Full speed USB 2.0

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by wassa, Sep 14, 2006.

  1. wassa

    wassa Guest

    Is it actually legal to brand a USB 1.1 product as USB 2.0?

    I recently bought an mp3 player and the spec says "Full speed USB 2.0".
    Only through later research that I found out it actually means USB 1.1.
    Do I have a legal case at all if I want a refund?
     
    wassa, Sep 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wassa

    charlieg Guest

    "wassa" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Is it actually legal to brand a USB 1.1 product as USB 2.0?


    No : see the Fair Trading Act 1986
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes
    >
    > I recently bought an mp3 player and the spec says "Full speed USB 2.0".
    > Only through later research that I found out it actually means USB 1.1.
    > Do I have a legal case at all if I want a refund?


    Yes, on the basis of what you have explained, you do. You will. of course,
    need to convince the shop of that. If you don't feel confident, perhaps you
    have alocal community law centre who may write on your behalf.

    Failing that, thers is always the Disputes Tribunal - see your local court
    for details

    Charlie G
     
    charlieg, Sep 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. wassa

    thingy Guest

    wassa wrote:
    > Is it actually legal to brand a USB 1.1 product as USB 2.0?
    >
    > I recently bought an mp3 player and the spec says "Full speed USB 2.0".
    > Only through later research that I found out it actually means USB 1.1.
    > Do I have a legal case at all if I want a refund?
    >


    I would say so...

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Sep 14, 2006
    #3
  4. wassa

    whome Guest

    "thingy" <> wrote in message
    news:4509020b$...
    > wassa wrote:
    >> Is it actually legal to brand a USB 1.1 product as USB 2.0?
    >>
    >> I recently bought an mp3 player and the spec says "Full speed USB 2.0".
    >> Only through later research that I found out it actually means USB 1.1.
    >> Do I have a legal case at all if I want a refund?
    >>

    >
    > I would say so...
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing


    Depends on the bottleneck maybe? It could be the memory/drive slowing it
    down rather than the USB2.0 connection itself.

    But really, you should be able to return this.
     
    whome, Sep 14, 2006
    #4
  5. wassa

    wassa Guest

    charlieg wrote:
    > "wassa" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Is it actually legal to brand a USB 1.1 product as USB 2.0?

    >
    > No : see the Fair Trading Act 1986
    > http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes
    > >
    > > I recently bought an mp3 player and the spec says "Full speed USB 2.0".
    > > Only through later research that I found out it actually means USB 1.1.
    > > Do I have a legal case at all if I want a refund?

    >
    > Yes, on the basis of what you have explained, you do. You will. of course,
    > need to convince the shop of that. If you don't feel confident, perhaps you
    > have alocal community law centre who may write on your behalf.
    >
    > Failing that, thers is always the Disputes Tribunal - see your local court
    > for details
    >



    This scum is trying to explain this away and while I know he's full of
    shit I need to be 100% sure that he hasn't got a point legally:

    "Hi that item use a Action ATJ2085 control chipset, it is USB2.0 FULL
    SPEED. What you should do is check the USB standard of USB association,
    and find out what that means, and find out what is the difference
    between USB2.0 HIGH SPEED and FULL SPEED"
     
    wassa, Sep 14, 2006
    #5
  6. wassa

    Earl Grey Guest

    wassa wrote:
    > charlieg wrote:
    >> "wassa" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Is it actually legal to brand a USB 1.1 product as USB 2.0?

    >> No : see the Fair Trading Act 1986
    >> http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes
    >>> I recently bought an mp3 player and the spec says "Full speed USB 2.0".
    >>> Only through later research that I found out it actually means USB 1.1.
    >>> Do I have a legal case at all if I want a refund?

    >> Yes, on the basis of what you have explained, you do. You will. of course,
    >> need to convince the shop of that. If you don't feel confident, perhaps you
    >> have alocal community law centre who may write on your behalf.
    >>
    >> Failing that, thers is always the Disputes Tribunal - see your local court
    >> for details
    >>

    >
    >
    > This scum is trying to explain this away and while I know he's full of
    > shit I need to be 100% sure that he hasn't got a point legally:
    >
    > "Hi that item use a Action ATJ2085 control chipset, it is USB2.0 FULL
    > SPEED. What you should do is check the USB standard of USB association,
    > and find out what that means, and find out what is the difference
    > between USB2.0 HIGH SPEED and FULL SPEED"
    >


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_2#Transfer_speed

    He is trying to con you.
     
    Earl Grey, Sep 14, 2006
    #6
  7. wassa

    Colinco Guest

    wassa wrote:
    >
    > This scum is trying to explain this away and while I know he's full of
    > shit I need to be 100% sure that he hasn't got a point legally:
    >

    How much research have you done? Your trader didn't invent the USB
    naming.
    Low Speed = 1.5Mbs Full Speed = 12Mbs Hi Speed = 480Mbs
    The USB Industry Assoc is trying to get manufacturers to use only USB
    and Hi-speed USB to cut out some of the confusion
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus
     
    Colinco, Sep 14, 2006
    #7
  8. In message <>, wassa
    wrote:

    > Is it actually legal to brand a USB 1.1 product as USB 2.0?
    >
    > I recently bought an mp3 player and the spec says "Full speed USB 2.0".
    > Only through later research that I found out it actually means USB 1.1.


    Technically, no. USB 2.0 allows for 3 channel speeds: "low-speed" (1.5
    Mbps), "full-speed" (12Mbps) and "high-speed" (480Mbps), but it doesn't
    _require_ devices to use all of them. Pretty much by definition, devices
    originally designed to the USB 1.1 spec are also USB-2.0-compliant.

    Look at it this way: USB 1.1 only allowed for the first 2 speeds. Yet if you
    bought a low-speed device like a USB keyboard or mouse, which only
    communicated at 1.5Mbps instead of the full 12MBps that USB 1.1 allowed,
    did that mean it wasn't USB-1.1-compliant and that you'd been diddled?

    Yes, the "full-speed" versus "high-speed" terminology _is_ confusing, but it
    _is_ the official terminology endorsed by the USB Implementors' Forum
    <http://usb.org/>. (You can see it used here
    <http://www.usb.org/developers/usbfaq/>, for instance.) If you think
    someone is conning you, then it's them.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 15, 2006
    #8
  9. wassa

    wassa Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <>, wassa
    > wrote:
    >
    > > Is it actually legal to brand a USB 1.1 product as USB 2.0?
    > >
    > > I recently bought an mp3 player and the spec says "Full speed USB 2.0".
    > > Only through later research that I found out it actually means USB 1.1.

    >
    > Technically, no. USB 2.0 allows for 3 channel speeds: "low-speed" (1.5
    > Mbps), "full-speed" (12Mbps) and "high-speed" (480Mbps), but it doesn't
    > _require_ devices to use all of them. Pretty much by definition, devices
    > originally designed to the USB 1.1 spec are also USB-2.0-compliant.
    >
    > Look at it this way: USB 1.1 only allowed for the first 2 speeds. Yet if you
    > bought a low-speed device like a USB keyboard or mouse, which only
    > communicated at 1.5Mbps instead of the full 12MBps that USB 1.1 allowed,
    > did that mean it wasn't USB-1.1-compliant and that you'd been diddled?
    >
    > Yes, the "full-speed" versus "high-speed" terminology _is_ confusing, but it
    > _is_ the official terminology endorsed by the USB Implementors' Forum
    > <http://usb.org/>. (You can see it used here
    > <http://www.usb.org/developers/usbfaq/>, for instance.) If you think
    > someone is conning you, then it's them.


    According to USB-IF (http://www.usb.org/developers/packaging/):

    -----------------------------------
    Low or Full-speed Product Packaging Recommendations:
    Products that operate at only low or full-speed can qualify to use only
    the Basic Version of the logo (i.e. without the special Hi-Speed
    identifier). The old USB logo is obsolete and should not be used. The
    USB-IF recommends vendors simply use "USB" as has always been done, on
    packaging and in marketing materials for low or full-speed USB
    products. Avoid using terminology such as USB 2.0 Full Speed, Full
    Speed USB or USB 2.0 which can be confusing for consumers whose
    expectation is that a USB 2.0 product is by definition high-speed.
    -----------------------------------

    The bottom line is that specifying a device as USB 2.0 when it's USB
    1.1 IS misleading (if not downright fraudulent) to average consumers -
    gee I used to sell computer hardware for a living and even I didn't
    know USB 2.0 could be USB 1.1!! There is no way you can convince me
    that someone could be writing that spec out without anticipating the
    confusion it might cause.
     
    wassa, Sep 15, 2006
    #9
  10. wassa

    jasen Guest

    On 2006-09-14, wassa <> wrote:
    > Is it actually legal to brand a USB 1.1 product as USB 2.0?
    >
    > I recently bought an mp3 player and the spec says "Full speed USB 2.0".
    > Only through later research that I found out it actually means USB 1.1.
    > Do I have a legal case at all if I want a refund?


    The Trades Description Act i think it's called - if they claimed it to be
    2.0 (displaying a package with 2.0 written on it counts) and it's not you
    have a case. if someone else claimed it was 2.0 AFAICT you don't.

    Bye.
    Jasen
     
    jasen, Sep 15, 2006
    #10
  11. wassa

    Richard Guest

    wassa wrote:
    > Is it actually legal to brand a USB 1.1 product as USB 2.0?
    >
    > I recently bought an mp3 player and the spec says "Full speed USB 2.0".
    > Only through later research that I found out it actually means USB 1.1.
    > Do I have a legal case at all if I want a refund?


    Any USB device made since the 2.0 speed was specified is compliant with the 2.0
    spec, which allows for 3 speeds.

    As you have found out, this isn't high speed, only full speed.

    But you can try for a refund, if they lead you to believe it was any faster then
    another cheaper product then you would have a case...
     
    Richard, Sep 15, 2006
    #11
  12. wassa

    MarkH Guest

    "wassa" <> wrote in
    news::

    > According to USB-IF (http://www.usb.org/developers/packaging/):
    >
    > -----------------------------------
    > Low or Full-speed Product Packaging Recommendations:
    > Products that operate at only low or full-speed can qualify to use
    > only the Basic Version of the logo (i.e. without the special Hi-Speed
    > identifier). The old USB logo is obsolete and should not be used. The
    > USB-IF recommends vendors simply use "USB" as has always been done, on
    > packaging and in marketing materials for low or full-speed USB
    > products. Avoid using terminology such as USB 2.0 Full Speed, Full
    > Speed USB or USB 2.0 which can be confusing for consumers whose
    > expectation is that a USB 2.0 product is by definition high-speed.
    > -----------------------------------
    >
    > The bottom line is that specifying a device as USB 2.0 when it's USB
    > 1.1 IS misleading (if not downright fraudulent) to average consumers -
    > gee I used to sell computer hardware for a living and even I didn't
    > know USB 2.0 could be USB 1.1!! There is no way you can convince me
    > that someone could be writing that spec out without anticipating the
    > confusion it might cause.


    How about naming the retailer that sold it to you so that we know who not
    to deal with.

    It sounds like the retailer happily sold the device with the deceptive
    description of "USB 2.0 Full Speed" with no effort made to ensure the
    customer understood that it was not the full USB 2 speed. I think you
    could easily make a case for a refund based on the deceptive nature of the
    description on the box. Maybe NZ needs a law saying that there needs to be
    a warning added by retailers to such products advising that the device does
    not in fact run at the full USB 2 speed.



    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 27-May-06)
    "The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
    young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
    for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
    Maskerade
     
    MarkH, Sep 17, 2006
    #12
  13. wassa

    wassa Guest

    MarkH wrote:
    > "wassa" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > According to USB-IF (http://www.usb.org/developers/packaging/):
    > >
    > > -----------------------------------
    > > Low or Full-speed Product Packaging Recommendations:
    > > Products that operate at only low or full-speed can qualify to use
    > > only the Basic Version of the logo (i.e. without the special Hi-Speed
    > > identifier). The old USB logo is obsolete and should not be used. The
    > > USB-IF recommends vendors simply use "USB" as has always been done, on
    > > packaging and in marketing materials for low or full-speed USB
    > > products. Avoid using terminology such as USB 2.0 Full Speed, Full
    > > Speed USB or USB 2.0 which can be confusing for consumers whose
    > > expectation is that a USB 2.0 product is by definition high-speed.
    > > -----------------------------------
    > >
    > > The bottom line is that specifying a device as USB 2.0 when it's USB
    > > 1.1 IS misleading (if not downright fraudulent) to average consumers -
    > > gee I used to sell computer hardware for a living and even I didn't
    > > know USB 2.0 could be USB 1.1!! There is no way you can convince me
    > > that someone could be writing that spec out without anticipating the
    > > confusion it might cause.

    >
    > How about naming the retailer that sold it to you so that we know who not
    > to deal with.
    >
    > It sounds like the retailer happily sold the device with the deceptive
    > description of "USB 2.0 Full Speed" with no effort made to ensure the
    > customer understood that it was not the full USB 2 speed. I think you
    > could easily make a case for a refund based on the deceptive nature of the
    > description on the box. Maybe NZ needs a law saying that there needs to be
    > a warning added by retailers to such products advising that the device does
    > not in fact run at the full USB 2 speed.
    >


    It's a trader on trademe
    (http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=67643475). Maybe I
    should ask everyone to help me out and report his "Full speed USB 2.0"
    listings to Trademe :) - who knows, maybe Trademe will take notice and
    kick his ass out.
     
    wassa, Sep 17, 2006
    #13
  14. wassa

    Nho Whei Guest

    On 16 Sep 2006 23:54:00 -0700, "wassa" <> wrote:

    >
    >MarkH wrote:
    >> "wassa" <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >> > According to USB-IF (http://www.usb.org/developers/packaging/):
    >> >
    >> > -----------------------------------
    >> > Low or Full-speed Product Packaging Recommendations:
    >> > Products that operate at only low or full-speed can qualify to use
    >> > only the Basic Version of the logo (i.e. without the special Hi-Speed
    >> > identifier). The old USB logo is obsolete and should not be used. The
    >> > USB-IF recommends vendors simply use "USB" as has always been done, on
    >> > packaging and in marketing materials for low or full-speed USB
    >> > products. Avoid using terminology such as USB 2.0 Full Speed, Full
    >> > Speed USB or USB 2.0 which can be confusing for consumers whose
    >> > expectation is that a USB 2.0 product is by definition high-speed.
    >> > -----------------------------------
    >> >
    >> > The bottom line is that specifying a device as USB 2.0 when it's USB
    >> > 1.1 IS misleading (if not downright fraudulent) to average consumers -
    >> > gee I used to sell computer hardware for a living and even I didn't
    >> > know USB 2.0 could be USB 1.1!! There is no way you can convince me
    >> > that someone could be writing that spec out without anticipating the
    >> > confusion it might cause.

    >>
    >> How about naming the retailer that sold it to you so that we know who not
    >> to deal with.
    >>
    >> It sounds like the retailer happily sold the device with the deceptive
    >> description of "USB 2.0 Full Speed" with no effort made to ensure the
    >> customer understood that it was not the full USB 2 speed. I think you
    >> could easily make a case for a refund based on the deceptive nature of the
    >> description on the box. Maybe NZ needs a law saying that there needs to be
    >> a warning added by retailers to such products advising that the device does
    >> not in fact run at the full USB 2 speed.
    >>

    >
    >It's a trader on trademe
    >(http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=67643475). Maybe I
    >should ask everyone to help me out and report his "Full speed USB 2.0"
    >listings to Trademe :) - who knows, maybe Trademe will take notice and
    >kick his ass out.

    ?
    My reading of the pages at USB.org seem to confirm the trader may very
    well be correct in describing his product as Full Speed USB 2.
    There appear to be 3 USB speeds:-
    "Because the USB 2.0 Specification encompasses all USB data transfer
    speeds, low (1.5Mb/s), full (12Mb/s) and high (480Mb/s)".
    For what it's worth I find this use of such terminology most
    confusing. Shoulda been low, high, & full. Woulda made a lot more
    sense.
     
    Nho Whei, Sep 17, 2006
    #14
  15. wassa

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Nho Whei wrote:
    > On 16 Sep 2006 23:54:00 -0700, "wassa" <> wrote:
    >
    >> MarkH wrote:
    >>> "wassa" <> wrote in
    >>> news::
    >>>
    >>>> According to USB-IF (http://www.usb.org/developers/packaging/):
    >>>>
    >>>> -----------------------------------
    >>>> Low or Full-speed Product Packaging Recommendations:
    >>>> Products that operate at only low or full-speed can qualify to use
    >>>> only the Basic Version of the logo (i.e. without the special Hi-Speed
    >>>> identifier). The old USB logo is obsolete and should not be used. The
    >>>> USB-IF recommends vendors simply use "USB" as has always been done, on
    >>>> packaging and in marketing materials for low or full-speed USB
    >>>> products. Avoid using terminology such as USB 2.0 Full Speed, Full
    >>>> Speed USB or USB 2.0 which can be confusing for consumers whose
    >>>> expectation is that a USB 2.0 product is by definition high-speed.
    >>>> -----------------------------------
    >>>>
    >>>> The bottom line is that specifying a device as USB 2.0 when it's USB
    >>>> 1.1 IS misleading (if not downright fraudulent) to average consumers -
    >>>> gee I used to sell computer hardware for a living and even I didn't
    >>>> know USB 2.0 could be USB 1.1!! There is no way you can convince me
    >>>> that someone could be writing that spec out without anticipating the
    >>>> confusion it might cause.
    >>> How about naming the retailer that sold it to you so that we know who not
    >>> to deal with.
    >>>
    >>> It sounds like the retailer happily sold the device with the deceptive
    >>> description of "USB 2.0 Full Speed" with no effort made to ensure the
    >>> customer understood that it was not the full USB 2 speed. I think you
    >>> could easily make a case for a refund based on the deceptive nature of the
    >>> description on the box. Maybe NZ needs a law saying that there needs to be
    >>> a warning added by retailers to such products advising that the device does
    >>> not in fact run at the full USB 2 speed.
    >>>

    >> It's a trader on trademe
    >> (http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=67643475). Maybe I
    >> should ask everyone to help me out and report his "Full speed USB 2.0"
    >> listings to Trademe :) - who knows, maybe Trademe will take notice and
    >> kick his ass out.

    > ?
    > My reading of the pages at USB.org seem to confirm the trader may very
    > well be correct in describing his product as Full Speed USB 2.
    > There appear to be 3 USB speeds:-
    > "Because the USB 2.0 Specification encompasses all USB data transfer
    > speeds, low (1.5Mb/s), full (12Mb/s) and high (480Mb/s)".
    > For what it's worth I find this use of such terminology most
    > confusing. Shoulda been low, high, & full. Woulda made a lot more
    > sense.


    Shoulda been low, medium, high...or 1.5, 12, 480
     
    -=rjh=-, Sep 17, 2006
    #15
  16. wassa

    wassa Guest

    Nho Whei wrote:
    > On 16 Sep 2006 23:54:00 -0700, "wassa" <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >MarkH wrote:
    > >> "wassa" <> wrote in
    > >> news::
    > >>
    > >> > According to USB-IF (http://www.usb.org/developers/packaging/):
    > >> >
    > >> > -----------------------------------
    > >> > Low or Full-speed Product Packaging Recommendations:
    > >> > Products that operate at only low or full-speed can qualify to use
    > >> > only the Basic Version of the logo (i.e. without the special Hi-Speed
    > >> > identifier). The old USB logo is obsolete and should not be used. The
    > >> > USB-IF recommends vendors simply use "USB" as has always been done, on
    > >> > packaging and in marketing materials for low or full-speed USB
    > >> > products. Avoid using terminology such as USB 2.0 Full Speed, Full
    > >> > Speed USB or USB 2.0 which can be confusing for consumers whose
    > >> > expectation is that a USB 2.0 product is by definition high-speed.
    > >> > -----------------------------------
    > >> >
    > >> > The bottom line is that specifying a device as USB 2.0 when it's USB
    > >> > 1.1 IS misleading (if not downright fraudulent) to average consumers -
    > >> > gee I used to sell computer hardware for a living and even I didn't
    > >> > know USB 2.0 could be USB 1.1!! There is no way you can convince me
    > >> > that someone could be writing that spec out without anticipating the
    > >> > confusion it might cause.
    > >>
    > >> How about naming the retailer that sold it to you so that we know who not
    > >> to deal with.
    > >>
    > >> It sounds like the retailer happily sold the device with the deceptive
    > >> description of "USB 2.0 Full Speed" with no effort made to ensure the
    > >> customer understood that it was not the full USB 2 speed. I think you
    > >> could easily make a case for a refund based on the deceptive nature of the
    > >> description on the box. Maybe NZ needs a law saying that there needs to be
    > >> a warning added by retailers to such products advising that the device does
    > >> not in fact run at the full USB 2 speed.
    > >>

    > >
    > >It's a trader on trademe
    > >(http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=67643475). Maybe I
    > >should ask everyone to help me out and report his "Full speed USB 2.0"
    > >listings to Trademe :) - who knows, maybe Trademe will take notice and
    > >kick his ass out.

    > ?
    > My reading of the pages at USB.org seem to confirm the trader may very
    > well be correct in describing his product as Full Speed USB 2.
    > There appear to be 3 USB speeds:-
    > "Because the USB 2.0 Specification encompasses all USB data transfer
    > speeds, low (1.5Mb/s), full (12Mb/s) and high (480Mb/s)".
    > For what it's worth I find this use of such terminology most
    > confusing. Shoulda been low, high, & full. Woulda made a lot more
    > sense.


    I am not contesting the fact that *strictly* speaking "Full speed USB
    2.0" is technically correct, but you have to admit in practice if you
    label 1.1 as 2.0 you do so in a conscious attempt to mislead - even
    USB-IF's own recommendation is for vendors not to do so. If you haven't
    read usb.org would you have known that a product that's labeled USB 2.0
    is in fact operating at USB 1.1 speed? Wouldn't you be pissed if what
    you bought was say a flash drive the requires the best speed possible?
     
    wassa, Sep 17, 2006
    #16
  17. wassa

    jasen Guest

    On 2006-09-17, Nho Whei <> wrote:

    > My reading of the pages at USB.org seem to confirm the trader may very
    > well be correct in describing his product as Full Speed USB 2.
    > There appear to be 3 USB speeds:-
    > "Because the USB 2.0 Specification encompasses all USB data transfer
    > speeds, low (1.5Mb/s), full (12Mb/s) and high (480Mb/s)".
    > For what it's worth I find this use of such terminology most
    > confusing. Shoulda been low, high, & full. Woulda made a lot more
    > sense.


    maybe until USB 3.0 comes out and does 3Gb/s etc....

    --

    Bye.
    Jasen
     
    jasen, Sep 18, 2006
    #17
  18. In message <>, wassa
    wrote:

    > If you haven't
    > read usb.org would you have known that a product that's labeled USB 2.0
    > is in fact operating at USB 1.1 speed?


    Well, it certainly has to be able to.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 19, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. DannyD1355

    USB High Speed against USB Non High Speed

    DannyD1355, Sep 7, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    603
    Patrick
    Sep 7, 2003
  2. a.metselaar

    speed speed speed

    a.metselaar, Dec 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,020
    BuffNET Tech Support - MichaelJ
    Dec 30, 2003
  3. pini
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    693
  4. Ken
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    489
  5. ChasX

    Half speed wireless, full speed wired?

    ChasX, Aug 26, 2008, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    783
    Barb Bowman
    Aug 26, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page