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

6.6 inches?

[Kumiorava]

The processor seems to be rather large. This kind of measurements have lately been seen in adult industry, not in home electronics.

Re:6.6 inches?

[ky11x]

If you consider 6.6 inches large, ahem, my friend -- then you have indeed been living a sheltered life.

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

[cahiha]

Tha Mac Mini is actually pretty expensive for what it does; you still need a keyboard, screen, mouse, cables, etc.

I don't see much of a market for these things in the long run: a low-end laptop is easier to set up, more compact, and less messy (no cables, speakers, etc.). It's also a better deal.

Re:Interesting

[treff89]

You didn't RTFP. The idea is 1) that sysadmins creating a cluster _don't need_ mice, keyboards, speakers, etc.; and 2) that the lower base price entices non-computer users. (Of course, they get slugged extra later, but it's the psychological thing.)

Re:Interesting

[roxtar]

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.

I don't think that people who haven't owned a computer till now will go and buy one which doesn't have a monitor and runs RISC OS. IMHO they will be more comfortable buying a standard PC running windows.

They will be useful for clusters (ie. Beowolf)

Technically Beowulf clusters are diskless along with not having monitors,mice etc.

Re:Interesting

[roxtar]

As well, they will be a hit with developing countries. Cheapness without the ambiguity of a white-box.

Another thing these are not at all cheap in developing countries. I'm from India. The A9Home costs 499 Pounds which translates to around 40,000 Indian Rs which is a lot for a desktop computer which doesn't have a monitor. We can get assembled PCs (with monitor, speakers etc) for around 25,000 Indian Rs

Re:Interesting

[sud_crow]

I think this is a common misconception about development countrys (aka 3rd world), barebones are around 300 U$S here, and they dont even include a processor or memory (not to name a monitor). Mac Mini is more than 650 U$S and we can get a PC with better specs and a 17 inch monitor for about 500 U$S. I dont understand why people think this would benefit 3rd world countries, its obvious that this kind of "gadgets" are for a very specific target and most of the people in this countries are not in that category.

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.

Re:Garrhh!

[Anonymous Coward]

1 inch = 2.54cm, so it's approx. 16.8x10.2x5.1cm in size.

Not really a competition for the mini

[FidelCatsro]

Looking at the specs sheet and the expected price It really is not any competition for the Mac mini, so its expected to retail for around 499GBP+vat(17.5% on top of that) in the UK (if UKP means UK pound ?, ) which is already alot more than the price of the 1.42ghz g4 based mac mini , which comes with double the ram , double the harddrive .It will probably make a great ARM development machine but i don't think its trying to compete with SFF PCs and MacMinis.
-Comparing it to a macmini is really doing it a great dis-service

Re:The whole world doesn't end by the USA border

[Anonymous Coward]

168x103x53mm

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?

Re:That sounds like a lot of of money

[oberondarksoul]

It runs RISC OS natively, which - although not nearly as popular as in its hayday - is still used by a fair number of people. Certainly they're more expensive than the average Intel, but they do have several advantages.

For instance, the entirety of the RISC OS is in ROM - this gives machines ludicrously good boot times, as well as making it virtually impossible to accidentally hose the system. It also has a familiar and easy to use GUI, using the middle-button for all menus - no menu bars cluttering up every window, and has features such as font anti-aliasing built in (since 1989).

Re:That sounds like a lot of of money

[wisdom_brewing]

exactly... when you can buy something like this:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/full_system s.html
- Intel Pentium IV 'Prescott LGA775' 3.0GHz (800FSB) HyperThreading CPU
- Abit IG-80 915G "PCI-Express" (Socket 775) Dual DDR400 Motherboard
- Onboard Intel 2D/3D Accelerated Graphics (PCI-E x16 slot for future upgradability)
- GeIL 512MB (2x256MB) DDR Value PC3200 CAS2.5 Dual Channel Kit
- 200GB Maxtor DiamondMax Plus10 8mb Cache SATA 150 Hard Drive
- NEC ND3540 16X Dual Layer DVD±RW ReWriter Drive
- Onboard 6 Channel Audio
- Gigabit LAN
- Antec Aria Micro ATX Cube Silent Case
- Antec 300W Silent ATX Power Supply
- Built in 8in1 Card reader
- Front & Rear Firewire IEEE1394 Ports
- Front & Rear USB2.0 Ports
- Front Headphone & Microphone Ports
for £400... why would you spend £499 on something like that?

Re:That sounds like a lot of of money

[sa110]

The A9home most cetainly does come with a keyboard and mouse. I suggest you check the specs of it before posting missinformation.

Re:where's the ethernet port?

[Anonymous Coward]

next to the keyboard mouse ports. there's a photo, I suggest looking at it. and specs listed too.

RTFA and all

Re:The whole world doesn't end by the USA border

[Anonymous Coward]

;) the price is in GBP and the mesurements are in imperial (used in the UK) So i think your USA stab is a bit off

some specs

[wlodek_j]

168x103x53mm in a blue metal box

400MHz Samsung ARM9 processor
Embedded graphics processor
128M SDRAM
8M VRAM
10/100MBit network
40GB hard disc
4 x USB sockets
Microphone in
2 x PS/2
RS232 serial
5V power supply, 20W power

Re:some specs

[horza]

I've seen some people trying to compare this to the Mac Mini. It's difficult to compare directly.

400MHz Samsung ARM9 processor

This will be blazingly fast as the OS is written in assembler, and is stored entirely in ROM so does not need to load from disc. My old 200MHz RiscPC used to be able to boot into windows from cold in well under half a second.

128M SDRAM

As the OS (and entire windowing system) is running from ROM you get more of that memory for your applications. The applications are far more tightly written. AFAICR the main DTP application, much like Framemaker, weighed in at around 400k.

8M VRAM

Any VRAM not used for graphics can be used as normal RAM.

RS232 serial

Nice touch as this is useful for anyone that wants to use it for Home Automation projects.

5V power supply, 20W power

Unlike the 85W 'brick' used by the Mac Mini.

Overall this is a nice system but due to the lack of economies of scale expensive.

Phillip.

MOD PARENT UP

[HG2]

Thanks :)

So there is a world outside USA border.

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?

[FidelCatsro]

2 main reasons , ARM development and Risc OS development . Perhaps also it would make a rather nice router if you have money to burn , or an internet booth type thing if you wanted.
Its really not a product your average user would want.
I really don't see why the artical refers to as an alternative to A MacMini or SFF PC , it just leads to alot of confusion.

Photos and videos of the A9home

[monkeyson]

There are loads of pictures and videos of the A9home - including comparisons to a 50 pence coin and a Mac Mini - on The Iconbar's show report:

http://www.iconbar.com/news/wakefield2005/report/

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/

But does it run...

[TCM]

...NetBSD?

Here You go

[Anonymous Coward]

6.6x4x2 inches = 0.033x0.020x0.010 rods

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 :|

Re:Garrhh!

[CableModemSniper]

Ok. It's approximately 0.625McM*.

*Mac Minis

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.

Re:This is no SFF or Mac Mini alternative...

[Tim Browse]

Never in the US but what is popular in US that isn't invented there?

Freedom, democracy, French Fries... ;-)

Re:Garrhh!

[Glock27]

an ARM running at 400mhz would outdo a pentium M at 1200MHz. Since the Pentium M at 1200MHz is about the speed of a 1.42GHz G4 Mac Mini, then this machine is about the speed of a mac mini.

OK...first of all I challenge your figures, please cite some references for a 400 MHz. ARM (Palm/PocketPC CPU) being as fast as a 1.2 GHz. Pentium M, or a 1.42 GHz. G4. Does this ARM even have hardware floating point? Most don't...

Secondly, the Mac Mini comes with a great software bundle, a ton of available software, a good (if not great) graphics adapter, and for the cost of the ARM box I could get it with 1 GB RAM and the Superdrive.

In a smaller case. That sounds worth it to me.

I doubt you'd even notice the size difference (Mac Mini is 6.5"x6.5"x2"). You and I have very different concepts of "worth it".

I do a lot of ARM development and...

[WouldIPutMYRealNameO]

This strikes me as weird.
1) It's very pricy. ARM cpus are dirt cheap compared to power or x86 CPUs, the rest of the components are pretty standard. The build cost for this machine should be less that 100USD in reasonable sized runs.
2) It draws A LOT of power. I don't think that any ARM machine I've worked with draws close to 20W @ 5V.

On the whole though, I think this is a cool idea - when I worked on a 200Mhz Xscale ARM running Debian, it was perfectly fine for web surfing, etc. Perfect for Mom and Pop if they just wanted to surf & do email.