[kingarthur]

Eh? PC makers attempt to copy Apple everytime. Remember the eMachine that resembled an iMac? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[spdorsey]

I still have yet to see a PC with the flair and personality of any Mac. PCs are powerful, but they are not fun to use. I love my Mac, and I'll never stop using it.
------------------S

[whitedog]

There's a simple reason G5 towers haven't gotten smaller - IBM is still having trouble manufacturing the new generation of G5 chips that use less energy and generate less heat. Intel and AMD are in the same boat, which is why processor speed increases have stalled in the last year or so. When these technical issues have been resolved, not only will Apple finally deliver a 3GHz G5, but it should be able to reduce the size of the towers significantly. Less heat will mean fewer fans and make other space saving design options available. Then a G5 laptop may finally be possible. Imagine, if you will, a G5 Mac mini or even a dual processor iMac.
As for the lab layout under discussion, any Windows PC with comparable power and features wont be much smaller than a G5 tower. The fault is in the design of the lab, which clearly requires a remodel to accommodate the kind of computers it needs. Blaming computer manufacturers because they cant or dont have equipment to meet the needs of such an ergonomically challenged facility is merely a way to avoid actually solving the problem.

[mdawson]

In reply to:

---

There's a simple reason G5 towers haven't gotten smaller - IBM is still having trouble manufacturing the new generation of G5 chips that use less energy and generate less heat. Intel and AMD are in the same boat, which is why processor speed increases have stalled in the last year or so. When these technical issues have been resolved, not only will Apple finally deliver a 3GHz G5, but it should be able to reduce the size of the towers significantly. Less heat will mean fewer fans and make other space saving design options available. Then a G5 laptop may finally be possible. Imagine, if you will, a G5 Mac mini or even a dual processor iMac.

---

Obviously, you have never seen the several posts I and others have made over the past several months on this topic. I am fully aware of the thermodynamic issues that Apple has to overcome in terms of the G5 processor and I am not suggesting that the G5 tower be replaced. The matter at hand is that Apple has not offered a desktop version of their pro systems since the time of the first G3s (the beige ones). All pro users do not need a tower system. As has been discussed in the past, obviously such a system would need to be a single processor design at this time, but that is not a real problem as long as the computer has the same full speed system bus and high-speed RAM as the tower systems.
Secondly, the size of the tower is hardly solely based on the fact that G5s run hot. The PowerMacs have 3 full-size PCI-X card slots, an AGP card slot, an optical drive bay, two HDD bays and a generous layout for 8 DIMMs. That is fine for those that need that level of expandability, but again, all pro users do not have such needs. Apple could easily make a single processor PowerMac G5 with a single PCI-X slot, AGP slot and pack the DIMM slots tighter to accommodate 6 to 8MB of RAM. If a PC manufacturer like Stealth Computer Corp. can pack a fully-loaded Intel system with the space heater we know as the Pentium 4 into its Little PC line of products, then Apple, which has already placed a G5albeit one with reduced system specsinto a iMac can create a desktop that is not much larger for those of us that desire a PowerMac that is not a behemouth.

In reply to:

---

The fault is in the design of the lab, which clearly requires a remodel to accommodate the kind of computers it needs. Blaming computer manufacturers because they cant or dont have equipment to meet the needs of such an ergonomically challenged facility is merely a way to avoid actually solving the problem.

---

You are obviously under the impression that in academia renovating a lab is something that can be taken lightly. This building was constructed some ten years before PCs started to be taken seriously and it is primarily designed for fields that are either chemistry or biology based. The engineering technology major is an anomaly in the Ag College and has different requirements from the other departments such as Animal Science, Food Science, Plant & Soil Science, etc. The College of Agriculture and Natural Resources is not about to completely renovate a lab for a single department that happens to have radically different needs from the rest of the college, particularly since we only occupy 25% of the lab in which the Automation and Controls group is now assigned. The rest of the lab, as I mentioned before is divided among two to three other research groups in Plant & Soil Sciences.
There is also the fact that the Department of Bioresources Engineering does not have a graduate program. The only reason I am still affiliated with the department is because I am an alum of the department and I already had a working relationship with the professor that is serving as my faculty advisor. Besides, I am not blaming Apple for not providing a system specifically for this lab. This lab is just another in a long string of examples that have been presented by various members of this board as to why Apple should have a desktop or SFF version of their pro systems. Power does not necessarily mean tower system and since the sting of the G4 Cube, which should not have been marketed as a PowerMac as it lacked the expandability of other systems under that moniker, Apple has abandoned any configuration other than the tower design for its professional systems. This leaves many people with demanding processing needs that cannot accommodate something as bulky as a PowerMac (G4 or G5) either having to settle for an iMac and dealing with the fact that they have very limited expansion options or worse yet, going the PC route where high-end systems can be found in a desktop configuration.

[whitedog]

Obviously, you have never seen the several posts I and others have made over the past several months on this topic.
True enough - since they are on another thread and I dont read them all. You make a good point that Apple could make a desktop model along the lines of Stealth Computers Little PC, and one that would not be as terminally ugly, at that. But the Mac mini, as well as the XServe that preceded it, shows that Apple is moving to carve out space in new (for them) niches. Of course, we have no way of knowing if they are planning something along the lines youre interested in.
You are obviously under the impression that in academia renovating a lab is something that can be taken lightly.
Here you are wrong. I do not take the question lightly. But its not Apples fault your Alma Mater hasnt seen fit to build a proper facility for the engineering department. A cynic would say that if one is serious about studying engineering one should not attend an Ag college. But that is, of course, too easy. Many Ag colleges around the country have grown well beyond their original mission and include a wide range of alternative curricula.
Rather I would say that the other folks using the lab could also now benefit from a computer friendly work space as computers are all but ubiquitous in every field of study. Nevertheless, since new buildings dont grow on trees, as it were, you are left with the lamentable option of using the space you have - and buying computers to fit that space, in this case, Windows or LINUX PCs. I agree its unfortunate.

[mdawson]

In reply to:

---

But its not Apples fault your Alma Mater hasnt seen fit to build a proper facility for the engineering department. A cynic would say that if one is serious about studying engineering one should not attend an Ag college. But that is, of course, too easy. Many Ag colleges around the country have grown well beyond their original mission and include a wide range of alternative curricula.

---

Actually, it is the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources within the University of Delaware. There is a College of Engineering which is home to the aerospace, chemical, civil, computer, electrical, environmental and mechanical engineering disciplines as well as a materials science graduate program. The engineering program in the Ag College is an engineering technology program which is more of an applied engineering curriculum.
The reason the engineering technology program is not in the College of Engineering is due to the history of the major. Originally it was agricultural engineering technology and primarily served as a means for adult students that already had an Associates degree (typically Delaware Tech alum) in agricultural engineering to get a Bachelors degree in this field. In time the major began to attract transfers from the College of Engineering. These were students that still had an interest in engineering, but did not care much for the heavy theory in the traditional engineering majors. As the AET major is broad based and the course topics are not actually agriculture specific (e.g. electricity, HVAC, structures, hydraulics, storm water, thermodynamics, etc.) the major was changed to engineering technology, but students still had the option of concentrating in agricultural engineering.
As time went on, the department changed its name to Bioresources Engineering, but ironically, the enrollment for ag engineering was steadily dropping off. In fact, at this point all of the students in the department are strictly engineering technology majors and the concentrations have been modified to reflect student interests; now students can concentrate in civil engineering technology, electronics and instrumentation, or storm and waste water management. The problem is that after the main building for the College of Ag was renovated back in the late 1990s, this department lost some space. This was not a major issue, but my advisor is new to the department and he is steadily expanding the curriculum for students in the electronics and instrumentation concentration. Before he was employed, there was no need for a permanent lab for the instrumentation course and his controls course is his controls course; this year was the first time it was offered.
In another ten years or so, the Department of Bioresources Engineering may be in a position to leverage more within the college, but for now this is not the case. Switching over to the College of Engineering is not an option due to attitudes up campus (as we here on South Campus say of the Main Campus) and realistically, such a move would very likely destroy the atmosphere within the department. The College of Ag is famous for its more relaxed environment and friendlier faculty. As far as the College of Engineering goes, they have state-of-the-art facilities with modernized classrooms and laboratories set up to meet their needs. They also have the finances to renovate and keep up with technology on the fly, relative to most other departments on campus.

[whitedog]

I dont blame the folks down campus for wanting to avoid mixing with the ivory tower stuffed shirts up campus. The kind of elitist academic snobbery they encounter is all too common in Universities and even, to a lesser extent, in junior colleges. Its amazing how Machiavellian campus politics can be.
As a result, though I am a Mac person, primarily, it looks like, given the state of flux in the Bioresources Engineering department, that the best choice for now would be to buy some PCs that meet the space and resource requirements of the department as it is today. If it grows more popular, and manages to claim more funding, you may have some Mac options in the future. Perhaps by then Apple will make the kind of computers you need.
The other alternative, of course, is for students to use their own laptop computers to do their lab work. A good PowerBook is more capable than those Little PCs you spoke of.