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?"
0 of 478 comments (clear)
No comments match the current filter.