Suggestions wanted - USB 2.0 card for G4 Sawtooth
Don Bruder
I've got a Visa gift card burning a hole in my pocket, and I want to get
myself a USB 2.0 card for a Sawtooth G4 running a fully updated copy of
Tiger. Looking for the cheapest-to-get-it-in-my-hands 2+ port PCI USB
2.0 card I can find that's *ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN* (barring an unexpected
DOA) to work in this rig.
Currently have a card I picked up cheap at a PC/Windows-targeted
retailer on the "Well, I'm already standing here to buy a firewire
cable, and this card is only 8 bucks, so if it doesn't work, at least
I'm not out much" theory. Turns out the theory was at least partially
sound: I'm not out much. But the card is junk for Macs - It's built
around the VIA 6212 chipset, and although the Mac sees the card (and
even correctly recognizes it as a 4 port USB 2.0 card) *NOTHING* I plug
into it is recognized as even existing, let alone being functional.
After much chasing around the web looking for information, drivers, etc,
etc, etc, for it, I've come to the conclusion that I should have done my
research first - Then I would have known that a VIA chipset card is just
a fancy piece of tech-junk here in Mac-land - MANY people on many
forums/comment pages/etc report the same symptoms for their own
VIA-based cards: The card is recognized by the Mac, but nothing plugged
into it "exists" as far as the Mac is concerned. Several of them report
that moving it to a Wintel box and installing one of several available
Wintel drivers makes it work just fine, but after verifying that it's
live, and moving it back to a Mac, same story: Card is there and
recognized, but nothing plugged into it can be seen.
I don't really much care whose name is printed on the box - that'll go
in the recycle bin shortly after I get it plugged in and working - or
whose warehouse it ships from, as long as it's cheap, and I can be sure
that when it gets here, it's actually going to function.
Anybody got any particular favorites?
--
Don Bruder - dak...@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info
Erik Richard Sørensen
I can recommend one of these standard PCI cards...
- 5-port MacAlly USB 2.0 PCI card,
4x external + 1x internal USB, fully USB 1.1,
2.0 and 2.0HighSpeed compatible.
- 3-port Belkin USB 2.0 PCI card,
3x external USB 1.1/2.0/2.0HS card
- 5-port IOGear USB 1.1 & 2.0 PCI card
- 2-port IOGear USB 2.0 PCI card,
NOTE not USB 1.1 backward compatible
- 2- or 4-port Keyspan USB 2.0 card.
The 2-port ver. only USB 2.0, the 4-port has
2x USB 1.1 + 2x USB 2.0.
- 3-port Keyspan USB 1.1/2.0
2x external + 1x internal connectors.
- 3 port OWC Mercury USB 2.0 PCI card
- 4 port Sonnet USB 2.0HS PCI card
None of these cards above support 'deep sleep' on the older Sawtooth,
GigabitEthernet, DigitalAudio and QuickSilver G4 models, which you
probably kno is a problem with these models.
Also many socalled noname USB 2.0 PCI cards with a VIA chipset can be
used on a Sawtooth, but here you have to remember that the OHCI chipset
version must be lower than 1,6. - I've used USB 2.0 cards from LianLi
with good results on my own old Sawtooth - now unfortunately gone to the
eternal Apple fields..-) - Right now I infact use such an old USB 2.0
card on my 'reborn' 1133mhz Beige G3 along with a MacAlly Combo
USB2.0+FW400.
cheers, Erik Richard
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-m...@Mstofanet.dk>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
OpenOffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Curmudgeon
<dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Anybody got any particular favorites?
Hey, Don! I just recently got one from our good friends at Other World
Computing (macsales.com), an IOGear 5-Port USB 2.0 PCI Card (4 external
plus 1 internal) #0140407 and it works perfectly on my G4 Digital
Audio.
Cheers!
Mudge
--
"And if California slides into the ocean like the mystics and
statistics say it will, I predict this hotel will be standing
until I pay my bill."
Don Bruder
Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
> In article <gj3fs8$t49$1...@news.motzarella.org>, Don Bruder
> <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > Anybody got any particular favorites?
>
> Hey, Don! I just recently got one from our good friends at Other World
> Computing (macsales.com), an IOGear 5-Port USB 2.0 PCI Card (4 external
> plus 1 internal) #0140407 and it works perfectly on my G4 Digital
> Audio.
I'll take a look. Thanks!
> "And if California slides into the ocean like the mystics and
> statistics say it will, I predict this hotel will be standing
> until I pay my bill."
Another desperado under the eaves, eh? ;) That tune has always given me
chills.
"But except in dreams, you're never really free..."
Don Bruder
Erik Richard Sorensen <NOS...@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:
> I can recommend one of these standard PCI cards...
> - 5-port MacAlly USB 2.0 PCI card,
> 4x external + 1x internal USB, fully USB 1.1,
> 2.0 and 2.0HighSpeed compatible.
> - 3-port Belkin USB 2.0 PCI card,
> 3x external USB 1.1/2.0/2.0HS card
> - 5-port IOGear USB 1.1 & 2.0 PCI card
> - 2-port IOGear USB 2.0 PCI card,
> NOTE not USB 1.1 backward compatible
> - 2- or 4-port Keyspan USB 2.0 card.
> The 2-port ver. only USB 2.0, the 4-port has
> 2x USB 1.1 + 2x USB 2.0.
> - 3-port Keyspan USB 1.1/2.0
> 2x external + 1x internal connectors.
> - 3 port OWC Mercury USB 2.0 PCI card
> - 4 port Sonnet USB 2.0HS PCI card
I note that you went to the effort of specifying "USB 2.0" *AND* "USB
2.0 high speed" capabilities separately in multiple places - This is a
new-to-me distinction... Is it significant? I was under the impression
that one of the basic concepts of USB 2.0 was its "high speed" in
comparison to USB 1.1?
The gear that I specifically want the 2.0 capability for is a USB 2.0
external HD (A 1/2 terabyte Western Digital "MyBook" unit that I managed
to pick up for a bad song and a clumsy dance a couple weeks ago 'cause
the corner of the box was scuffed) As expected, it's functional when
plugged into one of the built-in 1.1 ports on the Sawtooth, but (also as
expected) it's about as fast as - oh, let's say molasses flowing uphill
in a siberian blizzard. I've also got a 5-ish year old IOMega CD-RW
drive that wants USB 2.0, but is at least functional when plugged into a
port on a 4-port wall-wart powered USB 1.1 hub that's in turn plugged
into the other built-in USB port on the Sawtooth, but it can't burn at
higher than 2x (billed as being 56x capable) without making coasters,
and it's also quite slow (which is far from unexpected) when reading
from it. So is this "high speed" distinction relevant to me?
> None of these cards above support 'deep sleep' on the older Sawtooth,
Due to the uses I put it to, having my rig sleep, whether deep or
otherwise, is completely unacceptable, so that "problem" is a total
non-issue to me.
> Also many socalled noname USB 2.0 PCI cards with a VIA chipset can be
> used on a Sawtooth, but here you have to remember that the OHCI chipset
> version must be lower than 1,6.
Apparently, the one I got isn't one of them. Oh well...
nospam
<dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> I note that you went to the effort of specifying "USB 2.0" *AND* "USB
> 2.0 high speed" capabilities separately in multiple places - This is a
> new-to-me distinction... Is it significant? I was under the impression
> that one of the basic concepts of USB 2.0 was its "high speed" in
> comparison to USB 1.1?
unfortunately, no. usb 2 hi-speed means 480 mbps, while usb 2 means it
complies with the 2.0 spec and can have any or all of the three
possible speeds (low, full and hi).
some companies deliberately mislead consumers by claiming usb 2 and
implementing low speed and full speed. it's technically correct, but
it's deceptive.
Gregory Weston
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
This might sound like it's harsh commentary, but it's actually a serious
question: At what point are consumers expected to take some
responsibility for educating themselves?
You claim it's "deceptive" for a vendor to label a device as USB 2.0
when it doesn't support 480Mb transfers, but why is that an inherent
truth in your opinion?
--
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
- Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix
Erik Richard Sørensen
Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <495541f9$0$11594$ba62...@nntp06.dk.telia.net>,
> Erik Richard Sorensen <NOS...@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:
>
>> I can recommend one of these standard PCI cards...
>> - 5-port MacAlly USB 2.0 PCI card,
>> 4x external + 1x internal USB, fully USB 1.1,
>> 2.0 and 2.0HighSpeed compatible.
>> - 3-port Belkin USB 2.0 PCI card,
>> 3x external USB 1.1/2.0/2.0HS card
>> - 5-port IOGear USB 1.1 & 2.0 PCI card
>> - 2-port IOGear USB 2.0 PCI card,
>> NOTE not USB 1.1 backward compatible
>> - 2- or 4-port Keyspan USB 2.0 card.
>> The 2-port ver. only USB 2.0, the 4-port has
>> 2x USB 1.1 + 2x USB 2.0.
>> - 3-port Keyspan USB 1.1/2.0
>> 2x external + 1x internal connectors.
>> - 3 port OWC Mercury USB 2.0 PCI card
>> - 4 port Sonnet USB 2.0HS PCI card
>
> I note that you went to the effort of specifying "USB 2.0" *AND* "USB
> 2.0 high speed" capabilities separately in multiple places - This is a
> new-to-me distinction... Is it significant? I was under the impression
> that one of the basic concepts of USB 2.0 was its "high speed" in
> comparison to USB 1.1?
It should be according to specifications of the USB standard, but many
manufacturers differ between normal USB 2.0 and UsB 2.0HighSpeed. On my
own MacAlly Combo USB+Fw PCI card is explicit written USB 1.1/2.0 with 2
ports and USB 2.0/2.0HS with the third port. The same with my Belkin PCI
USB card on my Quicksilver.
> The gear that I specifically want the 2.0 capability for is a USB 2.0
> external HD (A 1/2 terabyte Western Digital "MyBook" unit that I managed
> to pick up for a bad song and a clumsy dance a couple weeks ago 'cause
> the corner of the box was scuffed) As expected, it's functional when
> plugged into one of the built-in 1.1 ports on the Sawtooth, but (also as
> expected) it's about as fast as - oh, let's say molasses flowing uphill
> in a siberian blizzard.
Or as a too fat and too filled snail..-) - Is the MyBook USB only or has
it also a Firewire connector? - If I were you - and the MyBook doesn't
have FW, - i'd instead sell it in change for a model using Firewire...
You won't get much more out of USB 2.0 on a Sawtooth with an ext. HD
> I've also got a 5-ish year old IOMega CD-RW
> drive that wants USB 2.0, but is at least functional when plugged into a
> port on a 4-port wall-wart powered USB 1.1 hub that's in turn plugged
> into the other built-in USB port on the Sawtooth, but it can't burn at
> higher than 2x (billed as being 56x capable) without making coasters,
> and it's also quite slow (which is far from unexpected) when reading
> from it. So is this "high speed" distinction relevant to me?
Not that much. You won't get much more out of even the CD-RW using USB
2.0/2.0HS. USB on those oldies like Sawtooth, GigabitEthernet,
DigitalAudio and QuickSilver is kind of a disaster to work with. - You
shouldn't count on getting more than apprx. 4-6x speed out of it in CD-R
and 2-4x in CD-RW mode and around 10-12x in CD Read mode.
So I'll recommend to sell both the MyBook and Iomega CD-RW, - of course
if USB only, - and instead go and buy units with Firewire connection
instead. - With a Firewire solution, you also will be able to boot from
the external drives both a HD and a CD/DVD-RW.... [wasn't your VISA card
burning in your pocket..-)?]
Cheers, Erik Ricard
Curmudgeon
<dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Another desperado under the eaves, eh? ;) That tune has always given me
> chills.
Me too. That's exactly why I like it as a tag line. My alternate sig
comes from another chills-up-the-back song (Springsteen's "The River").
Cheers (or chills)!
Mudge
--
nospam
Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> > unfortunately, no. usb 2 hi-speed means 480 mbps, while usb 2 means it
> > complies with the 2.0 spec and can have any or all of the three
> > possible speeds (low, full and hi).
> >
> > some companies deliberately mislead consumers by claiming usb 2 and
> > implementing low speed and full speed. it's technically correct, but
> > it's deceptive.
>
> This might sound like it's harsh commentary, but it's actually a serious
> question: At what point are consumers expected to take some
> responsibility for educating themselves?
at what point are companies expected to not play games and hide the
necessary information for a user to take responsibility?
> You claim it's "deceptive" for a vendor to label a device as USB 2.0
> when it doesn't support 480Mb transfers, but why is that an inherent
> truth in your opinion?
why should a user have to know the nuances of the usb spec and having
to look for the 'hi-speed' logo *in addition* to usb 2? companies know
people will see 'usb 2' and think it's faster than a usb 1.1 device, so
they'll put usb 2 in big giant letters and then hide the transfer speed
on the back in print so small that even someone with perfect vision
needs to squint and sometimes it's not even there at all (i've seen
both).
in the case of memory card readers, sometimes it's even a math problem,
i.e., transfer some number of images per minute. using an average size
jpeg, i was able to get a rough idea of how fast it was. not
surprisingly, it was not 480 mbps.
camera makers now do it too. they're using 'dots' instead of 'pixels'
so the numbers are three times as large. even company representatives
confuse the terms, mistakenly calling a 900k dot display (300k pixels)
a 900k pixel display. if they get it wrong, how can one expect users
to keep it straight? one camera maker even lies about the pixel count
on the image sensor, using an inflated count *and* a normal count for
the *same* sensor.
why go through so much obfuscation? users should *not* be required to
be technical gurus just to make a purchase decision.
Gregory Weston
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <uce-40B856.0...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
>
> > > unfortunately, no. usb 2 hi-speed means 480 mbps, while usb 2 means it
> > > complies with the 2.0 spec and can have any or all of the three
> > > possible speeds (low, full and hi).
> > >
> > > some companies deliberately mislead consumers by claiming usb 2 and
> > > implementing low speed and full speed. it's technically correct, but
> > > it's deceptive.
> >
> > This might sound like it's harsh commentary, but it's actually a serious
> > question: At what point are consumers expected to take some
> > responsibility for educating themselves?
>
> at what point are companies expected to not play games and hide the
> necessary information for a user to take responsibility?
What's deceptive about what you described though? There are two distinct
labels: USB 2.0 and USB 2.0 High-Speed. There's a substantial difference
in the branding in terms of the percentage of space consumed by the
logo. You seem to suggest there's something fundamentally dishonest in a
vendor not calling attention to the fact that they have not used the
High-Speed marking. I don't think that's reasonable. You advertise the
fact that you have implemented an optional feature, not that you have
not done so. No car company goes out of their way to call attention to
the fact that they didn't include a tachometer on a given model. No
orange juice producer advertises the fact that they have not added
calcium to one variety of their product. Are they being deceptive?
> > You claim it's "deceptive" for a vendor to label a device as USB 2.0
> > when it doesn't support 480Mb transfers, but why is that an inherent
> > truth in your opinion?
>
> why should a user have to know the nuances of the usb spec and having
> to look for the 'hi-speed' logo *in addition* to usb 2?
Because it's part of being an educated consumer, which is one of the key
- and most often absent - elements of the theoretical free market so
many of us would like to have. That was my question: At what point are
consumers expected to take some responsibility for educating themselves?
> companies know
> people will see 'usb 2' and think it's faster than a usb 1.1 device, so
> they'll put usb 2 in big giant letters and then hide the transfer speed
> on the back in print so small that even someone with perfect vision
> needs to squint and sometimes it's not even there at all (i've seen
> both).
> in the case of memory card readers, sometimes it's even a math problem,
> i.e., transfer some number of images per minute. using an average size
> jpeg, i was able to get a rough idea of how fast it was. not
> surprisingly, it was not 480 mbps.
As a practical matter, you're never going to see 480 Mbps out of any USB
2 device. If you got better than 12 Mb the vendor is correct in calling
it USB 2.0 High Speed.
> camera makers now do it too. they're using 'dots' instead of 'pixels'
> so the numbers are three times as large. even company representatives
> confuse the terms, mistakenly calling a 900k dot display (300k pixels)
> a 900k pixel display. if they get it wrong, how can one expect users
> to keep it straight? one camera maker even lies about the pixel count
> on the image sensor, using an inflated count *and* a normal count for
> the *same* sensor.
An interesting example. I haven't run across it, but I'll point out that
the error in this case is not a technical one. There's no definition of
"pixel" more formal than the concept of "picture element" or, in
layman's terms, "dot. There *is* an understanding that I'd consider
ubiquitous that a pixel value includes values for all components of a
single "dot" in the active color space and I consider it dishonest to
deviate from that de facto standard but as an implementation detail
they're not strictly incorrect in considering each component an
"element."
The difference is that USB *is* a formal standard, and a well-documented
one. Baseline USB 2 was defined 8.5 years ago. It raise the maximum
supported speed. It didn't raise the minimum.
> why go through so much obfuscation? users should *not* be required to
> be technical gurus just to make a purchase decision.
I agree. They should not need to be "technical gurus." I *don't* agree
that understanding that "USB 2.0" doesn't mean "faster than USB 1.x"
requires guruship. There's *got* to be some level of responsibility on
the part of the consumer for educating themselves. That's the question I
asked and that's the question that you *didn't* answer yet.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> I've got a Visa gift card burning a hole in my pocket, and I want to get
> myself a USB 2.0 card for a Sawtooth G4 running a fully updated copy of
> Tiger. Looking for the cheapest-to-get-it-in-my-hands 2+ port PCI USB
> 2.0 card I can find that's *ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN* (barring an unexpected
> DOA) to work in this rig.
I like <http://www.sonnettech.com/product/allegro_usb2.html>
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
nospam
Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> Because it's part of being an educated consumer, which is one of the key
> - and most often absent - elements of the theoretical free market so
> many of us would like to have. That was my question: At what point are
> consumers expected to take some responsibility for educating themselves?
right after the companies provide the necessary information for
consumers to do so without needing to jump through hoops to be
responsible.
> > companies know
> > people will see 'usb 2' and think it's faster than a usb 1.1 device, so
> > they'll put usb 2 in big giant letters and then hide the transfer speed
> > on the back in print so small that even someone with perfect vision
> > needs to squint and sometimes it's not even there at all (i've seen
> > both).
>
> > in the case of memory card readers, sometimes it's even a math problem,
> > i.e., transfer some number of images per minute. using an average size
> > jpeg, i was able to get a rough idea of how fast it was. not
> > surprisingly, it was not 480 mbps.
>
> As a practical matter, you're never going to see 480 Mbps out of any USB
> 2 device. If you got better than 12 Mb the vendor is correct in calling
> it USB 2.0 High Speed.
why must a consumer need to solve a math problem in order to make a
purchase decision? just list the speeds on the box. *that's* the bit
of information that people want to know, not which part of the spec was
implemented.
> > camera makers now do it too. they're using 'dots' instead of 'pixels'
> > so the numbers are three times as large. even company representatives
> > confuse the terms, mistakenly calling a 900k dot display (300k pixels)
> > a 900k pixel display. if they get it wrong, how can one expect users
> > to keep it straight? one camera maker even lies about the pixel count
> > on the image sensor, using an inflated count *and* a normal count for
> > the *same* sensor.
>
> An interesting example. I haven't run across it, but I'll point out that
> the error in this case is not a technical one.
i never said it was a technical error. it may be technically correct
to call a sub-pixel a dot, but the point is that there was no reason to
introduce an entirely new term. pixel worked just fine all along, but
by using a new term, it made the numbers bigger which looked better
next to the competition that still used pixels and it introduced
confusion.
some people, including those who should know better, have mistakenly
called it 900k pixels. there's a video interview done at pma (a major
photo trade show) online, where a company representative said the
camera had a 900k pixel display. he was wrong, but millions of people
saw that video and no doubt the same person repeated the error when
show attendees visited the booth.
if the manufacturer's representatives screw it up, why should we expect
the consumer to get it right?
> There's no definition of
> "pixel" more formal than the concept of "picture element" or, in
> layman's terms, "dot.
right. the layman thinks they're the same and the number on the box is
three times what a competing camera has.
> There *is* an understanding that I'd consider
> ubiquitous that a pixel value includes values for all components of a
> single "dot" in the active color space and I consider it dishonest to
> deviate from that de facto standard but as an implementation detail
> they're not strictly incorrect in considering each component an
> "element."
agreed, yet a couple of companies have referred to a component of a
pixel as a pixel, even going so far as to write technical papers
explaining how the term has evolved and that their interpretation is
correct. it's very clearly fraud and i'm surprised they haven't been
called on it.
> > why go through so much obfuscation? users should *not* be required to
> > be technical gurus just to make a purchase decision.
>
> I agree. They should not need to be "technical gurus." I *don't* agree
> that understanding that "USB 2.0" doesn't mean "faster than USB 1.x"
> requires guruship.
well that's where we disagree. why not just put 12 or 480 mbps on the
box and there will be no confusion at all.
> There's *got* to be some level of responsibility on
> the part of the consumer for educating themselves. That's the question I
> asked and that's the question that you *didn't* answer yet.
i believe i did, but there's also a responsibility for a manufacturer
to be forthcoming with the information and not make it difficult to
find.
Gregory Weston
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <uce-50098D.1...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
>
> > Because it's part of being an educated consumer, which is one of the key
> > - and most often absent - elements of the theoretical free market so
> > many of us would like to have. That was my question: At what point are
> > consumers expected to take some responsibility for educating themselves?
>
> right after the companies provide the necessary information for
> consumers to do so without needing to jump through hoops to be
> responsible.
Already done, then. Sufficient information about the fact that higher
speed is an optional aspect of USB 2 is readily available to anyone who
cares enough to spend 5 minutes researching their purchase.
So what about those car makers and OJ vendors?
> > > in the case of memory card readers, sometimes it's even a math problem,
> > > i.e., transfer some number of images per minute. using an average size
> > > jpeg, i was able to get a rough idea of how fast it was. not
> > > surprisingly, it was not 480 mbps.
> >
> > As a practical matter, you're never going to see 480 Mbps out of any USB
> > 2 device. If you got better than 12 Mb the vendor is correct in calling
> > it USB 2.0 High Speed.
>
> why must a consumer need to solve a math problem in order to make a
> purchase decision?
There's no math problem. There's a simple statement that USB 2 does not
imply "data transfers will be faster than they were under USB 1.x."
That's completely separate from the fact that NO single USB 1.x or 2.x
device is ever going to see transfer rates that actually meet the
advertised capacity of the bus.
> > > why go through so much obfuscation? users should *not* be required to
> > > be technical gurus just to make a purchase decision.
> >
> > I agree. They should not need to be "technical gurus." I *don't* agree
> > that understanding that "USB 2.0" doesn't mean "faster than USB 1.x"
> > requires guruship.
>
> well that's where we disagree. why not just put 12 or 480 mbps on the
> box and there will be no confusion at all.
Because now *you're* asking them to do math. The current labeling
indicates clearly and succinctly that a device makes use of the higher
throughput available under USB 2. Or it does not indicate that. You put
numbers on there and the people who you don't think should have to be
technical gurus will have their eyes glaze over in a fraction of a
second.
> > There's *got* to be some level of responsibility on
> > the part of the consumer for educating themselves. That's the question I
> > asked and that's the question that you *didn't* answer yet.
>
> i believe i did,
Then look again: <271220081406116780%nos...@nospam.invalid>
Tell me where in that message you acknowledged that consumers had *any*
responsibility for educating themselves, let alone made an attempt to
delineate it.
> but there's also a responsibility for a manufacturer
> to be forthcoming with the information and not make it difficult to
> find.
Thing is, it's *not* difficult to find. You're just suggesting that the
vendors in one specific industry have a responsibility to go out of
their way to advertise the fact that they have not implemented an
optional feature of a product. No other vendor in any other industry is
expected to do such a thing.
bi...@mix.com
> Don Bruder wrote:
> > I've got a Visa gift card burning a hole in my pocket, and I want to get
> > myself a USB 2.0 card for a Sawtooth G4 running a fully updated copy of
> > Tiger. Looking for the cheapest-to-get-it-in-my-hands 2+ port PCI USB
> > 2.0 card I can find that's *ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN* (barring an unexpected
> > DOA) to work in this rig.
>
> I can recommend one of these standard PCI cards...
I'm using these (US$14.50 each) -
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=270277620055
It has an NEC chip, which works ok. One of five external USB connectors
is partially blocked by the case of my Digital Audio model computers, but
that still leaves four available.
> None of these cards above support 'deep sleep' on the older Sawtooth,
> GigabitEthernet, DigitalAudio and QuickSilver G4 models, which you
> probably kno is a problem with these models.
If you boot with the verbose mode, you'll see a warning about this when
the card is inited.
As for actual transfer rates, the USB protocol has some overhead (that
Firewire does not) so the actual real-life transfer rates are not going
to be as fast as one might expect from just reading the specs. But, it
will nevertheless be a hell of a lot faster than the built-in USB ports.
Billy Y..
Don Bruder
Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
> In article <gj3fs8$t49$1...@news.motzarella.org>, Don Bruder
> <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > Anybody got any particular favorites?
>
> Hey, Don! I just recently got one from our good friends at Other World
> Computing (macsales.com), an IOGear 5-Port USB 2.0 PCI Card (4 external
> plus 1 internal) #0140407 and it works perfectly on my G4 Digital
> Audio.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Mudge
Ended up going with that one, and just got it out of the fedex driver's
hands about 45 minutes ago. As I type this, it's in the machine, and
working like a charm. Contrary to comments by others who suggested that
it'd be a "disaster", and that I'd see "not that much" improvement in
speed, it was totally painless - plugged it in, buttoned things up, and
it was good to go. Tried a copy operation that I did a while back (big
folder from one of the internal drives to the MyBook) and it has indeed
jacked the speed. In a *MAJOR* way. With the MyBook plugged into the
built-in USB, the copy took just under half an hour. With it plugged
into the new card, the copy was complete in a tad over a minute. I'd
hardly call a roughly 30X speedup "not that much" of an improvement, or
a "disaster"...
Granted, I haven't gotten around to trying the speed of the CD-RW drive
on the new card yet, but so far, all indications are that the speed
should jump there, too.
Thanks for the tip!
Thanks for the tip!
Curmudgeon
<dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
Very glad to help, Don. Happy New Year!