Similarly, when the first IBM PC came out in 1981, they were so far above my price threshold that I knew in my heart and soul that I personally would never be able to afford a computer. (Just in case you were wondering, a low-end system in which you provided your own television-like display and cassette recorder to store programs was about $1,550, while a system with 64K bytes of RAM, two disks, display screen, color graphics, and a printer would cost about $4,500. And remember that the average wage was much lower in those far off times).

These days, like many other folks I know, I have more computers at my fingertips than I know what to do with. First of all I have my trusty notebook, which I tend to use for most things because it's useful to have all of my files available when I have to travel to a customer location. This unit was on the cutting edge of mobile computing when I acquired it a couple of years ago, but it has rapidly slid down the technology curve.

I also have a desk-side/top box in my office that simply oozes raw power, and which I use to run graphics and compute-intensive applications. Last but not least, I have a second desk-side/top box at home. Theoretically could I live without a special home computer and simply take my notebook with me when I leave work at night. But then I'd have to unplug the external keyboard (which I use by preference), mouse, network connection, power supply, and large external monitor (which again I use by preference) and wend my weary way home.

Once there, I'd have to take the notebook out of its case and connect it up to another external mouse, keyboard, and monitor (I hate working with the notebook's small keyboard and screen unless I'm on the road and I really have to). Personally, I much prefer to stroll in through the door, flick the power switch on my ever-ready home computer, and then make a relaxing cup of tea while the little rascal wakes up and comes to life.

Too many computers

Working with three machines is obviously a somewhat painful modus operandi. Synchronizing data across platforms is time-consuming and prone to error, and I invariably find that the latest versions of the files I need are residing on one of the machines I'm not currently using (this is particularly annoying when I'm on the road).

Updating software (including downloading the latest virus protection files) becomes a frustrating chore when you have to do it three times. It's also easy to neglect one of the machines — "I'll sort that one out tomorrow" — and then run into problems downstream. And then there's the cost of licensing the same software for all three machines. If you're a professional, you simply can't afford to play games with pirated software, because each infraction can cost the company an eye-watering amount of money. Some licenses do allow you to replicate an application on your notebook and desk-side/top workstation, but many don't. And even in the case of the ones that do, you still need two licenses if you're running three machines.

Another factor that is not insignificant is that every keyboard and mouse has a slightly different "action/feel," which can make moving from one machine to another awkward to say the least. This may seem like a minor matter, but if you're in the middle of a high-pressure, time-critical project, the slightest distraction can easily become a major source of irritation.

The problem is that none of the machines in my possession manage to satisfy all of my requirements. The notebook isn't powerful enough to run really high-end applications, and even if I invested $3,000+ in whatever today's state-of-the-art is, I know that it would rapidly become obsolete (and there's typically no way to upgrade notebooks apart from adding a tad more memory). By comparison, in the case of my desk-side/top boxes, I can upgrade pretty much everything from the processor to the graphics card to the motherboard. The downside is that there's no way I'm going to lug either of these boxes back and forth between my office, home, and customer sites.

A machine for all seasons

Thus far, notebooks and desk-side/top boxes have been the only choice available to us, but now there's a new kid on the block. MaxVision (no relation to myself) develops a line of transportable workstations, and their new MaxPac boxes (they refer to them as the "M Class") make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up and quiver at attention.

First of all, MaxPacs are amazingly cool in their own right. Trust me on this. When you slap one of these little rapscallions down on the desk, you'll quickly be surrounded by a gaggle of your colleagues, and even the most hardened power-user will want to know all about it in excruciating detail.

Let's start with the fact that this is absolutely a workstation class machine in a transportable briefcase form-factor. We're talking about a 3+ GHz Pentium 4 processor, an 800 MHz frontside bus, up to 4 GB of 400 MHz DDR RAM (with a dual memory controller and enough memory bandwidth to make your eyes water), up to 500 GB of hard disk, a DVD/CDRW combo, 2 spare PCI slots, Dolby 5.1 Surround Sound, a 300 Watt global power supply (100-240VAC at 50-60Hz), a complete choice of AGP 8x graphics and video cards, and one of the best high-fidelity 17" LCD screens I've ever seen (ultra-bright, ultra-wide viewing angle, and fast enough to accommodate the most demanding video display applications).

The all aluminum and titanium enclosure — which holds the computer, screen, keyboard, and mouse — features a specially-developed shock isolation system that protects the MaxPac from the abuse that is the lot of a transportable computer. One really cool aspect of this system is that the entire unit can be opened up, plugged in, and be booting up in less than 60 seconds!

But how does the MaxPac compare?

Before I reach into my pocket to pull out my hard-earned lucre and expose it to the cruel light of day, it is my wont to perform some comparison shopping so as to ensure that I obtain the best bang for my buck.

You could spend the rest of your life looking at the incredible range of notebooks and desk-side/top workstations out there, but just to offer a baseline, I considered one of today's quintessential notebooks (the Compaq Evo N800w) along with one of the hairiest (single-processor) desk-side/top boxes I could find (the HP xw4100 Deskside workstation).

As you'll see if you perform this comparison for yourself, the MaxPac has all the power of a full-blown workstation with the additional advantages of being ruggedized and fully portable. Of course, it's certainly true that a desk-side/top has more free PCI slots and can accommodate more hard disk drives. Truth-to-tell, however, I've only ever needed to use a maximum of two PCI slots anyway, and at this time 500 GB of hard disk space is more than sufficient for my needs.

Similarly, it's true to say that a notebook is smaller and lighter than a MaxPac, but the differences are much less than you might expect. For example, by the time you've added in the various "bits-and-pieces" that come with the Evo N800w, it ends up at 0.6 cubic feet in volume and weighing in at around 18 pounds. This means that the MaxPac really isn't outrageously out of the ballpark at 0.9 cubic feet and 27 pounds (by comparison, the HP xw4100 weighs way more and occupies approximately 12 cubic feet when you take all of the packing into account).

And how much does it cost?

When it comes to cost, I compared a fully loaded version of the Compaq Evo (1 GB memory and a 60 GB hard disk along with its only graphics option) to a minimum MaxPac configuration (1 GB memory, 60 GB hard disk, and integrated graphics). The result was $3,299 for the notebook versus $4,754 for the MaxPac.

On the one hand the MaxPac provides significantly more performance, because it has a faster processor (3.2 GHz versus 2.4 GHz), faster frontside bus (800 MHz verses 400 MHz), and faster memory (dual-bus 333/400 MHz DDR versus single-bus 266 MHz DDR). And in addition to its full-size keyboard (versus the notebook's slightly "squished" version), the MaxPac's large LCD screen (17" versus 15") is a top-of-the-line unit that's the brightest and fastest I've ever seen.

On the downside, the MaxPac costs $1,455 more than the notebook, which isn't peanuts whichever way you look at it. In reality, however, comparing the Evo with the MacPac is like comparing "apples-to-oranges," because whatever they choose to call it, the Evo is still a notebook at heart, while the MacPac is a fully transportable workstation, which brings us back to the HP machine.

HP's website alludes to the fact that the xw4100's motherboard can accommodate up to 4 GB of memory, but the online configurator only allowed me to go up to 2 GB, so this is the value I ended up using for both machines. HP's website also indicates that you can have up to six hard disk drives offering a total of 678 GB, but the online configurator only allowed me to use two of these bays. So I opted for a fully-loaded MaxPac with dual 250 GB SATA hard drives providing 500 GB of storage. Then, in order to provide a reasonable comparison, I extrapolated from HP's configurator-supported options to assume an xw4100 with four 146 GB SCSI drives providing 584 GB of storage.

In the case of the graphics subsystem, I opted for a MaxPac containing an nVidia NV30-based Quadro FX1000. This provided the closest comparison to the xw4100's offering of a Quadro 4 980, which, being nVidia NV25-based, is a generation behind in graphics technology. Last but not least, I added a FireWire card to the xw4100 so as to match the MaxPac's standard FireWire capability, and I also augmented the xw4100's configuration with a 19" LCD monitor (this was 2" larger than the MaxPac's 17" offering, but there wasn't a 17" option in the HP configurator, and the 19" was such a good price that it's what I would have gone for anyway).

The end result was a cost of $7,067 for the HP xw4100 versus $7,304 for the MaxPac, which means that — for roughly the same price as a fully-configured, high-end desk-side/top workstation — the MacPac provides the same extreme performance and has the added advantage of being fully transportable.

Summary

At the end of the day, everyone has their own "wish-list" of the features and capabilities they require from their computer. If you only ever work in your office and never travel anywhere, for example, then a desk-side/top machine is almost certainly the best option for you. Alternatively, if you are constantly bouncing around the world from one location to another, but your application needs are largely restricted to email and office automation tasks, then a light-weight mini-notebook is probably the best solution.

The real audience for a MaxPac is a professional power-user who needs access to extreme performance to run high-end graphics and compute-intensive applications both in the office and at home, or in remote locations. For example, if you have to travel around using or demonstrating high-performance applications such as EDA, CAD, or visual simulation software, the MaxPac provides the all the raw horsepower you need at your fingertips. Similarly, if you are a content creation professional, you can put the final touches on your video, audio, or multimedia product on-site with your client.

And, once again, let's not forget that MaxPacs have the added advantage of being ULTRA-COOL! I'm saving up for one as we speak, because it will allow me to replace my three existing machines with a single box that I can take everywhere with me (I'm also assured by the folks at MaxVision that it will make me more attractive to lady engineers). So the MaxPac receives an official "Cool Beans" from me. Until next time, have a good one!

Clive (Max) Maxfield is president of Techbites Interactive, a marketing consultancy firm specializing in high-tech. Author of Bebop to the Boolean Boogie (An Unconventional Guide to Electronics) and co-author of EDA: Where Electronics Begins, Max was once referred to as a "semiconductor design expert" by someone famous who wasn't prompted, coerced, or remunerated in any way.