1 |
Grant wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> You seem to be right on here Dale. usbview showed my printer |
4 |
> connected to the 2.0 controller and a webcam connected to the 1.1 |
5 |
> controller, so I unplugged the printer and plugged the webcam into |
6 |
> it's slot and it still showed up under 1.1. So there doesn't appear |
7 |
> to be any slot/controller correlation. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> This is a problem for me though. My webcams can't both operate on the |
10 |
> 1.1 controller at the same time due to the bandwidth limitation of the |
11 |
> 1.1 controller. I need them both on 2.0 or one on each controller, |
12 |
> but they are always grabbed by the 1.1 controller. Even worse, I |
13 |
> disabled support for 1.1 in the kernel so only 2.0 was supported and |
14 |
> the webcams didn't show up at all. Could they be USB 1.1 only? |
15 |
> Shouldn't a 1.1 device operate on a 2.0 controller? |
16 |
> |
17 |
> - Grant |
18 |
> |
19 |
> |
20 |
> |
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
This is how I understand it. Any 2.0 device should work with the older |
24 |
1.0 version, just slower. Backwards compatible. However, like with my |
25 |
camera, if the device is a version 1.0, it will only work in 1.0 mode. |
26 |
If you recently purchased this, you may want to exchange it and make |
27 |
sure you get a 2.0 version. That is if there is such a creature. |
28 |
|
29 |
The reason behind this is the chip inside the camera/webcam itself. The |
30 |
cable can cause this if it is not made for the new higher bandwidth or |
31 |
is crappy but if the chip in there is the old 1.0 version, it can't go |
32 |
any faster. |
33 |
|
34 |
Another idea, you may be able to get a card to expand your USB ports and |
35 |
see if that will help. Each card has its own chip as well. Put one |
36 |
device on the card and one on the mobo port. That way they are seen and |
37 |
controlled by separate chips. That should help with the bandwidth |
38 |
problem at least. |
39 |
|
40 |
Dale |
41 |
|
42 |
:-) :-) |