Why no more parallel ports on Dell desktops?

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
> ports (and other things).
>
> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>


Buy a USB to Parallel adapter.

--

Rob

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I bought a cheap parallel to USB cable for my older
printers. Turns them into USB ones.

"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the
> Desktop PCs. The
> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered
> by parallel
> ports (and other things).
>
> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I
> should just
> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably
> not work on XP
> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason
> to buy
> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>
> -Bruno

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

It's an industry trend. USB and 1394 are so much faster than parallel (or serial) connections and the cables are easier to manage. A bloke needs to buy a parallel-to-USB adapter for his venerable 4L, which will probably still be in service when you're buying the next computer after this one.

Ted Zieglar

"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
> ports (and other things).
>
> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>
> -Bruno

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com>,
myName@myISP.net says...

> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
> ports (and other things).
>
> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?

It is an unfortunate (and unnecessary, IMO) trend in the industry,
and it extends to RS232 serial ports as well.

With the various chipsets available today, and the pre-assembled
connector arrays available to motherboard makers, it costs practically
nothing to continue to place serial and parallel ports in PC's. I see
the industry's trend away from such as merely another way to force
people into spending more money to "upgrade" their printers, as you've
already found out.

For my part: I will not buy any laptop, or desktop motherboard,
that does not have at least one standard serial and parallel port.

My advice would be to build your own system from scratch. That
way, you can hunt up a decent motherboard (I'm a big fan of Tyan) that
still has S & P ports.

Happy hunting.


--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
with surreal ports?"

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Bruno;
Parallel is antique and on the way out.
Whether Dell is first or last, it will probably eventually be the norm.

Purchase an adapter for the antique printer.

--
Jupiter Jones
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
> ports (and other things).
>
> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>
> -Bruno

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
> ports (and other things).
>
> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>
> -Bruno

If you absolutely insist on keeping the quaint, antiquated parallel printer,
then buy a parallel to USB adapter. However, with a little effort, you can
find a more modern USB printer for what you will pay for the USB-parallel
adapter.

Dell lasted longer than most. Parallel has been dead for a couple of years
for now.

Bobby

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Why criticize the OP's values by calling it a "quaint, antiquated parallel
printer". If it gets the job done reliably, and the OP does not need any of the
bells and whistles of a newer printer, why should he replace it?

Keep in mind that the printer manufacturers (all of them, HP, Lexmark, Epson,
Canon) have kludged their cartridges as much as possible to either eliminate or
discourage use of anything but their own brand of cartridge, not a 3rd party
cartridge or a refilled one. And then, when you buy a printer, you get
mini-cartridges with just a smidgen of ink. When the cartridges run out of ink
a couple of hundred pages later, reality sets in, in the form of cartridge
prices which approach the cost of the printer itself. I may be exaggerating
here, but not by a lot.

Against this backdrop, a quaint antiquated parallel printer with rock-bottom
operating costs sounds real good. Myself, I run an HP LaserJet 5 with parallel
port, but networked. At a cost of $20 to $50 per 5000 pages for toner, my
printing costs are hard to beat.

But you and others have said it well: "buy a parallel to USB adapter." End of
story. Sometimes, oldies really are goodies... Ben Myers

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 04:09:20 GMT, "NoNoBadDog!" <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote:

>
>"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
>news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
>> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
>> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
>> ports (and other things).
>>
>> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
>> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
>> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>>
>> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
>> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>>
>> -Bruno
>
>If you absolutely insist on keeping the quaint, antiquated parallel printer,
>then buy a parallel to USB adapter. However, with a little effort, you can
>find a more modern USB printer for what you will pay for the USB-parallel
>adapter.
>
>Dell lasted longer than most. Parallel has been dead for a couple of years
>for now.
>
>Bobby
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ben Myers wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Against this backdrop, a quaint antiquated parallel printer with rock-bottom
> operating costs sounds real good. Myself, I run an HP LaserJet 5 with parallel
> port, but networked. At a cost of $20 to $50 per 5000 pages for toner, my
> printing costs are hard to beat.

My workhorse is an HP 6P. While I purchased an inkjet, years ago, strictly for
graphics, the vast majority of my printing is B/W text, and the HP fits the
bill to a tee. (I'm running it as a wireless, networked printer.)

Notan

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:4328FD1A.70FB1850@ddress.com...
> Ben Myers wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Against this backdrop, a quaint antiquated parallel printer with
>> rock-bottom
>> operating costs sounds real good. Myself, I run an HP LaserJet 5 with
>> parallel
>> port, but networked. At a cost of $20 to $50 per 5000 pages for toner,
>> my
>> printing costs are hard to beat.
>
> My workhorse is an HP 6P. While I purchased an inkjet, years ago, strictly
> for
> graphics, the vast majority of my printing is B/W text, and the HP fits
> the
> bill to a tee. (I'm running it as a wireless, networked printer.)

I'm still working with a 4P. Slow as hell but reliable.

--

Rob

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:rIadnVMvu8ribbXeRVn-hw@comcast.com...
<snip> It's an industry trend. USB and 1394 are so much faster than parallel
(or serial) connections
Ted Zieglar not true actually serial is very fast and getting faster thats
why we have Sata disks (serial ATA) and and PCI express is serial as well

"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
> ports (and other things).
>
> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>
> -Bruno

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Your point is well taken. We are referring to different things.

Ted Zieglar

"Fixer" <the.hedonist@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:rT8We.6477$st1.791@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rIadnVMvu8ribbXeRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> <snip> It's an industry trend. USB and 1394 are so much faster than parallel
> (or serial) connections
> Ted Zieglar not true actually serial is very fast and getting faster thats
> why we have Sata disks (serial ATA) and and PCI express is serial as well
>
> "Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
> news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
>> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
>> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
>> ports (and other things).
>>
>> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
>> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
>> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>>
>> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
>> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>>
>> -Bruno
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I did refer to the OP's printer as "venerable". I'm still using the 6L I bought in 1997 (for $400!). It's slow and kind of noisy, but otherwise solid as a rock.

Ted Zieglar

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message news:4328FD1A.70FB1850@ddress.com...
> Ben Myers wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Against this backdrop, a quaint antiquated parallel printer with rock-bottom
>> operating costs sounds real good. Myself, I run an HP LaserJet 5 with parallel
>> port, but networked. At a cost of $20 to $50 per 5000 pages for toner, my
>> printing costs are hard to beat.
>
> My workhorse is an HP 6P. While I purchased an inkjet, years ago, strictly for
> graphics, the vast majority of my printing is B/W text, and the HP fits the
> bill to a tee. (I'm running it as a wireless, networked printer.)
>
> Notan

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <4328f9ab.58487003@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
> Why criticize the OP's values by calling it a "quaint, antiquated parallel
> printer". If it gets the job done reliably, and the OP does not need any of the
> bells and whistles of a newer printer, why should he replace it?

I agree, with USB being so dang problematic it's a total PITA for
support people.

Yesterday we had a young lass call because her new HP printer would not
install properly, she worked with HP for 2 hours and still could not get
it to work... She had front and rear USB ports on her computer...
Symptom, installing the printer cable on the rear USB ports does not
cause the New Device service to see it.... Found that the rear USB ports
would not see anything with a USB mouse connected to it (nice HP
computer problem). Connected printer (USB) to front USB ports and it
worked fine.

I've seen Sony Vaio 12" LCD laptops that ONLY have USB for devices, we
make more in support charges in 6 months than the laptop cost the
clients due to the USB issues.

If USB only supported 1 device per port and each port was on it's own
controller, it might be OK, but it's been a PITA since the day it came
out.

While many don't see the need for Parallel, I've got several Wax Thermal
printers (Phasers) and none of the USB Print Servers I've tried work
properly with them, the Parallel ones do just fine.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <GP2dncXfMKK1zrTeRVn-pw@comcast.com>, teddyz@notmail.com
says...
> I did refer to the OP's printer as "venerable". I'm still using the 6L I bought in 1997 (for $400!). It's slow and kind of noisy, but otherwise solid as a rock.

I have one client that has a working HP LJ-II, another with a LJ-III and
several with LJ4M printers. Not to mention all the ones with Lexmark
Optra-L series printers (on of the first true 1200 DPI lasers) ....

The newer printers are nice, but only after you get above the $400
range.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:53:11 GMT, in
<rT8We.6477$st1.791@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, "Fixer"
<the.hedonist@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
>"Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
>news:rIadnVMvu8ribbXeRVn-hw@comcast.com...
><snip> It's an industry trend. USB and 1394 are so much faster than parallel
>(or serial) connections
>Ted Zieglar not true actually serial is very fast and getting faster thats
>why we have Sata disks (serial ATA) and and PCI express is serial as well

As long as you're looking at it that way, USB is serial also.

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Bruno <myName@myISP.net> wrote in news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@
4ax.com:

> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.


I wouldn't necessarily take Dell's word that the printer "will probably not
work on XP anyway".

If there's a rhyme or reason to what printers are or aren't supported under
XP, I haven't been able to figure it out. I've seen ancient '80s-era
printers supported while some late-'90s or early '00s printers aren't.

For instance, can anyone tell me with a straight face that they're actually
using an ancient Canon LBP-8 or IBM Personal Pageprinter or IBM Quietwriter
III with XP ? Yet they're all in the XP printer drivers list whilst some of
their newer printers aren't.


- FM -

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Absence of parallel and serial ports is all part of an industry-wide push to
"legacy-free" systems, i.e. systems unencumbered by interfaces which date back
to the early-1980's IBM XT. These include parallel, serial, keyboard, mouse,
and floppy diskette. The alternative instead is to connect all low-speed
devices up to USB, which is now pretty mature in its 2.0 revision. The idea
here is to support fewer physical interfaces and drive down production costs.
The silicon needed to do a legacy interface costs pennies, but the circuit board
traces and connectors are where the major costs lie.

Fortunately, there are still alternatives available for people who need the
legacy devices. For parallel, you have the choice of a USB-parallel cable or a
PCI parallel card. Same with serial. If you have a favorite keyboard like my
old clicky-clack IBM 101, there are USB-keyboard adapters. Same with mice.
And, of course, there are USB floppy diskette drives... Ben Myers

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:38:21 GMT, Bruno <myName@myISP.net> wrote:

>Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
>4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
>ports (and other things).
>
>I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
>buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
>anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
>So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
>elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>
>-Bruno

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"..."legacy-free" systems, i.e. systems unencumbered by interfaces which
date back to the early-1980's IBM XT."

Sounds like the results of a Silicon Valley divorce.

--
Ted Zieglar
"You can do it if you try."

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:4329700f.1098911@nntp.charter.net...
> Absence of parallel and serial ports is all part of an industry-wide push
to
> "legacy-free" systems, i.e. systems unencumbered by interfaces which date
back
> to the early-1980's IBM XT. These include parallel, serial, keyboard,
mouse,
> and floppy diskette. The alternative instead is to connect all low-speed
> devices up to USB, which is now pretty mature in its 2.0 revision. The
idea
> here is to support fewer physical interfaces and drive down production
costs.
> The silicon needed to do a legacy interface costs pennies, but the circuit
board
> traces and connectors are where the major costs lie.
>
> Fortunately, there are still alternatives available for people who need
the
> legacy devices. For parallel, you have the choice of a USB-parallel cable
or a
> PCI parallel card. Same with serial. If you have a favorite keyboard
like my
> old clicky-clack IBM 101, there are USB-keyboard adapters. Same with
mice.
> And, of course, there are USB floppy diskette drives... Ben Myers
>
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:38:21 GMT, Bruno <myName@myISP.net> wrote:
>
> >Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
> >4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
> >ports (and other things).
> >
> >I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
> >buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
> >anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
> >
> >So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
> >elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
> >
> >-Bruno
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Though a serial port, SATA, and PCI Express "serial" have a word in common, they
are entirely different technologies. One should not confuse them, despite the
presence of the same word... Ben Myers

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:53:11 GMT, "Fixer" <the.hedonist@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
>"Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
>news:rIadnVMvu8ribbXeRVn-hw@comcast.com...
><snip> It's an industry trend. USB and 1394 are so much faster than parallel
>(or serial) connections
>Ted Zieglar not true actually serial is very fast and getting faster thats
>why we have Sata disks (serial ATA) and and PCI express is serial as well
>
>"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
>news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
>> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
>> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
>> ports (and other things).
>>
>> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
>> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
>> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>>
>> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
>> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>>
>> -Bruno
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Fred Mau" <fred-dot-mau@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96D26FA1971Ffreddotmaucomcastnet@216.196.97.131...
> Bruno <myName@myISP.net> wrote in news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@
> 4ax.com:
>
> > I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
> > buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
> > anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
>
> I wouldn't necessarily take Dell's word that the printer "will probably
not
> work on XP anyway".
>
> If there's a rhyme or reason to what printers are or aren't supported
under
> XP, I haven't been able to figure it out. I've seen ancient '80s-era
> printers supported while some late-'90s or early '00s printers aren't.
>
> For instance, can anyone tell me with a straight face that they're
actually
> using an ancient Canon LBP-8 or IBM Personal Pageprinter or IBM
Quietwriter
> III with XP ? Yet they're all in the XP printer drivers list whilst some
of
> their newer printers aren't.
>
>
> - FM -

And the answer is, "Who submitted their driver software to MS for
testing and approval as XP compatible". With XP, MS was much less friendly
towards third party software developers than in the past. Many small
companies and no longer supported hardware was simply left out.

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Yes, and Steve Ballmer was the presiding judge in the divorce court. Microsoft
IS a prime mover behind all this. Having all legacy-free systems would
undoubtedly remove 5MB of code from what promises to be the incredibly bloated
(???? GB) Vista... Ben Myers

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:29:54 -0400, "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote:

>"..."legacy-free" systems, i.e. systems unencumbered by interfaces which
>date back to the early-1980's IBM XT."
>
>Sounds like the results of a Silicon Valley divorce.
>
>--
>Ted Zieglar
>"You can do it if you try."
>
><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
>news:4329700f.1098911@nntp.charter.net...
>> Absence of parallel and serial ports is all part of an industry-wide push
>to
>> "legacy-free" systems, i.e. systems unencumbered by interfaces which date
>back
>> to the early-1980's IBM XT. These include parallel, serial, keyboard,
>mouse,
>> and floppy diskette. The alternative instead is to connect all low-speed
>> devices up to USB, which is now pretty mature in its 2.0 revision. The
>idea
>> here is to support fewer physical interfaces and drive down production
>costs.
>> The silicon needed to do a legacy interface costs pennies, but the circuit
>board
>> traces and connectors are where the major costs lie.
>>
>> Fortunately, there are still alternatives available for people who need
>the
>> legacy devices. For parallel, you have the choice of a USB-parallel cable
>or a
>> PCI parallel card. Same with serial. If you have a favorite keyboard
>like my
>> old clicky-clack IBM 101, there are USB-keyboard adapters. Same with
>mice.
>> And, of course, there are USB floppy diskette drives... Ben Myers
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:38:21 GMT, Bruno <myName@myISP.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
>> >4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
>> >ports (and other things).
>> >
>> >I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
>> >buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
>> >anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>> >
>> >So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
>> >elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>> >
>> >-Bruno
>>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Relax, relax...I was just making a joke. Nothing against you.

--
Ted Zieglar
"You can do it if you try."

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:43299900.11581357@nntp.charter.net...
> Yes, and Steve Ballmer was the presiding judge in the divorce court.
Microsoft
> IS a prime mover behind all this. Having all legacy-free systems would
> undoubtedly remove 5MB of code from what promises to be the incredibly
bloated
> (???? GB) Vista... Ben Myers
>
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:29:54 -0400, "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com>
wrote:
>
> >"..."legacy-free" systems, i.e. systems unencumbered by interfaces which
> >date back to the early-1980's IBM XT."
> >
> >Sounds like the results of a Silicon Valley divorce.
> >
> >--
> >Ted Zieglar
> >"You can do it if you try."
> >
> ><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
> >news:4329700f.1098911@nntp.charter.net...
> >> Absence of parallel and serial ports is all part of an industry-wide
push
> >to
> >> "legacy-free" systems, i.e. systems unencumbered by interfaces which
date
> >back
> >> to the early-1980's IBM XT. These include parallel, serial, keyboard,
> >mouse,
> >> and floppy diskette. The alternative instead is to connect all
low-speed
> >> devices up to USB, which is now pretty mature in its 2.0 revision. The
> >idea
> >> here is to support fewer physical interfaces and drive down production
> >costs.
> >> The silicon needed to do a legacy interface costs pennies, but the
circuit
> >board
> >> traces and connectors are where the major costs lie.
> >>
> >> Fortunately, there are still alternatives available for people who need
> >the
> >> legacy devices. For parallel, you have the choice of a USB-parallel
cable
> >or a
> >> PCI parallel card. Same with serial. If you have a favorite keyboard
> >like my
> >> old clicky-clack IBM 101, there are USB-keyboard adapters. Same with
> >mice.
> >> And, of course, there are USB floppy diskette drives... Ben Myers
> >>
> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:38:21 GMT, Bruno <myName@myISP.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
> >> >4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
> >> >ports (and other things).
> >> >
> >> >I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
> >> >buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
> >> >anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
> >> >
> >> >So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
> >> >elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
> >> >
> >> >-Bruno
> >>
> >
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

When I posted this message, I knew what my options were...

1. Buy a Parallel to USB cable -- another 30-few bucks to spend, and
bit of Googlin tells me that there have been some compatibility
issues. Whether or not that would happen with my HP 4L, I don't know.

2. Buy another printer -- but my printer works just fine and I don't
want to buy another printer just because there's a faster interface
out there. It's low usage, but I still want to use it.

3. Buy a parallel port card -- gotta be sure to get a machine that'll
take one.

4. Keep my old machine for a printer server -- waste of power to keep
it running all the time, just for one printer with low usage, not to
mention the space.

5. Buy a non-Dell machine with a parallel port -- probably the best
option.

Apparently the concept of backwards compatibility has escaped Dell, as
well as a number of the posters. The fact that there are faster
interfaces is irrelevant as long as there are tons of existing
parallel printers out there still doing their jobs. The elimination of
parallel ports must certainly have very minimal cost impact, and I
don't see any compelling environmental or social benefit to be gained
by their elimination at this time. As a matter of fact, I see just the
opposite -- a need to dispose of tens of thousands of parallel port
printers before their time.

Fortunately, my old computer is still working (knocking on wood now)
so maybe it'll hang on until the printer dies too.

-Bruno

Bruno <myName@myISP.net> wrote:

>Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
>4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
>ports (and other things).
>
>I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
>buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
>anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
>So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
>elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>
>-Bruno

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

You would eschew an otherwise capable and desirable computer merely because
it doesn't accomodate your printer through the parallel port?

--
Ted Zieglar
"You can do it if you try."

"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
news:7j5ji1509gmp48ubjcm2tia07c5jomokt4@4ax.com...
> When I posted this message, I knew what my options were...
>
> 1. Buy a Parallel to USB cable -- another 30-few bucks to spend, and
> bit of Googlin tells me that there have been some compatibility
> issues. Whether or not that would happen with my HP 4L, I don't know.
>
> 2. Buy another printer -- but my printer works just fine and I don't
> want to buy another printer just because there's a faster interface
> out there. It's low usage, but I still want to use it.
>
> 3. Buy a parallel port card -- gotta be sure to get a machine that'll
> take one.
>
> 4. Keep my old machine for a printer server -- waste of power to keep
> it running all the time, just for one printer with low usage, not to
> mention the space.
>
> 5. Buy a non-Dell machine with a parallel port -- probably the best
> option.
>
> Apparently the concept of backwards compatibility has escaped Dell, as
> well as a number of the posters. The fact that there are faster
> interfaces is irrelevant as long as there are tons of existing
> parallel printers out there still doing their jobs. The elimination of
> parallel ports must certainly have very minimal cost impact, and I
> don't see any compelling environmental or social benefit to be gained
> by their elimination at this time. As a matter of fact, I see just the
> opposite -- a need to dispose of tens of thousands of parallel port
> printers before their time.
>
> Fortunately, my old computer is still working (knocking on wood now)
> so maybe it'll hang on until the printer dies too.
>
> -Bruno
>
> Bruno <myName@myISP.net> wrote:
>
> >Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
> >4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
> >ports (and other things).
> >
> >I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
> >buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
> >anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
> >
> >So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
> >elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
> >
> >-Bruno
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
news:7j5ji1509gmp48ubjcm2tia07c5jomokt4@4ax.com...
> When I posted this message, I knew what my options were...
>
> 1. Buy a Parallel to USB cable -- another 30-few bucks to spend, and
> bit of Googlin tells me that there have been some compatibility
> issues. Whether or not that would happen with my HP 4L, I don't know.
>
> 2. Buy another printer -- but my printer works just fine and I don't
> want to buy another printer just because there's a faster interface
> out there. It's low usage, but I still want to use it.
>
> 3. Buy a parallel port card -- gotta be sure to get a machine that'll
> take one.
>
> 4. Keep my old machine for a printer server -- waste of power to keep
> it running all the time, just for one printer with low usage, not to
> mention the space.
>
> 5. Buy a non-Dell machine with a parallel port -- probably the best
> option.
>
> Apparently the concept of backwards compatibility has escaped Dell, as
> well as a number of the posters. The fact that there are faster
> interfaces is irrelevant as long as there are tons of existing
> parallel printers out there still doing their jobs. The elimination of
> parallel ports must certainly have very minimal cost impact, and I
> don't see any compelling environmental or social benefit to be gained
> by their elimination at this time. As a matter of fact, I see just the
> opposite -- a need to dispose of tens of thousands of parallel port
> printers before their time.
>
> Fortunately, my old computer is still working (knocking on wood now)
> so maybe it'll hang on until the printer dies too.
>
> -Bruno
>
> Bruno <myName@myISP.net> wrote:
>
>>Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
>>4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
>>ports (and other things).
>>
>>I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
>>buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
>>anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>>
>>So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
>>elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>>
>>-Bruno
>

If the printer is that important then buying another brand PC would be the
way to go. Bear in mind that parallel connections will go the way of 3.5"
floppy drives which has now become an option if at all. Thats the way of
technology

Bill

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

FWIY Bruno. I just received my new D9100 without a parallel port. I got
this USB to parallel cable from Computer Geeks
http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=USB2DB25M&cat=C...
and connected my HP6L to the USB port on the new keyboard. Works like a
charm!
Anne

"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
news:7j5ji1509gmp48ubjcm2tia07c5jomokt4@4ax.com...
> When I posted this message, I knew what my options were...
>
> 1. Buy a Parallel to USB cable -- another 30-few bucks to spend, and
> bit of Googlin tells me that there have been some compatibility
> issues. Whether or not that would happen with my HP 4L, I don't know.
>
> 2. Buy another printer -- but my printer works just fine and I don't
> want to buy another printer just because there's a faster interface
> out there. It's low usage, but I still want to use it.
>
> 3. Buy a parallel port card -- gotta be sure to get a machine that'll
> take one.
>
> 4. Keep my old machine for a printer server -- waste of power to keep
> it running all the time, just for one printer with low usage, not to
> mention the space.
>
> 5. Buy a non-Dell machine with a parallel port -- probably the best
> option.
>
> Apparently the concept of backwards compatibility has escaped Dell, as
> well as a number of the posters. The fact that there are faster
> interfaces is irrelevant as long as there are tons of existing
> parallel printers out there still doing their jobs. The elimination of
> parallel ports must certainly have very minimal cost impact, and I
> don't see any compelling environmental or social benefit to be gained
> by their elimination at this time. As a matter of fact, I see just the
> opposite -- a need to dispose of tens of thousands of parallel port
> printers before their time.
>
> Fortunately, my old computer is still working (knocking on wood now)
> so maybe it'll hang on until the printer dies too.
>
> -Bruno
>
> Bruno <myName@myISP.net> wrote:
>
>>Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
>>4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
>>ports (and other things).
>>
>>I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
>>buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
>>anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>>
>>So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
>>elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>>
>>-Bruno
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Bruno;
You are at least partially mistaken.
Backwards compatibility has not escaped, it has been here in this very area
for some time.
When was the time new hardware came out exclusively parallel?
I have not seen it in a long time.
Backwards compatibility has been available since that time.
Printers and computers with USB and parallel demonstrate backwards
compatibility.
With price usually being a major factor and competition tight, even .10 on a
part can be significant when support is also figured.
Backwards compatibility can not go back indefinitely and sooner or later
older technology will be dropped.

--
Jupiter Jones
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
news:7j5ji1509gmp48ubjcm2tia07c5jomokt4@4ax.com...
> When I posted this message, I knew what my options were...
>
> 1. Buy a Parallel to USB cable -- another 30-few bucks to spend, and
> bit of Googlin tells me that there have been some compatibility
> issues. Whether or not that would happen with my HP 4L, I don't know.
>
> 2. Buy another printer -- but my printer works just fine and I don't
> want to buy another printer just because there's a faster interface
> out there. It's low usage, but I still want to use it.
>
> 3. Buy a parallel port card -- gotta be sure to get a machine that'll
> take one.
>
> 4. Keep my old machine for a printer server -- waste of power to keep
> it running all the time, just for one printer with low usage, not to
> mention the space.
>
> 5. Buy a non-Dell machine with a parallel port -- probably the best
> option.
>
> Apparently the concept of backwards compatibility has escaped Dell, as
> well as a number of the posters. The fact that there are faster
> interfaces is irrelevant as long as there are tons of existing
> parallel printers out there still doing their jobs. The elimination of
> parallel ports must certainly have very minimal cost impact, and I
> don't see any compelling environmental or social benefit to be gained
> by their elimination at this time. As a matter of fact, I see just the
> opposite -- a need to dispose of tens of thousands of parallel port
> printers before their time.
>
> Fortunately, my old computer is still working (knocking on wood now)
> so maybe it'll hang on until the printer dies too.
>
> -Bruno
>
> Bruno <myName@myISP.net> wrote:

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Is it????, I thught serial was or started out as wires running in a serial
connection, and was originally thought that a serial port could go no
faster, then some bright spark wired more wires serially and increased the
speed as in PCI express and in theory its infornitum
<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:4329718f.1482598@nntp.charter.net...
> Though a serial port, SATA, and PCI Express "serial" have a word in
> common, they
> are entirely different technologies. One should not confuse them, despite
> the
> presence of the same word... Ben Myers
>
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:53:11 GMT, "Fixer" <the.hedonist@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:rIadnVMvu8ribbXeRVn-hw@comcast.com...
>><snip> It's an industry trend. USB and 1394 are so much faster than
>>parallel
>>(or serial) connections
>>Ted Zieglar not true actually serial is very fast and getting faster thats
>>why we have Sata disks (serial ATA) and and PCI express is serial as well
>>
>>"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
>>news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
>>> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
>>> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
>>> ports (and other things).
>>>
>>> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
>>> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
>>> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>>>
>>> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
>>> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>>>
>>> -Bruno
>>
>>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

So buy a parallel-USB cable. $30 seems a little high. Shop around. I picked
up a bunch of them on eBay for short money, to keep around for my local clients.
The LJ 4L is dumb enough that running it via parallel-USB should work just fine.
(I'm not being critical in calling it dumb. It does not have its own printer
monitoring software talking to the printer. The smart bidirectional inkjet
printers often have trouble using a converter cable because the software that
monitors printing, printer cartridge level, etc. only knows about USB.)

Or get a PCI parallel port card. Same approximate costs, but requires that you
open up the computer to install it. XP recognizes nearly all brands of parallel
port cards. And ya gotta have at least one open PCI slot in your new computer.

If you look at non-Dell computers, you will also see that many other computers
(HPaq, IBM, Gateway) do not have parallel ports, especially newer motherboards
with an Intel 900-series chipset and PCI Express graphics.

Lots and lots of other perfectly good and not-so-good interfaces have fallen by
the wayside over the years. There is good progress and bad progress in the
computer business. Most of the change in the hardware segment of the industry
is to provide computers with ever greater speed and capacity. Remember 30-pin
SIMMs? How about ISA bus slots, both 8- and 16-bits? What about the original
large IBM XT and AT keyboard connector? Serial mice? VL-bus, a real
monstrosity? Not to mention 72-pin SIMMs, 168-pin 5v EDO DIMMs, 168-pin SDRAM,
RAMBUS RDRAM.

Despite what some trolls may say, I am not a Dellbot, but one who sees lots of
different brands of computers as part of a service business. So... Do not be
overly critical of Dell for falling in line with an industry trend. At least
you have a couple of viable and not-too-expensive solutions to continue using a
printer which still meets your needs... Ben Myers

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:59:32 GMT, Bruno <myName@myISP.net> wrote:

>When I posted this message, I knew what my options were...
>
>1. Buy a Parallel to USB cable -- another 30-few bucks to spend, and
>bit of Googlin tells me that there have been some compatibility
>issues. Whether or not that would happen with my HP 4L, I don't know.
>
>2. Buy another printer -- but my printer works just fine and I don't
>want to buy another printer just because there's a faster interface
>out there. It's low usage, but I still want to use it.
>
>3. Buy a parallel port card -- gotta be sure to get a machine that'll
>take one.
>
>4. Keep my old machine for a printer server -- waste of power to keep
>it running all the time, just for one printer with low usage, not to
>mention the space.
>
>5. Buy a non-Dell machine with a parallel port -- probably the best
>option.
>
>Apparently the concept of backwards compatibility has escaped Dell, as
>well as a number of the posters. The fact that there are faster
>interfaces is irrelevant as long as there are tons of existing
>parallel printers out there still doing their jobs. The elimination of
>parallel ports must certainly have very minimal cost impact, and I
>don't see any compelling environmental or social benefit to be gained
>by their elimination at this time. As a matter of fact, I see just the
>opposite -- a need to dispose of tens of thousands of parallel port
>printers before their time.
>
>Fortunately, my old computer is still working (knocking on wood now)
>so maybe it'll hang on until the printer dies too.
>
>-Bruno
>
>Bruno <myName@myISP.net> wrote:
>
>>Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
>>4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
>>ports (and other things).
>>
>>I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
>>buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
>>anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>>
>>So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
>>elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>>
>>-Bruno
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:4329ab34.16241796@nntp.charter.net...
> So buy a parallel-USB cable. $30 seems a little high. Shop around. I
picked
> up a bunch of them on eBay for short money, to keep around for my local
clients.
> The LJ 4L is dumb enough that running it via parallel-USB should work just
fine.
> (I'm not being critical in calling it dumb. It does not have its own
printer
> monitoring software talking to the printer. The smart bidirectional
inkjet
> printers often have trouble using a converter cable because the software
that
> monitors printing, printer cartridge level, etc. only knows about USB.)
>
> Or get a PCI parallel port card. Same approximate costs, but requires
that you
> open up the computer to install it. XP recognizes nearly all brands of
parallel
> port cards. And ya gotta have at least one open PCI slot in your new
computer.
>
> If you look at non-Dell computers, you will also see that many other
computers
> (HPaq, IBM, Gateway) do not have parallel ports, especially newer
motherboards
> with an Intel 900-series chipset and PCI Express graphics.
>
> Lots and lots of other perfectly good and not-so-good interfaces have
fallen by
> the wayside over the years. There is good progress and bad progress in
the
> computer business. Most of the change in the hardware segment of the
industry
> is to provide computers with ever greater speed and capacity. Remember
30-pin
> SIMMs? How about ISA bus slots, both 8- and 16-bits? What about the
original
> large IBM XT and AT keyboard connector? Serial mice? VL-bus, a real
> monstrosity? Not to mention 72-pin SIMMs, 168-pin 5v EDO DIMMs, 168-pin
SDRAM,
> RAMBUS RDRAM.
> SNIP <

Remember, I still end up dealing with some of that equipment every so
often. Not to mention my wife's family in PI sending me text messages
looking for parts and support for hardware that back in school they
mentioned, but also told us we'd never see in actual use..

I sent my in-laws an old Epson letter (impact) printer and almost 100
old IBM Selectric II cartridges. The cartridges won't it the printer, but
you can very easily replace the old ink ribbon with the film ribbon from the
selectric cartridge. You can also re-ink the old ribbons, so the life cycle
of this type hardware can go on as long as the motor last, and even that
could be replaced. I think the final end of it may be when the actual
hammer keys start breaking.

KC

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <c%9We.6900$IC3.6092@fe12.lga>, rasilon@aol.com says...

> Then your buying options in the future will become very, very limited.
> Losing serial ports and parallel ports saves money and space. They are going
> to be less and less available along with PS/2 ports............

<gryn> My "buying options" have always consisted of building
systems from the ground up. The only pre-made systems I've ever bought
have been laptops.

I'm not terribly worried. Ruggedized and industrial-class
computers will continue to supply serial, parallel, and PS-2 ports due
to ongoing demand for said ports outside of the pure "consumer"
environment. If this means I have to spend a little more, or devote more
attention to the used/surplus market to find what I need, then so be it.

Another factor I neglected to mention. My typical life-cycle for
upgrading my own systems is at least seven years, often ten or more. I
will not inconvenience myself, nor retire still-useful equipment, just
because the computer industry decides to save a few pennies per
motherboard or system. Heck, I still have applications that use 386 and
486-based systems, and they do just fine!

Along those same lines: I won't buy any system that has DRM hard-
coded into it that cannot be completely disabled by yours truly, now or
at any time in the future. Why should I allow Hollywood to tell me what
I can or cannot do with hardware/software that I've bought and paid for?

If this means I eventually end up with decades-old hardware and
software, fine. I don't really care. What I have now does everything I
want it to, at speeds I'm happy with, and I've still got headroom to
grow.

I guess the simple way to say it is that I really believe in
getting my dollar's worth out of anything I buy.

Keep the peace(es).


--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
with surreal ports?"

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 04:09:20 GMT, in alt.sys.pc-clone.dell, "NoNoBadDog!"
<no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote:

>If you absolutely insist on keeping the quaint, antiquated parallel printer,
>then buy a parallel to USB adapter. However, with a little effort, you can
>find a more modern USB printer for what you will pay for the USB-parallel
>adapter.
>
>Dell lasted longer than most. Parallel has been dead for a couple of years
>for now.

I have yet to see a single rational explanation why people keep suggesting
that people spend buy a new printer when all they need is an adapter that
probably costs a lot less.

I asked about the same issue back in June, just before I bought my new XPS
Gen 5, and received several answers similar to yours.

Like I said back then: a new printer roughly equivalent to the one I already
have would cost me close to $300; USB to parallel cable adapters cost $30 or
less.

Admittedly, a current model printer would be a bit faster than the one I
have, but the one I have now is plenty fast enough for my needs, and I don't
see any sense to spending $300 to replace it when all I need is a $30
interface. Once the printer expires of old age (or otherwise fails to meet
my needs), I'll replace it with a current model rather than having it
repaired. Until then, I have better things to do with $270 than throw it
away.

--
Nick <mailto:tanstaafl@pobox.com>

TANSTAAFL! (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!) R.A.H.

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:4329ab34.16241796@nntp.charter.net...
> Lots and lots of other perfectly good and not-so-good interfaces have
> fallen by
> the wayside over the years. There is good progress and bad progress in
> the
> computer business. Most of the change in the hardware segment of the
> industry
> is to provide computers with ever greater speed and capacity. Remember
> 30-pin
> SIMMs? How about ISA bus slots, both 8- and 16-bits? What about the
> original
> large IBM XT and AT keyboard connector? Serial mice? VL-bus, a real
> monstrosity? Not to mention 72-pin SIMMs, 168-pin 5v EDO DIMMs, 168-pin
> SDRAM,
> RAMBUS RDRAM.

You forgot 5 1/4" floppy drives. You know, the ones that had disks that
were actually floppy.  

alien

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Yep, KC, I deal with some of it, too. Once in a while. Mostly the printers.
Anything Slot 1 or earlier generally costs more to repair than it is worth,
which is what I tell my clients. Usually they opt for a newer system, but
sometimes somebody has a love affair with their computer and they do not want to
part with it.

And... How could I ever have forgotten 5 1/4" diskettes, both 360KB and 1.2MB?
While we're at it, how about 720KB floppy media, and 2.88MB drives pushed mostly
by IBM and DEC? Monochrome text-only monitors, anyone??? ... Ben Myers

On , "Kevin Childers" <kchilder@mail.win.org> wrote:

>
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:03:21 MST
>Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:03:15 -0500
>Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:42850
>X-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:03:21 MST (be03.lga)
>
>
><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
>news:4329ab34.16241796@nntp.charter.net...
>> So buy a parallel-USB cable. $30 seems a little high. Shop around. I
>picked
>> up a bunch of them on eBay for short money, to keep around for my local
>clients.
>> The LJ 4L is dumb enough that running it via parallel-USB should work just
>fine.
>> (I'm not being critical in calling it dumb. It does not have its own
>printer
>> monitoring software talking to the printer. The smart bidirectional
>inkjet
>> printers often have trouble using a converter cable because the software
>that
>> monitors printing, printer cartridge level, etc. only knows about USB.)
>>
>> Or get a PCI parallel port card. Same approximate costs, but requires
>that you
>> open up the computer to install it. XP recognizes nearly all brands of
>parallel
>> port cards. And ya gotta have at least one open PCI slot in your new
>computer.
>>
>> If you look at non-Dell computers, you will also see that many other
>computers
>> (HPaq, IBM, Gateway) do not have parallel ports, especially newer
>motherboards
>> with an Intel 900-series chipset and PCI Express graphics.
>>
>> Lots and lots of other perfectly good and not-so-good interfaces have
>fallen by
>> the wayside over the years. There is good progress and bad progress in
>the
>> computer business. Most of the change in the hardware segment of the
>industry
>> is to provide computers with ever greater speed and capacity. Remember
>30-pin
>> SIMMs? How about ISA bus slots, both 8- and 16-bits? What about the
>original
>> large IBM XT and AT keyboard connector? Serial mice? VL-bus, a real
>> monstrosity? Not to mention 72-pin SIMMs, 168-pin 5v EDO DIMMs, 168-pin
>SDRAM,
>> RAMBUS RDRAM.
>> SNIP <
>
> Remember, I still end up dealing with some of that equipment every so
>often. Not to mention my wife's family in PI sending me text messages
>looking for parts and support for hardware that back in school they
>mentioned, but also told us we'd never see in actual use..
>
> I sent my in-laws an old Epson letter (impact) printer and almost 100
>old IBM Selectric II cartridges. The cartridges won't it the printer, but
>you can very easily replace the old ink ribbon with the film ribbon from the
>selectric cartridge. You can also re-ink the old ribbons, so the life cycle
>of this type hardware can go on as long as the motor last, and even that
>could be replaced. I think the final end of it may be when the actual
>hammer keys start breaking.
>
>KC
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Actually Ben, I've seen a proprietary system using 8 inch and 12 inch
floppies. The Army actually paid some one to come up with hardware and
software hacks that allowed an entire library of school teaching materials
to be read off the old big floppies and copied onto 720Kb floppies (two for
one). Original materials were on some sort of proprietary system and the
output was ASCII text. To add to task each class had handouts, notes, etc.
in several languages. It took about 4 or 5 minutes per disk transfer and
there were a minimum of 3 disk per class, per language. They did have about
a dozen hacked machines to make the transfers, ugly as hell with a ragged
hole cut in the side where a 3.5 inch drive was stuck. I wonder what they
paid for it all, not counting the man hours it took to actually make the
transfers. Dropped students work cheap and most were happy to have
something easy to do waiting for their next class date.

Worst hardware love affair I ever saw was a 386sx being used to run a
dyno set up at local H-D speed shop. They just had a hard time
understanding that unlike a classic bike, classic computers really don't
have that many enthusiast and they just don't make parts for them any more.

KC

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:4329e283.400500@nntp.charter.net...
> Yep, KC, I deal with some of it, too. Once in a while. Mostly the
printers.
> Anything Slot 1 or earlier generally costs more to repair than it is
worth,
> which is what I tell my clients. Usually they opt for a newer system, but
> sometimes somebody has a love affair with their computer and they do not
want to
> part with it.
>
> And... How could I ever have forgotten 5 1/4" diskettes, both 360KB and
1.2MB?
> While we're at it, how about 720KB floppy media, and 2.88MB drives pushed
mostly
> by IBM and DEC? Monochrome text-only monitors, anyone??? ... Ben Myers
>
> On , "Kevin Childers" <kchilder@mail.win.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:03:21 MST
> >Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:03:15 -0500
> >Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:42850
> >X-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:03:21 MST (be03.lga)
> >
> >
> ><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
> >news:4329ab34.16241796@nntp.charter.net...
> >> So buy a parallel-USB cable. $30 seems a little high. Shop around. I
> >picked
> >> up a bunch of them on eBay for short money, to keep around for my local
> >clients.
> >> The LJ 4L is dumb enough that running it via parallel-USB should work
just
> >fine.
> >> (I'm not being critical in calling it dumb. It does not have its own
> >printer
> >> monitoring software talking to the printer. The smart bidirectional
> >inkjet
> >> printers often have trouble using a converter cable because the
software
> >that
> >> monitors printing, printer cartridge level, etc. only knows about USB.)
> >>
> >> Or get a PCI parallel port card. Same approximate costs, but requires
> >that you
> >> open up the computer to install it. XP recognizes nearly all brands of
> >parallel
> >> port cards. And ya gotta have at least one open PCI slot in your new
> >computer.
> >>
> >> If you look at non-Dell computers, you will also see that many other
> >computers
> >> (HPaq, IBM, Gateway) do not have parallel ports, especially newer
> >motherboards
> >> with an Intel 900-series chipset and PCI Express graphics.
> >>
> >> Lots and lots of other perfectly good and not-so-good interfaces have
> >fallen by
> >> the wayside over the years. There is good progress and bad progress in
> >the
> >> computer business. Most of the change in the hardware segment of the
> >industry
> >> is to provide computers with ever greater speed and capacity. Remember
> >30-pin
> >> SIMMs? How about ISA bus slots, both 8- and 16-bits? What about the
> >original
> >> large IBM XT and AT keyboard connector? Serial mice? VL-bus, a real
> >> monstrosity? Not to mention 72-pin SIMMs, 168-pin 5v EDO DIMMs,
168-pin
> >SDRAM,
> >> RAMBUS RDRAM.
> >> SNIP <
> >
> > Remember, I still end up dealing with some of that equipment every so
> >often. Not to mention my wife's family in PI sending me text messages
> >looking for parts and support for hardware that back in school they
> >mentioned, but also told us we'd never see in actual use..
> >
> > I sent my in-laws an old Epson letter (impact) printer and almost 100
> >old IBM Selectric II cartridges. The cartridges won't it the printer,
but
> >you can very easily replace the old ink ribbon with the film ribbon from
the
> >selectric cartridge. You can also re-ink the old ribbons, so the life
cycle
> >of this type hardware can go on as long as the motor last, and even that
> >could be replaced. I think the final end of it may be when the actual
> >hammer keys start breaking.
> >
> >KC
> >
> >
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Paying the troll the toll has always been the way with developers of drivers for
hardware. A lot of them have finessed the Microsoft WHQL certification,
choosing to release drivers without it. And, of course, there is always the
problem of limited space for drivers on the Windows install CD, but grease
Billy's and Stevie's palms with a few bucks and voila your drivers are on the
CD.

I'm pretty much dead certain that any HP LaserJet printer (well, maybe not the
original LaserJet) is supported with some sort of driver on XP. Of course, Dell
will tell you no, because they want to sell you a printer. Disinformation and
misinformation abound in the computer industry, as in politics and other spheres
of influence in the world... Ben Myers

On , "Kevin Childers" <kchilder@mail.win.org> wrote:

>
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:54:24 MST
>Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:54:19 -0500
>Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:42849
>X-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:54:25 MST (be06.lga)
>
>
>"Fred Mau" <fred-dot-mau@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns96D26FA1971Ffreddotmaucomcastnet@216.196.97.131...
>> Bruno <myName@myISP.net> wrote in news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@
>> 4ax.com:
>>
>> > I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
>> > buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
>> > anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't necessarily take Dell's word that the printer "will probably
>not
>> work on XP anyway".
>>
>> If there's a rhyme or reason to what printers are or aren't supported
>under
>> XP, I haven't been able to figure it out. I've seen ancient '80s-era
>> printers supported while some late-'90s or early '00s printers aren't.
>>
>> For instance, can anyone tell me with a straight face that they're
>actually
>> using an ancient Canon LBP-8 or IBM Personal Pageprinter or IBM
>Quietwriter
>> III with XP ? Yet they're all in the XP printer drivers list whilst some
>of
>> their newer printers aren't.
>>
>>
>> - FM -
>
> And the answer is, "Who submitted their driver software to MS for
>testing and approval as XP compatible". With XP, MS was much less friendly
>towards third party software developers than in the past. Many small
>companies and no longer supported hardware was simply left out.
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

> While we're at it, how about 720KB floppy media

I`ve got about 1000 of them for my Amiga !

--
Please add the word "newsgroup" in the subject line of personal emails
**** My email address includes "ngspamtrap" and "@btinternet.com" ****

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Why should I allow Hollywood to tell me what I can or cannot do with hardware/software that I've bought and paid for?"

You don't buy software...you license it.

Ted Zieglar

"Dr. Anton T. Squeegee" <SpammersAreVermin@dev.null> wrote in message news:MPG.1d93c4d11c1f56f098969b@192.168.42.131...
> In article <c%9We.6900$IC3.6092@fe12.lga>, rasilon@aol.com says...
>
>> Then your buying options in the future will become very, very limited.
>> Losing serial ports and parallel ports saves money and space. They are going
>> to be less and less available along with PS/2 ports............
>
> <gryn> My "buying options" have always consisted of building
> systems from the ground up. The only pre-made systems I've ever bought
> have been laptops.
>
> I'm not terribly worried. Ruggedized and industrial-class
> computers will continue to supply serial, parallel, and PS-2 ports due
> to ongoing demand for said ports outside of the pure "consumer"
> environment. If this means I have to spend a little more, or devote more
> attention to the used/surplus market to find what I need, then so be it.
>
> Another factor I neglected to mention. My typical life-cycle for
> upgrading my own systems is at least seven years, often ten or more. I
> will not inconvenience myself, nor retire still-useful equipment, just
> because the computer industry decides to save a few pennies per
> motherboard or system. Heck, I still have applications that use 386 and
> 486-based systems, and they do just fine!
>
> Along those same lines: I won't buy any system that has DRM hard-
> coded into it that cannot be completely disabled by yours truly, now or
> at any time in the future. Why should I allow Hollywood to tell me what
> I can or cannot do with hardware/software that I've bought and paid for?
>
> If this means I eventually end up with decades-old hardware and
> software, fine. I don't really care. What I have now does everything I
> want it to, at speeds I'm happy with, and I've still got headroom to
> grow.
>
> I guess the simple way to say it is that I really believe in
> getting my dollar's worth out of anything I buy.
>
> Keep the peace(es).
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
> (Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
> kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
> "If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
> with surreal ports?"

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Fred Mau wrote:
> Bruno <myName@myISP.net> wrote in news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@
> 4ax.com:
>
>
>>I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
>>buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
>>anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
>
>
> I wouldn't necessarily take Dell's word that the printer "will probably not
> work on XP anyway".
>
>
It does work with XP. However I am about to update mine to a newer
model to get decent color. Note that many current printers, including
Dells, have parallel, USB and Ethernet ports.
John

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Kevin Childers" <kchilder@mail.win.org> wrote in
news:QjkWe.8216$Ma.1491@fe07.lga:

> And the answer is, "Who submitted their driver software to MS for
> testing and approval as XP compatible". With XP, MS was much less
> friendly towards third party software developers than in the past.
> Many small companies and no longer supported hardware was simply left
> out.
>

Well, there's no reason for MS not to behave this way. With IBM's OS/2
essentially dead and buried, with Linux not gaining (or losing) any
traction on the desktop, there's no incentive for them to act otherwise.

Let's face it, if I were a 3rd party developer, my need for dealing with MS
would be much greater than MS's need for dealing with me.

I also suspect that some of XP's internal print drivers are merely
carryovers from earlier OS's and haven't REALLY been tested. For instance,
XP lists the "IBM Personal Pageprinter" but there's no way in hell that one
of these would actually work under XP - it used a MicroChannel interface
card for it's engine that only ever worked under DOS/Win3.1 or OS/2.

- FM -

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Depends on the software. Any digital code is getting called software,
but the basic old school definition limits this to programs, not data files.
Most custom apps are owned for control reasons. Wouldn't want to have to
ask permission of a third party to allow changes to key software design
specifically for a company.

KC

"Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:G-udnffaFstyrbfeRVn-ow@comcast.com...
"Why should I allow Hollywood to tell me what I can or cannot do with
hardware/software that I've bought and paid for?"

You don't buy software...you license it.

Ted Zieglar

"Dr. Anton T. Squeegee" <SpammersAreVermin@dev.null> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d93c4d11c1f56f098969b@192.168.42.131...
> In article <c%9We.6900$IC3.6092@fe12.lga>, rasilon@aol.com says...
>
>> Then your buying options in the future will become very, very limited.
>> Losing serial ports and parallel ports saves money and space. They are
going
>> to be less and less available along with PS/2 ports............
>
> <gryn> My "buying options" have always consisted of building
> systems from the ground up. The only pre-made systems I've ever bought
> have been laptops.
>
> I'm not terribly worried. Ruggedized and industrial-class
> computers will continue to supply serial, parallel, and PS-2 ports due
> to ongoing demand for said ports outside of the pure "consumer"
> environment. If this means I have to spend a little more, or devote more
> attention to the used/surplus market to find what I need, then so be it.
>
> Another factor I neglected to mention. My typical life-cycle for
> upgrading my own systems is at least seven years, often ten or more. I
> will not inconvenience myself, nor retire still-useful equipment, just
> because the computer industry decides to save a few pennies per
> motherboard or system. Heck, I still have applications that use 386 and
> 486-based systems, and they do just fine!
>
> Along those same lines: I won't buy any system that has DRM hard-
> coded into it that cannot be completely disabled by yours truly, now or
> at any time in the future. Why should I allow Hollywood to tell me what
> I can or cannot do with hardware/software that I've bought and paid for?
>
> If this means I eventually end up with decades-old hardware and
> software, fine. I don't really care. What I have now does everything I
> want it to, at speeds I'm happy with, and I've still got headroom to
> grow.
>
> I guess the simple way to say it is that I really believe in
> getting my dollar's worth out of anything I buy.
>
> Keep the peace(es).
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
> (Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
> kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
> "If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
> with surreal ports?"

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <G-udnffaFstyrbfeRVn-ow@comcast.com>, teddyz@notmail.com
says...

< Top-posting corrected. Please don't top-post on Usenet
newsgroups! See this link for the reason why:

http://www.html-faq.com/etiquette/?toppost >

> "Dr. Anton T. Squeegee" <SpammersAreVermin@dev.null> wrote in message news:MPG.1d93c4d11c1f56f098969b@192.168.42.131...
> > In article <c%9We.6900$IC3.6092@fe12.lga>, rasilon@aol.com says...
> >
> >> Then your buying options in the future will become very, very limited.
> >> Losing serial ports and parallel ports saves money and space. They are going
> >> to be less and less available along with PS/2 ports............
> >
> > <gryn> My "buying options" have always consisted of building
> > systems from the ground up. The only pre-made systems I've ever bought
> > have been laptops.

<big-snip>

> "Why should I allow Hollywood to tell me what I can or cannot do with hardware/software that I've bought and paid for?"
>
> You don't buy software...you license it.
>
> Ted Zieglar

That's as may be. Note that I included hardware in that reference.
NO ONE tells me what I can or cannot do with my hardware, and I see
hardware-based DRM as trying to do just that.

In any case, I've spoken my piece. I believe S/P and PS2 ports are
still valuable. They are all very well supported by still-useful legacy
applications and OS's which may not support USB well, if at all.

I don't agree that "legacy-free" is such a great idea. Period.
That's all I was getting at.


--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
with surreal ports?"

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Happy happy, joy joy


More debate on top posting.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:02:43 -0700, Dr. Anton T. Squeegee
<SpammersAreVermin@dev.null> wrote:

>In article <G-udnffaFstyrbfeRVn-ow@comcast.com>, teddyz@notmail.com
>says...
>
> < Top-posting corrected. Please don't top-post on Usenet
>newsgroups! See this link for the reason why:
>
> http://www.html-faq.com/etiquette/?toppost >
>
>> "Dr. Anton T. Squeegee" <SpammersAreVermin@dev.null> wrote in message news:MPG.1d93c4d11c1f56f098969b@192.168.42.131...
>> > In article <c%9We.6900$IC3.6092@fe12.lga>, rasilon@aol.com says...
>> >
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Your article has a major flaw that many of your belief use:

"The next reason is that it is actually logical that the question should
come before the answer. To quote a poster in another newsgroup:
A. No.
Q. Does top-posting make sense?"

That is not an example of top posting.
That resembles Jeopardy and that is all.
If it were top posting, the question would be in a previous post.
Since I have already read the previous post, I do not need to read it again
before reading the answer.
Some newsgroups top is correct, other bottom is the thing to do.
In these Microsoft newsgroups, both top and bottom are acceptable as well as
inline, please do not try to impose your position on others, you will fail.

--
Jupiter Jones
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Dr. Anton T. Squeegee" <SpammersAreVermin@dev.null> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d964e7c3c4a3e0d9896a0@192.168.42.131...
> In article <G-udnffaFstyrbfeRVn-ow@comcast.com>, teddyz@notmail.com
> says...
>
> < Top-posting corrected. Please don't top-post on Usenet
> newsgroups! See this link for the reason why:
>
> http://www.html-faq.com/etiquette/?toppost

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

One minor correction, remove the word "Microsoft" in my last post.

--
Jupiter Jones
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Jupiter Jones" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:srgXe.246611$HI.200049@edtnps84...
> Your article has a major flaw that many of your belief use:
>
> "The next reason is that it is actually logical that the question should
> come before the answer. To quote a poster in another newsgroup:
> A. No.
> Q. Does top-posting make sense?"
>
> That is not an example of top posting.
> That resembles Jeopardy and that is all.
> If it were top posting, the question would be in a previous post.
> Since I have already read the previous post, I do not need to read it
> again before reading the answer.
> Some newsgroups top is correct, other bottom is the thing to do.
> In these Microsoft newsgroups, both top and bottom are acceptable as well
> as inline, please do not try to impose your position on others, you will
> fail.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Hi!

> You would eschew an otherwise capable and desirable computer merely
because
> it doesn't accomodate your printer through the parallel port?

If it hasn't got legacy ports, then it is not capable or desirable in my
eyes.

They can have my IBM Model M keyboard when they pry it from my cold dead
fingers.

William

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

You need to get out more.

Ted Zieglar

"William R. Walsh" <newsgroups1@saveyourspam.walshcomptech.com> wrote in message news:xR2Ye.354244$x96.259511@attbi_s72...
> Hi!
>
>> You would eschew an otherwise capable and desirable computer merely
> because
>> it doesn't accomodate your printer through the parallel port?
>
> If it hasn't got legacy ports, then it is not capable or desirable in my
> eyes.
>
> They can have my IBM Model M keyboard when they pry it from my cold dead
> fingers.
>
> William
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Hi!

> I guess the simple way to say it is that I really believe in
> getting my dollar's worth out of anything I buy.

I think that is very well said, especially the bits about DRM in hardware.

Every computer I own is going to run until it will run no more...anything
else would be wasteful.

William

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Hi!

> For instance, can anyone tell me with a straight face that they're
actually
> using an ancient Canon LBP-8 or IBM Personal Pageprinter or IBM
Quietwriter
> III with XP ? Yet they're all in the XP printer drivers list whilst some
of
> their newer printers aren't.

Keep in mind that a lot of newer printers can emulate at least the IBM
models.

That said, I can say with a 100% straight face that I am currently using an
IBM ProPrinter XL24E. I have at least one XP machine with the drivers loaded
for the ProPrinter. Were it not for a devastating flood, I'd still have and
use the Personal Pageprinter (4216-031)...it was nothing less than reliable
and very, very cheap.

William