Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

AdvantageSix Promises a Tiny ARM-based Computer 191

Posted by timothy from the that-looks-tasty dept.
oberondarksoul writes "Drobe, one of the leading RISC OS news websites, is reporting that AdvantageSix have displayed an in-development version of their forthcoming A9home system. Running on a 400MHz Samsung ARM9 processor, and measuring approximately 6.6x4x2 inches, this ought to be a cheap -- and reasonably powerful -- RISC OS-based alternative to small form factor PCs or the Mac mini."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AdvantageSix Promises a Tiny ARM-based Computer More

AdvantageSix Promises a Tiny ARM-based Computer

Comments Filter:

  • Garrhh! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Frogbert ( 589961 )
    Can the rest of the world have those measurements in units we can understand?

    • Re:Garrhh! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:07AM (#12604126)
      1 inch = 2.54cm, so it's approx. 16.8x10.2x5.1cm in size.

    • Here You go (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

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

    • Ok. It's approximately 0.625McM*.

      *Mac Minis
  • Now how much is that in CM?

  • 6.6 inches? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kumiorava ( 95318 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:05AM (#12604117)
    The processor seems to be rather large. This kind of measurements have lately been seen in adult industry, not in home electronics.

  • Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by treff89 ( 874098 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:05AM (#12604120)
    This new market sector of small, stripped-down PCs (a la Mac Mini) I foresee becoming extremely popular. The costs are low, therefore people who have given that excuse to not owning a computer will be happy to buy. Usage is simple, which will appeal to the same group of people. They will be useful for clusters (ie. Beowolf) as they are not made more costly by monitors, mice, et cetera. It is easy to take one and install an alternate OS on it (again, a la Mac mini). As well, they will be a hit with developing countries. Cheapness without the ambiguity of a white-box.

    • Re:Interesting (Score:1, Insightful)

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

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

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

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

      • Re:Interesting (Score:1, Insightful)

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

    • Re:Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cahiha ( 873942 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:24AM (#12604182)
      Tha Mac Mini is actually pretty expensive for what it does; you still need a keyboard, screen, mouse, cables, etc.

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

      • Re:Interesting (Score:2, Interesting)

        by treff89 ( 874098 )
        You didn't RTFP. The idea is 1) that sysadmins creating a cluster _don't need_ mice, keyboards, speakers, etc.; and 2) that the lower base price entices non-computer users. (Of course, they get slugged extra later, but it's the psychological thing.)
      • you still need a keyboard, screen, mouse, cables, etc.

        Do you really need them every time you buy a computer? I would divide the price difference by two for realistic use.
      • Thank you, Cmdr Taco.

      • Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)

        by argent ( 18001 )
        Tha Mac Mini is actually pretty expensive for what it does

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

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

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

        On the other hand, if "what it does" is "run Mac OS X", it's pretty cheap... especially considering
        • "If you spend more than US$10 on them you're not trying."

          How so? The cheapest combo I could find on Pricewatch was $16, unless you want a ball mouse.

          " Yes, you need a monitor... if you don't have one you're looking at $100-$200 extra."

          More like, "if you don't have a spare monitor just sitting around, you're looking at $100-$200 extra".

          We're Slashdot readers. We probably have access to spare/older hardware. Most people don't, though.

          "If I could have got an iBook for close to the same amount, that would
          • The cheapest combo I could find on Pricewatch was $16, unless you want a ball mouse.

            That's actually pretty good, for online. I get a lot of that stuff from surplus electronics places, and if you don't want to dig around in a bin or you don't live in a big city, that's a good deal. So, make it $20.

            "if you don't have a spare monitor just sitting around, you're looking at $100-$200 extra"

            If you have a monitor and you're using it, then you're out something like $20-$50 for a KVM switch. But you save some
        • CompUSA: Toshiba Satellite M35X-S114 Notebook, Intel Celeron M Processor 350, 1.3GHz, 256MB RAM, 40GB HD, 15-inch XGA TFT Display, 8X DVD / 4X4X24 CD-RW , XP Home, $649. Pretty much the same as a Mac Mini ($499) with LCD screen, keyboard, mouse, and speakers (another $150 or more).

    • Re:Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)

      by roxtar ( 795844 )
      The costs are low, therefore people who have given that excuse to not owning a computer will be happy to buy. Usage is simple, which will appeal to the same group of people.

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

      They will be useful for clusters (ie. Beowolf)

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

    • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)

      by roxtar ( 795844 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @08:02AM (#12604279) Homepage Journal
      As well, they will be a hit with developing countries. Cheapness without the ambiguity of a white-box.

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

    • Re:Interesting (Score:1, Redundant)

      by interiot ( 50685 )
      I predict the next generation of micro-computers will be more popular. The Mac Mini and XBox-1 can't decode full high-def video streams. The XBox 2, on the other hand, CAN handle decoding 1080p with ease, and will be small/quiet/cheap.

      (of course each new generation is better and cheaper, but I see HDTV as a clear cutoff where you can start to say that a machine is powerful enough. I can see normal people saying "if it's cheap enough, sure, I'll put streaming video/TV in every room of my house". As opp

    • Re:Interesting (Score:2, Informative)

      by sud_crow ( 697708 )
      I think this is a common misconception about development countrys (aka 3rd world), barebones are around 300 U$S here, and they dont even include a processor or memory (not to name a monitor). Mac Mini is more than 650 U$S and we can get a PC with better specs and a 17 inch monitor for about 500 U$S. I dont understand why people think this would benefit 3rd world countries, its obvious that this kind of "gadgets" are for a very specific target and most of the people in this countries are not in that categor
  • Looking at the specs sheet and the expected price It really is not any competition for the Mac mini, so its expected to retail for around 499GBP+vat(17.5% on top of that) in the UK (if UKP means UK pound ?, ) which is already alot more than the price of the 1.42ghz g4 based mac mini , which comes with double the ram , double the harddrive .It will probably make a great ARM development machine but i don't think its trying to compete with SFF PCs and MacMinis.
    -Comparing it to a macmini is really doing it a great dis-service

    • It's what you do with it.

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

      You're really comparing melons and apples to cherries.

      • For applications it's doubtlessly far superior to Mac Minis, but for a desktop I would take a Mac or an XP box over RISC OS (Or even 99% of Linux distros for that matter).
        • Oh, I pretty much agree, it's technically good but it all comes down to cost, and mass production is inevitably going to make ix86 cheaper. They basically have to be able to make them for less than fifty quid, sell them for less than a hundred.

          (Typed on a cheap Linux Laptop)

        • For applications it's doubtlessly far superior to Mac Minis, but for a desktop I would take a Mac or an XP box over RISC OS (Or even 99% of Linux distros for that matter).

          Have you tried RISC OS? For usability and consistency of user interface it used to be streets ahead of Mac, and probably still is. For efficiency it was streets ahead of everything. Mind you, relying on a co-operative rather than a pre-emptive scheduler was a major fault, as was the fact that you couldn't use the filer to explore for

      • Though you could shove NetBSD on the mini and sail , though nowhere near as fast as with Risc OS on nearly anything (it's a really great OS ) , I was just more trying to point out its an unfair comparison .
    • The two don't seem to serve much of an overlapping market anyway.

      A computer without an optical drive? For external data expansion, I'd prefer Firewire over USB any day because Firewire supports DMA transfers, USB needs interrupts so it interrupts the CPU to move data, which can slow the computer down. It doesn't have a DVI port to allow digital flat panel links. DVI-I supports analog connnections too.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • That sounds like a lot of of money (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HawkinsD ( 267367 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:10AM (#12604140)
    499 UK pounds is almost $912. And you don't get extras like a keyboard.

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

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

    • Re:That sounds like a lot of of money (Score:5, Informative)

      by oberondarksoul ( 723118 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:22AM (#12604171) Homepage

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

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

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

    • exactly... when you can buy something like this:
      http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/full_system s.html [overclockers.co.uk]
      - Intel Pentium IV 'Prescott LGA775' 3.0GHz (800FSB) HyperThreading CPU
      - Abit IG-80 915G "PCI-Express" (Socket 775) Dual DDR400 Motherboard
      - Onboard Intel 2D/3D Accelerated Graphics (PCI-E x16 slot for future upgradability)
      - GeIL 512MB (2x256MB) DDR Value PC3200 CAS2.5 Dual Channel Kit
      - 200GB Maxtor DiamondMax Plus10 8mb Cache SATA 150 Hard Drive
      - NEC ND3540 16X Dual Layer DVD±RW ReWriter D

    • Re:That sounds like a lot of of money (Score:4, Informative)

      by sa110 ( 649163 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @09:46AM (#12604570)
      The A9home most cetainly does come with a keyboard and mouse. I suggest you check the specs of it before posting missinformation.
    • Quite honestly I doubt that $900 is their intended price point. They are like two guys building these in their garage by hand one at a time (anybody remember the Apple I?) and it's a totally new (relatively speaking) approach - doesn't use any of the heavy hitter OS'es or hardware.

      The word for this is 'prototype'. Prototypes and first generations are expensive because ... well because they are (ask me when I get more caffeine in me if you need more details.)

      Heck I applaud these guys. Couple of guys set

  • some specs (Score:2, Informative)

    by wlodek_j ( 160693 )
    168x103x53mm in a blue metal box

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

      Seems strange to include RS232, given the target market and small form factor

    • Re:some specs (Score:3, Informative)

      by horza ( 87255 )
      I've seen some people trying to compare this to the Mac Mini. It's difficult to compare directly.

      400MHz Samsung ARM9 processor

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

      128M SDRAM

      As the OS (and entire windowing system) is running from ROM you get more of that memory for your applications. The applications are far more ti
  • Why would anyone buy something that's £250 (almost $500) more expensive than a Mac Mini, and is lacking the style and the compatibility?

    • Re:Hello? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) <.fidelcatsro. .at. .gmail.com.> on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:26AM (#12604186) Journal
      2 main reasons , ARM development and Risc OS development . Perhaps also it would make a rather nice router if you have money to burn , or an internet booth type thing if you wanted.
      Its really not a product your average user would want.
      I really don't see why the artical refers to as an alternative to A MacMini or SFF PC , it just leads to alot of confusion.

    • Re:Hello? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by monkeyson ( 760215 )
      Because the Mac Mini doesn't run RISC OS. There is, however, a RISC OS emulator being developed for the Mac OS, which was also previewed at the show. http://www.virtualacorn.co.uk/ [virtualacorn.co.uk]

  • Photos and videos of the A9home (Score:5, Informative)

    by monkeyson ( 760215 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:28AM (#12604194) Homepage
    There are loads of pictures and videos of the A9home - including comparisons to a 50 pence coin and a Mac Mini - on The Iconbar's show report:

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

  • But does it run... (Score:3, Funny)

    by TCM ( 130219 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @07:39AM (#12604228)
    ...NetBSD?
  • I'm a bit confused about what problem this product is trying to solve. It's not really smaller, cheaper, or faster than a Mac mini or other currently available "mini pc". It definitely gets points in the "neato" factor, but I can't picture many people buying one unless one or more of the points above changes. Cheers,
    • This strikes me as being very cool for a number of reasons. The prototype is tiny (neato). picture [drobe.co.uk] Look at the specs closely, however. specs [simtec.co.uk] Unless I'm reading it wrong, they claim that the motherboard with serial, both network ports, and video running draws under 2.5 W. That's amazing. Also, it appears to be passively cooled. This is a great set of features for always-on applications.

  • It's Purpose? To Make the Mac Look Mainstream (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ickoonite ( 639305 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @08:01AM (#12604276) Homepage
    I had a look at the article and then the web site (scary, I know, but I'm British. "In Britain, nerds read TFA!"), and what immediately struck me was how unbelievably marginalised this little segment is, making Mac users (of which group I am a member) look a relatively mainstream bunch. Part of me - the obstreperous adolescent within that screams out to be different - almost wants to run join them? Isn't being marginalised the whole reason I use a Mac? :P

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

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

    So I really can't bring myself to coo over the specs of this machine. It's about as big as the Mac mini, yet:
    • it lacks an optical drive;
    • the processor is about as powerful as modern-day PDAs;
    • it's fucking expensive for what it is;
    • less RAM, VRAM, disk space, etc. but on the plus side you do get an RS232 serial port...
    Call me a philistine or a cynic, perhaps, but what's the point? There are plenty of us who've got a Windows 95-era machine somewhere, and for those of us that don't but still want the same "feel", there's always KDE [kde.org]. So why am I going to fork out five hundred quid for this...?

    iqu :s

    • Re:It's Purpose? To Make the Mac Look Mainstream (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      A few points:

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

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

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

      • Re:It's Purpose? To Make the Mac Look Mainstream (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ickoonite ( 639305 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @04:22PM (#12606558) Homepage
        RISC OS is based more around function than form. It won't look as pretty as your Mac, but it'll be one hell of a lot more responsive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

        iqu :|
    • I was trying to work out why these people continue to use this platform, and it can only be a manifestation of that sadistic quality that is present in so many geeks - the one that leads us to defile a beautiful Mac mini with the installation of, say, Slackware 7 or Red Hat 5.2, just to be difficult, or why we tunnel PPP over SSH to create VPNs (because IPSec and PPTP are for lusers).

      For the same reason people do difficult and odd things; they can show off and show that they are interesting. If it's easy

    • but on the plus side you do get an RS232 serial port...

      But as anyone with any familiarity with Acorn machines knows, the serial port won't work properly :-)

    • Heck with the Mac, this thing makes the folks trying to resurrect BeOS with a shonky binary and some new user interface look mainstream. Heck, there's even a more rational reason to try and resurrect Amiga now that it's going to be a realtime microkernel again.
    • ...or why we tunnel PPP over SSH to create VPNs (because IPSec and PPTP are for lusers).


      No, PPP over SSH is for people who don't know that TCP over TCP [sites.inka.de] in anything less than ideal conditions is a really bad idea.
  • This story reads like someone's paranoid MRD.

  • Wow! (Score:2)

    by vought ( 160908 )
    The sound currently does not work and the machine, although faster than StrongARM speed on the desktop, crashed several times during the demonstration. There is no release schedule as yet.

    I'm sure it'll steamroll the Windows XP juggernaut any day now. People don't listen to their computers anyway, so sound is of little consequence.

    Crashing? Feh. That's just the "core dump wizard"

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

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

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

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

  • PS/2 (Score:2)

    by IceFox ( 18179 )
    Anyone else find it odd that they were going for size and yet they still included PS/2 ports? Besides being physically smaller they are two less ports that are needed these days and can be removed for sinerios like this.

    -Benjamin Meyer
  • I really do not know why supporters of the BBC Micro and its descendants still bother, given that each successive generation eventually gets buried at a crossroads, but please someone get the flaming torches and the villagers with pitchforks, and put a stake through the thing's heart. It's sad and pathetic to see it flapping around trying to get off the ground, and even if it does its chance that anything will stay around long enough to be bitten in the neck is nonexistent. It was a good design for the 70s
    • but please someone get the flaming torches and the villagers with pitchforks, and put a stake through the thing's heart

      We're trying, really! Unfortunately, we were already asked to do this with the Amiga.

      We held Amiga down, drove the stake through, and stopped to admire our handywork. And then it got up and ran away, stake and all.

      So, just as soon as we catch Amiga and recover our stake, we'll try it on this monster.

  • I do a lot of ARM development and... (Score:3, Informative)

    by WouldIPutMYRealNameO ( 874377 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @01:03PM (#12605497)
    This strikes me as weird.
    1) It's very pricy. ARM cpus are dirt cheap compared to power or x86 CPUs, the rest of the components are pretty standard. The build cost for this machine should be less that 100USD in reasonable sized runs.
    2) It draws A LOT of power. I don't think that any ARM machine I've worked with draws close to 20W @ 5V.

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

  • It's got the same CPU as the HP-49G+ [hydrix.com] calculator, which sells for about £125 in the UK.
  • The article says it will retail for 499.00 UKP (911.112 USD). That's not cheap in my book. You can get an "expensive" Apple computer for less than that. Although if you're looking for a RISC OS based device, it's probably a good deal. (The lack of 26-bit emulation kind of hurts though).

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis

Close