f



Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

I have two generic 4-port USB hubs that are supposed to be USB 2.0 
compliant. The older one is fine, works as advertised. Meanwhile the 
newer one sometimes shows up under the USB 2.0 root hub (i.e. "Standard 
Enhanced PCI to USB Host Controller"), or usually it shows up under the 
slower "Standard OpenHCD USB Host Controller" (USB 1.1).

My motherboard (Asus M2NPV-VM) USB ports are all USB 2.0 compliant, and 
they individually auto-detect whether they need to switch down to USB 
1.1 speeds. I'm using a Microsoft tool called UVCView under Windows XP 
to display the details of the USB devices, including the hubs and roothubs.

According to UVCView, the older hub and newer hub seem to have the same 
chipset vendor (idVendor = "Genesys Logic, Inc."), although externally 
they look quite different and have different brand names.  So I'm not 
sure why one would be consistently USB 2.0 compliant, while the other 
one is not.

Now another interesting thing I noticed is that the inconsistent hub 
will only show up as USB 2.0-compliant after I boot into Windows after 
having previously rebooted from Ubuntu 7.10 Linux (dual-boot system). So 
maybe Linux does something to the device that puts it right. But when I 
list the devices while in Linux I see that it is listed under USB 1.1 
just like when in Windows. I have no idea why Linux leaves the hub fixed 
for Windows, but doesn't fix it for itself?!

Any idea what's going on with this hub?

	Yousuf Khan
0
bbbl67512 (280)
12/29/2007 9:39:50 PM
comp.os.linux.hardware 9621 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

27 Replies
812 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 55

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:34:02 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"
<mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Taiwan is OK, it's the mainland that produces cheap crap.  Yet what
>else could be expected?  Nobody looks at China as a producer of
>quality goods - that place is reserved by EU, Japan,  and USA, with
>countries like S.Korea and Taiwan trailing pretty close. 

Once upon a time, if it was "Made in Taiwan" it was known as crap too
;)

I don't think it's really fair to say that just because the hub is
made in China, it must be of poor quality. As you noted yourself, even
a $30 Belkin hub is likely to come from a China factory. The key
difference I find is whether the company that holds the brand, are
they willing to pay for better quality and more stringent controls.

I met a non-PRC owner of a factory in China via my partner once. He
mentioned to us very frankly that he has no choice but to cut corners
in order to stay competitive with less scrupulous factories. But
usually it's also made clear to the customers if they want cheap, what
they should expect and if they want better quality stuff, it won't be
dirt cheap. I'm not sure if all factories make that point to their
customers but ultimately, the fact remains you do get what you pay
for.

-- 
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven 
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations, 
Lost to the world, Lost to myself
0
l7184 (125)
12/30/2007 3:02:37 AM
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:39:50 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> I have two generic 4-port USB hubs that are supposed to be USB 2.0 
> compliant. The older one is fine, works as advertised. Meanwhile the 
> newer one sometimes shows up under the USB 2.0 root hub (i.e. "Standard 
> Enhanced PCI to USB Host Controller"), or usually it shows up under the 
> slower "Standard OpenHCD USB Host Controller" (USB 1.1).
> 
> My motherboard (Asus M2NPV-VM) USB ports are all USB 2.0 compliant, and 
> they individually auto-detect whether they need to switch down to USB 
> 1.1 speeds. I'm using a Microsoft tool called UVCView under Windows XP 
> to display the details of the USB devices, including the hubs and roothubs.
> 
> According to UVCView, the older hub and newer hub seem to have the same 
> chipset vendor (idVendor = "Genesys Logic, Inc."), although externally 
> they look quite different and have different brand names.  So I'm not 
> sure why one would be consistently USB 2.0 compliant, while the other 
> one is not.
> 
> Now another interesting thing I noticed is that the inconsistent hub 
> will only show up as USB 2.0-compliant after I boot into Windows after 
> having previously rebooted from Ubuntu 7.10 Linux (dual-boot system). So 
> maybe Linux does something to the device that puts it right. But when I 
> list the devices while in Linux I see that it is listed under USB 1.1 
> just like when in Windows. I have no idea why Linux leaves the hub fixed 
> for Windows, but doesn't fix it for itself?!
> 
> Any idea what's going on with this hub?

I can almost guaranty that an operating system can't leave any USB hub
(fixed). 

Can you compare the data transfer rate of the hub in question while in XP
to that in linux? Take a large file say 100 megs and transfer it from an
external drive and time it. I'd like to see which is faster, XP or linux
or if it;s the same.

0
meat7873 (104)
12/30/2007 3:02:41 AM
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:39:50 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I have two generic 4-port USB hubs that are supposed to be USB 2.0 
>compliant. The older one is fine, works as advertised. Meanwhile the 
>newer one sometimes shows up under the USB 2.0 root hub (i.e. "Standard 
>Enhanced PCI to USB Host Controller"), or usually it shows up under the 
>slower "Standard OpenHCD USB Host Controller" (USB 1.1).
>
>My motherboard (Asus M2NPV-VM) USB ports are all USB 2.0 compliant, and 
>they individually auto-detect whether they need to switch down to USB 
>1.1 speeds. I'm using a Microsoft tool called UVCView under Windows XP 
>to display the details of the USB devices, including the hubs and roothubs.
>
>According to UVCView, the older hub and newer hub seem to have the same 
>chipset vendor (idVendor = "Genesys Logic, Inc."), although externally 
>they look quite different and have different brand names.  So I'm not 
>sure why one would be consistently USB 2.0 compliant, while the other 
>one is not.
>
>Now another interesting thing I noticed is that the inconsistent hub 
>will only show up as USB 2.0-compliant after I boot into Windows after 
>having previously rebooted from Ubuntu 7.10 Linux (dual-boot system). So 
>maybe Linux does something to the device that puts it right. But when I 
>list the devices while in Linux I see that it is listed under USB 1.1 
>just like when in Windows. I have no idea why Linux leaves the hub fixed 
>for Windows, but doesn't fix it for itself?!
>
>Any idea what's going on with this hub?
>
>	Yousuf Khan

Crappy cable?  I've seen a few times a 2.0 device gets downgraded to
1.x when connected with a substandard cable.  A good quality cable
(try Belkin) solved it for me.
Oh, one more thought - check where the hub in question was made.  If
it's China, that explains it.  If they deliberately use led paint for
children's toys (saves a fraction of a penny per toy vs. non-toxic
one), and conveniently forget to put cord into tires (saves both
material and labor - a few bucks total per tire - who cares if people
die when it blows out), you can expect similar "quality" materials and
workmanship from the hub.

NNN

0
nobody6 (639)
12/30/2007 7:42:58 AM
"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:ipSdnROWzJM6I-vaRVn_vwA@giganews.com...
>I have two generic 4-port USB hubs that are supposed to be USB 2.0 
>compliant. The older one is fine, works as advertised. Meanwhile the 
>newer one sometimes shows up under the USB 2.0 root hub (i.e. 
>"Standard Enhanced PCI to USB Host Controller"), or usually it shows 
>up under the slower "Standard OpenHCD USB Host Controller" (USB 1.1).
>
> My motherboard (Asus M2NPV-VM) USB ports are all USB 2.0 compliant, 
> and they individually auto-detect whether they need to switch down 
> to USB 1.1 speeds. I'm using a Microsoft tool called UVCView under 
> Windows XP to display the details of the USB devices, including the 
> hubs and roothubs.
>
> According to UVCView, the older hub and newer hub seem to have the 
> same chipset vendor (idVendor = "Genesys Logic, Inc."), although 
> externally they look quite different and have different brand names. 
> So I'm not sure why one would be consistently USB 2.0 compliant, 
> while the other one is not.
>
> Now another interesting thing I noticed is that the inconsistent hub 
> will only show up as USB 2.0-compliant after I boot into Windows 
> after having previously rebooted from Ubuntu 7.10 Linux (dual-boot 
> system). So maybe Linux does something to the device that puts it 
> right. But when I list the devices while in Linux I see that it is 
> listed under USB 1.1 just like when in Windows. I have no idea why 
> Linux leaves the hub fixed for Windows, but doesn't fix it for 
> itself?!
>
> Any idea what's going on with this hub?
>
> Yousuf Khan


Have you visited the manufacturer's web site to get the specs on those 
USB hubs?  Having the same hardware (i.e., chipset) says nothing about 
how the manufacturer utilized that hardware.  Lots of analog modems 
use the same Conexant chip but the *cards* don't have the same feature 
set.  Same subsystem components do not enforce the same system 
features.  Could be one of the hubs really only is 1.1 compliant and 
that using it as a 2.0 device is not recommended.  Of course, the 
device could be just a crappy low-grade cheap unit that doesn't 
properly respond to report itself correctly, or you need a better USB 
cable.

Are both of these a self-powered hub (i.e., they have a power adapter) 
or a low-power hub that relies on the current supplied from the USB 
controller at the motherboard?  If they are bus-powered hubs, they 
CANNOT be on the same USB controller.  Each controller provides 2 
ports (channels) but these 2 ports still share the same controller and 
so both are limited by a total amperage that can be supplied by the 
same controller.  That's why you see USB ports in pairs but you have 
to watch how much current is drained by them together.  Bus-powered 
hubs or any other bus-powered devices will tax the low current 
available from the USB controller, so instead make sure to use 
self-powered USB hubs, especially considering that you are planning to 
connect more than just 2 USB devices to the same controller (and 
possibly not just low-powered USB devices).  Initially a USB device is 
allowed to draw 100 mA but that device may request more power for 
upstream devices in increments of 2 mA but up to a maximum of 500 mA 
(and that is across the pair of ports to the same USB controller). 
For a bus-powered hub, the connected devices may only use a total of 
400 mA (100 mA per port) so the hub is limited to 4 ports.  If using 
bus-powered hubs, make sure you are using low-power USB devices (or 
the high-powered USB device provides its own power supply that is 
connected to a bus-powered hub).  USB devices rated for bus-power draw 
can be used on a bus-powered hub (but watch the total draw across both 
USB ports to the same controller).  The number of bus-powered or 
high-power devices that you connect to a self-powered hub depends on 
how much current that hub can deliver.

USB devices are supposed to report their power consumption.  Maybe you 
hubs don't.  Or maybe they report too high a consumption to guarantee 
USB 2.0 mode to work so the controller degrades to USB 1.1 mode.

Do you actually have any high-speed USB 2.0 devices connected to the 
hubs when you boot the OS with the self-powered hubs already powered 
up?  Are they really high-speed USB 2.0 devices (USB 2.0 compliant 
devices can report as low, full, or high-speed)?

For best setup, use self-powered hubs, or connect them to different 
USB controllers (i.e., they don't share the same port pair coming from 
the same USB controller). 

0
VanguardLH (18)
12/30/2007 11:20:20 AM
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 07:42:58 +0000, nobody@nowhere.net wrote:

> Oh, one more thought - check where the hub in question was made.  If
> it's China, that explains it.

Do you know of a USB hub that isn't made in China?

0
meat7873 (104)
12/30/2007 5:20:20 PM
Meat Plow wrote:
> I can almost guaranty that an operating system can't leave any USB hub
> (fixed). 
> 
> Can you compare the data transfer rate of the hub in question while in XP
> to that in linux? Take a large file say 100 megs and transfer it from an
> external drive and time it. I'd like to see which is faster, XP or linux
> or if it;s the same.


Well, that's not going to be likely to do. Since the newer hub is so 
unreliable, I'm only trusting it with light duty at the moment, such as 
mouse and keyboard connections, nothing data-heavy like external HDs, or 
thumbdrives.

	Yousuf Khan
0
bbbl67512 (280)
12/30/2007 5:55:28 PM
nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
> Crappy cable?  I've seen a few times a 2.0 device gets downgraded to
> 1.x when connected with a substandard cable.  A good quality cable
> (try Belkin) solved it for me.

Worth a shot, I have tried moving the hub from one port to another, but 
it made no difference.

> Oh, one more thought - check where the hub in question was made.  If
> it's China, that explains it.  If they deliberately use led paint for
> children's toys (saves a fraction of a penny per toy vs. non-toxic
> one), and conveniently forget to put cord into tires (saves both
> material and labor - a few bucks total per tire - who cares if people
> die when it blows out), you can expect similar "quality" materials and
> workmanship from the hub.

Isn't everything made in China these days? Avoiding Chinese made hubs 
might be like trying to avoid any Swiss chocolate made in Switzerland.

	Yousuf Khan
0
bbbl67512 (280)
12/30/2007 6:07:58 PM
VanguardLH wrote:
> Have you visited the manufacturer's web site to get the specs on those 
> USB hubs?  Having the same hardware (i.e., chipset) says nothing about 
> how the manufacturer utilized that hardware.  Lots of analog modems use 
> the same Conexant chip but the *cards* don't have the same feature set.  
> Same subsystem components do not enforce the same system features.  
> Could be one of the hubs really only is 1.1 compliant and that using it 
> as a 2.0 device is not recommended.  Of course, the device could be just 
> a crappy low-grade cheap unit that doesn't properly respond to report 
> itself correctly, or you need a better USB cable.

Well, as I said previously, these are "generic" hubs, very generic. I 
doubt any of us have heard of the manufacturers' names: there isn't much 
point in checking their websites, they probably sell tons of little 
products. One is from Vantec and the other is Acrox. The Acrox is the 
older more reliable one. Both of them are advertised as USB 2.0 hubs, 
and both of them are identified as "USB2.0 Hub" internally, polled from 
the USB configuration itself.

> Are both of these a self-powered hub (i.e., they have a power adapter) 
> or a low-power hub that relies on the current supplied from the USB 
> controller at the motherboard?  If they are bus-powered hubs, they 
> CANNOT be on the same USB controller.  Each controller provides 2 ports 
> (channels) but these 2 ports still share the same controller and so both 
> are limited by a total amperage that can be supplied by the same 
> controller.  

Both can be self-powered or bus-powered, they have the power inputs. 
Only one of them came with an included power cord though. And 
surprisingly it's the less reliable one that has the power cord. The 
more reliable one doesn't have one. I have tried that one with and 
without the power cord, but it made no difference.

I have resorted to putting my fast peripherals on the older hub, such an 
external hard drive, a digital camera, and a Skype phone. They all have 
their own power cords so they don't need to be powered by the hub 
anyways. The hard disk and camera show up under the mass storage device 
class.

The slower hub is being used for slow peripherals like mice and 
keyboards now.

> USB devices are supposed to report their power consumption.  Maybe you 
> hubs don't.  Or maybe they report too high a consumption to guarantee 
> USB 2.0 mode to work so the controller degrades to USB 1.1 mode.

Both are reporting 100mA.

	Yousuf Khan
0
bbbl67512 (280)
12/30/2007 6:44:24 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Isn't everything made in China these days? Avoiding Chinese made hubs 
> might be like trying to avoid any Swiss chocolate made in Switzerland.

Depends on if by China, you mean both Taiwan and the PRC or just the PRC.
For that matter, since "made in" usually means final assembly, there are
probably some from Thailand and Malaysia too.

-- 
Nate Edel                               http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
 preferred email  | 
 is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
 posting domain   |  
0
archmage (306)
12/30/2007 11:01:01 PM
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:01:01 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
wrote:

>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Isn't everything made in China these days? Avoiding Chinese made hubs 
>> might be like trying to avoid any Swiss chocolate made in Switzerland.
>
>Depends on if by China, you mean both Taiwan and the PRC or just the PRC.
>For that matter, since "made in" usually means final assembly, there are
>probably some from Thailand and Malaysia too.

Taiwan is OK, it's the mainland that produces cheap crap.  Yet what
else could be expected?  Nobody looks at China as a producer of
quality goods - that place is reserved by EU, Japan,  and USA, with
countries like S.Korea and Taiwan trailing pretty close.  The only way
for China to plug into wider world's economy was as the cheapest of
the cheapest, with hopes to eventually make it up the top later as it
was done by Japan in late 1970s and arguably by Korea around the break
of the millenia (imho they are not there yet, but getting very close -
typed he while staring into Samsung monitor, and a damn good one;-)
While their labor was cheaper than dirt they had a luxury to follow
the specs - as much as their skills and tools allowed.  These days
when labor there is just dirt-cheap they have to cut all the corners
they can because "made in China" label commands no pricing power, and
$ gets cheaper day after day.  And yes, some posters are right that
sometimes there is only choice between "made in China" and nothing
else - the Chinese crap squeezed everyone else from the market because
nobody else can sell sooo cheap.  For most buyers a hub is as good as
another hub.  Just a quick look at PW:  no-name USB 2.0 hub can be had
for $7.61, and Belkin starts at around $30 (even this one still can be
made in China!).  What would buy Joe 6pack when he was told by his
techie neighbor that he needs a USB 2.0 hub to connect all his toys to
the box?

NNN

0
nobody6 (639)
12/31/2007 2:34:02 AM
"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:6tidnXGw-9eXeuraRVn_vwA@giganews.com...
> VanguardLH wrote:
>> Have you visited the manufacturer's web site to get the specs on 
>> those USB hubs?  Having the same hardware (i.e., chipset) says 
>> nothing about how the manufacturer utilized that hardware.  Lots of 
>> analog modems use the same Conexant chip but the *cards* don't have 
>> the same feature set.  Same subsystem components do not enforce the 
>> same system features.  Could be one of the hubs really only is 1.1 
>> compliant and that using it as a 2.0 device is not recommended.  Of 
>> course, the device could be just a crappy low-grade cheap unit that 
>> doesn't properly respond to report itself correctly, or you need a 
>> better USB cable.
>
> Well, as I said previously, these are "generic" hubs, very generic. 
> I doubt any of us have heard of the manufacturers' names: there 
> isn't much point in checking their websites, they probably sell tons 
> of little products. One is from Vantec and the other is Acrox. The 
> Acrox is the older more reliable one. Both of them are advertised as 
> USB 2.0 hubs, and both of them are identified as "USB2.0 Hub" 
> internally, polled from the USB configuration itself.


Vantec is not a small company but that doesn't mean everything they 
sell is something they themself produced but might instead have 
slapped their label on it (http://www.vantecusa.com/).  The current 
USB hub selections are shown at 
http://www.vantecusa.com/product-peripheral.html.  They do seem 
confused between what is self-powered and bus-powered hubs (what they 
say for self-powered is actually for bus-powered).

Have you tried swapping to which USB ports these hubs are connected 
(i.e., swap them between themselves) to see if the problem stays with 
whatever hub in on a USB port or if the problem migrates with to 
whichever port the hub gets moved?  That is, does the problem move 
with the hub or remain with the USB port? 

0
VanguardLH (18)
12/31/2007 2:52:21 AM
> I have two generic 4-port USB hubs that are supposed to be USB 2.0 
> compliant. The older one is fine, works as advertised. Meanwhile the 
> newer one sometimes shows up under the USB 2.0 root hub (i.e.
> "Standard Enhanced PCI to USB Host Controller"), or usually it shows
> up under the slower "Standard OpenHCD USB Host Controller" (USB 1.1).
> 
> My motherboard (Asus M2NPV-VM) USB ports are all USB 2.0 compliant,
> and they individually auto-detect whether they need to switch down to
> USB 1.1 speeds. I'm using a Microsoft tool called UVCView under
> Windows XP to display the details of the USB devices, including the
> hubs and roothubs. 
> 
> According to UVCView, the older hub and newer hub seem to have the
> same chipset vendor (idVendor = "Genesys Logic, Inc."), although
> externally they look quite different and have different brand names. 
> So I'm not sure why one would be consistently USB 2.0 compliant, while
> the other one is not.
> 
> Now another interesting thing I noticed is that the inconsistent hub 
> will only show up as USB 2.0-compliant after I boot into Windows after
> having previously rebooted from Ubuntu 7.10 Linux (dual-boot system).
> So maybe Linux does something to the device that puts it right. But
> when I list the devices while in Linux I see that it is listed under
> USB 1.1 just like when in Windows. I have no idea why Linux leaves the
> hub fixed for Windows, but doesn't fix it for itself?!
> 
> Any idea what's going on with this hub?
> 
>      Yousuf Khan

What you may want to do since you are running an Asus board, is go into 
Bios setup on bootup before your OS loads. Under one of the tabs across 
the top, there is a check for "I am using an OS that checks for plug and 
play" or something like that. It may be that your Bios is not setting 
the USB ports and allow only the operating system to do that. It sounds 
as if Windows is setting the USB port/hubs and then you switch into 
Linux. Anyway, might be worth a try. 
0
12/31/2007 5:06:01 AM
VanguardLH wrote:
> Have you tried swapping to which USB ports these hubs are connected 
> (i.e., swap them between themselves) to see if the problem stays with 
> whatever hub in on a USB port or if the problem migrates with to 
> whichever port the hub gets moved?  That is, does the problem move with 
> the hub or remain with the USB port?

Yeah, moving the cables around throughout all of the USB ports was the 
first thing I tried. The problem moves with the hub, not with the USB port.

I've even tried a different cable as suggested elsewhere in this thread. 
It didn't help. However, as I said before, going into Linux and then 
rebooting into Windows fixes it for some inexplicable reason. So far 
this trick has worked 100% reliably.

   Yousuf Khan
0
bbbl67512 (280)
12/31/2007 9:06:47 AM
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:02:37 GMT,
a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote:

>
>On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:34:02 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"
><mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Taiwan is OK, it's the mainland that produces cheap crap.  Yet what
>>else could be expected?  Nobody looks at China as a producer of
>>quality goods - that place is reserved by EU, Japan,  and USA, with
>>countries like S.Korea and Taiwan trailing pretty close. 
>
>Once upon a time, if it was "Made in Taiwan" it was known as crap too
>;)

Is there a motherboard not made in Taiwan (except for the crap made in
mainland China)? 
<snip/>
>
>-- 
>A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven 
>Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations, 

Once upon a time, during the heydays of Detroit Big 3, Japanese cars
were the butt of the jokes - and deservedly so.  The times have
changed...

Happy New Year to everyone

NNN

0
nobody6 (639)
12/31/2007 6:57:09 PM
In article <c3ein3hlo91ft38qj6kuv0m84chq4om8l4@4ax.com>, 
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips, mygarbage2000@hotmail.com says...
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:02:37 GMT,
> a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote:
> 
> >
> >On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:34:02 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"
> ><mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Taiwan is OK, it's the mainland that produces cheap crap.  Yet what
> >>else could be expected?  Nobody looks at China as a producer of
> >>quality goods - that place is reserved by EU, Japan,  and USA, with
> >>countries like S.Korea and Taiwan trailing pretty close. 
> >
> >Once upon a time, if it was "Made in Taiwan" it was known as crap too
> >;)
> 
> Is there a motherboard not made in Taiwan (except for the crap made in
> mainland China)? 

Apple?  Tyans used to be made in the US.  They're from Taiwan now 
too, IIRC.

Al lot of Taiwanese motherboards are made in mainland China now 
too, not that many were better when made in Taiwan.

-- 
Keith
0
krw2 (1128)
12/31/2007 8:03:04 PM
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:57:09 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"
<mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Is there a motherboard not made in Taiwan (except for the crap made in
>mainland China)? 

On a quick look, Gigabyte, Asus, MSI, Foxconn and Tyan all have boards
made in China as well as Taiwan. Do you consider all of them crap? ;)

-- 
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven 
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations, 
Lost to the world, Lost to myself
0
l7184 (125)
12/31/2007 9:45:54 PM
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:45:54 GMT,
a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:57:09 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"
><mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Is there a motherboard not made in Taiwan (except for the crap made in
>>mainland China)? 
>
>On a quick look, Gigabyte, Asus, MSI, Foxconn and Tyan all have boards
>made in China as well as Taiwan. Do you consider all of them crap? ;)

AFAIK Asus makes Asus-branded boards in Taiwan, and Asrock-branded in
China.  I would believe that other makers have a similar scheme where
low end stuff is sent for manufacturing to China, and high end to more
decent locations.  Though admittedly it's more than a year since I've
bought the last mobo, and things could've changed...

NNN

0
nobody6 (639)
1/1/2008 12:20:06 AM
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message 
news:0uSdnbXQJLm6LOXa4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
> VanguardLH wrote:
>> Have you tried swapping to which USB ports these hubs are connected 
>> (i.e., swap them between themselves) to see if the problem stays 
>> with whatever hub in on a USB port or if the problem migrates with 
>> to whichever port the hub gets moved?  That is, does the problem 
>> move with the hub or remain with the USB port?
>
> Yeah, moving the cables around throughout all of the USB ports was 
> the first thing I tried. The problem moves with the hub, not with 
> the USB port.
>
> I've even tried a different cable as suggested elsewhere in this 
> thread. It didn't help. However, as I said before, going into Linux 
> and then rebooting into Windows fixes it for some inexplicable 
> reason. So far this trick has worked 100% reliably.


Sounds like it is time to toss the flaky old USB hub and get an new 
one for $7. 

0
VanguardLH (18)
1/1/2008 12:33:19 AM
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:20:06 +0000, nobody@nowhere.net rearranged some
electrons to say:

 
> AFAIK Asus makes Asus-branded boards in Taiwan, and Asrock-branded in
> China. 

Not true.  I recently (within the past 6 months) acquired two of the same 
model ASUS motherboards (P5NE-SLI).  One was assembled in Taiwan, one was 
assembed in China.  
0
none18 (402)
1/1/2008 3:16:47 AM
In article <e6Lzo3ATIHA.280@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, 
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips, VanguardLH@mail.invalid says...
> "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message 
> news:0uSdnbXQJLm6LOXa4p2dnAA@giganews.com...

<snip>

> > I've even tried a different cable as suggested elsewhere in this 
> > thread. It didn't help. However, as I said before, going into Linux 
> > and then rebooting into Windows fixes it for some inexplicable 
> > reason. So far this trick has worked 100% reliably.
> 
> 
> Sounds like it is time to toss the flaky old USB hub and get an new 
> one for $7. 

I was thinking the same thing, but it sounded too simple. ;-)  I 
found one model I liked (seven-ports, two on top) so bought a 
spare, just in case.  I can't even buy the wall wart that came with 
it for $7. 

-- 
Keith
0
krw2 (1128)
1/1/2008 4:35:08 AM
VanguardLH wrote:
> Sounds like it is time to toss the flaky old USB hub and get an new one 
> for $7.

$7? Where can you get it for $7?

	Yousuf Khan
0
bbbl67512 (280)
1/1/2008 6:03:47 AM
"krw" wrote in message 
news:MPG.21e38d03dbbc123b9897eb@news.individual.net...
>
>> Vanguard said:
>> Sounds like it is time to toss the flaky old USB hub and get an new
>> one for $7.
>
> I was thinking the same thing, but it sounded too simple. ;-)  I
> found one model I liked (seven-ports, two on top) so bought a
> spare, just in case.  I can't even buy the wall wart that came with
> it for $7.

There are usually price breaks for products after which the rise in 
price is almost logarithmic.  4-port USB hubs are most common and 
probably where you get the best price break per port.  Of course, 
popular branding will cost you.

A self-powered 4-port USB hub (which obviously includes the power 
adapter) starts at $5 (and Iogear is an okay brand).  A 7-port USB hub 
(for a brand that I've heard of) runs about $20.  It's just like CPUs: 
you'll find a sweet price break afterwhich the jumps in price far 
outstrips the meager increase in speed.

Sounds like you're trying to replace both USB hubs with one. 

0
VanguardLH (18)
1/1/2008 9:03:27 AM
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message 
news:VZGdnbESDeVeSuTaRVn_vwA@giganews.com...
>
> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>> Sounds like it is time to toss the flaky old USB hub and get an new 
>> one for $7.
>
> $7? Where can you get it for $7?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2002810026%201228013606&bop=And&Order=PRICE&SrchInDesc=4%2Dport&Page=1

(or short URL = http://preview.tinyurl.com/3yx48d)

However, many are bus-powered (which they misname as self-powered) or 
require the addition of an "optional" power adapter (at further 
expense, of course).  I noticed the cheapest 4-port USB 2.0 hub in the 
list that includes the power adapter is $11 (but I've never heard of 
the Anywhere brand).  The next one up is the Rosewill for a $1 more. 
So the $5 and $7 models are those that are bus-powered or don't 
include the power adapter, sorry.  It's possible you could reuse the 
old power adapter provided it supplied the correct voltage and also 
could push out the required milliamps. 

0
VanguardLH (18)
1/1/2008 9:21:25 AM
In article <Of#3qUFTIHA.4656@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, 
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips, VanguardLH@mail.invalid says...
> "krw" wrote in message 
> news:MPG.21e38d03dbbc123b9897eb@news.individual.net...
> >
> >> Vanguard said:
> >> Sounds like it is time to toss the flaky old USB hub and get an new
> >> one for $7.
> >
> > I was thinking the same thing, but it sounded too simple. ;-)  I
> > found one model I liked (seven-ports, two on top) so bought a
> > spare, just in case.  I can't even buy the wall wart that came with
> > it for $7.
> 
> There are usually price breaks for products after which the rise in 
> price is almost logarithmic.  4-port USB hubs are most common and 
> probably where you get the best price break per port.  Of course, 
> popular branding will cost you.

I paid $7 for the hub *AND* wall wart.  That's my point.  I wasn't 
near it when I posted earlier, but it's a Belkin.

> A self-powered 4-port USB hub (which obviously includes the power 
> adapter) starts at $5 (and Iogear is an okay brand).  A 7-port USB hub 
> (for a brand that I've heard of) runs about $20.  It's just like CPUs: 
> you'll find a sweet price break afterwhich the jumps in price far 
> outstrips the meager increase in speed.

How about "Belkin"?  BTW, NewEgg is Charging $30 now for the silver 
version:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817394056

> Sounds like you're trying to replace both USB hubs with one. 

Huh?  I said nothing about replacing anything.  I did mention that 
I bought a spare (nice hub for what I paid, why not?).

-- 
Keith
0
krw2 (1128)
1/1/2008 6:46:18 PM
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message 
news:VZGdnbESDeVeSuTaRVn_vwA@giganews.com...
>
> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>> Sounds like it is time to toss the flaky old USB hub and get an new 
>> one for $7.
>
> $7? Where can you get it for $7?


(Microsoft's NNTP is being stubborn again and accepting but not 
submitting some posts, so I'll try this again.)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2002810026%201228013606&bop=And&Order=PRICE&SrchInDesc=4%2Dport&Page=1

(or short URL = http://preview.tinyurl.com/3yx48d)

However, many are bus-powered (which they misname as self-powered) or
require the addition of an "optional" power adapter (at further
expense, of course).  I noticed the cheapest 4-port USB 2.0 hub in the
list that includes the power adapter is $11 (but I've never heard of
the Anywhere brand).  The next one up is the Rosewill for a $1 more.
So the $5 and $7 models are those that are bus-powered or don't
include the power adapter, sorry.  It's possible you could reuse the
old power adapter provided it supplied the correct voltage and also
could push out the required milliamps. 

0
VanguardLH (18)
1/2/2008 3:15:44 AM
"VanguardLH" <VanguardLH@mail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Ob$f3XtSIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:ipSdnROWzJM6I-vaRVn_vwA@giganews.com...
>>I have two generic 4-port USB hubs that are supposed to be USB 2.0 
>>compliant. The older one is fine, works as advertised. Meanwhile the newer 
>>one sometimes shows up under the USB 2.0 root hub (i.e. "Standard Enhanced 
>>PCI to USB Host Controller"), or usually it shows up under the slower 
>>"Standard OpenHCD USB Host Controller" (USB 1.1).
>>
>> My motherboard (Asus M2NPV-VM) USB ports are all USB 2.0 compliant, and 
>> they individually auto-detect whether they need to switch down to USB 1.1 
>> speeds. I'm using a Microsoft tool called UVCView under Windows XP to 
>> display the details of the USB devices, including the hubs and roothubs.
>>
>> According to UVCView, the older hub and newer hub seem to have the same 
>> chipset vendor (idVendor = "Genesys Logic, Inc."), although externally 
>> they look quite different and have different brand names. So I'm not sure 
>> why one would be consistently USB 2.0 compliant, while the other one is 
>> not.
>>
>> Now another interesting thing I noticed is that the inconsistent hub will 
>> only show up as USB 2.0-compliant after I boot into Windows after having 
>> previously rebooted from Ubuntu 7.10 Linux (dual-boot system). So maybe 
>> Linux does something to the device that puts it right. But when I list 
>> the devices while in Linux I see that it is listed under USB 1.1 just 
>> like when in Windows. I have no idea why Linux leaves the hub fixed for 
>> Windows, but doesn't fix it for itself?!
>>
>> Any idea what's going on with this hub?
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
>
> Are both of these a self-powered hub (i.e., they have a power adapter) or 
> a low-power hub that relies on the current supplied from the USB 
> controller at the motherboard?  If they are bus-powered hubs, they CANNOT 
> be on the same USB controller.  Each controller provides 2 ports 
> (channels) but these 2 ports still share the same controller and so both 
> are limited by a total amperage that can be supplied by the same 
> controller.

Sorry, but that isn't true.  Bus powered hubs are deliberately limited to 
100mA per port precisely so that they don't exceed the 500mA available from 
the root hub port.  You can connect 8 of them to the 8 ports of the USB2 
enhanced root ports if you want to.  The current available from any root 
port is 500mA per port regardless of what is connected to the others.  In 
practice you can get a bit more than that before the over current protection 
kicks in.   Current not used on one port does not become available to the 
others because the over current protection is implimented on a per port 
basis.

Of course, what you can't do is to *cascade* bus powered hubs. 


0
no.one9739 (1143)
5/1/2008 7:13:38 AM
"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:ipSdnROWzJM6I-vaRVn_vwA@giganews.com...
>I have two generic 4-port USB hubs that are supposed to be USB 2.0 
>compliant. The older one is fine, works as advertised. Meanwhile the newer 
>one sometimes shows up under the USB 2.0 root hub (i.e. "Standard Enhanced 
>PCI to USB Host Controller"), or usually it shows up under the slower 
>"Standard OpenHCD USB Host Controller" (USB 1.1).
>
> My motherboard (Asus M2NPV-VM) USB ports are all USB 2.0 compliant, and 
> they individually auto-detect whether they need to switch down to USB 1.1 
> speeds. I'm using a Microsoft tool called UVCView under Windows XP to 
> display the details of the USB devices, including the hubs and roothubs.
>
> According to UVCView, the older hub and newer hub seem to have the same 
> chipset vendor (idVendor = "Genesys Logic, Inc."), although externally 
> they look quite different and have different brand names.  So I'm not sure 
> why one would be consistently USB 2.0 compliant, while the other one is 
> not.
>
> Now another interesting thing I noticed is that the inconsistent hub will 
> only show up as USB 2.0-compliant after I boot into Windows after having 
> previously rebooted from Ubuntu 7.10 Linux (dual-boot system). So maybe 
> Linux does something to the device that puts it right. But when I list the 
> devices while in Linux I see that it is listed under USB 1.1 just like 
> when in Windows. I have no idea why Linux leaves the hub fixed for 
> Windows, but doesn't fix it for itself?!
>

There are actually surprisingly few different chipsets despite the wide 
variety of different looking hubs.  I would suggest that you problem hub 
either has a poor cable connection or that the hub chipset itself is very 
close to being detected as poor USB2 operation in which case it reverts back 
to USB1.

Hubs are cheap enough these days that it is simplest just to replace it.


0
no.one9739 (1143)
5/1/2008 7:16:14 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

usb error on external disc ?? hub 1-0:1.0:Cannot enable port 2
Hi, I want connext an external drive STOREX FHD-353 on my Linux 2.6.9-34 WhiteBox I have following error message "hub 1-0:1.0:Cannot enable port 2. Maybe the USB cable is bad. " Do you have an idea ? Regards Philippe My computer is an K7AMD, with motherboard Micro star 6167 . I think computer could onlly work un USB1.0 not USB 2.0. External Hard drive is running before with another PC that use XP .. ...

Multiple USB 1.1 devices in USB 2 Hub speed ?
Hi, If I have a number of USB 1.1 devices plugged into a USB 2 Hub, can I get the full 12MB/s of each USB 1.1 device via the USB 2 link to a host ? Or does the USB 2 link fall back to a 1.1 compatible mode ? I am also looking for a Mini USB IP67 bulkhead connector. So far I have found something from Samtec, Bulgin and the mil circular D38999 series, but all these options are very bulky. If I can get a similar sized connector that can take through 2 or 3 USB links, then it will not be so bad. Regards Anton Erasmus On Jul 16, 12:07 pm, Anton Erasmus <nob...@spam.prevent.net> wrote: > Hi, > > If I have a number of USB 1.1 devices plugged into a USB 2 Hub, can I > get the full 12MB/s of each USB 1.1 device via the USB 2 link to a > host ? Or does the USB 2 link fall back to a 1.1 compatible mode ? > Not sure what's your question, it is a bit confusing. The two statements around the OR are equivalent. Briefly: High speed = 480 Mbps (USB 2.0) Full Speed = 12Mbps (USB 1.1) Low Speed = 1.5Mbps (USB 1.1) USB 2.0 is backward compatible, so is the hub. It should support a mix of devices. So, yes, you get the 12Mbps full speed AND yes, the USB 2 link falls back to 1.1. "Adrian" <adrianbica@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c11ebd15-e7d7-4b6c-9a72-fac71de01b70@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 16, 12:07 pm, Anton Erasmus <nob...@spam.prevent.net> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> If I have a number of USB 1.1 de...

move ZFS mountpoint from USB 1.1 to USB 2.0 port
I created a mountpoint called /tdusb1 on a USB 1.1 port conncted to a 1TB LaCie hard drive. I discoverd that our system has a USB 2.0 port and want to move the logical mountpoint to a new physical USB port. How do I do it? Actually, I will need to do the same sort of thing from one Solaris 10 system to another in the future. I don't care about plug-and-play and hot swappable as long as I can read the same drive from different Sun systems. I assume that there are ZFS related commands for doing this but don't want to experiment too much as the USB hard drive already has valuable stuff ...

laptop usb 1.1 + scanner usb 2.0 + modem ADSL = ?????!!!!!*****
I have a laptop with a single USB 1.1 port. My new scanner (Epson 3170 usb 2.0) works fine with it and so does my ADSL modem but both can't work together. I have tried to make them "cooperate" with a Sitecom Usb pocket hub which needs an external power adapter and of course it doesn't work without it; do you think it would work if I had one? Or is there any other possibility (Pcmcia/usb card for example)? Thank you for your future wise advice. Good chance powered hub will work, but not guaranteed. Is your modem USB only? If ethernet also, as one more option, y...

Compatibilit� USB 2.0 et USB 1.1 avec W2K ?
Bonjour Je rencontre un PB avec l'une de mes cl�s USB qui est USB 2.0 et qui bug lorsque je la connacte sur un hub USB 1.1 : je la "vois" sur le PC mais je ne peux y transf�rer quoique ce soit, malgr� l'installation des drivers sp�cifiques. Ayant constat� qu'avec XP, chaque fois que l'on connecte un p�riph�rique USB 2.0 sur un port 1.1 XP signale qu'il peux y avoir des porbl�mes, je vous drais savoir si cela existe aussi avec W2K. Merci d'avance Sorry Pegasus Mail is NOT USB 1.x or 2.0 compliant. Dave ;-) <John.Viel@caramail.rem...

problem related to backward compatibility of usb 2.0 -> usb 1.1?
Hi, I've recently bought an external harddrive (Q - tec). It's great stuff. The hdd combines lot's of storage space and small dimensions with adequate speed because it runs on usb 2.0. Just plug it in and do whatever you feel like doing. Needless to say, I've grown attached to it. Then bad things started to happen. One night, my PC got fragged (cooked MCU on motherboard). As a result, I was forced to use my dad's computer in order to finish my work for school. It didn't have any usb 2.0 slots, so I had to make due with usb 1.1. I plugged it in, started Wi...

Toshiba Satellite 2410-S185 / PS241U-851457 is NOT USB 2.0 as advertised. It is only USB 1.1
I purchased a Toshiba laptop 2410-S185 from CDW almost a year ago The system specs claimed to support USB 2.0. This didn�t seem to be the case when I tried to get it working. I eventually looked up the Intel Chipset at Intel�s website and found it DOES NOT support 2.0 (Intel Chipset 82801CA) I spent 4 hours on the phone with Toshiba before I was upgraded to a lvel two tech and convinced them of the problem. They told me �Thank you for letting us know the error in our documentation, I�ll have someone fix that for you� Of course there is NO WAY they�re going to get off the hook that easy. I can�t imagine how many of these they sold with such a major mistake. I have a feeling they�re just going to send me a usb2.0 pccard adapter. They BETTER do at least that much. I'd say it qualifies for a class action law suit. Not that I myself have the energy or motivation to take it that far. usenet@net-express.com.remove On Mon, 03 May 2004 21:15:19 -0500, Bastian <usenet@net-express.com> wrote: >I purchased a Toshiba laptop 2410-S185 from CDW almost a year ago > >The system specs claimed to support USB 2.0. >This didn�t seem to be the case when I tried to get it working. > >I eventually looked up the Intel Chipset at Intel�s website and found >it DOES NOT support 2.0 (Intel Chipset 82801CA) > >I spent 4 hours on the phone with Toshiba before I was upgraded to a >lvel two tech and convinced them of the problem. > >They told me �...

New Printer with USB 2.0 - Old PC with USB 1.1 Ports
I am FINALLY getting around to getting a new printer - but I have a 4 year old laptop that has two USB 1.1 ports. Will a new printer with a USB 2.0 connection work with my laptop? I heard it will - but will be slower than designed to be. I am planning on getting another HP OfficeJet (my old one lasted 7 years!!!!). Also, can I use a regular USB 1.1 cable? Is there a difference between USB cables (2.0 different than 1.1?). Thanks! Paula On 31 Jul 2006 17:25:13 -0700, pokee@shaw.ca wrote: >I am FINALLY getting around to getting a new printer - but I have a 4 >year o...

Toshiba Satellite 2410-S185 / PS241U-851457 is NOT USB 2.0 as advertised. It is only USB 1.1
I purchased a Toshiba laptop 2410-S185 from CDW almost a year ago The system specs claimed to support USB 2.0. This didn�t seem to be the case when I tried to get it working. I eventually looked up the Intel Chipset at Intel�s website and found it DOES NOT support 2.0 (Intel Chipset 82801CA) I spent 4 hours on the phone with Toshiba before I was upgraded to a lvel two tech and convinced them of the problem. They told me �Thank you for letting us know the error in our documentation, I�ll have someone fix that for you� Of course there is NO WAY they�re going to get off the hook that easy....

Linux: Oracle9i DB 9.2, Oracle9i DS 9.0.2, Oracle9i AS 1.0.2.2.1(Forms, Reports) on Fedora Core 1
I have installed with Philippe ALEXANDRE on a laptop Oracle9i DB 9.2, Oracle9i DS 9.0.2, Oracle9i AS 1.0.2.2.1(Forms6i, Reports6i) on Fedora Core 1 the 8th November 2003. All is running OK. Denis ALEXANDRE Assistant Manager, Banque Saradar France http://www.alexnet.fr/ P.S. I am using Oracle and Unix to create an Integrated Banking System since 1987. This banking system is installed in more than 25 other banks. ...

LaTex equation numbering like 2.1, 2.2, also 2.0.1, 2.0,2, 2.1.1, etc
David Roach wrote: > Is there a simple command to have latex number > the equations by the section numbers automatically. > > David From the LaTeX Companion (what a wonderful book!) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % number equations within sections % In preamble \makeatletter \@addtoreset{equation}{section} \makeatother \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Numbers within sections...I use this all the time in articles. Even works with ******************* ******************* Brilliant. And then I got numbering within subsections by repeating and editing (not replacing), so I now have:- (Just after the documentClass command) \makeatletter \@addtoreset{equation}{section} \makeatother \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}} \makeatletter \@addtoreset{equation}{subsection} \makeatother \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesubsection.\arabic{equation}} Bob Bob Marlow schrieb: > David Roach wrote: > >> Is there a simple command to have latex number >> the equations by the section numbers automatically. >> >> David > > From the LaTeX Companion (what a wonderful book!) > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > % number equations within sections > % In preamble > > \makeatletter > \@addtoreset{equation}{section} > \makeatother > \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}} > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% [more code] > Hi! I th...

HP PSC1210 USB 1.1 or USB 2?
Hi all, is this printer USB 1.1 or USB 2?? Everywhere I go to find this out, it only tells me its USB Which doesnt tell me a hell of a lot lol. Any info appreciated Cheers From the truly sketchy information on the HP web site, I would have to guess that the PSC1210 supports USB 1.1 and takes advantage of the higher throughput of USB 2.0. HP supports the product (drivers, etc) running with Windows 98, which, for all intents and purposes, knows nothing about USB 2.0... Ben Myers On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:19:08 +1300, "Paul" <goneouttolunch@home.com> wrote: >Hi all, is this printer USB 1.1 or USB 2?? > >Everywhere I go to find this out, it only tells me its USB > >Which doesnt tell me a hell of a lot lol. > >Any info appreciated > >Cheers > > Ta Ben. I finally got a tech online to chat with. And yup he said its definitely 1.1 and USB2. So, it'll make use of USB2 if u have USB 2 ports and a USB2 cable. <ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message news:41efbc8a.5083615@nntp.charter.net... > From the truly sketchy information on the HP web site, I would have to > guess > that the PSC1210 supports USB 1.1 and takes advantage of the higher > throughput > of USB 2.0. HP supports the product (drivers, etc) running with Windows > 98, > which, for all intents and purposes, knows nothing about USB 2.0... Ben > Myers > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:19:08 +1300, "P...

how can you tell if you have usb 1.1 or usb 2
How can you tell from windows 2000 if you have a usb1.1 or usb2.0 connector? "Laura" <handl@mts.net> wrote in message news:e0ddcf8.0407291201.1dc73116@posting.google.com... > > How can you tell from windows 2000 if you have a > usb1.1 or usb2.0 connector? Control Panel -> System -> Hardware -> Device Manager. Then right click on the USB hub(s) and click Properties. Another way is to plug in a known USB 2.0 device into the port. The system will pop a warning if the port is USB 1.1. dk "Laura" > How can you tell from windows 2000 if you have a usb1.1 or usb2.0 connector? plug something into it that runs on USB 2.0. You'll get an error message. Pat Laura wrote: > How can you tell from windows 2000 if you have a usb1.1 or usb2.0 > connector? Connectors for USB are the same for USB 1.1 or 2. Win2K does not support USB2 unless an MS patch is applied http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;319973 The link will answer your question. Even with the patch, it is up to the vendor to supply a Win2K compatible driver for USB2. Check that the USB device is in fact compatible. Q ...

USB 1.1/2.0 Implementation
Hi All Has anyone successfully implemented USB 2.0 or USB 1.1 protocol in Altera Device. If yes, can you pls start me off. I'm not able to make any progress in this. I have found couple of sites in ths area, but always end towards a brick wall. Help Pls Cheerio "SneakerNet" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message news:<fIObb.156268$JA5.3828849@news.xtra.co.nz>... > Hi All > > Has anyone successfully implemented USB 2.0 or USB 1.1 protocol in Altera > Device. If yes, can you pls start me off. I'm not able to make any progress > in this. I have fo...

USB 2-1.1 switching hub.
Is there such a thing as a switching hub? I.E. If I've got a USB2 port on a laptop, and want to connect 20 or so cheap webcams to it. (obviously with external power) The webcams pretty much saturate a 1.1 connection. (no, getting USB2 webcams is not possible, too expensive) -- http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inquisitor@i.am | Ian Stirling. ---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------- If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science, it is opinion. -- Robert A Heinlein. "Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> skrev i en meddelelse news:bjaqom$mmv$2$830fa78d@news.demon.co.uk... > Is there such a thing as a switching hub? > I.E. If I've got a USB2 port on a laptop, and want to connect 20 or so > cheap webcams to it. (obviously with external power) > The webcams pretty much saturate a 1.1 connection. There should be no problem as USB2 is fully backwards compatible with USB1.x. Zulu Zulu <zulu@toughn-o-s-p-a-mguy.net> wrote: > "Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> skrev i en meddelelse > news:bjaqom$mmv$2$830fa78d@news.demon.co.uk... >> Is there such a thing as a switching hub? >> I.E. If I've got a USB2 port on a laptop, and want to connect 20 or so >> cheap webcams to it. (obviously with external power) >> The webcams pretty much saturate a 1.1 connection. >...

usb 1.1 to 2.0 card?
I have a 3-4 year old Intel El Paso motherboard w/82845 chipset. It has 2 front mounted USB 1.1 ports. I traced the cable to the connector on the motherboard and it's easily accessible. My question: Is there a USB 2.0 PCI card out there that has an internal connector compatible with the motherboard connector? The idea being that I could just unplug the cable from the motherboard and plug it into my shiny new 2.0 card and have front accessible USB 2.0 ports. ? TIA </joel> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:11:37 GMT, "Joel" <joelycat@hotmail.com> wrote: >I have a ...

[ANN] gettext-2.0.1, gettext_activerecord-2.0.1, gettext_rails-2.0.1
Hi, Ruby-GetText-Package-2.0.1 and the families (gettext-2.0.1, gettext_activerecord-2.0.1 and gettext_rails-2.0.1) are now available. Ruby-GetText-Package is the library/tools for message localization. * gettext - Message localization libraries and tools for all kind of apps/libs. * gettext_activerecord - ActiveRecord Localization * gettext_rails - Rails support with gettext. Changes ------- * gettext-2.0.1 * Fixed bugs * doesn't work with ruby-1.8.5. [Reported by Dan Coutu] * GetText.locale= can't keep the locale. [Reported by Adam Ilan] * Break backward c...

Oracle server 9.2.0.1.0, Client 9.2.0.4.0, Red Hat Linux enterprise advanced server 2.1
Hi Everybody, My Database server is running on Red Hat Linux enterprise advanced server 2.1, And my Oracle version is 9.2.0.1.0. My Client mechine also Red Hat Linux enterprise advanced server 2.1 , Oracle client version is 9.2.0.4.0. I am running a web application. Our application is in Magic edeveloper. I connect to Oracle using oracle gateway to my application. My Problem is my application is is becoming slow. I am not able to trace where the problem is. Before our application was running fine. recently i upgraded Oracle client version to 9.2.0.4.0. My Oracle client & server versions are different. I am getting error on my client mechine, it showing all memory address on the screen and the part of error is, arg register addr=83498cc .... Dump of memory from 0x83988c to 0x83499cc .... -- End of Call stack trace -- I am not able to trace where the problem is.Any insight please... Thanks, Ssreddy. ...

USB 1.1 and 2.0 controllers in same PC?
I have a 3-month-old HP Pavilion a450n desktop computer running Windows XP SP1. I am curious about the USB controllers reported in Device Manager. I see 5 controllers, which appear like this: Intel(R) 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D2 Intel(R) 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D4 Intel(R) 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D7 Intel(R) 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24DE Intel(R) 82801EB USB2 Enhanced Host Controller - 24DD Can this be right? Do I really have 4 USB 1.1 controllers and only one USB 2.0 controller? If, as I suspect, this doesn't make sense, is my computer somehow misconfigured? (Also, what do the hex numbers shown in the above list refer to?) Thanks, - Bob ...

USB 2.0/1.1 to IDE adapter
I bought a USB 2.0/1.1 to IDE adapter recently and tried with a hard disk and CD writer successfully. However, I tried the Rocoh MP5125A DVD+RW/+R writer without success. The pc showed yellow question mark in hardware list. Is there any thing I can do to fix it? Is there any such adapter to make a bootable CD-ROM drive? Thanks, Ray ...

USB 1.1 cable on 2.0 printer?
Hello. Just ordered a Canon i560 printer; the specs say it has a USB 2.0 interface. I have some USB 1.1 cables floating around; can I use them on the 2.0 interface? Any signal integrity issues? Thanks! If you see a 'X' in my address, please remove it before e-mailing me. Do not add me to any MicroSoft address book; I do not want your viruses. I track and report spam; do not send me junk mail. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The FAQ files v1.21 for the Tropez, and v1.01 for the TBS-2001 sound boards can be obtained from: http://www.landfield.com/faqs/PCsoundcards/ http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~mccreary/tbeach/faq.html http://www.pasteur.fr/infosci/FAQ/PCsoundcards/ http://faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/comp/comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard.misc.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No physical difference between what's termed a 1.1 cable and a 2.0 cable. Cari www.coribright.com <TowXWang@umich.edu> wrote in message news:HkDgb.3315$H91.75519@news.itd.umich.edu... > Hello. > > Just ordered a Canon i560 printer; the specs say it has a USB 2.0 > interface. I have some USB 1.1 cables floating around; can I use them on > the 2.0 interface? Any signal integrity issues? > > Thanks! > > > > If you see a 'X' in my address, please remove it before e-mailing me. > Do not add me to any MicroSoft ad...

USB cables: Difference between 1.1 and 2.0 ???
Curious.... I used an *old USB cable* to connect my laptop's USB 2 port to a USB 2 device. I got a WinXP message (seemingly a little wrong) which claimed that I was using a low speed USB port and that moving the cable to a high speed port would result in higher rates. Bunch of questions, given that I cannot find cable wiring differences online. 1. Is there a difference between cables. 2. Did Windows XP get confused and respond to the slow cable as if it were instead a slow port. This seems like a silly error message. 3. Possibly unrelated: There is a lumpy th...

USB 1.1 vs. 2.0 and USBTMC
Hi group- I'm hoping some USB knowledgeable persons can help with this USBTMC (Test & Measurement Class) question... USBTMC prescribes two descriptors that are supported under 2.0 but not 1.1. They are the device qualifier and other-speed configuration descriptors. Neither have anything to do with USBTMC. Instead they seem to exist for 2.0 high-speed support. Does anyone know if it's a violation of the the USBTMC standard to implement USBTMC under the 1.1 standard thus forgoing the two extra 2.0 descriptors? JJS <johnspeth@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1124998933.396820.236390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Hi group- > > I'm hoping some USB knowledgeable persons can help with this USBTMC > (Test & Measurement Class) question... > > USBTMC prescribes two descriptors that are supported under 2.0 but not > 1.1. They are the device qualifier and other-speed configuration > descriptors. Neither have anything to do with USBTMC. Instead they > seem to exist for 2.0 high-speed support. This is a very wide-spread misunderstanding, but complying to USB 2.0 does not imply high-speed. I have made many USB 2.0 compliant full-speed devices, implemented using existing chips originally designed for USB 1.1. Set bcdUSB to 0x200, and stall when the host ask for the device qualifier. Thats all. Remember to test your implementation with usbcv. Leo Havm�ller. ...

2 counters, show numbering 1.2., print only 1. instead of 1.0.?
I've set up the counters & co, but how can it actually be done that the trailing zeros get omitted (also with 3 counters)? (somehow failed with ifthen package and just ran away from plain TeX..) K?rlis Repsons <karlis.repsons@gmail.com> wrote: > I've set up the counters & co, but how can it actually be done that > the trailing zeros get omitted (also with 3 counters)? > (somehow failed with ifthen package and just ran away from plain > TeX..) Replace "A" and "B" with the counter names: \renewcommand*{\theB}{% \arabic{A}% \ifnum\value{B}>0 % .\arabic{B}% \fi .% or without final dot } -- Heiko Oberdiek On May 3, 2:16=A0pm, Heiko Oberdiek <heiko.oberd...@googlemail.com> wrote: > K?rlis Repsons <karlis.reps...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've set up the counters & co, but how can it actually be done that > > the trailing zeros get omitted (also with 3 counters)? > > (somehow failed with ifthen package and just ran away from plain > > TeX..) > > Replace "A" and "B" with the counter names: > > \renewcommand*{\theB}{% > =A0 \arabic{A}% > =A0 \ifnum\value{B}>0 % > =A0 =A0 .\arabic{B}% > =A0 \fi > =A0 .% or without final dot > > } > > -- > Heiko Oberdiek Thanks... ...

Web resources about - Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1 - comp.os.linux.hardware

Generic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ;additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the ...

File:Text-x-generic with pencil.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This file contains additional information, probably added from the digital camera or scanner used to create or digitize it.If the file has been ...

OraBrush Buys 1.1 Million “Kisses” Fans, Marketers Actively Bidding for Generic Facebook Pages
The folks at OraBrush , a company that makes tongue cleaners aimed at curing bad breath, let us know this morning that they have successfully ...

Generic Racer (@GenericRacer) on Twitter
Sign in Sign up To bring you Twitter, we and our partners use cookies on our and other websites. Cookies help personalize Twitter content, tailor ...

Big Trivia Quiz - The generic knowledge game about everything on the App Store on iTunes
Get Big Trivia Quiz - The generic knowledge game about everything on the App Store. See screenshots and ratings, and read customer reviews.

generic beer can - Flickr - Photo Sharing!
any use of this image must credit kevin dean and direct a link to http://www.betaart.com

Generic Congressional Ballot: Democrats 41%, Republicans 40%
For the first time in roughly two-and-a-half years, Democrats lead Republicans on the Generic Congressional Ballot, this time for the week ending ...

How money is shaping Melbourne’s 'generic' apartments
The conservative lending practices of banks and financiers are contributing to a proliferation of &quot;generic&quot; one or two-bedroom apartments ...

CSIRO duped global drug firm with generic chemicals as 'secret formula'
The CSIRO has duped one of the world's biggest pharmaceutical companies into buying anti-counterfeit technology that could be easily compromised ...

ICANN Approves First Generic Top-Level Domains And They're Non-English
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is currently busy deciding the future of the internet in Durban, South Africa, ...

Resources last updated: 3/26/2016 12:22:39 AM