[rescue] Parallel ports [was Re: Slightly OT: ?Bad Cap Saga]

[Jonathan C. Patschke]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, der Mouse wrote:

> 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.

Plus all the complexity of making sure you're reliably shifting the bits
off the bus, etc.  Designing the interface is a project all by itself,
unless you can use one of the off-the-shelf interfaces (which don't tend
to be hobbyist-friendly).

> Well put.  Nobody objects to different computers coming with different
> capabilities when the differences are, say, number of CPUs
> supported...but where's the "with or without a parallel port" choice?

Particularly irritating is that the parallel port hardware is still
present on a great many of the "southbridge" I/O controllers.  It's just
disabled in a configuration register and not brought out to a physical
port.  At the very least, it'd be nice for there to be a header somewhere
(which would cost less than a penny, provided there's sufficient board
space), so that the end-user could have a parallel port merely by
connecting a cable.

-- 
Jonathan Patschke | "There is more to life than increasing its speed."
Elgin, TX         |                                   --Mahatma Gandhi
USA               |