Improving Computer Form Factors?

eschasi asks: "Recently we've been seeing some trend towards smaller footprint machines like the new iMac or the tiny PC system shown in this recent article. All these tiny systems have scalability or quality problems for me, and I don't think it has to be that way. But all the solutions I see require discarding much of what we think is standard to desktop/deskside mechanical design for PCs. Apple has been able to do with much more freedom becuase they own the whole process. PC makers, however, don't. The last major improvement to PC motherboard/case design was the ATX design, and that was evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I think that major improvement can still be made in an evolutionary way. I want both worlds: I want a small footprint; I want it in a premium system; I want it to have enough room for a pair of hard drives, a 5.25" external slot, and a 3.5" external slot; and I want it using largely off-the-shelf components, and I don't want to have to re-invent ATX and PCI and ya-da-day to get it!" Do you feel the same way? How would you improve the current crop of PC form factors?

"IMHO large chunks of the problem could be solved by taking advantage of both sides of the motherboard. Put the CPU and most of the misc. chips on one side, put the expansion slots and RAM on the other. The case design would have to change but that's quite doable.

Using both sides of the motherboard does more than reduce footprint by half while returning to full expandability. You also get the benefit of having the RAM sit directly opposite the CPU, reducing trace length problems and permitting RAM bus speed increases. Other timing problems might also be reduced.

I've left aside the rest of my extensive arguements for why this is or isn't a good idea; what I'm interested in is this:

• Do other people see the same drawbacks with small-footprint systems?
• What seems to be out there on the drawing board for post-ATX systems?"

Krow's comments: Form factor and cute design is all great and lovely but I want to know what can be done to reduce electrical usage for the average geek's home hosting farm collection. Even small usage reductions add up.

Comments

Uhhh... we already have a small standard.

[Phosphor3k]

Its called MicroATX and FlexATX. One of which(i cant remember) the FV24 Shuttle system uses. The problem is manufacturers not correctly implimenting the standard, makes for hard interchangability of parts.

Board design doesn't work that way.

[pagercam2]

The idea of puting all the chips on one side and slots on the other, while it sounds easy is a real nightmare for HW designers. Many of these chips have 500+ pins (PGA) or 1000+ ball (BGA) these are all comming from a chip less than 2" on a side (PGA) and 1"+ for BGA and all those wires need to go somewhere, the PGA devices have to have holes in the board and can only get wires out from underneath, by going between pins and often only 2 wires fit so another wire has to use another layer. The problem is layers increase cost much faster than additional area, so the boards being bigger than they have to be saves money. There have been specialty technologies developed to get higer denisties, but these are majorly expensive and not realistic for consumer level products. The most impressive I've heard of is IBM super-computer technology, which used a 57 layer board, getting 8 layers to line up is expensive and there is a 30% scrap rate (IIRC) they had to make 100+ boards at 57 layers to get just a couple of working boards. The best way to make smaller machines is to go multi board and stack, the intel processor modules go along way in this direction as do the PCI adapter board that have one slot that you plug a board into that has multiple PCI slots. The heat is going to be the bigest problem no matter how hard you try, smaller means less air and as clock speeds increase less air isn't the right answer. Water cooling, or the electric coolers could help, but its always a how much do you want to pay to get small, fast etc...

Two sided doesn't work

[afidel]

The number of layers required to make the board two sided would be so high that the added expense would definitely be noticable. Like 3 TIMES more, at least. Just going from 4 to 6 layer pcb design makes manufacturing more expensive, and also increases defect rates, further increasing the costs or the board. I don't think most slashdotter's (or pc users in general) will want $300-$400 system boards.

Re:cPCI Cards

[IntlHarvester]

I could also see hard drives and CD-ROM drives going this route as well.

A few years ago, Intel and Microsoft came up with a spec called Device Bay that would allow end users to easily slide-in USB and 1394 drives.

Never caught on with OEMs though. Probably because of the lack of integrated 1394 controllers, but also because in the white-box market every penny counts, and for things like the iPaq desktop, the vendor would prefer that you buy proprietary parts.

Cappuccino & Espresso anyone??

[TMLink]

Have we forgotten about these two beauties already? It's already been done. Don't know if there has been another updated version of these to come back out, but I assume you can still get the Cappuccino machine.

Great little machine, if you've got the money for it, and have a reason for wanting it...(easy machine to haul around for gaming sessions). But this machine's exactly what you're looking for.