Windows 98SE - USB 2.0 Question

[Monroe]

I had something happen today with my USB 2.0 Flash Drive and I'm puzzled by it all. I know someone here may have an answer. This concerns my IBM Thinkpad T41 which has USB 2.0 ports and Windows 98SE. I had a 700 MB download that I transferred to one of my USB 2.0 flash drives. I intended to put this download on another person's computer which is a new Dell with Windows 7 and also of course, USB 2.0. When I transferred the download from my computer to the flash drive it was really slow, taking 10 to 12 minutes but when I transferred the download to the newer Dell with Windows 7 ... it only took one minute. I have NUSB 3.5 installed on my computer. I thought that transfer should only have taken 3 minutes from my computer to the flash drive ... it was acting like it was maybe USB 1.1 speed. Anyone have some ideas on what actually might be going on? Thanks.

...

Edited January 14, 2012 by duffy98

[halohalo]

Maybe there is something wrong with USB controller.

http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Problem_with_USB_2.0

[bpalone]

Not all flash drives are created equal when it comes to WRITE speeds. Smaller files you don't really notice it, but with large files it really shows up. That could be at least part of it. I have some seem to take forever with a file that size (not using 98se). I use flash drives to hold movies that I have ripped to avi format, so I can take them on the road with me and use several different brands. Never really paid much attention to which ones were slow writers, because once I have them filled with movies that is the lat time I write to them.

Don't know if this helped, but it was one thought I had.

Good luck.

[Monroe]

halohalo ... that was quite an interesting link you posted dealing with the Thinkpad T40s and static electricity. I bought the computer as refurbished, so there is no warranty.

From your link:

Long answer: a number of Intel chipsets for Pentium IV and Pentium M processors have a design flaw that makes the southbridge (which contains the USB host controllers) especially sensitive to static electricity. As a result there is a (small) risk that when plugging in or removing a USB device causes damage to the chip. Usually, the first symptom is broken USB 2.0, behaving in exactly the way you described (ie, works under Windows, but only after some waiting and as if it was connected to a USB 1.1 controller, not a USB 2.0 one, and not at all under Linux unless you unload the USB 2.0 driver). This tends to lead to a completely dead chipset a short time later, so better get it serviced NOW.

Well, that could well be my problem ... I also have a newer T42, so I will have to test the flash drive on it. Appreciate you finding that little bit of info.

bpalone ... I was also wondering about what you posted ... maybe the flash drive was at fault but it seemed to work quite well (fast) putting the download onto the Windows 7 computer. I have several 2.0 flash drives and just got a Cosair Survivor 16 GB flash drive from what dencorso posted about flimsy and sturdy flash drives in another thread ... but halohalo may have found the answer to my problem ... wish I had known about that static electricity thing before buying the T41 and T42.

thanks again ...

[CharlotteTheHarlot]

When I transferred the download from my computer to the flash drive it was really slow, taking 10 to 12 minutes but when I transferred the download to the newer Dell with Windows 7 ... it only took one minute.

Antivirus running on the Win9x computer? They really like to drive you crazy when using flashdrives.

Or, if the long copy delay happened just after you had downloaded the file from the 'net to the Win9x computer, then the culprits could be browser/javascript/memory issues. I would reboot Win9x and then immediately try to offload the file again to the flashdrive to rule out a one-time situational coincidence.

I wouldn't assume that the hardware went bad.

[loblo]

Not all flash drives are created equal when it comes to WRITE speeds.

My thoughts as well. Duffy you should test out how long it takes to copy from Win 7 and write to win98 with that flash drive before looking for a problem with your win98 usb imo.

[Monroe]

Well, I'm back with some more USB 2.0 questions and observations ...

First, CharlotteTheHarlot ... thanks for the reply ... I have no Antivirus program on my machine, haven't had one installed for many years. I had downloaded the file the day before and did this transfer yesterday morning, so the computer had been shut down and booted several times before the transfer. ... yes, I am rethinking myself that the USB 2 hardware might not be bad afterall. I did some experiments this morning and I will get into more detail below and I have some further questions.

loblo ... I was sort of thinking something similar early this morning, that I should try a few things and so I did some "experiments" which I will go into more detail. added: I don't have a Windows 7 computer at present to do any testing. I had a download that someone also wanted so I did a quick transfer yesterday for them.

OK ... I decided to try some transfers with some different flash drives.

I did not use that same download that I used earlier, it was 704 MB ... so I used a 255 MB download on the same flashdrive (2GB) from before. I decided to use a smaller download to save some time, with that earlier download going around 10 - 12 minutes. I timed the first transfer with the 255 MB download and the 2 GB flash drive at 2 1/2 minutes, then I did the same 255 MB transfer with a new Kingston 8 GB flash drive (bought Oct 2010) ... it also took 2 1/2 minutes. I didn't do anymore flash drives. I came up with a new "idea" ... I have a Belkin USB 2.0 card that I had bought to use with an older computer that only has USB 1.1 speed. Now in that computer (Dell Latitude CPJx) that 2.0 card really does speed transfers up ... a 700 MB might take 20 minutes or more (if I remember correct) at USB 1.1 speed but when I use the 2.0 USB card, the transfer time drops to maybe 4 or 5 minutes, there is a real difference.

So after I did the two test transfers on the Thinkpad T41 this morning, I thought about installing this USB 2.0 card on the T41 to see if the 255 MB transfer would actually be faster. Now this is where I am confused ... with these results, instead of being faster, the test transfer actually took longer, almost 3 1/2 minutes.

I have some additional things to post but I am out of time and have to leave. I will be back online in about just over an hour .... I will finish up this post ... to be continued ... I thought I could get it all done but not to be...

OK ... as I said earlier, I'm a bit confused as to why the transfer using the Belkin 2.0 card would actually be slower. I have to correct my first post ... I actually have NUSB 3.5 installed (not NUSB 3.3) ... MDGx's site is showing NUSB 3.3 but my folder is showing NUSB 3.5. I have to research where I exactly got that version ... but I'm not sure why I can't find it at MDGx's site. I thought NUSB 3.5 replaced version 3.3. If I remember, this version was mentioned in a forum thread in 2011 ... check that out later.

I was also thinking about the USB cord ... usually some years back, when you bought a flash drive, you also received a USB connect cord to use instead of having to put the flash drive right into the computer port. Today those USB cords seem to a thing of the past. All my flash drives are rated USB 2.0 but also backward compatible with USB 1.1 and the cords supplied with some of those earlier 2.0 flash drives should be OK to use with all 2.0 USB flash drives. ... maybe yes ... maybe no? I like using the cord so I don't have to keep plugging different drives into the USB port on the notebook ... they seem to be fragile with a slight movement, so I try to not mess with them too much, unless I plug the USB mouse over and over into the top port ... the T41 has two USB ports. I thought I had read years ago that the new USB 2.0 flash drives required a newer USB cord over using one that might have shipped with an older USB 1.1 flash drive.

I was wondering if there is something in the NUSB 3.5 download that is not installed correct on my computer? I had one other question but it escapes me at this moment ... Well, that's everything for now.

... OK, got my question back ... if someone has a computer that only has Windows 98SE installed with 2.0 USB ports, what would be your guess of just how long a transfer should actually take ... 255 MB with USB 2.0 flash drive ... are we talking just seconds, a minute or less with Windows 98SE over the 2 1/2 minutes my transfer took?

... have another question for anyone with more knowledge on USB flash drives and files. Both files were avi. files. My question ... would various files ( say all the files are the same size: 255 MB) download or transfer at various speeds? In otherwards, a 255 MB file, no matter what it might be (avi., mkv., a software program or whatever) should all transfer at the same speed! ... yes or no? ... thanks

...

Edited January 14, 2012 by duffy98

[submix8c]

NUSB v3.3 is in the first post of the Topic.

NUSB 3.5 is here.

There's some further info on that version within the 98 SE SP3 topic (page#43/44).

[dencorso]

Different pendrives behave differently. Ponder over this, and you'll see why more expensive pendrives are more expensive. Moreover, small files, and downloads that come in parts are the worst case for any pendrive. Do local file full copy tests, to have more meaningful results.

[Monroe]

Thanks for the flash drive chart ... think I finally figured out the readings and the meanings. Not exactly sure I fully understand what you mean when you say: Do "local file full copy tests", to have more meaningful results.

...

[dencorso]

Local files are those stored in a disk internal to the machine. So, I meant "copy some given file from the internal disk to the pendrive, while timing it, then copy it back from the pendrive, to (another folder in) the internal disk"... Do it for 3 or 4 files big enough for the transfer to be timed accurately, and you'll have a meaningful test.

Downloading instead of copying is not a good idea for a benchmark, because internet traffic variations affect the resulting transfer time, perhaps more than the speed of the USB connection.

[Monroe]

I might not have been clear enough in my earlier post, if I understand you fully. That 704 MB file was downloaded the day before I did any transfer or copied it to that 2 GB flash drive. I wasn't connected to the internet at the time. I had a folder that I copied to the flash drive and then a few hours later I copied that folder from the flash drive to the Windows 7 machine. I'll try some of those transfer tests when I get some extra time later on. Just one question, what size file do you suggest for a copy or transfer test, is that 700 MB file a good size to work with?

Edited January 15, 2012 by duffy98

[dencorso]

Sorry, I had the impression you had downloaded the file directly to the pendrive.

Then again, I might just have lost part of what you said as I've been doing too many things at the same time, these days.

Now, I'd say a 300-400 MiB file should be enough (let's call it big file). Copy it to and from the pendrive in both machines, while timing it. Then I'd do a "small file bunch" test: the bunch is something like 300-400 MiB of small text or pic files, of 500 kiB or less each. It'd be best if the bunch contained some 100-200 1-2 kiB files as a part of it. To do it easily, create a folder called bunch and populate it with random files (they may contain anything). Then copy the whole folder to and from the pendrive as before, while timing it. The more significant results are obtained when the total bunch size (i.e., the sum of all file sizes in it) is within 10 kiB or less of the size of the big fiile. Then we can compare the results for the big file vs. those for the bunch at each machine, to see whether the pendrive and the machines are behaving as expected (viz.: slower for the bunch, regardless of the controller and OS).

[Monroe]

I have spent a few days searching around for a simple program that will give a speed transfer rate for copying (transferring) a file from the hard drive (C:\) to a flash drive and also will work with Windows 98SE. I found a few programs but they are not listed as working with Windows 98SE, just 2000, XP and so forth. I tried them anyway with KernelEx changed to XP but they will not work, always a dll missing or something. One was listed to work with Windows 98 but I can't seem to get any good readings, no help in the "Help Tab". That program was CrystalDiskMark v2.2.0o (Win 9x). Another program, not sure which, changed the total transfer time of a test folder from 4 minutes to 114 minutes, it wasn't listed as working with Windows 98SE as I remember.

I got these programs from this article:

5 Apps to Check the Speed of Your USB Flash Drive (Windows)

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/5-lightweight-tools-to-check-the-speed-of-your-usb-flash-drive-windows/

Then I came across this interesting USB site: UsbFlashSpeed.com

Welcome

The mission of this site is to benchmark all USB Flash drives over the world.

http://usbflashspeed.com/

Top 10 of the fastest Flash Drives (Read) ...

Top 10 of the fastest Flash Drives (Write)

... but getting back to my above question ... does anyone know of or are you currently using a simple flash speed measurement program that works with Windows 98SE, something that just gives a reading of any transfer being done between the Hard Drive "C" and a Flash Drive ? Thanks ...

...

Edited February 25, 2012 by duffy98

[jaclaz]

... but getting back to my above question ... does anyone know of or are you currently using a simple flash speed measurement program that works with Windows 98SE, something that just gives a reading of any transfer being done between the Hard Drive © and a Flash Drive ? Thanks ...

Atto could be "old enough" to run under 9x (but cannot say):

http://reboot.pro/9874/

jaclaz