Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AMD Hardware

AMD Ships First DTX Form Factor Prototypes 134

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the size-matters dept.
MojoKid writes "When AMD first revealed their plans for the DTX open industry standard, the intent of that early briefing was to explain AMD's vision for interoperable small form factor systems. Today AMD provided more details and a specific design example of the DTX small form-factor standard. This HotHardware article showcases a prototype system built on a low power AMD Athlon 64 BE-2350 processor and 690G chipset motherboard with integrated graphics. Maybe the HTPC just took a small step toward platform standardization?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Ships First DTX Form Factor Prototypes More

AMD Ships First DTX Form Factor Prototypes

Comments Filter:
  • Here are some good shots of the chassis layout, from the article: http://www.hothardware.com/articles/AMD_DTX_Sneak_Peek/?page=3/ [hothardware.com]
  • I'm of the opinion that they should go taller and slimmer. I like the size/distribution of the Shuttle SFF. This has a very large footprint for not having a place for a expansion slot graphics solution.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by trolltalk.com ( 1108067 )

      > "I'm of the opinion that they should go taller and slimmer. I like the size/distribution of the Shuttle SFF. This has a very large footprint for not having a place for a expansion slot graphics solution."

      So do like everyone did with the original desktops - turn them on their ends ...

      For the first decade, nobody had towers unless they made them themselves ...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by hedwards ( 940851 )
      I don't think that these are really meant to be lain pizza box style on a desk. I had a couple of old Alphas which were similarly shaped, and similarly quite tiny. If you didn't stand them up on their side they would overheat in about 15 minutes, if you stood them on their sides, the lasted about an hour in a small poorly ventilated room.

      Small form factor computing, requires a large amount of cooling, the most efficient way is almost invariably to just allow for convection to do most of the work.

      The old sch

      • I don't think that these are really meant to be lain pizza box style on a desk

        I don't think you took a good look at the pictures.

        I had a couple of old Alphas which were similarly shaped, and similarly quite tiny. If you didn't stand them up on their side they would overheat in about 15 minutes, if you stood them on their sides, the lasted about an hour in a small poorly ventilated room.

        Yes, the Multia specifically had openings in the side, NOT the top, so you either had to upgrade the single 60mm fan, or yo

        • Afaict most PC purchasers buy primrally on CPU speed and price with maybe a nod towards ram size. Most PC vendors therefore optimise thier systems to contain the fastest processor as cheaply as possible.

          If you want something better designed the mac pro is apparently also very good in terms of keeping itself cool without being too noisy (don't have one myself but I know someone who does). The lower end macs aren't bad on the noise front either.

          • Afaict most PC purchasers buy primrally on CPU speed and price with maybe a nod towards ram size.

            I know plenty that specifically look for systems that are less noisy. In fact that seems to be a much wider trend.

            With so many manufacturers trying to make profits in a commodity market, extra cooling and less noise is a very strong value-added point.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Alwin Henseler ( 640539 )

      This has a very large footprint for not having a place for an expansion slot graphics solution.

      If you had read the article more closely, you'd have come across this passage:

      And on the opposite side of the CPU you'll find the system's pair of expansion slots (a mini-DTX board would have only one slot). The design of the motherboard and chassis means only half-height cards can be used, basically because there is no room for a riser. The slots can be any combination of PCI Express or standard PCI slots, however.

      The pictures show what looks like a PCI-Express and a legacy PCI slot, so you can throw in expansion cards. Half-height ofcourse means that any powerful graphics cards are out. Personally I think I like the Shuttle-style systems better, but for another reason: thermal management. Those cube model SFF's with their well thought out CPU heatpipe cooling integrated with case fan, together with room for fullsize graphic cards a

    • Since these new MBs will have more power concentrated in a smaller area, I am wondering if this will contribute to cooling problems. Making the MB longer, and narrower should help with the radiative aspect of cooling. It might also help with making a more laminer flow, thus cooling everything better.
      Definitely making the MB smaller will make it harder for those large quiet cooling fans to find space to co-exist. The shuttle systems do it right with making the CPU fan hanging out of the back of the case.
  • In the pictures it's 30.5 * 24.4 cm, that doesn't seem that small. I had a mini-itx board that was 17*17 cm. Didn't have as many expansion slots though.
    • DTX is 203x244mm. The slide you were looking at showed the outline of a DTX board over a pcture of a 305x244mm ATX board. DTX is supposed to be the next step down from the 244x244mm MicroATX form factor.
  • Dual core and on video with dvi as well as a pci-e slot and a pci slot. It should also have on board firewire and maybe 4 ram slots. Also latter on pci-e x16 2.0 and pci-e x4 2.0 should replace the pci-e x16 and pci slot.

  • Platform standardization? - Not likely. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bitkari ( 195639 ) on Monday October 22, 2007 @05:10PM (#21077421) Homepage
    I doubt that this will do anything other than fragment the situation.

    BTX has been an utter failure, not because there was anything wrong with it, but that there was nothing compelling enough to shift people from ATX.

    Personally I'm a *big* fan of the improvements that ATX gave us over AT - Mostly that I'm no longer likely to electrocute myself by touching the live power switch in AT machines. Ouch.

    • Personally I'm a *big* fan of the improvements that ATX gave us over AT - Mostly that I'm no longer likely to electrocute myself by touching the live power switch in AT machines. Ouch.

      The ATX standard is nice, yes. But I was never a fan of the impossible-to-test ATX power supplies. With the old AT boards, if you built a system and it wouldn't turn on, you could test the power supply on its own to rule it out. With an ATX, if you don't get anything when you press the power, it could be power supply, mobo, CPU, RAM, or who knows what else.

      They took what was previously a nice system for singling out variables and made a mess. Though i will concede that the standardized ports on t

      • you can actually test the PSU by shorting two pins. this [duxcw.com] describes which ones. yes, it's not user friendly but you can do it.

        i havent tried this myself, and the site says "do this at your own risk".

    • This one might work (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The DTX form factor might take hold. AMD was more careful than prior attempts and just made the spec be a regular ATX card size quartered. This means that the existing ATX manufacturers don't have to do much retooling to create DTX boards. They just use the same pipeline to put four DTX layouts on their existing ATX boards and then dice them up at the end. They also made it so DTX boards will fit in ATX cases.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by carlcory ( 195521 )
      Without looking at the spec, I'd guess that you have a case of AMD exploiting the peculiarities of their architecture and trying to push "a new standard".



      Probably payback for BTX, which Intel designed requiring memory to be too far away from CPU for AMD's (on board IOMMU) requirements.

    • BTX (Score:4, Informative)

      by Z34107 ( 925136 ) on Monday October 22, 2007 @08:57PM (#21079751)

      BTX wasn't a total failure. A lot of the BTX improvements - like what direction air flows through your case - were silently integrated into existing "ATX" machines.

    • BTX was hamstrung by an incompatability with every case on the market. Case manufacturers don't want to build cases for a marginal form factor. Motherboard manufacturers don't want to build boards for cases which don't exist. Consumers don't want to buy components that are made only by a handful of manufacturers. Stores don't want to stock components consumers are wary of.

      DTX, on the other hand, can fit into a standard ATX case. And DTX cases can also fit mini-ITX boards. And there's plenty of markets

    • BTX has been an utter failure, not because there was anything wrong with it, but that there was nothing compelling enough to shift people from ATX.

      Oh, so you love this DTX prototype then, since it's entirely compatible with ATX?

      Your first sentence had me confused...

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday October 22, 2007 @05:15PM (#21077475)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • The specification is for board layout and standard port placement, case layout, etc. Manufacturers can put whatever they want on the boards, sheesh. It's got a standardized backplane, just stick a new IO shield in your standard DTX case for one that's got optical outs and TV tuner built in and you're all set. The real motivation's simply manufacturing: they can make exactly four of these boards on a standard manufacturing panel: less waste, less price. Sam

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )
      ack of a good suround sound card(Realtek doesn't cut it),

      HUH? who in their right mind would want a surround sound card?

      A good HTPC has a Toslink or other digital audio out and use real hardware for surround sound.

      In fact every high end HTPC I have ever seen uses digital audio only into the Surround sound processor/amplifier.

      • The problem is, the most popular manufacturer, Creative, only emits either stereo PCM or pre-compressed surround on the optical out.
        It's enough when playing DVD and similar format with precompressed streams.
        It's not enough for using other entertainment that produce livre surround sound in real-time.

        You either have to use analog transmission out of the PC, or switch to some other less popular manufacturer that has on-the-fly DTS or Dolby Digital live encoding (Auzentech for exemple).

        Because people keep buyin

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tji ( 74570 )
          > It's not enough for using other entertainment that produce livre surround sound in real-time.

          But, what home theater apps produce live multi-channel audio? DVDs, ATSC recordings, etc. all have pre-encoded digital audio.

          The only thing I know of that generates multi-channel audio are games. While this little box looks great for home theater (HTPC) use, it does not look like a gaming rig.

    • the lack of a good suround sound card [...] I need a 7.1 sound card with digital IO

      Haha!

      If you want digital I/O, the cheapest piece of crap built-in sound card will do just as well as anything else you can buy... It's digital, the AC3/DTS/LPCM sound is transferred completely unchanged, no matter what.

      and often, there is not enough room on the board for a tv tuner and a good video card.

      The DTX prototype has room for two half-height cards. Hauppauge PVR-150 or similar should be perfect for TV capture. I do

  • still has legacy components (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord Ender ( 156273 ) on Monday October 22, 2007 @05:18PM (#21077541) Homepage
    When are we going to see motherboards which have NO serial ports, parallel ports, keyboard/mouse ports, floppy ports, IDE ports, analog audio output ports, analog video output ports, and all of that other legacy crutf?

    All we need is SATA, USB2/Firewire, digital video, and fiber-optic audio. Such a board would be cheaper, faster, smaller, less power hungry, and less complex than today's boards. Once widely adopted, it would make troubleshooting much easier and make components less expensive to produce with better signals.

    • Re:still has legacy components (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Monday October 22, 2007 @05:24PM (#21077635) Homepage
      When are we going to see motherboards which have NO serial ports, parallel ports, keyboard/mouse ports, floppy ports, IDE ports....

      Yep, nodding along...

      .... analog audio output ports....

      Awake now. Analogue audio output ports are far from legacy - almost every non-computer speaker system on earth uses analogue. Headphones too. I can agree with your other points*, but it's far too soon to get rid of analogue audio.

      Cheers,
      Ian


      (*well I would do - I'm on a Mac here which has none of those anyway)
      • People who have used SPDIF fiber optic audio will all agree that analog audio is obsolete. Ever had a cellphone near analog speaker wire? That popping and clicking is a clear sign that the thin copper audio wire has no place in an era of cellphones.

        • Re:still has legacy components (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22, 2007 @05:39PM (#21077827)
          Yes, and anyone who has had a 100 foot screen installed in their private theater room would agree that LCD panel televisions are obsolete.

          Except, you know, that they're not, because 99.999% of the market doesn't want to pay for that.

          Copper cabling is perfectly adequate to carrying a digital audio signal with adequate forward error correction; it's adequate for carrying a digital video signal, for goodness sakes. That'll eliminate all your pops and clicks right there. It can make sharper turns than fiber, too.

          In fact, I fail to see the point of fiber other than that TOSLINK got established early on for audio already. Optical audio is pretty much one of those "legacy" connections you're so keen to get rid of, and yet one that most people don't have equipment for. The "future" (whether it's a good idea or not) is probably a copper HDMI line running to a receiver, carrying both the audio and the video. Heck, HDMI will carry more, completely uncompressed audio channels than TOSLINK can, at a higher bit depth and sample rate.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Agripa ( 139780 )

            In fact, I fail to see the point of fiber other than that TOSLINK got established early on for audio already.

            Common mode noise suppression in digital or analog line level signal wiring can be very important. Naturally, none of the current copper standards except ethernet and Midi provide ground isolation. USB and Firewire can be isolated at the endpoints but that is rare except in medical or industrial equipment. Professional quality audio equipment relies on balanced wiring of course which largely altho

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by adolf ( 21054 )
              Naturally, none of the current copper standards except ethernet and Midi provide ground isolation

              As long as we're being pedantic, I'd like to point out that IEC 60958 (aka coaxial S/PDIF) is supposed to be ground-isolated at the receiver side.

              Never mind the fact that almost nothing is built that way. I only point this out because you were seriously discussing the relative merits of balanced speaker cables, and felt a powerful desire to feed your bizarre lunacy.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Agripa ( 139780 )

                I'd like to point out that IEC 60958 (aka coaxial S/PDIF) is supposed to be ground-isolated at the receiver side.

                I actually never knew that. Of course as you point out nothing is built that way which I assume is the reason I have never noticed a ground isolated coaxial S/PDIF port. The data rate is not that high so I am surprised it could not be handled the same way that MIDI did it.

                I only point this out because you were seriously discussing the relative merits of balanced speaker cables, and felt a power

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by adolf ( 21054 )
                  Ah, ok. Then, perhaps you're not crazy... :)

                  The only gear I'm personally aware of that has an isolated coaxial digital input is an old Audio Alchemy DAC (model DDE 1.1, IIRC). The example of this that I have in my living room made explicit mention of this on its instruction sheet.

                  But, I'm not so sure that one could not just simply use a suitable 75-Ohm transformer to break S/PDIF grounds. Seems that just about anything from the conventional broadcast video world would work fine, where such devices are so

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by Agripa ( 139780 )

                    But, I'm not so sure that one could not just simply use a suitable 75-Ohm transformer to break S/PDIF grounds. Seems that just about anything from the conventional broadcast video world would work fine, where such devices are somewhat common.

                    Perusal of the S/PDIF specifications (I have not had the occasion to use it myself) shows that those audio guys knew what they were doing. It uses biphase mark code and the bit rate can be up to about 4 MHz (depending on how you count it) so transformer isolation sho

          • I DO have a 100" projection screen in my apartment. And I have a HTPC with all digital I/O and 2TB of disk space for on-screen movie selection. And, yes, I do wonder why people buy LCD TVs for home theaters when my entire setup only cost about $2k.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mccalli ( 323026 )
          People who have used SPDIF fiber optic audio will all agree that analog audio is obsolete.

          I use SPDIF - used it when I had PCs a few years ago (switched to Shuttles about the time SPDIF was becoming common), and I use it now on my Macs. I still disagree with you on this point however - how can I plug my headphones into SPDIF? And the ubiquity isn't there either - if I want to use my laptop to play music somewhere that isn't my own carefully set-up room, I'm still better off having analogue available.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by balthan ( 130165 )
          Maybe you just need better speaker cables [bluejeanscable.com].

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by aliquis ( 678370 )
          Yeah, now all I need to do is mail Grado and complain my phones can't connect optically.

        • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          People who have used SPDIF fiber optic audio will all agree that analog audio is obsolete.

          Yeah, that's nice and all, but not everything that uses SPDIF has TOSLink fiber ports. Many SPDIF devices use coaxile RCA connectors. And any one who has any serious exposure to coaxile SPDIF will tell you that in many cases you would actually be better off with analog audio ports! Because SPDIF doesn't have ANY ERROR CORRECTION, so the moment there is a glitch in the digital up-link the whole thing goes out of sync un

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Agripa ( 139780 )
            I do not particularly disagree with the points that you make however certain cells phones, and in particular TDMA transmitters like those used for GSM, are effectively AM transmitters with a period in the millisecond range which is about the worst case scenario for audio equipment at both the line and power level. Professional equipment should not have a problem (especially if proper cabling is used) but consumer equipment and wiring is prone to having severe issues caused by AM rectification and bias poin

        • People who have used SPDIF fiber optic audio will all agree that analog audio is obsolete. Ever had a cellphone near analog speaker wire?

          The moderately-priced consumer sound systems I've seen that support SPDIF don't actually do anything about that, to the extent that its a problem, since they will take SPDIF into the receiver which uses conventional speaker wire out the speakers. Its basically, for most users, a way to cut out one analog-hop and the potential quality degradation associated with it out of

        • Or a sign that TDMA signalling kind of sucks. :) Makes me glad I'm a Verizon customer.

        • People who have used SPDIF fiber optic audio will all agree that analog audio is obsolete.

          That's for sure. Only I still can't figure out why my headphones seem to work fine when I plug them into my phone, but they don't work when I jam them into the spdif out on my soundcard....

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Get your nose out of the sky and think a little bit. These are to be used by hobbyist as well as manufacturers. Why not use the stuff you have at hand as well as the newest available when you build a case for a chassis?

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by Lord Ender ( 156273 )
        People who insist on using obsolete peripherals with new computers can always use digital-to-analog converters. These exist for usb->serial, digital video->analog video, etc. Or they can just keep using their obsolete computers with their obsolete periphs.

        It's backward-looking thinking like yours that keeps the PC industry from achieving its full potential.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jcgf ( 688310 )
          usb->serial converters never work.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by amorsen ( 7485 )
            usb->serial converters never work.

            ...in Windows. In Linux, I have never had problems. My colleagues who use Windows swear at them all the time. Extra fun is had when they're out in the server room and suddenly realize they need a driver for their USB serial.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by tepples ( 727027 )

          People who insist on using obsolete peripherals with new computers can always use digital-to-analog converters.
          I already do. It just happens to be built into my PC.
    • Yep, we need ethernet. Got to be able to run stuff over the network. Especially for a HTPC.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by vimh42 ( 981236 )
      Maybe when said technology works?
    • Macs haven't had a lot of those things for years....
    • We are starting to see this on ATX boards where space is more of a premium. Lots of boards with just DVI/HDMI ports, no VGA. Seen a bunch without any IDE ports, and few come with more than 1 any more. Saw my first board the other day missing the PS2 mouse port. Still a PS2 keyboard port though for emergency/recovery purposes. Give it a little longer and it will start filtering into the standard ATX boards.
      • Well, it appears that Slashdot will not post the character for Mu. So, the first ATX in my above post was supposed to be uATX (with a Mu in front). AKA microATX.
    • When are we going to see motherboards which have NO serial ports, parallel ports, keyboard/mouse ports, floppy ports, IDE ports, analog audio output ports, analog video output ports, and all of that other legacy crutf?

      The latest Shuttle PC's don't have serial ports, parallel ports, keyboard/mouse (PS/2) ports. The video card had DVI ports. Windows XP doesn't support loading device drivers from anything but floppy, which makes building these a fascinating experience. While Vista installs as easily as Linu
      • Why do we need both USB2 and Firewire?
        Unless you do video editing from mini-dv camcorders or have a 1g/2g ipod you probably DON'T
        need Firewire. USB is slowly catching on in the video capture area, but Firewire
        is still the way to go (most DVD recorders have a Firewire connection to download video
        from dv camcorders but NOT USB).
        • I think you're missing the point, it was a rhetorical question.

          The parent wanted to get rid of PS/2 ports because USB ports can do the same function.
          The same argument holds true for Firewire. USB can do the same thing. Therefore, firewire should be ditched by the parents logic.

          Only got a PS/2 mouse? Too bad. Camcorder only does firewire? Too bad.

          If you check the tone of my post, you'll see those legacy devices are actually needed for a lot of pretty good reasons.
    • Nice idea--for SOME systems.

      Some need serial, some need parallel. Some need analog video, most need analog audio of some form (OK, essentially all of them).

      You can have a system without the legacy cruft if you like, but I don't really feel like replacing $5000 worth of equipment in my basement because of your design. I certainly don't imagine that the labs out there want to replace millions of dollars of serial-connected research equipment because of your plans, though.

    • Such a board would be cheaper, faster, smaller, less power hungry, and less complex than today's boards.

      Such a board would be nominally cheaper (if at all), no smaller, no less power hungry, and nominally less complex. THAT is why the ports are still there. Unless space is a big issues (as in notebooks) there's absolutely no reason to remove the legacy ports.

      My expensive keyboard, IDE drives, CRT, Parallel and Serial devices (et al.), aren't going away, and I'm sure not going to get a $5 cheaper motherboa

  • FlexATX (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by NekoXP ( 67564 )
    Intel already has a motherboard specification this size; it's called FlexATX.

    I don't see how a 229x191mm board is any different to the new 224x200mm board apart from the fact that it will fit in those stupidly sized ITX cases (where a FlexATX board would be about 3mm too wide).

    Isn't the solution to kick all these dumbfuck Chinese manufacturers of ITX cases into supporting just a little MORE than ITX?

    Wasn't FlexATX open in the first place, what makes DTX "open"?

    I call redundant whoring by AMD trying to get t
    • "Isn't the solution to kick all these dumbfuck Chinese manufacturers of ITX cases into supporting just a little MORE than ITX?"

      That and a standard NOTEBOOK form-factor would be nice for the consumer, but makers of expendable items don't need to care about upgrades.

  • Nice artcile, too bad... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Nice artcile, too bad that hothardware web site is so poorly designed! They need to tone down all the damn popover and mouse over ads! Makes any thing of value they would have had almost impossible to bear... I just cannot read the article with all this other crap all over the screen.

    For those who would like to actualy get some info about DTX and not get drowned in a sea of annoying ads, check out:

    The actual DTX standard site [dtxpc.org]
  • There is a great opportunity to create a motherboard that focussses on being very small but powerful. Think physically tiny but pro-gaming-capable desktop, perhaps the size of a book or a small shoebox. But AMD have just created another stupid physically large and midrange performer that does not differentiate itself from any other existing formats in any useful way.

    This is just AMD trying to get its label out there by following the herd rather than creating anything innovative or geneuinely useful.
  • I remember reading here about the new BTX for factor that was going to change everything and make our ATX cases outdated. Several years later, when I built my newest system, I saw no mention of BTX in the boards or cases that I considered, and eventually built a typical ATX based system. I never even caught mention of CTX. I guess that someone defined it at some point, but that hardly matters. Same here. So AMD has pronounced that they have defined DTX. So what? There are plenty of strange small formats for

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jcgf ( 688310 )
      Many newer Dell desktops use BTX, in fact we have a dimension 5150 in the shop now that does. But then only intel uses it and it never seemed to catch on with the homebrewing crowd, so it doesn't surprise me that you didn't run across it when you built your pc.

  • Use laptops as a starting point (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Monday October 22, 2007 @06:24PM (#21078323) Homepage Journal
    If you take the screen, battery, keyboard out of my Thinkpad what's left is 9"x7"x0.5". That's 229mm x175mm x13mm. That's just my rough estimate. If you took that form factor and put it in a case that you could open up w/o wrecking it you would have a great standard small formal machine. Mine has 2-USB, 1 S-video, 1-SVGA, 1-LPT, 2-PCCard, 1-DVD, 1-speaker out, 1-mic in, 1-Docking port.

    Seems to me that a no screen, no battery, no keyboard 'laptop' form factor in a case you can open combined with a planar you can add things to using the mini-PCI bus or just coupling it through a docking base would be the solution. In fact you could use a dumb coupling through the docking port via a flat cable and build all the expansion electronics and devices into the back of an outboard monitor. Basically you take the PC in the montor design and break it in two so that the basic PC is separate from the expansion bay in the monitor. Keyboard and mouse through a USB port or Bluetooth. With some work you could get the PC to be barely larger than it's own AC power adapter, sans drives.
    • Apple released one a few years ago. They called it the Mini.
      Laptop components everywhere.
      • I think the point of the parent is a computer "component" integrated into a monitor. It would be like removing/attaching a mac Mini from an Apple Cinema Display.

      • I like the mini mac. The issue is that it doesn't support my dual monitors. It does support my SCSI DLT7000 and all the other SCSI peripherals I have which include optical discs. Sure I can transfer to some other media but these MO discs are actually a rather good archival media. It doesn't support my SCSI Exabyte tapes and I happen to have a lot of them.

        One thing I will point out is a few months ago a friend who dinigrates Linux and Unix came over with his old 8mmm Exabyte tape which he recorded on a S
        • USB-PS/2 adapter and PS/2-AT adapter and I can still use my favorite AT keyboard on my Mac mini until it wears out.

          The biggest problem with the Mac mini hardware-wise is the lack of a video card slot and the over-aggressive styling that required them to compromise on power for the sake of cooling.

          For SCSI, there's things like this [cwol.com]. Unfortunately you'd still need to boot to something other than OS X because Apple doesn't provide a UNIX tape device... there's no /dev/rmt0 or equivalent. Even on the server ver

    • If you took that form factor and put it in a case that you could open up w/o wrecking it you would have a great standard small formal machine.

      You'd have a system that was as expensive as high-end (mini) notebooks, requires notebook components rather than much cheaper and higher-end desktop components, and can only support a very, very low level of heat/power consumption.

      Fine if you want a very expensive, very low-end system in a tiny package that isn't practically expandable, but that's not what DTX is supp

    • The original Mac mini was basically a repackaged iBook, and the current one is basically a Macbook.

      The thing is, laptops have even more upgrade and repair compatibility problems than SFF PCs, and laptops (and the Mac mini) make a lot more compromises on power than a SFF PC really needs to.
      • Well, my current Mac Mini Core 2 Duo, without dedicated video card, displays on-air 1080p without a hiccup -- barely -- but it works. And with VLC as my video player, I've been able to play any video format I've cared to play.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by argent ( 18001 )
          Yeh, the Power PC Mac mini couldn't do that, but it did OpenGL T&L in the GPU faster then the Intel Mac mini that replaced it. You've got an insanely fast little machine there, but it can *barely* (your words) keep up with the job it was supposedly designed for.

          That's the result of the kinds of tradeoffs they made to make it that small.

          It's also got a slow slow slow hard disk.

          And unless they seriously upgraded the USB ports, it can't charge even an iPod Shuffle without an external powered hub.

          Those comp
  • ...would be somthing that will fit in a VESA mount chasis and do full hardware decoding of H.264 and AVC1 from any container file.

    Given that a lot of people would want to run somthing like LinuxMCE, having to decode 1080i using a foss decoder would require somthing in the region of an Athalon X2 5000+, which makes housing it in a tiny box and ventilating it properly somwhat troublesome.

    In honesty, I'd rather not run an HTPC at all. XBMC was doing it all for me, right up until I got a HD screen and wanted to
  • It's called mini-ITX.

    VIA makes mini-ITX boards, Intel makes mini-ITX boards and... wait for it.... AMD makes mini-ITX boards.

    Standards are good, but too many of them is like not having any.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close