• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Still no usb 2.0 support :(

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Zewt

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Location
A Town : |
When I went to install the USB 2.0 drivers for the motherboard it said that all I needed to do was install service pack 1 to get software support for USB 2.0. Well, I installed sp1 today, but I am still getting the 'HIGH SPEED device plugged into non HIGH-SPED usb port' error. I checked and all of the back usb ports should be USB 2.0. So why do I keep getting this error? Where do I go from here?
 
go to device manager and go to your usb and update the driver have windows search automatically. Just because you got SP1 installed dont mean the driver installed. I have to install it every time with mine!
 
ERIK D, I have had nothing but bad results from installing sp2 on my last comp. I am not sure if I want to install it yet.

Duner, I am plugging in an iAudio X5L mp3 player.

Lift, thx for that advice. That cleared the problem right up. And you know what? Now I get 24 mbps instead of 11 mbps on my wireless USB adaper now :p
 
yea the service pack is funny like that, says it supports usb 2.0 and all but they dont tell you that it wont automatically install the driver. Glad i could help though
 
ErikD said:
How bout installing SP2? You should be up to date anyway.
I definately disagree. Being up to date may not be good, especially for Microsoft products.

Unfortunately, the MIcrosoft Corporation seems to now and since perhaps 2 years ago, release many bad fixes ("bad" usually because they critically cripple some functionality). I have had more problems with Microsoft updates in the past year (or perhaps up to 2 years) than ever before. Windows Vista seems to so far appear to be inferior in functionality to current NT Windows (this includes Windows 2000 family).

For the Windows XP family operating system, I would recommend Windows XP Service Pack 1. Because of the functunality changes induced, Windows XP Service Pack 2 is inferior to Winodows XP Service Pack 1.

EDIT: Edited for removal of a grammatical error.
 
Last edited:
baltoos said:
Microsoft has officially ended support for XP SP1.
This is true, however not good enough to install Windows XP Service Pack 2 ("SP2").

Imagine for a moment Windows XP Service Pack 2 rejected by most the the users of Windows XP, while also using Service Pack 1 for Windows XP. Now imagine what would happen to support of Service Pack 1. Microsoft would support Windows XP Service Pack 1. Although not really realistic (especially seeing how SP2 is preloaded on most most OEM machines today and since a little after the public release of SP2), it still is accurate.
 
What limitations? I haven't noticed any, or had any problems with ti running on my machines.
 
Ascii2 said:
This is true, however not good enough to install Windows XP Service Pack 2 ("SP2").

Imagine for a moment Windows XP Service Pack 2 rejected by most the the users of Windows XP, while also using Service Pack 1 for Windows XP. Now imagine what would happen to support of Service Pack 1. Microsoft would support Windows XP Service Pack 1. Although not really realistic (especially seeing how SP2 is preloaded on most most OEM machines today and since a little after the public release of SP2), it still is accurate.

While you make good points, they are no longer valid. About 99.9% of all the incompatibility issues with SP2 has been worked out of SP2, and for the sake of security, its best to install it. To just have SP1 is asking for it. And, Microsoft would not continue to support SP1, even if most of the users rejected it. The same can be notably seen with Windows XP Home Edition. You and I both know that there will still be many many many users for quite some time. But Microsoft is ending their support for it in, oh, about 26 days. That's right, XP Home loses its support from Microsoft at the end of 06.

source
 
I ahve had it installed since May 2005 and I've had no problems with installation and other programs. Why people still say there machine stuff up now is beyond me but if you don't to install it thats there choice.
 
ErikD said:
What limitations? I haven't noticed any, or had any problems with ti running on my machines.
If you are refering to my above post quoting you, Windows XP with Service Pack 2 changes fuctionality of Windows XP operating sytem to fuctionality inferior to that of Windows XP with Service Pack 1, especially to Internet Explorer and Outlook Express.

When SP2 is installed and an NTFS partition is used, alternate data streams are attached to files dowloaded using Internet Explorer. Also alternate data streams are attached to files derived from files containing alternate data streams (such as member files extracted from an archive). Similar badnesses may be encouter with Outlook Express when SP2 exists. This is not the only fuctionality change I dislike, but it is in my opinion very critical, sufficient to reject Service Pack 2.
 
When SP2 is installed and an NTFS partition is used, alternate data streams are attached to files dowloaded using Internet Explorer. Also alternate data streams are attached to files derived from files containing alternate data streams (such as member files extracted from an archive). Similar badnesses may be encouter with Outlook Express when SP2 exists. This is not the only fuctionality change I dislike, but it is in my opinion very critical, sufficient to reject Service Pack 2.

Both of those can be avoided by using Opera. Its a browser and email client. Or you could go the Firefox/Thunderbird route. Do you have proof that those problems occur in sp2 and not sp1?
 
Ascii2 said:
If you are refering to my above post quoting you, Windows XP with Service Pack 2 changes fuctionality of Windows XP operating sytem to fuctionality inferior to that of Windows XP with Service Pack 1, especially to Internet Explorer and Outlook Express.

When SP2 is installed and an NTFS partition is used, alternate data streams are attached to files dowloaded using Internet Explorer. Also alternate data streams are attached to files derived from files containing alternate data streams (such as member files extracted from an archive). Similar badnesses may be encouter with Outlook Express when SP2 exists. This is not the only fuctionality change I dislike, but it is in my opinion very critical, sufficient to reject Service Pack 2.


1, link to sources of this information.
2, Internet Explorer and Outlook Express are both known to be hugely insecure. Now, not to start a browser war, I will openly say that both Firefox and Opera are not completely secure either, BUT they are widely accepted as being far more secure than IE. Outlook Express is about the worst of the worst when it comes to security. It is also known that SP2 adds security to those, and also that without SP2, you are neglecting getting many of the latest security updates because they will not be shown unless you do have SP2 installed.

Ultimately, whatever is wanted to be said can be said, but the majority of people agree that running without SP2 is just asking for it.
 
Midnight Dream said:
Ultimately, whatever is wanted to be said can be said, but the majority of people agree that running without SP2 is just asking for it.

Absolutely. Not only does SP2 address critical security issues including buffer overruns and numerous exploits, it allows you to install another 46 critical security updates released since then. Really, not running the latest patches is like not running an AV client; your chances of getting hit may be low, but man, what a bummer if you are...
 
Last edited:
Ascii2 said:

Once again, please provide proof to back up what you say. It's clear here that you are outnumbered in your thoughts. Nothing is saying that you cannot have an opinion of your own, but in a scenario such as this, where you argue security is the reason, and others argue against what you say, its good to have reasonable means to backup your claims.
 
Midnight Dream said:
1, link to sources of this information.
http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=4823800&postcount=14

Midnight Dream said:
Internet Explorer and Outlook Express are both known to be hugely insecure....
both Firefox and Opera...are widely accepted as being far more secure than IE...
the majority of people agree that running without SP2 is just asking for it.
All fallacy.
Midnight Dream said:
without SP2, you are neglecting getting many of the latest security updates because they will not be shown unless you do have SP2 installed...
Not true. Without SP2, many of the latest security updates may not be on Windows Update., but has nothing to do with negligence. The Microsoft website has available for download individual hotfixes on the Microsoft website regardless of whether they would be listed on Windows Update. Although they have many similarities, Windows XP with Service Pack 2 and Windows XP without Service Pack 2 are functionally different. Many updates for Windows XP with Service Pack 2 may not be necessary (and possibly contra-beneficial) for Windows XP without Service Pack 2; wherefore listing of unessesary updates may not be useful.
 
Back