Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition

[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

[someone watching]

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" <D...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EEA69410-15B6-4796...@microsoft.com...

[Bill in Co.]

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

[Gary S. Terhune]

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

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"Bill in Co." <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eMRCh6O7...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

[Bill in Co.]

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]

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_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:u1fTEMP7...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[Bill in Co.]

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

[Gary S. Terhune]

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_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:%23IfVlZQ...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

[Bill in Co.]

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]

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_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:O$2XJDT7I...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[here@hotmail.com MEB]

In news:EEA69410-15B6-4796...@microsoft.com ,
Dan contemplated and posted:

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
--
_________

[Gary S. Terhune]

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

<lett...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:0okg84tefk5o16rnj...@4ax.com...

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

[Dan]

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

[Dan]

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.

"lett...@invalid.com" wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:04:58 -0600, "Bill in Co."
> <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>

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

[Dan]

You are right, MEB. It was a poor heading with at least 2 thoughts in one
topic. I messed up and readily admit it.

[someone watching]

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

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

[Dan]

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.