Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

[Guest Dan]

I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability within

NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and ME

effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see:

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx

 

http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

 

http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W

[Guest someone watching]

Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY usb

working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain!

Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/

___

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com...

>I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability

>within

> NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and ME

> effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see:

>

> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx

>

> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

>

> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W

>

>

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a joke?

 

someone watching wrote:

> Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY usb

> working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain!

> Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/

> ___

> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com...

>> I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability

>> within

>> NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and ME

>> effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see:

>>

>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx

>>

>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

>>

>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W

[Guest Gary S. Terhune]

Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=USB3

 

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://grystmill.com

 

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:eMRCh6O7IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a joke?

>

> someone watching wrote:

>> Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY usb

>> working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain!

>> Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/

>> ___

>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>> news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com...

>>> I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability

>>> within

>>> NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and ME

>>> effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see:

>>>

>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx

>>>

>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

>>>

>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W

>

>

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

Well, ok then, although how this could actually be installable and useable

in a Win98 environment, remains to be seen. I'm bettting that won't

happen.

 

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=USB3

>

> --

> Gary S. Terhune

> MS-MVP Shell/User

> http://grystmill.com

>

> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> news:eMRCh6O7IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a joke?

>>

>> someone watching wrote:

>>> Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY usb

>>> working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain!

>>> Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/

>>> ___

>>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>>> news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com...

>>>> I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability

>>>> within

>>>> NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and ME

>>>> effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see:

>>>>

>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx

>>>>

>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

>>>>

>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W

[Guest Gary S. Terhune]

Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

Who said anything about USB 3 in Win9x? In fact, I don't see where USB 3

came up in this thread in the first place. One of Dan's links?

 

It's not impossible, I don't think, just highly unlikely that anyone will

bother to write the drivers that would allow USB 3 to work in any Win9x

system. Would either be native to the motherboard or a PCI Express card (I

think.)

 

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://grystmill.com

 

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:u1fTEMP7IHA.1468@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Well, ok then, although how this could actually be installable and useable

> in a Win98 environment, remains to be seen. I'm bettting that won't

> happen.

>

> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=USB3

>>

>> --

>> Gary S. Terhune

>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>> http://grystmill.com

>>

>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>> news:eMRCh6O7IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>> I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a

>>> joke?

>>>

>>> someone watching wrote:

>>>> Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY

>>>> usb

>>>> working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain!

>>>> Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/

>>>> ___

>>>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com...

>>>>> I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability

>>>>> within

>>>>> NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and ME

>>>>> effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see:

>>>>>

>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx

>>>>>

>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

>>>>>

>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W

>

>

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

This was posted to the win98 newsgroup. Right? Right.

 

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> Who said anything about USB 3 in Win9x? In fact, I don't see where USB 3

> came up in this thread in the first place. One of Dan's links?

>

> It's not impossible, I don't think, just highly unlikely that anyone will

> bother to write the drivers that would allow USB 3 to work in any Win9x

> system. Would either be native to the motherboard or a PCI Express card (I

> think.)

>

> --

> Gary S. Terhune

> MS-MVP Shell/User

> http://grystmill.com

>

> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> news:u1fTEMP7IHA.1468@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> Well, ok then, although how this could actually be installable and

>> useable

>> in a Win98 environment, remains to be seen. I'm bettting that won't

>> happen.

>>

>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=USB3

>>>

>>> --

>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>> http://grystmill.com

>>>

>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>> news:eMRCh6O7IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>> I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a

>>>> joke?

>>>>

>>>> someone watching wrote:

>>>>> Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY

>>>>> usb

>>>>> working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain!

>>>>> Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/

>>>>> ___

>>>>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com...

>>>>>> I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability

>>>>>> within

>>>>>> NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and

>>>>>> ME

>>>>>> effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx

>>>>>>

>>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

>>>>>>

>>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W

[Guest Gary S. Terhune]

Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

YOU are the first person I can see in this thread to mention USB3. That

doesn't mean someone else didn't mention it, but there are a few reasons why

I might not have seen the mention, because you're talking to at least a

couple of people whom I have blocked. I simply answered your question and

now you go off on me like it was the most OT item possible. If I missed

something, clue me in. OK? OK!

 

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://grystmill.com

 

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:%23IfVlZQ7IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> This was posted to the win98 newsgroup. Right? Right.

>

> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>> Who said anything about USB 3 in Win9x? In fact, I don't see where USB 3

>> came up in this thread in the first place. One of Dan's links?

>>

>> It's not impossible, I don't think, just highly unlikely that anyone will

>> bother to write the drivers that would allow USB 3 to work in any Win9x

>> system. Would either be native to the motherboard or a PCI Express card

>> (I

>> think.)

>>

>> --

>> Gary S. Terhune

>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>> http://grystmill.com

>>

>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>> news:u1fTEMP7IHA.1468@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>> Well, ok then, although how this could actually be installable and

>>> useable

>>> in a Win98 environment, remains to be seen. I'm bettting that won't

>>> happen.

>>>

>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=USB3

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>> http://grystmill.com

>>>>

>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:eMRCh6O7IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>> I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a

>>>>> joke?

>>>>>

>>>>> someone watching wrote:

>>>>>> Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY

>>>>>> usb

>>>>>> working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain!

>>>>>> Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/

>>>>>> ___

>>>>>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com...

>>>>>>> I was wondering this because of the recently discovered

>>>>>>> vulnerability

>>>>>>> within

>>>>>>> NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and

>>>>>>> ME

>>>>>>> effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W

>

>

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

The subject title of the thread above is: "Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98

Second Edition", right? Right.

And unless I am mistaken, this is the win98 newsgroup (to which it is

posted).

 

So as you can see, the subject is USB 3.0, and whether it will run on

Win98SE. So where is the confusion? You were the one who asked below,

"Who said anything about USB 3 in Win9x?" Well, win98SE is part of the

Win9x family, unless you know something different. :-)

 

 

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> YOU are the first person I can see in this thread to mention USB3. That

> doesn't mean someone else didn't mention it, but there are a few reasons

> why

> I might not have seen the mention, because you're talking to at least a

> couple of people whom I have blocked. I simply answered your question and

> now you go off on me like it was the most OT item possible. If I missed

> something, clue me in. OK? OK!

>

> --

> Gary S. Terhune

> MS-MVP Shell/User

> http://grystmill.com

>

> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> news:%23IfVlZQ7IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> This was posted to the win98 newsgroup. Right? Right.

>>

>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>> Who said anything about USB 3 in Win9x? In fact, I don't see where USB 3

>>> came up in this thread in the first place. One of Dan's links?

>>>

>>> It's not impossible, I don't think, just highly unlikely that anyone

>>> will

>>> bother to write the drivers that would allow USB 3 to work in any Win9x

>>> system. Would either be native to the motherboard or a PCI Express card

>>> (I think.)

>>>

>>> --

>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>> http://grystmill.com

>>>

>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>> news:u1fTEMP7IHA.1468@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>> Well, ok then, although how this could actually be installable and

>>>> useable

>>>> in a Win98 environment, remains to be seen. I'm bettting that won't

>>>> happen.

>>>>

>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=USB3

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>> http://grystmill.com

>>>>>

>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>> news:eMRCh6O7IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a

>>>>>> joke?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> someone watching wrote:

>>>>>>> Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY

>>>>>>> usb

>>>>>>> working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain!

>>>>>>> Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/

>>>>>>> ___

>>>>>>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com...

>>>>>>>> I was wondering this because of the recently discovered

>>>>>>>> vulnerability

>>>>>>>> within

>>>>>>>> NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and

>>>>>>>> ME

>>>>>>>> effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W

[Guest Gary S. Terhune]

Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

You're right, I was only reading the posts, not the subject line.

 

The answer to your question, of course, is that the whole thread is the work

of Dan. The man of endless questions and limited retention, not to mention a

serious issue with redundancy. That's why I block him.

 

My question is then, "What does DNS poisoning have to do with this thread?"

 

Anyway, I hope you all are satisfied with the answers I've given. The answer

to the question posed in the Subject is, "Not bloody likely!!!"

 

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://grystmill.com

 

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:O$2XJDT7IHA.1420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> The subject title of the thread above is: "Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98

> Second Edition", right? Right.

> And unless I am mistaken, this is the win98 newsgroup (to which it is

> posted).

>

> So as you can see, the subject is USB 3.0, and whether it will run on

> Win98SE. So where is the confusion? You were the one who asked below,

> "Who said anything about USB 3 in Win9x?" Well, win98SE is part of the

> Win9x family, unless you know something different. :-)

>

>

> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>> YOU are the first person I can see in this thread to mention USB3. That

>> doesn't mean someone else didn't mention it, but there are a few reasons

>> why

>> I might not have seen the mention, because you're talking to at least a

>> couple of people whom I have blocked. I simply answered your question and

>> now you go off on me like it was the most OT item possible. If I missed

>> something, clue me in. OK? OK!

>>

>> --

>> Gary S. Terhune

>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>> http://grystmill.com

>>

>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>> news:%23IfVlZQ7IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>> This was posted to the win98 newsgroup. Right? Right.

>>>

>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>> Who said anything about USB 3 in Win9x? In fact, I don't see where USB

>>>> 3

>>>> came up in this thread in the first place. One of Dan's links?

>>>>

>>>> It's not impossible, I don't think, just highly unlikely that anyone

>>>> will

>>>> bother to write the drivers that would allow USB 3 to work in any Win9x

>>>> system. Would either be native to the motherboard or a PCI Express card

>>>> (I think.)

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>> http://grystmill.com

>>>>

>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:u1fTEMP7IHA.1468@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>> Well, ok then, although how this could actually be installable and

>>>>> useable

>>>>> in a Win98 environment, remains to be seen. I'm bettting that won't

>>>>> happen.

>>>>>

>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=USB3

>>>>>>

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>> http://grystmill.com

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:eMRCh6O7IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>> I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a

>>>>>>> joke?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> someone watching wrote:

>>>>>>>> Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with

>>>>>>>> ANY

>>>>>>>> usb

>>>>>>>> working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain!

>>>>>>>> Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/

>>>>>>>> ___

>>>>>>>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com...

>>>>>>>>> I was wondering this because of the recently discovered

>>>>>>>>> vulnerability

>>>>>>>>> within

>>>>>>>>> NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition

>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>> ME

>>>>>>>>> effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W

>

>

[Guest MEB]

Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

In news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com ,

Dan contemplated and posted:

 

| I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability

| within NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second

| Edition and ME effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see:

|

| http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx

|

| http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

|

| http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W

 

What a heading,,, come on Dan...

 

Try these for more DNS poisoning info:

 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1545

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1546

 

BTW: I posted that CERT info on the 9th....

 

As for your heading: USB 3.0 may potentially be ported to 9X, maybe not...

the issue will be the boards and adapters that support it and whether they

can support 9x and/or provide the drivers...

 

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

--

_________

[Guest letterman@invalid.com]

Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:04:58 -0600, "Bill in Co."

<not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a joke?

 

I was thinking the same thing......

 

I dont see why it would be needed either. I have USB 1.x built into

my MB. It works fine. But several devices told me I need USB 2.0, so

I bought a USB 2.0 add on card. They both work. I cant see any

difference. The only good thing is that I have more ports now.

I plugged my card reader from my digital camera into both the USB 1.x

and the 2.0. The pictures loaded just as fast on both....

 

If there is a USB 3, it's probably just another thing to empty our

wallets!

[Guest Gary S. Terhune]

Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

The purpose is to permit speeds of transfer that will fully support, for

example, high-quality video transfer from a video camera to a storage device

or computer, or from an external storage device to a playback

device(remember: video these days means High Definition video --- lots of

bytes), something which can't be accomplished these days except via eSATA

(and that has to be SATA II 3Gbps components throughout.) Future

improvements would allow higher-quality devices and no need to first

transfer to a local HD before using the file.

 

And, of course, any gamer worth his salt could tell you all about how faster

USB/Firewire could improve multi-player gaming sessions.

 

Nominally:

USB1.1 = 1.5 to 12 Mbps (that's mega-bits, not mega-bytes)

USB2 = 480 Mbps

Firewire 400 = 400 Mbps

Firewire 800 = 800 Mbps

eSATA (aka eSATA/150 = 1500 Mbps (1.5 Gbps)

eSATA II (aka eSATA/300) = 3000 Mbps (3 Gbps)

USB3 = 4800 Mbps (requires fiber-optic cable)

 

On the drawing boards are Firewire 1600 and 3200, and eSATA at 6 Gbps.

 

Note that real-world sustained throughput speeds for USB don't come close to

matching nominal throughput numbers, such that Firewire 400 is actually

quite a bit faster than USB2 in sustained throughput:

http://www.cwol.com/firewire/firewire-vs-usb.htm

 

As I understand it, eSATA is also more prone to degradation of signal. Which

is why you don't find eSATA cables longer than ~10' eSATA also does not

carry power, like USB and Firewire, and thus is limited in usage to external

HDs. (I don't *think* it has been developed for any other use, but I could

be wrong.) When choosing eSATA cables, choose the shortest one that will do

what you need (there are only three lengths that I've seen: 3', 6' and 9M.

Internal SATA cables are shorter, of course, but the same rule applies --

the longer the cable, the slower the throughput. (In short, Firewire has the

least signal degradation.)

 

Now, with regard to your experiment, if the card reader you have is only USB

1.1, then that's as fast as it's going to go, no matter what the speed of

the port you connected it to. Same goes for all the others. The real speed

of transfer depends on the slowest component in the chain. Another example

would be putting a SATA I or old-style ATA drive into an external enclosure

that is capable of eSATA/300, with the proper cable and SATA II support in

the computer itself. The drive is still only going to run at SATA I (1.5

Gbps).

 

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://grystmill.com

 

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:0okg84tefk5o16rnj60lcr5851bn729amk@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:04:58 -0600, "Bill in Co."

> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>

>>I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a joke?

>

> I was thinking the same thing......

>

> I dont see why it would be needed either. I have USB 1.x built into

> my MB. It works fine. But several devices told me I need USB 2.0, so

> I bought a USB 2.0 add on card. They both work. I cant see any

> difference. The only good thing is that I have more ports now.

> I plugged my card reader from my digital camera into both the USB 1.x

> and the 2.0. The pictures loaded just as fast on both....

>

> If there is a USB 3, it's probably just another thing to empty our

> wallets!

[Guest Dan]

Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

Thanks, but I am not vulnerable to DNS Cache Poisoning in Windows 98 Second

Edition and am using Windows 98 Second Edition as well as Windows XP

Professional Service Pack 3 on a dual-boot desktop computer as well as

Windows Vista Home Premium on my Toshiba Laptop. I should have had 2 topics

on DNS cache poisoning and USB 3.x and this was my mistake.

 

Your ISP's name server, 68.87.85.101, has other protections above and beyond

port randomization against the recently discovered DNS flaws. There is no

reason to be concerned about the results seen below.

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

Requests seen for 8f63238a336e.toorrr.com:

68.87.85.101:17812 TXID=12982

68.87.85.101:18266 TXID=3941

68.87.85.101:17548 TXID=7778

68.87.85.101:17715 TXID=50436

68.87.85.101:17765 TXID=35677

ISNOM:ISNOM TXID=ISNOM

 

"someone watching" wrote:

> Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY usb

> working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain!

> Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/

> ___

> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com...

> >I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability

> >within

> > NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and ME

> > effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see:

> >

> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx

> >

> > http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

> >

> > http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest Dan]

Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

True, but if everything starts requiring USB 3.x, whenever it is released in

the future, then I still want to be able to use it with Windows 98 Second

Edition if at all possible. I know PCI Express does not work in Windows 98

Second Edition but I am fine using my ATI Radeon 9800 XT video card with the

latest drivers for 98 Second Edition. The reason I like ATI better than

Nvidia is because I have never run into problems with installing ATI video

cards and I certainly have had problems with installing Nvidia video cards.

 

"letterman@invalid.com" wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:04:58 -0600, "Bill in Co."

> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>

> >I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a joke?

>

> I was thinking the same thing......

>

> I dont see why it would be needed either. I have USB 1.x built into

> my MB. It works fine. But several devices told me I need USB 2.0, so

> I bought a USB 2.0 add on card. They both work. I cant see any

> difference. The only good thing is that I have more ports now.

> I plugged my card reader from my digital camera into both the USB 1.x

> and the 2.0. The pictures loaded just as fast on both....

>

> If there is a USB 3, it's probably just another thing to empty our

> wallets!

>

[Guest Dan]

Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

You are right, MEB. It was a poor heading with at least 2 thoughts in one

topic. I messed up and readily admit it.

 

"MEB" wrote:

> In news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com ,

> Dan contemplated and posted:

>

> | I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability

> | within NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second

> | Edition and ME effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see:

> |

> | http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx

> |

> | http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113

> |

> | http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W

>

> What a heading,,, come on Dan...

>

> Try these for more DNS poisoning info:

>

> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1545

> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1546

>

> BTW: I posted that CERT info on the 9th....

>

> As for your heading: USB 3.0 may potentially be ported to 9X, maybe not...

> the issue will be the boards and adapters that support it and whether they

> can support 9x and/or provide the drivers...

>

> --

> MEB

> http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> --

> _________

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest someone watching]

OT: Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

OT: Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

Dan, you peaked my interest mentioning the ATI Radeon 9800 and drivers

for 98se. Went to ATI's web site

http://ati.amd.com/products/radeon9800/radeon9800pro/specs.html

 

and they list ME as the oldest OS they support. Where did you get

drivers for 98? I may be upgrading the video card soon and would like a

good FAST card with excellent 98 support!

 

Thanks

___

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:C3CE8FE4-BA8A-4E13-8278-EA5C10502B33@microsoft.com...

> True, but if everything starts requiring USB 3.x, whenever it is

> released in

> the future, then I still want to be able to use it with Windows 98

> Second

> Edition if at all possible. I know PCI Express does not work in

> Windows 98

> Second Edition but I am fine using my ATI Radeon 9800 XT video card

> with the

> latest drivers for 98 Second Edition. The reason I like ATI better

> than

> Nvidia is because I have never run into problems with installing ATI

> video

> cards and I certainly have had problems with installing Nvidia video

> cards.

>

> "letterman@invalid.com" wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:04:58 -0600, "Bill in Co."

>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>

>> >I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a

>> >joke?

>>

>> I was thinking the same thing......

>>

>> I dont see why it would be needed either. I have USB 1.x built into

>> my MB. It works fine. But several devices told me I need USB 2.0,

>> so

>> I bought a USB 2.0 add on card. They both work. I cant see any

>> difference. The only good thing is that I have more ports now.

>> I plugged my card reader from my digital camera into both the USB 1.x

>> and the 2.0. The pictures loaded just as fast on both....

>>

>> If there is a USB 3, it's probably just another thing to empty our

>> wallets!

>>

[Guest Dan]

RE: OT: Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

RE: OT: Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

 

I use the Windows ME driver(s) in 98 SE and it works great. In addition, my

HP printer uses Windows 2000 driver(s) and they work fine within Windows 98

Second Edition. So you can see there is some room to play around and

customize Windows 98 Second Edition to a user's needs.

 

"someone watching" wrote:

> Dan, you peaked my interest mentioning the ATI Radeon 9800 and drivers

> for 98se. Went to ATI's web site

> http://ati.amd.com/products/radeon9800/radeon9800pro/specs.html

>

> and they list ME as the oldest OS they support. Where did you get

> drivers for 98? I may be upgrading the video card soon and would like a

> good FAST card with excellent 98 support!

>

> Thanks

> ___

> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:C3CE8FE4-BA8A-4E13-8278-EA5C10502B33@microsoft.com...

> > True, but if everything starts requiring USB 3.x, whenever it is

> > released in

> > the future, then I still want to be able to use it with Windows 98

> > Second

> > Edition if at all possible. I know PCI Express does not work in

> > Windows 98

> > Second Edition but I am fine using my ATI Radeon 9800 XT video card

> > with the

> > latest drivers for 98 Second Edition. The reason I like ATI better

> > than

> > Nvidia is because I have never run into problems with installing ATI

> > video

> > cards and I certainly have had problems with installing Nvidia video

> > cards.

> >

> > "letterman@invalid.com" wrote:

> >

> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:04:58 -0600, "Bill in Co."

> >> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

> >>

> >> >I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a

> >> >joke?

> >>

> >> I was thinking the same thing......

> >>

> >> I dont see why it would be needed either. I have USB 1.x built into

> >> my MB. It works fine. But several devices told me I need USB 2.0,

> >> so

> >> I bought a USB 2.0 add on card. They both work. I cant see any

> >> difference. The only good thing is that I have more ports now.

> >> I plugged my card reader from my digital camera into both the USB 1.x

> >> and the 2.0. The pictures loaded just as fast on both....

> >>

> >> If there is a USB 3, it's probably just another thing to empty our

> >> wallets!

> >>

>

>

>