Belkin USB adapter F5D7050

Can any one help

I am having problems installing a Belkin wireless USB adapter into a machine
with Windows ME , the software says to restart the computer and a the same
time it tells me to connect the adapter , i have tried both ways and every
time i get the same message that the adapter cannot be found, even though
windows detects it ?

any ideas, one confusing thing is that the Software disc says suitable for
Windows 98SE ME etc but the manual only says windows 2000 , XP ?


Thanks

Dale

"Dale Harper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Can any one help
>
> I am having problems installing a Belkin wireless USB adapter into a
> machine with Windows ME , the software says to restart the computer and a
> the same time it tells me to connect the adapter , i have tried both ways
> and every time i get the same message that the adapter cannot be found,
> even though windows detects it ?
>
> any ideas, one confusing thing is that the Software disc says suitable for
> Windows 98SE ME etc but the manual only says windows 2000 , XP ?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Dale
>
You need a USB2 port to plug it into. Either try and find correct drivers
or buy a USB2 PCI card. That might be one way around it.

On 13 Nov 2005 14:08, "mark" wrote:

>You need a USB2 port to plug it into.

: Supports 802.11g networks for data transfer rates of up to 54Mbps
: Backwards compatible with 802.11b networks for data transfers of up to 11Mbps
-------------------------------------------------
: Fits any standard USB 1.0, 1.1, or 2.0 port
-------------------------------------------------
: Built-in 64- and 128-bit WEP data encryption
: Low-Power Consumption Chipset

[ I don't have one, but felt sure it was compatible with older USB ports ]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:40:17 +0000, Peter M <us-(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>[ I don't have one, but felt sure it was compatible with older USB ports ]

not sure about the benefit of 54M wireless on a 12M USB 1 interface
though :-)

Phil
--

Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.

"Phil Thompson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:40:17 +0000, Peter M <us-(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >[ I don't have one, but felt sure it was compatible with older USB
> >ports ]

(FTR, I believe the backwards compatibility is a requirement for
certification.)

> not sure about the benefit of 54M wireless on a 12M USB 1 interface
> though :-)

There are two possible reasons I can think of why an 802.11g adaptor might
have higher useful throughput than an 802.11b adaptor, assuming they were
both connected via Full Speed (12Mbit/s) USB. One is that 802.11b working
flat out may not saturate 12Mbit/s USB by a substantial margin. The other is
that 802.11g may be faster for a given signal level, so eg 802.11b might
operate at 2Mbit/s while 802.11g in the same situation can work at (say)
12Mbit/s.

Aside from those, there is also the mixed (b/g) network speed penalty issue
that I've seen mentioned in many places.

Alex

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:40:08 -0000, "Alex Fraser" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>There are two possible reasons I can think of why an 802.11g adaptor might
>have higher useful throughput than an 802.11b adaptor, assuming they were
>both connected via Full Speed (12Mbit/s) USB. One is that 802.11b working
>flat out may not saturate 12Mbit/s USB by a substantial margin. The other is
>that 802.11g may be faster for a given signal level, so eg 802.11b might
>operate at 2Mbit/s while 802.11g in the same situation can work at (say)
>12Mbit/s.

perhaps, but I don't know how good an 802.11g dongle trying to run 20
Mbits/s of data would be if sat in a USB socket limited to 12M.

Phil
--

Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.

"Phil Thompson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:40:08 -0000, "Alex Fraser" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
> >There are two possible reasons I can think of why an 802.11g adaptor
> >might have higher useful throughput than an 802.11b adaptor, assuming
> >they were both connected via Full Speed (12Mbit/s) USB. One is that
> >802.11b working flat out may not saturate 12Mbit/s USB by a substantial
> >margin. The other is that 802.11g may be faster for a given signal
> >level, so eg 802.11b might operate at 2Mbit/s while 802.11g in the same
> >situation can work at (say) 12Mbit/s.
>
> perhaps, but I don't know how good an 802.11g dongle trying to run 20
> Mbits/s of data would be if sat in a USB socket limited to 12M.

That was part of my first point. If the useful data going over the 12Mbit/s
USB is similar to the useful data going over the wireless link, then
anything less than an 18Mbit/s 802.11g connection should not be limited by
USB, even though the USB rate is lower.

To put it another way, both 12Mbit/s USB and 18Mbit/s 802.11g can sustain
similar useful data throughput, so it is entirely possible that the raw
bitrates are a bit misleading with respect to "the benefit of 54M wireless
on a 12M USB 1 interface".

Alex

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:08:15 -0000, "Alex Fraser" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>That was part of my first point. If the useful data going over the 12Mbit/s
>USB is similar to the useful data going over the wireless link, then
>anything less than an 18Mbit/s 802.11g connection should not be limited by
>USB, even though the USB rate is lower.

also depends how much non-data traffic goes over the USB. If the CPU
is doing most of the work there may be a higher load than the TCP/IP
data.

12M of data is probably a 24M 802.11g connect speed, which is pretty
well at the end of its useful range. What happens if it connects at 54
I wonder ?

Phil
--

Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.

"Phil Thompson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
[snip]
> 12M of data is probably a 24M 802.11g connect speed, which is pretty
> well at the end of its useful range. What happens if it connects at 54
> I wonder ?

There is quite possibly a flow control mechanism for the wireless link. If
not, I am sure there will at least be buffering in the device to let it work
limited by the speed of the USB link, with packet loss (as a result of
buffer overflow) usually avoided by flow control in higher layer protocols
(eg TCP).

Alex