Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

USB2 v/s USB in XP - help?

Tags:
  • USB
  • Windows XP
Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 10:08:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

OS is XP SP2 fully up-to-date. Motherboard has USB on-board, 2 front, 2
rear. Processor is Athlon 1.533Ghz, 760 mb RAM

PROBLEM - just installed USB2 PCI card, which appears to work (adding 2 USB2
ports to the rear). Also bought USB2 4 port hub, to allow flexible
connectivity.
Initially, rear ports on card worked, but connecting the hub to one of
these, and a USB2 memory stick into the hub, resulted in the "this will work
faster in USB2" message. Tried the MS download site for updated driver
(zilch), but by some miracle, after two re-boots, system now appears to be
working correctly (meaning - no more "this will work faster" message).
Installation CD had text file saying MS SP1 had appropriate drivers - not to
use the CD for XP.

As a test, I copyied a 120mb file in both USB and USB2 mode. There's
virtually no difference in the transfer time (about 3 minutes). I thought
the whole point of USB2 was that it was 10 times quicker. I now have 4 USB
ports on the motherboard

Am I missing something? What should the transfer time be for 120mb in USB
and USB2? Reason for the question is that I don't know whether USB2 is
actually working (if so, why are USB ports apparently working at same
speed?)

More about : usb2 usb

Anonymous
January 4, 2005 10:08:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Use a program such as EVEREST from www.lavalys.com to
identify the exact make/model of the motherboard. Get the
mobo manual to determine any special requirements of the USB
built-in the mobo. You want to know if any of the ports are
shared.

Also, use the device manager to remove ALL USB ports and
hubs and then reboot. The system should identify all the
ports and the new card as "new" and install the best
drivers. With SP2 installed, you should then have USB 2.0.
BTW USB 1.1 is ten times faster than 1.0, USB 2.0 is 40
times faster than 1.1 (480 mbps).


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


"yabbadoo" <lsdolby@ignore.ntlwor.com> wrote in message
news:ui7aYDp8EHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| OS is XP SP2 fully up-to-date. Motherboard has USB
on-board, 2 front, 2
| rear. Processor is Athlon 1.533Ghz, 760 mb RAM
|
| PROBLEM - just installed USB2 PCI card, which appears to
work (adding 2 USB2
| ports to the rear). Also bought USB2 4 port hub, to allow
flexible
| connectivity.
| Initially, rear ports on card worked, but connecting the
hub to one of
| these, and a USB2 memory stick into the hub, resulted in
the "this will work
| faster in USB2" message. Tried the MS download site for
updated driver
| (zilch), but by some miracle, after two re-boots, system
now appears to be
| working correctly (meaning - no more "this will work
faster" message).
| Installation CD had text file saying MS SP1 had
appropriate drivers - not to
| use the CD for XP.
|
| As a test, I copyied a 120mb file in both USB and USB2
mode. There's
| virtually no difference in the transfer time (about 3
minutes). I thought
| the whole point of USB2 was that it was 10 times quicker.
I now have 4 USB
| ports on the motherboard
|
| Am I missing something? What should the transfer time be
for 120mb in USB
| and USB2? Reason for the question is that I don't know
whether USB2 is
| actually working (if so, why are USB ports apparently
working at same
| speed?)
|
|
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 10:08:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

To repair the message: "this will work faster in USB2...", we remove all
root USB hubs and controller from Device Manager. Then after XP reboot, it
should correctly re-install the USB controllers/root hubs (include the USB2
controller/hubs.)


Have you check with your motherboard manufacturer to see which USB standard
the on-board USB ports are? They could be USB2 compatible already and that
is why you can not compare the speed since you do not have USB1.1/1.0 ports.


"yabbadoo" <lsdolby@ignore.ntlwor.com> wrote in message
news:ui7aYDp8EHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> OS is XP SP2 fully up-to-date. Motherboard has USB on-board, 2 front, 2
> rear. Processor is Athlon 1.533Ghz, 760 mb RAM
>
> PROBLEM - just installed USB2 PCI card, which appears to work (adding 2
> USB2 ports to the rear). Also bought USB2 4 port hub, to allow flexible
> connectivity.
> Initially, rear ports on card worked, but connecting the hub to one of
> these, and a USB2 memory stick into the hub, resulted in the "this will
> work faster in USB2" message. Tried the MS download site for updated
> driver (zilch), but by some miracle, after two re-boots, system now
> appears to be working correctly (meaning - no more "this will work faster"
> message). Installation CD had text file saying MS SP1 had appropriate
> drivers - not to use the CD for XP.
>
> As a test, I copyied a 120mb file in both USB and USB2 mode. There's
> virtually no difference in the transfer time (about 3 minutes). I thought
> the whole point of USB2 was that it was 10 times quicker. I now have 4 USB
> ports on the motherboard
>
> Am I missing something? What should the transfer time be for 120mb in USB
> and USB2? Reason for the question is that I don't know whether USB2 is
> actually working (if so, why are USB ports apparently working at same
> speed?)
>
Related resources
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 10:08:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

First, you need to remember, USB speed refers to throughput not write speed.
Second, some devices don't work or work well off of a USB hub. Have you
tried connecting the device directly to the USB2 port as opposed to the hub
connected to the port to see if there is any difference and whether or not
you receive the same message?

--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

"yabbadoo" <lsdolby@ignore.ntlwor.com> wrote in message
news:ui7aYDp8EHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> OS is XP SP2 fully up-to-date. Motherboard has USB on-board, 2 front, 2
> rear. Processor is Athlon 1.533Ghz, 760 mb RAM
>
> PROBLEM - just installed USB2 PCI card, which appears to work (adding 2
> USB2 ports to the rear). Also bought USB2 4 port hub, to allow flexible
> connectivity.
> Initially, rear ports on card worked, but connecting the hub to one of
> these, and a USB2 memory stick into the hub, resulted in the "this will
> work faster in USB2" message. Tried the MS download site for updated
> driver (zilch), but by some miracle, after two re-boots, system now
> appears to be working correctly (meaning - no more "this will work faster"
> message). Installation CD had text file saying MS SP1 had appropriate
> drivers - not to use the CD for XP.
>
> As a test, I copyied a 120mb file in both USB and USB2 mode. There's
> virtually no difference in the transfer time (about 3 minutes). I thought
> the whole point of USB2 was that it was 10 times quicker. I now have 4 USB
> ports on the motherboard
>
> Am I missing something? What should the transfer time be for 120mb in USB
> and USB2? Reason for the question is that I don't know whether USB2 is
> actually working (if so, why are USB ports apparently working at same
> speed?)
>
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 6:18:35 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"yabbadoo" <lsdolby@ignore.ntlwor.com> wrote in message
news:ui7aYDp8EHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> OS is XP SP2 fully up-to-date. Motherboard has USB on-board, 2 front, 2
> rear. Processor is Athlon 1.533Ghz, 760 mb RAM
>
> PROBLEM - just installed USB2 PCI card, which appears to work (adding 2
> USB2 ports to the rear). Also bought USB2 4 port hub, to allow flexible
> connectivity.
> Initially, rear ports on card worked, but connecting the hub to one of
> these, and a USB2 memory stick into the hub, resulted in the "this will
> work faster in USB2" message. Tried the MS download site for updated
> driver (zilch), but by some miracle, after two re-boots, system now
> appears to be working correctly (meaning - no more "this will work faster"
> message). Installation CD had text file saying MS SP1 had appropriate
> drivers - not to use the CD for XP.
>
> As a test, I copyied a 120mb file in both USB and USB2 mode. There's
> virtually no difference in the transfer time (about 3 minutes). I thought
> the whole point of USB2 was that it was 10 times quicker. I now have 4 USB
> ports on the motherboard
>
> Am I missing something? What should the transfer time be for 120mb in USB
> and USB2? Reason for the question is that I don't know whether USB2 is
> actually working (if so, why are USB ports apparently working at same
> speed?)

120 MB in 3 minutes is a little more than 5 Mb/s. That's not close to the
maximum USB 1.1 throughput and even with a lot of overhead, there would be
some room to do better.

What memory stick is it (brand/model)? Have you tried to copy the file back
to your main disk and benchmarking that instead? My reason for asking is
that a lot of sticks give far better performance for reading than writing. I
doubt it a bit, but maybe you'll see a performance difference in that
direction.

/Carl
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 6:18:36 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

> "yabbadoo" <lsdolby@ignore.ntlwor.com> wrote in message
> news:ui7aYDp8EHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> OS is XP SP2 fully up-to-date. Motherboard has USB on-board, 2 front, 2
>> rear. Processor is Athlon 1.533Ghz, 760 mb RAM
>>
>> PROBLEM - just installed USB2 PCI card, which appears to work (adding 2
>> USB2 ports to the rear). Also bought USB2 4 port hub, to allow flexible
>> connectivity.
>> Initially, rear ports on card worked, but connecting the hub to one of
>> these, and a USB2 memory stick into the hub, resulted in the "this will
>> work faster in USB2" message. Tried the MS download site for updated
>> driver (zilch), but by some miracle, after two re-boots, system now
>> appears to be working correctly (meaning - no more "this will work
>> faster" message). Installation CD had text file saying MS SP1 had
>> appropriate drivers - not to use the CD for XP.
>>
>> As a test, I copyied a 120mb file in both USB and USB2 mode. There's
>> virtually no difference in the transfer time (about 3 minutes). I thought
>> the whole point of USB2 was that it was 10 times quicker. I now have 4
>> USB ports on the motherboard
>>
>> Am I missing something? What should the transfer time be for 120mb in
>> USB and USB2? Reason for the question is that I don't know whether USB2
>> is actually working (if so, why are USB ports apparently working at same
>> speed?)
>

"Carl Nettelblad" <cnettel@hem.passagen.se.not.working> wrote in message
news:uD2Iezs8EHA.3988@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> 120 MB in 3 minutes is a little more than 5 Mb/s. That's not close to the
> maximum USB 1.1 throughput and even with a lot of overhead, there would be
> some room to do better.

> What memory stick is it (brand/model)? Have you tried to copy the file
> back to your main disk and benchmarking that instead? My reason for asking
> is that a lot of sticks give far better performance for reading than
> writing. I doubt it a bit, but maybe you'll see a performance difference
> in that direction.
>
> /Carl


Actually, based upon our experience, a data transfer rate of 40 MB/min,
i.e., 120 MB in three minutes, is just about right in real-life terms for
USB 1.1. I've rarely seen data transfer rates greater than 50 MB/min in a
USB 1.1 environment. Using USB 2.0 your data transfer rate should be
somewhere above 450 MB/min. So it certainly appears that you're working at
USB 1.1 speeds.
Art
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 7:41:14 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Carl, Art - I think I've solved the problem now, and to answer your specific
points re speeds - there's a significant difference now (but not 10 times)
between writing a 117 mb file from C: to memory stick using USB2 port -
about a minute, versus just over 3 mins.
However, the write BACK (mem stick to HDD) is about 15 secs in USB2, about 1
minute in USB1.
Many thanks for your advice and info - Sincerely, Len.

"Carl Nettelblad" <cnettel@hem.passagen.se.not.working> wrote in message
news:uD2Iezs8EHA.3988@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> "yabbadoo" <lsdolby@ignore.ntlwor.com> wrote in message
> news:ui7aYDp8EHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> OS is XP SP2 fully up-to-date. Motherboard has USB on-board, 2 front, 2
>> rear. Processor is Athlon 1.533Ghz, 760 mb RAM
>>
>> PROBLEM - just installed USB2 PCI card, which appears to work (adding 2
>> USB2 ports to the rear). Also bought USB2 4 port hub, to allow flexible
>> connectivity.
>> Initially, rear ports on card worked, but connecting the hub to one of
>> these, and a USB2 memory stick into the hub, resulted in the "this will
>> work faster in USB2" message. Tried the MS download site for updated
>> driver (zilch), but by some miracle, after two re-boots, system now
>> appears to be working correctly (meaning - no more "this will work
>> faster" message). Installation CD had text file saying MS SP1 had
>> appropriate drivers - not to use the CD for XP.
>>
>> As a test, I copyied a 120mb file in both USB and USB2 mode. There's
>> virtually no difference in the transfer time (about 3 minutes). I thought
>> the whole point of USB2 was that it was 10 times quicker. I now have 4
>> USB ports on the motherboard
>>
>> Am I missing something? What should the transfer time be for 120mb in
>> USB and USB2? Reason for the question is that I don't know whether USB2
>> is actually working (if so, why are USB ports apparently working at same
>> speed?)
>
> 120 MB in 3 minutes is a little more than 5 Mb/s. That's not close to the
> maximum USB 1.1 throughput and even with a lot of overhead, there would be
> some room to do better.
>
> What memory stick is it (brand/model)? Have you tried to copy the file
> back to your main disk and benchmarking that instead? My reason for asking
> is that a lot of sticks give far better performance for reading than
> writing. I doubt it a bit, but maybe you'll see a performance difference
> in that direction.
>
> /Carl
>
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 8:11:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Yves, Jim - whilst following your recommendation to uninstall all USB's I
caused havoc - realised too late that my radio mouse/keyboard relied on USB
connectivity (radio controller). Havoc !!
I should perhaps say that my 3 year old ASUS motherboard is only equipped
with USB (not USB2) which is why I bought the USB2 PCI card and extension
hub in the first place ...

OK - bottom line is (qualified) SUCCESS ! Having connected PS2-style
keyboard and mouse, I uninstalled all USB devices, re-booted, and they
configured. Have now re-tested the memory stick both ways, using a 114Mb
file to/from the HDD, and USB2 functionality/speed is noticeable - about
1.30 to upload, 15 secs to download it to HDD.

MAJOR DRAWBACK - my Logitech (USB) radio receiver is now a problem - Device
Manager reports drive missing/corrupt, and cannot find a new driver - none
on Logitech site. Everything was OK this morning - no exclamation marks, all
devices working - so making USB2 work has its drawbacks.

If you have any idea where I can get a current XP driver for Logitech radio
receiver M/M C-BG17-DUAL it would be appreciated !!

Nevertheless, appreciate your help and support - Thanks, fellas!!

Sincerely, Len

"Yves Leclerc" <yleclercNOSPAM@maysys.com> wrote in message
news:eRpeLOp8EHA.3640@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> To repair the message: "this will work faster in USB2...", we remove all
> root USB hubs and controller from Device Manager. Then after XP reboot, it
> should correctly re-install the USB controllers/root hubs (include the
> USB2 controller/hubs.)
>
>
> Have you check with your motherboard manufacturer to see which USB
> standard the on-board USB ports are? They could be USB2 compatible
> already and that is why you can not compare the speed since you do not
> have USB1.1/1.0 ports.
>
>
> "yabbadoo" <lsdolby@ignore.ntlwor.com> wrote in message
> news:ui7aYDp8EHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> OS is XP SP2 fully up-to-date. Motherboard has USB on-board, 2 front, 2
>> rear. Processor is Athlon 1.533Ghz, 760 mb RAM
>>
>> PROBLEM - just installed USB2 PCI card, which appears to work (adding 2
>> USB2 ports to the rear). Also bought USB2 4 port hub, to allow flexible
>> connectivity.
>> Initially, rear ports on card worked, but connecting the hub to one of
>> these, and a USB2 memory stick into the hub, resulted in the "this will
>> work faster in USB2" message. Tried the MS download site for updated
>> driver (zilch), but by some miracle, after two re-boots, system now
>> appears to be working correctly (meaning - no more "this will work
>> faster" message). Installation CD had text file saying MS SP1 had
>> appropriate drivers - not to use the CD for XP.
>>
>> As a test, I copyied a 120mb file in both USB and USB2 mode. There's
>> virtually no difference in the transfer time (about 3 minutes). I thought
>> the whole point of USB2 was that it was 10 times quicker. I now have 4
>> USB ports on the motherboard
>>
>> Am I missing something? What should the transfer time be for 120mb in
>> USB and USB2? Reason for the question is that I don't know whether USB2
>> is actually working (if so, why are USB ports apparently working at same
>> speed?)
>>
>
>
!