Re-phrasing: all I have seen hav EHCI, but over randomly U/OHCI. Do you
agree with this?
I understood that one of the two types was mainly Intel/VIA only
Alain
--
___
Alain Mouette wrote:
Tom Ehlert escreveu:
unlikely. while O/UHCI is certainly fast enough for
keyboards/mice/printers(?), noone want to have different USB ports in
he same computer
Ok
plug your USB stick/external disk/DVD-ROM into an OHCI/UHCI port,
and you will be VERY dissatisfied
Anyone these days using UHCI?
-- Forwarded message --
From: Bret Johnson bretj...@juno.com
Date: Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:49 AM
Subject: Announcement: New DOS USB Drivers
To: bretj...@juno.com
Good day to you.
My name is Bret Johnson, and I write DOS TSR programs. I am sending
Blair Campbell escreveu:
Anyone these days using UHCI?
Yes. PCs are randomly distributed as UHCI and OHCI, acording to chip-set
manufacturer.
Alain
--
___
Freedos-user
Anyone these days using UHCI?
Yes. PCs are randomly distributed as UHCI and OHCI, acording to chip-set
manufacturer.
Plus, EHCI (for USB 2.0) coexists with UHCI/OHCI. Older USB drivers
usually work with USB 2.0 hardware as well, just not as fast.
Regards,
Christian
Anyone these days using UHCI?
Yes. PCs are randomly distributed as UHCI and OHCI, acording to chip-set
manufacturer.
unlikely. while O/UHCI is certainly fast enough for
keyboards/mice/printers(?), noone want to have different USB ports in
he same computer
plug your USB stick/external
Tom Ehlert escreveu:
unlikely. while O/UHCI is certainly fast enough for
keyboards/mice/printers(?), noone want to have different USB ports in
he same computer
Ok
plug your USB stick/external disk/DVD-ROM into an OHCI/UHCI port,
and you will be VERY dissatisfied with transfer rates.
