It's likely not a wireless connection issue but rather a processing limitation on the computer you're casting from.
I just casted a 480p tab of full-tab video and my network utilization ranged from about 1.25 Mbps to bursts of 12 Mbps. The average was around 2-3 Mbps. What's the CPU utilization look like when you're casting?
Do other Chromecast apps like YouTube work okay with 720p or 1080p videos?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to clarify, are you referring to BITS or BYTES?
I refer to bytes, 150kbytes/sec = approx 1mbit/sec
enricong said:
Just to clarify, are you referring to BITS or BYTES?
I refer to bytes, 150kbytes/sec = approx 1mbit/sec
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm usually pretty careful about MB (Megabytes) vs Mb (Megabits) so I'm referring to megabits. so divide my figures by 8 for bytes.
bhiga said:
I'm usually pretty careful about MB (Megabytes) vs Mb (Megabits) so I'm referring to megabits. so divide my figures by 8 for bytes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well, even with bits, you're still faster than me.
I submitted a support ticket to google. still trying to get through the general "is it plugged in?" questions.
enricong said:
well, even with bits, you're still faster than me.
I submitted a support ticket to google. still trying to get through the general "is it plugged in?" questions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, it took me 2 or 3 rounds to get past the basics... Please keep us updated on what you find out.