USB2 v/s USB in XP - help?

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?)
7 answers Last reply
More about usb2 help
  1. 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?)
    |
    |
  2. 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?)
    >
  3. 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?)
    >
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
    >
  7. 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?)
    >>
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

USB Windows XP