Micro Form Factor PC's - Anyone using these for DAWs?

I was curious if anyone has tried their luck with these Micro form factor computers we're seeing on the market, like the Intel Compute Stick  
 
To me, this is super interesting for a number of reasons.  With mixers and interfaces doing the AD conversion, it just doesn't seem necessary to spend money on expensive sound cards.  And other than the sound card, why do I need a conventional machine assembled of modular components?  
 
The RAM is the only player that I could see wanting to upgrade so might be a drawback with these little computers (The Intel is 4 GB of DDR3, which is the same as my XP at home...little bit of a bummer).    
 
Other than that, what am I missing?  I could leave my DAW disconnected from the internet, and would have no need for any software other than Sonar.  When I leave the house, toss the little computer in the safe and I'm feeling fairly secure, too.  

I think it could be possible using an ITX setup. Even though these are usually aimed at gamers you could make use of the external ports to build your "studio" setup albeit it be bit more basic.
 

Jim Roseberry
If you want a PC the speed of your cell-phone, then the "computer-on-a-stick" is for you.  
 
The beauty of a desktop is that you can configure it to be *exactly* what you want/need.
The processor speed, the amount of RAM, the drive configuration, etc.
 
The larger "Nook" machines are basically laptops without the display/keyboard.
Thus, performance is what you'd expect from a similarly spec'd laptop.
 
If you want the performance of a desktop (in the smallest possible form-factor), you can build a mini-ITX machine.
 
If you want to experiment with a small/slow computer running Sonar, you can get a Windows tablet (under $200 with keyboard/glide-point).  Attach a powered USB hub (external audio drive and audio interface)... and you can record ~16 channels of audio.  It won't do much in the way of mixing/processing...  
 
 

 
But the ability to spec out my desktop to that precision is a value I'm paying so much for, and is questionable as what I've gotten out of it.  If I build my own computer, as I always have, it's particular drive speeds and sizes, RAM  memory and processor speed are all going to be comparable to an above average machine anyway.  I've never seen my specs that out of whack with a typical fast machine.  It's like I've gone to all this trouble just to get a machine I could have bought already assembled (albeit more expensive, obviously).  

It may be because I'm not running Sonar, so I'm not seeing the need for the computing power like you are.  I'm running Cakewalk Home Studio II on an XP machine, 1.6 Ghz AMD quad core with 4 GB RAM.  That sounds awfully close to this Intel Compute Stick.  Also, consider that I don't do much synth work at all - it's all audio and track FX in my world. 
 
And that's what I was wondering about these little computers.  If their processor and RAM are already a similar spec I would choose in a conventional DAW machine, then why blow all the money on a conventional machine, then? 

One thing I have to consider also...my mixer uses Firewire.  That's all but dead.  I'm not sure I'm impressed enough with USB 3.0 latency to default to that either, but I have no direct experience with it.  I'm far more interested in Thunderbolt, and I probably have no options for that with a stick computer.  
 
 

interpolated
Usb 3.1 and thunderbolt are instrically linked via conversion meaning you can make use thunderbolt even if you are short or lack thunderbolt. It all seems counterproductive to me price wise unless you are being paid 3 times the average wage to feed your habit.

Seems to me any Thunderbolt latency advantage would disappear once converting to usb 3.1.  Am I wrong?  Wouldn't I be restricted to the latency of usb 3.1 then?  

Voda La Void
 
But the ability to spec out my desktop to that precision is a value I'm paying so much for, and is questionable as what I've gotten out of it.  If I build my own computer, as I always have, it's particular drive speeds and sizes, RAM  memory and processor speed are all going to be comparable to an above average machine anyway.  I've never seen my specs that out of whack with a typical fast machine.  It's like I've gone to all this trouble just to get a machine I could have bought already assembled (albeit more expensive, obviously).  

FWIW, If you know what you're doing building/configuring a top-performing DAW (maximum performance and super quiet), there's absolutely no way ANY off-the-shelf machine will be its equal.  
No different than any other high-performance application.
Do auto racing teams race off-the-shelf cars?  
They race custom builds... because they can make the car exactly what they want... and maximize performance.
HP, Dell, etc build machines for a much different user/purpose.
 
We just sent a custom DAW to Fred Coury (Composer for TV/Film - drummer for Cinderella).
His needs are specific/demanding... 
No off-the-shelf machine would ever fit his scenario.
Dell, HP, Apple, etc would never be able to offer the support he requires.
 
The beauty of a custom machine is that it's exactly what you want/need.
Nothing more... nothing less

Glad someone has finally explained this to me because I couldn't really find any real information to do with this. If I upgrade I will loose my PCI slot. So I need an external solution for my Universal Audio plug-ins. I sourced a USB UAD DSP effects although willing to look at alternatives as well.
 
So essentially the best way to use Thunderbolt is through a thunderbolt interface or be bottle necked over the USB 3.1 interface. Oh grand.
 

Tell you what Jim, I'll just ask your opinion before I buy anything....

There's a lot of hype about Thunderbolt.
If you go that direction... just make sure you know all the details.
If everything isn't in place... it won't work.
 

Yeah, I've been reading a bit about them and Thunderbolt's apparent 1 ms latency is very impressive, and makes it seem like the perfect solution for rate and transfer time.   Even the latency of this Firewire set up seems noticeable to me when recording live drums.  This will figure into my next build, coming up in the not-so-near future.  Something tells me this will be my last conventional machine, though, the micro pc's are coming...ha ha 
 
 
 

Under ideal circumstances, Thunderbolt performance will equal PCIe.
It will never surpass the performance of PCIe.
 
If super low round-trip latency is paramount, then it makes sense to go PCIe or Thunderbolt (just make sure the audio interface has full "PCIe via Thunderbolt" support for Windows).
Running Firewire protocol via Thunderbolt won't offer any benefit vs running PCIe Firewire.

This looks promising.  On Kickstarter now ...
 
The balanced breakout will be 1/4" (TRS) connectors, which will be more compact then the XLR 1U rack mounts.
 
This sound card features crystal clear 8 channel output audio, with 6 channels of input audio. Unlike other multichannel solutions, this surround hat only uses the GPIO I2S bus for audio. It doesn't use USB nor does it use HDMI.
 
We bring to you the audio card (for the Raspberry Pi) which seemed impossible, but now it is done! Push your projects further into un-trodden territory - further then others have gone before.
 
Whilst this gadget works with the Raspberry Pi, it represents an innovation in the realm of embedded systems. The innovation is at a hardware level, in audio signalling, giving us the ability to retrofit these systems with more then their typically quoted two channels of audio in and out.
 
https://www.kickstarter.c...-sound-for-the-raspber

Ironically this aging setup I have does have Firewire. TI I believe.
 

I have used some onboard Via chipsets in the past with success