PDA

View Full Version : Usb 2.0



Skippybox
29.08.2008, 02:28 AM
I have two 3.5" external hard drives that support USB 2.0. Unfortunately, I have been disappointed by 2.0's performance over 1.0. Supposedly, the transfer rate is up to 40x better, at around 480Mbps (60MBps), than USB 1.0's 12Mbps (1.5MBps).

When I connect one of the drives solely on a USB 1.0 port, I can only achieve about 0.75MBps, but over 2.0 ports I only get slightly more than 1.5MBps. I am using the 1.0 ports included with my PC, but for 2.0 I am using a PC Card. I am also using the USB 2.0 cables that come with the drives.

Since the drive is easily faster than the potential transfer rate, what is accounting for such poor performance? Isn't 2.0 suppose to be better than this?

j7n
29.08.2008, 06:22 AM
I've had two USB enclosures for hard discs. The transfer speed was 22 MB/s reading, and 12 MB/s writing. If you're connection is that slow then obviously something isn't working properly and it's a matter of finding out if it's the computer, cables or the HDD.

USB 1.0 should give 950 kB/s.

Can you operate other devices connected to these USB ports, like a scanner, or USB flash?

Skippybox
29.08.2008, 03:12 PM
The transfer speed was 22 MB/s reading, and 12 MB/s writing.

That sounds much better, but rather surprising considering the max could be 60MB/s. Do drives run that slow, despite the interface?


USB 1.0 should give 950 kB/s.

Mine is probably close to that. I'm not really dissatisfied with 1.0.


Can you operate other devices connected to these USB ports, like a scanner, or USB flash?

Oh, of course. But none of my scanners, printers, cameras, or flash devices are supportive of USB 2.0.


If you're connection is that slow then obviously something isn't working properly and it's a matter of finding out if it's the computer, cables or the HDD.

Well, that would be a lot of trial and error. I'd need another set of everything just for comparison. Well, here's what I've got:


SimpleTech SimpleDrive FV-U35/500 3.5" 7200RPM 500GB USB2.0 HDD w/cable
SimpleTech SimpleDrive CC-USB235/250 3.5" 7200RPM 250GB USB2.0 HDD w/cable
Nexxtech USB 2.0 Cardbus PC Card Adapter N2PUCB
Sony VAIO Notebook PCG-FXA36
AMD Athlon 4 1GHz Processor
256MB RAM
Windows XP Home SP2


Do you see any problems, or do you need more info?

j7n
29.08.2008, 03:36 PM
The same disk drive can write at 30-45 MB/s and read at 65 MB/s when connected to a SATA port directly. The ATA-to-USB bridge is like a middleman which will always slow things down, hence the development of eSATA or makeshift solutions to bring the SATA cable out of the case.

I can't really help you with this problem. My only solution is to swap the parts and see if there's a difference. The common occurence of USB working at 1.0 speed is not here, since you said that the speed climbs above 12 megabits.

Skippybox
29.08.2008, 03:56 PM
Wow, I thought drives were still faster than that, for some reason. Yeah, my SimpleDrive actually says it can use the SATA interface, but I later found out it was mislabled! Apparently, the Pro drive offers this. However, I don't believe there is a SATA PC Card for notebooks, just desktops, right? My notebook probably wouldn't support it though anyway.

I'm kind of leaning towards the USB2.0 PC card as being faulty here. Perhaps its just cheap, and just barely performs over 1.5MB/s, so as to consider itself 2.0! In fact, recently it freezes my notebook just plugging it in. Not sure why. The computer and hard drives are probably sound design, unless the internal interface is somehow slow in the drives.

WellOiledPC
09.08.2009, 07:14 PM
I have two 3.5" external hard drives that support USB 2.0. Unfortunately, I have been disappointed by 2.0's performance over 1.0. Supposedly, the transfer rate is up to 40x better, at around 480Mbps (60MBps), than USB 1.0's 12Mbps (1.5MBps).

When I connect one of the drives solely on a USB 1.0 port, I can only achieve about 0.75MBps, but over 2.0 ports I only get slightly more than 1.5MBps. I am using the 1.0 ports included with my PC, but for 2.0 I am using a PC Card. I am also using the USB 2.0 cables that come with the drives.

Since the drive is easily faster than the potential transfer rate, what is accounting for such poor performance? Isn't 2.0 suppose to be better than this?

USB 2.0 is definitely much, much faster than 1.0. I have a Desktop that has USB 1.0 alone - it is such a pain, watching files transferring from, say a Flash Drive to the Desktop, while the same file is transferred in the blink of an eye onto my Notebook, with USB 2.0!

You seem to be getting real slow speeds with both USB 1.0 as well as USB 2.0 though!

ChuckE
10.08.2009, 06:15 AM
You will never see theoretical speeds, or speed improvements, like the supposedly 40x improvement going from USB 1.0 to 2.0. I have only experienced a 10x speed increase. On one computer I had seen a nearly 20x speed increase. But never expect 40x.

I do think that your 1.5 Mbps is a bit slow, I get from 5 to 10MBps myself. I think it is your equipment.

...Well, here's what I've got:

SimpleTech SimpleDrive FV-U35/500 3.5" 7200RPM 500GB USB2.0 HDD w/cable
SimpleTech SimpleDrive CC-USB235/250 3.5" 7200RPM 250GB USB2.0 HDD w/cable
Nexxtech USB 2.0 Cardbus PC Card Adapter N2PUCB
Sony VAIO Notebook PCG-FXA36
AMD Athlon 4 1GHz Processor
256MB RAM
Windows XP Home SP2

Do you see any problems, or do you need more info?
First thing, I have seen slow performance with Sony notebooks. I think Sony makes physically beautiful boxes, and there is some great interface options on the newer Sony computers, I have never been impressed with their performance. (That's just my opinion.) But that does not explain it alone.

You are using a Cardbus adapter and that can be a bit slow on an underpowered computer. And your computer is a bit underpowered. It is a 1GHz Athlon with just 256MB running WinXP.

That is about the lowest amount of memory you can have and still expect things to "happen today" when you are using WinXP. I looked at the specs of your computer and I see it uses PC100 memory, and while it has two memory slots, it maxes out at having only 256MB per slot, a total of just 512 MB. If you get more memory I think you may find a substantial increase in overall speed. You might even try two 512MB memory modules, just for grins, just to see if the total memory gets seen. (Can you even find PC100 512MB modules? If so just try one 512MB alone. If that one module gets fully seen, then having two 512MBs will probably work.) Your computer has just a 200MHz buss, so trying to go to the faster PC133 memory is not going to help.

Running WinXP on a total of 1GB of memory is much better. I see substantial speed increases when going on up to 1GB, with not nearly the same performance increase when going higher than 1GB.

Last item, that CardBus adapter, which gives you two USB 2.0 ports, and since you have both in use, is going to be slowed down a bit if you are transferring from one of the USB ports to the other. If you were just using one port and copying to/from the internal hard drive might be a bit faster.

Have you considered just getting a newer laptop? :)

Skippybox
10.08.2009, 08:07 PM
Thanks ChuckE for letting me in on what I could expect. I know from other sources that one cannot expect the theoretical, but obviously I wasn't anywhere near that, so I was a bit concerned.

You're probably right about the Sony's performance. It is no thriller, but it has satisfied me and still works very well. I bought it for longevity, and after eight years I think I've got that. Other notebooks may have been a better choice for speed, but I doubt they would have lasted as long.

The areas you point to could all very well contribute to the overall slowness of my USB2.0. I still have to wonder though why the computer would be underpowered. I mean, this was a decent machine when they sold it, and why couldn't I utilize its PCMCIA card slots to add functionality? It's not like I am trying to multi-task here either. Maybe this notebook was made to barely run as designed, but I find it hard to imagine how a cheaper lighter model would have performed that I passed up.

I believe I must always have both memory slots filled, so I would only be able to use two new 256MB modules to replace my 128MB ones. Or I could mix 'n' match. 512MB modules are probably out of the question in this thing. Memory would be a good boost, and you can still get even 32MB modules today (all quite cheap compared to the PC Card!).

I think you're right that using both ports simultaneously diminishes the speed. But, that is exactly what I need to do. I would like to frequently pass information from one USB drive to the other USB drive in addition to my HDD. I have had problems with even the 1.0 ports in a similar respect. When using a USB mouse on one 1.0 port and a flash drive on the other 1.0 port, I get I/O errors when working with a USB reader during certain transfer and file operations. Taking the mouse off the system stops the errors.

New laptop? Well, that would be easy and great, but I'm reluctant to move to Vista or 7. It's also a bit of an investment, since I won't be going for a $500 model or some little Netbook. Rather than buying something inexpensive every three years, I usually go high-end for as long as I can. You almost have to when the OS gets as bloated as it does.

ChuckE
11.08.2009, 02:02 AM
Win7 (also, perhaps, better recognized as Viista :) ) is a VERY GOOD choice for your somewhat under powered laptop. I have heard some very good reports about Win7 installed on netbooks (and you thought your laptop was underpowered!) and those reports are coming through with glowing remarks.

I have put Win7 on two of my PCs here, and I have yet to see anything not work well. Win7 has been a great new OS. I hardily recommend it. I don't know if the free download of the Win7 RC (Release Candidate) is still available, but if you can get it ... do it!

I have an .iso of the MS released Win7 here, and I have used it about 4 times, so far. It installs very easily, and it seems like the OS that we all hoped that Vista would have been. The only reason I think Microsoft changed the name from Vista, to Win7, was to distance themselves from the stigma of the "Vista blackeye." Since most of the operations of Win7 and all of the drivers are pretty much Vista, but it just works better, with less of a hit on the hardware.

For free, find and try, Win7. I don't think you will be disappointed.

Skippybox
11.08.2009, 03:42 PM
OK, I'll consider it. I believe it is still available for a few days. I don't meet the system requirements though (1GB RAM minimum), so I can't install it on my notebook which would max out at 512MB. :(

Microsoft probably wants to try to stop putting XP on Netbooks. Win7 is probably better, but I do notice that XP has a few things that I still like. I remember comparing Vista and Win7 before, thinking I would like 7 better, but kind of was actually leaning towards Vista. If you say Win7 performs better though, maybe those few reservations won't matter so much. Maybe if I get a Notebook now, I could actually get both OSs for the same money to truly compare, since Win7 is a free upgrade with purchases.

Still, I love XP, and statistics show it is amazingly successful with close to 70% share of the market still! :D That may be a real problem for Microsoft...

ChuckE
12.08.2009, 12:16 AM
Although I have ALWAYS said that whatever MS states as the minimum configuration, that you should double that, (IE. xMHz speed, better make that 2xMHz; yMB of memory, better make that 2yMB) I believe that the numbers coming from MS in regards to Win7 are in error. The reason I believe they have their inflated numbers (something no less than what they stated for Vista) is that they are trying to avoid the "egg on their face" that Win7 is not requiring a step-up in all hardware departments.

I am pretty sure that Win7 will work just hunky-dory of your laptop. Else I would not have suggested it.

Skippybox
28.08.2009, 08:50 PM
Well, I decided against the upgrade for a couple of reasons. For one, MS actually did not recommend XP users to upgrade. Two, the space requirement was still too steep 16GB+15GB (for WindowsXP mode), which is beyond my 20GB HDD. Even barely running it at 16GB would have been pretty useless, unless I bought a new drive for my programs.

Considering I already needed RAM upgrades (which were still insufficient), probably graphics upgrades (which were impossible), and processor upgrades, it just looked better to stay with my fine system and buy a new computer later that would work way better for the price. I need to find a replacement anyway, since I'm sure the other parts won't last forever, even if I upgraded. Besides, I need better video performance anyway for my files.

I also would have had a problem with the download, since it would take all day to get, even on basic DSL. And the ISO is for a DVD, but my computer can't burn DVDs, only read them. So, someone else would have had to do that for me.

All in all, it would have been a great effort, without much guarantee of a reward.

matera
30.08.2009, 06:18 AM
If all you can get into it is 512MB RAM, get the 2x256 and stick with XP for now. It's a good OS. The realistic minimum for Vista is 2G. It would probably crawl like a stomped worm with 512 or less, though your processor makes mine look puny. I'm sure 7 is no sparer of memory; every new version of Windwoes wants twice what the last demanded. My now-retired XP machine sailed over everthing except manipulation of large images with 512. It's headed for a new job -- part-time office work -- for which it is moderately overqualified.

WellOiledPC
30.08.2009, 07:24 AM
Although I have ALWAYS said that whatever MS states as the minimum configuration, that you should double that, (IE. xMHz speed, better make that 2xMHz; yMB of memory, better make that 2yMB) I believe that the numbers coming from MS in regards to Win7 are in error. The reason I believe they have their inflated numbers (something no less than what they stated for Vista) is that they are trying to avoid the "egg on their face" that Win7 is not requiring a step-up in all hardware departments.

I am pretty sure that Win7 will work just hunky-dory of your laptop. Else I would not have suggested it.

Windows 7 does work very well with 1 GB RAM. 20 GB HDD is cutting it too fine though - my installed Windows 7 Folder alone is a little over 10 GB. Not much you can add, by way of essential software, in the remaining space!

The debacle that was Windows Vista is only ONE of half a dozen reasons for Windows 7 being named so. Yes, Windows 7 is being written so that it can run reasonably well on Netbooks: with Windows XP being phased out, MS MUST have a suitable OS for the Netbook and Vista simply cannot be the chosen one, thanks to its (resource) drinking habits!

BTW ChuckE, another hijacked thread? ;)

ChuckE
30.08.2009, 09:24 PM
...BTW ChuckE, another hijacked thread? ;)
no, not at all. I was conversing with the originator of the thread, Skippybox, and his original problem was his experience with his slow experience with USB 2.0. I mentioned that Sony laptops are not rated in my "fast column" but I suggested that if he goes to the Win7 he might get a better experience. Even though Win7 requirements, from MS, are high, I dispute them. It is my impression that Win7 will work on PCs that are very much under the suggestions from MS.

So, hijacking this thread? not even, not when talking to the originator of the thread, when going the direction that the originator steers you to.

What's your point? Are we good?

Mij
31.08.2009, 12:42 AM
Well I don't like to break in on your nice little discussion of the latest operating systems but I doubt that it has much to do with the original question.
The issue was about why an elderly computer designed to handle USB1 could not achieve USB2 speeds, even though a USB2 interface board had been fitted.

The speed of any transfer is always limited by the slowest part of the data path which could be a function of either hardware or software. Just because the path between interface board and accessory can achieve USB2 speeds does not mean that you will achieve that speed all the way from the computer internal memory. To achieve USB2 throughput there were major speed improvements to the bridge architecture within the processor and the chips that handle the PCI bus. There were probably changes to the BIOS too to support the 2 DMA interrupts of USB2 rather than the single one that USB1 needed. Remember that computer hardware speeds were doubling every 18 months, and that is not just the processor. It is all the chips in there.

I would imagine that the necessary upgrades to the operating system for USB2 were already in place in kernel 5.0 (windows 2000) and definitely by 5.1 (Windows XP). So the idea that the changes from 6.0 to 6.1, Vista to Windows 7, will have much effect on USB2 speed does seem pretty unlikely to me.

I think you need to upgrade the computer not the operating system.

Skippybox
01.09.2009, 04:57 PM
I don't think anyone has to worry about hijacking a thread. This is what I wanted, a diverse response on the topic. Any and all responses are welcome towards solving this problem. I am appreciative of the advice regardless of whether it delivers or not.


The realistic minimum for Vista is 2G. It would probably crawl like a stomped worm with 512 or less, though your processor makes mine look puny.

What processor is that?


I think you need to upgrade the computer not the operating system.

I probably have to agree with Mij. Hardware may be great at the time, but is still no match for the pace of technology advancement. Upgrading single components is a far-fetched thought nowadays, especially with prices dropping so much.

So maybe a new computer is in order, even if mine isn't crawling yet. I just wonder if I don't actually need Windows 7, should I install the slimmer XP on a new machine? With its overwhelming popularity, it doesn't look like it will be eliminated for quite awhile.

Can anyone recommend which notebook I should try this time to get faster performance, rather than a new Sony?

WellOiledPC
01.09.2009, 06:26 PM
So its settled that Skippybox does not consider this thread hijacked.

If you are looking at a Notebook (as opposed to a Netbook), HP still sells the maximum numbers worldwide, at about 20%. Dell follows, with around 15%. Here is a quick link to some Market Research findings by an Austin, Texas-based MR firm called DisplaySearch, with the tag line, "the worldwide leader in display market research and consulting"... http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displaysearch/hs.xsl/062608_QNB_SFR_PR.asp I would have preferred IDC's figures, but knowing IDC (I wrote over 250 MR Reports for them, over the 5 years I worked with them!), its not like them to give away free information over the web, in person, over the phone, or any other manner of communication! :)

My experience with HP has been very, very good too - bettered only by IBM, but then IBM is now Lenovo and the difference definitely shows!!!

Dell is pretty good too - I am currently on a 2 1/2 year-old Dell Latitude, it has never required the services of their Service Center...

None of these will look as good as a Sony, they will not cost as much too! However, I suggest you wait till Windows 7 begins shipping with Notebooks, before getting your new Notebook!

Skippybox
01.09.2009, 08:24 PM
Any particular reason to wait? If I buy now, I can try Vista and get a Win7 disc for free when it comes out from the manufacturer.

Actually, I am worried about durability. All the notebooks (even many Sonys) I've looked at seem really flimsy now, whereas my Sony is quite solid from 8 years ago. Part of this is due to cost, but also bigger screen sizes. The Apples have a metal casing which really helps, but obviously I don't want an Apple. Panasonic makes ToughBooks for business, but they are expensive! Am I overreacting, or has anyone broken one of these things?

I know someone who had a Dell, but it died after only 2 1/2 years. Someone else still has a Sony older than mine!

Price may drive sales, so I don't know if that really is something to go on. I would like performance, but does that mean I will have to sacrifice reliability to get it? I guess another brand would be worth it, if I get the same cost/year of ownership out of it, even if didn't last as long.

ChuckE
01.09.2009, 09:48 PM
I lean toward a particular brand, Dell, and I have had very good luck with them. I have a 3 Dell laptops and at least a half dozen Dell desktops. I have also had Gateway, Sony, HP, and at least a few no-names. Dell no longer has particular good support (they used to be the best ... but, no more) I suppose it is good that I have had very few Dell problems.

For prettiness and what appears to be a very featured laptop I like the HP (which is also Compaq now) and the Sony, but in my experience (I support a number of home users in my area) I have never been happy with the strange issues that seem to happen on those two brands. As for Gateway, I am really dissatisfied with their support and their hardware.

When people ask me what to get, I try to steer them toward Dell, but I also tell them that almost any known brand computer you buy will probably be good, and it is the luck of the draw if it dies early. Also usually, if it lives through the standard warranty period it will probably last as long as you'll need (and I don't suggest extended warranties unless it is, or almost, free). But my biggest recommendation I have, for those people, is to just buy the brand that seems to have all the bells and whistles that you are looking for, for the price you are willing to pay.

Suggestions for bargain, deal, and coupon code discounts - I really recommend gotapex.com and bensbargains.net. Those websites do not sell items, them only give you a "heads up" on currently available deals. (Check often, because many deals are just there for a couple days, then they're gone. In that case, just check tomorrow..

Good luck on anything you buy. By the way, there are deals around, like Skippybox mentioned, that will include a free upgrade to Win7 when it comes out. Dell even has a deal where you buy Vista, and they give you a free "downgrade" for WinXP, PLUS, when Win7 comes out you will get that DVD at that time. So you get 3 operating systems. This is very useful for the small business person who may not know if the apps they're running right now on WinXP will run on Vista, or even Win7 when it come out.

Skippybox
01.09.2009, 09:55 PM
Thanks for the tips ChuckE. That 3-for-1 OS deal from Dell looks pretty appealing! :D

Mij
02.09.2009, 12:01 AM
....and when you have installed and mastered all those operating systems you can tell us which one runs the USB fastest. If you still care!

..and then of course there's Linux to try, in all its different flavors...:rolleyes:

Skippybox
02.09.2009, 12:39 AM
Give me time Mij, give me time!

You know, I think I'm already behind trying to buy a new PC, when USB 3.0 is coming out right around the corner. :rolleyes:

ChuckE
02.09.2009, 12:49 AM
USB 3.0, which is supposed to be about 10x the speed of 2.0, (in other words 4.8Gbps!!) is having a bit of a problem with getting through standards and testing.
See Google search: usb 3.0 spec (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=usb3.0+spec&aq=0&oq=usb3.0&aqi=g10)

Also, if you are worrying about the cost of a computer, and then, in the next breath suggesting that you want USB 3.0, well, it seems counter-intuitive. Any computer that is going to have USB 3.0 (when and if) then that computer is going to be a high-buck, high performance machine.

For those of you who are counting bps, here is a brief listing of the various interfaces and their theoretical speeds:
USB1.1 = 12 Mbps 1.5MB/s
FW400 = 400 Mbps 50MB/s
USB2.0 = 480 Mbps 60MB/s
FW800 = 800 Mbps 100MB/s
SCSI160 = 1280 Mbps 160MB/s
SATA1 = 1500 Mbps 188MB/s
SCSI320 = 2560 Mbps 320MB/s
SATA2 = 3000 Mbps 375MB/s
USB3.0 = 4800 Mbps 600MB/s
HDMI1.2 = 4950 Mbps 619MB/s
SATA3 = 6000 Mbps 750MB/s
HDMI1.3 = 10200 Mbps 1275MB/s

Skippybox
02.09.2009, 12:55 AM
I know, I was just being sarcastic. You can't wait for the next technology, you'll be waiting forever.

Thanks for the list.

WellOiledPC
02.09.2009, 07:19 PM
I agree with ChuckE - if your Notebook survives the 1-year warranty period - give it a few more months for luck - then its gonna last until you're sick of it! :) Brand-wise, either hp or Dell are fine. What is more important is, just how good the service center is, both in terms of their ability to fix problems and their ability to do it in time!

Support for brands is quite location-specific! At Singapore, support for Dell was excellent. However in India, Dell's support is almost non-existent, while support for hp, Compaq and Acer are par excellence! Even a day's waiting is intolerable, isn't it, when your Notebook is down?

Compaq Notebooks aren't as rugged as hp in my experience. Though hp bought over Compaq in one of the biggest buy-outs, years ago, they continue to brand differently: apparently, hp is for the business user and Compaq for the home/ small office user.

If you will get Windows 7 free when it is released, you may not want to wait any longer. You will definitely have to invest in AntiVirus and AntiSpyware though, for none of the versions that run under Vista run under Windows 7! Maybe upgrade to Windows 7-compatible versions of some software... Everything else that's important to me, that runs under XP, runs under Windows 7 too, but that's of course no guarantee that your experience will be the same too!

Microsoft has a tool for Application Compatibility - Microsoft Application Compatibility Toolkit (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=24da89e9-b581-47b0-b45e-492dd6da2971&displaylang=en)

Skippybox
02.09.2009, 08:01 PM
I agree with ChuckE - if your Notebook survives the 1-year warranty period - give it a few more months for luck - then its gonna last until you're sick of it! :)

Don't I know it. I'm driving a 21 year-old Japanese car that I still love. :) Maybe that's why I seem to stick with Sony. I'm willing to pay a premium upfront if it will give me trouble-free years of service.


What is more important is, just how good the service center is, both in terms of their ability to fix problems and their ability to do it in time!

I guess I don't care so much how good support is, just as long as I don't have to use it!


Even a day's waiting is intolerable, isn't it, when your Notebook is down?

No, it's not so bad waiting. I just don't like shoddy technicians touching my stuff. I've seen how bad a job can be at the mechanic. Sometimes, you have to basically do the job over again yourself to get it right. Besides, labor and parts are outrageous.


Compaq Notebooks aren't as rugged as hp in my experience. Though hp bought over Compaq in one of the biggest buy-outs, years ago, they continue to brand differently: apparently, hp is for the business user and Compaq for the home/ small office user.

I've tried someone's Compaq before and it seems pretty good, but I would lean towards an HP. I've only used HP printers and calculators. But my impression of the brand is mixed. They make very nice equipment, but I'm unsure of the quality. I've seen a bad monitor and print cartridge here and there.

Before Sony, I owned a used Gateway2000 (before they became just Gateway!) with Win95, and that 13 year-old machine still runs today. That has been a very good experience too, but I also have not used it as much, only 6 years, then only once in awhile.

ChuckE
02.09.2009, 08:36 PM
You will definitely have to invest in AntiVirus and AntiSpyware though, for none of the versions that run under Vista run under Windows 7!
I have had no problems with my free AVG v8.5 running on WinXP, Vista or Win7.

Also, soon, as quoted from Leo LaPorte at techguylabs.com:
"Microsoft has decided to give away an AntiVirus utility in the near future. It’ll be a complete solution which replaces both an AVS and Spyware catcher. And word is, it’s an excellent utility that’ll get better once out of beta."

When MS comes out with that, they should have (should? who knows?) versions for all their supported operating systems.

WellOiledPC
03.09.2009, 11:09 AM
Don't I know it. I'm driving a 21 year-old Japanese car that I still love. :) Maybe that's why I seem to stick with Sony. I'm willing to pay a premium upfront if it will give me trouble-free years of service.

Notebook parts are sourced from a number of suppliers and integrated by the 'Branded' Notebook vendor after 'Quality Checks'. Trouble is, nobody (including the Branded Notebook manufacturer) can be sure that each finished product will turn out to be trouble-free... even if you're willing to pay a premium.


I guess I don't care so much how good support is, just as long as I don't have to use it!

Nobody wants to 'test' Support! Its rather like Life Insurance - unpleasant, but good sense! :)


No, it's not so bad waiting. I just don't like shoddy technicians touching my stuff. I've seen how bad a job can be at the mechanic. Sometimes, you have to basically do the job over again yourself to get it right. Besides, labor and parts are outrageous.

Totally agree, except that I want quick service AND excellent service!


I've tried someone's Compaq before and it seems pretty good, but I would lean towards an HP. I've only used HP printers and calculators. But my impression of the brand is mixed. They make very nice equipment, but I'm unsure of the quality. I've seen a bad monitor and print cartridge here and there.

As I said, no guarantees are possible here. Fact is though that HP has been world leaders in the Notebooks niche for over 5 years now.

[/QUOTE]


I have had no problems with my free AVG v8.5 running on WinXP, Vista or Win7.

Also, soon, as quoted from Leo LaPorte at techguylabs.com:
"Microsoft has decided to give away an AntiVirus utility in the near future. It’ll be a complete solution which replaces both an AVS and Spyware catcher. And word is, it’s an excellent utility that’ll get better once out of beta."

When MS comes out with that, they should have (should? who knows?) versions for all their supported operating systems.

I doubt whether Microsoft have the same prowess as Symantec, AVG and company, where AntiVirus, AntiSpyware and other nasty things are concerned!

I shy away from Freeware, where Security products are concerned. And, quite OK where most other software products are concerned. Freeware AntiVirus isn't the same as a freeware Image Viewer or a freeware Media Player! In the event of a Zero Day Virus attack, guess who releases the patch first?

ChuckE
04.09.2009, 01:07 AM
guess who releases the patch first?
Simple. MICROSOFT!!

In the area of "Zero Day Exploits" your really can't expect a free anti-virus company to get there that quick, at least not on "day zero." But being "day zero" it is only Microsoft that is going to be "Johnny on the spot" right there on the day that a hole is announced, since it is them that announced the hole - ALONG with the patch for it (MS does not announce a hole without the patch for it). So, the very first line of defense, against any Zero Day exploit, is going to have to be Microsoft and the patches that they announced on that day zero.

It is the virus creators who use the info that Microsoft supplies on Day Zero that then create the viruses to exploit the hole, announced by MS, that are going to immediately follow the trails left by MS. But if you get the critical updates, announced by MS on Day Zero, there is no problem there.

Given that 'breathing room', then using the frequent updates provided by the free anti-virus companies (like AVG or Avast) and you should be adequately protected.

I have a half-dozen computers, and I only use the free AVG, along with the critical MS updates as they are announced, and I can't recall ever getting a virus.

WellOiledPC
04.09.2009, 09:05 AM
Simple. MICROSOFT!!

In the area of "Zero Day Exploits" your really can't expect a free anti-virus company to get there that quick, at least not on "day zero." But being "day zero" it is only Microsoft that is going to be "Johnny on the spot" right there on the day that a hole is announced, since it is them that announced the hole - ALONG with the patch for it (MS does not announce a hole without the patch for it). So, the very first line of defense, against any Zero Day exploit, is going to have to be Microsoft and the patches that they announced on that day zero.

It is the virus creators who use the info that Microsoft supplies on Day Zero that then create the viruses to exploit the hole, announced by MS, that are going to immediately follow the trails left by MS. But if you get the critical updates, announced by MS on Day Zero, there is no problem there.

Given that 'breathing room', then using the frequent updates provided by the free anti-virus companies (like AVG or Avast) and you should be adequately protected.

I have a half-dozen computers, and I only use the free AVG, along with the critical MS updates as they are announced, and I can't recall ever getting a virus.


I do not have the same level of trust in Microsoft! Sure, they are placed well enough, but are they lean enough to move quickly? In this business, a day's delay is equal to Billions of dollars lost, the world over! Whatever MS does is consistently done long after the horse has bolted, and is done in instalments!

Security holes are put in place when a product is released without adequate testing. (Not so surprisingly, it is Vista that comes readily to the mind!) While a few security holes are probably exploited by Security product vendors, this is done to boost their Security product sales, not to steal Credit Card information. Therefore it will be a long time, before the patch is made available to free users of the product! In fact, free users are soft targets - maybe sitting targets even, for they are forced to buy the commercial version of the product, if they want to get rid of the virus!

Most security holes in Microsoft products - OS and IE and Office included, are identified by Hackers: some of them do it for a fleeting moment of fame, some of them do it for malicious reasons. A rare minority does it for altruistic reasons...

Interestingly, an increasing number of them are actually teens or even younger, operating on their own or in gangs of twos and threes...!

When the world was reeling under NIMDA, if MS could do something about it, were they twiddling their thumbs? No, I'd place my money on ISVs, even where cleaning up after Windows is concerned! No freeware too, where Security products, OS or Office Suites (though OpenOffice is quite good) are concerned.

True, life at MS can't be easy or enviable, what with every hacker worth his/ her salt, training their guns forever on MS! The guys at, say Ubuntu or Apple OS, lead peaceful lives in comparison! :)

ChuckE
04.09.2009, 09:42 AM
I am not talking about who can move faster, a large company or a small one, I am only talking about what you brought up with:
In the event of a Zero Day Virus attack, guess who releases the patch first?
The term "Zero Day Exploit" is where the virus creators dissect the info and patch released by Microsoft on their "Update Tuesday," which is typically the 2nd Tuesday of every month (unless something big has forced their normal release schedule). Microsoft does not tell anybody what holes are found, or what they're working on, until they have a patch already made for it. Those out of sequence security fixes are very rare, and when they do happen it was because someone let the security hole info out before MS either had the patch for it, or it just was not "Update Tuesday" yet. When that happens then MS scrambles to get the patch out, and gets the news of the needed and available patch out to the computer news organizations.

The virus creators are very fast, and they are clever, and they create a virus utilizing the hole already announced by Microsoft, using Microsoft's details. It is when people who don't get those patches on the day that they are announced that run the risk of being hit by the security issue of that hole. Thus, the virus creators are exploiting from "Day Zero" (the announced date).

So, the obvious answer to the question: "In the event of a Zero Day Virus attack, guess who releases the patch first?" the answer has to be Microsoft. Without the MS announcement, and the obligatory patch, then there is no Zero Day.

WellOiledPC
04.09.2009, 03:59 PM
I am not talking about who can move faster, a large company or a small one, I am only talking about what you brought up with:
The term "Zero Day Exploit" is where the virus creators dissect the info and patch released by Microsoft on their "Update Tuesday," which is typically the 2nd Tuesday of every month (unless something big has forced their normal release schedule). Microsoft does not tell anybody what holes are found, or what they're working on, until they have a patch already made for it. Those out of sequence security fixes are very rare, and when they do happen it was because someone let the security hole info out before MS either had the patch for it, or it just was not "Update Tuesday" yet. When that happens then MS scrambles to get the patch out, and gets the news of the needed and available patch out to the computer news organizations.

The virus creators are very fast, and they are clever, and they create a virus utilizing the hole already announced by Microsoft, using Microsoft's details. It is when people who don't get those patches on the day that they are announced that run the risk of being hit by the security issue of that hole. Thus, the virus creators are exploiting from "Day Zero" (the announced date).

So, the obvious answer to the question: "In the event of a Zero Day Virus attack, guess who releases the patch first?" the answer has to be Microsoft. Without the MS announcement, and the obligatory patch, then there is no Zero Day.

I was reacting to your opinion that Microsoft's AntiVirus product might be a nice thing.

Also, soon, as quoted from Leo LaPorte at techguylabs.com:
"Microsoft has decided to give away an AntiVirus utility in the near future. It’ll be a complete solution which replaces both an AVS and Spyware catcher. And word is, it’s an excellent utility that’ll get better once out of beta."

When MS comes out with that, they should have (should? who knows?) versions for all their supported operating systems.
Clearly, it will need to be many times better than 'Windows Defender'! If it is, I'll gladly dunk my paid AntiVirus and AntiSpyware subscription!

matera
09.09.2009, 05:20 AM
I guess I don't care so much how good support is, just as long as I don't have to use it!
ROFL -- I second the emotion! I don't trust anyone but me either.