USB/USB-2 How can I tell?

[ChrisM]

Hi,

First, to find out if I had a USB2 port, I'd plug in a Flash drive and see how
fast it transferred the data. If it is about 1 MB per second I think that would
be USB2.

Good suggestion, problem is I don't have any USB2devices available (except
for a mouse 8-/). The reason I was trying to find out if I had USB2 was
because I was trying to decide if I should buy a USB2 drive...

Second, even though a computer is not USB2 capable there are drivers available
(at www.microadvantage.net ) that will "convert" the USB1 to USB2.

Let me get this straight...

You're saying that you can get a driver (Software only, no hardware) that
will convert USB1 to USB2??

Woh! Even as a bit of a thicket when it comes to hardware, I can't see how
that would work...having said that, if it does then, Great!

I am off to research this at once!

Cheers,

ChrisM

 

[ChrisM]

Hopefully all apologies to all parties accepted...
;-)
;-)
;-)


This thread is becoming somthing of an epic for such a simple question!

Cheers and have a nice weekend... (Doh! it's Friday tomorrow!)

ChersM.

 

[kony]

Hi,


Good suggestion, problem is I don't have any USB2devices available (except
for a mouse 8-/). The reason I was trying to find out if I had USB2 was
because I was trying to decide if I should buy a USB2 drive...

Always buy the faster interface (USB2) over USB1. USB2 is backwards
compatible and someday you will have a system with USB2 so you won't need
a new drive (caddy?).

Let me get this straight...

You're saying that you can get a driver (Software only, no hardware) that
will convert USB1 to USB2??

Woh! Even as a bit of a thicket when it comes to hardware, I can't see how
that would work...having said that, if it does then, Great!

If a port is (by design, the hardware itself) USB1, there is no possible
way to use a driver to make it into USB2, it is impossible. What is
possible, is for a USB2 port to be operating in USB1 mode until correct
driver and/or operating system support is installed. Your motherboard,
assuming it is the i810 chipset as I linked previously, does not have any
chance of having it's ports run as USB2 ports. USB2 PCI cards are fairly
cheap though, it may be worth the cost for an external drive used
regularly or with large files.

 

[Trent©]

Hi,


Good suggestion, problem is I don't have any USB2devices available (except
for a mouse 8-/). The reason I was trying to find out if I had USB2 was
because I was trying to decide if I should buy a USB2 drive...

You can purchase a USB card (with front and/or rear ports...plus
internal) usually for around $20 retail.


Have a nice week...

Trent©

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

 

[Stacey]

Thanks for your friendly answer. (not!)
I have a PC running Windows2000, I asked if anyone could tell me how to
tell if it had USB-2.
What further information do you require?

If you actually even have USB2.0 hardware?

 

[Stacey]

USB2 PCI cards are fairly
cheap though, it may be worth the cost for an external drive used
regularly or with large files.

But if I was going to have to buy a card, I'd use firewire rather than USB2.

 

[Stacey]

No add on card, just the built in connectors. I looked for that before my
original post. I was fairly sure that it only had USB1, I just wanted an
expert opinion on how to be sure (probably just wishful thinking....)

I'm convinced now that I don't have USB-2. So need to re-think my options.

Like I posted in another place, if you have to buy a card, go with firewire
instead. Less overhead and faster throughput.

 

[~misfit~]

Like I posted in another place, if you have to buy a card, go with
firewire instead. Less overhead and faster throughput.

<cough>Bullshit<cough>.

Please back up this statement with URLs for a couple of reliable
reviews/tests.

 

[Stacey]

~misfit~ wrote:

<cough>Bullshit<cough>.

Please back up this statement with URLs for a couple of reliable
reviews/tests.

Sure how many you want to see? I can find dozens...

http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20030411/wd_external_hd-09.html

The performance of the Western Digital external combo drive in our tests
displayed a trend that we have repeatedly observed with other hardware
components: you can achieve a substantially better performance with
FireWire than with USB 2.0, even though USB offers a theoretical throughput
of 480 Mbps compared with "only" 400 Mbps with FireWire.

http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/supergeek/story/0,24330,3393571,00.html

Don't be confused by the rated speeds you see emblazoned across USB 2.0 and
FireWire product boxes. Despite USB 2.0's 80 Kbps speed advantage over
FireWire, our testing showed that the additional overhead of USB 2.0 made
it slower than FireWire. For high-bandwidth devices such as external hard
drives, the difference was as high as 70 percent.

http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/supergeek/jump/0,24331,3393574,00.html

Benchmarks between the two interfaces.

http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20030411/wd_external_hd-09.html

The performance of the Western Digital external combo drive in our tests
displayed a trend that we have repeatedly observed with other hardware
components: you can achieve a substantially better performance with
FireWire than with USB 2.0, even though USB offers a theoretical throughput
of 480 Mbps compared with "only" 400 Mbps with FireWire.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcact00f/311/termProjects/700class/USB2.0vsFireWire.pdf

Some paper on the differences between them.

Here's a quote from PC magazine.

"Though USB 2.0 is rated at a higher throughput speed, FireWire delivered
faster performance on external hard drives when connected to a desktop."


http://www.frozentech.com/article.php?story_id=27

From these results we see that Firewire trounced USB2 in two ways. The first
was that data was read almost twice as fast as USB2. Writing data occurred
at similar speeds using both Firewire and USB2. The second advantage
appeared from the CPU utilization. On both computers, Firewire used a
significantly less amount of the CPU than USB2 when transferring data.
According to these benchmarks, Firewire appears to be the better choice for
an external hard drive.

http://www.kcgeek.com/archives/features/ask_meanie_usb_vs_firewire_omelettes_and_add/031302.html

FireWire can sustain peak throughput indefinitely, without taxing your CPU,
and is inherently peer-to-peer. USB2.0 is not inherently peer-to-peer and
requires significantly more CPU to maximize throughput. 1394 is generally
regarded to be a superior interface, somewhat analagous to being the SCSI
to USB2.0's EIDE.



http://www.macopinion.com/columns/macskeptic/02/02/08/

So where does Firewire fit in? Well, there are things Firewire can do which
USB 2.0 either can't do, or can't do as easily. It's a peer-to-peer
protocol while USB is a master-slave protocol (at least until USB On-The-Go
becomes more prevalent) and USB isn't designed for high performance
isochronous tasks. Thus a USB 2.0 hard drive is fine for typical use, most
business use other than high performace databases and so on while a
Firewire hard drive will be the choice for high performance systems like
video capture and high volume databases. The best analogy is IDE vs SCSI
where USB is IDE and Firewire is SCSI.

----------------------------------------------

Now it's your turn (after calling my post bullshit), -you- post info that
claims USB has less overhead and faster -throughput- than firewire. The
only thing USB2.0 has going for it is backwards compatibility and it's
cheap to implement. If someone has to buy a card they are MUCH better off
going with firewire if the devices they are going to use supports either
one.

 

[kony]

But if I was going to have to buy a card, I'd use firewire rather than USB2.

True, firewire is better for a single point use, but if the drive needs be
moved around to other systems at least the others would have USB1
providing they're not quite ancient. Then again firewire is becoming more
popular on motherbords so in the future (or to some people with systems
currently supporting it) that will be less of an issue.

 

[~misfit~]

~misfit~ wrote:



Sure how many you want to see? I can find dozens...

http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20030411/wd_external_hd-09.html

The performance of the Western Digital external combo drive in our
tests displayed a trend that we have repeatedly observed with other
hardware components: you can achieve a substantially better
performance with FireWire than with USB 2.0, even though USB offers a
theoretical throughput of 480 Mbps compared with "only" 400 Mbps with
FireWire.

http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/supergeek/story/0,24330,3393571,00.html

Don't be confused by the rated speeds you see emblazoned across USB
2.0 and FireWire product boxes. Despite USB 2.0's 80 Kbps speed
advantage over FireWire, our testing showed that the additional
overhead of USB 2.0 made it slower than FireWire. For high-bandwidth
devices such as external hard drives, the difference was as high as
70 percent.

http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/supergeek/jump/0,24331,3393574,00.html

Benchmarks between the two interfaces.

http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20030411/wd_external_hd-09.html

The performance of the Western Digital external combo drive in our
tests displayed a trend that we have repeatedly observed with other
hardware components: you can achieve a substantially better
performance with FireWire than with USB 2.0, even though USB offers a
theoretical throughput of 480 Mbps compared with "only" 400 Mbps with
FireWire.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcact00f/311/termProjects/700class/USB2.0vsFireWire.pdf

Some paper on the differences between them.

Here's a quote from PC magazine.

"Though USB 2.0 is rated at a higher throughput speed, FireWire
delivered faster performance on external hard drives when connected
to a desktop."


http://www.frozentech.com/article.php?story_id=27

From these results we see that Firewire trounced USB2 in two ways.
The first was that data was read almost twice as fast as USB2.
Writing data occurred at similar speeds using both Firewire and USB2.
The second advantage appeared from the CPU utilization. On both
computers, Firewire used a significantly less amount of the CPU than
USB2 when transferring data. According to these benchmarks, Firewire
appears to be the better choice for an external hard drive.

http://www.kcgeek.com/archives/features/ask_meanie_usb_vs_firewire_omelettes
_and_add/031302.html

FireWire can sustain peak throughput indefinitely, without taxing
your CPU, and is inherently peer-to-peer. USB2.0 is not inherently
peer-to-peer and requires significantly more CPU to maximize
throughput. 1394 is generally regarded to be a superior interface,
somewhat analagous to being the SCSI to USB2.0's EIDE.



http://www.macopinion.com/columns/macskeptic/02/02/08/

So where does Firewire fit in? Well, there are things Firewire can do
which USB 2.0 either can't do, or can't do as easily. It's a
peer-to-peer protocol while USB is a master-slave protocol (at least
until USB On-The-Go becomes more prevalent) and USB isn't designed
for high performance isochronous tasks. Thus a USB 2.0 hard drive is
fine for typical use, most business use other than high performace
databases and so on while a Firewire hard drive will be the choice
for high performance systems like video capture and high volume
databases. The best analogy is IDE vs SCSI where USB is IDE and
Firewire is SCSI.

----------------------------------------------

Now it's your turn (after calling my post bullshit), -you- post info
that claims USB has less overhead and faster -throughput- than
firewire. The only thing USB2.0 has going for it is backwards
compatibility and it's cheap to implement. If someone has to buy a
card they are MUCH better off going with firewire if the devices they
are going to use supports either one.

Thanks for the info, I retract my "Bullshit" comment. I've not used either
so have no frame of reference other than the quoted through-put figures.
That helps considerably. I do like the fact that USB is more ubiquitous than
'FireWire' (I hate the term 'FireWire', how spindoctor marketing-speak can
you get? That's probably part of my preference for USB2, aversion to being
treated as a 'consumer drone'). ("Wow. *FireWire* huh? That must be *rilly*
fast!!) making the device more versatile.

 

[Alien Zord]

I hate the term 'FireWire', how spindoctor marketing-speak can
you get?

Well, the alternative is IEEE thirteen ninety-four. When I say that to
customers I usually get a blank look so have to re-state "firewire".

 

[Stacey]

~misfit~ wrote:

I do like the fact that USB is more ubiquitous
than 'FireWire' (I hate the term 'FireWire', how spindoctor
marketing-speak can you get?)

Given how everything in this industry is that way (AMD's product numbering,
"hyperthread", Intel's Ghz over real performance etc etc), you pick this
one name to shun this superior product? How many people would remember IEEE
1394? :-/

 

[~misfit~]

~misfit~ wrote:



Given how everything in this industry is that way (AMD's product
numbering, "hyperthread", Intel's Ghz over real performance etc etc),
you pick this one name to shun this superior product? How many people
would remember IEEE 1394? :-/

Me for one.

AMDs product numbering was a response to Intel pushing the Megahertz Myth
and I have no problem with it. "Hyperthreading" is a bit annoying. However.
"Firewire" is a whole different ballgame. IMO it goes too far. If they
hadn't named it something pathetic like IEEE 1394 in the first place there
would have been no need for "Firewire". But then again, that wouldn't have
suited their marketing plans, to call it something reasonable.

Does IEEE 1394 need SP1 installed to work on XP like USB2 does?

 

[Stacey]

~misfit~ wrote:

Does IEEE 1394 need SP1 installed to work on XP like USB2 does?

Win98SE came with drivers for it so I'd hope XP would work without
patches. ;-)