USB 2 question

[kdkrone]

Well, then, I have a question that has been raised as I have been doing my research for a new motherboard and that is about USB 2.

I have been using NT4 as my OS and one of the reasons that I want to move to Win2K is for USB support. I have a SCSI backbone, so my scanner is SCSI and I don't think I will replace it just yet. My questions are: 1, is the support for USB 2 something that can be changed in the BIOS or does it require a motherboard with different hardware, and 2, practically, what needs that kind of transfer rate? Does anyone know if ABIT offers support for USB 2 yet? I do not see that is the case in their list of motherboards.

Thanks,
Ken Krone

 

[DHL]

<< is the support for USB 2 something that can be changed in the BIOS or does it require a motherboard with different hardware >>



U will need different hardware, a bios upgrade would not upgrade your USB 1.1 to 2.0. However, u can keep your motherboard if you find a USB 2.0 PCI card.



<< practically, what needs that kind of transfer rate >>



External HDD, external CD burner, and may be some firewire device of today....etc

I am not too sure about Abit..

Hope this help

DHL

 

[Eug]

Like he said, USB 2 requires new hardware (which can just mean a USB 2 card).

In practice, I'd suggest avoiding USB 2 at the moment because it's quite immature. If you need high bandwidth non-SCSI devices, I'd go for Firewire (IEEE1394) instead. The devices have been in use for quite a while and the market is much more established.

Also, if you're moving for USB support, also consider XP. Despite the immaturity of XP, I seem to have better support for my devices under XP than under Win 2000. OTOH, not all devices work well with XP so it depends on your hardware.

 

[kdkrone]

Eug and DHL

Thanks for your posts.

Actually, I do have a SCSI system and one of the reasons that I want to migrate from NT4 is that I am running out of PCI slots on my present motherboard.

Sounds like I can always add on a PCI USB card to a new system and get all kinds of toys hooked up.

I don't know the stats but I assume that a PCI bus can handle a lot more throughput than USB 2 transfer rate can throw at it (?)--is that correct?
Anyone know the numbers? My SCSI burst speed is 80MB/sec, and there are burst rates in newer equipment up to 160, so what can a PCI bus handle?

Thanks
Ken K

 

[Eug]

<< Eug and DHL

Thanks for your posts.

Actually, I do have a SCSI system and one of the reasons that I want to migrate from NT4 is that I am running out of PCI slots on my present motherboard.

Sounds like I can always add on a PCI USB card to a new system and get all kinds of toys hooked up.

I don't know the stats but I assume that a PCI bus can handle a lot more throughput than USB 2 transfer rate can throw at it (?)--is that correct?
Anyone know the numbers? My SCSI burst speed is 80MB/sec, and there are burst rates in newer equipment up to 160, so what can a PCI bus handle?

Thanks
Ken K >>


Some questions:

1) Why so much interest in speed? It's not as if much equipment can even come close to 80 MB in sustained transfer rates. Firewire is rated at 400 Mbps (50 MB/s) and USB 2 at 480 (60 MB/s), but in real life usage it seems that Firewire tops out at about 35 MB/s and USB 2 is probably similar (although at higher CPU usage). Granted, that does slightly hold back the fastest IDE drives right now, since a few are hitting speeds of 40+ MB/s.

2) Why specifically USB 2? Firewire is arguably the "better" technology today when compared against USB 2. (I'm assuming you mean USB 2 but you do say USB above.

 

[kdkrone]

EUG

<<<<<<<<<<<<Also, if you're moving for USB support, also consider XP. Despite the immaturity of XP, I seem to have better support for my devices under XP than under Win 2000. OTOH, not all devices work well with XP so it depends on your hardware.>>>>>>>>>>

I thought I would start out with Win2K, as I have a new copy that I have not yet installed (I never had a weekend to devote to doing it...!) If there are problems, I will try XP. Frankly, what are the big differences between them? I have been running a home network with NT4, Win98 and WinMe on various computers using TCP/IP without much hassle. I intend to add a wireless access node, but that can all be done with my current OS and I believe that the 2K and XP kernels are based on NT. What might one gain?

Thanks
Ken

 

[kdkrone]

<<

<< Eug and DHL

1) Why so much interest in speed? It's not as if much equipment can even come close to 80 MB in sustained transfer rates. Firewire is rated at 400 Mbps (50 MB/s) and USB 2 at 480 (60 MB/s), but in real life usage it seems that Firewire tops out at about 35 MB/s and USB 2 is probably similar (although at higher CPU usage). Granted, that does slightly hold back the fastest IDE drives right now, since a few are hitting speeds of 40+ MB/s.

2) Why specifically USB 2? Firewire is arguably the "better" technology today when compared against USB 2. (I'm assuming you mean USB 2 but you do say USB above. >>



2. first. Yes, I meant USB 2. Not sure why I am fixated on it, actually! Probably because I don't want to purchase new equipment that will be outmoded shortly, not that any of us have ever done that... ;-)

1. You know, I think that I suffer from "behind-the-curve-itis" which began in the mid-80's and, until the past few years, has become less acute. For the longest time, whenever I purchased something, it was always a couple of generations behind which explained its affordability. Now, with a striped SCSI Cheetahs and a 450 PIII, I do OK and have done so for quite a while. The only issue with speed now is to run a new OS (either Win2K or XP) and to load large databases. The greater the transfer speed, the less time spent waiting, but I have to admit that I don't have to wait all that long now.... so it is good that you have called the issue into question and helped to get me more centered.

Thanks,
Ken

 

[Eug]

<< EUG

<<<<<<<<<<<<Also, if you're moving for USB support, also consider XP. Despite the immaturity of XP, I seem to have better support for my devices under XP than under Win 2000. OTOH, not all devices work well with XP so it depends on your hardware.>>>>>>>>>>

I thought I would start out with Win2K, as I have a new copy that I have not yet installed (I never had a weekend to devote to doing it...!) If there are problems, I will try XP. Frankly, what are the big differences between them? I have been running a home network with NT4, Win98 and WinMe on various computers using TCP/IP without much hassle. I intend to add a wireless access node, but that can all be done with my current OS and I believe that the 2K and XP kernels are based on NT. What might one gain?

Thanks
Ken >>


XP is 2000 with bug fixes and a much purrrdier GUI. It seems to support some devices better (because of the bug fixes), but others not at all (because of some new bugs and the relative lack of drivers). Both XP and 2000 are sequels to NT 4.

NT is far too old to be of any use in the multimedia context. (I run NT 4 on my office computer, 2000 on our departmental graphics computer, and XP along with Mac OS X at home.) Both XP and 2000 are way more stable than 98 and ME.

P.S. I have a wireless access point by the way. I also am running a Firewire external drive under XP. Way better than external SCSI in that when you want to use it you just plug it in and when you're done you just unplug it. You don't even have to turn it off, and XP simply knows if the drive is there or not. Or you can just leave it attached if you wish. Same with my Firewire CompactFlash reader but with that it's even easier, since it gets powered off of the Firewire port directly. No external power source required. And for Firewire devices, there are no terminators or SCSI ID conflicts to worry about either. USB 2 should be the same, but right now it's too early to say if USB 2 plug and play works reliably or not.