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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ant
  • Start date Start date
A

Ant

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/about/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: (e-mail address removed)
( ) or (e-mail address removed)
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"
 
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.
Click to expand...

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"
Click to expand...

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).

--
"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: (e-mail address removed)
( ) or (e-mail address removed)
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
 
Ant said:
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 (e-mail address removed)
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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: (e-mail address removed)
( ) or (e-mail address removed)
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
 
But still hampered by a slow reader interface.

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

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.
Click to expand...

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: (e-mail address removed)
( ) or (e-mail address removed)
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
 
Ant said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't take a lot of photographs but I do notice if I have many
photograph files to put on PC, it can be a long wait.

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

Ah.
--
"The evaluator counts the ants at the picnic of progress." --Mohan Singh
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ 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: (e-mail address removed)
( ) or (e-mail address removed)
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
 
Dan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Really?? How do you explain the vast differences among USB2 speeds?
 
John McWilliams said:
Really?? How do you explain the vast differences among USB2 speeds?
Click to expand...


I don't have to. USB2 is an interface, it has no "speed". It does have a
rated limit of around 480 MB/sec BURST RATE, which is virtually meaningless,
as burst rates only occur, (you guessed it), in bursts. There are many
things that affect USB2 TRANSFER RATE speeds, but as a rule it tops out
around 20-25 MB/sec under ideal circumstances. The most common limitation
for sustained transfer speeds on a PC using USB2 is the USB controller in
the PC. Many controllers are, frankly, crap. The 2nd most common limitation
is the device itself that is connected, as these also have chipsets that
control the USB2 and can affect speeds. #3 is the type of transfer, i.e.
write vs. read. Write is always slower than read on USB. This is due to the
overhead involved with writing.

Bottom line is that even on a bad day, the worst USB2 controller can match
the speeds from any standard memory card.
 
A previous poster stated that there are 2 types of USB2, which is false.
There's only USB1.1 and USB2.
Click to expand...

Not quite. USB2 has several variants. Low Speed and Full Speed USB 2.0 are
really just the backward compatible variant of USB 1.1, but they are still
USB 2.0. Hi Speed USB 2.0 is the fast one, 480Mb/s. There are different
USB 2.0 logo's for the various modes, see
http://www.usb.org/developers/packaging/.

There has been a bit of historical revision about what USB 2 really means,
since the original definition (as given above) meant that any USB 1.1 device
pretty much became a form of USB 2.0 device. Later guidelines have
attempted to clear up some of the confusion (and disgust) of consumers by
calling them USB and Hi-Speed USB and mostly dropping the confusing and
misleading USB 2 designation.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging
 
Dan said:
I don't have to. USB2 is an interface, it has no "speed". It does have a
rated limit of around 480 MB/sec BURST RATE, which is virtually meaningless,
as burst rates only occur, (you guessed it), in bursts. There are many
things that affect USB2 TRANSFER RATE speeds, but as a rule it tops out
around 20-25 MB/sec under ideal circumstances. The most common limitation
for sustained transfer speeds on a PC using USB2 is the USB controller in
the PC. Many controllers are, frankly, crap. The 2nd most common limitation
is the device itself that is connected, as these also have chipsets that
control the USB2 and can affect speeds. #3 is the type of transfer, i.e.
write vs. read. Write is always slower than read on USB. This is due to the
overhead involved with writing.

Bottom line is that even on a bad day, the worst USB2 controller can match
the speeds from any standard memory card.
Click to expand...

I didn't need more reasons to convince me that USB sucks, period. That's
why I recommend firewire readers.

But do read Mr. Headrick's post. In addition, there are moderate, slow,
and painfully slow USB transfers, and if it's the chipset in the card
reader, so be it.
 
I don't have to. USB2 is an interface, it has no "speed". It does have a
rated limit of around 480 MB/sec BURST RATE, which is virtually
meaningless, as burst rates only occur, (you guessed it), in bursts. There
are many things that affect USB2 TRANSFER RATE speeds, but as a
rule it tops out around 20-25 MB/sec under ideal circumstances.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's incorrect. There are two versions of USB 1 and
two versions of USB 2. USB 1 supports speeds of 1.5Mb/sec and
12Mb/sec. The former is generally used by USB mice and keyboards.
USB 2's two versions are USB 2.0 Full Speed (12Mb/sec) and USB 2.0
High Speed (480Mb/sec). Many of the first devices (such as cameras)
that were advertised as having USB 2.0 ports used the more limited
Full Speed version, and they were *slow*.

Note, btw, that it's 480Mb/sec, not 480MB/sec. The fastest card
reader I've seen tested is Sandisk's Extreme IV. With the fastest
card (not surprisingly, Sandisk's Extreme IV CF card) it has managed
not burst, but sustained read rates of 40MB/sec, which is only
slightly slower (whether overhead is or isn't taken into account)
than 480Mb/sec.

Bottom line is that even on a bad day, the worst USB2 controller
can match the speeds from any standard memory card.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that if you qualify it as "the worst USB2 High
Speed controller". If you connect a fast USB2 card reader to a
USB2.0 Full Speed port (max. 12Mb/sec) only the slowest 1x cards
(150kb/sec, or 9Mb/sec) can be transferred as fast as the card's
potential allows. Almost all cards sold today range from 20x to
150x, and as a fairly rough rule of thumb, a ##x speed card using a
USB 2.0 High Speed port can transfer files ##x time faster than if a
USB 2.0 Full Speed port is used.

If you want to check this, here's a clip from a message that was
posted last year. I just checked both of the URLs contained in it
and they're still valid, and both are worth reading :
 
Dan said:
say
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

OTOH My HP C5180 _is_ using USB2.0 for card reading. Takes very short (2
minutes or so - definitely shorter than my old USB1 card reader) to
download almost full 512M card.
Don't understand though why scanner is so slow? Did they mismatched USBs
inside that printer? (faster went for reader and slower for scanner?)
 
Back
Top