Slashdot Mirror
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?"
With the market like it is in the countries where people will be buying computers, the "footprint" system doesn't make up for in style what it drops in price. Currently, the people who are buying computers are either looking for power or affordability, not a suave appearance.
You might say this isn't true, but the majority of computer users aren't "geeks". Since the computer isn't so widespread that it's in every room of the house - usually, there's one or two an "affluent" household - people can hide them away in offices which aren't going to be seen by your houseguests and the like, making the "style" thing unnecessary. Furthermore, the consumer has gotten so used to the grey-box case that it's still considered "in style".
That's not to say that someday in the future, the smaller, chic computer won't become more widespread. I think the problem is that the consumer isn't willing to spend more AND sacrifice power to do it, and currently, that's what they've got to do.
I'm with the submitter that smaller form factors are nice. However one thing that I know they can control right here and now is the presence of HANDLES on the cases.
I'm an avid gamer. I had to buy a third-party (albeit excellent) product from CaseAce to help me carry my box to LAN parties etc. And I got a flat-screen monitor that was easier to carry than my 17" monitor.
But if computer manufacturers would just put a stout handle built in to the case, that would go a long way towards making me happy. Same thing for monitor builders, although I understand the problem is different for them.
For instance, look at the Gamecube. Arguably as much power as the other gaming platforms, but much easier for portage purposes. Why can't computer makers take a hint here?
-- Mojo Tooth : exploring our world as only an idiot can.
What is it about the slashdot crowd that wants everything at the cost of nothing. Maybe they get it from using Linux far too long. You can either get efficiency or you can get scalability with a very small range between the two. For efficiency look at gaming consoles, they sacrifice the ability to scale in order to have a tight nit efficient system. Another entrant into this catagory is/was Cyrix's Media GX chip and Intel's 810 chipset. The cost and waste of the system is lowered by putting more components in the same packaging. On the side of scalability look at the Mac 9600 with it's 12 memory sockets and 6 PCI slots. Of course just about any PC or workstation class system falls into the scalable classification, the 9600 is just an example of sheer expandibility. The marrige of these two is something like the G4 Cube which is hated in many circles. It was small and fairly efficient yet had the ability to be upgraded a little bit. However it came at the cost of not being able to use widely abvailable standard sized expansion card (a video card upgrade costs beaucoup cash because you can only get it from Apple). Slashdot folks want something that can fit a half dozen components into off the shelf yet be compact and efficient. It isn't going to happen unless somebody releases a system with a "computer on a chip" plugs directly into a backplane that links it to other components. Even then people would bitch because the COC components weren't up to their expectations.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Remove one screw and it slides out of the side, easily replaced or swapped.
...or DROPPED!
I've seen a Dell hard disk destroyed in exactly this way. Granted, the owner should have noticed the screw missing, but still, I'd say Dell is mostly to blame for having the hard disk held in by a single, tiny screw.
I'll take a Powerbook any day:
- Batteries and CDROM are securely held in their compartments by a spring-loaded latch. It's almost impossible to accidentally unlatch them, and if you do, who cares, it's just the battery.
- The hard disk, memory, and 802.11 card are stowed safely underneath the keyboard. It takes about two seconds to flip down the keyboard, 20 seconds to install an Airport card, five minutes to install memory, and five minutes to swap the HD.
- *much* sleeker/thinner styling than the Dells, whether Titanium or Bronze.
Vaios are my favorite PC laptop, but that's not saying much. I can't stand the keyboards on the Vaios. Why does nearly every PC latop maker think they're doing us a favor by putting the arrow keys where the shift key ought to be?