Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

via c3 cpu's

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 25, 2003 11:18:25 PM

I see complete systems (w/o monitor) being offered with
these cpu's and I haven't found any reviews of them -
does anyone have any experience or a pointer to a webpage?
They are really low-priced, but I wonder if they are junk?
Littleberry

More about : cpu

July 26, 2003 12:27:46 AM

Via C3 CPUs are geared for low power and low heat meaning they work well in small form factor PCs.

The fastest model is 1ghz but doesn't perform like a 1ghz athlon or pentium. In many applications it is quite a bit slower.

So in short, this is a workstation chip, not a gaming/code crunching chip.

Here's tom's review of the C3:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020605/index.html

You can find more info about what people are doing with the C3 here:
http://www.mini-itx.com
July 26, 2003 2:52:32 AM

Thankyou, TknD. I read those webpages and I am impressed,
especially with the low power/low noise aspect, while still
being a pretty good processor for things like general
editing and websurfing. I am only wondering about the power
supply noise - I asked tranguilPC about that, but, until
they reply, do you have any experience with a noiseless
power supply? That would seal the deal for me.
Thanks again, Littleberry
Related resources
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2003 3:55:55 AM

A VIA C3 1000 has nearly as much performance as a K6-III 450. It could rock your world! But seriously, a low voltage Celeron would be a better choice. Heck, I even ran a Celeron 1200 Tualatin at 800MHz, undervolted to 1.30v on a Slot-T adapter, using a passive cooler. It still had twice the performance of a C3-1000, of course.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 26, 2003 4:59:27 AM

People commonly use laptop power supplies to run their C3 systems. These PSUs only offer 55W to 90W of power and need the external ac adapter you commonly see with laptops. The other part of the PSU is a simple circuit board that connects to the ATX power connector and has a connection for the ac adapter. Fan count: zero.

Here's some links:

Circuit board thing:
http://www.idot.com/TheStore/Desktop/796Spec.asp?Produc...

AC adapter (picture):
http://www.idot.com/Images/Products/Case/807_small.jpg

The only catch is that you're limited on how much power you have available. You need the epia board with the C3 soldered on the board and offers a complete low power package with onboard video/sound/lan tuned specifically for the C3. You also have to watch what hard drive and cdrom you use. People typically use laptop drives for this purpose. If you can get your hands on a good enough PSU however, you might be able to dodge the bullet and use standard components.

As for truly silent systems, that is only possible with the VIA Epia ME6000 (667Mhz) or Epia 500 (533Mhz). Both boards come with passively cooled CPUs. Epias faster than that will come with faster C3 chips that have a small fan on the heat sink. People however have modded the Epia 800 to be passively cooled using a larger heat sink. Combine it with a laptop PSU and you got yourself a dead silent computer (except for hard drive).

The pre-packaged system like the Tranquil PC bypass the standard heat sink/fan and integrate the heatsink as part of the casing. So the fins you see on the side of the case is technically the heatsink as well.


I myself have a C3, namely the Epia ME6000 platform with 512MB of RAM. The size of the board is incredibly small and the chip is passively cooled. I haven't spent the time in gathering the right components to run on a laptop psu so it is currently running off a standard ATX psu. But since the board draws so little power the psu fan barely generates noise since the PSU is far from reaching full load. The system is currently acting as a gateway router and soon to be server for my appartment. I've installed winXP pro on the system and it runs very well. When using the system for everyday tasks such as browsing the net I rarely feel the slow processor at work. I can't say the same for my duron 650Mhz (with 256MB of RAM) system at home which has win2k loaded on it but you could argue that the duron system doesn't have as much ram to work with.

The processor is definitely not for everyone; it targets a specific set of users and is very popular among the users that want to build custom embedded systems for themselves.

If you want more information or a community the interact with, the sudhian forum is very popular for discussing small form factor pcs including the C3:

http://forums.sudhian.com

Mini-itx / Via board:
http://forums.sudhian.com/categories.cfm?catid=44&forum...

Also, I believe THG reviewed the first version of the C3 1Ghz chip which is a bit slower than the latest C3 1Ghz core (nehemiah) which has a number of improvements.
July 26, 2003 5:35:20 AM

Yeah you could do the celeron thing if you want...but you'd have to get your hands on the right parts and it wouldn't be compact.

Also, the celeron will eat up more power than the C3. In fact you could probably run an entire epia 1ghz system on the power used by just the celeron chip.

But if power and space isn't an issue, then there are all kinds of things you can do to make a fast and silent system.

Unfortunately for people like me who live in california, electricity isn't so cheap so power can be an issue.

Personally, I'm just impressed with how compact and low power these things are.
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2003 11:44:20 PM

I'm not impressed at all! I mean, the Celeron wouldn't produce THAT much more heat at 1.30v. In fact, if you think about the performance level, the VIA processor is terribly inefficient. My P4 is probably more efficient. I say this because, a video it takes me 2 hours to encode would probably take the VIA platform around 8. Now that means I'd have to have the entire system up for 4x as long, since I do most of this while I'm sleeping, and set the computer to shut off when finished!

A far better platform would be a Pentium M or a ULV PIII-M. Yes, SOME company could put on on a desktop board. When you think about it, the low performance and low power consumption of the C3 puts it in the same market as a Transmeta Crusoe, which is a laptop CPU (also available on a desktop developers platform).

If you really want to economize I suggest a Pentium 233MMX.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 27, 2003 5:06:28 PM

If you want more power, you can buy <A HREF="http://www.commell.com.tw/Product/SBC/LV-670.HTM" target="_new">Mini-FlexATX</A> P4 motherboards. These are 17cm x 17cm, just like Via's own Mini-ITX platform. However if you are also into silence and low power consumption, Mini-ITX is the only way to go, for now. I do expect Pentium M processors to eventually make it into Mini-FlexATX desktop mobos, but as of yet, I have only seen them in embedded and micro-ATX versions. If all you need is something to surf and edit with, I see no reason why a Via C3 would not suit you. There is already an established market for these, with lots of <A HREF="http://www.mini-itx.com/reviews/hush/" target="_new">sexy</A> <A HREF="http://www.mini-itx.com/reviews/cubit/" target="_new">enclosures</A> available. And after all, not all solutions involve a bigger hammer.

<font color=white><b>_________________________________________________</font color=white></b>
Armadillo<font color=orange>[</font color=orange><font color=green>TcC</font color=green><font color=orange>]</font color=orange> at Lanwar and MML
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2003 5:41:11 PM

Micro ATX is better in almost every way than Mini-ITX. The only difference between the 2 is that Micro ATX is around 1.5 inces longer, to support 2 added PCI slots. There is NO additional noise nor heat from those two slots unless...you put cards in them. And now I'm supposing you'll argue "but since those 2 slots aren't on the ITX board, you wouldn't have that problem". That's like saying a Eunoch is better than a Man because he can't get blueballs.

You can get Micro ATX cases that resemble a briefcase or a stereo. Mini-ITX only shortens the case by that 1.5 inches. Of course the Micro ATX boards won't fit in a Cube, but cubes are
1) Taller than Micro ATX desktops, making them a bad solution for home theater (less verticle rack space, with the rack at a fixed width).
2) Wider than a Micro ATX thin tower, taking up more space on a desktop (desk area is best measured in verticle surface area).

Of course a Mini-ITX board can be placed in a Micro ATX case, or a tower could be made shorter (which wouldn't help space considerations), or a desktop narrower (same storry), so Mini-ITX has no point in the home nor office. No advantages, just fewer slots.

So a review of what you said:

Quote:
However if you are also into silence and low power consumption, Mini-ITX is the only way to go


PCI slots don't make noise, nor do they draw power if they are not being used, so Mini-ITX has no advantages over Micro ATX in either silence or power consumption. An embedded Micro board be better in nearly every respect than an embedded Mini board.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 27, 2003 6:45:13 PM

LOL my platform can beat up your platform!! Crashman is always good for a smile... I liked the way you implied that I assumed PCI slots make noise. Very classy. In fact, I had not even given a single thought to the PCI slots. You simply missed some key points. The Mini-ITX specification <i>requires</i> that the board be run off no more than 100 watts. Most of the time you can get away with using an <A HREF="http://www.mini-itx.com/store/default.asp?c=9#p67" target="_new">external PSU</A> (similar to a laptop's) with zero moving parts (read: zero noise). With the PSU no longer part of the case, guess what? Smaller case. And the reason you can use such a low-powered PSU is due to the low voltage of the VIA Eden and C3 CPUs, which [drum roll] can be cooled without the aid of a fan.

The cube was just one example of a sexy enclosure for the mini-ITX. You apparently completely ignored my other link, so here it is <A HREF="http://www.mini-itx.com/store/hush.asp" target="_new">again</A>. Note the complete absence of fans and an internal PSU. I challenge you to find a Micro-ATX sytem as small and as quiet -- and as sexy, for that matter -- as this. With the faux cooling fins along the side, a black one would look right at home next to my Adcom amp... *drool*

<font color=white><b>_________________________________________________</font color=white></b>
Armadillo<font color=orange>[</font color=orange><font color=green>TcC</font color=green><font color=orange>]</font color=orange> at Lanwar and MML
July 27, 2003 9:21:02 PM

They do make passivly cooled ATX PSU's that can deliver more than 300 watts...so i am sure they make low output/form factor PSU's that would not require you sticking to a very low output laptop psu...

Next...have you though of looking at mobile Athlon xp cpu's...they sell on new egg...not sure on the specs but i would immagine they have low power/heat output...i dunno about low form factor mobos for them...they are socket A though...

Worse comes to worse...call me up i have an amd 386dx-40 and a video 7 graphics card...all total i bet they draw about 70 watts...great for dos 5.2

So easy to fry yet tastes so good...
Silicon: The other, other, other white meat :evil: 
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2003 10:12:13 PM

But you stated the main reason for not choosing an imbedded Pentium-M desktop solution was because they were only available in Micro ATX. Since the power requirement for such a CPU is similarly small, the only thing I see the ITX offering is a narrower dektop, or a shorter tower. And that's only 1.5-2 inches. Given that most stereo racks are around 19 inches wide (to hold standard 16.5-18.5 inch wide components), narrowing a case (traditional mATX desktop/full sized power supply) from 16 to 14 inches offers no advantage within that rack.

I'm sure you've seen the Coolermaster cases that are the same size as many home theater head units. Yes, they are taller than the one you showed, but still have similar looks that are perfect with a home theater.

A distict disadvantage of the style case you showed me is that nearly every part has to be mounted externally. I'm speaking of any TV-Tuner you may use, any sound upgrades you might consider, and of course you can't upgrade video externally. So the Coolermaster case is a more adequate solution.

You see, simply playing your DiVX movies is not enough to qualify it as a home theater center. Look at the X-Box, it's better in most ways than that thing you showed me. It plays DVD's AND games. Wow! Now, if you add a TiVO unit, WebTV, and a home stereo system, you have...a PC! But now you have a bunch of components!

So what we really need is a Micro ATX case with passive cooling for both the CPU and power supply. And a low power CPU with lots of performance. Such as an embedded Pentium-M based Micro ATX system, with cooling fins on one side of the case for a heatpipe, and on the other side of the case for a stereo amplifier.

Or better yet just use that Coolermaster case, an external stereo amp, a nice Micro ATX board, etc, all good PC parts, and use large low speed fans. Once the PC drops below about 30db you won't hear it from TV viewing distance anyway. And these are parts already on the market.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 28, 2003 4:18:59 PM

Crashman, you are missing the point. Mini-ITX is popular because it is the smallest, quietest system available today. Sure, it may not be smallest by a wide margin, but nevertheless, it is. It combines two of the latest crazes -- small and silent -- and combines them all into one package. You could certainly build a small Micro-ATX system, and make it relatively silent. You may in fact be able to build one with no fans at all, however I suspect there would be some risk to this, as I have not seen it done yet. Even if you have to use low-speed fans, it would still not be AS small and AS quiet as a mini-ITX system. The power of the system in this case is <i>irrelevant</i>. People are not building these to be workhorses, or even HTPC's for that matter. They are building them because they are small, quiet, and cheap. If you view some of the projects people are making with the mini-ITX board, it becomes obvious that the focus of these systems is not exactly processing power, and being able to externally mount the PSU is a distinct advantage. Also in some cases, the projects would not have been able to be completed if the Mini-ITX board were larger by just fractions of an inch, so a Micro-ATX board would not work. Here are some of my favorites:

<A HREF="http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/c64/" target="_new">http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/c64/&lt;/A>

<A HREF="http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/sx64/" target="_new">http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/sx64/&lt;/A>

<A HREF="http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/pictureframepc/page2.a..." target="_new">http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/pictureframepc/page2.a...;/A> <--- very cool!

<A HREF="http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/guitarworkstation/" target="_new">http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/guitarworkstation/&lt;/A>

And finally:
<A HREF="http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/psu-pc/" target="_new">http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/psu-pc/&lt;/A> An entire, functioning PC, built inside a standard ATX PSU! Awesome. Lets see you do THAT with a Micro-ATX board!

<font color=white><b>_________________________________________________</font color=white></b>
Armadillo<font color=orange>[</font color=orange><font color=green>TcC</font color=green><font color=orange>]</font color=orange> at Lanwar and MML
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2003 9:44:05 PM

Quietest? Nothing as quiet? You can put that crappy VIA CPU on a Micro ATX board, they make them in Socket 370 format. And removing two slots does NOT make it quieter, for more information <A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">CLICK HERE</A>

So it's not about silence at all, just size. Nont of those special projects could make use of the expansion slot at all, they would have been better off to use laptop internals and at least gotten some PCMCIA slots. But if you still want to argue that Mini ITX makes it quieter, <A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">Read This</A>

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 29, 2003 6:12:05 AM

LOL!! Nice links. Once again, Crashman, you are always good for a laugh. Reminds me of a bratty child, who, when cornered in an argument, resorts to name-calling. :lol: 

Sure you could put them on a Micro-ATX board, but why? The Mini-ITX is smaller, and is guaranteed to run off less than 100 Watts.

Quote:
So it's not about silence at all, just size.

Am I talking to a wall? Its about BOTH. No fans + smallest form factor available = smallest and quietest. Not to mention inexpensive. What is so hard to understand? I'm beginning to wonder, Crashman, what exactly <i>is</i> your point, other than you can't stand to admit you're wrong? This thread was started by someone asking if the C3 would be appropriate for web-surfing and editing. Tell me, what would this person possibly need with PCMCIA slots, or PCI slots for that matter? Everything is already integrated into the Mini-ITX board in the first place, including a TV-out.

So far your posts have contributed no constructive information. Sure, it has only one PCI slot. Sure, its not very powerful. WE GET IT. But like I said in the first place, the solution to some problems is not always a bigger hammer. All I am hearing is that just because <i>you</i> dislike the Mini-ITX format, anyone else must be stupid for considering it. A very immature attitude, I must say, and the opinions that accompany such a mindset are of no use to anyone who may actually be looking into Mini-ITX. <A HREF="http://www.syndil.com/stfu" target="_new">Enjoy!</A>

<font color=white><b>_________________________________________________</font color=white></b>
Armadillo<font color=orange>[</font color=orange><font color=green>TcC</font color=green><font color=orange>]</font color=orange> at Lanwar and MML
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2003 6:46:58 AM

Quote:
Am I talking to a wall? Its about BOTH.

No, your lying to a genious. You can't convince me of a lie by repeating it. You don't believe the C3 is also available in Socket 370? You don't believe that a laptop would offer similar power consumption with better graphics available, better expandability, and even smaller size?

Beasically you have 2 good options: If you need a PC, buy a PC, if you need a portable computer, buy a laptop. Using sub-PC parts that are inferior to laptop parts in every way, for the sake of size and power, is ludicrous. Laptop parts are better in nearly every way for those projects you showed: smaller, more expandability, better graphics availability, while offering similar heat and power characteristics. But of course they don't offer that single PCI slot, which is useless in your projects anyway.

So mATX is better for a PC, laptops are bette for anything else. If you wanted a real PC with similar power characteristics, build it. The crappy C3 fits Socket 370, use it if you must.

Quote:
So far your posts have contributed no constructive information.


Ah, the reverse logic trick. So far you have provided nothing BUT useless information about useless parts. What have you against putting a laptop in a guitar, the fact that it could use a GeForce2 Go graphics or better? The fact that laptops have expansion cards, where you're trying to eliminate slots?

If anyone wants an inexpensive internet terminal, you'd be best off telling them to get an old Pentium 1 system. Or a WebTV. If they need TV-Out, in a small package, they'd be best off with a laptop.

Quote:
What is so hard to understand?


I have no idea what you're not understanding here, except that such platforms as MiniITX and FlexATX are leading us towards the elimination of powerfull do-all systems.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2003 6:52:44 AM

Wait! I've seen the light! You're telling me that ITX being smaller makes it quieter than Micro ATX! Of course! So my 1976 Pinto MUST have been quieter than my friends 1986 Ranger, because they both had 2.4L engines, yet mine was smaller! That means it ran cooler too! And consumed less fuel while parked than his did, even though his had fuel injection! Thanks!

And YES that IS what you're saying, you're saying the ITX platform consumes LESS power than a Socket 370 platform using the same chipset and CPU. While being quieter AND producing less heat. I believe you now!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 29, 2003 3:54:39 PM

Quote:
No, your lying to a genious.

Oh, now you're a genious? Then you have to be about the densest genious I have ever met! One, I am not lying. Two, I am sure you <i>think</i> you are a genious.

Quote:
Using sub-PC parts that are inferior to laptop parts in every way, for the sake of size and power, is ludicrous.

And we <i>finally</i> get to the heart of the matter. Your <b>opinion</b> that using ITX parts for the sake of size and power (which is directly related to silence) is ludicrous. Thats all we needed to know. Opinion noted, and duly ignored.

Quote:
Laptop parts are better in nearly every way for those projects you showed: smaller, more expandability, better graphics availability, while offering similar heat and power characteristics.

No argument here, except for one key point. Laptop parts are damn expensive. Why spend the extra cash using laptop parts when VIA C3's are so damn cheap? I can go to Pricewatch right now and find a Mini-ITX/C3 combo with integrated VGA, LAN, and Audio, for about a hundred smackers. And guess what, it uses zero fans, not even in the PSU. Of course, as you have already made clear, the pursuit of absolute silence is "ludicrous", so I would not expect you to understand the appeal. A genious, however, would be able to bridge the tiny gap and make the connection. You can argue against it all you like, but the appeal IS there, otherwise people would not be buying the damn things in the first place, nor would this thread ever have been started! What say you to that?

Quote:
Ah, the reverse logic trick. So far you have provided nothing BUT useless information about useless parts. What have you against putting a laptop in a guitar, the fact that it could use a GeForce2 Go graphics or better?

First off, go back to logic class. If I was guilty of any fallacy at all, it would have been argumentum ad hominem. Reverse logic does not apply. However I stand by my statement as fact, and contend that the fallacy is yours, in denying the value of my information. Nay, you also deny the value of the very parts at the center of this discussion, so why should we listen to anything you have to say about them? You are unabashedly biased against them.

Secondly, as I have stated before, sometimes a bigger hammer is not the best solution. For the <A HREF="http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/guitarworkstation/" target="_new">project</A> you are apparently referring to, do you really think GeForce Go graphics would be required? You're starting to sound like Tim Allen here. Sure you can always spend more cash and get more power, but more power is not always necessary. Personally I would rather not risk a laptop for the project you mentioned. However I would think nothing of throwing down a spare C-note for a Mini-ITX board.

Quote:
If anyone wants an inexpensive internet terminal, you'd be best off telling them to get an old Pentium 1 system. Or a WebTV. If they need TV-Out, in a small package, they'd be best off with a laptop.

First off, the original poster asked about web surfing <i>and</i> editing. Inexpensive internet terminals were never brought up. But just for the sake of argument, lets look at what you've got here: Pentium 1, loud and slow. Unlikely to get XP to work on it in any usable fashion. WebTV, limited application. Can't run a proper OS on WebTV for doing things like Word, etc. Laptop, comparatively expensive. Next!

Quote:
you're saying the ITX platform consumes LESS power than a Socket 370 platform using the same chipset and CPU. While being quieter AND producing less heat.

OK better read this part slowly, I'd hate to confuse you. Putting a C3 on a socket 370 board <i>may</i> indeed use as little power as an ITX setup, then again it may not. Unlike the Mini-ITX, the mATX specification does not require that the sum of the components consume less than 100 Watts. Why risk it? <b>Regardless</b>, What reason would you have for putting a C3 CPU on a mATX board, if the only benefit of doing so is the extra PCI slots? If you are not going to use them in the first place, then may as well stick with the smaller, guaranteed-to-work-without-fans ITX board. If they are used, it may increase the power requirements to the point of needing a fan in the PSU. Therefore if the part of the point of going with the C3 is silence, then it makes no sense to use one on an mATX board. If you need the extra expandability provided by mATX over Mini-ITX, in other words you <i>are</i> going to use the PCI slots, you're already pushing the power limits, so you may as well get a Celeron. Also might as well forget about building a silent system, because your going to need a PSU with a fan. Of course, as you have already stated, such a pursuit is "ludicrous", so I would not expect you to agree. However contrary to your attitude, your opinion is not the only one that counts.

Quote:
I have no idea what you're not understanding here, except that such platforms as MiniITX and FlexATX are leading us towards the elimination of powerfull do-all systems.

Geezus, now you're just being ridiculously paranoid. But now I understand the source of all your strife towards Mini-ITX. The only problem is that its completely irrational. I am 100% certain that people can enjoy their tiny, silent ITX systems, while you can safely hold on to your misguided belief that every PC should be a monster able to do it all. So you just keep on recommending those bigger hammers to people who don't need them. I'll understand.

However I still stand by what I said in my <i>first</i> post in this thread (go ahead, scroll up and double check):

Quote:
If all you need is something to surf and edit with, I see no reason why a Via C3 would not suit you.

Despite all your contrariness and smoke, you have yet to prove otherwise. But go ahead, reply, as I'm sure you will. Please, insult me some more. Tell me ad nauseum how a mATX system would suit him better because you don't like Mini-ITX and mATX can run circles around it any day of the week and your mom said that Mini-ITX smokes pot. I expect nothing less from you. But there is hope. See, I used to be just like you. But thankfully, I got a little bit older and a little bit wiser, and learned to respect different viewpoints, no matter how opposed to my own they may be. We didn't need to go on this whole diatribe of C3 vs. the world, considering what was asked. But maybe one day you'll grow up a bit more and learn not to attack anything you don't agree with. After all, that is essentially the definition of bigotry. Food for thought.

<font color=white><b>_________________________________________________</font color=white></b>
Armadillo<font color=orange>[</font color=orange><font color=green>TcC</font color=green><font color=orange>]</font color=orange> at Lanwar and MML
a b à CPUs
July 30, 2003 12:56:28 AM

1.) It's those stupid psychologist who labled me a genious
2.) Not believing your lies does not make me dense
3.) Telling me you're not lying does not make your statements factual.

And you're still making the same argument that a Pinto would make less noise than a Ford Ranger with the same engine, because it's a smaller vehicle. You can cover it from 1000 angles, but I've not the patience to deal with every angle you've mentioned when they all boil down to the fact that...two vehicles with the same engine will make the same noise using the same exhaust system. It doesn't matter if the vehicle is in a garage, in a carport in Miami, or on a parking ramp in Cleveland.

You see, the basic premise you make here is that these platforms would be good for anything, other than being cheap. Did you know that a moped will go faster than the speed limit in most cities, gets great fuel mileage, and fits in 1/8 the parking space of a small car? Of course they aren't much good for carrying home a weeks worth of groceries.

You're telling people to get junk to use as a PC. The C-64 with epia internals isn't what this guy was looking for.

Heck, my P4 system is whisper quiet. He could buy a whole system from a place like Compgeeks for $300-$400.

I always recomend the least expensive, reasonable quality system that can be used for several years, including upgrades. You can't upgrade the Epia platform. But you can make a Micro ATX system with similar power standards, and upgrade it later when you find out how wimpy it is.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 30, 2003 5:40:53 PM

Resorting to false analogies when dealing directly with the topic at hand is non-beneficial to your argument, I see. And calling me a liar to boot (again), without <i>ever</i> clarifying what the lie was that I was allegedly proposing. Tell me, which part was the lie? And I spoke nothing of Pintos and Rangers. Those are your words, not mine. I grow tired of your childishness. The point still stands. Mini-ITX does have appeal, whether you understand it or not. Obviously, your "genious" mind is unable to grasp it. And in response to the original question of the thread, a C3 would work fine for web-surfing and editing. Once again, you have yet to prove otherwise.

Quote:
You see, the basic premise you make here is that these platforms would be good for anything, other than being cheap.

Again, putting words in my mouth. I never claimed that a Mini-ITX would be good for <i>anything</i>. Typical kindergarten tactic. Paraphrase the argument, then attack the new version. Read my posts more carefully next time.

Quote:
You're telling people to get junk to use as a PC. The C-64 with epia internals isn't what this guy was looking for.

Who are you speaking to? I never said these things. If you have to put words in my mouth rather than come up with points counter to my own, then it is <i>you</i> who are doing the lying, by falsely representing my statements.

Quote:
I always recomend the least expensive, reasonable quality system that can be used for several years, including upgrades.

Riiiight. And just 1 post ago you were all about getting a laptop, a Pentium 1, or WebTV. Please, if you are going to insist on continuing this battle of wits, at least pose a decent challenge. Genious, lol...

And one more thing. I always get a chuckle when someone poses as a genious, as if that is somehow supposed to strengthen their argument, or perhaps intimidate the opposition, like a little kid saying "I'm a black belt!" to a bully. Even if you were a genious, which I doubt, did you ever consider that you might be dealing with someone who might also be a genious, and who could possibly even have a higher IQ than your own? And no, I'm not claiming that I am either of those. Just thought I would point out the utter foolishness of playing the "genious" card. Only provides fodder for mockery when you make a fool out of yourself.

<font color=white><b>_________________________________________________</font color=white></b>
Armadillo<font color=orange>[</font color=orange><font color=green>TcC</font color=green><font color=orange>]</font color=orange> at Lanwar and MML
July 30, 2003 7:26:14 PM

Quote:
Did you know that a moped will go faster than the speed limit in most cities, gets great fuel mileage, and fits in 1/8 the parking space of a small car? Of course they aren't much good for carrying home a weeks worth of groceries.

That is a perfect analogy of the situation!

<b>Qui habet aures audiendi audiat</b>
July 30, 2003 8:18:10 PM

*grumble* Why deal in analogies when everyone here (presumably) understands the subject at hand. I don't understand the desire to "dumb it down". But, I'll indulge anyway.

Lets take the moped analogy a bit further. Sure, the moped would not be very good at getting a week's worth of groceries. So lets upgrade to a mid-sized sedan. But wait, the mid-sized sedan isn't good for hauling the boat down to the lake on weekends. Lets get a pickup truck. But wait, the pickup truck can't carry 7 people for family vacations. So lets get a Suburban. But wait, the Suburban can't haul the 5th-wheel horse trailer. etc. etc. etc. If ALL you need is something to carry you around and get good gas mileage, then a moped would suit the task just fine. Even in analogy, Crashman is just recommending more than is needed.

<font color=white><b>_________________________________________________</font color=white></b>
Armadillo<font color=orange>[</font color=orange><font color=green>TcC</font color=green><font color=orange>]</font color=orange> at Lanwar and MML
July 30, 2003 8:47:59 PM

Having actually bothered to read through this silly argument I have to say that I mostly have to back Crashman up here.

Quote:
Sure you could put them on a Micro-ATX board, but why? The Mini-ITX is smaller, and is guaranteed to run off less than 100 Watts.

Only barely smaller, and you say that as though it is impossible to just simply do a little research and design a micro-atx PC that runs off of less than 100 watts. (Or for that matter that it's completely impossible to find an absolute-silent power supply that provides more than 100W.) Not only <i>can</i> you build a micro-atx solution that uses that little power, but you also <i>can</i> find silent power supplies that deliver more than 100W. All that it takes is bothering to look.

Quote:
No fans + smallest form factor available = smallest and quietest.

And again, you say this as though a micro-atx system couldn't possibly be built without fans, which they most certainly can.

Quote:
So far your posts have contributed no constructive information.

Neither have yours, so now is hardly the time to get picky about these things.

Quote:
Sure, it has only one PCI slot. Sure, its not very powerful. WE GET IT. But like I said in the first place, the solution to some problems is not always a bigger hammer.

And Crashman's point is that you can find a solution that is considerably more powerful but at the same time just as silent and low-power. You <i>can</i> build a micro-atx system <i>without</i> fans and with a <i>real</i> graphics solution. You can even give it more processing power if you want to spend the money. (Not that you have to though.) Crashman isn't saying to use a sledgehammer. He's simply saying that sometimes the absolute smallest hammer in the toolchest is just plain too small, and the VIA systems are <i>definately</i> the smallest of the hammers.

Quote:
All I am hearing is that just because you dislike the Mini-ITX format, anyone else must be stupid for considering it.

It's funny how you can complain about him putting words in your mouth and put words into his mouth at the same time. He never said that. He merely said that you can build a system just as silent that runs on just as low power using micro-atx instead of mini-itx. The advantage is that it's much more expandible and upgradable. The disadvantage is a slightly larger size. <i>Most</i> people would be more than glad to trade that small size difference for the ability to actually upgrade the system later.

Quote:
And we finally get to the heart of the matter. Your opinion that using ITX parts for the sake of size and power (which is directly related to silence) is ludicrous. Thats all we needed to know. Opinion noted, and duly ignored.

Actually Crashman has an excellent opinion there, and it's one that I've said before too. If you want a tiny size format (especially in something that can get banged around) that runs really cool then using laptop parts will get you a lot further than VIA's solutions. Hell, look at the tablet PCs. They rock. So it is kind of silly to suggest VIA for these reasons <b>unless</b> (and here is the big part where you casually ignore) <i>price</i> is also a notable concern. So Crashman's opinion is perfectly justified. As is yours <i>if</i> you count price as a significant consideration. You both have perfectly valid opinions here and price is really the <i>only</i> factor between them.

Quote:
guess what, it uses zero fans, not even in the PSU. Of course, as you have already made clear, the pursuit of absolute silence is "ludicrous", so I would not expect you to understand the appeal.

Again, Crashman never said that the pursuit of absolute silence is ludicrous. He said that using mini-itx when a micro-atx or a laptop solution would work better is. So once again you've put words into his mouth and at the same time complained that he did so to you. You're a very hypocritical person, aren't you?

Quote:
Personally I would rather not risk a laptop for the project you mentioned. However I would think nothing of throwing down a spare C-note for a Mini-ITX board.

This is one place where you show your true colors. You yourself said "sometimes a bigger hammer is not the best solution." and yet you <i>completely</i> throw out the idea of spending even less money on purchasing a used laptop that could just as easily have met the requirements for that project <i>and</i> have been smaller. So the truth is that you <i>really</i> don't care about what size hammer is being used, you're just a mini-itx zealot who thinks that nothing else could possibly meet people's needs any better.

Quote:
Pentium 1, loud and slow

Slow I'll give you, but you clearly don't seem to care about performance and for web surfing it's more than enough power. Loud though however is a bold-faced lie. I've seen plenty of Pentium 1s run off of a <i>passive</i> cooler. I've even seen a Pentium II 266 run off of a passive cooler. (Though that one was a pretty big heatsink for its time.) So loud <i>is</i> a lie.

Quote:
Unlikely to get XP to work on it in any usable fashion.

Since when is XP all-important? Hell, use Win98SE or Linux. The VIA system won't run XP worth a darn anyway. Sure, it'll run, but only just barely.

Quote:
Laptop, comparatively expensive. Next!

It's so nice to see you give laptops a fair consideration. Because it's not like you couldn't easily purchase a used laptop for a very affordable price.

Quote:
OK better read this part slowly, I'd hate to confuse you. Putting a C3 on a socket 370 board may indeed use as little power as an ITX setup, then again it may not.

No offense, but who is the one sounding confused here, hmm? In case you were wanting to know, micro-atx <i>can</i> use as little power as a mini-itx setup. There's no need to wonder or pretend that this information just doesn't exist.

Quote:
Unlike the Mini-ITX, the mATX specification does not require that the sum of the components consume less than 100 Watts. Why risk it?

That's like saying that because the USB specification doesn't specifically require the ability to run a webcam that it therefore can't do so or that it's even somehow a risk to use a USB webcam. Just because the specification doesn't explicitely require something doens't mean that it <i>can't</i> do it at all or that it is even a risk to do it. It just means that it wasn't required in the specification. Solutions <i>do</i> exist and <i>are</i> trustworthy.

Quote:
What reason would you have for putting a C3 CPU on a mATX board, if the only benefit of doing so is the extra PCI slots?

First because you never know when you'll need the extra PCI slots. Second because you also get an AGP slot. Third because it also gives you the ability to upgrade your CPU should you ever desire to do so.

Quote:
If you are not going to use them in the first place, then may as well stick with the smaller, guaranteed-to-work-without-fans ITX board.

As opposed to going with a more flexibke and only slightly larger guaranteed-to-work-without-fans micro-atx solution. Yeah, you're full of good advice.

Quote:
Therefore if the part of the point of going with the C3 is silence, then it makes no sense to use one on an mATX board.

Again you use lies and spread FUD. You <i>can</i> configure a micro-atx PC that has <i>no</i> fans and therefore is <i>just</i> as silent.

Quote:
Geezus, now you're just being ridiculously paranoid. But now I understand the source of all your strife towards Mini-ITX. The only problem is that its completely irrational. I am 100% certain that people can enjoy their tiny, silent ITX systems, while you can safely hold on to your misguided belief that every PC should be a monster able to do it all.

Crashman never said that every PC should be a monster. Micro-atx isn't <i>that</i> big and laptops certainly aren't. They however are both quite upgradable compared to mini-itx. That aside, he was sounding a bit paranoid there. I agree with you in that there is room for all of these solutions to peacefully co-exist.

Quote:
So you just keep on recommending those bigger hammers to people who don't need them.

You're really not one who should be talking here since you already admitted yourself that you'd completely throw out any idea of using smaller, lower-heat, lower-power solutions just because they're laptop parts instead of mini-itx parts. You can't complain of someone suggesting big hammers when you yourself won't aknowledge that even smaller hammers than your own suggestions do exist and do work.

Quote:
But thankfully, I got a little bit older and a little bit wiser, and learned to respect different viewpoints, no matter how opposed to my own they may be.

Right. That's why you completely flat-out refused Crashman's opinion that laptop parts are better suited for the fields that people are using mini-itx parts. As you said "<font color=red>Thats all we needed to know. Opinion noted, and duly ignored.</font color=red>" <sarcasm>I can see how you were wise and respected his viewpoint no matter how opposed to your own it may be.</sarcasm>

Quote:
Resorting to false analogies when dealing directly with the topic at hand is non-beneficial to your argument, I see.

Actually, his analogy was quite relevant. Their only difference is size. Both use the exact same internal components. So one can't possibly be any quieter than the other.

Quote:
And calling me a liar to boot (again), without ever clarifying what the lie was that I was allegedly proposing.

Actually, as an independant observer I have to say that he did rather clearly identify that your lies are that you keep saying that micro-atx can't possibly be completely silent like your mini-itx can be. For your information, micro-atx <i>can</i> be completely silent. It isn't a <i>requirement</i> in the micro-atx specs, but there <i>are</i> components for a micro-atx system that you could use which run fanless anyway.

Quote:
And I spoke nothing of Pintos and Rangers. Those are your words, not mine.

For someone who sounded like you knew something of a debate, you erected a pretty tall strawman here.

Quote:
Again, putting words in my mouth. I never claimed that a Mini-ITX would be good for anything.

Officially claimed, no. Again as an independant observer though, you did strongly imply it once.

Quote:
Even if you were a genious, which I doubt, did you ever consider that you might be dealing with someone who might also be a genious, and who could possibly even have a higher IQ than your own?

No offense, but yet again as an independant third party, it's pretty clear to see from both of your posts which of you has the higher IQ, and in case you were wondering, it isn't you. You are clearly not stupid however. I'd definately put you above average.

<b>And now to both of you:</b>
The beautiful thing about the PC industry is that it is based on the ideal that no one solution fits all, even in extreme niche cases. Can we just agree that mini-itx has some uses (mostly when cost, wattage, and silence are primary concerns) but that there are also other solutions which may meet people's needs better, even sometimes when cost, wattage, and silence are involved?

"<i>Let's see what <b>Paragraph 84-B</b> has to say about it.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030724" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
a b à CPUs
July 30, 2003 8:58:12 PM

Ah, I reply to you only to let everyone else read this reply, casting my pearls before swine.

I certainly hope the rest of you can understand that smaller does not mean quieter. And that my Web-TV solution was posted for the benifit of syndil, not the original poster, who should probably buy an actual PC. New PC's are available for $300 at Compgeeks.



<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
July 30, 2003 9:09:47 PM

BTW, I only mentioned my superior intellect because it was applicable to my ability to see past your deception.

Socrates lost an arguement once, not because he was wrong or lacked intelligence, simply because his accusers were very adept at misdirection.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
July 30, 2003 9:14:36 PM

Whenever another person fails to understand reason, I have to resort to analogies to help them.

The poor lost originator of this thread, would probably be best off buying a cheap complete PC, thereby having the space to upgrade in the future, in case his needs change.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 30, 2003 11:41:52 PM

I stayed out of the argument to avoid getting caught up in things and to help make sure that I won't say anything that is a bias towards one solution or the other.

Rather than propose that one solution is better than the other, I'll try to give viewpoints from the perspective of other users rather than just the pc enthusiast's view.

There are certainly many users for PCs. Let's consider a few cases.

1. Basic home user. This type of user typically likes to use their computer to access the internet and do simple word processing tasks with a little bit of content creation on the side (ex: personal greeting cards and color pictures).

2. Gamer. I think we all know what this person wants.

3. 3D Animation Artist. This user likes to use popular high-polygon 3D rendering software.

4. Home theater user. This person would like to user their PC as part of their home theater experience. With knowledge about computers and their ability to support playback of many video and sound compression formats, this user would like to take advantage of that aspect of computers.

5. Small software/web programmer. This person commonly uses their computer to write code either through a text editor or a terminal window, but makes small applications or web applications that use little resources on the system or are run on more powerful servers for testing.

Now let's consider how much computing power each of these users need.

Basic home user: very little/low end. This user commonly uses windows applications which are not processor intensive. More advanced users of this type, however, may want to do something a little more such as use Photoshop for digital imaging but they will only use these programs to do trivial tasks like cropping and color balancing.

Gamer: medium to high. This user would prefer to enjoy his gaming experience without being interuptted by slowdowns. Depending on what games he plays, he may only need a mid-range system or he may need a high-end system for newer games.

3d artist: high/specialized systems. This user would prefer to have rendering done in anyway faster to be able to see the results quicker. However, due to the computing power necessary to get these results, special hardware may be necessary. Depending on the software the artist wants to use, this user may be able to use a high end PC or may need a specialized system.

Home theater user: mid range. This user is going to be using a computer as a more general video playback device. Computing power is necessary for decoding high compression formats and some special hardware may be necessary for doing other tasks like recording video. Depending on how much the user wants to do, he will need a mid range computer with specilized hardware like tv decoder cards or high quality sound cards.

Small software/web programmer: low end. This user will spend most of his time writing code either with a text editor or a terminal. In some cases, he will need a development environment to compile code or help in building software.

Now that we have a set of user preferences and needs, what kind of computers would these users need?

The simple answer is that most high end systems will work for most cases. So the obvious answer is "just get the latest system." But this isn't always the case. Sometimes, the user will have other preferences unrelated to computing power or upgradeability. One of those preferences happens to be the appearance of the computer. A good number of consumers will choose to buy one computer over the other simply because it <i>looks</i> better. I'm sure we can all remember when apple started to show tv commercials about the look of their latest macintosh.

After many years of interacting with the latest PC technology, I have finally come to a point where I am at the belief that the general PC system is not always the best system. This belief of mine is of course influenced by many factors. Many of these factors are not common to others, but they do highly affect me.

For example, I live in the wonderful state of california which thanks to a stupid governor is now in debt. One of the problems with living in california is the cost of electricity. When I buy a computer, today, I not only think about what I'm going to be using it for, I also think about the electricity bill. Power is an issue.

This is to demonstrate that different users have different needs. Your needs and preferences may not help them and may even go against one of their needs.

For many, they are not concerned about electricity, appearance or anything else. Sometimes they just want <b>a</b> computer due to some growing necessity but have no experience with computers. Sure, any system at the local electronics store would probably suit them, but I am not going the salesman route, nor the PC enthusiast route. My goal is to provide them with accurate information so that based on their own preferences they can make decisions that they want for themselves, not myself or what I think would be beneficial to them. What I think is beneficial for them is probably based on a set of concerns created in my mind, not theirs.

Let's take a moment and put this all into perspective again. Well take a classic example of the "home user" or more specifically my parents. My parents ONLY use their computer to use microsoft word, excel, and do some internet browsing and check email. In addition, they rarely use the computer: their total time on the computer per a week would probably 2 hours on average or even less.

Given that, do they need the latest system? Do they even need the latest software? Based on that information, they could even get away with a computer running windows 95 or 98. In fact, it would probably be more beneficial for them to be running an older OS since I know that my dad likes to use some ridiculously old DOS software that prefers a true dos environment in order to function correctly.

A lot of users don't need what computers have to offer these days. Many times, these users are usually just taken advantage of due to their ignorance on the topic either by the selling party or some other peer/forum influence.

So for our cases above, via may not always be the solution. I know for a fact that via chips and platforms suit a very specific group of people. Unfortunately, many people of these forums misinterpret Via's chip for being "junk." It is good to see that Intel and AMD are not the only options out there, but I diverge. On the same note of solutions for users, celeron may not be the solution, nor laptop, nor moped. In my own case, I wanted the chip and platform that was most electricity efficient and didn't require old hardware. After my experience with Via in <i>practice</i> (benchmarks are not the entire story), I am now considering Via platforms as potential simple workstation solutions. There are of course other factors; companies may not want to use Via simply because they can get much better support from a company like Dell. Most of all, via c3 is not the solution for 99% of the people that traffic here. The people here are driven by the thirst for the latest technology and performance no matter what the cost.

Now back to the original topic at hand. The orignal creator of this thread wanted more information about the via C3. I tried to paint the picture by supplying (first of all) a short nutshell summary of what the chip was used for and giving him a link to find more information about it's applications, it just so happens that the most popular application is mini-itx systems and/or specialized/small form factor computers enthusiasts. The originator responded with reply that was good; from his reply he showed his own conclusions and his own opinions forming.

So is the solution micro atx? Mini-itx? Or even apple? I believe the answer is none of the above. As experts, we should point people who inquire about products in the right areas to see if the product will fit their needs, we should not give them out own opinions on what we would do unless they ask. Perhaps our own opinions on what we feel were justified to some sense in this thread since the original question encompasses a little bit of personal opinion. But I don't think he was out for our opinions, more like more information on the product; he wanted to be educated on the product.

How this turned into a micro atx vs mini-itx debate, I don't know. If you would like to argue about that, I would create another thread.

If you would like to argue with anything I have said, then go ahead. But in my opinion, I read-read my post thoroughly to make sure it is what I want to say (with a few minor errors). Your opinion is respected, but I am not here to debate, only to say what I feel is my opinion. Unless I feel something wrong has been said or for the purpose of proving scientific theories am I inclined to debate something.
July 30, 2003 11:55:38 PM

sorry to butt in ;-)

but does anyone know if it is possible to run a low power system by getting an athlon xp (lowest tbred, probably 1700) and underclocking (~800mhz?) and lowering voltage, to the point where it may use 10-15 watts? i never heard of anyone doin it but then again......
July 30, 2003 11:57:37 PM

they could use a low voltage 1700 as i sudgested...

3 386DX-25's...12 volts...glue some ln2 and a wicked amount of overclocking and you get a willamantee minus 36 pins, 33.75 million transistors and a couple hundred mhz... :cool:
July 31, 2003 12:07:25 AM

I like this thread!
Reminds me of the moron of yesteryear :wink:

<b>Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
August 1, 2003 9:45:15 PM

In response to slvr:

Quote:
Only barely smaller, and you say that as though it is impossible to just simply do a little research and design a micro-atx PC that runs off of less than 100 watts. (Or for that matter that it's completely impossible to find an absolute-silent power supply that provides more than 100W.) Not only can you build a micro-atx solution that uses that little power, but you also can find silent power supplies that deliver more than 100W. All that it takes is bothering to look.

I did not say it would be impossible. I only said that Mini-ITX is guaranteed to work, while mATX is questionable. In other words, it is a lot easier to come up with a Mini-ITX solution than a mATX solution. It may be possible to come up with a passively cooled mATX configuration, but, as I stated before, if there is no <i>need</i> for the extras included on the mATX board, then why bother with the extra time, effort, and expense of going that route, when Mini-ITX is so easy and cheap? And yes, it is only barely smaller, but for some people, size my be a priority.

Quote:
And Crashman's point is that you can find a solution that is considerably more powerful but at the same time just as silent and low-power. You can build a micro-atx system without fans and with a real graphics solution. You can even give it more processing power if you want to spend the money. (Not that you have to though.) Crashman isn't saying to use a sledgehammer. He's simply saying that sometimes the absolute smallest hammer in the toolchest is just plain too small, and the VIA systems are definately the smallest of the hammers.

Again, why bother reasearching and building a mATX solution when Mini-ITX is already perfectly suited. The original poster asked about web-surfing and editing. What possible benefit could these applications gain from an AGP slot and 2 more PCI slots?

Quote:
It's funny how you can complain about him putting words in your mouth and put words into his mouth at the same time. He never said that.

There are many times Crashman has mis-quoted me, if you have been keeping up. That is why I prefer to use direct quotes, rather than paraphrasing. And I quote Crashman:

Quote:
Using sub-PC parts that are inferior to laptop parts in every way, for the sake of size and power, is ludicrous.

Still claim I am putting words in his mouth? Ludicrous and stupid are about the same, if you ask me. Or if you ask <A HREF="http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=stupid" target="_new">dictionary.com</A> for that matter.

Quote:
So it is kind of silly to suggest VIA for these reasons unless (and here is the big part where you casually ignore) price is also a notable concern.

Who ignores? Not I. I don't know anyone for whom price is not a concern. That is why I dismiss laptops, or as you suggested, tablet PC's for that matter. Also laptops are just about as upgradable as the Mini-ITX, so why even bother going that route? I see zero advantages. More on that later.

Quote:
Again, Crashman never said that the pursuit of absolute silence is ludicrous. He said that using mini-itx when a micro-atx or a laptop solution would work better is. So once again you've put words into his mouth and at the same time complained that he did so to you. You're a very hypocritical person, aren't you?

Once again, why would spending the extra time, effort, and cash for a mATX or laptop system be better than Mini-ITX? That seems to be the center of this entire debate. Again, what advantage would these provide for web-surfing and editing? For mATX, you get expandability. 2 extra PCI slots, and an AGP. Hell <i>I</i> only use 1 PCI slot in my primary full size ATX system, and I do a lot more than web-surfing and editing. And thats just for the sound card. If I was happy with on-board, I wouldn't even need that. And for someone that is going be doing GUI-based apps only, what need is there for AGP? I'd say that for 90% of casual home users out there, integrated graphics/audio will suffice just fine. As for laptops, I still don't see any advantages. For the same money you would spend on a Mini-ITX sytem, any laptop you might find is going to be just as slow or slower, and just as expandible. Less so, IMO, as the laptop will accept only PCMCIA components, slim CD-rom drives, and 2.5" 4200 RPM HDDs.

Quote:
You yourself said "sometimes a bigger hammer is not the best solution." and yet you completely throw out the idea of spending even less money on purchasing a used laptop that could just as easily have met the requirements for that project and have been smaller.

Even less money on a used laptop? Have you looked at used laptops lately? I doubt you will find anything that can compete with the C3 in the same price range. And it certainly would not be smaller than 17cm x 17cm. Don't know where you got that idea.

Quote:
Since when is XP all-important? Hell, use Win98SE or Linux. The VIA system won't run XP worth a darn anyway. Sure, it'll run, but only just barely.

So now you are the ITX expert? XP is the current system being sold to casual home users. Just about any PC you find sold today will be running at least XP Home. Hell does MS still support or even sell Win98SE for that matter? And despite your unsubstantiated claim, XP will run just fine on a C3. See <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020605/c3-05.html" target="_new">here</A> for THG's own benchmarks on a C3 running XP.

Quote:
It's so nice to see you give laptops a fair consideration. Because it's not like you couldn't easily purchase a used laptop for a very affordable price.

Well, I just checked ebay, and for about $100 most laptops were slower than 300Mhz. I might have been able to find faster if I continued searching, but I doubt I would find anything close to 1Ghz in working condition.

Quote:
In case you were wanting to know, micro-atx can use as little power as a mini-itx setup. There's no need to wonder or pretend that this information just doesn't exist.

If you say this information does exist, why not show it to us, hmm?

Quote:
Just because the specification doesn't explicitely require something doens't mean that it can't do it at all or that it is even a risk to do it. It just means that it wasn't required in the specification. Solutions do exist and are trustworthy.

Again, care to show us some, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Quote:
First because you never know when you'll need the extra PCI slots. Second because you also get an AGP slot. Third because it also gives you the ability to upgrade your CPU should you ever desire to do so.

See above for my take on the extra PCI and AGP slots. As for the upgradability of the CPU, you actually have a valid point for once, as the soldered on CPU is the biggest weakness of the ITX platform. However, its not that big of a weakness in comparison. The ITX is cheap, so upgrading to a faster version will not break the bank. And, minor speed increases aside, when you upgrade your CPU you usually have to upgrade your motherboard as well, if you want to realize the full potential of the new CPU. However you could nitpick this argument.

Quote:
As opposed to going with a more flexibke and only slightly larger guaranteed-to-work-without-fans micro-atx solution. Yeah, you're full of good advice.

You have yet to show me a guaranteed-to-work-without-fans mATX solution, even though you insist they exist. And once again, the mATX is only more flexible in terms of the extra slots, which, in the case at hand, are likely to never be of any use.

Quote:
Again you use lies and spread FUD.

Ah more insults. Funny how people break down when they realize their argument holds no water.

Quote:
You can configure a micro-atx PC that has no fans and therefore is just as silent.

Possibly. But how much more would you have to spend to make it quiet? And how much time and effort would it take to research and build such a system? And what would be the reason for doing so? PCI/AGP? If the slots are the added appeal, then I assume you have a use for them. What would that be? And can you still show me a system that actually does make use of the extra slots, yet is still passively cooled, including the PSU? I want facts, not opinions.

Quote:
You're really not one who should be talking here since you already admitted yourself that you'd completely throw out any idea of using smaller, lower-heat, lower-power solutions just because they're laptop parts instead of mini-itx parts.

Why not? Laptop parts are more expensive and harder to find, unless you are talking of just buying a used laptop and cannibalizing it to make some sort of pseudo-desktop. Even still it would be more expensive, and certainly would require more effort.

Quote:
Right. That's why you completely flat-out refused Crashman's opinion that laptop parts are better suited for the fields that people are using mini-itx parts.

Well, I am waiting for someone to demonstrate otherwise. It hasn't been done yet.

Quote:
As you said "Thats all we needed to know. Opinion noted, and duly ignored." <sarcasm>I can see how you were wise and respected his viewpoint no matter how opposed to your own it may be.</sarcasm>

If you put that in the context to which it was intended, the opinion which I was ignoring was Crashman's sweeping generalization that "Using sub-PC parts that are inferior to laptop parts in every way, for the sake of size and power, is ludicrous." To call something "ludicrous" automatically implies that whomever would choose to do that particular something must be stupid. However people do use ITX, and there is a unique appeal to it. To simply call it "ludicrous" is nothing more than flame-bait, and does indeed deserve to be ignored.

Quote:
Actually, his analogy was quite relevant. Their only difference is size. Both use the exact same internal components. So one can't possibly be any quieter than the other.

Ahh the dreaded analogies. I assume the one you are referring to in this particular quote is the one comparing Pintos to Rangers. I can't argue anything specifically to do with these two vehicles, but I can tell you that if you remove the muffler from either vehicle, the internal components will not change, however it will be much louder. What does this have to do with computers? I don't know. We're suppposedly all computer geeks here, not redneck car mechanics. Lets stick to what we all know.

Quote:
Actually, as an independant observer I have to say that he did rather clearly identify that your lies are that you keep saying that micro-atx can't possibly be completely silent like your mini-itx can be.

I never made such a statement, so that cannot possibly be the lie Crashman is referring to. Personally I think he just enjoys calling me a liar, as he has done it several times, not all in this thread either. And he never claims what is the supposed lie, he simply states that I am either a liar or lying, without clarifying any specifics in relation to the accusation.

Quote:
For your information, micro-atx can be completely silent. It isn't a requirement in the micro-atx specs, but there are components for a micro-atx system that you could use which run fanless anyway.

OK, Mr. Broken Record. You can repeat this all you want. Still doesn't make it true. Find and build me such a system, and include prices. No cheating by using slow speed fans either. Then tell me why having a few extra empty PCI and AGP slots would make someone want to go that route in the first place.

Quote:
For someone who sounded like you knew something of a debate, you erected a pretty tall strawman here.

Are you referring to me or Crashman? Do you even know the definition of a straw man fallacy? This is where you set up a position <i>not held by your opponent</i>, and attack and defeat that position. As Crashman is the one constantly paraphrasing my position and creating analogies, rather than using direct quotes, one can only assume that you must be referring to Crashman.

Quote:
Officially claimed, no. Again as an independant observer though, you did strongly imply it once.

The prudent debater would present a quote in which I made the claimed implication. Good luck finding one.

Quote:
No offense, but yet again as an independant third party, it's pretty clear to see from both of your posts which of you has the higher IQ, and in case you were wondering, it isn't you. You are clearly not stupid however. I'd definately put you above average.

Thanks and no thanks I guess. I wasn't trying to put myself above anyone in terms of intelligence. I was merely pointing out how childish it is to make such a claim, if you read what I said.

Quote:
So the truth is that you really don't care about what size hammer is being used, you're just a mini-itx zealot who thinks that nothing else could possibly meet people's needs any better.

Now look who is guilty of paraphrasing! I am certainly not a Mini-ITX zealot. I've never owned one, and never plan to own one. I just find it irritating that certain people automatically dismiss a particular item just because it does not suit <i>them</i>. And yes, Crashman did just that:

Quote:
Micro ATX is better in almost every way than Mini-ITX.

Closed-mindedness always gets under my skin, and I will always take a contrary opinion to someone exhibiting it. If Crashman had argued that Mini-ITX was better than mATX in almost every way, our standpoints would be reversed. The fact is, both platforms have their place. In the context of the original question which begat this thread, I still feel that Mini-ITX would work just fine.

Quote:
Can we just agree that mini-itx has some uses (mostly when cost, wattage, and silence are primary concerns) but that there are also other solutions which may meet people's needs better, even sometimes when cost, wattage, and silence are involved?

HURRAH! Finally a bit of light in this tunnel. That is the first thing anyone has said that makes complete sense. Yes, Mini-ITX has its uses, <i>especially</i> when cost, wattage, and silence are priorities. And yes, I am <i>certain</i> you can build a relatively quiet mATX system. Surprised eh? But if you read carefully, I <i>never</i> claimed you couldn't. My position from the beginning has always been that if you want to build the <i>smallest and quietest</i> (note the -est suffix), ITX is the way to go, AND also that the ITX would be perfectly suited to web-surfing and editing.

<font color=white><b>_________________________________________________</font color=white></b>
Armadillo<font color=orange>[</font color=orange><font color=green>TcC</font color=green><font color=orange>]</font color=orange> at Lanwar and MML
August 1, 2003 9:52:05 PM

Quote:
BTW, I only mentioned my superior intellect because it was applicable to my ability to see past your deception.

Care to step up to the plate and clarify what is my supposed subterfuge? Think you can do it using direct quotes instead of your usual modus operandi of paraphrasing and analogizing? Go right ahead. Surely someone of your mental caliber will have no trouble with such a simple task.

<font color=white><b>_________________________________________________</font color=white></b>
Armadillo<font color=orange>[</font color=orange><font color=green>TcC</font color=green><font color=orange>]</font color=orange> at Lanwar and MML
August 1, 2003 9:59:37 PM

Quote:
The poor lost originator of this thread, would probably be best off buying a cheap complete PC, thereby having the space to upgrade in the future, in case his needs change.

Actually if you read littleberry's second post:

Quote:
I am only wondering about the power
supply noise - I asked tranguilPC about that, but, until
they reply, do you have any experience with a noiseless
power supply? That would seal the deal for me.

It seems to me that absolute silence was a priority. If he ever learned that the ITX PSU makes no sound at all, I would have to assume from his above statement that he went with ITX.

<font color=white><b>_________________________________________________</font color=white></b>
Armadillo<font color=orange>[</font color=orange><font color=green>TcC</font color=green><font color=orange>]</font color=orange> at Lanwar and MML
August 1, 2003 10:08:10 PM

they do make fanless psu's

3 386DX-25's...12 volts...glue some ln2 and a wicked amount of overclocking and you get a willamantee minus 36 pins, 33.75 million transistors and a couple hundred mhz... :cool:
a b à CPUs
August 2, 2003 5:22:20 AM

That would require effort, you'd have to pay me. Instead I'll just settle for the fact that you lied when you said Mini ITX was quiter.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
August 3, 2003 10:58:29 AM

Quote:
That would require effort, you'd have to pay me.

Riiight. I knew you couldn't do it.

Quote:
Instead I'll just settle for the fact that you lied when you said Mini ITX was quiter.

"Fact" eh. The only fact here is that you are unable to produce any such quote, and therefore once again put words into my mouth. Big shock there. You're so predictable its boring.

I said it was smallest and quiet<i>est</i>. Note the use of the conjunction "and" and the "-est" suffix. Minor grammatical distinctions, but ones that carry significance. Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand this. However I would expect a genious to. So let me clarify: Can you show me a PC that is quieter than a system with zero moving parts? I didn't think so. Ergo "quietest". Can you show me one smaller than 17cm x 17cm? Doubtful. Ergo "smallest". Now we really see why you refuse to quote me directly. If you have to stay honest, you can't win. I think we're done here.

<font color=white><b>_________________________________________________</font color=white></b>
Armadillo<font color=orange>[</font color=orange><font color=green>TcC</font color=green><font color=orange>]</font color=orange> at Lanwar and MML
August 3, 2003 11:39:17 AM

[qoute]Quietest? Nothing as quiet? You can put that crappy VIA CPU on a Micro ATX board, they make them in Socket 370 format. And removing two slots does NOT make it quieter, for more information CLICK HERE [/quote]

DAMMMYOUUU!!! I HADDD TO RESATDR MY PC MOFO!! artghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

-------

no siggy applicable
August 3, 2003 3:33:22 PM

Quote:
Can you show me a PC that is quieter than a system with zero moving parts?

So the hard drives in those systems you showed us earlier had no moving parts? Liar.

<b>Qui habet aures audiendi audiat</b>
a b à CPUs
August 3, 2003 10:01:23 PM

Quote:
"Fact" eh. The only fact here is that you are unable to produce any such quote, and therefore once again put words into my mouth.


Quote:
However if you are also into silence and low power consumption, Mini-ITX is the only way to go, for now.


Quote:
Mini-ITX is popular because it is the smallest, quietest system available today.


This sparing is getting to be quite boring. I don't know why you keep challenging me over things you've said. You know what you've said. If I knew a person like you in real life, they'd probably be a dead lawyer.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
August 4, 2003 8:50:35 PM

Quote:
I did not say it would be impossible. I only said that Mini-ITX is guaranteed to work, while mATX is questionable.

Again you can't even admit the simple truth, that micro-atx is <i>not</i> 'questionable' for anyone who does even a tiny modicum of research. (And to have even heard of mini-itx requires that same tiny modicum of research.)

Quote:
In other words, it is a lot easier to come up with a Mini-ITX solution than a mATX solution.

Only in that the CPU is already stuck onto the mobo so you don't have to even bother looking for both. That's hardly the effort that you keep implying as a drawback of micro-atx.

Quote:
It may be possible to come up with a passively cooled mATX configuration, but, as I stated before, if there is no need for the extras included on the mATX board, then why bother with the extra time, effort, and expense of going that route, when Mini-ITX is so easy and cheap

<i>I</i> never said that there wasn't. <i>If</i> you absolutely positively know that you will <i>never</i> need to upgrade the PC <i>and</i> all of your needs are met by the onboard components, then mini-itx is useful. If not then it's not.

Quote:
The original poster asked about web-surfing and editing. What possible benefit could these applications gain from an AGP slot and 2 more PCI slots?

That's a joke, right? You yourself were the one to post several links to mini-itx projects. This ceased being about the original poster's needs a <i>long</i> time ago. You of all people, being the first to bring this <i>away</i> from the original poster's needs, cannot use the original poster's needs as a defense for <i>anything</i>.

Frankly, we're not as stupid as you obviously take us for. You can't just keep twisting words in hopes of guiding us into dead-end arguments and aiming us away from the simple fact that you're not giving straight answers or solid information. If you can't even debate on the actual merit of the topic than you <i>obviously</i> don't have the resources to back up your argument. Go ahead and try to prove me wrong. Try actually debating instead of just misdirecting.

Quote:
In reply to:
------------------------------------------------------------
Using sub-PC parts that are inferior to laptop parts in every way, for the sake of size and power, is ludicrous.
------------------------------------------------------------
Still claim I am putting words in his mouth? Ludicrous and stupid are about the same, if you ask me. Or if you ask dictionary.com for that matter.

Again you have to misdirect. Is that the only thing that you know how to do, is erect strawmen to waste our time knocking down? In that statement Crashman did <i>not</i> say that mini-itx was stupid or ludicrous or whichever other word you'd like me to pull from a thesaurus. He said that using it for <i>just</i> size and power requirements is ludicrous when compared to using laptop components. As I already pointed out, you so casually ignored that when <i>cost</i> is of concern <i>as well as size and power</i>, then mini-itx isn't ludicrous. Crashman never said that mini-itx was ludicrous when <i>cost</i>, size, and power were concerned. <i>You</i> put those words into his mouth. And frankly if I might add, you have a <i>very</i> bad tendancy to put words into people's mouths, especially for someone who protests so much when other people do it to you.

Quote:
Also laptops are just about as upgradable as the Mini-ITX, so why even bother going that route?

Laptop components are smaller, use less power, have more power-management features, are designed to live in truly horrible cooling setups, <i>and</i> have more upgradability. Yes, they <i>usually</i> cost more. However given their advantages, for people who have that much more money to spend they will allow for much more interesting setups than mini-itx. No one is saying that laptop components are more useful than mini-itx in general. I am merely saying that for some people's needs, especially where cost isn't a life and death concern, they <i>do</i> meet those needs better than mini-itx. Why you can't even just admit this much is beyond reason.

Quote:
Once again, why would spending the extra time, effort, and cash for a mATX or laptop system be better than Mini-ITX?

For as low as $25 I can get a Soyo 7IWM/L Socket 370 micro-atx mobo. For just $35 I can get a VIA C3 1GHz. (Or if I want to go cheap, a VIA C3 600Mhz for $15.)

Now if I'm feeling extremely paranoid about the CPU's heat I can even go as far as a Zalman CNPS-3100+ for $22 for a completely fanless CPU heatsink. Otherwise as VIA themselves know, much smaller fanless heatsinks can be used on their lower-rated C3s and Edens and such.

Speaking of paranoid, besides the array of incredibly low-noise fanned power supplies out there (many even 20db or less which I just dare you to say is too loud) I could even go as extreme as a fanless 350W power supply from SilentMaxx <i>if</i> I ever had a reason to.

Of course if I wanted a super-small ultra-low-power system for strange projects using laptop parts I could pick up a refurbished IBM laptop with a Pentium II 300MHz, 96MB of RAM, CD-ROM, 20GB hard drive, yada, yada for $300 and go to town. I mean heck, it even comes with it's own monitor.

You keep saying that a used laptop is too expensive, but when you add the cost of motherboard, processor, memory, hard drive, CD ROM, keyboard, mouse, monitor, etc. a used laptop is actually quite economical. And you yourself said that for people doing these strange projects (like a super-upgraded C=64) or even people just web surfing and such, speed isn't essential. So why would these people even need 1GHz? My old Pentium 133 surfed the web and ran office apps peachy-keen. It played MP3s without a hitch. And something as simple as a Pentium 166MMX would be even better. So what exactly makes using laptop parts so wrong, hmm?

Quote:
Hell does MS still support or even sell Win98SE for that matter? And despite your unsubstantiated claim, XP will run just fine on a C3. See here for THG's own benchmarks on a C3 running XP.

MS neither supports nor sells Linux. Oh how casually you cast that aside without even a thought. And I never said that XP <i>wouldn't</i> run on a C3. I said that it would barely run on a C3. It runs, yes. However it'll lag and be sluggish like you wouldn't believe. For a completely fanless VIA processor-based system you will have to disable an awful lot of XP's eye candy just to get it to even be close to not being hair-pullingly frustrating. Why put yourself through that when Windows 98SE can still be purchased and run just fine on such a system? If <i>you</i> want to suggest WinXP to people running a 600MHz VIA CPU, be my guest. I personally won't ever make such a suggestion because I respect the people that I make suggestions to too much to offer such bad advice.

Quote:
Well, I just checked ebay, and for about $100 most laptops were slower than 300Mhz. I might have been able to find faster if I continued searching, but I doubt I would find anything close to 1Ghz in working condition.

It's funny, you even provided a link to THG's review of the 1GHz VIA C3, and yet you <i>completely</i> neglect the fact that the 667MHz Celeron beat it in almost every single benchmark by insisting on looking for a 1GHz laptop. And that's assuming that the 1GHz VIA C3 could even <i>run</i> fanless, which it doesn't. For a <i>fanless</i> solution like what you could manage with a laptop, a 400MHz PII will easily beat a 600MHz VIA C3 in most applications. But of course such considerations are completely damaging to the pure uncut FUD that you are trying to sell us on, so you conveniently forget to mention the actual details.

Quote:
And, minor speed increases aside, when you upgrade your CPU you usually have to upgrade your motherboard as well, if you want to realize the full potential of the new CPU. However you could nitpick this argument.

That's a joke, right? I <i>could</i> easily build a micro-atx system that runs off of a 1GHz VIA C3 and then later <i>double</i> my performance with a 1.4GHz Tualatin. And if that system were fanless (such as a VIA C3 600MHz) and I decided that a <i>quiet</i> fan would be okay, it'd be insane how much performance a Tualatin would give in comparison.

Quote:
You have yet to show me a guaranteed-to-work-without-fans mATX solution, even though you insist they exist.

You <i>have</i> to be kidding. Are you <i>that</i> uneducated about PC hardware? If so you shouldn't even be debating this kind of stuff. In case you <i>are</i> just that ignorant though, I must inform you that fans on the northbridge are a concept that is only fairly recent. The vast majority of P3 motherboards (and earlier) don't even <i>have</i> a northbridge fan. There are <i>plenty</i> of fanless heat sinks out there for anyone who even bothers trying to look, as well as home-made ones attached with thermal epoxy. Onboard video won't use a fan, and for that matter there are a lot of graphics cards without a fan. Just look at a GeForce4MX for example. (There's even a Sapphire Atlantis Radeon 9800Pro Ultimate that's fanless, but if you don't have any fan in your system <i>at all</i> then this card will probably overheat unless underclocked.) So that just leaves the power supply for a fanless solution. As I pointed out above, fanless power supplies <i>do</i> exist, and fairly powerful ones at that. More to the point, extremely quiet (and frankly inaudible once put into a PC) power supplies also exist and they have even more power. You could easily run an AXP ThoroughbredB 1700+ based micro-atx system under 20db and it'd kick the pants off of a VIA platform in performance. It wouldn't be <i>quite</i> as small, no, but then size isn't a requisite for silence so not all users looking for a quiet PC will care about mini-itx's size.

Quote:
Ah more insults. Funny how people break down when they realize their argument holds no water.

Funny how that's exactly what you've been doing then, eh? As for me, you <i>have</i> been spreading FUD and <i>have</i> been lying. So it's not an insult, it's fact.

Quote:
In reply to:
------------------------------------------------------------
You can configure a micro-atx PC that has no fans and therefore is just as silent.
------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly. But how much more would you have to spend to make it quiet? And how much time and effort would it take to research and build such a system? And what would be the reason for doing so? PCI/AGP?

It'd cost <i>less</i> (or the same, to be explained later), take just as much time to research, just as much time and effort to build, offer the same or better performance (because it'd cost less you could spend that money on upgrading slightly), and offer considerably more upgradability and performance potential should it be desired later. Yes, it'd be bigger. But again, silence and size don't go hand-in-hand to everyone.

Quote:
Laptop parts are more expensive and harder to find, unless you are talking of just buying a used laptop and cannibalizing it to make some sort of pseudo-desktop. Even still it would be more expensive, and certainly would require more effort.

Buying a used laptop is <i>exactly</i> what I'm talking about and either you know it and pretend not to, or you're the dumbest person on earth. If you shop on a per-performance basis instead of a more meaningless per-MHz basis then the cost is nearly identical. Require more effort? Only in that you'd have to take the laptop apart to get at the parts <i>if</i> you didn't just use it as is.

Quote:
In reply to:
------------------------------------------------------------
As you said "Thats all we needed to know. Opinion noted, and duly ignored." <sarcasm>I can see how you were wise and respected his viewpoint no matter how opposed to your own it may be.</sarcasm>
------------------------------------------------------------
If you put that in the context to which it was intended, the opinion which I was ignoring was Crashman's sweeping generalization that "Using sub-PC parts that are inferior to laptop parts in every way, for the sake of size and power, is ludicrous." To call something "ludicrous" automatically implies that whomever would choose to do that particular something must be stupid. However people do use ITX, and there is a unique appeal to it. To simply call it "ludicrous" is nothing more than flame-bait, and does indeed deserve to be ignored.

You can try to rationalize it however you like, but hypocritical is hypocritical. There's no changing that. <i>If</i> you were indeed as wise as you claim to be, then you would simply have said "I respect your opinion even though I do not agree with it" and left it at that. You most definately did no such thing, and that's the point. You are the preverbial pot calling the kettle black.

Quote:
We're suppposedly all computer geeks here, not redneck car mechanics. Lets stick to what we all know.

Well appearantly you're not even a computer geek since you don't even know that a Pentium3-based system can be made completely fanless. Since you don't know that much just what <i>are</i> you going to stick to?

Quote:
In reply to:
------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, as an independant observer I have to say that he did rather clearly identify that your lies are that you keep saying that micro-atx can't possibly be completely silent like your mini-itx can be.
------------------------------------------------------------
I never made such a statement, so that cannot possibly be the lie Crashman is referring to. Personally I think he just enjoys calling me a liar, as he has done it several times, not all in this thread either. And he never claims what is the supposed lie, he simply states that I am either a liar or lying, without clarifying any specifics in relation to the accusation.

Need I remind you of your own words? Let's look at these for example: "<font color=red>Therefore if the part of the point of going with the C3 is silence, then it makes no sense to use one on an mATX board.</font color=red>"

Since one <i>can</i> make a completely fanless micro-atx PC, then what exactly makes no sense about using micr-atx instead of mini-itx, Hmm?

FUD, FUD, FUD. You're full of it.

Quote:
Are you referring to me or Crashman? Do you even know the definition of a straw man fallacy? This is where you set up a position not held by your opponent, and attack and defeat that position.

<sarcasm><i>No, really? I had just brought it up because I thought you were putting shirts on hay-people out in corn fields.</i></sarcasm> Try reading your own posts some time and then tell me that you've <i>not once</i> been guilty of this tactic. If you can <i>honestly</i> say so, then you're clearly nothing but a liar.

Quote:
I am certainly not a Mini-ITX zealot. I've never owned one, and never plan to own one.

For someone who isn't a zealot you sure do have a severe problem admitting that mini-itx isn't the <i>only</i> answer. I can believe that you're not a mini-itx zealot as much as I can believe that you never once used a strawman.

Quote:
My position from the beginning has always been that if you want to build the smallest and quietest (note the -est suffix), ITX is the way to go, AND also that the ITX would be perfectly suited to web-surfing and editing.

But not the cheapest.

<i>And</i> for someone who pretends to know so much about gramar you sure do neglect the fac that 'est' implies that no other is equal to (that all others are less than). Since you can build a completely silent micro-atx system, or even just a plain old atx system, mini-itx is <i>not</i> <b>the</b> quiet<i>est</i> but merely one of several equally quiet solutions.

"<i>Let's see what <b>Paragraph 84-B</b> has to say about it.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030724" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
August 4, 2003 11:07:36 PM

just replying to you because your the last person to respons slvr:



guys know what i get when i read this post? <b>BOOOORRIINNGG</b>


i mean really.. ego-filled intellect-flamewars are SO 1999. get a life guys. no one reads that lol

-------

no siggy applicable
!