Dedicated hardware for burners?

vbimport

#1

Hi all :slight_smile:

Please don’t laugh after reading this thread :bigsmile:

Because of to use a burner is not necessary a quadcore CPU nor 4 GB RAM memory, I wonder if it is possible to build a dedicated burning system using a mini-ITX mainboard like this one.

Why? There are many reasons actually.

First of all, this mainboard has a completely passive cooling system, so it is certainly noiseless.

Another reason? This mainboard has two IDE slots installed, so 4 devices can be installed by default, but with a PCI controller it is possible to add 4 more burners to the system (of course using a Sil0680 card with a not-raid bios installed).

Another reason? Ok, according to the website, this board has a very low power consumption, and this is not certainly a bad thing.

What do you think? Is it a totally dumb idea? Maybe the Via mainboards are not the very best available, but they are not too costly. These mainboards already have the CPU, video card and audio card embedded. To burn a disc is not necessary to have a VGA card supporting DirectX 10 libraries, nor a 7.1 audio system.

Do you know if there are better solutions available? Bear in mind that the main features that I’d like to have in the system are:

[ul]
[li]Low power consumption
[/li][li]Completely passive cooling (to reduce noise as much as possible)
[/li][li]Fast enough IDE controllers to run at UDMA 133
[/li][li]At least a PCI slot to add a controller to the system (for 4 more drives)
[/li][li]Embedded VGA card (even a basic VGA card is good, because the system will be dedicated to burnings only)
[/li][li]Not less important, a LOW price :bigsmile:
[/li][/ul]

I’d like to underline again that something I really would like to have in the system is a completely passive cooling, to reduce as much as possible the noise.

TIA :slight_smile:


#2

Apart from missing the point (I’ll get to that later), you would be better off with an “Intel D201GLY2” which is better in all ways (faster CPU, more reliable/stable chipset etc).

What I dont get is why…
You wont benefit form the form factor since you obviously want to add more than one burner which means that cases such as Aopen S150 wont be usable. Given that you want to use several burners you most likely need a “stock” PSU which means less efficient PSU than ones made for ITX cases. You also have very limited upgrade options. Having this is mind I wouldnt recommend you to even try getting Vista to work on either platform since performance will be an issue (using it for benchmarking etc wouldnt give you reliable results). Having all this in mind I’d recommend you to have a look at Gigabyte’s *-S2H series and an AMD BE-CPU along with it which will be a bit more expensive and use a bit more power but it’ll give you much more performance.
//Danne


#3

Thanks for the quick answer :slight_smile:

What I’d like to build is a dedicated system, to be used only for burners. I really don’t need Vista for this, and I actually could also install a linux distro on the system.

I certainly will not use a mini-ITX case, because to store 8 drives it’s necessary a huge case.

The reasons why I thought to use the mini-ITX are mainly the low price for an all-in-one system (CPU, VGA and audio cards are already installed on the mainboard).

And of course I will use a quality PSU :slight_smile:

EDIT: Just found this: is it the correct one?


#4

Hi,[quote=geno888;2041156]
What I’d like to build is a dedicated system, to be used only for burners. I really don’t need Vista for this, and I actually could also install a linux distro on the system.[/quote]this is not a bad idea at all.

The reasons why I thought to use the mini-ITX are mainly the low price for an all-in-one system (CPU, VGA and audio cards are already installed on the mainboard).
Considering the fact, that the Epia’s that are faster than 1000 MHz are not passively cooled, there are other options I would prefer. Some AMD 690G chipset based mainboard combined with a low power Athlon (like the BE series). Such is much cheaper (100 € vs. 150 €) and possibly less noise since AMD coolers are bigger than the smaller ones installed on the Epia systems. Power consumption is low also.
Unfortunately, there is only one P-ATA connector available, so a second SiI 680 has to be installed, or Sata drives are used also (the SB 600 does nicely with Sata ODD if configured as IDE).

EDIT: Just found this: is it the correct one?
Somewhat funny - an Intel mainboard with SiS chipset :eek:
But it’s cheap - 70 €. “Only” 8 drives (including HDD) are connectable.

Michael


#5

Thanks for answer :slight_smile:

A completely passive cooling solution is certainly preferred, but I’m open to any suggestion :slight_smile:


#6

Hi,[quote=geno888;2041172]Thanks for answer :slight_smile:

A completely passive cooling solution is certainly preferred, but I’m open to any suggestion :)[/quote]At least your PSU will be cooled actively (and provide also some cooling for the components.
The remaining difference would be either some 80mm fan on a AMD cooler or none on a low performance Epia (or Celeron). Since even stock AMD coolers are rather silent, noise of this additional fan isn’t an issue.


#7

I’ll go in “/browsing online stores mode” very soon :bigsmile:


#8

What about “Integrated VIA UniChromeâ„¢ Pro AGP Graphics with MPEG-2 Decoding Acceleration”?

How does it perform??


#9

Like crap?
Even GMA900 is most likely better
//Danne


#10

Thanks! Thought so.


#11

Hi DiiZzY :slight_smile:

Do you know if there are any known issues about installing Linux on the Intel D201GLY2 board? If I’m not wrong, the embedded VGA card is not an Intel one, and I wonder if it can give difficulties to a noob like me :o

Do you think that a distro like Fedora is too heavy for this board?


#12

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=463077
Why would you need a GUI for burning?
I myself prefer FreeBSD but that’s another story and I do not know if the patched driver works there too (if you want X that is).
//Danne


#13

Thanks for the link :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=DiiZzY;2042323]
Why would you need a GUI for burning?[/QUOTE]

Because I’m a total noob in Linux :o:o


#14

You do realize that most burning / iso utilities are cli right?
As for that matter you’re most likely better off with Win XP if you want to burn etc.
//Danne


#15

At the moment I only tried one burn in Linux using K3b. It was not difficult to use it, but the commandline is a bit intimidating :o


#16

“The actual disc recording in K3b is done by the command line utilities cdrecord or wodim, cdrdao, and growisofs.” =)


//Danne


#17

The command line is not really a problem for burning ISO files, but doing anything more complicated than that, gets a bit complicated.

K3b, although designed for the KDE desktop, works perfectly on Ubuntu. But XP is less problems and you can use your favourite burning application.

If your only going to use this PC for burning. You don’t need any fancy graphics or sound. A board with integrated graphics and sound should do nicely. Although i would still go the Intel/AMD route rather than VIA.:slight_smile:


#18

Geno do you plan to burn all drives simultaneously? If so, you would be better off getting a dedicated duplicator controller.


#19

Thanks all for advices :slight_smile:

I’m seriously planning to buy the Intel board (I’m still searching for the best place where to buy).

@eric93se
Actually I’m not planning to burn in more drives simultaneously. What I’d like is to have a separate system to use with burners.

So when I need to install a specific drive, it’s not necessary to shut down my main PC (a rather annoying thing if you are working on something). A dedicated machine offers many advantages :slight_smile:

@Dee
What I liked in the Via card is the 2 IDE slots, but I agree that the Intel board is better. Too bad the Intel has only one IDE, but with a PCI controller I can add 4 more drives to the system :bigsmile:


#20

Hi Geno,

Since you don’t need raw power, why not recycle some old hardware? With a 3-4 year old mobo you could have 4 PATA and 4 SATA connections onboard. Combined with a cool running Celeron or even better a Sempron/Athlon64 (Cool&Quiet), it would suit your requirements quite nicely.

And Linux fits your low price requirement best of course. Command line wouln’t appeal to me either, but you definitely don’t need a full-fledged Gnome or KDE desktop either. I can recommend Xubuntu with the simple and lightweight Xfce desktop (you’ll still have the same advantages and support of Ubuntu, but none of the bloat). I run it on a (passively cooled :)) Pentium II (333@375MHz) with 256MB RAM.

It comes with Brasero, which is a frontend for the standard Linux burning tools, similar to K3b (probably not as complete, but it might suffice). If you prefer, you can install K3b instead. I wanted it even more basic and replaced Brasero by Graveman (from the French “graver” I suppose, nothing to do with cemetaries :bigsmile: - but sadly it’s no longer being maintained). One thing I found Graveman couldn’t do is make an image of an Audio CD, so it can only copy these on-the-fly between two drives. Since I only have one drive, the solution I found was to make a simple shell script (don’t let that scare you, it’s simplicity itself) for the cdrdao command line tool and put a “CopyCD” shortcut to that on the desktop. Now it’s only a couple clicks (and no typing) to copy a music CD as well.

And if your favourite burning app is ImgBurn, that should work too under Wine.

Just some ideas :).