Slashdot Mirror
Via Debuts Mini-ITX 2.0
DeviceGuru writes "Via Technologies has launched the second generation of its signature mini-motherboard standard. Mini-ITX 2.0, an evolutionary update to the seven-year-old 170×170mm form-factor, introduces new and emerging buses and interfaces such as PCI Express, SATA, Gig-E, and HD A/V, while preserving backwards-compatibility with the original standard. Mini-ITX has been a popular form-factor for a range of space-constrained hobbyist and commercial applications."
ITX is designed to think outside the box (case).
I finally updated my sig, but now it's lame.
Amazing. At first I was wondering if the 45-degree offset component would allow good airflow, thinking it is the processor, but it is not.
After downloading the Image Kit I noticed that the processor is actually the little tiny component with "nano" stamped on it near the top right side of the board.
Kriston
The reason they use crappy chipsets is because they're cheaper than the good stuff, and Mini-ITX is primarily about money, secondly about size.
I mostly stopped caring about Mini-ITX when I realized I could gut a low-end laptop for less money and better performance than Via's offerings. Their prices just aren't in line with my perception of value. There are also several alternatives on the market, most of them based on Intel mobile chipsets, like the Arcom Apollo.
If I wanted something even smaller, there's the Gumstix/Netstix. This Mini-ITX 2.0 seems like a whole lotta nothing, too late to market, too costly to care.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Actually, if the chipsets were any decent, people would build file servers around them. The biggest (*rimshot*) thing going for Mini-ITX is the low power consumption. If I could replace my two home servers with smaller machines that draw a third of the power, yet can adequately serve my media and backup needs, I would spend the money.
The problem is Mini-ITX does everything poorly. Terrible performance, overpriced accessories, usually lots of modding work to get things fitted, and you have to pay a premium for the privilege of being mediocre.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Yes.
Why? The PS/2 ports are only useful for using a PS/2 KVM which are cheap and common.
There are MANY devices that only work with RS-232 ports. USB converts are on the whole junk and not very reliable.
You will see these mini-ITX boards used a lot in embedded systems so yea I will lose the PS/2 port any day but please keep the come and lpt ports.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I am also in the "no PS/2, but please leave 1 serial port" camp. For a linux box (and what better use for ITX is there?), it's really nice to have serial console support so that you don't have to ever hook up a keyboard and monitor. It's even better if the BIOS supports serial console redirection, so that you can even edit bios settings over the serial interface.
Until the BIOS guys come up with a way to do serial console over USB (which wouldn't be too hard really), I'd like the serial port to stay.
11*43+456^2
That's frightening. that you need the openchrome video driver to get SD video playable. These things have no chance in hell to play any HD video on them then.
Why are they offering HD outputs whn the board cant ever hope to play HD content?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm not going anywhere near saturating full gig-e, but 50-60MB/s (hard drive limited minus some network overhead) isn't unlikely. I'm not using a $20 bargin bin 5-port switch (I got a 16-port GigE D-link now), but even back when I was I still saw decent rates. I'll be interested to see if/how this changes tomorrow, as I just ordered 1.5TB of storage prompted by a Newegg special (it's been long overdue, even if it's overkill for the moment - I still have to micromanage the remaining space on my current disks), and the 750GB/32MB Samsungs reportedly transfer in the 90MB/s (!!) range thanks to stupidly dense platters. At that point it doesn't matter at all since the receiving computer's drive isn't fast enough.
It's not the frequency of installation, it's just a matter of how long each one takes. Whether it's daily or annually, I still have to wait around for way too long when I'm doing it, and for those hefty installs, it's usually because it's something I need RIGHT NOW so waiting is a huge pita if not a serious problem.
Also, you have to consider the seek times on hard drives versus a DVD drive. That's the big gain, not the maximum data throughput. Even if both the DVD and hard drive were limited to 20MB/s, I'd still have a seek time better by probably two orders of magnitude. For Photoshop, games, and other big installs that have thousands of tiny files for textures or whatever, it's the seek time that kills the transfer speed. However if I alleviate that issue by ripping the disc to an ISO on my hard drive (and I do), a lot of that performance gain is lost if I throw it through a network bottleneck.
Truth be told, it's largely overkill for my needs. But when I was setting it up, I had a little extra to spend and wanted it to be decently future-proof. Back to the original topic here, I had tried doing this on an EPIA board but the network controller was uselessly slow (by my standards) and as it's only got one PCI slot, a cheap-but-not-crap GigE card and a SATA board aren't both options.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?