Main > Main Forum

So USB or PS/2?

<< < (8/8)

richms:
The space used by the parallel header can be used for more USBs or something on the back of a atx board, which is still where most of the sales are. Once you have the 6 audio plugs, 6 USB, esata, and onboard video there is no room for a relativly massive parallel port - some have a header for it because then its just putting a header on and loads of people have the fly leads from old machines around, but even then thats still relying on chipsets still supporting it. I was under the impression that there was one chip that did most of the legacy stuff, so with no floppy, com or lpt ports, then it becomes a saving on both components, and more importatnlty board spacel

RandyT:

--- Quote from: richms on February 09, 2009, 08:10:42 am ---The space used by the parallel header can be used for more USBs or something on the back of a atx board, which is still where most of the sales are. Once you have the 6 audio plugs, 6 USB, esata, and onboard video there is no room for a relativly massive parallel port - some have a header for it because then its just putting a header on and loads of people have the fly leads from old machines around, but even then thats still relying on chipsets still supporting it. I was under the impression that there was one chip that did most of the legacy stuff, so with no floppy, com or lpt ports, then it becomes a saving on both components, and more importatnlty board spacel

--- End quote ---

This discussion is heading off-topic, but once you have a couple of USB ports and internal headers for front panel USB connections, there's really little need to keep packing on more.  USB hubs are plentiful and cheap and more connectors just add more cost. DB-25's cost about the same as a discreet USB-B connector, so it's not like the inclusion of that particular connector is going to change the cost dynamic greatly.

Most of the legacy functionality is indeed packed into the same chip.  But there's no reason why it can't reside in the same chip where the USB implementation resides.  Added functionality costs little in the way of production.  The cost and space argument against legacy support only holds water where "cost and space" is specifically an issue, i.e. boards aimed at the "cheapest" and/or "smallest" markets. And as I stated before, consumers are still looking for these ports, so the manufacturers would be shooting themselves in the foot not to include them on everything else.  MS has been trying to kill them off for many years, but they don't sell PC's and those who do have tried and found out how much the attempt cost them when much of the inventory inevitably found its way to surplus outlets.

RandyT

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version