Talk:BTX (form factor)

message: The first sentence is obviously far out of date. Perhaps someone can update it? Some guy 03:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your welcome to correct it yourself as long as you cite verifiable sources. --83.67.21.73 20:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

message: Does anyone else think that this section is a little misleading or is it just me? While it is technically correct, the page implies that a PSU would be the only thing that could be carried over from an ATX machine. I feel this topic would be of greater use to people if it mentioned that RAM, drives and add-in cards (PCI, AGP etc)are compatible with both ATX and BTX. The only things that would truly be incompatible are ATX cases and some heatsinks. Wildly different BTX may be but largely incompatible? I just think it would make sense to clarify this topic a little but I'm new here, any thoughts? --Benchamoneh (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's that important. It's implied that only the elements that are part of the form factor matter Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATX product compatibility 

message: "Large customers are usually able to secure favorable support contracts which negate such disadvantages but small businesses and home users may find third party support for such systems more expensive raising the cost of ownership."
Large customers?  Can we reword this? --Marsbound2024 (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Think We Should Reword This 

message: I am not too good with HTML, so I don't want to mess this up, but the edit links on some of the sections are interfering with the text, and are in the wrong place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumkayos (talk • contribs) 11:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display errors on the main page 

message: The article had a phrase that read: 
"Unfortunately, this is not possible for processors with an integrated memory controller (on-die northbridge), such as the Athlon 64 and Intel Core i7."
This is blatantly wrong. The source cited is not reputable, either. I can give examples of at least one board for each of the sockets mentioned above (AM2, AM2+ and AM3), which are used by the Athlon 64, Athlon 64 X2, Phenom X2 - X6, Sempron 64, etc. So it is entirely possible to design and build boards for CPUs with integrated memory controller (on-die northbridge), such as the Athlon 64. Examples for systems sold with said form factor and CPU/socket combination are the Fujitsu-SIEMENS P5615 (AM2), P5635 (AM2+), and P5645 (AM3). I don't know about Intel Core i7 CPUs, so I left the sentence in there in slightly altered form, but I'm positive that this claim is also factually wrong. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I deleted the whole paragraph, since it gave the wrong impression that it was not possible to build BTX boards for processors such as the Athlon 64 or Intel Core i7. I had to read it thrice to realize that the whole paragraph was not really claiming that, but only describing certain preconditions for the DIMM sockets which must be met by the board layout to make these processors with integrated memory controller work. The whole paragraph was grossly misleading, therefore, giving a false impression to the reader. I also fail to see the encyclopedic relevance of this information, since it's only a matter of technicality for the motherboard engineers, and it does not concern the average (or even the experienced and crack) user at all. Hence the deletion. Now the relevant criticism is on top, finally. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  AM2, AM2+ and AM3 boards (for AMD Athlon 64, etc.) 

message: Since BTX came out, I saw that Intel was selling "manure" disguised as "gold", because the BTX format was basically ATX turned upside down, I include here some references on forums with images of what I'm trying to describe.
Remember, the format is for the motherboard, the computer case is tailored to the OEM needs, so... you flip ATX and you get BTX and vice versa.
Yes! there was improvements, like the key component location and electrical paths optimizations, but that could easily be applied to the ATX standard without the need of a new "different and better" standard which wasn't very well received.
Putting an ATX motherboard into a BTX case
After those first months, BTX took a new route to show how "different" it was by just making itself a flipped mirror image of the ATX standard, making impossible the exchange of motherboards between ATX and BTX computers, as an example:
* Look for "Posted by starwar123 replied on 6 Aug 2012 5:16 PM" in this link right into the Dell forums
* Now grab the photo of the computer case with the board inside
* Flip it 180 degrees horizontally
* Ignore the letters, screw holes and hard drives
* Compare both images, the original and the flipped one
* Now ask yourself
** Is this BTX or ATX?
My point is very clear and I hope someone includes this little piece of information, within the article or even put the images to show some proof, or maybe is not so interesting at all, thanks for your attention.
Kind regards--201.247.28.2 (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flipped ATX = BTX 

message: With the IP 201.247.28.2, I edited this page not so long ago, now I came back and see some stupid things like:
# 4pin connector was added to ATX, thanks to BTX
# Intake fan added to the case, thanks to BTX
# the combination of the CPU and case fans into a single fan, thanks to BTX
This is total BS, several OEM already have that specs on their computers before BTX existed, not all at the same time but they have them on their products:
# The connector is called: "ATX12V 4pin", it has been part of the ATX specs before it was of BTX, thanks to intel's Pentium 4 as I remember.
# Intake fans were part of computer cases even before BTX (OEM and clones).
# Dell, IBM, HP already did that on Pentium 2, 3 and 4 with the ATX form factor way before BTX existed.
and not all of them are totally implemented on ATX, like number 2 and 3; I intend to back up my statements with some proof, I'll add it later.
PS: the other edition are good, I thank you for the improvements...
Kind regards, your friend 201.247.28.2--190.150.4.203 (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop editing with your "personal knowledge" 

message: MPC (formerly Micron PC) used BTX in some of their Clientpro desktops. One example I have right now is a Clientpro 385. Bizzybody (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  MPC also used BTX 

message: Before the PCI bus, when all the PCs had was ISA, the logical way to flip the desktop design to a tower was to have the chips on top of the ISA boards. Then the designers of PCI for some reason decided to make the boards backwards. Extended versions of PCI (PCI-X), AGP and PCI Express followed down the backwards road. As ISA and VLB and EISA were phased out, the conventional tower configuration became completely backwards - all because the people who designed PCI cards decided they had to be flipped from ISA. So despite an attempt to return to a right way up design with chips atop the boards so heat can naturally flow upwards, BTX is still considered "weird".   Bizzybody (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the need for BTX