A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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 » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

usb 3.0 card



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 5th 13, 04:36 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Andy[_17_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 594
Default usb 3.0 card

What factor of my system is necessary to be able to use the full speed of a USB 3.0 card ?

Thanks.
Ads
  #2  
Old December 5th 13, 05:06 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default usb 3.0 card

Andy wrote:
What factor of my system is necessary to be able to use the full speed of a USB 3.0 card ?

Thanks.


USB3 can be provided two ways. It can be
provided by the main chipset (some Intel chipsets,
chipsets like AMD A75 - Wikipedia can give you a list).

Or, for the majority of people, USB3 comes from
a standalone chip made by NEC, Etron, Asmedia, and so on.

With those chips, there is a tendency to put a PCI
Express single lane interface. That's PCI Express x1.
Doing so, saves pins on the chip, and reduces chip cost.
That's how you can sell a $25 USB3 PCI Express card.

Motherboards have several kinds of PCI Express slots,
but we'll concentrate on the PCI Express x1 ones.

PCI Express Rev 1.1, x1 lane = 250MB/sec
PCI Express Rev 2.0, x1 lane = 500MB/sec

The second of those, does a better job of exposing
all of the USB3 capability. For example, if you
bought a BlackMagic video capture device with USB3
connector, the software for that device actually
tests and verifies that a 500MB/sec lane is present.

There are no other devices I'm aware of, where bandwidth
testing is involved.

So the ideal situations, from best to worst.

1) Chipset USB3 port, with no restriction on the bus
connection to the rest of the chipset. The DMI bus or
Hypertransport bus connection to the Southbridge in
such a case, likely runs 2GB/sec or higher, plenty for
a USB3 stream. You don't have to worry about the
connection being choked off. And as for implementation,
I think the AMD A75 and similar, they didn't design the
USB3 logic block themselves, but bought a design (intellectual
property) from a company making a successful chip.
That means less development cost, to ship a design.

2) Plug an add-in card into a Rev 2.0 slot. You can use
a video card slot for this, if one is available. Some
motherboards have multiple video card slots. You can
plug an x1 card, into an x16 slot. It's a waste, but,
you're getting the best. Video card slots tend to support
Revision 2 or even Revision 3, for the very highest rate
of transfer. No USB3 chip I've heard of, uses PCI Express
Revision 3.

3) Plug an add-in card into a Rev 1.1 slot. This is good
enough for enclosures where the disk enclosure USB3 adapter
chip is limited to 200MB/sec anyway. Such an enclosure,
even if you stuffed a high performance SATA SSD into
the enclosure, it would be the enclosure chip which was
the limiting factor. So in that situation, the low
end and quite common PCI Express x1 slot is good enough.

There is more to PCI Express bandwidth than just the "plumbing
rating". When I quote 250MB/sec, that's raw bitrate on the
lane. The typical chipset has rather small buffers fitted
at the end of the link, and the buffer size can actually
cut the transfer rate in half. You shouldn't assume that
the number printed in the Wikipedia article for PCI Express,
is the final story.

http://www.plxtech.com/files/pdf/tec...yload_Size.pdf

The figure on page 2 there, shows the "efficiency" number.
You multiply the 250MB/sec number by the "efficiency", to
get a better value (trending in the right direction) for
what your x1 lane can actually do. Is it easy to find
out the buffer size of your chipset buffer ? Nope. It's
a trade secret. It would be embarrassing, if everyone
knew their 4GB/sec video card slot, wasn't actually
doing 4GB/sec. The horror.

The UAS protocol here, has a calculated transfer rate
of 336MB/sec. But no device to date has achieved that.
At least for USB storage. Keep your eyes peeled though,
for benchmarks, because some year, they'll fix that.
The last time I checked, the best seemed to be around
200MB/sec or so.

http://www.nordichardware.com/Archiv...idge-chip.html

Plug your new USB3 card into a video card slot... and, enjoy.

It's a good thing the last motherboard I bought, has two
video card slots.

Paul
  #3  
Old December 5th 13, 05:22 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Andy[_17_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 594
Default usb 3.0 card

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 10:06:42 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote:
Andy wrote:

What factor of my system is necessary to be able to use the full speed of a USB 3.0 card ?




Thanks.




USB3 can be provided two ways. It can be

provided by the main chipset (some Intel chipsets,

chipsets like AMD A75 - Wikipedia can give you a list).



Or, for the majority of people, USB3 comes from

a standalone chip made by NEC, Etron, Asmedia, and so on.



With those chips, there is a tendency to put a PCI

Express single lane interface. That's PCI Express x1.

Doing so, saves pins on the chip, and reduces chip cost.

That's how you can sell a $25 USB3 PCI Express card.



Motherboards have several kinds of PCI Express slots,

but we'll concentrate on the PCI Express x1 ones.



PCI Express Rev 1.1, x1 lane = 250MB/sec

PCI Express Rev 2.0, x1 lane = 500MB/sec



The second of those, does a better job of exposing

all of the USB3 capability. For example, if you

bought a BlackMagic video capture device with USB3

connector, the software for that device actually

tests and verifies that a 500MB/sec lane is present.



There are no other devices I'm aware of, where bandwidth

testing is involved.



So the ideal situations, from best to worst.



1) Chipset USB3 port, with no restriction on the bus

connection to the rest of the chipset. The DMI bus or

Hypertransport bus connection to the Southbridge in

such a case, likely runs 2GB/sec or higher, plenty for

a USB3 stream. You don't have to worry about the

connection being choked off. And as for implementation,

I think the AMD A75 and similar, they didn't design the

USB3 logic block themselves, but bought a design (intellectual

property) from a company making a successful chip.

That means less development cost, to ship a design.



2) Plug an add-in card into a Rev 2.0 slot. You can use

a video card slot for this, if one is available. Some

motherboards have multiple video card slots. You can

plug an x1 card, into an x16 slot. It's a waste, but,

you're getting the best. Video card slots tend to support

Revision 2 or even Revision 3, for the very highest rate

of transfer. No USB3 chip I've heard of, uses PCI Express

Revision 3.



3) Plug an add-in card into a Rev 1.1 slot. This is good

enough for enclosures where the disk enclosure USB3 adapter

chip is limited to 200MB/sec anyway. Such an enclosure,

even if you stuffed a high performance SATA SSD into

the enclosure, it would be the enclosure chip which was

the limiting factor. So in that situation, the low

end and quite common PCI Express x1 slot is good enough.



There is more to PCI Express bandwidth than just the "plumbing

rating". When I quote 250MB/sec, that's raw bitrate on the

lane. The typical chipset has rather small buffers fitted

at the end of the link, and the buffer size can actually

cut the transfer rate in half. You shouldn't assume that

the number printed in the Wikipedia article for PCI Express,

is the final story.



http://www.plxtech.com/files/pdf/tec...yload_Size.pdf



The figure on page 2 there, shows the "efficiency" number.

You multiply the 250MB/sec number by the "efficiency", to

get a better value (trending in the right direction) for

what your x1 lane can actually do. Is it easy to find

out the buffer size of your chipset buffer ? Nope. It's

a trade secret. It would be embarrassing, if everyone

knew their 4GB/sec video card slot, wasn't actually

doing 4GB/sec. The horror.



The UAS protocol here, has a calculated transfer rate

of 336MB/sec. But no device to date has achieved that.

At least for USB storage. Keep your eyes peeled though,

for benchmarks, because some year, they'll fix that.

The last time I checked, the best seemed to be around

200MB/sec or so.



http://www.nordichardware.com/Archiv...idge-chip.html



Plug your new USB3 card into a video card slot... and, enjoy.



It's a good thing the last motherboard I bought, has two

video card slots.



Paul


Thanks.

I have one PCI Express slot.

Could I use that ?

I am happy using the on board video, it only uses 128 Mb and I plan to up my RAM to 4 Gbs.

  #4  
Old December 5th 13, 07:37 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default usb 3.0 card

Andy wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 10:06:42 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote:
Andy wrote:

What factor of my system is necessary to be able to use the full speed of a USB 3.0 card ?
Thanks.



USB3 can be provided two ways. It can be

provided by the main chipset (some Intel chipsets,

chipsets like AMD A75 - Wikipedia can give you a list).



Or, for the majority of people, USB3 comes from

a standalone chip made by NEC, Etron, Asmedia, and so on.



With those chips, there is a tendency to put a PCI

Express single lane interface. That's PCI Express x1.

Doing so, saves pins on the chip, and reduces chip cost.

That's how you can sell a $25 USB3 PCI Express card.



Motherboards have several kinds of PCI Express slots,

but we'll concentrate on the PCI Express x1 ones.



PCI Express Rev 1.1, x1 lane = 250MB/sec

PCI Express Rev 2.0, x1 lane = 500MB/sec



The second of those, does a better job of exposing

all of the USB3 capability. For example, if you

bought a BlackMagic video capture device with USB3

connector, the software for that device actually

tests and verifies that a 500MB/sec lane is present.



There are no other devices I'm aware of, where bandwidth

testing is involved.



So the ideal situations, from best to worst.



1) Chipset USB3 port, with no restriction on the bus

connection to the rest of the chipset. The DMI bus or

Hypertransport bus connection to the Southbridge in

such a case, likely runs 2GB/sec or higher, plenty for

a USB3 stream. You don't have to worry about the

connection being choked off. And as for implementation,

I think the AMD A75 and similar, they didn't design the

USB3 logic block themselves, but bought a design (intellectual

property) from a company making a successful chip.

That means less development cost, to ship a design.



2) Plug an add-in card into a Rev 2.0 slot. You can use

a video card slot for this, if one is available. Some

motherboards have multiple video card slots. You can

plug an x1 card, into an x16 slot. It's a waste, but,

you're getting the best. Video card slots tend to support

Revision 2 or even Revision 3, for the very highest rate

of transfer. No USB3 chip I've heard of, uses PCI Express

Revision 3.



3) Plug an add-in card into a Rev 1.1 slot. This is good

enough for enclosures where the disk enclosure USB3 adapter

chip is limited to 200MB/sec anyway. Such an enclosure,

even if you stuffed a high performance SATA SSD into

the enclosure, it would be the enclosure chip which was

the limiting factor. So in that situation, the low

end and quite common PCI Express x1 slot is good enough.



There is more to PCI Express bandwidth than just the "plumbing

rating". When I quote 250MB/sec, that's raw bitrate on the

lane. The typical chipset has rather small buffers fitted

at the end of the link, and the buffer size can actually

cut the transfer rate in half. You shouldn't assume that

the number printed in the Wikipedia article for PCI Express,

is the final story.



http://www.plxtech.com/files/pdf/tec...yload_Size.pdf



The figure on page 2 there, shows the "efficiency" number.

You multiply the 250MB/sec number by the "efficiency", to

get a better value (trending in the right direction) for

what your x1 lane can actually do. Is it easy to find

out the buffer size of your chipset buffer ? Nope. It's

a trade secret. It would be embarrassing, if everyone

knew their 4GB/sec video card slot, wasn't actually

doing 4GB/sec. The horror.



The UAS protocol here, has a calculated transfer rate

of 336MB/sec. But no device to date has achieved that.

At least for USB storage. Keep your eyes peeled though,

for benchmarks, because some year, they'll fix that.

The last time I checked, the best seemed to be around

200MB/sec or so.



http://www.nordichardware.com/Archiv...idge-chip.html



Plug your new USB3 card into a video card slot... and, enjoy.



It's a good thing the last motherboard I bought, has two

video card slots.



Paul


Thanks.

I have one PCI Express slot.

Could I use that ?

I am happy using the on board video, it only uses 128 Mb and I plan to up my RAM to 4 Gbs.


It's your choice as to what slot you use. The lack of USB3
peripherals that "need the speed", suggests to me that using
the best slot isn't a priority. If you have the BlackMagic
USB3 video capture box, then yes, you'd probably want to
use the best slot available. Or, buy a motherboard that has
native USB3, and not the add-on USB3 type.

Paul
  #5  
Old December 5th 13, 01:09 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Andy[_17_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 594
Default usb 3.0 card

On Thursday, December 5, 2013 12:37:26 AM UTC-6, Paul wrote:
Andy wrote:

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 10:06:42 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote:


Andy wrote:




What factor of my system is necessary to be able to use the full speed of a USB 3.0 card ?


Thanks.






USB3 can be provided two ways. It can be




provided by the main chipset (some Intel chipsets,




chipsets like AMD A75 - Wikipedia can give you a list).








Or, for the majority of people, USB3 comes from




a standalone chip made by NEC, Etron, Asmedia, and so on.








With those chips, there is a tendency to put a PCI




Express single lane interface. That's PCI Express x1.




Doing so, saves pins on the chip, and reduces chip cost.




That's how you can sell a $25 USB3 PCI Express card.








Motherboards have several kinds of PCI Express slots,




but we'll concentrate on the PCI Express x1 ones.








PCI Express Rev 1.1, x1 lane = 250MB/sec




PCI Express Rev 2.0, x1 lane = 500MB/sec








The second of those, does a better job of exposing




all of the USB3 capability. For example, if you




bought a BlackMagic video capture device with USB3




connector, the software for that device actually




tests and verifies that a 500MB/sec lane is present.








There are no other devices I'm aware of, where bandwidth




testing is involved.








So the ideal situations, from best to worst.








1) Chipset USB3 port, with no restriction on the bus




connection to the rest of the chipset. The DMI bus or




Hypertransport bus connection to the Southbridge in




such a case, likely runs 2GB/sec or higher, plenty for




a USB3 stream. You don't have to worry about the




connection being choked off. And as for implementation,




I think the AMD A75 and similar, they didn't design the




USB3 logic block themselves, but bought a design (intellectual




property) from a company making a successful chip.




That means less development cost, to ship a design.








2) Plug an add-in card into a Rev 2.0 slot. You can use




a video card slot for this, if one is available. Some




motherboards have multiple video card slots. You can




plug an x1 card, into an x16 slot. It's a waste, but,




you're getting the best. Video card slots tend to support




Revision 2 or even Revision 3, for the very highest rate




of transfer. No USB3 chip I've heard of, uses PCI Express




Revision 3.








3) Plug an add-in card into a Rev 1.1 slot. This is good




enough for enclosures where the disk enclosure USB3 adapter




chip is limited to 200MB/sec anyway. Such an enclosure,




even if you stuffed a high performance SATA SSD into




the enclosure, it would be the enclosure chip which was




the limiting factor. So in that situation, the low




end and quite common PCI Express x1 slot is good enough.








There is more to PCI Express bandwidth than just the "plumbing




rating". When I quote 250MB/sec, that's raw bitrate on the




lane. The typical chipset has rather small buffers fitted




at the end of the link, and the buffer size can actually




cut the transfer rate in half. You shouldn't assume that




the number printed in the Wikipedia article for PCI Express,




is the final story.








http://www.plxtech.com/files/pdf/tec...yload_Size.pdf








The figure on page 2 there, shows the "efficiency" number.




You multiply the 250MB/sec number by the "efficiency", to




get a better value (trending in the right direction) for




what your x1 lane can actually do. Is it easy to find




out the buffer size of your chipset buffer ? Nope. It's




a trade secret. It would be embarrassing, if everyone




knew their 4GB/sec video card slot, wasn't actually




doing 4GB/sec. The horror.








The UAS protocol here, has a calculated transfer rate




of 336MB/sec. But no device to date has achieved that.




At least for USB storage. Keep your eyes peeled though,




for benchmarks, because some year, they'll fix that.




The last time I checked, the best seemed to be around




200MB/sec or so.








http://www.nordichardware.com/Archiv...idge-chip.html








Plug your new USB3 card into a video card slot... and, enjoy.








It's a good thing the last motherboard I bought, has two




video card slots.








Paul




Thanks.




I have one PCI Express slot.




Could I use that ?




I am happy using the on board video, it only uses 128 Mb and I plan to up my RAM to 4 Gbs.






It's your choice as to what slot you use. The lack of USB3

peripherals that "need the speed", suggests to me that using

the best slot isn't a priority. If you have the BlackMagic

USB3 video capture box, then yes, you'd probably want to

use the best slot available. Or, buy a motherboard that has

native USB3, and not the add-on USB3 type.



Paul


I have a USB 3 external hard drive.

I could use the extra speed for image backups.

Canon camera may also benefit.

Andy
  #6  
Old December 5th 13, 05:08 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default usb 3.0 card

Andy wrote:


I have a USB 3 external hard drive.

I could use the extra speed for image backups.

Canon camera may also benefit.

Andy


Let's say, for the sake of argument, you plug the
USB3 card into "any old slot" and you get 187MB/sec
transfer rate.

The fastest hard drive available today for SATA,
is around 180MB/sec. Many other hard drives sustain
around 135MB/sec. Those would fit within a 187MB/sec
limitation.

If you had a Revision 2 slot with 500MB/sec lanes,
then eventually the USB3 transfer protocols become the limiting
factor. Just like on USB2 (60MB/sec), the best you
could do was around 35MB/sec. That was a polled protocol
limitation of some sort.

Paul
  #7  
Old December 6th 13, 08:28 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default usb 3.0 card

Charlie+ wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:22:46 -0800 (PST), Andy
wrote as underneath :

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 10:06:42 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote:
Andy wrote:

What factor of my system is necessary to be able to use the full speed of a USB 3.0 card ?
Thanks.

SNIP

Andy your reader is adding blank reply lines to your replies!
C+


He's posting through Google Groups.

Paul
  #8  
Old December 6th 13, 03:05 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
VinnyB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default usb 3.0 card

On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 02:28:57 -0500, Paul wrote in
Re usb 3.0 card:

Charlie+ wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:22:46 -0800 (PST), Andy
wrote as underneath :

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 10:06:42 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote:
Andy wrote:

What factor of my system is necessary to be able to use the full speed of a USB 3.0 card ?
Thanks.

SNIP

Andy your reader is adding blank reply lines to your replies!
C+


He's posting through Google Groups.


And those extraneous/obnoxious blank lines are a characteristic
dysfunction of GGs and their clueless users. I just add the posters
to my KF.
  #9  
Old December 7th 13, 04:06 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Andy[_17_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 594
Default usb 3.0 card

On Friday, December 6, 2013 12:37:04 AM UTC-6, Charlie+ wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:22:46 -0800 (PST), Andy

wrote as underneath :



On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 10:06:42 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote:


Andy wrote:




What factor of my system is necessary to be able to use the full speed of a USB 3.0 card ?








Thanks.






SNIP



Andy your reader is adding blank reply lines to your replies!

C+


I am not using a reader, just the P.O.C. Google.

Sorry guy.

Andy
  #10  
Old December 7th 13, 04:07 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Andy[_17_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 594
Default usb 3.0 card

On Friday, December 6, 2013 8:05:47 AM UTC-6, VinnyB wrote:
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 02:28:57 -0500, Paul wrote in

Re usb 3.0 card:



Charlie+ wrote:


On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:22:46 -0800 (PST), Andy


wrote as underneath :




On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 10:06:42 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote:


Andy wrote:




What factor of my system is necessary to be able to use the full speed of a USB 3.0 card ?


Thanks.




SNIP




Andy your reader is adding blank reply lines to your replies!


C+




He's posting through Google Groups.




And those extraneous/obnoxious blank lines are a characteristic

dysfunction of GGs and their clueless users. I just add the posters

to my KF.


Thanks, I appreciate your kindness in not bumming me out with your "negative waves."

  #11  
Old December 7th 13, 04:10 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Andy[_17_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 594
Default usb 3.0 card

On Thursday, December 5, 2013 10:08:17 AM UTC-6, Paul wrote:
Andy wrote:





I have a USB 3 external hard drive.




I could use the extra speed for image backups.




Canon camera may also benefit.




Andy




Let's say, for the sake of argument, you plug the

USB3 card into "any old slot" and you get 187MB/sec

transfer rate.



The fastest hard drive available today for SATA,

is around 180MB/sec. Many other hard drives sustain

around 135MB/sec. Those would fit within a 187MB/sec

limitation.



If you had a Revision 2 slot with 500MB/sec lanes,

then eventually the USB3 transfer protocols become the limiting

factor. Just like on USB2 (60MB/sec), the best you

could do was around 35MB/sec. That was a polled protocol

limitation of some sort.



Paul


This is what I have.

PCI Express Rev 2.0, x1 lane = 500MB/sec


Your previous post made no mention of transfer protocols.

??

Andy
  #12  
Old December 7th 13, 04:41 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default usb 3.0 card

Andy wrote:


This is what I have.

PCI Express Rev 2.0, x1 lane = 500MB/sec


Your previous post made no mention of transfer protocols.

??

Andy


Scroll down to the table. The newer UAS protocol
can do 336MB/sec to a storage device. Which
would take more than an add-on chip and a
250MB/sec single lane could handle.

http://www.nordichardware.com/Archiv...idge-chip.html

At the current time, the fastest enclosure I've heard
of, is 200MB/sec. I haven't been scouring the
Internet for newer benchmarks, so by now there could be
a better chip for the job. But if nothing has changed,
you're not going to tax that 336MB/sec limit in
the table on the Nordic Hardware page. You would
need a better USB3 peripheral chip, as well as a
good SSD, to test for the 336MB/sec limit. No hard
drive is going to make such a test easy. (It might
require one of those USB3 chips that does RAID0
disks.)

Paul
  #13  
Old December 7th 13, 07:02 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Andy[_17_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 594
Default usb 3.0 card

On Friday, December 6, 2013 9:41:01 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote:
Andy wrote:





This is what I have.




PCI Express Rev 2.0, x1 lane = 500MB/sec






Your previous post made no mention of transfer protocols.




??




Andy




Scroll down to the table. The newer UAS protocol

can do 336MB/sec to a storage device. Which

would take more than an add-on chip and a

250MB/sec single lane could handle.



http://www.nordichardware.com/Archiv...idge-chip.html



At the current time, the fastest enclosure I've heard

of, is 200MB/sec. I haven't been scouring the

Internet for newer benchmarks, so by now there could be

a better chip for the job. But if nothing has changed,

you're not going to tax that 336MB/sec limit in

the table on the Nordic Hardware page. You would

need a better USB3 peripheral chip, as well as a

good SSD, to test for the 336MB/sec limit. No hard

drive is going to make such a test easy. (It might

require one of those USB3 chips that does RAID0

disks.)



Paul


I think what you are saying is that you are not sure that there will be any speed increase ?

Okey dokey.


Andy
  #14  
Old December 7th 13, 01:56 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default usb 3.0 card

Andy wrote:


I think what you are saying is that you are not sure that there will be any speed increase ?

Okey dokey.


Andy


The last time I looked, the fastest USB3 enclosure
I could find was 200MB/sec.

You have to read a *lot* of posts and threads, to
find this information manually. That's why I'm not
doing this on a continuous basis.

Paul
 




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 Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:08 PM.


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