"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.

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.

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)