> Don't get me wrong, I -like- that we're getting reliable high-speed
> peripheral buses.
It's fine to have them available. Having no alternative is not fine.
> However, there are a lot more folks who can go from "neat idea"to> "cute widget on the desktop" quickly via a parallel port versus USB.
> For one thing, there are very few through-hole USB interfaces.
For another, with a parallel port you don't need a clock and a
specialized interface chip that's comparatively expensive and difficult
to interface to without a CPU. And you need a clock, probably up in
the megahertz at least.
Give me a nice simple breadboard full of TTL. No clocks, no CPUs, no
tri-state buses, no RAM or ROM. I've got one such circuit in
production use right now, controlling the relays I installed into a
12-outlet power bar.
> Again, no, Joe Consumer doesn't need a parallel port. He doesn't
> need it any more than he needs a quad-core processor, 3GB of memory,
> hundreds of gigabytes of disk space, or a gigabit network port.
Well put. Nobody objects to different computers coming wit hdifferent
capabilities when the differences are, say, number of CPUs
supported...but where's the "with or without a parallel port" choice?
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B