Good cost estimate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harry Avant
  • Start date Start date
I would rue the day that every part of a motherboard was made by a 3rd
party. You get too many hands, in the pot, the pot starts to crack (so to
speak). One hand, usually (this is the real world, let's not forget)
doesn't know or care what the other is doing. Where do you think major
problems with hardware stems from? I would guess that it's company B not
caring what company A designed the template for.
Click to expand...

Ummmm . . . BTX is a whole new form factor, dictated by Intel. What the
motherboard (and other component) manufacturers do with that form factor is
up to individual manufacturers. What I object to (vehemently) is the notion
that very minor changes proposed by Intel alone are being implemented with
the introduction of a WHOLE NEW FORM FACTOR, DICTATED BY INTEL.

How to put this in perspective? What if Chevy dictated that all cars
WORLDWIDE now needed to have five wheels and dual moonroofs? Now what if
every automobile manufacturer in the world were REQUIRED to conform to that
standard set by Chevy alone? Now do you see the problem? That is exactly
what Intel is doing with the BTX form factor, and the proposed changes make
just as much sense. -Dave
 
Curious - Anandtech seems to have a slightly different slant
Click to expand...

Of course they do... technological change is their bread-and-butter,
whether it be for the better or not. Look at the bias when reading,
if someone likes an idea they'll accentuate everything possible,
especially to gain favor in the industry.

IMHO, there's only two things really needed for the next
"form-factor", both easily implemented into ATX... larger power supply
(casing) and the video card componentry rotated 180' so it faces the
CPU instead of the 1st PCI slot.
 
As for BTX/PCIExpress, etc.... it's life. AMD is no less shameless, in
this regard. They are pushing 64bit, before it is even of use to anyone but
network admins running unix servers.
Click to expand...

That isn't a reasonable comparison. 64 bit is evolutionary after 32
bit, whether you agree on AMD's timing of the 64 bit launch or not it
was coming eventually, anyway. BTX on the other hand, wasn't.

PCI Express is another matter though, clearly the PCI bus was going to
be improved/replaced, there is a clear need for that.
 
Terry said:
.... snip ...

The move to BTX will also bring us closer to a fully legacy-free
PC, with PS/2, serial and parallel ports already beginning to
disappear from prototype motherboards.
Click to expand...

And right there is a major problem. Elimination of these
interfaces puts the complete system under the control of entities
such as Microsoft, and eliminates many existing applications.
Without those ports, how are you going to run your legacy EPROM
burner, your external real modem, your existing printers, etc.
This is ridiculous planned obsolescence. Resist it.
 
kony said:
Ask about the memory... is it name-brand or generic? Have they
tested it, and if you test it and if fails, will they exchange
for a DIFFERENT brand... that's important, same brand may easily
have same problems.
Click to expand...
.... snip ...

In addition I suggest you spend a few extra dollars and make sure
you have ECC memory installed and enabled (after testing). This
means you can forget about future memory problems to all practical
purposes.
 
IMHO, there's only two things really needed for the next
"form-factor", both easily implemented into ATX... larger power supply
(casing) and the video card componentry rotated 180' so it faces the
CPU instead of the 1st PCI slot.
Click to expand...

That second one could be negated by the adoption of PCI express. But PCI
express doesn't need BTX either!!! -Dave
 
| Ummmm . . . BTX is a whole new form factor, dictated by Intel. What the
| motherboard (and other component) manufacturers do with that form factor is
| up to individual manufacturers. What I object to (vehemently) is the notion
| that very minor changes proposed by Intel alone are being implemented with
| the introduction of a WHOLE NEW FORM FACTOR, DICTATED BY INTEL.
|
| How to put this in perspective? What if Chevy dictated that all cars
| WORLDWIDE now needed to have five wheels and dual moonroofs? Now what if
| every automobile manufacturer in the world were REQUIRED to conform to that
| standard set by Chevy alone? Now do you see the problem? That is exactly
| what Intel is doing with the BTX form factor, and the proposed changes make
| just as much sense. -Dave

It doesn't always work that way, though. Intel decreed RAMBUS, but the computer
world collectively told them to go to hell and they had to back down.

Of course, DDR helped a little! ;-)

Larc



§§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§
 
That isn't a reasonable comparison. 64 bit is evolutionary after 32
bit, whether you agree on AMD's timing of the 64 bit launch or not it
was coming eventually, anyway. BTX on the other hand, wasn't.

PCI Express is another matter though, clearly the PCI bus was going to
be improved/replaced, there is a clear need for that.
Click to expand...

But again, as I'm sure you'd agree . . . PCI express doesn't need
TX. -Dave
 
-
kony stood up at show-n-tell, in (e-mail address removed),
and said:
That isn't a reasonable comparison. 64 bit is evolutionary after 32
bit, whether you agree on AMD's timing of the 64 bit launch or not it
was coming eventually, anyway. BTX on the other hand, wasn't.

PCI Express is another matter though, clearly the PCI bus was going to
be improved/replaced, there is a clear need for that.
Click to expand...

They will ALL be replaced, eventually. So, that point is moot.
 
And right there is a major problem. Elimination of these
interfaces puts the complete system under the control of entities
such as Microsoft, and eliminates many existing applications.
Without those ports, how are you going to run your legacy EPROM
burner, your external real modem, your existing printers, etc.
This is ridiculous planned obsolescence. Resist it.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. The ps/2, serial and parallel ports would soon be gone, even
if systems were still ATX format. If you had a newer ATX system without the
right ports, you could always ADD the right ports cheaply and easily with an
expansion card. To use ports as an argument against BTX assumes that the
legacy ports would survive market pressure to make room for new connectors
on the ATX format. Not likely. BTX is not planned obsolescence for
peripherals tied to legacy ports, as BTX (by itself) won't kill them. But
BTX will definitely have an effect on prices to produce (and therefore
purchase) certain components such as cases and motherboards in particular.
There is a good reason to resist BTX, if there is one. No change other than
slightly higher prices. This is good for manufacturers and consumers how,
exactly? -Dave
 
-
kony stood up at show-n-tell, in (e-mail address removed),
and said:
That isn't a reasonable comparison. 64 bit is evolutionary after 32
bit, whether you agree on AMD's timing of the 64 bit launch or not it
was coming eventually, anyway. BTX on the other hand, wasn't.
Click to expand...


Evolutionary, or not, it's premature. And, it is IMO spurred by trying to
beat the other guy to the 'punch'. Competition is good. But, when it
causes companies to 'rush' technology, it's NOT so good IMO.

PCI Express is another matter though, clearly the PCI bus was going to
be improved/replaced, there is a clear need for that.
Click to expand...

--
 
| How to put this in perspective? What if Chevy dictated that all cars
| WORLDWIDE now needed to have five wheels and dual moonroofs? Now what if
| every automobile manufacturer in the world were REQUIRED to conform to that
| standard set by Chevy alone? Now do you see the problem? That is exactly
| what Intel is doing with the BTX form factor, and the proposed changes make
| just as much sense. -Dave

It doesn't always work that way, though. Intel decreed RAMBUS, but the computer
world collectively told them to go to hell and they had to back down.

Of course, DDR helped a little! ;-)

Larc
Click to expand...

That's not quite the same thing. If Intel were to include RAMBUS as part of
the BTX form factor, it would BE in every computer, period. There might be
objections, but anybody who wanted to build a motherboard or CPU would have
to make sure that it "plays nice" with RAMBUS. So you'd adopt RAMBUS or go
out of business. What Intel tried to do with RAMBUS was more like Chevy
producing a 12 cylinder automobile and then losing gobs of money when
everybody chose to buy V6 Toyotas, instead. RAMBUS was killed by market
pressure, plain and simple. But if RAMBUS were part of a form factor (such
as BTX, dictated by Intel), then the only thing that would kill RAMBUS would
be if Intel created a new non-RAMBUS form factor. That's because until the
form factor changed, you could not design a motherboard without RAMBUS.

See, the form factor dictates what you will do, if you want to manufacture
computer components. If your components don't comply with the form factor,
they are not produced. For some bizarre reason that I can't comprehend, the
form factor is being dictated by one company . . . Intel. If we assume that
a change is needed (it is NOT needed), why is the change being dictated by
Intel? -Dave
 
-
kony stood up at show-n-tell, in (e-mail address removed),
and said:



Evolutionary, or not, it's premature. And, it is IMO spurred by trying to
beat the other guy to the 'punch'. Competition is good. But, when it
causes companies to 'rush' technology, it's NOT so good IMO.
Click to expand...

Rushing technology is what's been happening for the past 20 years...
they could sit on everything till the public screams for it, or get it
out there so there's a user base for the software. One could argue
that SSE was premature too, but then along came the apps.
 
-
kony stood up at show-n-tell, in (e-mail address removed),
and said:
Rushing technology is what's been happening for the past 20 years...
they could sit on everything till the public screams for it, or get it
out there so there's a user base for the software. One could argue
that SSE was premature too, but then along came the apps.
Click to expand...

That's all fine and dandy. And, I agree. However, calling one company
'suspect' for doing what ALL companies do, is redundant. IMO.
 
Ummmm . . . BTX is a whole new form factor, dictated by Intel. What
the motherboard (and other component) manufacturers do with that form
factor is up to individual manufacturers. What I object to
(vehemently) is the notion that very minor changes proposed by Intel
alone are being implemented with the introduction of a WHOLE NEW FORM
FACTOR, DICTATED BY INTEL.
Click to expand...

The downside is that Intel take the lead in these things.

The overwhelmingly massive upside is that we have all been given the
ability to build, mix and match thousands of components with
relatively few problems because of standardisation. No other
electrical consumer product affords this luxury.

You can work out the rather tired automotive analogy for yourself...


Martin
 
Harry Avant said:
My local "mom and pop" store has made the following bid for a new
system I'm considering. I'd like some opinions about what you think.
I'd like to buy local if possible. Expected use is web surfing, email,
limited dvd making someday. System will replace a 3 year old P-3
running Win98SE.

Intel Pentium 4 2.6 GHz 800MHz FSB
Intel D865 Perl Motherboard
1024MB DDR PC3200 Memory
Seagate 120GB SATA Hard Disk w/ 8MB Cache
ATI 9600PRO 128MB DVI/TV Out Video Card
Lite-on 8X DVD +/- RW Rewritable Drive
52x24x52 CD-RW Drive
3.5" Floppy Disk
Standard Case w/ 500W Power Supply
Windows XP Home Edition (OEM)
$1217.00

Harry
Click to expand...
Again, YOU research and specify exactly the ram-specs. AND name brands.
You can find several brands/models from which they may choose. Also, YOU
research & specify several ps's (that have your approved specs. and brands)
from which they may choose.
Should u have the choice, u might enjoy the lack of hassles if u choose
Windows XP Corporate Edition.
Hope u enjoy your new computer!.............sdlomi2
 
The downside is that Intel take the lead in these things.

The overwhelmingly massive upside is that we have all been given the
ability to build, mix and match thousands of components with
relatively few problems because of standardisation. No other
electrical consumer product affords this luxury.
Click to expand...

I agree that standardization is an awesomely good thing for PC consumers.
Why is Intel allowed to dictate a new form factor, though? Intel is a huge
chip manufacturer, no doubt. But they aren't the only huge chip
manufacturer. It could be argued that Intel is just one of several chip
manufacturers. For that matter, why is it a chip manufacturer alone who is
dictating the form factor? Assuming for a moment that a new form factor is
needed . . .

Why not get all component manufacturers in on the effort? Let's pull in a
few CPU makers, a few motherboard makers, a few power supply makers, etc.
Doesn't that make a heckuva lot more sense than allowing one CPU maker to
yell "jump" and have thousands of manufacturers suddenly have to re-tool to
support what one CPU maker thinks is best for the whole world? -Dave
 
kony said:
Of course they do... technological change is their bread-and-butter,
whether it be for the better or not. Look at the bias when reading,
if someone likes an idea they'll accentuate everything possible,
especially to gain favor in the industry.

IMHO, there's only two things really needed for the next
"form-factor", both easily implemented into ATX... larger power supply
(casing) and the video card componentry rotated 180' so it faces the
CPU instead of the 1st PCI slot.
Click to expand...

Change is a part of life in this business. Whether or not it is successful
will be up to market acceptance. The change to ATX did not happen overnight
and neither will the change to BTX. After 35 years in computer hardware
related fields I have seen many changes, and used to resist damn near all of
them because I would have to go to training again and again. Many changes
were good and many were bad, but look where we are now compared to the late
60s. I am probably a "bit" older than the majority here, but I look forward
to changes now as it is something new to work with. I know that Intel did
not just pop up and say "we need to change form factors". I am sure that
many other marketing factors are driving the change, and some we probably
don't know about yet. Go with the flow.............. There will be many more
changes in the next 4-5 years that will have a lot more impact than a form
factor. I don't hear AMD screaming about it either, so there must be SOME
benefits coming from it. If it is a bad move, it will go the way of many
others.

Ed
 
Change is a part of life in this business. Whether or not it is successful
will be up to market acceptance. The change to ATX did not happen overnight
and neither will the change to BTX. After 35 years in computer hardware
related fields I have seen many changes, and used to resist damn near all of
them because I would have to go to training again and again. Many changes
were good and many were bad, but look where we are now compared to the late
60s. I am probably a "bit" older than the majority here, but I look forward
to changes now as it is something new to work with. I know that Intel did
not just pop up and say "we need to change form factors". I am sure that
many other marketing factors are driving the change, and some we probably
don't know about yet. Go with the flow.............. There will be many more
changes in the next 4-5 years that will have a lot more impact than a form
factor. I don't hear AMD screaming about it either, so there must be SOME
benefits coming from it. If it is a bad move, it will go the way of many
others.

Ed
Click to expand...

Actually, Intel did just pop up and say "we need to change form factors".
There are no marketing factors driving the change. Actually, if you really
understand what a form factor is, it is the form factor that will be driving
certain marketing factors. The change to BTX is so slight that no training
will be necessary. Essentially, BTX is ATX with the connectors and
expansion slots flipped. There are other changes, but nothing that couldn't
be implemented in the current ATX form factor, so the BTX form factor itself
will not require any re-training. I look forward to change also, for
something new to work with. But I would prefer that the change happen for a
logical reason. I have done extensive research on the new BTX form factor.
I have concluded there is not ONE element in BTX that couldn't easily be
implemented in ATX. Again, I have thoroughly reviewed the BTX form factor
and found nothing incompatible with ATX. If change is needed, it is not a
new form factor. AMD is not screaming about it as it really won't affect
AMD. There is nothing in the BTX form factor that is radically different
from ATX. Why would AMD care?

But if it is a bad move, it won't just go away. Technology such as RAMBUS
is market driven. A form factor is not market driven. Good or bad, the
form factor simply IS, and anybody who wants to design, manufacture, sell or
purchase PC hardware is stuck with it. -Dave
 
Just a few comments about some of the things I've seen in this thread... I
definately haven't read all the postings...

ATX? BTX? I haven't heard of the BTX form factor, but I plan on Googling it
shortly. Any good links are appreciated. What I do think is that the current
PC layout could stand some improvements.

- Align expansion cards so hot parts are not on the underside (ie. AGP
cards) A videocard would cool a lot better if the hot parts were facing up.
- Use BOTH sides of the mainboard for components. This will require some
planning as to not limit future expansion and new devices.
- Lose the legacy ports, or at least put headers in for cables instead of
stuffing up the back end of the PC.
- Redesign the layout of the ATX chassis to reduce wasted space and maximize
air flow. Imagine if the PSU had a TOP blowhole and the PSU mainboard was
mounted vertically... A fan could suck the hot air out of the case from the
bottom of the PSU and expell it straight up - the direction hot air wants to
go.

As for the AMD verses P4 debate... The both do the job their designed for.

Personally, I'll take the P4 over an AMD any day when built with STOCK
parts. Why?
- Intel is quieter - Intel heatsink/fan is QUIET. AMD's sounds like a
hairdryer. AMD also needs at least one extra case fan to stay cool. I can
hear my XP2000+ machine two rooms away, but I can't hear my P4 at 5 paces.
- Intel is cooler - My P4, even overclocked, doesn't go past 53'C. I've seen
AMD's that regulary run around 65'C.
- Intel is more stable - AMD might be a stable chip, but the supporting
chipsets are not. VIA is the worst and luckily I've never had to deal with a
Via based P4. Loading up the OS and drivers on my P4 went much smoother than
the same process on my AMD PC's.
- Intel overclocks just as well as AMD - My current machine has a 2.6Ghz P4.
It's running at 3.25Ghz (248Mhz bus) with memory at 5:4 (198Mhz) and 2-3-3-7
timings - with ONLY the stock cooling - PSU fan and CPU heatsink.

I've owned many AMD machines including a Duron 600, 1.33Ghz T-Bird and the
XP 2000+ that's currently running my server. Now I have a couple P4 machines
and I'll take another P4 anyday.
 
Back
Top