Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1 - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1 - Ubuntu ; 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

  1. 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

  2. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:34:02 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"
    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

  3. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    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.


  4. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    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?
    >
    > 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


  5. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    "Yousuf Khan" 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).


  6. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    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?


  7. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    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

  8. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    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

  9. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    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

  10. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan 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 |

  11. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:01:01 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
    wrote:

    >In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan 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


  12. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    "Yousuf Khan" 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?


  13. Re: 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


    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.

  14. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    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

  15. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    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"
    > 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)?

    >
    >--
    >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


  16. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    In article ,
    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"
    > > 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

  17. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:57:09 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"
    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

  18. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    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"
    > 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


  19. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    "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.


  20. Re: Generic USB 2.0 hub showing up as USB 1.1

    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.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast