P4C800E-Deluxe USB2 driver for Adaptec 6-port PCI-USB Adapter

[Bob]

Paul and others,

WinXP SP2 fully updated.

Am taking Paul's advice and installing a PCI-USB adapter so I won't fry my
South Bridge by using the onboard USB connectors.
Just installed an Adaptec 6-port PCI-USB adapter (AUA-5100). Instructions
say XP will discover new hardware and start the wizard. When I powered up
after installing the card, bubbles poped up saying it was installing
drivers. I never even used the CD that came with the adapter.
Device manager now looks like this:
Intel 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D2
Intel 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D4
Intel 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D7
NEC PCI to USB Open Host Controller
NEC PCI to USB Open Host Controller
Standard Enhanced PCI to USB Host Controller
Standard Enhanced PCI to USB Host Controller
USB Root Hub (there 7 entries like this)

I believe the the two NEC entries are only saying that I have USB 1.1 on the
new Adaptec adapter. Don't I need to have an entry saying Adaptec xxx PCI to
USB Enhanced Host Controller to actually have USB2 on the Adaptec adapter?

Thanks all,
Bob

 

[Jason Backshall]

I believe the the two NEC entries are only saying that I have USB 1.1 on
the new Adaptec adapter. Don't I need to have an entry saying Adaptec xxx
PCI to USB Enhanced Host Controller to actually have USB2 on the Adaptec
adapter?

Not too sure.

That said - I'd be included to use the drivers off the CD over the ones
Windows supplies any day. It may be worth jumping into the device properties
and using the 'Update Driver' function with the CD inserted? Or even if
there's a setup.exe on the CD....

Either way, it's got to be better than what you're running now

J.

 

[Paul]

Paul and others,

WinXP SP2 fully updated.

Am taking Paul's advice and installing a PCI-USB adapter so I won't fry my
South Bridge by using the onboard USB connectors.
Just installed an Adaptec 6-port PCI-USB adapter (AUA-5100). Instructions
say XP will discover new hardware and start the wizard. When I powered up
after installing the card, bubbles poped up saying it was installing
drivers. I never even used the CD that came with the adapter.
Device manager now looks like this:
Intel 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D2
Intel 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D4
Intel 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D7
NEC PCI to USB Open Host Controller
NEC PCI to USB Open Host Controller
Standard Enhanced PCI to USB Host Controller
Standard Enhanced PCI to USB Host Controller
USB Root Hub (there 7 entries like this)

I believe the the two NEC entries are only saying that I have USB 1.1 on the
new Adaptec adapter. Don't I need to have an entry saying Adaptec xxx PCI to
USB Enhanced Host Controller to actually have USB2 on the Adaptec adapter?

Thanks all,
Bob

From the Adaptec manual:

Controller Number of Description
type controllers

USB 1.1 2 NEC USB OHCI-compliant
USB 2.0 1 Adaptec AUA-xx00 PCI to USB EHCI-compliant

It appears neither your Intel Southbridge nor the Adaptec card,
is currently doing USB2. According to the ICH5 datasheet, the USB
1.1 have Device Identification of 24D2h 24D4h 24D7h 24DEh, and the
USB 2.0 is 24DD.

According to Adaptec, you can either use their driver, or the
default Microsoft driver.

http://ask.adaptec.com/cgi-bin/adaptec_tic.cfg/php/enduser/popup_adp.php?p_faqid=4339

I wish I knew for sure, whether the info on the following site
was up to date. I'm having a hard time believing separate chip
drivers are necessary at this late date.

http://www.usbman.com/USB 2 News.htm
http://www.usbman.com/Guides/checking_for_usb_2.htm
http://www.usbman.com/Guides/Cleanup Device Manager Safe Mode.htm

I would try the Safe Mode procedure, then reboot and let Windows
discover the USB hardware again. To me, using the Adaptec driver
only spells trouble, if Microsoft ever patches something.

Paul

 

[Robert Hancock]

Paul and others,

WinXP SP2 fully updated.

Am taking Paul's advice and installing a PCI-USB adapter so I won't fry my
South Bridge by using the onboard USB connectors.
Just installed an Adaptec 6-port PCI-USB adapter (AUA-5100). Instructions
say XP will discover new hardware and start the wizard. When I powered up
after installing the card, bubbles poped up saying it was installing
drivers. I never even used the CD that came with the adapter.
Device manager now looks like this:
Intel 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D2
Intel 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D4
Intel 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D7
NEC PCI to USB Open Host Controller
NEC PCI to USB Open Host Controller
Standard Enhanced PCI to USB Host Controller
Standard Enhanced PCI to USB Host Controller
USB Root Hub (there 7 entries like this)

I believe the the two NEC entries are only saying that I have USB 1.1 on the
new Adaptec adapter. Don't I need to have an entry saying Adaptec xxx PCI to
USB Enhanced Host Controller to actually have USB2 on the Adaptec adapter?

Thanks all,
Bob

I think it's fine.. one of the "Standard Enhanced PCI to USB Host
Controller" entries should be the USB 2.0 part of the card. The "NEC PCI
to USB Open Host Controller" entries are the OHCI companion controllers
for USB 1.1.

 

[Paul]

I think it's fine.. one of the "Standard Enhanced PCI to USB Host
Controller" entries should be the USB 2.0 part of the card. The "NEC PCI
to USB Open Host Controller" entries are the OHCI companion controllers
for USB 1.1.

Damn, I missed that... Didn't even see the word Enhanced there.
Sorry about that. I'm just surprised the word "Intel" doesn't
appear on at least one of them.

Paul

 

[Bob]

Thanks for responding Paul and Robert, I appreciate your answers.

 

[GinTonix]

Thanks for responding Paul and Robert, I appreciate your answers.

A small addendum to this subject: I'm not sure whether you already have
done it but if you haven't, go to mobo bios and disable the onboard USB.
This will not make it more secure to connect the USB devices to the
onboard ports but it surely will reduce general confusion when setting
up things and updating drivers. The not-to-be-used onboard ports just
add some stuff on different screens and confuse both you and Windows.
So, disable them and it might even give some more performance.

Just my few cents.

One more thing: how would one disable the onboard ports physically, too?
I mean, how about stuffing the port to make it virtually impossible to
stick anything else in? Like a chastity belt or something... Maybe a
small plate of plexiglass or plastics would do the trick. By doing this
noone not knowing about the possibility of frying the mobo (like your
best friend, wife, son...) couldn't use the ports without at least
thinking that something must be going on if they are blocked intentionally.

 

[Monroe]

Late in coming on to this thread, what is the concern with using the
onboard USB ports?

 

[GinTonix]

Late in coming on to this thread, what is the concern with using the
onboard USB ports?

All I know is that if you use the onboard USB ports on a P4C800 series
mobo, you might fry the southbridge (was that the problem in a
nutshell?). The reason has something to do with static electricity and
looping currents. The way to stay out of trouble is just not to use the
onboard (including possible front panel installations using the ready
headers onboard) ports. If you need USB, go and buy a PCI card.

 

[jayson]

All I know is that if you use the onboard USB ports on a P4C800 series
mobo, you might fry the southbridge (was that the problem in a
nutshell?). The reason has something to do with static electricity and
looping currents. The way to stay out of trouble is just not to use the
onboard (including possible front panel installations using the ready
headers onboard) ports. If you need USB, go and buy a PCI card.

That adds $15 dollars to the cost of the board. Is this purely a
physical problem or can Asus do something about it with software?

 

[Robert Hancock]

That adds $15 dollars to the cost of the board. Is this purely a
physical problem or can Asus do something about it with software?

That would be a hardware problem, nothing that could be fixed in software.

If the southbridge does indeed have this latchup problem, you'd think
Intel would have come out with a new stepping of the chip that fixes it.
I have no idea if this has actually happened or if it is being used yet,
however.