"Bookshelf" Computer Wins Design Contest

aibrahim writes "Industrial designers at Purdue University win a competition for next generation computer design sponsored by Microsoft. The design emulates a bookshelf, with hardware components that are "stacked" horizontally around a cube shaped CPU. The design attempts to address hardware issues from a user perspective and is pretty cool despite a focus on DRM."

Comments

the B&O of computers and computer design

[yagu]

First of all, I'm always curious and a little suspicious when anything is a winner of a competition, "next generation computer design sponsored by Microsoft." My gut reaction to MS sponsored design is that the winner is going to be more about something Microsoft will leverage and much less about what is good for the consumer. Here's why:

Interesting design, but even more constrained in some ways than traditional computers. For my personal taste I much more prefer to put my computer somewhere completely out of sight and not taking up any desktop real estate. I'm not adding and modding so much that I need the "bookshelf metaphor" to accommodate my computing needs.

I'm not even sure I'm convinced this modular design will stem the constant support I give to friends of family when things don't work. Visually it looks simpler for managing a computer, I wonder that vendors would do any better creating truly modular and plug 'n play components for this design.

As for the DRM, from the article:

One of the greatest concerns in the computer and digital industries today is copyright, Shim says. Studies show that consumers are more likely to disregard the ownership and copyright of digital contents because such files lack the physical properties of format media such as compact discs (CDs), laser discs (LDs) or digital video discs (DVDs).

..., I think this is just plain wrong. The industry doesn't get it, and these guys aren't getting it either. People are willing and able to consider copyright even in abstract form. People who aren't disregard it in physical and abstract form. Forwarding a design ostensibly to instantiate (in the OO sense) abstract copyright products is a canard (yet another) and a trojan horse to impose even more restrictions (unnecessarily) on customers and users.

This new look is essentially a Bang and Olufsen computer -- lots of sizzle, but compared to what really could be done advancing computer design, not much new. If you're into eye-candy, this is for you.

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[luvirini]

Remember the last Microsoft designes computer MSX?

Did not do all that well.. (thankfully)

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[ParnBR]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. MSX did well, although not in the US. I don't have the exact figure, but millions of machines were sold even in so-called third-world countries like Brazil. It was the most popular 8-bit machine in Korea and Japan, and very popular in Europe and South America, too. The most interesting thing about MSX is that it was made with off-the-shelf parts. It didn't use any custom chips, and the hardware specs were open (and, if you look closely, very similar to the Colecovision). It even had three successors: the MSX2, the MSX2+ and the MSXturboR (this one was 16-bit). It is a nice machine, very easy to work with and very easy to extend.

Oh, and the MSX wasn't designed by Microsoft. It was designed by ASCII, and had its BASIC provided by Microsoft. :) And MSX-DOS looked like MS-DOS, but it was compatible with CP/M (you could even run CP/M programs without modifications, although the disks were MS-DOS compatible).

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[aibrahim]

I don't disagree on any particular point, but what I found interesting is the notion that people were thinking, or at least trying to think, in a new way about we use our actual PC's.

Not the software- the actual machine. Aside from some of the Mac Mini and Media Center windows machines meant to integrate with the home entertainment centers, this is the most different design I've seen for decades. That is intrinsically interesting.

That says a great deal about the industry, and its lack of innovation. Remember how dumbstruck folk were by the Mac Mini ? Its a laptop without a monitor, keyboard or mouse. That is what is passing for "innovative."

I don't think the Bookshelf concept is a good design though... it seems far too susceptible to failure. The parts have to be snapped together properly and you need that bookshelf to restrain the system. Also, you still have a computer core, the cube, without which the entire system is nonfunctional- and it is undoubtedly the most complex part of the system. The parent is right- its too much looks and too little computer design.

I agree with the parent that we could have much more interesting things done with "advanced computer design." The only "advanced" idea I have right now is a return to passive backplanes, but for consumers. I also want to see more happen with Plan 9, and with computers that are explicitly designed to take advantage of its paradigms.

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, I'm always curious and a little suspicious when anything is a winner of a competition, "next generation computer design sponsored by Microsoft." My gut reaction to MS sponsored design is that the winner is going to be more about something Microsoft will leverage and much less about what is good for the consumer.

Well, yeah, that's been typical of Microsoft from the beginning. Whenever the choice has been between Microsoft leverage and consumer good/convenience/whatever in Microsoft products, the consumer has lost.

Be it security (consumer "features" [read lock-in] at the cost of reduced security), convenience (phoning in to re-register your MS OS when you replace the NIC or have to reload) or even privacy (how many times does their latest OS "phone home" to MS to let them know what you are doing? [hint: opening a help-file does this!]), the winner is Microsoft, the user is the loser.

And here is the next one:
from the article:
Digital contents are downloaded through subscriptions, then arranged in each hardware attachment, which are provided by the subscription's service. ... "Because of the Bookshelf design, users comprehend the psychological aspect of ownership to secure copyright," Shim says. "It's just like owning a book."

So now, in order to enjoy any content, I have to:
1. purchase a subscription (gee, I'll bet content is limited to what deals each subscription service can get from the authors/distributors/owners)
2. purchase storage devices from the same subscription sources (and, presumably, one from each service that I subscribe to. Gee, I'll bet those are just as cheap as current storage devices that don't have any lock-in to specific providers - not!)
3. "just like owning a book" probably means that, in order to "protect" content, I will physically have to move the storage device to another physical location to play it on a different physical media device (for example, to play a movie on my 19" computer monitor, it will have to physically connected to my computer; to play it on my 42" plasma display, it will have to be physically connected to my plasma TV. All in spite of the fact that they may be networked together either wired or wirelessly. Anything else [horrors!] might actually allow me to transfer content to the Internet).

Note that points 1 & 2 above do nothing for me, they just provide new revenue streams for providers. And point 3, far from being a model that users can personalize and configure as part of their own system in this digital era, actually takes me a step backward to a pre-digital era. No, thank you!

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[PunkOfLinux]

you're an idiot - leverage can be used as a verb OR a noun

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[Tim C]

Of the four definitions for leverage at the Cambridge Dictionaries Online website, only one (the last) is a verb, and that doesn't mean "use".

Just because a lot of people use a word in a particular way doesn't mean that it's correct. Given time, it will *become* correct usage (because languages evolve), but right now it isn't and (imho, of course) it sounds bloody stupid.

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[Tim C]

First of all, I'm always curious and a little suspicious when anything is a winner of a competition, "next generation computer design sponsored by Microsoft." My gut reaction to MS sponsored design is that the winner is going to be more about something Microsoft will leverage and much less about what is good for the consumer.

Can you name any company-sponsored competition or event that wasn't about furthering the company's own agenda?

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't disagree on any particular point...

Firefly was cancelled...get over it.

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[jp10558]

I think the main problem is that I can't see the "books" costing anywhere near real book costs - $20, or even video game costs (to put it against MMORPGs and the subscription model) $60... I'm guessing it'll be closer to $100-$150 at the low end. Of course this will come down in price but it also misses a lot:

First, one main reason I like Digital media is to save space. If I wanted to need an ever larger bookshelf, I'd still use DVDs...

The worst part is with DVDs, I could buy a Sony release, a MGM release, and a Lucasfilm release and use them all at the cost of the movie. This sounds like I'd likely need to buy a "book" for each distributor, plus a subscription, just to get my movie.

Not to mention, I don't want a subscription really, I just want to buy the damn movie. One time. I might not want another movie from that distributor for 10 years!

Lastly, how portable will this really be? Will I be able to easily take it to my friends bookshelf? Can I watch in on my long flight? Will there even be portable versions of the "CPU"?

What if I want to lend my cousin Harry Potter 7 that comes out on this? Can I do that, like I just loan him one DVD, or do I have to loan him my entire collection that comes from that distributor?

I also think that to get the "book" prices down, they might try a cellphone model - but I don't have a cell phone, and I certainly don't want to get into that model of paying for crap - locking myself into a monthly fee for 2 years for one movie!

Honestly, the only way I see a monthly fee really gaining any traction would be for it to work like NetFlix or Rhaposdy - in which case, I'd only need 2 "books" at most, one for movies and one for music. Of course that would exacerbate the above lending dilemma. If I want to lend the latest Nickelback CD to my cousin, I don't want to lose all my music to do so...

In the end, I don't really see this working out. CDs and DVDs already work great for the "physical instantiation" of copyright objects. But it seems that the trend is to get *away* from that hassle of juggling discs, books or whatevers, and just have files stored on the device, or in the net. And people want to be able to use those files like they could the physical objects!

Many even feel that being able to have that file at home, on their iPod and their car stereo should be ok.

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[Xiph1980]

furthering a company's agenda doesn't automatically include removing the end user his freedoms, however THAT is generally what microsoft does. Remove your freedom to choose. for instance: I want to port to Linux ond get rid of Windows but I do not have this choise due to my work, school, society demanding me to use closed MS formats...

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[Nutria]

this is the most different design I've seen for decades.

Everything old is new again.

In the 80s, both the PCjr and some Amiga models had side expansion "busses". Back then, they were called Sidecars.

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[jqstm]

due to my work, school, society demanding me to use closed MS formats

So is it microsoft or society that is removing your freedom?

It's common for consumer choices to be limited by what is popular. But usually you can get what you want if you're willing to pay more. This seems to be true of operating systems.

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[renehollan]

I was going to post this very thought, but being a little more generous regarding the "sizzle" aspect.

I purchased a B&O 5500 stereo system around 1986 for the living room of my first apartment. Complete with Carver Silver Edition Amazing Loudspeakers, and a Carver amp, the whole kit'n'kaboodle ran around CA$10k or around US$8.5k. A 30" Sony XBR TV rounded things out -- call it US$10k in 1986 dollars.

Yes, I could have purchased stereo equipment for half the price that would have sounded as good. But, I was willing to spend 30-50% of my budget on "style" (rounding out the custom stereo cabinet I had made, with shock-mounted granite inlays on the top to isolate the equipment, leather furniture, brushed alumuinum blinds to match the B&O look, designer glass tables, and designer halogen lighting).

Damn, it was a fine pad!

The point is, if it shows, it should look good, and that is worth some money.

I agree that the horsepower should be tucked away in a server closet with entertainment thin clients in the living/family room. But, those clients should (a) look good, and (b) be absolutely silent.

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[Bing Tsher E]

And the IBM PC Convertible, IBM's first Laptop machine, used a 'stacked' design for peripherals. There was a connector on the back of the main CPU unit, and there was a family of peripheral components you plugged and clamped on the end. There was a serial/parallel, a video, and a printer perhipheral. Each component had the male buss connector on one side and the female buss connector on the opposite side.

As you added components on the end made, it made the PC Convertible, already a heavy monster of a machine, longer and longer. All three peripherals would add almost a foot in length to the machine.

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[Xiph1980]

Originally posted by jqstm
So is it microsoft or society that is removing your freedom?

It's common for consumer choices to be limited by what is popular. But usually you can get what you want if you're willing to pay more. This seems to be true of operating systems.

That would be microsoft's doing in respect to false advertisement, closed formats, preinstalling windows on PC's and other dirty marketingtricks...
The pc world is the only area where you really can close up stuff. In any other workingareas if your competitor built something you are always able to buy a specimen and open it up. Every product is secret until it hits the market. If you keep fileformats closed like microsoft did with all their office formats then noone will be able to communicate with people using other programs.

It's like building a car.
Company A makes the car
Company B makes the towing bar with A's specs or by taking them themselves
Company C makes the trailer fitting on B's specs or by taking them themselves
Company D makes the assisting equipment to load C's trailer

With Microsoft in the IT business it would be all company A because there's no way anymore to get the specs of their product.
NTFS still isn't fully hacked for linux users for read/write access which in my opinion is rediculous...

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[pnewhook]

First of all, I'm always curious and a little suspicious when anything is a winner of a competition

Yea I could never trust those Miss America contestants either.

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[Anonymous Coward]

Years ago - Unisys built hardware for the CTOS operating system that appeared to be modled after the bookshelf boxes IBM software came in at the time. So the design is not all that new an idea.

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/4011/ pictures/B38ServerDCXEN3MSdisk.jpg

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[jonadab]

> I can't see the "books" costing anywhere near real book costs - $20,

$20? What kind of books are you buying, pulp fiction? A semester's worth of college textbooks these days can easily run you more than a low-end computer system (think: Celeron with 128MB of RAM -- a quite reasonable system for an end user who neither compiles nor plays 3D games and doesn't keep more than one or two windows open at a time; it'll be sans monitor and sans printer in that price range, though).

Decent reference books cost even more, and the premium for getting absolute top-of-the-line is every bit as bad with books as with PCs. (For instance, a top-of-the-line dictionary can set you back a thousand bucks for the full-size version.)

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[jp10558]

And how many people at home are buying reference books for hundereds of dollars? Sure, this may be equal in cost to college textbooks, but it's marketed as entertainment. Most entertainment books are at most $25 in hardcover.

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[Achromatic1978]

convenience (phoning in to re-register your MS OS when you replace the NIC or have to reload)

I have never had to re-register via phone for a simple reload of Windows, and the only time my hardware has sufficiently changed for it to complain was after a CPU, hard drive, memory and soundcard update. I used to swap NICs between different manufacturers like nobody's business (3com to Intel to Linksys to Realtek), with no complaints from Windows.

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[jonadab]

> And how many people at home are buying reference books for hundereds of dollars?

About as many as are buying dual-Opteron systems and NAS: a tiny fraction of the home-user market. You will note that I specifically mentioned the premium for having the absolute high-end, and was indicating that it is comparable between books and computer systems.

> Sure, this may be equal in cost to college textbooks, but it's marketed as entertainment.
> Most entertainment books are at most $25 in hardcover.

Ah, I see. I didn't realize this was supposed to be the Danielle Steele or Stephen King of computer systems. I had assumed that because it won a design contest put on by a university and sponsored by a major tech firm, that it would be somewhat higher-end than that, at least in the Time Life Books category.

Re:the B&O of computers and computer design

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

I've never seen anyone use the word "canard" in a scentence when they werent describing airplane structures before. Kuods to you!.

YEY more DRM!

[luvirini]

and thus one more reason to stay away...

From my experience

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of these are merely for show, and most people have never actually read their computers.

No genious but not terrible

[hey]

With present machines if you want to add a USB drive, just plug it in. But then where does it physically sit around. On your desk, I guess. If there are many such add-ons it becomes messy. So this design sorta addresses the mess issue.

I'd like to see a standard spec for stacking (verically) components. They can be connected at the back with USB.

Re:No genious but not terrible

[ciroknight]

Eh. This design borrows heavily from the old Mac/NeXT Cube idea, and the more recent Mac Mini idea. People have already figured out you can duplicate the footprint of all three and make components that "stack" well together.

The problem is, stacking isn't really a good interface for a computer, it's best to be as freeform as possible, just in case someone wants to put their computer sideways on a bookshelf, or mount it in some odd configuration inside of their car/boat/etc.

But, then again, you could always build USB/Firewire/SVideo into the "stack connector", so that it would look seemless. No ugly 1' usb cables going from the harddrive to the computer, to the speakers or anywhere else.

Re:No genious but not terrible

[Jeff DeMaagd]

There are already a lot of products designed to stack under a Mac mini, I have actually designed and made a couple but never really marketed them. Like you say, they don't stack with integrated power and I/O connections, those have to be separate cables, so they are a bit messier. I would hope they don't pass analog connections through the row or stack, that would be bad.

Re:No genious but not terrible

[OneSeventeen]

It definitely solves the messy issue, but it brings up a new problem. It looks like you would need a 2" wide by 8" high by 8" deep space just to add a 3.25 drive. On top of that, manufacturers are forced into a single interface, that would hobble future innovations. This looks like the type of thing that should already be on the market for people who want it. Basically a better looking version of Seagate external drives, which are designed to be stackable.

It is definitely doable with today's tecnology, but we'd still find a way to use wires in the back, because with this design it looks like you could not remove, move, arrange, add things without there being some fear of disconnecting a block of devices just because you removed the items on either side of them.

Plus, it looks like there's all sorts of software requirements to get this computer case to work, and I don't think a computer case should be software/OS dependent. (but that does sound like something that microsoft would be interested in)

Re:No genious but not terrible

[DeathFromSomewhere]

The Vantec NexStar 3 enclosures stack very well (ignore the picture, the stand is removable). But if you need to eliminate some cables, these can stack 5 high with 1 USB and 1 power cable. They are a bit pricey though

Re:No genious but not terrible

[legirons]

Just look at the back of a computer to see one of the great unsolved design problems -- there still seems to be a "rats' nest" of cables behind every computer.

My PC has about 6 mains leads, for the PC, the monitor, a desktop light, the speakers, the modem, the camera charger, etc. If I had an MP3 player, or a network hub, or a KVM box, or a printer, or a wireless mouse, they would all need mains cables too. 6-foot long cables, with massive plugs on the end, all sitting on the floor behind the computer. Surely a power strip inside the computer, or mains-power-carrying versions of the standard connectors (USB, video, PS/2, etc) aren't impossible to design?

Apple have had a go (wireless peripherals, merging the monitor power/DVI cable, integrating the computer/monitor, connecting the mouse to the keyboard to the monitor, etc.)

With all the spare space inside a tower PC, and with all the fantastic connector designs that people have come up with, there must be a better solution than having a USB hub with cables to the computer, cables to the camera, cables to the GPS, cables to the external disk, and with the hub on your desk anyway so you can plug-in a USB key easily. Apple computers have got USB ports on the back of the keyboard for this, but apparently they're not enough to plug a camera or USB key into (low power warnings)

Re:No genious but not terrible

[Anonymous Coward]

My first thought was, "Ooh, they re-invented the Convergent Ngen / Burroughs B-20something!"

I don't like that stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, I don't look for a computer like that. I want to forget the "technical stuff", not have it nearby on a shelf.

Make a computer I can forget under some piece of furniture, or above a cupboard where I don't see it, and just let me use the computing power through a wireless keayboard/mouse + videoprojector. Now that would be nicer.

Computers (and OS) have to make themselves less intrusive, and DRM is also a blockroad that shall vanish, not increase, to reach that goal.

Really, I would never buy a computer like that one, I would even prefer a Dell laptop, though they are not that good either.

DRM and security don't mix

[openfrog]

What is the greatest issue facing computing today? For the users, it is security, for some vendors, it is the security of their hold on some part of some market. DRM answers the second interest to the detriment of the first. The jury who awarded this prize don't understand this, or they do, and have themselves some interest, therefore are not impartial.

Re:DRM and security don't mix

[CableModemSniper]

Please do explain why DRM and security are mutually exclusive?

Re:DRM and security don't mix

[openfrog]

Please do explain why DRM and security are mutually exclusive?

Breaches of security happen when someone else take control or attempt to take control of your machine. DRM implies someone else, supposedly a trustful party, taking control of your machine, which creates vulnerabilities or eventually (inevitably?) potential abuse from the very people operating the DRM. I use computers for managing critical information in the health sector and I don't want to end up being forced to use machines that are only secondarily useful for my purpose and designed primarily as entertainment machines whose normal functionning is dependent on some entertainment industry or industry watchdog. Wasn't Sony's experience eye-opening enough in that respect?

Re:DRM and security don't mix

[CableModemSniper]

Security and a rootkit yes, are probably mutually exclusive. Doesn't mean that DRM can't peacefully coexist with security. Look at Fairplay for instance. I don't like DRM for many reasons, its annoying, it by its existence says that I can't be trusted, but as far as I can tell the concept of DRM doesn't automatically negate, or even compromise security. A rootkit is a poor implementation of DRM, yes. Fairplay, or even the DRM on wm* files are another matter all together. Even CSS, which is a form of DRM or Macrovision. Sticking a DVD into your computer thats protected by CSS is not going to compromise your systems security.

Re:DRM and security don't mix

[tsm_sf]

I don't like DRM for many reasons, its annoying, it by its existence says that I can't be trusted, but as far as I can tell the concept of DRM doesn't automatically negate, or even compromise security.

You get it, you just don't realize that you get it yet.

Re:DRM and security don't mix

[CableModemSniper]

Let us consider a hypothetical DRM setup. An audio file is protected by encryption and digital signing to be only playable in a certain piece of software. You can delete the file, you can play it in a program provided to you. You can copy the file to various media, but the file won't play on another device because the key is tied to your computer. This is scheme is a DRM scheme correct? Its annoying because you have to use their software to play the file, and they don't trust you to not share the file with others.

Now ignoring things like a root-kit for instance, pretend that you know the only protection is encryption, and that the software does exactly what it says it does, (perhaps you have the source code to the program and compiled it yourself.) how is this a security risk? And if it is a security risk, than are encrypted emails a security risk? Its the same arrangement, only the people who are meant to get the message receive the message. I'm not trying to create a ridiculous situation here, I realize the real world will have practicalities intruding, but I must object to the idea that DRM and security are mutually exclusive. The scenario I've described is a simplified version of Fairplay is it not?

Now whether or not you can really achieve DRM technically speaking is a whole 'nother matter, as is the various other reasons for its ickyness. The only idea I'm trying to put forth is that I do not see how DRM (the concept) automatically negates security (the concept). In many ways DRM is a capability based security model. You get a set of capabilities for a given piece of media. Just not as many as we are used to or as many as we should have.

In conclusion, yes DRM is bad. No I do not believe that it is by definition a security risk. Yes I will admit real-world implementations can be security risks.

aka

[doofusclam]

aka the "Dressing up a turd" competition.

Having to change the aesthetic of the computer to hide the fact your paid for content is under someone elses control is exactly that.

Re:aka

[sikandril]

Goes to show you that these guys are still stuck in the 19th century.
Why is a book the paradigm for a 21st cen. information center?
Just so that someone can stick a huge chunk of DRM hardware in a plastic box and call it content delivery?

I want my computers to never, ever again have to encounter removable media, with nearline terabyte sized storage and online content delivery. And yes, I'm willing to pay for it, just that once it's downloaded
it should be registered under my name, like a car, and belong to me FOREVER so I can download it again whenever I want, at FULL Hi-Res quality, and play it where I want and to whomever I want.

Just what I always wanted.

[AltGrendel]

A Danish Modern computer case.

Anyone Remember the IBM PCjr ?

[ccandreva]

Aside from the chicklet keyboard, it's claim to fame was expansion by stacking cartridges on the side.A little memory here, a printer port there, and you had a few feet sticking off the side.

http://www.oldskool.org/shrines/pcjr_tandy

Sounds like the same thing with a new paint job.

Re:Anyone Remember the IBM PCjr ?

[phillymjs]

Yep, I was just about to post the same thing. This is just a modern rehashing of the PCjr. IIRC, they called the expansion modules "sidecars"-- I've got one in the next room with two of them installed on it. Here's a pic of a PCjr with a single sidecar attached.

It's fitting that a 20+ year-old idea won a design contest sponsored by Microsoft, the undisputed king of recycling ideas and trying to pass them off as new and original.

~Philly

Re:Anyone Remember the IBM PCjr ?

[Skater]

Don't forget the auxiliary power sidecar... If you had too many sidecars for the primary power supply, you'd use this to power them, I guess.

I also had one that seems to be some kind of network adaptor, but I have no idea what it is...

Re:Anyone Remember the IBM PCjr ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The TI-99/4A. Although the only actual peripheral I saw someone have was the Speech Synthesizer, the attachment port was on the right side, and the Speech Synth had a passthrough, so that assumably, you could make a chain right off the side of your desk, if you had to.

'Stacking Comptuers'

[nurb432]

Was done back in the 80s.. I cant remember what company t was now, but i thought it was cool at the time.. Not practical, but a cool idea.

You started wtih a 'CPU block' and added 'extras' like a 'ram block', video, ports..

Now the DRM 'block;, can we not purchase that 'block' ? Id prefer my comptuer to be fully functional and under MY control.

Re:'Stacking Comptuers'

[BushCheney08]

Now the DRM 'block;, can we not purchase that 'block' ? Id prefer my comptuer to be fully functional and under MY control.

That's easy. You just avoid the Windows block and instead use the Linux block or OS X block (although you'd end up with 'lite' DRM in this case).

Re:'Stacking Comptuers'

[confused one]

you're thinking of the TI Sinclair. I remember add on modules for it that stacked. But that was not as elegant (asthetically pleasing) as this one.

Re:'Stacking Comptuers'

[nurb432]

No. It wasnt a *Timex* ( FYI: TI = Texas Instruments ) Sinclair. ( or any other similar machine )

These was true blocks that you stacked together to make a computer. Sort of like a electronic lego concept.

Each block was about the size of a thick pack of 3x5 cards, and had connectors on top and bottom so they could be stacked. The bottom was just the power base, and it had a top piece to protect the connector on the top block.

Perhaps they were called blox? Or was that a kids toy..

Re:'Stacking Comptuers'

[LiquidCoooled]

The Gentoo block actually comes as a box of tiny pieces along with a 270 page construction manual.

Towards the end of the build process, you notice it starts to resemble the cardboard packaging it arrived in and you wonder why you just spent several hours assembling it.

Re:'Stacking Comptuers'

[kilikili]

Yes, I worked on computers like this in the late 80's. C3 Incorporated had these and so did Unisys. Both companies purchased the bookshelf type computers from Burroughs which later got swallowed up by Unisys. They're nice since all you had to to do was attach and detach like lego blocks. The main cpu block powered any 'book' side attachments. This of course stresses the power supply as your attachments can get over two feet wide from which you have to add another power brick. It's very convenient when it comes to replacing a part. Even the graphics card was a separate piece.

Re:'Stacking Comptuers'

[plusser]

I think this is talking about a third party add-on expansion system that was available on the Sinclair ZX81/Timex Sinclair TS1000. In theory it would have enabled you to expand a Z80A based computer with 1K (yes Kilo Bytes!) up to a maximium of 4 Megabytes (which was an enormous amount of memory in 1982 when Bill Gates said that 640K should be enough for anyone!). Thing is, I have recently see a similar system on the market at a local computer shop recently that uses the system for stacking external hard drives.

There was a similar horizontal expansion system for the Amstrad CPC range of computers, that offered greater amounts of memory, and various types of interfaces.

Re:'Stacking Comptuers'

[Anonymous Coward]

Id prefer my comptuer to be fully functional and under MY control.

I don't think this has ever been the issue with DRM since all it is supposed to do is not 'do' content that you haven't paid for the license to use. Those who produce content (like music, movies, and such) say the same thing that you just said... they want their products to be under their control (at least the rights to use them) and for users to pay for a license to view/listen to it.

Re:'Stacking Comptuers'

[Treacle Treatment]

Yea, I purchased one of those Drivers Rights Management cars and found my wife wasn't allowed to drive it. So I'm not to big on this DRM thing.

Re:'Stacking Comptuers'

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates never said that.

Re:'Stacking Comptuers'

[mikael]

Perhaps it was the PC/104 Linux Minicluster (IEEE P996.1)? (Some pictures provided).

Sandia National Labs have this interesting article on a Linux computer that is built
vertically with the power unit at the base, and optional modules which are stacked
on top of each other (CPU Modules, Dual PCMCIA Interface Modules, Hubs, KVM Switch and End Plate Wiring).

Re:'Stacking Comptuers'

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

The ICL DRS300 (I saw them in around 1988, but I suspect the design was earlier) was like this, but not quite as B&O looking. Somehow the ICL cream livery (matching the 1970's paint scheme of many of the UK councils where many of them ended up) didn't quite carry it off.

It had a Z80 in it I think and ran CCPM / Concurrent DOS (possibly as an alternative to something else - it was all a long time ago). Horrible machine. I seem to remember that the language that we were using on it didn't have working serial port access (which was a drawback when you're trying to communicate with various RS232 connected devices around a factory) so we had to adapt one from elsewhere - I had never expected reading the back pages of the ZX Spectrum manual to ever come in useful.

Re:'Stacking Comptuers'

[poptones]

It was a system firstly based on the National semiconductor COP line of microcontrollers. It was an attempt to create a "programmable block" architecture that plant engineers weaned on dedicated and fixed programmable logic controllers and ladder logic would (hopefully) be able to relate. You had a CPU/memory block and I/O and interface blocks of various types that could be 'stacked" and then programmed via RS232 from a terminal. Because it was a cop8 it didn't have a lot of horsepower but the "host" pc could compile from ladder logic, forth, etc.

Re:'Stacking Comptuers'

[legirons]

"Now the DRM 'block;, can we not purchase that 'block' ?"

Of course not. You would merely "license" a single limited nonexclusive right to be able to use it under certain conditions. Purchases are so old-fashioned in the Microsoft era -- they'd imply that you owned the computer or something silly like that!

Portable Computer?

[jbreckman]

A guy at work has been talking about how nice a small, non-laptop cube would be which essentially had the equivalent of a docking station. He wanted to easily have one computer at a couple of locations, but doesn't want to be constricted by laptop shortcomings. If they left the CPU completely port free, and relied on those book-things to get a monitor/keyboard/mouse hookup - it'd be pretty cool.

Re:Portable Computer?

[smurfsurf]

You mean like a Mac Mini? I took mine with me to my parents over christmas and used the mouse, keyboard and monitor from their windows box. That's insanely great (to paraphrase a certain someone). So small, so light. Never could have done this with my old big tower.

Re:Portable Computer?

[jbreckman]

It's close, but not quite what he is looking for. If you are going to have more than one office location and want the same computer in both places, you don't want to have to unplug the power, monitor, keyboard and mouse each time.

Besides, those extra wires sitting on your desk when the computer isn't there are would be really ugly. He wanted the equivalent of having two docking stations for laptops and just bringing the laptop around.

Basically, when you change locations you just pick up your cpu and place it at the other desk and that's it. Mac mini isn't there yet (although they might get there at some point)

Re:Portable Computer?

[walt-sjc]

While it's not nearly as cost effective, just get a removable drive. If the machines are the same (or close enough) then you basically take everything with you. Kinda like a USB keydrive except fast and large capacity, and is intended to be booted. Frankly, lugging an entire PC around (even if it is "dockable") is a pain - even if it's small.

Re:Portable Computer?

[Lehk228]

you don't need to boot from the portable drive, mount \documents and settings\ on a removable drive and you are good to go.

Re:Portable Computer?

[h4rm0ny]

How about some Knoppic variant or other bootable O/S? Depending on his requirements, this would be even more effective than carrying around a computer. You'd just have a thumb-drive or perhaps a portable HD. Easy to back-up, low-cost, not constrained by the higher price of laptop CPU cycles against desktop cycles.
Slower? Probably not really. I have a computer with 3GB RAM here, which is plenty to load most of the modules and software bits and pieces that I need at any one time. Maybe worth thinking about.

Nifty

[fwitness]

You know what we be cool to put on that bookshelf? An Encyclomedia PC! This is by far the nicest form-following function I've seen home-brewed in a long time. I couldn't resist the chance to plug it.

Re:Nifty

[hey]

This guy had a cute idea but what about the ugly cables from the fake books to the TV. And it should be in a book shelf!!!

Re:Nifty

[PhotoGuy]

Cool. One question remains:

The dude's mom is anal enough about her perfect living room, that she wouldn't let him put a traditional grey PC next to the TV, but she let's him put a hulk doll on top of the TV?? Wild.

Re:Nifty

[RichardX]

>but she let's him put a hulk doll on top of the TV

<Comic Book Guy>
That is not a doll, that is a rare and highly valuable fully poseable action figure with Hulk Smash movement.

clean design

[scr1pt0r]

First of all, way to go Purdue, I think it's a clean and functional design. If it was on the market, I'd buy it and promptly try to put FreeBSD on it. Very cool. --S

My idea...

[xtracto]

That reminds me of an idea I discussed with a friend sometime during University, it was something similar.

The main idea was a cube like the Apple computer (dont remember the model) and the idea was that, on that cube you only had the basic components (mobo+cpu) and then, this cube has at its sides USB (or firewire or even some kind of PCI-Express) connectors.

When the user buys a new device, she has to attach it to one side of the cube, say for example a CD-RW, you attach it on the top or on one side of the cube. Also, you could attach a "memory expander" where you could add more RAM. Or an Audio module (something like an audio card) or a Video module.

It sounded cool, but after thinking a bit more, it would end being an incredible beholder beast =o)

Amiga Walker

[YorgleLlama]

It looks like a horizontal version of the vertical "Amiga Walker" http://www.blachford.info/computer/walker/walker.h tml It was never functional as intended, but the top and bottom halves were meant to be separated and expansion modules placed in the middle. Which would make the top and bottom the equivalent to the bookends...

Hot Swap

[oyenstikker]

The bookends create a loop. Split the books to the left of the cd rom drive, pull it out, put a dvd drive in, and push it back together. Mount the dvd drive. Of course, Windows crashes when you do this (just like with Cardbus), but every other OS is okay with it.

Re:Hot Swap

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you not have made your comment without the trolling? Or was the whole comment just an excuse to get a stupid little cheap shot at windows?

For the record, I just swapped out my DVD burner for an extra battery in my laptop not ten minutes ago, and windows didn't so much as complain, much less crash. Maybe if you didn't buy dirt cheap hardware, you wouldn't have such problems.

MS sponsored?

[renrutal]

The Microsoft sponsored design is a Mac Mini, a Nintendo Revolution, a Toaster and a Bookshelf?

I know the Xbox360 power supply can be a nice bread heater, so they have the toaster market covered, but does MS have competition in the digital boockshelf market?

"Probably won an award"

[Council]

The book The Design of Everyday Things discusses horrible design decisions in appliances, doors, locks, gadgets, computers, and basically anything with a user interface. The book shows how the same mistakes are made over and over by each new designer, issues of user interfaces as simple as buttons and levers, which many engineers know little to nothing about.

In this book, the author repeatedly criticizes designs with the phrase "It probably won an award." He attacks design awards as being given out to aesthetically pleasing or structurally innovative designs, but without sufficient consideration and testing by people who actually have to use the device.

Re:"Probably won an award"

[Mattintosh]

You mean like how no A/C system in any car has a good design?

Seriously. Why the hell can't I have both the dashboard and the defrost vents open at the same time? Or all three (dashboard, defrost, floor)? Why can't I run the air up onto the defrost vents without the fricking A/C compressor kicking on? Sometimes you just want to melt ice, not defog.

Yeah, I've kinda noticed that most user interfaces suck, even in everyday and accepted situations.

Re:"Probably won an award"

[JasontheMason]

I'll agree with that. (Nice plug for the book, BTW, for a minute I thought I was reading the back cover or something.) I'll go a step further, however, and take a moment to demonstrate reasons for scorn.

Let's look at the vertical, slot-loading optical drive. Yes, folks, every time you want to insert a disc, you will peer closely at the drive to see which way the letters are and then insert the disk properly. After doing this a few times, you will notice a small, white arrow pointing to the top of the disk. Wait, does it point to the top of the disk or the top of the drive? Does it mean that the disc goes with the label side towards the arrow or that the top goes the way the arrow points? A well designed product (such as most horizontal drives or even vertical trayloaders) make it reasonably obvious which way things go - good natural mapping.

Now let's say I want to add or remove a piece of hardware. Can I hotplug it? Don't even bother building something like this if you can't. It's designed to look like a bookshelf and people will expect it to behave similarly and allow any piece (ok, maybe not the CPU) to be added or removed at whim. It's design, by intent, invites change. Now assume I *can* hotplug it. Great - now can I just pull the drive out or do I have to unlatch it somehow first? Where's the latch button? (Pure speculation, but it's probably very artfully designed - small and black on the black part somewhere. Maybe it's marked.)

I will congratulate the designers for making sure the connectors on the devices are fairly obviously dissimilar from side to side, providing physical constraint as to "right-side up". I will not dwell too much on that fact, however, because from what I can see of their mockup image (warning: big image) the connectors are mirrored from one side to the other. In other words, either 1) devices designed for one side will not fit on the other side, or 2) if devices may be flipped to fit either side, then the lights and controls also reverse position. Harping on the optical drive for a moment, it would be even more confusing to reconfigure and then be habitually putting a CD in upside down.

And of course we must have my $0.02 on DRM - their model will mess with people's heads. If you call it a computer, people will expect it to operate and be capable of what their assumption of 'computer' is and they will use it based on their assumptions of how a computer is supposed to work. Having different rights to different devices will drive people nuts. It's all the same computer, why doesn't this hard drive let me do this when this other drive will? Why does it matter whether I rented this DVD from MegaMovie or this whole series on harddisk from ZipTV? Actually, that's pure speculation again - hopefully it won't matter, but I'd bet it will.

JtM

other winner

[dotpavan]

I think it is the same sompetition, where an Indian (from Bangalore) won $50,000 for a comp named "schoolpak", more info on the competition can be found http://www.startsomethingpc.com>here

Copying Apple...yet again.

[ScooterComputer]

I have a coffee table book that explores the history of Apple's Advanced Design Group, and it has photographs of a prototype Apple 'puter that worked around the "bookshelf" paradigm. That would have been back in the early Nineties...

I'll see if I can't dig it up for more info (and maybe some pics).

Re:'Stacking Computers'

[Anonymous Coward]

In the early-to-mid 1980's, Burroughs had a gray, cube-shaped desktop system called the B20, with system expansion modules (i.e. color video, disk drives) flush-mounted to the side. It ran a multi-user OS called BTOS; there was also CTOS, but I don't know what features made them different. We used B20s in Air Force Accounting and Finance Offices for word processing, spreadsheets, and graphics creation, until Sperry PCs appeared. B20s also ran an addictive game called "Rats." :-)

Side note: Burroughs merged with Sperry to form Unisys.

Looks like a Mac

[Walzmyn]

Dosen't that thing look like something Mac would build?

Hasn't Mickysoft been chasing Mac ever Bill first got started?

Environment vs. Cube

[webmistressrachel]

I can't believe that while computers could cut down on unnecessary transportation and manufacturing costs for digital media, Microsoft wants to introduce even more resource-hungry "disposable" hardware to help us continue to ruin the planet! This is worse than printer cartridge legislation preventing recycling - a new hard drive every time I upgrade my content???

PC slices

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of the Acorn Risc PC. The case was built using 'slices' - when you'd used the expansion ports in one slice, you'd simply add another.

Some pretty bizarre slices were developed, including a pizza oven slice! See photos here: http://www.worldofwibble.com/aboutriscpc.html

TI-99

[killenheladagen]

The TI-99 http://oldcomputers.net/ti994a.html was heavily stackable.

Re:TI-99

[nizo]

Man I miss my old TI computer. Nothing like writing usless BASIC programs and saving them on the external casette tape. Way too much fun.

Cute, but impractical

[denebian devil]

I think the idea behind it hardware-wise seems good. It would be so much more convenient to be able to have every piece be interchangable, not to mention the fact that the amount of space you have to work with would be limited only by your shelf space, and not the case size. However, I highly doubt it will work.

First, since the components are so completely different from anything that's out now, it will be difficult to get people to adopt it simply because of intercompatibility.

Second, it's operating under the erroneous assumption that computer and entertainment system are synonymous. What effect will this DRM-focused machine have on its other functions? And will it be any good at doing non-DRM related functions.

Third, to design a computer primarily around the concept of "big brother is watching you" is just a bit creepy.

Apple Design

[hotsauce]

No, Apple actually did design the bookshelf computer back in the 80's, and it was an ingenious design (separate processor, drive, graphics, etc modules). Read AppleDesign; it's hard to get but can be found in some libraries. Practically pornography, and will make you weep at the wonderful designs that never made it out of their design shop.

Re:Apple Design

[Elranzer]

I have that book. I'll have to go back and check that out...

Re:Apple Design

[kesuki]

you're thinking way to past what this design is. this design is a PC where the 'media' you plug in (hds. dvd-roms. flash memory etc) are plugged in along the bookshelf design concept. not 'hardware perphrials' DRM protected content. so, you have a 'sony' book, this 'book' holds all your 'sony' DRM content. you can take your sony book to anyone's bookshelf and play your sony content on it, but you CANNOT move the content to say, your itunes 'book'. or any other book in the unit.

this 'design' is all about 'making DRM accessable to the home user' and nothing about 'simplifying' computer hardware, if anything it vastly complicates hardware, because now if your say OS has it's own module and your media files from each company has their owem module you may need 6 or more hard drives or other rewritable media devices installed in the system.

not at all what apple had envisioned.

Phase I Planning

[tribentwrks]

Student #1 : "Alright, let's see (plays with tiny lego car while checking email on Mac Mini)... the contest is about innovative computer design, but it also needs to looks sexy ... I know! Mac + Lego's = sexy stackable computer parts that lock together!"

Student #2 : "Damn! Microsoft is the Judge though, they'll nev e r (drops coffee) ... DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMNET! DRM! DRM! DRM!"

Student #3 : "" (speechless)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:'Stacking Computers'

[fredex]

Burroughs OEM'd the B20 from Convergent Technologies (which called the product "NGEN"), along with their OS, CTOS, which burroughs renamed to BTOS. I worked for Prime Computer in the mid 1980s when they were also OEMing the same machine as an office workstation.

It didn't look as slick as this one, but it was clearly the same idea: You take a CPU module, stack next to it a hard drive module, next to that a floppy drive module, next to that a modem module, and so forth.

I expect this looks new to you young'uns.

[kahei]

Unisys had an entire system like this back in the old days -- each component just had a bus connector on each side, you started with the CPU and added boxes to the ends until you had a long grey rectangle of a computer.

Of course that was:

1) Before there were only about 2 kinds of computer in the world
2) Before it would occur to people to patent shapes ...so here we have the same thing again with a Microsoft/Apple look.

Re:I expect this looks new to you young'uns.

[slashname3]

We actually tested one of those Unisys systems way back when. This was around the time the orginal Windows 386 came out. The Unisys system was interesting but the overall size of the assembled parts took up more space than a typical tower case. This will be the problem with this setup.

From a media center perspective the best solution is to have a diskless/fanless silent front end box that talks to a backend system that is hidden in another room or closet. The big plus is you can put several front ends around the house as needed all being served by the one backend system.

More about the MS/IDSA PC Design contest

[kbrosnan]

Thinking Beyond the Box: Microsoft Hardware-Design Competition Spurs Windows PC Innovation

You can find the laptop computer in the first photo in the personal productivity section. The computer that started this article is the entertainment section.

Microsoft / IDSA PC Design Competition

(flash required) IDSA News Thinking Beyond the Box

Hardware that is stacked horizontal is so 80's

[lub]

It just reminds me of the TI-99/4A expansion slot with a string of peripherals: see the second picture on this page. Luckily, TI also had a Peripheral Expansion Box where you could put your stuff in.

Next!

Re:Hardware that is stacked horizontal is so 80's

[derekmitch]

Reminds me of the Burroughs B25 [Circa 1987]

Difficult to find a photo on the web:

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/4011/ pictures/ch009.jpg http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/4011/ pictures/dis2.jpg http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/4011/ misc-doc/Software.htm

The CPU, hard disk and floppy drives all slotted together to make one unit.

What if...

[catahoula10]

I went through the related links at the web site and found a full picture that did not need to be downloaded.(last link) And it looks like the modules fit into the trac like RAM on a main board; the trac itself is called "bookshelf".

What happens if someone accidently spilled a soda (or a beer for those of you that like beer) on the thing? It looks like liquid could run in between the snap in modules and down into the trac.

I say "No Thanks"

Original? Innovative? I Think Not...

[ppenrod]

Looked at the design.

Yep, it's right out of Convergent Technologies and Bourroughs playbook. Had 3 feet of CT box sitting on my desk in the mid to late 80's. All modular. Add components by attaching to the right and pulling the lever down to lock it in place. Great way to add memory, disk, and anything else you needed.

Downside - it took up SO much space. Oh, and CTOS did everything back then that modern OS's do today (for the most part).

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

What drives what??

[johnlcallaway]

Does function drive design, or should design drive function?? The 'modern' PC appears to be made the way it is for functionality purposes. The internal bus structure is faster than the external buses, so fast stuff goes there such as memory, video cards and disk drives. The external stuff aren't as fast, so long runs of cables are allowed.

I don't want my memory or video card sitting a couple of feet away from the CPU, with signals bouncing across several interconnects. The amount of noise in the system that will have to be overcome will surely result in decreased performance from current designs.

I don't want a computer that is designed around DRM instead of speed. DRM is not being requested by the masses, and results in pissed off customers. I want faster and better, not slower and less function. I want to be able to copy any DVD/CD to my hard drive so I can put my media on a shelf and never touch it again because the media is too fragile. I want to be able to copy it to my car/phone/media player so I can listen to it anywhere without buying more than one copy. Just like being able to carry a book anywhere and read it, I want to be able to take my music or video anywhere and enjoy it.

Any computer or system that doesn't provide the above, and CDs/DVDs that won't run unless used on an approved DRM device will not be purchased by me. Or if accidentally purchased, will be returned.

If they have come up with a fiber interconnect that the average Joe User can manage. Now that would be a great design idea.

Re:What drives what??

[Hackeron]

Sata is what 150-300mbps? not 800, but its the latency, not the mbps, and the price. An 80gb hard drive costs $40 on sata, and what, $200 with a firewire bus, a power source, the extra material, the inability to mass produce, etc?

Hell, how many companies will implement this exact form factor? -- This is just retarded.

Re:What drives what??

[Mo6eB]

Precisely what I thought. I just took one look at it and my thought process went like this

"Hmm... There are three pins connecting each one of those modules to each other. My videocard, on the other had has a whole fuckin' lot of pins. Therefore, in order to get the same performance out of three pins, the frequency must be higher.

Another thing - those things are sequentially connected to the CPU block. This means that the signal will not go directly to the device, but will travel through several devices, each of which will check if the signal is for it and will forward it on, until it gets received by the right device.

Let's suppose that I put my RAM and Videocard closest to the block. Let's also suppose, that those three pins can handle the extreme voltage and frequency needed to get data at a decent speed between the modules. Let's also suppose that the CPU is freakin'fast and everything is overclocked and liquid cooled. Now, I should have a system that enables me to play Doom1 or Duke Nukem 3D."

Seriously, from everything else, but an aesthetic point of view, that is a horrible design.

This Was Done 21 Years Ago

[MSTCrow5429]

This isn't a new idea. Applied Technologies has a similiar concept in 1985, called the "Computer In a Book." Kudos for the new peopel for applying the concept to a modern format, but it's disingenuous to tout it as some breakthrough, innovative new product idea.

See: href=http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer. asp?c=1059&st=1

Re:This Was Done 21 Years Ago

[MSTCrow5429]

This isn't a new idea. Applied Technologies has a similiar concept in 1985, called the "Computer In a Book." Kudos for the new peopel for applying the concept to a modern format, but it's disingenuous to tout it as some breakthrough, innovative new product idea.

See: APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES Computer In a Book

This goes back to the dawn of computing

[Flying pig]

I used to get told by old guys in the industry how they used to build early machines a 19 inch rack cabinet at a time, stacking cabinets side by side as the design grew. Problems came when the signal path got such that signal degradation started, whereupon intermediate cabinets had to be built containing latches and signal regenerators. This was in the days when Philips had a vacuum tube catalog...for computers. I've now lost my copy, sadly.
And that's the problem with this kind of design. Signal paths need to be as short as possible and with as few intermediate connections as possible. The design with the smallest possible CPU, short memory and GPU paths, and everything else on point connections using the highest possible serial clock speeds to minimise the actual number of signal lines and so reduce cross channel noise - that's the most efficient design, and with the rise of Firewire, Sata, USB-2, Gigabit Ethernet and optical connections, that's exactly where the industry is going.
Interestingly, this was forecast by Ivor Catt in the 1970s - though he failed to spot that the CPU itself needed to be as integrated as possible, and it is the peripherals that need the high speed serial links. Not surprisingly, given the state of the industry at the time.

Conclusion: looks nice but design actually sucks technically. Too many connectors, enforces a form factor that will often be inconvenient, and the issue is going away for other reasons (USB-2, Firewire, hardware miniaturisation)

startsomethingpc is the link with flash required

[Anonymous Coward]

The Microsoft / IDSA PC Design Competition[startsomethingpc.com] is the link that requires flash not the IDSA.

On the subject of Digital Rights and Design...

[stilltron]

Since they entered/won/recieved compensation for their design, I wonder if the design contest winners or Microsoft now own the rights to their design?

same as iPod

[DeveloperAdvantage]

The designs looks exactly the same as an iPod, except the shape is closer to a square than the long, thin iPod rectangle.

Re:same as iPod

[j-cloth]

Only in that it's white and rectangular....Same could be said for my forehead.
I think the innovation (although that's argued above) is the modularity.
As far as design, it look more like the LaCie products to me.

Apple

[hotsauce]

It was Apple.

Bookshelf Computer

[thethibs]

The "docking port" connection is cute, but it provides no functional advantage while it restricts layout options.

As for the rest--can anyone say "SCSI"?

AppleDesign

[hotsauce]

Lucky you. I got my library to buy that book, wish I had, too. Its price is mirroring AAPL right now.

If you find that picture, maybe provide a link to a scan? It was really cool...

Try this instead of -Re:Amiga Walker

[3seas]

Walker??? It always reminds me of taking a dog for a walk or something old people use.
There is not much modularity in it except for teh insinuation of the name...

try this instead, and instead of the article topic too.... I mean, what will some digital DRM media look like when it gets shrunk down and flatten out? A CD/DVD??? So what are they really saying? That they want to sell you a harddrive with every movie??? And lets not for get about whether or not you can take it with you when you visit you friends.

Granted they following is from the year 1997.... but the concept is far more valid than what the article is about. And if you want to forget Amiga, then replace its name with LINUX (my main OS's at home today)....shrug... its about hardware....

http://threeseas.net/mind/pics/ModularA.gif

The Amiga seems to be the computer that fits into all the
cracks, gaps and holes in reguard to the computer industry. As such it
is difficult to fill the wants and needs of so many when it comes to
packaging. It does seem that one thing everyone wants is
expandability.

I believe there is a workable solutions that most will find
satisfactory and perhaps as a pleasent suprise. The concept is to
produce the Amiga into parts or blocks that may be attached and even
re-configured to fit the packaging needs of many. Such configuring
abilities certainly would increase the versatility of the system as
well as allow users to expand their system as they see fit.

I think from the manufacturing and service perspective, cost
would be reduced as a result of dealing with standard packaging blocks.
Electronically, the Amiga seems to have it's Amiga primary board, an
ability add/enable board and a CPU board. The Amiga primary board would
be standard in all Amigas where the ability add/enable board is used to
add or make available additional features of the Amiga. The CPU board
of course may also contain ram expansion and scsi or IDE interface. The
variables here would be the ability add/enable board and the CPU board
and this will allow price differences with the Amiga block.

The blocks attach to each other through a slot that is
accessable from both the top and bottom of the right side of the
block (see dark gray slot panel cover on the units top right side,
back-side top for the lap-top and hidden in the set top base.) There
is a "T" pass-thru card the internal boards plug into, which has a card
edge connector on it's top and bottom edge. The blocks are connected
using what would be a double sided card edge connector. Securing the
blocks together is done by removing the light blue rubber molding,
behind which is the securing screws. This rubber molding also functions
as the feet so the tower/stacked system, or even the desk-top may be
layed/sat on it's side (preferably on the right side, due mounting
direction of the cards that internally plug into the T pass-thru card.)

The systems in the image:

Lap-Top - Though not a slim unit but more like a small brief-case,
uses the standard Amiga Block (bottom), Floppy-plus block (may contain
up to two hard-drives), Key-board (full size standard), LCD panel (near
the size of a 13" monitor.) The block on the lower far end is the
battery pack and external port pass-thru. Additionally the LCD pane

Blowing on the edge connector?

[tepples]

What if all of your PCI cards, extra RAM, etc. came in cartridges a la old video games.

I foresee heat dispersion issues, especially with AGP cards. Otherwise, existing cards would already have a plastic shell protecting the PCB. Then there's also the temptation to blow on the edge connector instead of using the proper solution of rubbing alcohol on a cotton swab.

Design judges taking rights into account? Amazing!

[ScentCone]

The jury who awarded this prize don't understand this, or they do, and have themselves some interest, therefore are not impartial.

Of course a jury from that industry/discipline dealing with industrial design has an interest in preserving intellectual property rights. Professional industrial designers, who might spend years on a project that actually sees production - and thus are spending/costing a lot of money in the process - wouldn't have those jobs or be able to do that sort of work if the people hiring them had no expectation of being able to recoup, protect, and generate income from their investment. Meaning, if Apple couldn't find any recourse against someone making perfect knock-offs of their iPod products, they'd certainly change how (and whether) they spend money innovating along those lines... knowing that someone else gets to run off and make low-overhead money off of their high-overhead innovation and design work.

It's scarcely a conflict of interest when people from that background, judging entries by people who also are or want to be in that line of work, recognize - however indirectly - that ownership of work is and should be as much of an issue as the creator of that work wants to make it. Happily, if their notion of ownership gets too much in the way of making good use of the product, people can just buy something else.

Personally, I find the project cited to be somewhat pretentious, and not something I'd really want to own. And... no one basing a real product around that design is going to get my money. They can take that into account or not, since that's how the market works.

Where are Apple's lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like an apple cube.

Forgetting something?

[Chief Typist]

Nice looking design, but it leaves out something important: the human interface.

Without a keyboard, mouse/pen, and display it's not going to be very useful. And until video signals can be delivered wirelessly, this will mean you'll have clutter.

-ch

Beavis tells it like it is: "FireWire!"

[tepples]

so fast stuff goes there such as memory, video cards and disk drives.

Disk drives "fast"? Hardly. Do people who aren't involved in, say, HDTV production or running a heavily-trafficked database-driven web site need disk drives that are significantly faster than the full-duplex 800 Mbps of the FireWire bus? Remember that if you have two hard drives on one bus, one can be reading or writing while the other is seeking.

I want to be able to copy any DVD/CD to my hard drive so I can put my media on a shelf and never touch it again because the media is too fragile.

Apparently, this system would let you do just that. You'd connect a hard drive that supports CPRM or some other MPAA approved data security system, and the "managed copy" feature of HD-DVD would let you put your favorite movies on that drive and keep the discs packed away. The copy would be tied to the drive in the enclosure, but then you could take the enclosure to any system with this sort of bookshelf-style 1394 daisy chain.

Re:Beavis tells it like it is: "FireWire!"

[Bing Tsher E]

Disk drives "fast"? Hardly. Do people who aren't involved in, say, HDTV production or running a heavily-trafficked database-driven web site need disk drives that are significantly faster than the full-duplex 800 Mbps of the FireWire bus?

I will be sarcastic and just agree with you. The PC definitely should be a dumbed down box like the television set. Special 'content creation' hardware should be needed to author 'content.' Keep the barrier to entry high enough and then advertisers will subsidize the whole process. The content creators can form an organzation. Let's call it the RIAA, that sounds good....

my design for the art inspired drm obsessed

[bobamu]

wirelss keyboard+"mouse" (or input devices to suit) large screen on wall(or on end of desk), sound output (using purely digital entirely drm compliant connectivity of course) via speakers that are tastfully integrated with the screen/room decor/where they sound best.

The actual computer? with those too difficult to understand cpu's and hard drives and magical wires, net connection? power?
Out of sight out of mind. So who cares what it looks like as long as it fits into the space it got put into.

I like artistry and artistic expression, but for something that needs to be used I chose utility over form, and this is just a set of boxes in "a style" no more or less valid than any other idea of what the correct way to make a personal computer is.

To see a real personal computer of tomorrow look what random folk are doing with mini-itx boards, putting them into all kinds of crazy stuff and making enclosures from scratch or recycling the cases from older devices and achieving something special that suits their needs and tastes. In some of these it really looks like the "out of sight, out of mind" mentality is making the aesthetics of the magic box of wires take second place to something that is simply there to be used, and it's neither pro nor anti drm.

not apple in this case

[nurb432]

While Apple may have done someting like that in the past, I'm sure the product I'm remembering was not an Apple product.

Too bad all my old BYTE magazines from the 80's are all put away or i would go look.

Re:Apple Design - Jonathan

[geobert]

It was a project named Jonathan (one of the original Open Mac projects). Here's a short desc Apple's Jonathan Project = Mac Mini

artsy design

[Inconnux]

Limits what you can do... focus on being 'pretty'
all the 'artsy' types fawning over it... is it a mac?

Re:Design judges taking rights into account? Amazi

[openfrog]

Of course a jury from that industry/discipline dealing with industrial design has an interest in preserving intellectual property rights.

What I wrote don't imply denying intellectual property rights per se, and the Apple example you suggest is as good as any. What is at stake is industrial designers treating the computer as an entertainment machine, which is a convenient restriction to some industry, but has very serious implications for all other users of computers, who are many. This is an intrinsic design issue. As far as design is concerned, their design has what is a quality for some commercial interests and what is a fatal flaw for many (most?) computer users.

Focus on DRM is necessary...

[PontifexPrimus]

...at least for this kind of design. Why? Because of its modularity. Say, I visit a friend who also has a computer like that: I simply remove one of my hard disk modules at home and plug it into his setup. All of my music, videos and other data is immediately available and ready to be copied to another drive, no hassle with copying stuff to DVD and back, just plug & play. Oh, and if the hard disks are swapable: what about games, commercial applications or other stuff that is installed on them? This new modularity concept will bring a lot of headaches to people who wish to tie information to a certain user. Currently hotpluggable external drives are not the norm, nor are they easily transportable (hassle with power supply wall warts, sensitivity to jolting movements etc.) but if they become standard, won't the sneakernet gain increased relevance?

Re:Focus on DRM is necessary...

[ultramk]

Currently hotpluggable external drives are not the norm, nor are they easily transportable (hassle with power supply wall warts, sensitivity to jolting movements etc.) but if they become standard, won't the sneakernet gain increased relevance?

I'm guessing that you're forgetting about iPods. They certainly work well for that purpose for me, at least. Then again, I've only done this on Macs... perhaps it's a bit more tricky on PCs?

m-

wasteful and wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

It's totally wasteful to make a computer trying to mimic the book, or bookshelf for that matter. One of the digital advantage is to eliminate the absolute need of physical presence of either paper or book or things like that. Now they are trying to replace relatively benign natural products such as paper and cloth with something that absolutely sinister -- plastic and toxical metal. When a book gets used, it can be recycled -- at least in principle -- and it's quite routine by now. AFAIS, there seems to be no obvious ways of recycling most of the parts in a computer "bookshelf" except by poinsoning other less advanced society. In both monetary and environmental terms, this is a step backward. Is business interest that more important than everything else? I beg to differ.

This makes me think of the "ownership society" that another moron is proposing. Both are trying to hold onto the one sin humans always have -- selfish greed. Why do morons have to make themselves look like morons?

What about the wires?

[houghi]

I like anything that takes away the 20 KM of cables that are under my desk. have two screens, two music boxes, a UPS a modem/router a mouse/keyboard (wireless, but still has a cellphone, a camera, a handheld and a radio, a headset and a radio. Oh and tvcable in and out ad a printer and a scanner.

All interconnected to eachother by a bunch of cables. Most of them also have seperate cables for powersupply,

What I would like to see is a real industry standard that would take care of this, so i would not have to buy from one company, but instead can use a kind of Lego principle with all the hardware and minimise cables.

Wireless solves some, but not all of these problems.

these people don't think

[idlake]

There have been numerous designs like that before. The Mac Mini is the lastest example, with stackable components being increasingly available.

They look clean and nice, but they don't catch on. Why? Because they don't make economic sense. A lot of the case material is between components, where it actually impedes heat flow and ventilation. Each of the boxes needs its own fan and power components. And the connector design is tricky and costly, too, compared to internal connectors. Finally, the vendors that the customer can choose from is restricted by such designs; what good is an easily expandable system if my vendor only offers a tiny set of the possible expansions?

Their Shifttricycle is similarly stupid: learning to ride a bicycle is a fairly quick affair, and training wheels already ease the transition; spending a lot of money on a weird, mechanically complex bicycle just doesn't make sense.

I think these people are entirely missing the point of good design: good design combines form with function; they seem to forget about the "function" part.

Re:these people don't think

[Bing Tsher E]

I have a nice little SCSI hard drive in an external enclosure. It's the exact size to fit nicely beneath a 'compact Mac' (i.e. a Plus or SE). Stackable components are not a new idea, they've been a part of the 'Mac' since nearly the beginning.

Re:these people don't think

[idlake]

Stackable components are not a new idea, they've been a part of the 'Mac' since nearly the beginning.

Stackable computer components go back a lot longer than the Mac (what is it with Mac users that they think that everything was invented on Macintosh first?).

But even with image and design conscious Mac users, the market for them is tiny, and most people choose non-stackable components. Which proves my point.

SHIFT tri/bicycle

[gcondon]

Scott Shim won another design award last year for the SHIFT tricycle that transforms into a bicycle.

DRM

[smilingman]

If you thought the DRM on the grand prize was scary, take a look at this
From the article:

Touchtron is a window to the future of Personal Computers, attuned to innovation at the component level. The Data Storage Unit shall either be located away from the user location or would be on the servers of Application Service Providers (ASP) to which the user shall have subscribed.

Whatever.

[MrNougat]

"... eliminates the most common problems - digital copyrights and inconvenient accessibility ..."

How does changing the physical design of the player eliminate the problem of digital copyright?

Oh wait, is it because once the content is downloaded via subscription to those 7" square, 2" thick modules, you can't move the content off of the modules - you have to take the physical thing itself? That'll be real convenient in all the places we already use CDs, DVDs, flash drives and MP3 players.

Besides that, I don't see this as a "personal computer" design. Looks to me more like an audio/video player design.

A conversation in your kitchen

[Anonymous Coward]

a computer I can forget under some piece of furniture, or above a cupboard where I don't see it,

Scenes from a conversation in your kitchen:

No, that's the toaster.
No, that's the microwave. You're getting warmer.
That's it. Pop your disc in.
No, that's not the EULA.
Yup, that's DRM, alright. Bar the doors, pull the drapes. Let me get my Glock. You want anything?

Re:iPods

[PontifexPrimus]

I would guess that's one of the reasons why they made it quite difficult to use an iPod to swap music. They don't use a standard USB cable; unless you enable certain options they won't show up as a standard external drive when plugged in; and even if you set them to this behaviour the folders with the actual music files in them are hard to find, spread out according to an internal database and renamed. Also, files protected by Apple's PlayFair can be copied but won't play on an unlicensed computer. I have no experience with iPods on Macs, I only use mine under ubuntu and win2k, but there are quite a lot of hurdles to jump; not enough to make copying impossible, but so that a casual user will be discouraged.

Pinching Ideas:Linux Digital Media Rack (LDMR)

[NZheretic]

Linux Digital Media Rack (LDMR)
by NZheretic (23872) on Mon 08 Aug 02:57PM (#13266481)

The problem with high end all-in-one media center PCs is that despite the claims of the vendors, they are either unable to scale to do all the high definition media encoding/decoding/storage tasks you need at once or are very noisy due to the cooling requirements of the high end processor.

A solution is to use a rack of dedicated relatively low cost embedded systems that connect via ethernet to each other. You could purchase the components separately over time to meet your needs within your budget.

1) Network switch : Either standalone or built into the Media storage device.
2) Media storage : Either a dedicated file server appliance or an ethernet connection to your PC.
3) Digital receiver : A dedicated component that pulls content out of the airwaves and encodes it on the fly to an acceptable format. You can have multiple receivers putting content on demand into the Media storage component.
4) Digital players : Either a dedicated component or a networkable games console that pulls the content from the media storage, decodes it then puts it out to the displays.
5) Digital processors : Either a dedicated component or a networkable games console that translates content from one media format to another and possibly mixes it with other digital content [slashdot.org].

The point is that the above system using freely deployable Linux and commonly used network standards such as http,NFS and SAMBA could scale to meet your desires. You want to record multiple channels of content at the same time? Just add another digital receiver. You want to expand your storage capacity? Just upgrade the hard drives or just purchase another fileserver.

The market potential is larger for rackable systems than it is for standalone media PCs.

The problem of non standard

[sousoux]

This seems like a cool idea but it has a serious flaw. If ever this is launched the glossy marketing materials will tantalize you with promises of future XYZ book modules. Unfortunately the person who buys it will find that after the initial launch the manufacturer is forced to change the "book" format in version 2 (or goes out of business) and you will be left with yet another paperweight to dispose of on eBay.

eliminates copyright

[hajo.daniels]

The concept computer, called Bookshelf, eliminates the most common problems - digital copyrights and inconvenient accessibility

Eliminating the first doesn't sound like being sponsored by Microsoft ...

another dumb design

[Ralph Spoilsport]

it looks | The new iMac is much more practical and forward thinking. The big space waster is the screen, while the computer components continue to miniaturise.

This bookshelf box stuff is just a waste of space.

RS

Been there, done that!

[Anonymous Coward]

Deja Bookshelf! Back in 1983, Silicon Valley startup Ampro Computers Inc. introduced a 'Bookshelf Computer' that consisted of a compact (7.3 high x 6.5 wide x 10.5 inches deep) cube-like box that could fit comfortably on a bookshelf along with book-sized expansion modules for additional disk drives and other peripheral functions. The expansion blocks interfaced to the main computer core via SCSI. The original Bookshelf Computer was based on a 4 MHz Z80 CPU running CP/M, while a second-generation model had an 8MHz 80186 CPU and ran IBM PC-DOS. Shortly after Ampro began shipping its Bookshelf Computers, Microsoft introduced a desktop software bundle it called the 'Microsoft Bookshelf.' Ampro subsequently informed Microsoft that its Microsoft Bookshelf product name infringed on Ampro's 'Bookshelf Computer' trademark, resulting in Microsoft purchasing the rights to the Bookshelf trademark from Ampro.

Wonder what AMD/Intel have to say about this

[Hackeron]

With the memory and pci-e controllers now getting embedded into the CPU to reduce latency here comes a design that not only makes the PC too big and greatly limits the industry to a crappy form factor but completely destroys low latency and performance? - If I were a judge, I would grant it the dumbest design of the 21st century - its been done in the 80s, 90s and proved not to work, are they just taking the mick now?

The speakers must be situated some distance from eachother or whats the point of stereo, most peripherals you want to actually be able to hotplug to the PC are digital cameras, mp3 players, webcams, etc that dont stack up and this makes expansion much more expensive and greatly reduces performance. Please someone tell me the upside.

Is it just because it has the acronym DRM smeared all over it?

From the font, I'd say the poster was designed...

[5plicer]

... on a Mac. Lucida Grande is a dead giveaway.

Dup!!!

[Duncan3]

This looks exactly like something I saw at the Institute of Design at Illinois Institute of Technology in about 1996... freakily similar in fact - that won an award too.

Of course that looked kinda like something I had seen in an article from the 80's....

Which looked alot like the stuff they played with tin the 70's...

Oh screw it, it wont be commercially successful this time either. Those connections last about 13 seconds around a 3 year old kid, or a clumsy adult.

MS trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

> does MS have competition in the digital boockshelf market?

No, and the reason is that MS owns the trademark on the word 'Bookshelf' (computer related) and copyright on the implementation of a computer in the form of a book for putting on the bookshelf.

In the early 1980s MS bought a company that produced a product called the 'Bookshelf Computer' that ran CP/M and was book sized (large book).

http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=989/ddj9507n/

I have a stack of ICL DRS300 computers here that were made in the late 80s and came in A4 sized parts that clipped together: K1 power supply, A2 CPU, D1 floppy drive, D4 hard drive, S1 tape drive, etc. Ran Concurrent-DOS or Unix (or both if you had two CPU units).

It amazes me...

[Xepherys2]

... that people on /. are becoming ever more dense to reality.

To pick on a few previous posts:

1. It's a DESIGN COMPETITION. Do any of you go to school? Competitions like this don't usually turn into an actual piece of retail equipment. It's DESIGN. Design? Holy crap!

2. The "bookshelf" part has nothing to do with the connectivity. Look at it. The connectivity occurs through the SIDES of the device (most of the gripes here), not through the "trac".

3. Yes, it's been done before. This is a slightly new spin on it. It's DESIGN.

4. There are situations where a design like this would probably prove beneficial. Not every design works for every person in every situation. A clunky biege case next to your receiver under your TV? I don't think so. The nice PVR-style case under your monitor? Who uses desktop cases anymore? A mini-ITX system? That can't run Half-Life 2!!! Not everything works in every place. Get over it.

Re:It amazes me...

[Bing Tsher E]

It's 'Design' in much the same way that the cardboard prop computers at an office supply store, used in computer furniture displays, is 'Design.'

In other words, fake plastic stuff put together by 'designers' who seem to have little inkling about 'the stuff inside.'

Those of us who end up responsible for 'the insides' detest those creeps. It's a shame that schools are still producing even MORE of them.

Quote of the week:

[mustafap]

"Up until now, personal computer designs seemed to be based on the issues of processing speed or performance rather than the user's convenience."

Yea right. DRM gives me convenience eh?

But it will probably give some far-east outfit an idea for a $50 Mini-ITC case. Thanks guys!

Seen it before

[Captain DaFt]

This looks like an updated version of the original TI-99/4a computer, with the modules upended.
http://oldcomputers.net/index.html

Fortunately; TI eventually decided to put all the periphials in a single case, the P.E.B., ending up with a computer system that looked a lot like a modern PC.

And Programmable Logic Controllers

[iamlucky13]

I work a little bit with PLC's, and a few of the more advanced models follow a similar concept. You have a base module with the processor, core chips, and the power supply, then you add on functionality. With the PLC's, it's typically things like extra input or output modules or high speed counters. The reason it's economical to build the high-end PLC's this way, is because the applications are very different. Some may need 2 or 3 digital inputs and outputs. Some may need 40, with some of the channels being analog, as well as additional power supplies, relays, and ethernet connectivity. They all mount to a common chassis connection to the processor module, like this bookshelf idea.

With computers, however, there tends to be a fairly standard package containing the processor and motherboard, hard drive, ram, CD-ROM, and video, network and sound cards. You generally do not see drastic changes from this setup, and when you do, it's almost always with a PNP peripheral, like USB or firewire devices.

Flyinwhitey, is that you?

[Anonymous Coward]

You just do not give up, and are stupid as they come.

                              v 1: supplement with leverage; "leverage the money that is

The above was from dict.org.
 
Ah the gutterboy that is flyinwhitey.

Re:iPods

[macshit]

They don't use a standard USB cable; unless you enable certain options they won't show up as a standard external drive when plugged in

Huh?? What's non-standard about it?

When my GF got an ipod mini, I plugged its USB cable into the USB keyboard on my creaky 1990s PC (only has USB 1.1) running debian GNU/linux, and mounted it as a disk. I even copied some MP3 files over to the ipod and listened to them. Copying was kinda slow because the PC only had USB 1.1, but otherwise it seemed to work just fine...

Expanded Use of DRM

[nurb432]

That is only part of the "features" of DRM.

Another feature is 'approved content' control. If in the future the content that you legally own becomes ' unacceptable ' you cease to have access to it. ( such as if the government decides the Ebook you bought 5 years ago is now 'bad' )

It can also enable *forced* upgrades of your 'media devices'. When the support dies so does your current content, regadless of legal ownership.

It also can ( eventually will ) prevent the use of non-blessed data at all ( be it legally yours or not ) , effectvly cutting out the 'little guy' and forcing you to use only things approved by the monopoly of the day. Sure there will be no legal restriction for the little guy to become approved, but the cost/hoops will make it nearly impossible for anyone but the big players to get thru.

Remember the story of the camel's nose? Letting DRM in the tent to 'protect IP rights' is the nose....

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Not a new idea; same old problems

[Anonymous Coward]

This idea was used in the Convergent Technologies systems in the early 80s (also remarketed by the old Burroughs Corporation as B20 systems). In production this worked well and made for fabulous demonstrations. However, this is just another form of closed system--no sizeable outside parties made modules that connected through the proprietary bus/connector--the vendor liked it that way to make more money and there was not enough critical mass/market to justify it. I believe IBM also made prototype systems with the same idea even earlier.

Datapoint Vista-PC

[funk1337]

Back in the 80's a company called Datapoint already had this design for their IBM clone called a Vista-PC. So yeah, not new.

video signals can be delivered wirelessly

[cdn-programmer]

This has been done since the 40's. This is why they make yagies. Of course the guy who designed this artsy farty system forgot to design in the yagi. He forgot a dish too. And I can't see any edge connectors. If we used rabbit ears properly designed then the CPU unit could look like a cartoon character.

How much does an HDTV camera cost?

[tepples]

<sarcasm>The PC definitely should be a dumbed down box like the television set. Special 'content creation' hardware should be needed to author 'content.'</sarcasm>

It's no different than before, as a decent recording studio will always cost more than a $40 portable CD player. A bookshelf setup with FireWire drives would likely be sufficient for editing DV (standard definition) footage, and if you can afford an HDTV camera, sets, and lighting, you can probably afford a more capable computer.

Re:How much does an HDTV camera cost?

[Bing Tsher E]

The economies of scale of the present marketplace, i.e. with ATA133 drives inexpensive and on a fast bus, keep the barrier to entry for medium-grade video and multimedia production fairly low.

If the market shifts, so that crappy external drives and 'media players' and 'Web Console' hardware becomes the norm, the volume market for equipment capable of medium-grade multimedia production will shrink, and that sort of equipment will become more unreachable by 'regular folks' and content producers without deep pocket corporate backers. If you want to live in a world where people's 'workstations' are set-top consoles similar to a locked-down X-Box, it's your option to promote that kind of a world. But it's not how the rest of us want things to progress.

As to your comment about 'what you can afford,' as technology evolves, it becomes cheaper and more accessable. The only people/organizations interested in keeping it expensive and inaccessable are people who some of us strongly oppose.

I guess if all you are interested in being is a 'consumer' what you posit is 'okay.'

Re:How much does an HDTV camera cost?

[tepples]

The economies of scale of the present marketplace, i.e. with ATA133 drives inexpensive and on a fast bus, keep the barrier to entry for medium-grade video and multimedia production fairly low.

Is ATA133 noticeably faster in practice than FireWire 800 for "medium-grade" (DVD quality SDTV) production? What about Serial ATA, which Addonics is marketing as external? If a sufficiently fast external bus becomes common, the economies of scale might well shift to this sort of bus.

If you want to live in a world where people's 'workstations' are set-top consoles similar to a locked-down X-Box, it's your option to promote that kind of a world.

Would a world where people's "workstations" are set-top consoles similar to an Xbox 360 development system be a bad idea?

As to your comment about 'what you can afford,' as technology evolves, it becomes cheaper and more accessable.

My question related to whether carts (data storage systems) are being put before horses (HDTV cameras and HD-friendly lighting).

Re:iPods

[PontifexPrimus]

What I meant is that the connector socket on the iPod side is not a standard USB type. Instead of using a standardized USB (or mini-USB) socket together with a standardized stereo line out Apple created their own version. That means that you have to take your cable with you if you want to hook up your iPod since none of the standard USB cables will fit.

PC104 uses vertical stacking...

[dextromulous]

... unfortunately it looks ugly.

It has however, have a standard spec: http://www.pc104.org/technology/PDF/PC104%20Spec%2 0v2_5.pdf
and has been around for quite some time (1992 by the looks of that document)

Random pictures for the uninitiated:

• http://www.ncsu.edu/stud_orgs/ar/images/pc104.jpg
• http://symmetry.com.au/symres/index_files/image012 .jpg
• http://eri.ca.sandia.gov/eri/pics/stack3.jpg

sun was working on something much more innovative

[richlv]

i can not find the information right now, but they had some usa funded research about computer where you just throw parts in a box and they communicate with short distance radio waves.
removes all slots, thus requiring less space.
i haven't heard anything more about that, though.

Motorola PowerStack redu

[Kevin Burtch]

Moto did this many years ago with the PowerStack:
http://www.corestore.org/Mvc-002s.jpg
http://www.corestore.org/powerstack.jpg

The bottom unit is the main computer (CPU, boot drives, etc.), the upper unit is a media expansion (more drives of various types), and I believe there were other expansion units available as well (with a cover plate above it to make it look nice). You could stack up and up and up, taking up the same footprint as a base unit - unlike the design in the article, where it stacks out to the sides and has a limited range.

Granted, I didn't read the article - I'm merely catching up on my /. reading - so I don't know where the DRM reference comes in, but the modular/stackable design is definitely nothing new.