Reply 40 of 44, by Zeerex
Rank
Member
This board already has USB (albeit 1.0). Have you tried it without the card?
Reply 41 of 44, by maxtherabbit
Rank
l33t
- Rank
- l33t
Zeerex wrote on 2022-05-26, 01:56:This board already has USB (albeit 1.0). Have you tried it without the card?
100% this, if you already have onboard USB just freakin use it
hell with USB 2 cards they belong in the trash can
Reply 42 of 44, by AlexZ
Rank
Member
USB 2.0 cards are not that useful anyway. USB 1.0 is sufficient to transfer drivers while a network card is a better option than USB 2.0. I transfer files to my Windows 98 machine exclusively through NAS.
Pentium III 900E, ECS P6BXT-A+, 384MB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 128MB, Voodoo 2 12MB, 80GB HDD, Yamaha SM718 ISA, 19" AOC 9GlrA
Athlon 64 3400+, MSI K8T Neo V, 1GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 7600GT 512MB, 250GB HDD, Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS
Reply 43 of 44, by Repo Man11
Rank
Oldbie
- Rank
- Oldbie
I'm happy with the USB 2.0 card I have in my Amptron P4 system (Having USB 2.0 front ports is nice) with Windows 98, but that system is powerful enough so that it has a negligible performance penalty. OP could go either way, it just depends on his priorities.
I definitely draw the line on my Socket 7 systems; the onboard USB is more than good enough considering the performance loss of a USB 2.0 card.
Attachments
"I'd rather be rich than stupid" - Jack Handey
Reply 44 of 44, by aaron158
Rank
Member
i found out to the lower speeds i was getting happened when a usb flash drive was plugged into a port connected to the usb card but when the drive is unplugged then the speeds are in the 80s