@OBC, I think you are trying to force something that can only happen organically.
I think some of the issue, issue isn't really the correct word, is that a lot of the people in the forum are hardware providers.
Those people need to provide either a low cost copy of some open solution, or something unique that draws users to the hardware.
If "we" would enforce a large set of specific standards that must be met in order to not be shunned by the group, innovation would suffer.
Some of the I/O standards like the 10 Pin Standard, etc. are helpful.
Wow.. I wonder if I have time to get that on a shirt before UPEW. LOL.
I have no argument about the reasoning behind the variety of designs. I agree that each of them have good reasons behind them. Wouldn't it be nice to have hardware products & code would would fit uniformly across those mentioned platforms without having to play Twister? I doubt we could kill the Propeller with an I/O standard which provided access to all of the I/O any more than the Propeller DIP40 pin configuration could.
Discussions like this are making me look forward to UPEW, as I know several of you are planning to attend.
This will likely spawn some interesting conversations.
Sapieha pointed out your wishlist... I will be showing something very much like that at UPEW. If you search the forum for "CPUModule" you will see information on the prototype version. I have production boards now
There's a "trend" alluded to in the subject title, but the other shoe wasn't dropped - calling it out (sometimes I'm kind of dense.)
That QuickStart's IDC-like connector is hard to knock, it's still (too) big. If only they'd spin out a board with a Propeller and xtal on it, and bypass-capped all around, and holes for the I/O and a 3V input. [I lie awake at night...] That'd be the ticket for me... OK, and a couple of mounting holes (for #4's). "Shields" and other handcuffs I don't need.
Electronics is electronics and tinkertoys is tinkertoys.
Will change it, bad grammar on my part - what I meant was that you wanted it to be a dip chip, compatible with many plaforms; I am aware that it will be in production. Sorry for the misleading sentence!
Always happy to correct errors You are most welcome!
Wow.. I wonder if I have time to get that on a shirt before UPEW. LOL.
I have no argument about the reasoning behind the variety of designs. I agree that each of them have good reasons behind them. Wouldn't it be nice to have hardware products & code would would fit uniformly across those mentioned platforms without having to play Twister? I doubt we could kill the Propeller with an I/O standard which provided access to all of the I/O any more than the Propeller DIP40 pin configuration could.
Discussions like this are making me look forward to UPEW, as I know several of you are planning to attend.
This will likely spawn some interesting conversations.
Discussions like this are making me look forward to UPEW, as I know several of you are planning to attend.
This will likely spawn some interesting conversations.
Discussions like this are the reason many of us (I assume) are unhappy because we will not be able to attend UPEW. It looks like all the cool announcements and discussions will be occuring there. What's left for those of us at UPEC and UPENE?
I have always thought of it as a "artists vs engineers" thing.
The Arduino lot are happy to use their one "hammer" to do their work, but engineers are not happy unless they have the choise of a dozen different weights and shapes.
Standards tend to gravitate to the sales leader. Sales is a function of quality, functionality, price, and marketing. The "best" is often not the winner. There were several computers better than the original IBM PC, but it didn't matter; they went away. If one of the Propeller platforms really takes off, it will become a standard.
Talk about the Arduino is just talk. The Propeller is better, more powerful than an Arduino, so what? I bet that the majority of Arduino users do not use all of the capability of its 8bit microcontroller.
The above is negative in tone. I will end positively. What do we do? Design and market good Propeller projects. Write AND DOCUMENT good Propeller objects. Write articles that show the use of the Propeller (Thanks Jon). Show your friends, coworkers, fellow students, professors.
I don't understand this preoccupation with the Arduino by Propeller users. It's a low-cost system with a 16 MIPS 8-bit AVR that was designed for use by art and design students who wanted something simple that could be used in their projects with the minimum amount of work. I can't see many Arduino users switching to the Propeller.
How much of Arduino was dictated by the microcontroller? Looking at the Arduino, I don't see much difference between it and some similar Propeller-based "backplane" boards. Perhaps someday one will hit the right combination of form factor, price point & add-ons that it will become the "standard".
In the other corner are full-function boards like the Demoboard and C3. There will always be new versions of these as people create new ways of using the Propeller.
The Propeller doesn't need to be standardized, but there probably needs to be a clearly identified reference design. For example, it's very clear that the Parallax reference design for the BS2 is the BoE.
Another issue at work here is that the Propeller forum is flooded with posts about products that aren't manufactured by Parallax. If somebody goes to the Basic Stamps forum, it's fairly simple to figure out what's what - a few boards, a handful of stamp models, all made by Parallax, and everyone is on the same sheet of music. Not the case with the Propeller, which can be somewhat confusing to newcomers.
When more people pick up a Propeller, no matter what board it's on, everyone benefits. But many of the efforts right now are in designing more Propeller boards, not getting more people started on the Propeller - that's disappointing.
Standardization is fine when it makes things easier and having several standards makes sense. But having too many just makes things more confusing. How many standards are optimal? I would guess three, mostly based on size. Maybe something like:
A bigger board that has room for multiple large connectors
A medium board (credit card size) that has room for a connector or two and fits in a small area
A small board (DIP40) that would plug into a carrier / breadboard. Might only provide 3.3V
If the goal is to make it easy to pick up and program, they should all be simple to address and expose all (or nearly all) the I/O. They should be breadboard / protoboard friendly. All should be open source, of course.
These 'standards' are mostly just mounting hole / header position templates - they don't challenge the diversity & creativity of the community. Interoperability improves consumer choice and makes accessories like enclosures more useful. Seems like a no-brainer to me!
I kinda understand where OBC is coming from though... I don't think anybody here is denying the utility of a standard. I mean, it would be neat if i could be like "Hey, i got this new module. I can stick it on my C3, Propeller Platform, Spin Stamp, Spin Socket, Demo board and the new 20 dollar thingy":)... Now of course that isn't practical, but it would be nice not to have to invest in a new piece of hardware every month or so.. Somebody is always going to make something better and better and it is hard to keep up. My current focus is on the C3. Not necessarily because it is the best board(I think it is though:)), but rather because i know it has better support behind it. Parallax will not give it up in a few months... NOW!! This is just my opinion, but i think that newer boards should be designed with the "Parallax" standard in mind. Can your board fit on a C3? Well, how about the new $20 board? You see, it is simple economics. If your product is compatible with many others, you will have a better chance of selling it. That is especially true if your product is compatible with a industry standard(Like boards that Parallax makes).. The C3 has a lot of potential and i am kinda sad to see that there has not been much said about it lately:(
@OBC... I know you mentioned interest in co-designing a C3 OS. I have the basic interface and menu system ready, but i am thinking about what i will use for a program loader. I have a few ideas, but they are not the best:)
I have several drawers filled with various Propeller boards. By the end of UPEW, I will likely have another. Currently, the three Propellers on my desk are Quickstart (given my current work in the project), the C3, and Propeller Platform. I've got hopes that we can see some development take off with the C3 like we are seeing with the Propeller Platform. So much to do, so little time.
Edit: There's some VGA stuff from Andre in the works that will really help with C3 menuing. Maybe someone closer to that project will share.
Should I take this personally, having just posted another design? I point out that its nearing UPEW, the great catalyst for flushing these things out into the public. Don't mistake this for a trend unneccessarily, nor a disturbing one at that. This is a good thing for all perfectionists (deadlines).
Frankly I think the diversity of boards should be celebrated. I was kind of hoping we would hit a collective 365 designs, then we can make a great group desk calendar I'm serious about the calendar, perhaps not the #.
Should I take this personally, having just posted another design? I point out that its nearing UPEW, the great catalyst for flushing these things out into the public. Don't mistake this for a trend unneccessarily, nor a disturbing one at that. This is a good thing for all perfectionists (deadlines).
Frankly I think the diversity of boards should be celebrated. I was kind of hoping we would hit a collective 365 designs, then we can make a great group desk calendar I'm serious about the calendar, perhaps not the #.
Some standards are really beneficial to all... like the 10 pin Protoboard one.
I am attaching a photo below, showing two of my unreleased products... the smaller one is for the 10 pin connector, and he has lots of friends comping to UPEW.
The bigger three boards plugged into the C3 are my semi-announced c3Bridge boards.
Now the little guys work on all my boards, all ucontroller.com boards, all Parallax ProtoBoards, all breadboards... and of course on the Propeller Platform with ppBridge, and the C3 with c3Bridge.
Which means you can get just the 10 pin modules, and use them on your Propeller Platform, and c3, and QuickStart (as there will be a qsBridge) ... and all my boards.
I have several drawers filled with various Propeller boards. By the end of UPEW, I will likely have another. Currently, the three Propellers on my desk are Quickstart (given my current work in the project), the C3, and Propeller Platform. I've got hopes that we can see some development take off with the C3 like we are seeing with the Propeller Platform. So much to do, so little time.
Edit: There's some VGA stuff from Andre in the works that will really help with C3 menuing. Maybe someone closer to that project will share.
OBC
p.s.
The rough edge on the stacking connector is due to me crudely cutting it down from my standard 2x20 stacking connectors.
The bigger three boards plugged into the C3 are my semi-announced c3Bridge boards.
I've been waiting to see some C3 boards - especially since Parallax doesn't seem to have spare proto boards for the C3 yet. I'm hesitant to "use up" the board I've got.
These look nice - at least what we can see in the picture.
Looks great, Bill. Perhaps it should have a new thread though. (Rather than hijacking obc's "too many products" thread for posting details of... new products)
Look forward to the detail on the qsBridge and eeprom stuff too
Microcontrolled, Tubular - thanks for the kind words!
Sorry, did not mean to hijack (which is why I did not post any details) - I was trying to illustrate to OBC that bridges can overcome different pinouts (re/post#26); a new thread is coming soon
Looks great, Bill. Perhaps it should have a new thread though. (Rather than hijacking obc's "too many products" thread for posting details of... new products)
Look forward to the detail on the qsBridge and eeprom stuff too
If we had standards, I would not be using my excellent Dracblade and Hybrid boards, from Dr_A and Coley. Most everything I do ends up on one or the other of those, with many things posted here targeted to Demoboard, just because.
It's not that other designs are bad. None of them are, from what I can see. It's more that we might have fixated on something, not getting to some of the more interesting ones, that's all.
I just got a Apple iie platinum computer (with disk!!) shipped to me this Friday. Another Prop board will eventually go into that thing**, and honestly I would not even consider the project, if it were not for the extremely high level of design skill found here. I see many examples I can learn from, and I know I can ask questions and get answers I can handle. (or at the least ask more questions about)
Is there any serious thought the other crowd would be open to that, and capable, if open?
Based on what I've seen, I don't think so. Could be wrong on that --easily wrong. But, I know Props can do that stuff, because of all the different designs that have been successful. Interesting metric, no?
For me, that speaks highly to our community. Good god, most of you are sharp. So sharp it's scary, and I'm happy to know you and play together with you and learn lots. Folks, that is worth a lot.
It also speaks to the Prop. The thing just begs to be explored in this way, and look at all that has been done!
The trade-off here is fewer higher level projects getting popular. But, I would make that trade in a second, given how Props work. It is entirely possible and practical to get a piece of a design here, some code there, and blend it into something one desires, and often practical, given the number of designs output and in use.
Powerful stuff.
As much as I would like to see a retro / gaming scene happen, I would not ever give up the "it can be done" culture, acumen and spirit seen here. It really shines bright.
Perhaps the middle can be split. Nail it for those purposes, and then build on it, and promote it. I'm eager to see what Coley and Baggers get done, for example. Suspect they will nail it, so then it's about promoting it, right?
Those things are not exclusive to the activities seen here, BTW. I might suggest that we get some focus from Parallax to standardize on niches. Might be a good idea to do "recommended for:" and then have a few products that see that attention first, BECAUSE THE DESIGN WARRANTS IT, not because it should be done.
**I want to make a prop card and software to go with the Apple. Drop a prop card in, and maybe a couple of them, using the Apple for a display and development computer / station / test bed...
I'm addressing this toward the group of people who would love to see the Propeller in some form or fashion find it's way to the level of interest generated by the Arduino. (Those of you who a using the Propeller for as the engine in commercial, or industrial projects; this doesn't really apply to you.)
I feel a little differently. If Parallax was to make a bigger chip, I wouldn't mind paying $100 or possibly more for it providing it came with quick tutorials to get up and running.
I looked towards the Arduino because there were cheap 4x20 lcd displays and then I discovered the Gameduino which is a motherboard (shield) that sits on top of the Arduino and gives 512 Sprites on a 400 x 300 pixel screen. Then I found a Maple Cortex with 512K ide and 1 GB of flash on a board with the same pin arrangement that the Arduino has and the first one ran at 72 MHZ. The creator of the Gameduino game me pointers on how to get started with FPGA.
The other chip I like is the PIC32MX795 and the Maximite computer has a similar chip which runs BASIC.
The standards should be at the configurable object level, and a few I/O standards (such as 10 pin modules). Anything more is far too restrictive and results in no innovation.
A standard for retro computing?? I don't think it's possible just due to the nature of the beast....what is retro computing that anyone can build a standard around? A 6502 dressed as a Comodore, Atari, Apple, Ohio Scientific? An 8080 or 8085 or Z80 running C/PM? An RCA1802 with hex pad and 8 digit displays? A 6800? 6809? 68000? Maybe a Timex Sinclair? What was the sound chip standard for those retro computers, anyway? There wasn't a standard then (may all those wonderful machines rest in peace), why/how can there be a standard now? The choice back then is what made it interesting and got most of us into this crazy life.
I miss the Commodore and Atari computers. The Minimig and Natami are emulators that meet and exceed the original Amigas and Atari has a coldfire emulator.
What microcontrollers today can give you 16 colors and 80 columns by 24 lines today?
Bottom line, if we want a Propeller based board of any kind to make traction, combined efforts need to be focused in a singular direction. Personally, I'm committing a lot of efforts toward the Propeller Platform from Gadgetganster. Instead of generating more options, why don't we focus on expanding some of the current paths already started.
This does not make much sense; A single solution cannot fit all requirements.
I see there being three key pivot points : Small/Cheap/Easy, then Easy, and then Full Featured.
With the Prop, this is $20 Easy start, $50 Gadget and $80 C3.
The only tuning I'd make is to push the EasyStart smaller still, it has very close to the right minimal hardware, & right price point, but it could be smaller.
Smaller also gives more separation from GadgetGangster.
NXP and Zilog have DIP profile Small/Cheap/Easy;
Nuvoton have 2"x1.4" minimal bock, with a splitable same-size Debug-link, for the same $20 price.
Something like Spin Stamp is part way there, but it matches another footprint.
Around 40 pin DIP, should allow inclusion of the USB link - it does need to be a single, ready to go block.
10 pins provides eight I/O pins, which is a very good size for a great number of possible I/O modules.
Three 10 pin modules can be mounted on P0-P23, allowing for far more flexibility than using all 28 available pins on a single connector.
Two 10 pin modules, with 200mil between them, can be used to provide access to 16 I/O's on P0-P15 on one side of a prop, or 12 unrestricted (plus four restricted) pins on the other side.
I wish Parallax kept using the 10 pin connector layout of the serial/USB proto boards on their newer boards.
I was not going to announce c3Bridge, qsBridge, boeBridge until UPEW, but this thread made me do it.
Oh the irony. This thread started as a concern there were too many boards, and as a result of this thread we now have even more boards!
But I think more boards are great. More innovation, more clever solutions.
There are a multitude of boards because there are so many things the propeller can be. The same chip can fly a quadcopter. Or emulate a whole computer. Or run a robot. No single board is going to do all that because the design requirements are different - eg flying boards need to be very tiny and light, but boards that you experiment and hack with need to have big pads and a prototyping area.
I have 10 revisions of the dracblade and they still are not even close to being perfect (for me) as I keep thinking of new clever things that I can do if I just add one or two more chips. Hmm - that reminds me - I need to get to work designing a new board... *grin*
Comments
I think some of the issue, issue isn't really the correct word, is that a lot of the people in the forum are hardware providers.
Those people need to provide either a low cost copy of some open solution, or something unique that draws users to the hardware.
If "we" would enforce a large set of specific standards that must be met in order to not be shunned by the group, innovation would suffer.
Some of the I/O standards like the 10 Pin Standard, etc. are helpful.
My $0.02
C.W.
Arduino := Justin Bieber of microcontrollers
Wow.. I wonder if I have time to get that on a shirt before UPEW. LOL.
I have no argument about the reasoning behind the variety of designs. I agree that each of them have good reasons behind them. Wouldn't it be nice to have hardware products & code would would fit uniformly across those mentioned platforms without having to play Twister? I doubt we could kill the Propeller with an I/O standard which provided access to all of the I/O any more than the Propeller DIP40 pin configuration could.
Discussions like this are making me look forward to UPEW, as I know several of you are planning to attend.
This will likely spawn some interesting conversations.
OBC
Always happy to correct errors
uniform hardware (ie "enforced standards") impossible.
We'll chat at UPEW
Discussions like this are the reason many of us (I assume) are unhappy because we will not be able to attend UPEW. It looks like all the cool announcements and discussions will be occuring there. What's left for those of us at UPEC and UPENE?
The Arduino lot are happy to use their one "hammer" to do their work, but engineers are not happy unless they have the choise of a dozen different weights and shapes.
Talk about the Arduino is just talk. The Propeller is better, more powerful than an Arduino, so what? I bet that the majority of Arduino users do not use all of the capability of its 8bit microcontroller.
The above is negative in tone. I will end positively. What do we do? Design and market good Propeller projects. Write AND DOCUMENT good Propeller objects. Write articles that show the use of the Propeller (Thanks Jon). Show your friends, coworkers, fellow students, professors.
John Abshier
In the other corner are full-function boards like the Demoboard and C3. There will always be new versions of these as people create new ways of using the Propeller.
Another issue at work here is that the Propeller forum is flooded with posts about products that aren't manufactured by Parallax. If somebody goes to the Basic Stamps forum, it's fairly simple to figure out what's what - a few boards, a handful of stamp models, all made by Parallax, and everyone is on the same sheet of music. Not the case with the Propeller, which can be somewhat confusing to newcomers.
Standardization is fine when it makes things easier and having several standards makes sense. But having too many just makes things more confusing. How many standards are optimal? I would guess three, mostly based on size. Maybe something like:
- A bigger board that has room for multiple large connectors
- A medium board (credit card size) that has room for a connector or two and fits in a small area
- A small board (DIP40) that would plug into a carrier / breadboard. Might only provide 3.3V
If the goal is to make it easy to pick up and program, they should all be simple to address and expose all (or nearly all) the I/O. They should be breadboard / protoboard friendly. All should be open source, of course.These 'standards' are mostly just mounting hole / header position templates - they don't challenge the diversity & creativity of the community. Interoperability improves consumer choice and makes accessories like enclosures more useful. Seems like a no-brainer to me!
@OBC... I know you mentioned interest in co-designing a C3 OS. I have the basic interface and menu system ready, but i am thinking about what i will use for a program loader. I have a few ideas, but they are not the best:)
Are You talking on that Board?.
It can both plug in in breadboard and can be used standalone.
I have several drawers filled with various Propeller boards. By the end of UPEW, I will likely have another. Currently, the three Propellers on my desk are Quickstart (given my current work in the project), the C3, and Propeller Platform. I've got hopes that we can see some development take off with the C3 like we are seeing with the Propeller Platform. So much to do, so little time.
Edit: There's some VGA stuff from Andre in the works that will really help with C3 menuing. Maybe someone closer to that project will share.
OBC
Should I take this personally, having just posted another design? I point out that its nearing UPEW, the great catalyst for flushing these things out into the public. Don't mistake this for a trend unneccessarily, nor a disturbing one at that. This is a good thing for all perfectionists (deadlines).
Frankly I think the diversity of boards should be celebrated. I was kind of hoping we would hit a collective 365 designs, then we can make a great group desk calendar
I love the desktop calendar idea!
I'm good for about 40 pages
Some standards are really beneficial to all... like the 10 pin Protoboard one.
I am attaching a photo below, showing two of my unreleased products... the smaller one is for the 10 pin connector, and he has lots of friends comping to UPEW.
The bigger three boards plugged into the C3 are my semi-announced c3Bridge boards.
Now the little guys work on all my boards, all ucontroller.com boards, all Parallax ProtoBoards, all breadboards... and of course on the Propeller Platform with ppBridge, and the C3 with c3Bridge.
Which means you can get just the 10 pin modules, and use them on your Propeller Platform, and c3, and QuickStart (as there will be a qsBridge) ... and all my boards.
p.s.
The rough edge on the stacking connector is due to me crudely cutting it down from my standard 2x20 stacking connectors.
p.p.s.
As usual, Sapieha's final layouts are GORGEOUS!
I've been waiting to see some C3 boards - especially since Parallax doesn't seem to have spare proto boards for the C3 yet. I'm hesitant to "use up" the board I've got.
These look nice - at least what we can see in the picture.
I may have to update my modified C3 enclosures to make more room: http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?130260-Modified-Panels-for-Parallax-Propeller-C3-Enclosures
(Actually, I do have an updated version but I haven't posted it yet. It isn't any taller, unfortunately.)
Look forward to the detail on the qsBridge and eeprom stuff too
cheers
tubular
Sorry, did not mean to hijack (which is why I did not post any details) - I was trying to illustrate to OBC that bridges can overcome different pinouts (re/post#26); a new thread is coming soon
If we had standards, I would not be using my excellent Dracblade and Hybrid boards, from Dr_A and Coley. Most everything I do ends up on one or the other of those, with many things posted here targeted to Demoboard, just because.
It's not that other designs are bad. None of them are, from what I can see. It's more that we might have fixated on something, not getting to some of the more interesting ones, that's all.
I just got a Apple iie platinum computer (with disk!!) shipped to me this Friday. Another Prop board will eventually go into that thing**, and honestly I would not even consider the project, if it were not for the extremely high level of design skill found here. I see many examples I can learn from, and I know I can ask questions and get answers I can handle. (or at the least ask more questions about)
Is there any serious thought the other crowd would be open to that, and capable, if open?
Based on what I've seen, I don't think so. Could be wrong on that --easily wrong. But, I know Props can do that stuff, because of all the different designs that have been successful. Interesting metric, no?
For me, that speaks highly to our community. Good god, most of you are sharp. So sharp it's scary, and I'm happy to know you and play together with you and learn lots. Folks, that is worth a lot.
It also speaks to the Prop. The thing just begs to be explored in this way, and look at all that has been done!
The trade-off here is fewer higher level projects getting popular. But, I would make that trade in a second, given how Props work. It is entirely possible and practical to get a piece of a design here, some code there, and blend it into something one desires, and often practical, given the number of designs output and in use.
Powerful stuff.
As much as I would like to see a retro / gaming scene happen, I would not ever give up the "it can be done" culture, acumen and spirit seen here. It really shines bright.
Perhaps the middle can be split. Nail it for those purposes, and then build on it, and promote it. I'm eager to see what Coley and Baggers get done, for example. Suspect they will nail it, so then it's about promoting it, right?
Those things are not exclusive to the activities seen here, BTW. I might suggest that we get some focus from Parallax to standardize on niches. Might be a good idea to do "recommended for:" and then have a few products that see that attention first, BECAUSE THE DESIGN WARRANTS IT, not because it should be done.
**I want to make a prop card and software to go with the Apple. Drop a prop card in, and maybe a couple of them, using the Apple for a display and development computer / station / test bed...
I feel a little differently. If Parallax was to make a bigger chip, I wouldn't mind paying $100 or possibly more for it providing it came with quick tutorials to get up and running.
I looked towards the Arduino because there were cheap 4x20 lcd displays and then I discovered the Gameduino which is a motherboard (shield) that sits on top of the Arduino and gives 512 Sprites on a 400 x 300 pixel screen. Then I found a Maple Cortex with 512K ide and 1 GB of flash on a board with the same pin arrangement that the Arduino has and the first one ran at 72 MHZ. The creator of the Gameduino game me pointers on how to get started with FPGA.
The other chip I like is the PIC32MX795 and the Maximite computer has a similar chip which runs BASIC.
Only 10 pins? How is that going forward?
I miss the Commodore and Atari computers. The Minimig and Natami are emulators that meet and exceed the original Amigas and Atari has a coldfire emulator.
What microcontrollers today can give you 16 colors and 80 columns by 24 lines today?
This does not make much sense; A single solution cannot fit all requirements.
I see there being three key pivot points : Small/Cheap/Easy, then Easy, and then Full Featured.
With the Prop, this is $20 Easy start, $50 Gadget and $80 C3.
The only tuning I'd make is to push the EasyStart smaller still, it has very close to the right minimal hardware, & right price point, but it could be smaller.
Smaller also gives more separation from GadgetGangster.
NXP and Zilog have DIP profile Small/Cheap/Easy;
Nuvoton have 2"x1.4" minimal bock, with a splitable same-size Debug-link, for the same $20 price.
Something like Spin Stamp is part way there, but it matches another footprint.
Around 40 pin DIP, should allow inclusion of the USB link - it does need to be a single, ready to go block.
10 pins provides eight I/O pins, which is a very good size for a great number of possible I/O modules.
Three 10 pin modules can be mounted on P0-P23, allowing for far more flexibility than using all 28 available pins on a single connector.
Two 10 pin modules, with 200mil between them, can be used to provide access to 16 I/O's on P0-P15 on one side of a prop, or 12 unrestricted (plus four restricted) pins on the other side.
I wish Parallax kept using the 10 pin connector layout of the serial/USB proto boards on their newer boards.
Oh the irony. This thread started as a concern there were too many boards, and as a result of this thread we now have even more boards!
But I think more boards are great. More innovation, more clever solutions.
There are a multitude of boards because there are so many things the propeller can be. The same chip can fly a quadcopter. Or emulate a whole computer. Or run a robot. No single board is going to do all that because the design requirements are different - eg flying boards need to be very tiny and light, but boards that you experiment and hack with need to have big pads and a prototyping area.
I have 10 revisions of the dracblade and they still are not even close to being perfect (for me) as I keep thinking of new clever things that I can do if I just add one or two more chips. Hmm - that reminds me - I need to get to work designing a new board... *grin*