Jump to content


Photo

Successor to the PowerMac G3 "Outrigger" Desktop?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Mac128

Mac128
  • 68020

Posted 26 February 2012 - 11:24 PM

Just out of curiosity, I was wondering what folks on the forum consider the successor to the "Outrigger" G3 desktop, or if it marked the end of the line for the traditional desktop family form factor.

The iMac sort of has taken the place of the traditional desktop PC box for Apple, even though the traditional expandable box is still offered by most PC vendors. But I still consider that an all-in-one family form factor that has it's roots in the Lisa. And I consider the Mac Pro a minitower form factor, not a desktop.

Thoughts?

#2 Unknown_K

Unknown_K
  • 68LC040
  • LocationOhio/USA

Posted 27 February 2012 - 02:19 AM

The desktop G3 or was it the molar mac g3 AIO was the last desktop I can think of. Around that time most PCs were towers too. Starting with the imac they used clear plastic that probably would not have supported the still common CRT monitors of the day so that might be one reason desktops were dropped (or maybe Jobs just hated them).
Favorites: big box Mac IIs, 950, 800's
Wanted: Anything Nubus, Video capture and editing hardware and software for 68k mac. Original software including A/UX.
Looking for 9150, Mac II, Color classic, 840av motherboard, and Nubus cards.

#3 Strimkind

Strimkind
  • 6502
  • LocationKelowna, BC

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:08 AM

I don't blame Jobs for ditching the Outrigger style desktop macintosh. I found them bulky, harder to hide under the desk, and more difficult to work on. Unless iit was the slim style like the old PM6100, I think jobs did the right thing in killing the desktop style in favour of the iMac and tower design.

The G3 desktop was the end of the line and I for one am glad.

Laptop: Pismo 400, 1400c x 3, 230, 280c, 2300c x 3, mini dock x 2, Duo Dock II
Desktop: PM 8600, Mac Mini 2011 i7 2.5ghz, Colour Classic VGA Mystic


#4 Unknown_K

Unknown_K
  • 68LC040
  • LocationOhio/USA

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:09 AM

I found the G3 desktop very easy to work on actually, but I prefer the G3 MT.
Favorites: big box Mac IIs, 950, 800's
Wanted: Anything Nubus, Video capture and editing hardware and software for 68k mac. Original software including A/UX.
Looking for 9150, Mac II, Color classic, 840av motherboard, and Nubus cards.

#5 Strimkind

Strimkind
  • 6502
  • LocationKelowna, BC

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:17 AM

I found the G3 desktop very easy to work on actually, but I prefer the G3 MT.


The 7500/7600/G3 had finicky plastic parts that were easy to break. Further, installing a 2nd hard drive required a rather long cable and the RAM couldn't be too high, or it would make contact with the top case and the case wouldn't close properly.

Maybe its just me, but I have always disliked the series.

Laptop: Pismo 400, 1400c x 3, 230, 280c, 2300c x 3, mini dock x 2, Duo Dock II
Desktop: PM 8600, Mac Mini 2011 i7 2.5ghz, Colour Classic VGA Mystic


#6 jruschme

jruschme
  • 6502
  • LocationBrick, NJ

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:22 PM

Before totally dissing the desktop form factor, don't forget that both the Cube and Mini are desktop systems (i.e., not laptop, portable or all-in-one).

I think the real death of the desktop was footprint and ergonomics. Putting the monitor on top of the computer makes it potentially unergonomic and putting it next to the monitor takes too much space.
JR

13" MBP (late 2010), MDD G4/1000x2, Sawtooth G4/800, Pismo G3/500, Lombard G3/333, B&W G4/400

#7 Cory5412

Cory5412

    Daring Pioneer of the Future

  • Administrators
  • LocationArizona, USA

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:23 PM

As monitors got larger and computer systems got both larger and smaller, a traditional desktop as we think of it became kind of impractical.

If I had to pick a single system that would today be counted as the spiritual successor to the Outrigger desktop, it would be the Mac mini, only because in the grand scheme of the universe, it's a relatively low-end/midrange Mac desktop whose main purpose is satisfying the needs of the many. In a lot of ways, I saw the PowerMac 7x00 series and the G3 Desktop as the Excel-Box of the Mac world. (Much like, say, a Dell OptiPlex or a Lenovo ThinkCentre.)

The mini is (for its time) an unobtrusive little box that can lay horizontally or stand vertically and basically be hidden behind or under whatever its user pleases, such as behind a television or monitor, next to a monitor, atop another tower, etc.

In terms of actual computing power though, the iMac is the true "mid range" of the Mac line. The biggest issue therein is mapping it as the spiritual successor to a beige Mac, because the G3 AIO was not really publicly available.

These days, it's hard to say whether or not I'd buy a true "desktop" system, for exactly the reasons Strimkind puts forward. They're difficult to hide under a desk, my desk is kind of too small to really put it under my monitor, and if I'm going to put it vertically next to my monitor (or on the floor) I may as well get a tower which can hold more disks and a bigger video card.

#8 Trash80toHP_Mini

Trash80toHP_Mini

    NIGHT STALKER

  • 68040
  • LocationBermuda Triangle, NC, USA

Posted 27 February 2012 - 02:28 PM

Reading this for the first time, I was about to mention the Mini as well, the Cube is an interesting choice also, but realized just now that neither really fits the description of a traditional desktop, IMHO.

__no expansion bus, so no upgrade possible for Video (Cube hacks make it the G3-4 era CC/Takky)
__no internal PSU/Cooling unit (do they both at least have fans?) puts more than half the mass(?) of the computer underfoot
__no support surface for a monitor

They may as well have been goitered onto the back of an LCD.

I know the Mini was un-humped from the iMac and that was good, but that doesn't make it a true desktop to my thinking.

The Cube and Mini w0uld be Desktop Bling or Clutter, dependent upon the design/organizational sensibilities of the user/owner or rejector/non-buyer.

___________________________________________

Ergonomic evolution of the Desktop/Display Combination:

Great point about the Monitor positioning, JR! :approve:

Interestingly enough, the height of what I'd consider the traditional Desktop form factor seems to have changed in lock-step with the general adoption of larger and larger CRTs, leaving the center of the IBM PC/XT/AT form factor's 12"-14" display (often sans tilt-n-swivel elevator shoe) at about the same height as mid-size 15"-17" CRTc on a PS/2.

The ergonomics of particular combinations are something I find interesting, now that this (marginally off topic) subject has come up.

__the II/IIx/IIci was fine with the 13" RGB, but too high for the Macintosh Portrait Display Note that the full size Mac II series required a monitor stand for mid-size displays
__the $10,000 IIfx really should have been a Tower Design, given that it was normally coupled with a TPD (or two), which was a relatively average percentage of overall package price
__The MPD came into its own with the introduction of the IIsi and LC series, but seems a bit low on the Quadra 605, the LC's jaunty angle (intended for the 12" topper twins)
__The MPD was a bit too tall for the later DuoDocks . . .

. . . but I can live with it because it looks sooo 8-) sitting on there and I've always had a Radius TPD sitting next to it, so no real for a second Display. However, when I built my rolling three sided workstation, the MPD sat on the Q605 next to the TPD and the DuoDock went into the "rack" section of the desk. This made for a much better matchup with the TPD.

___________________________________________
jt [8]
Trash Hauler: call sign: eight-ball

C.O. AC130H SpecOps 68kMLAAF

#9 waynestewart

waynestewart
  • 6502
  • LocationVancouver BC

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:21 PM

I had desktop Macs including the G3. I was a bit disappointed when I bought a G4 and there were no desktops to choose from.
I'd disagree that monitors have become too large. I currently use a 27" and it's sitting on an old ProFile hard drive
Computers I have at least 1 of: 128k, 512k, 512ke, Plus, SE, SE/30, Classic, Color Classic, Mac II, IIfx, LC, IIci, Quadras 700, 800, 840AV, 900, PM6100, 6150, 8100, 6500, 7300, 8500, 9150, 9500, 8600, 9600, Beige G3 DT, MT, Server & AIO, B&W G3, Tray loading iMac, Slot loading iMac, eMac, G4 DA, Quicksilver
Mac Portable, Powerbooks: 100,140,145,145B, 160,170,180,190, 520C, 5300,Wallstreet, MacBook Pro
Apple III, Apple II: II, II+, IIe, IIc, IIc+, IIgs

#10 Trash80toHP_Mini

Trash80toHP_Mini

    NIGHT STALKER

  • 68040
  • LocationBermuda Triangle, NC, USA

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:30 PM

I agree, for Graphics, Spreadsheets or doing reports pulling data from multiple windows a/o apps, there is NEVER enough real estate in terms of pixels for type or Bezier Handles at workable sizes.

In the day of the small to mid-size CRT, scrollable virtual desktops at higher resolutions were almost a necessity.

For CAD and Graphics they're useful to this day!
jt [8]
Trash Hauler: call sign: eight-ball

C.O. AC130H SpecOps 68kMLAAF

#11 beachycove

beachycove
  • 68020
  • LocationOntario

Posted 28 February 2012 - 02:19 AM

A mid-range, expandable machine has been missing from the Apple line-up since around 1998, so the missing "outrigger" may be related partly to marketing as well as design/ form factor issues.

What I, for one, would have liked to see was a sort of "Cube max," a marginally taller but comparable machine in terms of footprint, that could have served either as a small desktop or, on the floor, as a small tower, but with some basic expansion/ upgrade potential built into the design. Unfortunately, we have had an unremitting diet of Jobsian "appliances" at the one end of the market, and the pro range at the other, with nothing much in between. The pro people can afford their gear, with livelihoods depending on it, but what this has meant in practice for the rest of us is that we have had to pay a king's ransom for hardware that could really last if we want to push our purchases as far as possible -- or buy cheap and be obliged in the end to spend just as much out of the need to upgrade by replacement. Apple won both ways.

The G3 desktops are nice machines, quiet and dependable, and even versatile (a little G3 desktop will take three hard drives, plus CD, plus 3 PCI cards, plus something like 768MB RAM), but like others, I much prefer the towers, which were better built and easier to adapt and maintain (e.g., RAM height is indeed a pain in the desktops). Same goes for the 8600/9600s over against, say, the 7300/7600s: the towers were and are the pick of the litter, but it was good at the time to have something on the market usually with just a little less oomph and costing a little less dosh.

#12 Mac128

Mac128
  • 68020

Posted 28 February 2012 - 02:46 AM

Interesting definition of a desktop, having at a minimum a single expansion slot. I draw this conclusion based on the Mac LC, a desktop, which only had one LC PDS slot, and was otherwise not expandable. Now my argument here would be, that the one expansion slot on an LC would have been used most likely for Ethernet, as were most PDS slots in these entry level Macs, since most were not powerful enough to really drive some of the dedicated application cards available, or large enough to accept them. In which case, Ethernet is a built-in feature of the Cube and the mini. And arguably, the potential to expand is far greater in a slotless USB, Firewire, and now especially Thunderbolt equipped Mac, than in the last G3 model.

That said, it would seem logical that a desktop then is more defined by its form factor, than ability to expand. Nevertheless, a desktop would seem to be defined as a family by the ability to place the computer on top of one's desk (in part to easily access CD drives and ports), and requires an external monitor. In this case, even though the Cube is not a direct successor to the G3 desktop in terms of function, it is clearly the only successor to the "desktop" family form factor. Likewise, the Mac mini, is then the logical successor to the Cube, even if it was a less powerful computer. I would argue this for the same reason that the LC, LC II and LC III are in the same family form factor as the Power Mac 4400, Quadrant 610, etc., despite having few of the same functional, or expansion abilities. And even though the mini is a less capable mac than the G3, or cube, no one disputes the Mac Classic II as the successor to the SE/30. Additionally, towers all have specific expansion abilities typically not found in any desktop. In the case of the Cube,  it is clearly not intended to be placed on a floor given it's need for ventilation and access to cables and disc drive, and likewise, the mini would be difficult to access on the floor level given it's profile. Can you just see someone down on their hands and knees trying to swap discs? Since they are clearly not all-in-one designs, that must mean they are part of the desktop family – perhaps a new branch off the main branch on which the G3 marked the extinction of that species.

#13 Trash80toHP_Mini

Trash80toHP_Mini

    NIGHT STALKER

  • 68040
  • LocationBermuda Triangle, NC, USA

Posted 28 February 2012 - 06:24 AM

Since they are clearly not all-in-one designs, that must mean they are part of the desktop family . . .

That's a logical fallacy on the order of cows, legs-n-animals. You're assuming that there are only three classes of form factors as well.

Nope, they'd be more of a bastardization of the Desktop family . . . on a rope.

Maybe Bolo Macs? Two lumps, desktop & floor, tied together with a rope, the third lump being the monitor oon another rope . . .
. . . maybe like a Minitower made of bubblegum with the I/O half of it stretched to be on the desktop and the PSU section left sitting on the floor.

They can't possibly be AIOs as they come in two pieces . . . CPU/PSU . . . Modular Macs? :o)

There were plenty of Video Upgrade Cards for the LC Series, not to mention Sound Cards and rudimentary VidCap solutions.

For Low Cost Macs, and all early and home Macs, AppleTalk was the de facto standard of that era. The reason for the ubiquity of the EtherNet Card was the adoption of such Macs in droves for educational use with Servers, where AppleTalk Networks would bog down badly in a classroom/school environment.

Only Apple, hucksters of the disposable Jobsian Appliance, insist that ports are a mode of expansion. Slots are for expansion, ports are for peripherals, at least until very recently.
Note, my Micro ATX Dual Core ATOM NetTop board from Intel, it has a PCI slot!

All IMHO, of course! :approve:
jt [8]
Trash Hauler: call sign: eight-ball

C.O. AC130H SpecOps 68kMLAAF

#14 Cory5412

Cory5412

    Daring Pioneer of the Future

  • Administrators
  • LocationArizona, USA

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:04 PM

Re "expansion" -- the tbolt port on the back of my mini is faster and will accomodate up to like eight total peripherals. (all concurrently connected to this one machine) -- PCI slots are now two standards back in terms of internal computer expansion, and although they still get used sometimes, I'm imagining it's not as common anymore, and it's to add old standards back into new computers.

A Quick Examination of "Powerful" Horizontal Desktop Computers

I'm conflicted on the "midrange mac desktop" topic because while I would buy one almost instantly, all it is is removing the display from the iMac and putting the rest of the guts in an enclosure much like the OptiPlex 790. Plus, the whole internet (at least: the part of the internets that aren't dedicated to hating Steve Jobs) is basically in agreeance that Apple has probably investigated the existence of that machine as a possibility, and then dismissed it because it either costs too much to build, or will be impossible to build in such a way that actually pleases any of the people who want it to exist. For example: It's maybe safe to say that a bunch of us in this thread would prefer it to be a horizontal desktop than a tower, and a lot of people have their notions of what numbers and types of drives it must have, and what numbers and types of slots it must have. The guy who thinks it should hold three 2.5-inch hard disks hooked to a RAID controller and have a pair of PCIe x16 slots will be pretty disappointed if that's not exactly what it has.

[attachment=2]optiplex-790-overview1.jpeg[/attachment]

I have the tower version of this machine at work and realistically I can't think of anything I would ever do on it that would require an expansion slot. (Of course, there are higher end Precision machines that I can imagine doing work on that would need an expansion slot. No Dell Precision machines currently on sale, to my knowledge, are horizontal desktop computers.) My 790 happens to have some expansion cards in it -- a graphics processor, a USB 3 card, and a second gigabit ethernet port, but those are not things I put in it myself, nor would I have ordered it that way, if I'd been given the opportunity to do so.

In that way, I think that Apple's lack of the "Mythical Midrange Mac Minitower" (Or in this case, the less alliterated Mythical Midrange Mac Desktop) makes sense. They have a small computer you can set on a desk (or mount to the back of a monitor or the bottom of a desk or a bookshelf or a tv or put on top of another computer) and they have a large workstation with oodles of expansion options.

Machines of the horizontal desktop format have almost always been mid-range or low end at best (1) and in most cases have been sold as boxes for bean-counters, or low end educational computers. The '90s had a few horizontal desktops for homes, but I haven't seen one of those in forever. I would be unsurprised if very few were really built and targeted at home users after 1998 or so. I have seen a few convertibles (Dell Inspiron 530s for example(2)) -- but those seem to be the exception rather than the rule, and they tend to be more optimized for horizontal use anyway. There are a few slim towers, such as those from HP, which are no longer even convertible to horizontal desktop status. Dell's Inspiron 620s still is, though.



How many of you have heard of the Lenovo C20? It occurred to me just before I hit submit and it's one of the very few high-performance horizontal computers in recent memory. Lenovo has a buuuunch of photos of it, but only shows it positioned horizontally in two of them -- one is in a rack, because you're meant to be able to rack a bunch of them if you need something a little bit more workstation-class, but to put in a rack. However, why you'd buy a C20 when the Dell R5500 is the same, computationally, but is skinnier and includes a remote access card, I do not know. The other is a photo of it just sitting there in space, underneath the logos of its green certifications. It's cute, but the positioning of the handle makes me question whether or not Lenovo actually planned on these having monitors placed on top of them.

[attachment=1]c20_green.jpeg[/attachment]

My point is that the C20 is the only horizontal computer on sale today that's not either an excelbox, a granny letter-writing box, or the Alienware X51, which also doesn't look like it's meant to sit horizontally or have a monitor on top of it anyway, even though it's technically capable of doing so. The Alienware X51 only achieves performance in its relatively diminuitive size by putting the power supply outside of the box, and accomodating only one slot: the slot that holds the graphics processor. It saves size by using a laptop optical drive, and I see no information about putting a second hard disk inside, meaning that for all intents and purposes, it has the same expandability as a 2009 Mac Mini, save a socketed CPU and a slotted GPU. But you're probably not going to kit it out with much better in those departments, because, well, heat. (and also physical size -- the best GPUs these days are huuuuge.)

[attachment=0]7282.X51 vert and horiz.jpeg[/attachment]

And so there you have it. As detailed as I want to get this evening with a quick study into horizontal desktop computers that are powerful. There aren't many of them, and most of them make huge compromises to be the way they are. The one that's actually reasonable has about half of its use cases done better by a rack server from another vendor.

It'll be interesting to see whether or not "horizontal desktop" as a form factor ever really recovers. It enjoyed a great amount of success in the 1980s and 1990s, while cables were short and computers were considered new and extremely delicate pieces of equipment, and when they moved into a more common role, but retained their physical positioning for ergonomic reasons, and of course, because until LCD monitors became popular and computer-focused desks got smaller, nobody thought they looked out of place, or like a waste of space that could have been used for whatever else.

Footnotes:
(1) with the obvious exception of the six-slot Mac II family, which it's already been said should have been a vertical tower. In fact, there was a third party accessory vendor which sold a vertical mounting kit for it. It was essentially a pair of plastic legs you could buy for it which held it stable vertically next to a desk, and held it a few inches above the ground, for ventilation reasons if I remember correctly.
(2) Actually, I had a Dell 530s for about three years and I've got to admit, even though I like the way a lot of computers look when they're laying flat, I rarely used it this way. I only did so when it served as a headless server and lived under my bed, and once when I had a corner-L desk, and thus a copious amount of desk space to waste because it was otherwise useless. The only computer I lay flat at work is a Dell 745 tower which I have underneath a hanging file drawer in my desk, and although I've considered asking for a desktop next time I come up for an upgrade (which is probably going to be in four or five years) -- I really don't think I'd use that hypothetical machine horizontally either. Just some random thoughts.

#15 Trash80toHP_Mini

Trash80toHP_Mini

    NIGHT STALKER

  • 68040
  • LocationBermuda Triangle, NC, USA

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:44 PM

Re "expansion" -- the tbolt port on the back of my mini is faster and will accomodate up to like eight total peripherals. (all concurrently connected to this one machine) -- PCI slots are now two standards back in terms of internal computer expansion, and although they still get used sometimes, I'm imagining it's not as common anymore, and it's to add old standards back into new computers.

That was my point, you're using the tbolt for peripherals, the "old school" PCI Expansion slot on my NetTop boardlet can drive a nice Second Display or be used for an existing Pro-Level Sound Card or something as mundane as a different NIC technology or HDMI/MultiMedia.

I haven't read up on tbolt, is it used for monitors?

By the time the 17" CRT became the basic "Business Monitor" in the Mid-nineties, desktops were already in slimline cases with risers for the slots. This kept the CRT Monitor or smallish LCD's center at a relatively ergonomic height.
jt [8]
Trash Hauler: call sign: eight-ball

C.O. AC130H SpecOps 68kMLAAF

#16 Mac128

Mac128
  • 68020

Posted 01 March 2012 - 05:54 PM

You're assuming that there are only three classes of form factors as well.

Well, in fact that is kind of how I see it. 1) Computers designed to sit on the floor and plug a monitor into, 2) computers designed to sit on a desk and plug a monitor into, and 3) computers designed to sit on a desk with a built-in monitor. In my experience, I've never really come across any other type. Now granted within each major form factor, there all all kinds of configurations and functionality, but at the end of the day, I only see three major form factors.

There were plenty of Video Upgrade Cards for the LC Series, not to mention Sound Cards and rudimentary VidCap solutions.

Granted. I had almost forgotten about the value of video cards in those days. I don't think most of the LCs could really use the video capture cards due to their processor power, and a stereo sound card was not really very useful in those early days. But you're right. My point is, by the time the Cube came along, and especially the mini, all of the things one would use the single LC expansion slot for were already standard, or better served via FireWire devices (in fact FireWire is a perfect example of superiority for multiple functionality over having even one, or two slots for those things). Video is about the only thing a person might want to upgrade on a consumer desktop, and that's mainly for use by hard-core gamers and graphics professionals ... Something the original LC pizza-box series would have never been used for in the first place. Let's face it, the standard video in most computers produced in the last decade is overkill for most end users, unlike the original LC, which only supported 4-bit video at 640x480. So in that sense, the Cube and mini are obvious successors in my mind to Apple's otherwise extinct form factor ... That is unless the LC pizza box is not considered a desktop in the same family form factor as the Mac II series.

Are the Cube and mini superior to the last G3 desktop (processor speed aside)? No, but then neither was the Classic II superior to the SE/30, yet no one has ever challenged that it was not the successor to that form factor.

#17 Gorgonops

Gorgonops
  • 68030

Posted 01 March 2012 - 06:44 PM

That was my point, you're using the tbolt for peripherals, the "old school" PCI Expansion slot on my NetTop boardlet can drive a nice Second Display or be used for an existing Pro-Level Sound Card or something as mundane as a different NIC technology or HDMI/MultiMedia.

I haven't read up on tbolt, is it used for monitors?


Yes, Thunderbolt can be used to add multiple "intelligent" displays, and in theory at least those displays have (shared) access to bandwidth in the same ballpark as a 4x PCIe slot. (Or to put it another way, a GPU with the same bus requirements as a standard 32 bit PCI slot would only use about 1/8th of the available bandwidth. Or to put it yet another way, the Thunderbolt port on a Mac Mini potentially allows greater expansion possibilities than all six PCI 32 bit slots in an oldschool 9600-style Mac tower put together.)

The reason Apple doesn't make a little desktop/tower is really simple: Apple doesn't think their typical customer needs it and they're probably right. Apple's whole model revolves around appliance computing (and it's getting more-and-more appliance-y every day), and being able to crack the cover is the complete polar opposite of the "appliance" model. Heck, I don't see Windows (or even *nix) users having to pop the tops on their systems very often any more. USB 2.0 is "only" about a third as fast as a PCI slot but that's still fast enough for just about everything that people used to shove in one, so everything from sound cards to video capture devices usually comes in an external consumer-friendly box. Video capture devices in particular are usually "smart" devices these days, encoding straight to MPEG(2/4/whatever), so the only people that *need* a bus-intensive internal device are those with genuinely specialized needs, like working with uncompressed raw HD video streams in a production environment. About the only other common device that really needs more than lowly USB 2.0 is gigabit NICs, and everything Apple sells comes with one. (It's getting pretty rare for *any* PC to include something slower.) Not that many people need multiple NICs, and there are workarounds even if you do need to be on multiple networks at once. (Like using VLAN tagging.)

If you're doing anything exotic enough to really *need* PCIe expansion Apple expects you to buy the Mac Pro. It's expensive, sure, but even *not* adjusting for inflation it's no more expensive than Apple's pro setups were ten or fifteen years ago. In the PC world you can in theory usually make an expensive, exotic card that does "X" work in some cheap rotgut box the local maniac built with his own three hands and save a couple grand... but would that box's baseline performance actually be good enough to do what the card demands of it? There's the rub. Maybe that's what aggravates the "Midrange Mac Desktop" crowd: Apple clearly deliminates its customers into "Pros" and "non-Pros", aka, "Haves" and "Have Nots", while in the PC world everything's a shade of grey. If you don't like it it's certainly easy enough to pick up your ball and go play somewhere else.

Personally the one thing I really *do* value about desktop (or small tower) cases is they usually have the ability to add at least one additional hard drive internally. Frankly, I hate external drives. Except for "pack it up and keep it safe" backup purposes I consider them useless desktop-space-sucking cable-octopus-ing wall-wart spawning monsters, and thus for me at least their reliance upon the things are far larger strikes against machines like the iMac and Mini then their lack of PCI slots. I suppose by extension that also puts me at least theoretically in the anti-Thunderbolt camp, because as well as it might work a Thunderbolt substitute for something that *could* reasonably live on a PCI(e) card will be yet another annoying box daisy-chained into the ever-growing snarl of cables that inevitably surrounds every computer. But on the flip side, in the case of a video capture or audio device that for all practical purposes requires a breakout box for its connectors anyway it in theory might make more sense to just have them on the peripheral itself. Having them spaced out on a well-designed box beats snaking them all under the table and cramming them into a tightly jammed slot cover area. So if you don't mind "dongle clutter" and re-buying your peripherals every few years (and if you're an Apple customer you should be used both by now) in the end it's... probably a wash.

#18 Cory5412

Cory5412

    Daring Pioneer of the Future

  • Administrators
  • LocationArizona, USA

Posted 01 March 2012 - 06:45 PM

That was my point, you're using the tbolt for peripherals, the "old school" PCI Expansion slot on my NetTop boardlet can drive a nice Second Display or be used for an existing Pro-Level Sound Card or something as mundane as a different NIC technology or HDMI/MultiMedia.


Up to seven "peripherals" (like gigabit ethernet, a fibrechannel SAN controller, a four- or six-disk drive box with RAID controller built in) and a second display. In fact nothing except for drivers is presently stopping one of the peripherals from being an adapter to a full-sized PCIe slot for a second graphics card (albeit one stored in a secondary enclosure.)

At present, there are not very many Tbolt peripherals available, but they do span the gamut in terms of the kinds of things most people will want to do. Disks, SAN adapters, gigabit adapters, FW800 adapters (for those MacBook Airs that don't have FW) and of course the monitor and the RAIDs, and a/v interfaces.

It's kind of nice because the 27-inch iMac has two tbolt ports for a total of three large displays, and like, whatever huge number of other devices.

As we see tbolt show up on Windows PCs (such as the ThinkPad T430/T430u coming later this year) we will probably start to see it get used for outboard GPUs more often. I bet we'll see Mac drivers for these things.

There are definitely things that just need more throughput than Tbolt can provide at the moment. But to put it bluntly, you are NEVER going to do these things on a machine that costs less than $3,000 or so anyway. And in the '90s, that machine would have cost you $10,000 or more. (And really, $30,000 and above was the starting price for a nice graphics workstation such as the SiliconGraphics Octane.)

#19 Trash80toHP_Mini

Trash80toHP_Mini

    NIGHT STALKER

  • 68040
  • LocationBermuda Triangle, NC, USA

Posted 01 March 2012 - 07:47 PM

Frankly, I hate external drives. Except for "pack it up and keep it safe" backup purposes I consider them useless desktop-space-sucking cable-octopus-ing wall-wart spawning monsters . . .

:lol: You've got that right! Daisy chains were bad enough back when SCSI peripherals had internal PSUs and were heavy enough to stay in place while keeping the cable monster at bay. The cables on my lump-on-a-rope USB stuff tend to shove the friggin' peripherals around the desktop when they're not busy knockin' over the vertical "space saving" variety.

My nomination goes to a new 9" Rackmount Standard with:

_____a big universal wall-wart eradicator/PSU/Surge Protector/Battery Backup Anchor at the base
_____four modular glass and I/O panel equipped doors
_____a 9" fan at the top of an efficient convection chimney
_____and a metric crapload of other features I don't have the time to rant about ATM! }:)
jt [8]
Trash Hauler: call sign: eight-ball

C.O. AC130H SpecOps 68kMLAAF




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users