|
I have an XP machine with SP2 loaded. However, whenever I plug in a new(er) USB high-speed device like a thumb-drive or external HD, WinXP posts the warning that:
this high-speed device can perform faster/better if plugged into a high-speed USB port.
I look under device manager and the plugged in device has the Yellow Question mark. When I look at the USB Controller's properties, it list the following:
Microsoft 7/1/2001
Driver Version 5.1.2600.0
(some files under \system32 and then)
File version: 5.1.2600.2180 (xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158)
I am unable to hook that machine to the Net for driver updates, so is there a place I can get the driver to make my high-speed USB (2.0) devices work at optimal performance?
Thank you very much!
Johnny
|
|
|
|
|
I have a Toshiba Satellite laptop that does this to me. What I do is go into the device manager and uninstall all the USB ports, restart the machine and VOILA the OS installs the correct drivers. Weirdest thing but that's how I do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Most likely your system does not have USB 2.0 ports and therefore cannot run them any faster. Having said that I didn't think the warning showed unless you had at least one USB 2.0 port available.
Check your computer's manual to see which ports are high-speed capable. On some older motherboards, there were two USB controller chips, and you get the high-speed capable ports only by plugging the port into a different set of pins on the motherboard.
Technical reason: to support high-speed and other USB 2.0 features, the controller programming interface was changed. That meant, though, that the driver for USB 1.1 controllers couldn't be used for a USB 2.0 controller. Any system running an older OS that only understood USB 1.1's interface wouldn't be able to use any devices connected to a 2.0 controller. So motherboard manufacturers provided both.
Therefore you might have a Hi-Speed-capable controller in your system with a driver installed, but all the ports are connected to USB 1.1 controllers, so you get the message whichever port you use.
With more recent USB controllers embedded in their I/O Controller Hubs (ICH), Intel have performed a weird trick. It reports numerous USB 1.1 controllers and one USB 2.0 controller to the OS. Then, when a device is connected, it checks the maximum speed of the device and whether a USB 2.0 driver is running. If the maximum speed is full-speed (12Mbps) or low-speed (1.5Mbps), or if no USB 2.0 driver is running, the device is routed to the USB 1.1 controller. If 'Hi-Speed' (480Mbps) and a USB 2.0 driver is running, the device is routed to the USB 2.0 controller and runs at the high speed.
To check the types of your USB controllers, check their names in Device Manager. If they're called Open Host Controller (OHCI) or Universal Host Controller (UHCI), they're 1.1. If called Enhanced Host Controller, they're 2.0. If the names of all of them are e.g. Intel 82801G (ICH7 Family) [as on my laptop here] then you have one of the controllers that's performing routing.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All
I Have a NEC Lavie L LL500/1 Laptop, i need it's Modem driver
can anyone help me?
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't you do yourself what anyone else here is going to do - Google for "NEC Lavie LL500 Modem Driver".
|
|
|
|
|
I need it's Modem driver
the nec laviel ll500/1
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Friends
Is there any way to find out whether my computer supports ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) using c++?
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Thanks a lot to show me gems from the treasure  .
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
You culd also just reboot your system and go into the BIOS to see.
Generally, if you do a shutdown in windows and your machine turns itself off, you have ACPI support. If you actually have to hit the on/off switch, ACPI is either not supported, or it's disabled in the BIOS. If your machine isn't any older than five years old, chances are pretty good that your system supports ACPI.
The only way to enable it (if it's there) is to reboot and go into the BIOS settings of your system and change it manually.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in the process of choosing the components for my next dev box and I'm faced with this dilemma. A single 150GB 10krpm Raptor drive costs as much as 2 normal 7krpm hard drives, that can be raid-ed together. Now, my usage pattern is the typical one for a developer: lots of small files being written and rewritten (compilation), a few databases (mostly read)... but noise is also an issue, since I work at the PC for at least 8hrs/day. Are Raptor drives really that noisy? I also read different opinions about RAID speed. Which Raid setup (0, 1) would you suggest? I'd be using the onboard controller on the mobo, I know that's not ideal but I suppose an Intel Q9450 will be enough to cover that.
Thanks in advance.
Luca
The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance. -- Wing Commander IV
En Það Besta Sem Guð Hefur Skapað, Er Nýr Dagur.
(But the best thing God has created, is a New Day.)
-- Sigur Ròs - Viðrar vel til loftárása
|
|
|
|
|
my 2 cents: RAID0 w/ two drives is twice as likely to fail as a single drive. Not worth doing unless you really really need the speed increase it claims and you are religious about backups.
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC silent PC review found the raptors noise on par with an average 7200rpm drive. It was still louder than the quieter models though.
You know, every time I tried to win a bar-bet about being able to count to 1000 using my fingers I always get punched out when I reach 4....
-- El Corazon
|
|
|
|
|
When I signed up for DSL, I opted for the 1.5M package. After all the dust settled, I checked the speed using several sites. All of them reported the speed to be around 1.3M. I know the basic reason why it wasn't the full 1.5M, but I wanted to ask just to be sure, and to see if any more could be gotten out of it. The three big factors they gave were: 1) distance from the DSLAM/CO, 2) noise in the line, 3) equipment. At this point, we know that it's possible to get a 1.3M connection speed to my house. Note that I am not concerned with the difference between 1.3M and 1.5M.
For price reasons, I recently switched to the 768K package. When I again checked the speed, it was roughly 680K. Herein lies the question: why are they not providing a full 768K connection when it has already been proven that a 1.3M connection is possible? If I were to call them and ask, I can only assume they'd give me the same three reasons as above.
- DC
"Love people and use things, not love things and use people." - Unknown
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
|
|
|
|
|
Other answers may differ... a lot!
But my experience has been that these are environmental factors in most cases. If you do some google on the ping command you can add some optional switches that show packet loss and some other information. Line overhead is another.
But when you say you signed up for 1.5 megabit that tells me that the best download rate you could hope for in perfect conditions is ~150Kbps sustained. Now when you report you are only getting 1.3 megabit in perfect conditions you will average ~130Kbps sustained. So in affect we are talking roughly a ~20Kbps differential and in my experience that is nothing to worry about.
Now if you want to understand what factors influence your speed they are right in what they told you.
* Distance.
* Line quality.
* Hops.
* Splices. How many times is that signal being filtered and optimized along the way.
* Moisture. Heavy rainfall or humidity will affect speed if water is getting to copper anywhere.
* Unplug everything at home (phone, fax, other PCs, etc...) then test again.
For 20Kbps you could spend a lot of time and even more money to understand what is going on. Also speedtests are *NOT* extremely accurate and I'd be willing to suggest that your "test results" will vary hugely just based upon different times of day.
Ideally you'd want to test on a freshly formatted machine with it being the only thing on the local network. You'd want the server testing against to be the only server on the web at the time you test. You'd want the weather all over the world to be perfect and so on... and so on...
For a variance of ~20Kbps I'd not worry. That sounds pretty good to me. I know that broadbandreports.com and dslreports.com have some really good information on this topic and you should be able to learn more than you ever wanted if you visit those sites.
Rex
|
|
|
|
|
code-frog wrote: So in affect we are talking roughly a ~20Kbps differential and in my experience that is nothing to worry about.
I was never worried about it. A 1.3M connection was perfectly fine, and not at all related to my concern.
"Love people and use things, not love things and use people." - Unknown
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
|
|
|
|
|
No and I understand that. For you the exercise is probably more educational than anything else. If it is then have at it. My take was to say that I often see real people in the real world throw hundreds if not thousands at something like this just to get that ~20Kbps.
Now if you are just wanting to understand why (and I took that as your meaning) I think that BBR is the way to go. They have tons and tons and tons and tons of good material on it. Surprising... if you can find it... Microsoft has even better literature (IMO) than what you find at places like BBR.
I just did about 10 minutes of searching and am not feeling really satisfied by anything I found. If I were you another place with good information is at Fluke Networks. Look up LinkRunner Pro and then register at their site. They have some really good white papers that talk more about this subject and I've enjoyed what I have read so far.
http://www.flukenetworks.com/fnet/en-us/[^]
The KB there is pretty darned good.
|
|
|
|
|
Wild guess, but noise spikes in the line resulting packets failing a checksum and needing resent?
You know, every time I tried to win a bar-bet about being able to count to 1000 using my fingers I always get punched out when I reach 4....
-- El Corazon
|
|
|
|
|
How is he going to measure that short of some expensive tools that can test for that type of thing? Is there an easy way to check that?
|
|
|
|
|
Unless the modem has a debug mode that shows it probably not.
You know, every time I tried to win a bar-bet about being able to count to 1000 using my fingers I always get punched out when I reach 4....
-- El Corazon
|
|
|
|
|
Rex - come back to the lounge. We miss you - honestly.
|
|
|
|
|
Here in the UK the quoted line speed is the ATM transit speed - we use PPP over ATM (PPPoA). There's overhead on top of that to actually support a DSL link. So my quoted speed of 8168kbps reported by the router is actually about 7.5Mbps usable speed. Maybe your provider is doing the same.
(I live about 100m from my telephone exchange.)
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Dimmick wrote: Maybe your provider is doing the same.
Like I've already indicated, I know the reason why there's a difference between advertised and actual speed. That's not my question.
"Love people and use things, not love things and use people." - Unknown
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
|
|
|
|
|
DavidCrow wrote: Herein lies the question: why are they not providing a full 768K connection when it has already been proven that a 1.3M connection is possible?
I it's due to the line configuration. See if ADSL has built in overhead. I think it actually does. There may be an automatic percentage in loss simply because of the asymmetric nature of the lines. I'm not sure of this either but perhaps they run the lower speed off other equipment.
Optionally you may have spyware or malware that is using bandwidth you just cannot see. If it's rootkitting on a machine you will never know. You'll see a bandwidth hit. Have you tried doing packet capture to see? Put another device between your router and the DSL modem and make sure that device has two NICs and can do packet capture. You might be surprised but what you find.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not "noise", it's not "distance from the DSLAM". The plain and simple truth is that it's FRAUD.
The say "up to" 1.5M down, but truth in fact, you'll NEVER see 1.5M down because there is a speed overhead that they force YOU to soak up. They only say "up to" because that's what they have your connection throttled to. The same goes for cable ISPs, so don't assume that switching to another provider is going to solve the underlying problem.
The long and short of it is that we're being ripped off.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
