AdvantageSix Promises a Tiny ARM-based Computer

oberondarksoul writes "Drobe, one of the leading RISC OS news websites, is reporting that AdvantageSix have displayed an in-development version of their forthcoming A9home system. Running on a 400MHz Samsung ARM9 processor, and measuring approximately 6.6x4x2 inches, this ought to be a cheap -- and reasonably powerful -- RISC OS-based alternative to small form factor PCs or the Mac mini."

Comments

Garrhh!

[Frogbert]

Can the rest of the world have those measurements in units we can understand?

Interesting

[treff89]

This new market sector of small, stripped-down PCs (a la Mac Mini) I foresee becoming extremely popular. The costs are low, therefore people who have given that excuse to not owning a computer will be happy to buy. Usage is simple, which will appeal to the same group of people. They will be useful for clusters (ie. Beowolf) as they are not made more costly by monitors, mice, et cetera. It is easy to take one and install an alternate OS on it (again, a la Mac mini). As well, they will be a hit with developing countries. Cheapness without the ambiguity of a white-box.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

> The costs are low, therefore people who have given that excuse
> to not owning a computer will be happy to buy.

This one certainly isn't. It's nearly $1kUS for a 400MHz box. Unless you were so strapped for space you had to breathe in deeply just to walk past your server rack, then this one isn't going to be an option.

I could built five 400mhz x86 boxes for the price of one of these. They might take up more room, but hell, I'd have five of them

Or one of them, and $800 to spend on something good.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

It runs a different (faster) operating system, and it's a totally different architecture to x86. The clock frequency is a completely useless figure.

Re:Interesting

[argent]

Tha Mac Mini is actually pretty expensive for what it does

Well, that depends on what you mean "what it does".

If that's "being a PC with these specs", yes. It's about half again more expensive than a Wintel PC with the same specs.

The keyboard and mouse are negligable. If you spend more than US$10 on them you're not trying. Yes, you need a monitor... if you don't have one you're looking at $100-$200 extra.

On the other hand, if "what it does" is "run Mac OS X", it's pretty cheap... especially considering the license is included in the price.

If I could have got an iBook for close to the same amount, that would have been a different matter, but those built-in screens really run the price up... and they're too low resolution, so I'd end up paying for the separate keyboard, display, and mouse anyway.

That sounds like a lot of of money

[HawkinsD]

499 UK pounds is almost $912. And you don't get extras like a keyboard.

For that kind of dough, you can get a pretty fancy Intel computer.

OK, the architecture is "elegant." And the form factor is really tiny. How else is this useful?

It's a developer box

[Colin Smith]

The mass produced machine will probably be smaller, if it ever does reach mass production stage. It'll have to be *really* cheap to make it into any significant number of homes.

Re:Hello?

[monkeyson]

Because the Mac Mini doesn't run RISC OS. There is, however, a RISC OS emulator being developed for the Mac OS, which was also previewed at the show. http://www.virtualacorn.co.uk/

It's not what you've got

[Colin Smith]

It's what you do with it.

RISC OS is just a little bit more efficient than Windows, MAC or even Linux. Where 256Mb is a struggle for Windows + GUI apps and 128Mb a struggle for a MAC or Linux + GUI apps, ITYF that we're talking 16Mb being the lower limit for RISC OS + GUI apps.

You're really comparing melons and apples to cherries.

Re:It's not what you've got

[Colin Smith]

Oh, I pretty much agree, it's technically good but it all comes down to cost, and mass production is inevitably going to make ix86 cheaper. They basically have to be able to make them for less than fifty quid, sell them for less than a hundred.

(Typed on a cheap Linux Laptop)

No market for this...

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

I'm a bit confused about what problem this product is trying to solve. It's not really smaller, cheaper, or faster than a Mac mini or other currently available "mini pc". It definitely gets points in the "neato" factor, but I can't picture many people buying one unless one or more of the points above changes. Cheers,

It's Purpose? To Make the Mac Look Mainstream

[ickoonite]

I had a look at the article and then the web site (scary, I know, but I'm British. "In Britain, nerds read TFA!"), and what immediately struck me was how unbelievably marginalised this little segment is, making Mac users (of which group I am a member) look a relatively mainstream bunch. Part of me - the obstreperous adolescent within that screams out to be different - almost wants to run join them? Isn't being marginalised the whole reason I use a Mac? :P

I was trying to work out why these people continue to use this platform, and it can only be a manifestation of that sadistic quality that is present in so many geeks - the one that leads us to defile a beautiful Mac mini with the installation of, say, Slackware 7 or Red Hat 5.2, just to be difficult, or why we tunnel PPP over SSH to create VPNs (because IPSec and PPTP are for lusers). I looked at a few screenshots, read some articles - one which particularly amused me was that which opined the lack of full and decent internationalisation (it seemed so prehistoric) - but it was somewhat reassuring.

There is still a group of individuals who run scared from the Macintosh, and who belittle those that use it, although their numbers are declining, and rightly so, because the Mac's superiority in all fields bar gaming is so resplendent ("Que le flamewar commence!"), but I like to think that having seen this, Mac users' choice seems a little more rational - at least their OS-du-jour is better than the standard (i.e. Windows). RISC OS just sucks.

So I really can't bring myself to coo over the specs of this machine. It's about as big as the Mac mini, yet:

• it lacks an optical drive;
• the processor is about as powerful as modern-day PDAs;
• it's fucking expensive for what it is;
• less RAM, VRAM, disk space, etc. but on the plus side you do get an RS232 serial port...

Call me a philistine or a cynic, perhaps, but what's the point? There are plenty of us who've got a Windows 95-era machine somewhere, and for those of us that don't but still want the same "feel", there's always KDE. So why am I going to fork out five hundred quid for this...?

iqu :s

Re:It's Purpose? To Make the Mac Look Mainstream

[Anonymous Coward]

A few points:

1) RISC OS is based more around function than form. It won't look as pretty as your Mac, but it'll be one hell of a lot more responsive.

2) The RAM and CPU specs shouldn't be compared to those needed for Windows or Linux. This thing will appear as fast as a high-end system on the desktop.

3) If you think Windows 95 or KDE come even close to RISC OS then you've been smoking crack.

Re:It's Purpose? To Make the Mac Look Mainstream

[ickoonite]

RISC OS is based more around function than form. It won't look as pretty as your Mac, but it'll be one hell of a lot more responsive.

The Macintosh user interface has traditionally always placed function before form, and even today, it is one of the premier operating systems in this regard. Mac diehards continue to argue about the Human Interface Guidelines and lament Apple's more-than-occasional failure to adhere to same. It goes without saying that this never happens in the Windows world.

That said, I'm sure you've got a point about responsiveness (although I can't help adding that Tiger has, belatedly, improved things in this regard). But there are certain features (like Exposé) where the Mac's comparative added horsepower become essential.

This thing will appear as fast as a high-end system on the desktop.

Whilst you have a point, this is somewhat bogus. If I (could) run Windows 95 on my Athlon 64 3400+, I'm sure it would fly, but fact is I don't - I want/need the added functionality and ease-of-use enhancements that later releases have brought. And with Mac OS X, Apple's done a pretty good job of keeping old hardware (like my 400Mhz iMac) useful with, even with all the eye candy.

If you think Windows 95 or KDE come even close to RISC OS then you've been smoking crack.

I've not used RISC OS as much as I'd like, and I know it had a following in education for a while (certainly over here in Blighty anyway), but I think its spartan style means that there aren't going to be many more users coming to the fold these days. For that reason, I think the Windows 95/KDE analogy is at least partially valid (in that they both look ugly as shit).

iqu :|

This is no SFF or Mac Mini alternative...

[bani]

The only reason to buy this is if you absolutely must run RiscOS. That is its only real feature.

In every other detail it loses vs a SFF PC or Mac Mini. It's not smaller or faster. It's also much more expensive.

I'm not even sure this is a particularly great ARM platform either. I've seen other small ARM systems which were similarly equipped and much cheaper to boot.

I'm not sure RiscOS really reached any significant popularity outside the UK. It appears to me this is more of a nostalgia effort much like the amiga revival projects.