USB 1.1 supports 12Mbs while USB 2.0 supports 480Mbps. A big difference.
However, not everything requires this kind of bandwidth. Certainly it will
make no difference with a mouse or keyboard. But a scanner, USB external
hard drive, digital camera, or video capture device will benefit enormously
from the performance increase. The device itself must be USB 2 in order to
work at USB2 speeds.

  Everything USB 2 should be backward compatible, supporting lower speeds.
A device or hub would have to be specified as USB 2 in order to benefit
from the USB 2 performance increase. I realize that there is now a big
market for expensive USB 2.0 cables. However, all cables are the same and
while they all should work at all USB speeds, whether or not they do, will
depend on the quality of the cable. A USB 1.1 certified cable will support
USB 2.0. speeds. However, few USB 1.1 cables are certified as such, so it
is a try it and see kind of thing.

USB 2 is presently only supported by Microsoft in Windows 2000 and XP.
However, f you purchase a separate PCI USB 2.0 card it may have windows 98
and ME drivers available for USB 2.0. I have done this and the $12.00 card
I purchased did provide windows 98 VIA drivers. Keep in mind, that the
performance of a PCI USB2 card will be 20 per cent less, then if you had a
USB2 port natively installed on the motherboard. This is caused by the IRQ
and DMA sharing that occurs, and the limitations of the PCI Bus. But unless
you are doing something that requires a tremendous amount of bandwidth, I
doubt you will even notice the performance hit.

A good USB 2 FAQ can be found at http://www.everythingusb.com/usb2/faq.htm

Rode
The NOSPIN Group
http://freepctech.com


At 04:53 PM 4/29/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi, am I understanding this correctly?
>Usb 2.0 and Usb 1.1 are basically the same, exept Usb 2.0 is faster?
>Will a Usb2.0 device work with a standard usb port then?
>(Even if at a slower rate?)
>I understand the logic in that  you can't make the standard usb port work
>any faster than it was designed to do, but am I right in thinking you can
>chop and change? (even if the usb2.0 device  ends up slower than it should
>be?)
>As I am currently running win98, I have not used usb 2.0 as yet (as far as I
>am aware).
>(Excuse me if this question has already been asked, I must have missed it)
>Michele Sayer

                         PCBUILD's List Owners:
                      Bob Wright<[log in to unmask]>
                       Drew Dunn<[log in to unmask]>