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?"
I'd love not to need to open the case, move all the cables around, and try not to slice my fingers on the case when changing or adding a card. I'd like to see the PCI and AGP internal slots replaced with cPCI cards that slide in on rails from the outside.
RIBBON CABLES. I hate the things. I would much prefer something where you just plug the drive in like it were a card and off it goes.
All a coder really wants, are fast cars, fast women and fast algorithms.
I still like the old, big towers that are about the height of your desk. you can fit so many goodies in there, who cares if you really need them or not, you still CAN have them. Why does everything have to be so small these days? Little tiny cars,pager sized cell phones, cell phone size computers, small PC cases, iMac's and other similar computers (gateway profile etc, basically laptops on sticks). No thanks, not for this guy anyway. I'll keep my big truck, my clunky cell phone, and my 3 foot tall computer case.
Don't Tread on Me
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.
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.
mofoinasciiartistwannabetroll...er HI! me again. Just wanted to ask the inverse question. What if you want your computer to be big, frightening looking, with lots of blinkinlights?
I mean, granted, a modern minitower is nice.. but two or three lights just arent enough.
I therefore start the campaign for more blinkinlights.
Sun Systems are nice. Large (You have the "Refrigerator Cabinet", "End Table" and "Ottoman" form factors). Adequate blinking lights (ESPECIALLY on 6500's!)..
I want my computer to have lots of lights. I don't care if they do anything. I want my keyboard to sit in the middle of a console with a lot of dials, gauges, digital readouts, switches, buttons, knobs, and things that go "PING!" (a ping light WOULD be good, to think of it.) I want to see my network utilization on a graph led. I want to see my processor usage there, too. I want to see a red light come on each time some PFY discovers WinNuke, or someone tries to NIMDA me. I want to have one of those covered red buttons that may or may not launch a thermonuclear device. I want screens that go "zeeeeeeeerp, zeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerp" as text scrolls across it.
I already have three monitors on my desk. Wires strewn everywhere. But what else do i have? An Ultra 5, A beanie baby, and a dell optiplex. And a Dell Keyboard (at least i makes those satisfying *click*'s.). I WANT SWITCHES, dammit.
soo... any suggestions?
[notices steam rising from ears]
err.. teehee..
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.
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...
Really. Legos.
I was given the idea by looking at the original Google server in the basement of the Stanford CS department. Its case is built from Legos (or, maybe Duplos in reality... they're pretty big).
But why not start with a small form factor for the mobo+busses+limited drivespace. Then, anything you want to add on gets clicked together with another piece. Need two external 5 1/4 bays? Use a 2H piece. Build it as you see fit.
The real issue at that point is a standard bus architecture to bridge the components, but I think the flexibility potential is immense. Got too many devices? Click in an additional 1H powersupply. Need to move your CDRW between boxes? It's a "snap" (insert "hardy-har-har" here).
The drawbacks are of course heat and redundancy. Each module whould have to be self contained at the start, but I can even envision a series of holes bridging components as well... like those old hamster tubes worked. Need more flow because you've got a stack of 43 devices? Add an extra fan module somewhere along the path.
Anyway, it's not here yet, nor will it likely ever be, since it's not mass-marketable (I think). But, it would allow flexibility to grow, a small footprint and size for home users, and massive physical component compatability.
Legos were always the answer when I was 12, too. Some things never change.
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.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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.
Every time a guy gets a threesome, somewhere in heaven an angel gets his wings. --Cary Tennis
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.