Wouldn’t consumers be better suited to desktop computer systems that mimicked home stereo setups?
Say you have a base unit with a psu, motherboard, cpu, ram, and onboard audio and ethernet. Then everything else could be sold separately. Video cards in their own box, better sound cards too. If you want to upgrade just stack it on top and plug it in. Same for hard drives, optical drives, etc. Then the consumer could upgrade without the expertise or hassle normally required, no?
One problem is that it’s difficult and expensive to move data over a long distance, even if it’s just 10". A 4x AGP port (video card slot) moves 1GB/s. This is possible and practical only because it’s sitting an inch or two from the CPU.
Same with hard drive interfaces, to some extent. There are fast external drive interfaces (FireWire, USB2, SCSI) but these are more expensive to implement than IDE (internal ribbon cable).
But there are (or at least were) stackable systems. Here is a picture of the old Sun IPX workstation. The module on the lower left, with the floppy drive, is the CPU unit. You can see the hard drive, tape drive and CD drive are all external units that can be stacked on top of the CPU. But video, network and sound are all onboard (built into the motherboard), so in a way it’s much less upgradable than a standard PC.
Don’t forget, these machines are built for the convenience of the manufacturers, not the users. At the cutthroat margins of current consumer / buniess desktop hardware, they’ve gotta be.
Also, for stereos, big and fancy is cool. For a PC, less is more. I hide the whole PC mess under the desk out of sight and the monitor is the only thing on display.
As well, the components’ size is an issue. The guts of your putative video unit are about the size of a pad of Post it ® ™ notes. The guts of an HDD unit are more like a typical paperback book, whereas the guts of a CPU are the size of a notebook. Since on of the things that makes computers “cool” is the miniaturization, putting that video in a box 100x larger than necessary just so they can stack seems like going backwards.
Most upgrade hassle is really getting the software and wiring right. And ensureing you buy components compatible with allthe others. I see no reason why putting them in separate boxes will magically make those issues disappear.
Today each of those components you describe use different and incompatible methods to talk to the motherboard. PCs already have waaaay too many wires coming out of them for my taste. Imagine the rat’s nest of different connectors and weird wires leading from the CPU to each of these other units.
And a major part of the reason our machines are so fast today is that the one-size-fits-all buss architecture of the original PC has morphed into 4 differnt busses for disk, video, RAM, and all other expansion components.
One last shot: the technology behind each of the components in a PC jumps ahead a bunch every year. Today, finding a new RLL hard drive for a PC is far harder than finding a new 15 IPS reel-to-reel tape drive for your stereo. But if you found the hard drive, you probably couldn’t find a controller card which mates to the bus of your modern motherboard. But that old reel-to-reel will still interface to the latest digital-domain amp, provided it has at least one plain old line-level aux input.
The big advantage of a rack mount audio system is that you can swap out parts. You can upgrade the CD player without replacing everything else. Which puts the “all-in-one” systems at the opposite end of the scale. You can’t give away some of those at garage sales.
But, well built non-proprietary, PCs are also component upgradable. That is: You have all the real advantages of a rack mount system but it’s not an actual rack. There is nothing magical about the physical shape of a rack.
So, just like with audio systems where you should never ever buy an all-in-one system, with PCs you should avoid proprietary systems that lock you into to no or expensive upgrades.
ye, basically you need to make sure your PC has a good case ( enclosure ). a good functional case with a quality power supply costs about $100. beyond that you’re mostly paying for style, finish quality, aluminum construction etc, but thats not necessary. the point is if you’re buying a case for less than $60 you are 95% likely making a mistake.
it also a good idea to buy components from reputable manufacturers so that if you have to upgrade your system you will be able to download up-to-date drivers or bios updates to make your hardware compatible with new software or hardware you install.
i bought an Antec case for around $100. overall its a good one, but it wasn’t perfect either. the first time i tried to use the front usb ports i broke them off they should have done a better job at those usb ports, but they did a good job on most other parts. i would buy something else if i was buying now though, probably at about $150 mark.
There are lots of goofy DIY-mods done to computer cases, but very few manufacturers have ever offered anything much different from the standard mini-tower/mid tower/full tower configuration. I saw a link on Slashdot once that had an awesome cube-shaped PC case that while having a bigger footprint than a regular case, allowed for much easier cable stringing and better airflow. They had an article on “odd or innovative PC cases” and this was one of only two that broke from conventional design, and this one actually had good technical reasons for doing so–the other was basically cosmetic. They said that it cost $150–and I’d have paid that–except that it was only for AT mobos and (even more unlikely) it was on a webpage in Japanese or Chinese–there was no English ordering info, so it could have been a B2B/wholesaler site for all I knew. I never saw it (or anything like it, or even anything different from the standard small-medium-large tower) anywhere else.
~
Rack-mount computers? Sure. They’re called servers. Not exactly the thing for home use. The big ones can cost as much as a home.
Are we speaking of real 19" equipment racks, or some adapted smaller version? Who cares? Either way, you’d wind up with something quite larger than just putting all the parts in one box.
As discussed above, there are some real limits to how far today’s high-speed signals can be flung around. Not only is signal integrity an issue, but long cables can act like transmitting antennas and broadcast RF garbage that will mess with TV and radio reception.
Another hazard nobody’s touched yet - it’d be proprietary. At best, the modules could be capable of taking standard components internally, but more likely, it would all come from one company. If they go belly-up, you’re stuck with the computing equivalent of those cheap all-in-one home theater in a box systems with the deep grooves on the front to make it look like separate items.
Rack-mount computers? Sure. They’re called servers. Not exactly the thing for home use. The big ones can cost as much as a home.
Are we speaking of real 19" equipment racks, or some adapted smaller version? Who cares? Either way, you’d wind up with something quite larger than just putting all the parts in one box.
As discussed above, there are some real limits to how far today’s high-speed signals can be flung around. Not only is signal integrity an issue, but long cables can act like transmitting antennas and broadcast RF garbage that will mess with TV and radio reception.
Another hazard nobody’s touched yet - it’d be proprietary. At best, the modules could be capable of taking standard components internally, but more likely, it would all come from one company. If they go belly-up, you’re stuck with the computing equivalent of those cheap all-in-one home theater in a box systems with the deep grooves on the front to make it look like separate items.
You could use standard interfaces for external drives. I can’t remember where, but I’ve seen external DVD, CD and HDD drives that are stackable. They use FireWire or USB2 so they can be hooked up to any computer. Combine it with a cube-shaped PC case and you almost have what the OP suggested.
Personally, I prefer the warmer, richer computing power of vacuum tubes over cold solid state technology. Excel spreadsheets on vacuum-based PCs seem to offer warmer, deeper results, as if I’ve got a world-class mathematician working right in front of me.
Also, oxygen-free silver video cables offer a certain brilliance to the display that normal video cables can’t achieve; the computer also seems to run faster with them, even though tests don’t show it. Sure, oxygen-free video cables can cost $5,000, but it’s worth it for the level of computing realism that is achieved.
You may also want to consider a mouse by Input Technology Engineering Ltd. It’s a small firm, located in the UK, that produces extremely high-end, vacuum tube-based mice. They have a pointing precision that seems far more accurate and warmer than a consumer-level optical mouse. The mouse may cost $12,000, but when you consider how much time is spend handling it, it’s certainly worth it.
Don’t get me started on filtered power strips and oxygen-free power cables.
Agreed. The warehouse full of vacuum tubes you need for a computer that powerful is a small price to pay for full-bodied data that’s just oozing with warmth. Oh sure, the “experts” will tell you that the tubes make no difference, but never those charlatans fool you! The computers of World War II cranked out numbers that were far more soothing than anything built by the cold, unfeeling, silicon gods of today.
they should have done a better job at those usb ports, but they did a good job on most other parts. i would buy something else if i was buying now though, probably at about $150 mark.