Not getting speed USB2 speed with my Hewlett Packard Photosmart 8450printer?

Hello,

I started using the memory card reader in my Hewlett Packard Photosmart
8450 printer (used it since Thanksgiving weekend of 2004) recently. I
noticed copying files from the memory card (the top right slot) in the
printer to my computer is slow. I have no problems with USB Flash
sticks/drives and external HDDs even with the same ports and with the
same USB extension cable. Copying about 40 MB of JPEG files (less than a
MB each) took almost a minute which is slow (feels like USB1 speed).

Is this normal or did I misconfigure somewhere? I have the latest HP
software and driver according to its updater in Windows XP Pro. SP2 (all
updates). I tried both front and rear USB ports (not every one of them).
My computer specifications can be found here:
http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm.../computers.txt (primary one).

Thank you in advance.
--
"Why eat ants when an uncle will do?" --Tymoutta Aardvarka of Sarcastica
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phillip (Ant) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Remove ANT from e-mail address: philpi@earthlink.netANT
( ) or ANTant@zimage.com
Ant is/was listening to a song on his home computer: Mysterio - There Is
A Star (Club Mix)

Memory cards are notoriously slow to read, MUCH slower than USB2. I'd say
you're stuck with that speed. Printers never use the capability of USB2
either.

If you want to verify you have USB2 properly installed and running, open
device manager and expand the USB tree at the bottom. You should see an
entry for "USB Enhanced Host Controller". That's USB2. You may also see an
entry for "USB2 Root Hub"




"Ant" <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote in message
news:4658e776$0$8927$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Hello,
>
> I started using the memory card reader in my Hewlett Packard Photosmart
> 8450 printer (used it since Thanksgiving weekend of 2004) recently. I
> noticed copying files from the memory card (the top right slot) in the
> printer to my computer is slow. I have no problems with USB Flash
> sticks/drives and external HDDs even with the same ports and with the
> same USB extension cable. Copying about 40 MB of JPEG files (less than a
> MB each) took almost a minute which is slow (feels like USB1 speed).
>
> Is this normal or did I misconfigure somewhere? I have the latest HP
> software and driver according to its updater in Windows XP Pro. SP2 (all
> updates). I tried both front and rear USB ports (not every one of them).
> My computer specifications can be found here:
> http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm.../computers.txt (primary one).
>
> Thank you in advance.
> --
> "Why eat ants when an uncle will do?" --Tymoutta Aardvarka of Sarcastica
> /\___/\
> / /\ /\ \ Phillip (Ant) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
> | |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
> \ _ / Remove ANT from e-mail address: philpi@earthlink.netANT
> ( ) or ANTant@zimage.com
> Ant is/was listening to a song on his home computer: Mysterio - There Is
> A Star (Club Mix)

On 5/26/2007 8:32 PM PT, Dan G wrote:

> Memory cards are notoriously slow to read, MUCH slower than USB2. I'd say
> you're stuck with that speed. Printers never use the capability of USB2
> either.

I did NOT know that. That is a bit stupid to be slow then, especially
when images can be so huge (1 MB each), many files in the bigger
capability memory cards, etc. Have newer printers with memory card
readers fixed this issue? Or all memory card readers just slow even the
new ones?


> If you want to verify you have USB2 properly installed and running, open
> device manager and expand the USB tree at the bottom. You should see an
> entry for "USB Enhanced Host Controller". That's USB2. You may also see an
> entry for "USB2 Root Hub"

I saw these in XP's Device Manager for USB Controllers:
Standard Enhanced PCI to USB Host Controller
Standard OpenHCD USB Host Controller
USB Root Hub
USB Root Hub
Note: Printer is off and its power cable unplugged (don't like it auto
feature to power on when I send print requests).


> "Ant" <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote in message
> news:4658e776$0$8927$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Hello,
>>
>> I started using the memory card reader in my Hewlett Packard Photosmart
>> 8450 printer (used it since Thanksgiving weekend of 2004) recently. I
>> noticed copying files from the memory card (the top right slot) in the
>> printer to my computer is slow. I have no problems with USB Flash
>> sticks/drives and external HDDs even with the same ports and with the
>> same USB extension cable. Copying about 40 MB of JPEG files (less than a
>> MB each) took almost a minute which is slow (feels like USB1 speed).
>>
>> Is this normal or did I misconfigure somewhere? I have the latest HP
>> software and driver according to its updater in Windows XP Pro. SP2 (all
>> updates). I tried both front and rear USB ports (not every one of them).
>> My computer specifications can be found here:
>> http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm.../computers.txt (primary one).
--
"As when death smites the swollen brooding thing that inhabits their
crawling hill and holds them all in sway, ants will wander witless and
purposeless and then feebly die, so the creatures of Sauron, orc or
troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some
slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back to
hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope." --The Return of
the King (book)
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phillip (Ant) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Remove ANT from e-mail address: philpi@earthlink.netANT
( ) or ANTant@zimage.com
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

"Ant" <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote in message
news:46595410$0$10156$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> On 5/26/2007 8:32 PM PT, Dan G wrote:
>
>> Memory cards are notoriously slow to read, MUCH slower than USB2. I'd say
>> you're stuck with that speed. Printers never use the capability of USB2
>> either.
>
> I did NOT know that. That is a bit stupid to be slow then, especially when
> images can be so huge (1 MB each), many files in the bigger capability
> memory cards, etc. Have newer printers with memory card readers fixed this
> issue? Or all memory card readers just slow even the new ones?
>
SNIPPED
> ( ) or ANTant@zimage.com
> Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

Hi.

Join the club.

There have been a number of threads fairly recently about the Card Readers
built into HP & Compaq Computers.

The Computers are highly specified with fast Processors & HDDs, USB 2 and
Firewire Ports but the Card Readers are only USB 1.

The first time I tried using the Reader it was going to take 20 minutes to
download 400 Mb of images. I plugged my USB 2 Reader into the socket on the
fascia of the built in reader and downloaded them in 2 minutes. The
computer specifications very carefully omit any details about the Card
Reader's Speed.

They are probably still using these almost outdated readers in their current
production of Computers and Printers.

I complained to HP about the stupidity of building such old technology into
a modern fast Computer, but only ever got the usual standard unhelpfull
reply. My follow up complaint was, as expected, ignored.

So much for "Total Care" or whatever their current crappy advertising
phrase is.

Roy G

"Ant" <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote in message
news:46595410$0$10156$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> On 5/26/2007 8:32 PM PT, Dan G wrote:
>
> > Memory cards are notoriously slow to read, MUCH slower than USB2. I'd
say
> > you're stuck with that speed. Printers never use the capability of USB2
> > either.
>
> I did NOT know that. That is a bit stupid to be slow then, especially
> when images can be so huge (1 MB each), many files in the bigger
> capability memory cards, etc. Have newer printers with memory card
> readers fixed this issue? Or all memory card readers just slow even the
> new ones?
>

It's the memory card itself that's slow, not the card reader. Flash memory
is by nature slow. Some of the newer, more expensive flash memory is faster,
topping out around 20MB/sec. But that stuff is pretty rare and expensive. If
your card is more than a year old, it's of the VERY slow variety.

That said, it's also true that the printer will also be slow in reading the
card, slower than your PC will be. You'd be far better off to buy a little
USB dongle for reading the card directly on your PC.

Dan G wrote:
> "Ant" <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote in message
> news:46595410$0$10156$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> On 5/26/2007 8:32 PM PT, Dan G wrote:
>>
>>> Memory cards are notoriously slow to read, MUCH slower than USB2. I'd
> say
>>> you're stuck with that speed. Printers never use the capability of USB2
>>> either.
>> I did NOT know that. That is a bit stupid to be slow then, especially
>> when images can be so huge (1 MB each), many files in the bigger
>> capability memory cards, etc. Have newer printers with memory card
>> readers fixed this issue? Or all memory card readers just slow even the
>> new ones?
>>
>
> It's the memory card itself that's slow, not the card reader. Flash memory
> is by nature slow. Some of the newer, more expensive flash memory is faster,
> topping out around 20MB/sec. But that stuff is pretty rare and expensive. If
> your card is more than a year old, it's of the VERY slow variety.
>
> That said, it's also true that the printer will also be slow in reading the
> card, slower than your PC will be. You'd be far better off to buy a little
> USB dongle for reading the card directly on your PC.
>
>

And to think, you used to drop the film off at the processor and come
back in 3 days. What is this world coming too...

Dan G wrote:
> "Ant" <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote in message
> news:46595410$0$10156$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> On 5/26/2007 8:32 PM PT, Dan G wrote:
>>
>>> Memory cards are notoriously slow to read, MUCH slower than USB2. I'd
> say
>>> you're stuck with that speed. Printers never use the capability of USB2
>>> either.
>> I did NOT know that. That is a bit stupid to be slow then, especially
>> when images can be so huge (1 MB each), many files in the bigger
>> capability memory cards, etc. Have newer printers with memory card
>> readers fixed this issue? Or all memory card readers just slow even the
>> new ones?
>>
>
> It's the memory card itself that's slow, not the card reader. Flash memory
> is by nature slow. Some of the newer, more expensive flash memory is faster,
> topping out around 20MB/sec. But that stuff is pretty rare and expensive. If
> your card is more than a year old, it's of the VERY slow variety.

But still hampered by a slow reader interface.
>
> That said, it's also true that the printer will also be slow in reading the
> card, slower than your PC will be. You'd be far better off to buy a little
> USB dongle for reading the card directly on your PC.

Firewire readers are faster, but not ubiquitous, and some or many PCs
don't even have FW ports.

There seem to be two varieties of USB2. One is quite fast, the other
slow. Nomenclature is confusing, giving marketers room to deceive one.

--
john mcwilliams

On 5/27/2007 7:07 AM PT, Dan G wrote:

> "Ant" <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote in message
> news:46595410$0$10156$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> On 5/26/2007 8:32 PM PT, Dan G wrote:
>>
>>> Memory cards are notoriously slow to read, MUCH slower than USB2. I'd
> say
>>> you're stuck with that speed. Printers never use the capability of USB2
>>> either.
>> I did NOT know that. That is a bit stupid to be slow then, especially
>> when images can be so huge (1 MB each), many files in the bigger
>> capability memory cards, etc. Have newer printers with memory card
>> readers fixed this issue? Or all memory card readers just slow even the
>> new ones?
>>
>
> It's the memory card itself that's slow, not the card reader. Flash memory
> is by nature slow. Some of the newer, more expensive flash memory is faster,
> topping out around 20MB/sec. But that stuff is pretty rare and expensive. If
> your card is more than a year old, it's of the VERY slow variety.

Oh definitely, old like five years. I wonder if the other cards in this
printer are even slower. I don't know what other cards it supported (too
lazy to find and dig out my manual).


> That said, it's also true that the printer will also be slow in reading the
> card, slower than your PC will be. You'd be far better off to buy a little
> USB dongle for reading the card directly on your PC.

How much faster is the memory card reader directly to the PC via USB?
How about those internal drive ones that I see in some brand computers
in stores?
--
"This is the ant. Treat it with respect. For it may very well be the
next dominant lifeform of our planet." --Empire of the Ants movie
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phillip (Ant) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Remove ANT from e-mail address: philpi@earthlink.netANT
( ) or ANTant@zimage.com
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

On 5/27/2007 9:35 AM PT, John McWilliams wrote:

> Dan G wrote:
>> "Ant" <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote in message
>> news:46595410$0$10156$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> On 5/26/2007 8:32 PM PT, Dan G wrote:
>>>
>>>> Memory cards are notoriously slow to read, MUCH slower than USB2. I'd
>> say
>>>> you're stuck with that speed. Printers never use the capability of USB2
>>>> either.
>>> I did NOT know that. That is a bit stupid to be slow then, especially
>>> when images can be so huge (1 MB each), many files in the bigger
>>> capability memory cards, etc. Have newer printers with memory card
>>> readers fixed this issue? Or all memory card readers just slow even the
>>> new ones?
>>>
>>
>> It's the memory card itself that's slow, not the card reader. Flash
>> memory
>> is by nature slow. Some of the newer, more expensive flash memory is
>> faster,
>> topping out around 20MB/sec. But that stuff is pretty rare and
>> expensive. If
>> your card is more than a year old, it's of the VERY slow variety.
>
> But still hampered by a slow reader interface.
>>
>> That said, it's also true that the printer will also be slow in
>> reading the
>> card, slower than your PC will be. You'd be far better off to buy a
>> little
>> USB dongle for reading the card directly on your PC.
>
> Firewire readers are faster, but not ubiquitous, and some or many PCs
> don't even have FW ports.

I have FW ports but never used it. In fact, I never had use any FW
device before even though I have FW ports. I am upset trhat I didn't buy
an external custom USB HDD enclosure that came with both USB and FW
ports a few years ago. Next time...


> There seem to be two varieties of USB2. One is quite fast, the other
> slow. Nomenclature is confusing, giving marketers room to deceive one.

So how do I check which is check? Or is the USB flash drives, stick
drives, and printer with memory card already enough to prove it (used
the same ports and extension cable)?
--
"No, I'd prefer a cooler WITHOUT an ant-door, thank you..." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phillip (Ant) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Remove ANT from e-mail address: philpi@earthlink.netANT
( ) or ANTant@zimage.com
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

"Ant" <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote in message
news:4659d7b7$0$16588$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> How much faster is the memory card reader directly to the PC via USB?
> How about those internal drive ones that I see in some brand computers
> in stores?


I have a little USB SD card reader here that will upload raw 5MP images as
fast as I can open them in Photoshop.

The main difference is that your PC has processor and memory power that a
printer lacks, so the reading process is sped up. You should also get a new
card, as the newer ones are much faster. But you don't really need to go to
the expense of getting a "high speed" card unless you are pro using a pro
camera that benefits from the speed. Any of the current crop of 1GB cards
are a great value.

A previous poster stated that there are 2 types of USB2, which is false.
There's only USB1.1 and USB2.