A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

USB and VIA chipset



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 23rd 03, 09:55 AM
larrymoencurly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default USB and VIA chipset

"CK" wrote in message ...

I've got MVP3 and KT100 motherboards in my house. USB works
absolutely fine on them.


Did you try the VIA VT6202 USB 2.0 chip with the VIA VA-503+ mobo,
based on the MVP3? I got a blank screen and no disk activity when I
did, and the particular USB card was from a Soyo BayOne Professional
front panel USB kit, which worked with every other mobo I tried,
except for an old 486 one. It even worked in a VIA PA-2007, whose
chipset is the predecessor to the MVP3, the VP2.
  #2  
Old June 24th 03, 12:25 AM
CK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I've got MVP3 and KT100 motherboards in my house. USB works
absolutely fine on them.


Did you try the VIA VT6202 USB 2.0 chip with the VIA VA-503+ mobo,
based on the MVP3? I got a blank screen and no disk activity when I
did, and the particular USB card was from a Soyo BayOne Professional
front panel USB kit, which worked with every other mobo I tried,
except for an old 486 one. It even worked in a VIA PA-2007, whose
chipset is the predecessor to the MVP3, the VP2.


No, just plain ol' 1.1 for the time being.


  #3  
Old June 24th 03, 03:49 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

kony wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:30:27 -0400, Stacey wrote:

kony wrote:




For the last time, you are just plain wrong.


So the PCI latency patch was written for what reason? People were bored
and made up these 57,000 pages? OK I believe you because you have a system
that doesn't have a problem with the hardware mix you lucked into..

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search


Again you jump to conclusions... I've had no less than 4 distinctly
different video cards, 2 video capture cards (with different chipsets)
on most Via chipset boards, 3 video capture cards tried on Via boards
with KT266 and after, and at least 3 sound cards... These are only
components used LONG-term, that I remember distinctly, but the odds
are that even more components were swapped around, it's just been a
few years since Via chipsets for Athlons debuted so cards that were
swapped in just long enough for DOA-type testing are soon enough
forgotten after they were confirmed working.

Let's directly address what you refer to with the link, a latency
patch. Do you understand EXACTLY what that patch does? It changes a
chipset register. That is a register that was incorrectly set by the
BIOS. I repeat, a register that was incorrectly set by the BIOS.



http://www.georgebreese.com/net/soft...014_readme.htm

VIA has acknowledged a problem with their VT82C686B controller chip. The
VT82C686B is a chip that is responsible for, among other things,
controlling the IDE bus. When overloaded by an incorrectly-configured
motherboard, the chip can cause corruption and/or lockups. The SoundBlaster
LIVE! card seems to make the problem worse.


Since you claim this is only a bios issue, wouldn't you think the board
makers would just fix the bios (as companies like asus/gigabyte release
several different bios's through most board's lives to fix bugs) instead of
pointing their customers to 3rd party patches? Why does it seem only a few
of these boards are immune to this problem? And if it's only a bios
problem, why do so many boards using different bios's exhibit the same
symtoms? Why so many different 4 in 1 drivers? Other chipsets don't seem to
need constant revisions of the chipset drivers to work properly or special
video drivers to work with Via chipsets etc..


What do you want to wager that I can take the most stable board you
could name, to have EVER existed, and cause a major problem by
changing a BIOS chipset register setting or two? The point is that
the chipset isn't the problem, a buggy BIOS is.


Interesting Via acknowledged this problem though isn't it? And that so many
board have the exact same problems using totally different configs and
bios's? Glad you feel these chipsets are so great, I'm not interested in
saving $5 to screw with junk like this...

--

Stacey
  #4  
Old June 24th 03, 04:21 AM
kony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:49:10 -0400, Stacey wrote:


http://www.georgebreese.com/net/soft...014_readme.htm

VIA has acknowledged a problem with their VT82C686B controller chip. The
VT82C686B is a chip that is responsible for, among other things,
controlling the IDE bus. When overloaded by an incorrectly-configured
motherboard, the chip can cause corruption and/or lockups. The SoundBlaster
LIVE! card seems to make the problem worse.


Note the part that reads "When overloaded by an incorrectly-configured
motherboard". Since when has it been guaranteed that an
incorrectly-configured motherboard will run ok?


Since you claim this is only a bios issue, wouldn't you think the board
makers would just fix the bios (as companies like asus/gigabyte release
several different bios's through most board's lives to fix bugs) instead of
pointing their customers to 3rd party patches?


Actually some did, and others didn't.. .i suspect it was for political
reasons, easier to pass the blame... Attention was already focusing
on Via because no one had enough information (at that time) to know
what the real problem was. At any rate, the boards had already sold
and the 686 Southbridge is no longer used, yet every tech-geek-wannabe
was recanting the little bit of speculation mixed with fact that was
floating around the 'net. It is clear that Via could've done a better
job to protect user's data from "themselves" or 3rd party hardware
that didn't function properly, but pointing fingers at Via doesn't
change the cause.



Why does it seem only a few
of these boards are immune to this problem?


Because you jumped to conclusions?
Most of the boards DON'T have the problem, and the few that do, have
it only in very specific circumstances. It's a situation of hearing
people complain when things go wrong, but remain the silent majority
when things are working right.

And if it's only a bios
problem, why do so many boards using different bios's exhibit the same
symtoms?


The BIOS is modular, more similar than different in many cases. The
fact remains that the BIOS sets the chipset registers, and the latency
patch, in the cases where it is needed, wouldn't be needed if the BIOS
set that register correctly in the first place. No matter what else
we'd like to disagree on, that is a clear fact, the BIOS sets it, and
set it incorrectly, or rather, it was set to be less tolerant of
devices extensively using the PCI bus.


Why so many different 4 in 1 drivers? Other chipsets don't seem to
need constant revisions of the chipset drivers to work properly or special
video drivers to work with Via chipsets etc..


Some companies release new drives with each little change, and others
release them as a cumulative set of changes... this really has nothing
to do with the Athlon/Via/etc problem, the 4in1 drivers were released
in this manner before the 686b SB era, and after.


Interesting Via acknowledged this problem though isn't it? And that so many
board have the exact same problems using totally different configs and
bios's? Glad you feel these chipsets are so great, I'm not interested in
saving $5 to screw with junk like this...


They acknowldeged that there is a potential problem, that can exist in
specific circumstances, which is different from acknowledging that "we
are to blame for this". If the problem were as extensive or common as
you imply, the boards would've all been recalled and there'd be a huge
lawsuit.

Actually the problem isn't so widespread and common as you'd like to
think... Many, MANY people still use these boards every day with no
problems. These are the 686 SB boards I'm talking about, while you
are still suggesting that Via boards are a problem even when they
haven't used the 686 SB since the KT133A, possibly a few KT266 boards.

If you feel that Via 686B Southbridge chipset boards for Athlons are a
problem, then it would seem reasonable to consider the other hardware
before using one, but to suggest that the more modern Via chipset
boards are still affected in any similar way is deceiving, isn't
supported by the evidence.


Dave



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.