USB - here's an old one...

In a few years we'll all have boxes with like... 8-12 USB ports.
Hopefully, all native to the board. I'm sick of installing those little
PCI USB cards, and looking for the perfect USB hub. It doesn't make
sense that all our peripherals have gone to USB interface, yet most
motherboards still ship with only two rear ports and two headers for the
front of the case.

It's a conspiracy, I'm sure of it.

Let's see...

1. Printer
2. Scanner
3. Webcam
4. Wire for the other digital camera or perhaps a thumbdrive
5. External hard drive
6. External CD or DVD burner
7. Wireless mouse
8. Game controller

I guess that's it. 8 would be a good number. 10 would be great.

I'm still a bit miffed that XP completely ditches support of analog
joysticks, which leaves me with a box full of "collector's items", but
the parallel port is REALLY a dinosaur. On the happy side of that, you
can get used laser printers relatively cheaply these days.

-John Effty

------------------------------------------------
- I'm just here because I don't have a blog! -
------------------------------------------------

Effty wrote:
In a few years we'll all have boxes with like... 8-12 USB ports.
Hopefully, all native to the board. I'm sick of installing those little
PCI USB cards, and looking for the perfect USB hub. It doesn't make
sense that all our peripherals have gone to USB interface, yet most
motherboards still ship with only two rear ports and two headers for the
front of the case.

It's a conspiracy, I'm sure of it.
I guess that's it. 8 would be a good number. 10 would be great.


If you want one with everything...

http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p...m/SLI&class=mb

MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum....

Other than lacking a PCI-X slot there isn't much more you could need in
the immediate future.

It has your legacy ports - PS/2, Serial, Parallel. 4 rear USB 1 Firewire
rear, 3 10pin USB connectors for 6 more USB up front, 2 more headers for
firewire up front, hardware audio & on & on...

I'm amazed they can pack that much stuff on it for only $190.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:44:58 GMT, Effty
wrote:

In a few years we'll all have boxes with like... 8-12 USB ports.
Hopefully, all native to the board. I'm sick of installing those little
PCI USB cards, and looking for the perfect USB hub. It doesn't make
sense that all our peripherals have gone to USB interface, yet most
motherboards still ship with only two rear ports and two headers for the
front of the case.

Quite a few boards now have at least 4 rear ports, and
almost anything made in the last couple years has at least 2
pairs of pin headers for the front... that's 6 ports
minimum.



It's a conspiracy, I'm sure of it.

Let's see...

1. Printer

Any "good" printer has a parallel interface that works fine.


2. Scanner
3. Webcam
4. Wire for the other digital camera or perhaps a thumbdrive

Just get a media reader with a USB socket in it.
I keep hoping for a "fast infrared" transport or a
bluetooth-like (not "bluetooth" though as the mere word
typically means a product costs a lot more than it should).


5. External hard drive

Firewire not USB.


6. External CD or DVD burner

Why? Not needed. External HDD and flash media are better
alternative if an internal burner won't do the job.
Notebooks are a different story, depends on the notebook.


7. Wireless mouse

Why? PS2 corded is better.
You can use whatever you like but that doesn't necessarily
mean you "need" another USB port, it means you actively seek
to use USB then suddenly find that's a problem. USB is not
a preferred interface for most things, it's just cheap and
easy. "Trying" to use it is kinda like "trying" to cause
problems. Not that you would always have problems but if
there is a way to have a problem, introducing a USB
interface is likely to do it. Even so, what's the big deal
about buying a $10 USB card if you have a free motherboard
slot for it?


8. Game controller

I guess that's it. 8 would be a good number. 10 would be great.

As I wrote, most new systems support 6 or more.
If you have 8 USB devices you're probably settling for poor
performance from half of your gear.



I'm still a bit miffed that XP completely ditches support of analog
joysticks,

Define "support".


which leaves me with a box full of "collector's items", but
the parallel port is REALLY a dinosaur.

No, the parallel port works fine for it's intended purpose
and it's silly to use something else when this
well-supported port already exists... IF the hardware
supports it. If you find the printer doesn't work well
from parallel, it's the printer and/or driver that is your
problem, not the port.

Old (dinosaur) is good, providing it's fast enough for the
task. Old means it's mature. That means it works so the
industry didn't immediately try to find alternatives. No
consumer or (typical) business class printer needs a higher
throughput than USB1, which is equivalent enough to ECP
parallel, unless it is a very cheap model without internal
processing and very limited memory. IE- cheap junk.

USB should often be considered a last resort. Choose it if
you simply MUST have a piece of hardware with no other
interface option.

I'm a bit surprised you still find mouse and keyboard ports on
computers anymore. I really expected both of them to be dropped in
favor of USB. (Add a few more ports to your list.)

-Tim

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:44:58 GMT, Effty
wrote:

In a few years we'll all have boxes with like... 8-12 USB ports.
Hopefully, all native to the board. I'm sick of installing those little
PCI USB cards, and looking for the perfect USB hub. It doesn't make
sense that all our peripherals have gone to USB interface, yet most
motherboards still ship with only two rear ports and two headers for the
front of the case.

It's a conspiracy, I'm sure of it.

Let's see...

1. Printer
2. Scanner
3. Webcam
4. Wire for the other digital camera or perhaps a thumbdrive
5. External hard drive
6. External CD or DVD burner
7. Wireless mouse
8. Game controller

I guess that's it. 8 would be a good number. 10 would be great.

I'm still a bit miffed that XP completely ditches support of analog
joysticks, which leaves me with a box full of "collector's items", but
the parallel port is REALLY a dinosaur. On the happy side of that, you
can get used laser printers relatively cheaply these days.

-John Effty

------------------------------------------------
- I'm just here because I don't have a blog! -
------------------------------------------------

On 25 Apr 2005 13:03:19 GMT, (Tim
Arheit) wrote:

I'm a bit surprised you still find mouse and keyboard ports on
computers anymore. I really expected both of them to be dropped in
favor of USB. (Add a few more ports to your list.)

-Tim

Wouldn't it be a bad product design to drop ports that
people want and use, particularly when USB isn't supported
in all OS and in those it is, it is ALWYS more buggy?

USB is NOT any benefit for mouse or keyboard.
Why do people seem to think USB is a solution to a problem
that doesn't exist? It just goes to show that some people
can't be happy when things work, instead they'll go to extra
efforts to screw things up.

kony wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:44:58 GMT, Effty
wrote:

7. Wireless mouse

I really like my wireless mouse. Besides that leaves my mouseport open
for uh... my "spare" mouse!

I'm still a bit miffed that XP completely ditches support of analog
joysticks,


Define "support".

Well, they don't work, do they? ...that's pretty unsupportive!

the parallel port is REALLY a dinosaur.

No, the parallel port works fine for it's intended purpose
and it's silly to use something else when this
well-supported port already exists... IF the hardware
supports it. If you find the printer doesn't work well
from parallel, it's the printer and/or driver that is your
problem, not the port.

Yes, but most NEW hardware is either USB, or firewire, which I suppose
are just cuter wires that do the same thing. i.e. not big, chunky,
cables limited to some length smaller than 4-5'(?) not sure, really.

Hence, everything else will eventually become extinct, like dinosaurs.
In this case the large comet of destruction would be the consumers who
prefer small, cute, long, cables...

The USB mammals aren't really any smarter or better than the parallel
port dinosaurs, but they are going to outlive them. I think it's an apt
analogy.

-John Effty

------------------------------------------------
- I'm just here because I don't have a blog! -
------------------------------------------------

kony wrote:
On 25 Apr 2005 13:03:19 GMT, (Tim
Arheit) wrote:


I'm a bit surprised you still find mouse and keyboard ports on
computers anymore. I really expected both of them to be dropped in
favor of USB. (Add a few more ports to your list.)

-Tim


Wouldn't it be a bad product design to drop ports that
people want and use, particularly when USB isn't supported
in all OS and in those it is, it is ALWYS more buggy?

USB is NOT any benefit for mouse or keyboard.
Why do people seem to think USB is a solution to a problem
that doesn't exist? It just goes to show that some people
can't be happy when things work, instead they'll go to extra
efforts to screw things up.

That isn't even the half of it, Kony.

I worked on a "Legacy Free" machine about a year ago, and the bios setup
screen would not recognize USB keyboards or mice. How the @#*&$@# do you
change the settings? Sometimes I think these things don't get thought
out at all.

It got worse though. It also would not recognize a USB-floppy to flash
it (worked fine in windows though). The only drive included was a thin
laptop style DVD/CD-ROM drive. Okay, so I burned a bootable CD and
flashed it with the new BIOS & that fixed the problem. I didn't like
doing it that way as I couldn't keep a copy of the original in case
there was a problem... But that isn't the point, the point is, if you
only had that PC to work with, you couldn't have fixed the problem.
This was just poor design & no testing. This wasn't a generic junk box
either. This was an MSI micro-atx board that they also sold in a
non-legacy free trim (which might be why it expected a PS/2 mouse &
keyboard in the BIOS setup screen). At that time you could request it
either way and it was cheaper without the PS/2 ports so you know what
the builders did...


Maybe these are better now, but if we drop those ports the replacement
better work right out of the gate...

Effty wrote:
kony wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:44:58 GMT, Effty
wrote:

cables limited to some length smaller than 4-5'(?) not sure, really.

:Parallel Cables Length Limits
:
:Older style Centronics parallel cables, can rarely be more than 15
:feet long and still operate correctly, and 9 to 12 feet is a safer
:limit. The IEEE-1284 can go up to 30feet in length.

Had to find out.

-Effty

------------------------------------------------
- I'm just here because I don't have a blog! -
------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 04:15:31 GMT, Effty
wrote:

kony wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:44:58 GMT, Effty
wrote:

7. Wireless mouse

I really like my wireless mouse. Besides that leaves my mouseport open
for uh... my "spare" mouse!

I'm still a bit miffed that XP completely ditches support of analog
joysticks,


Define "support".

Well, they don't work, do they? ...that's pretty unsupportive!

They don't?
ALL of them?
I'll have to double check on this, but I certainly *thought*
my analog joystick was working on all newer systems I'd
tried it on. Does your system not show an analog joystick
port in Device Manager? Mine do, when applicable.



the parallel port is REALLY a dinosaur.

No, the parallel port works fine for it's intended purpose
and it's silly to use something else when this
well-supported port already exists... IF the hardware
supports it. If you find the printer doesn't work well
from parallel, it's the printer and/or driver that is your
problem, not the port.

Yes, but most NEW hardware is either USB, or firewire, which I suppose
are just cuter wires that do the same thing. i.e. not big, chunky,
cables limited to some length smaller than 4-5'(?) not sure, really.

"New" or "cheap"?
I agree that some hardware IS only USB or firewire, but
isn't that yet another reason to use the parallel port when
possible? What is it that makes you think parallel has to
be big, or shorter than 4-5'? It seems you have quite a few
misconceptions... USB cables are usually cheaply made, the
good full-speed cables are quite a bit thicker, quite near
if not same size as a thin parallel cable. Those old very
thick parallel cables are not necessary for proper operation
of a printer at normal distances, indeed I have boxes full
of them and use a thinner cable myself with no problems.



Hence, everything else will eventually become extinct, like dinosaurs.
In this case the large comet of destruction would be the consumers who
prefer small, cute, long, cables...

You do realize that USB doesn't support long cables, right?
That there isn't any great advantage cablewise?
But, suppose you did only have two cables and didn't want to
buy another... one is a 5mm thick USB and the other is a 8mm
thick parallel. Was that 3mm a problem?

People will use USB for many reasons, but mostly because
they had a 50/50 chance of choosing one or the other,
*assumed* it would be better in some way, or simply didn't
have a choice because that's the only interface available
per the device.




The USB mammals aren't really any smarter or better than the parallel
port dinosaurs, but they are going to outlive them. I think it's an apt
analogy.


I'm confused why you keep referring to parallel as
"dinosaurs"?

Do you refer to all CPUs as dinosaurs since CPUs have been
around for even longer?

Don't get me wrong, I"m not "opposed" to USB, but initally
the issue presented was one of not having enough USB ports
while it was within the context of SEEKING to use as many as
possible, which is a bit self-defeating.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 05:03:25 GMT, Effty
wrote:

Effty wrote:
kony wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:44:58 GMT, Effty
wrote:

cables limited to some length smaller than 4-5'(?) not sure, really.

:Parallel Cables Length Limits
:
:Older style Centronics parallel cables, can rarely be more than 15
:feet long and still operate correctly, and 9 to 12 feet is a safer
:limit. The IEEE-1284 can go up to 30feet in length.

Had to find out.


How far is your printer from your system?
Anything more than 12 feet away I usually network, BUT, I
have had printers on 20 ft cables (for example if I went to
a 'site and beforehand didn't know how long a cable would be
needed, had a 16 or 20' cable and gave user a choice between
a free cable I already had or buying a new one) and they
worked fine ... like with USB cable spec, there's a max and
then there's what one can try and possibly get to work
regardless of the spec. But, as with any cables I'd
generally advise to use the shortest cable reasonable for
the job.