Dual User Windows PC

cojsl writes "Anandtech reviews the Jetway Magic Twin small form-factor PC that allows two simultaneous users on one Windows PC. The article mentions a mobo only option too."

Comments

SImpson's did it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean UNIX did it!

Re:SImpson's did it!

[Pope Raymond Lama]

Actually,
I can't help thinking
"Share violation reading file winword.exe - this file is in use by another program. Windows will reboot now in order to free the file winword.exe for your usage
[OK]
"

But how well does it handle FPS games?

[Seng]

I'm guessing not real well...

Re:But how well does it handle FPS games?

[Greedo]

Nope, but it plays SPS games excellently!

Re:But how well does it handle FPS games?

[Spleener12]

Depends on the card, the processor, and the game, I'd guess. You'd basically be doubling the load on both the video card and the processor. I can see Quake3 running just fine regardless, but a newer game might have some problems. I doubt that they're going for the hardcore gamer demographic with this concept, though.

Terminal Server

[kannibal_klown]

It's not IMPOSSIBLE to do, but I'm interested to see how they did it.

Offhand, the only ways I can think of are using Citrix or Terminal Server (on a server box).

Pretty neat though, none-the-less.

Re:Terminal Server

[NineNine]

Windows XP is truly multi-user. I'm sure there's a little setting in there for multiple monitors. As is, multiple people can all be logged in at the same time, all running their own programs.

Re:Terminal Server

[w3weasel]

sadly, this is a kludge... specialized motherboard required... meaning the MoBo is actually siamese twins sharing non-critical chips (err.. organs).

Re:Terminal Server

[pseudochaotic]

It's not IMPOSSIBLE to do, but I'm interested to see how they did it.

Yeah. Wouldn't it be great if slashdot linked to an article or something?

Re:Terminal Server

[Aardpig]

meaning the MoBo is actually siamese twins sharing non-critical chips (err.. organs).

I predict, in the very near future, a blockbuster Hollywood buddy movie about one of these conjoined mobos: Stuck on BSOD.. Starring Matt Damon as the Chipset and Greg Kinnear as the Floppy Drive. Bound to make a mint, no chance that it will bomb...

Re:Terminal Server

[sampowers]

Yeah, I sure do wish Linux could do that! We're always playing catch-up with Microsoft!

Re:Terminal Server

[kimgh]

I have Win XP Pro, and, while 2 users can be logged in at one time (one at the console, the other over a network), they both cannot be working at the same time.

I don't call that "truly multi-user."

By contrast, my Mac, running OS X, is truly multi-user: I can connect to it over the network while someone else is at the console, and we both can do stuff.

Re:Terminal Server

[phasm42]

I have Win XP Pro, and, while 2 users can be logged in at one time (one at the console, the other over a network), they both cannot be working at the same time.

Not true. Two users using Fast User Switching can't be working at the same time even though both are logged in, but if you're logged in via Terminal Services (aka Remote Desktop), multiple people can work at the same time.

Re:Terminal Server

[mi]

I don't call that "truly multi-user."

But that's just how Microsoft chose to license it (XP workstation). There is nothing inherent in the OS, that prevents them from working in parallel. In fact, NT Servers (XP and 2000) allow multiple people to login. I'm using Remote Desktop right now to access one from my FreeBSD box.

Also, rumors are, the limit on the number of simultamious users can be increased by careful editing of the registry, but I can not find the link right now...

Re:Terminal Server

[bhtooefr]

Actually, I think Remote Desktop (but not Terminal Services) kicks the logged on person off (at least when FUS is disabled, I don't know about enabled, as I don't have an XP Pro box to try it on)

Re:Terminal Server

[phasm42]

I'll have to try this at home later -- I have a VM with XP Pro installed on it for testing. I've used Remote Desktop before, but I guess I've never actually seen what the host did when I logged in. With TS I know for sure that multiple people can work (kinda like Citrix, SSH, X-Windows tunneling, etc).

Re:Terminal Server

[bhtooefr]

That's why I said not TS. BTW, can VNC (on Linux) support multi-user (on a single-head video card)?

Re:Terminal Server

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the "Magic Twin" software is a glorified registry hack as well ;)

Re:Terminal Server

[dnamaners]

Looks like as noted above that this is a softwear & XP trick, and not actually directly related their pc in particular. They specify that it needs their proprietary softwear, a 2 head VGA card and a mouse and keyboard splitter. Id bet they rout the input of 1 set of devices to each user and controll XP login with it.

Sort of neat but to me it seems like a bit of a curiosity rather than a true tool. I'd place it on par with neato bundled remotes and LCD panels on some boxes. That sort of candy can be darn usefull for a few but is not on the "needs" list form most users. Maybe this product would do better as an optional upgrade package for use with any PC.

Re:Terminal Server

[Malc]

VNC can be configured under Linux to display an existing desktop, not just one of it's own virtual desktops. This is how KDE implements desktop sharing.

Re:Terminal Server

[Malc]

bhtooefr is correct. There can be only one person connected whether it be at the console or via RDP. Logging on via RDP disconnects everybody else and connects to an existing desktop if that user has already logged in. Logging on at the console will then disconnect that remote user, and connect to the same session if it is the same username.

I wish there were a way to hack XP's terminal services to allow multiple concurrent logons.

Re:Terminal Server

[kimgh]

The cases aren't the same. I was careful to specify "over the network" (AKA terminal services).

If there is a way to do the equivalent with XP, I've never heard of it. Let me know if there is one; I'm always ready to have my ignorance lessened.

Re:Terminal Server

[kimgh]

And I respond: Mac OS X users do not have to buy the server product to get this capability, but XP users (apparently) do.

It doesn't matter to me that it's not inherent in the technology. If I cannot do it after spending $300 on XP Pro, but I can do it with $139 Mac OS X, I'll give you one guess which I think is better and more useful to me...

Re:Terminal Server

[Woody77]

The Win32 API has had most of what's required for this since long before Terminal Services. CreateWindowStation() is one of the calls. I don't think it had multiple interactive user support, but it did have multiple desktop support, and a bunch of other things not exposed by the windows GUI.

Stuff I always wanted to implement, but then I just switched to linux.

Re:Terminal Server

[Foolhardy]

CreateWindowStation was intoduced in NT 3.51 to support Citrix's WinFrame server, the predessor to MS Terminal Services. Multiple desktops (not sessions) have always existed in NT; when you press ctrl-alt-delete while logged on, it switches to the logon desktop.

About Linux: yeah, there are lot of things in Windows (NT mostly) that Microsoft and everyone else woefully neglects, and that's not usually the case with Free/Open software

Re:Terminal Server

[timmyf2371]

I use Remote Desktop at home to access my Win 2003 server from my main workstation, only because it's easier than working at the machine itsself.

In full screen mode I'm able to be logged on via Remote Desktop and also at the console.

Re:Terminal Server

[bhtooefr]

That's another story. Windows Server 2003 runs Terminal Services, same protocol, different implementation. Terminal Services creates another session for a new user, much like how multiple users can SSH in to a Linux box.

Re:Terminal Server

[gabebear]

Linux can have an a million people logged in at a time via remote X sessions.

VNC runs on the local machine on a local X-session, you can start as many of these up as you want, but you would want one for each user logging in via VNC, if you connect via remote X11 you don't need any special setup for a crap-load of users to log in.

Re:Terminal Server

[gabebear]

Linux/FreeBSD can do it for free.

Re:Terminal Server

[deaddrunk]

What do you mean racist against Indians? You mean being totally evil because you resent your salary dropping by three-quarters due to unfair competition from third-world programmers?

Re:Terminal Server

[mr_jrt]

Could try Thinsoft Winconnect Server Xp. Works for me, up to 21 simultaneous users on XP Pro. Not cheap though. Wish XP's limitation was just a reg key hack :(

Re:Terminal Server

[mi]

I can do it with FreeBSD for $0. So what? The point was, WinXP is a multi user OS -- to the point, that someone can make a multi- (or dual-) user PC with it.

Re:Terminal Server

[bryansj]

You "can" get more than 2 users in Win XP Pro. First you have to get Service Pack 2 Beta and then follow the tweaks that I found on www.neowin.net and then you can have two working sessions at once. I use this on my PC so that my wife can use her wifi laptop to check her main email account on the desktop pc while I'm still working. Also good for doing CPU intensive stuff from a slower computer because the work in done on the faster one.

The question would be if this will still work once SP2 is finally released...

Re:Terminal Server

[Malc]

Yeah, it's probably not worth it. I have a laptop running XP at home - I share it with my wife. There are occasions when I want to hop on to it from another machine for a few minutes when she's using it, and I'd rather not interrupt her. There are also occasions when I want to remote control her session, but for some that currently eludes me I decided I couldn't or didn't want to use the desktop sharing... maybe I need to look in to it again.

Re:Terminal Server

[Aardpig]

You mean being totally evil because you resent your salary dropping by three-quarters due to unfair competition from third-world programmers?

Unfair competition? LOL, come back when you've found your arse with both hands.

Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Terminal Services and Remote Desktop have been able to do this forever. Nothing new here.

Re:Big Deal

[Peeet]

I don't know if this is just a setting that I am missing, but I am pretty sure that using Remote Desktop (regarding Win XP Pro) prevents anyone at the actual desktop from using the computer, for the sole purpose of preventing two people using the same computer/software at the same time.

Whenever I try it from a laptop, it turns my desktop's monitor blank and then when I logoff RDP on the laptop, my desktop's monitor will come back up with a password prompt.

Re:Big Deal

[Malc]

Huh? Terminal Services does not require a lot of bandwidth. It works great over dialup and is certainly less demanding than both VNC and pcAnywhere. Tune the settings and "experience" before you connect - turn down colour depth, don't play remote sound, etc. Everyday I use machines over 4,000 km away and sometimes via a local dialup connection - Terminal Services beats the alternatives hands-down.

Re:Big Deal

[AstroDrabb]

You are correct. You have to buy the expensive Terminal server version of MS OS to have multiple logins and pay a pretty high price per user. MS Windows XP Pro only alows one user to connect in with RDP. If you are logged in, you will see a dialog about allowing someone to connect in and if you agree, the desktop is locked. If you unlock, the remote user is kicked off. The other thing you can do is connect in with Remote Assistance which will let the logged in user see what you are doing.

Linux and Unix OSes have had this for a long time. You can export a remote display and run programs remotely while displaying them locally or run programs locally and display them remotely. You can also run multiple VNC sessions and give each user their own KDE/Gnome desktop. The latest version of VNC has a vnc module for X that will let you export the desktop in the way people are used to with the MS Windows version of VNC. You just need to put a Load "vnc" option in your modules section of your XF86config file if your distro does not set it up for you.

Re:Big Deal

[timeOday]

And what do you display the "remote" deskop on... a second PC. That's not two users sharing one computer, it's two users sharing two computers.

I think the point of this thing is that it's cheaper than 2 computers. If I were running an Internet cafe or a student lab it might be interesting.

On (U|Li)n[iu]x

[Rikus]

... that would be as simple as providing two X terminals and a display manager.

Re:On (U|Li)n[iu]x

[stonedyak]

Linx? Uniux? Those aren't operating systems. You're just making this up now!

Re:On (U|Li)n[iu]x

[October_30th]

Does Terminal Services come with Windows or do you have to pay extra for it?

And just what a difference would that make?

Re:On (U|Li)n[iu]x

[Jeremy Erwin]

Does Terminal Services come with Windows or do you have to pay extra for it?

And just what a difference would that make?

Quite right. If you know where to look, the cost of Windows is minimal. A few baht, no more.

Re:On (U|Li)n[iu]x

[b17bmbr]

there are other considerations as well. i'm not familiar with terminal services, but i am with X clients. my guess, and from what i've heard from some who've used it, is that with term. services (and correct me if i'm wrong here), you need a helluva lot more overhead on hardware. and you are running multiple instances of windows. so it is hugely resouce hungry. but with X, for all its faults, if you allocated 50mb or so per user you can run several user cncurrently. i had a P3 933 512mb box in my classroom last year running seven X clients with OO.org, moz, etc., without a glitch. i had over 150 days uptime. only pulled the plug for summer vacation.

also, you have to pay for not just term services, but every user. if you think about it, that can be several hundred dollars. basically, microsoft doesn't want you to do it. what they have term services for, and citrix is good for, is rich firms that buy major hardware, and want to load the expense up front, and save on admin costs. which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but, it is not viable in all but a few cases.

I want the opposite...

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to be able to use multiple computers via one user interface...

Re:I want the opposite...

[metallicagoaltender]

Don't KVM switches and/or ssh/VNC/Terminal Services/PC Anywhere/etc. pretty much solve that problem?

Re:I want the opposite...

[esac17]

That problem is easily answered when considering 1 or 2 computers run off one interface (VNC, TS, telnet, ssh). But the problem comes when one wants to manage their whole lab infrastructure or every computer in their home from one interface. Windows 2003 comes with a neat little MMC snapin called "Remote Desktops" that lets you manage all of your TS sessions. The problem with that is that there is one process for each computer, and if you can imagine, 100-1000 mstsc.exe processes can consume quite a bit of memory. As well it doesn't support features that KVM does like being able to broadcast to all of the machines at once.

What would be nice is software that lets you split your computers into groups, allow you to broadcast to those specific groups, etc..

Re:I want the opposite...

[MrRuslan]

just make a bewolf cluster.

Re:I want the opposite...

[metallicagoaltender]

Read the top post in this thread, dumbass:

I want to be able to use multiple computers via one user interface...

Gee, I don't see anything in there about multiple people trying to use one computer...

Re:I want the opposite...

[teamhasnoi]

If you want 'virtual monitor spanning' here you go.

If you have windows machine as the main one VNC2VNC. Works with anything that I can get VNC on, although the scroll wheel doesn't work. I use it to control my Beige g3 from my Northgate keyboard (on XP).

If you have two OS X Macs, Teleport does a fine job.

Both of these solutions require two cpus and two monitors, but they work pretty well for this.

Re:I want the opposite...

[bhtooefr]

Am I thinking something like Citrix Application Neighborhood, or X? Where you run an app on one PC, and run another on another, and bring it all in to your PC?

Re:I want the opposite...

[codemachine]

There is also x2x if you're going between multiple X11 sessions, or x2vnc if you're going from X11 to VNC. I use the latter at work to have virtual monitor spanning between my main Linux box and Windows testing box.

Wondering about licensing and grammar

[The I Shing]

I wonder how licensing will work for software installed on such a computer.

Will software makers insist that multiple licenses be bought for software that will be used by two users simultaneously?

And speaking of things being equal, I feel a Grammar Raid coming on...

"Magic Twin looks like a pretty unique solution..." the article says. Why do people insist on qualifying the word unique? Something is either unique or it isn't. An object cannot be "somewhat unique" or "almost totally unique." The word means one of a kind, and without equal. Something either has equals or it doesn't.

Grammar Slammer Bammer slam Igor tomorrow, for sure!

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that Windows allows multpile users, built into the operating system I don't think so. In XP, you can switch from user to user at will, and with Terminal Services, Citrix, Remote Desktop, etc. you can operate the system remotely with other users logged on at the same time. Considering the MS is the one who released Terminal Services, I doubt they would have ground to stand on for charging for two licences.

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[Mr. Bad Example]

> An object cannot be "somewhat unique" or "almost totally unique." The word means one of a kind, and without equal. Something either has equals or it doesn't.

That's the most perfect description of a superlative I've ever seen.

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[bev_tech_rob]

Most software is either licensed on a 'per seat' or 'per processor' basis. This setup would get around the 'per processor' deal, but 'per seat' might be interesting to see how that would pan out.....

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[antonpiatek]

Will software makers insist that multiple licenses be bought for software that will be used by two users simultaneously?

I believe the licence for MS Word/Office still goes along the lines of one install on your desktop, and one on your laptop (under the same licence). It is specific to the second PC being a laptop.

As they are the same PC, does this qualify as a new licence? Im pretty sure it does, especially as Office makes you enter a name when installing it to say who its registered to (so does windows for that matter).

So to be legal, you have to buy a multiple user licence for everything both people use!

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[Dun Malg]

> An object cannot be "somewhat unique" or "almost totally unique." The word means one of a kind, and without equal. Something either has equals or it doesn't.

That's the most perfect description of a superlative I've ever seen.

And my addendum is the worstest joke on the subject, ever.

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[bluekanoodle]

Except that you are only installing it once, and then time slicing between it. I could see this a s a novel way to cut back on our Microsoft Licensing fee's For example our accounting department doesn't need a fast computer, but if we could rreduce the number of pc's from 100 to fifty, thats a heck of alot of costs savings for a mid size company. 50 license for windows instead of 100 50 license of office instead of 100 50 Server CAL's instead of 100 Hmm, how much do these cost?

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[Big_Al_B]

I disagree. For example, the inability of some to understand how one can creatively use a literally defined word in a less literally defined phrase is "somewhat unique" to digital-thinking geeks.

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[Nintendork]

That's pretty much old terminology. Currently it's per user or per computer. Read the license options for each product you plan on installing and figure out what method is the least expensive.

-Lucas

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[pla]

I wonder how licensing will work for software installed on such a computer.

For a better question, I wonder if anyone (other than Microsoft) will care.

Not a troll or flamebait - Really, how many home users actually went out and bought Windows or Office? For a business, a few hundred bucks might not mean much (particularly in comparison with getting caught running an unlicensed app). For a home user, many people balk at even paying $50 for their tax software, nevermind something as mundane as a word processor and spreadsheet (and the rest, that I have yet to see anyone use outside a work environment).

People get Windows with their machines. They get Office from a friend or borrow the install CD from work. Legality simply doesn't matter, end of story.

Or, for an already-common analogy, how many people paid extra fees to use on a dual-CPU box (most commercial software includes provisions limiting its use to on a per-CPU basis as well)? Answer? No one. Even businesses usually overlook that one, for "mere" duals.

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[No Such Agency]

They get Office from a friend or borrow the install CD from work.

So where's the bad? Oh, you mean MICROSOFT Office.
/recent OpenOffice.org convert

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[DunbarTheInept]

Using a term that only applies to continuous phenomena on a property that is boolean is not "creative" use of language. It's "destructive" use of language - wrecking the ability of people to say what they mean in short phrases. It's because of practices like that that nowadays lawyers have to write entire paragraphs to express a simple clear concept - lazy users of the language have ruined its ability to express things concisely and unambiguously. You can't be "somewhat unique", just like you can't be "somewhat pregnant".

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[gabebear]

But if you could run Linux on cheap PC's and then use a 100 head windows box running VNC on each head, you would only be paying for the one copy of Windows.

Most offices can replace their software with open-source equivilants, this would let anyone who wanted to run an old Windows app to launch VNC and use MS Word if they didn't like AbiWord, Kword, or Open-Office.

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[tepples]

"I don't want Microsoft Office; I just want Microsoft-script-compatible Office because my work place has set up its work flow in terms of Office scripts." Organizations may use this excuse after running a study that suggests that several more years of Licensing 6 may cost less than converting the scripts to a language compatible with OO.o.

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[Quill345]

Or, for an already-common analogy, how many people paid extra fees to use on a dual-CPU box (most commercial software includes provisions limiting its use to on a per-CPU basis as well)? Answer? No one. Even businesses usually overlook that one, for "mere" duals. Actually Windows 2000/XP's license allows it to be used on 1 or 2 CPU machines.

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[syukton]

ditto.

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[Big_Al_B]

Don't be dense. How's that for concise and unambigous?

In this context "unique" is synonymous with "different." While "different" is also a distinct boolean property, no one seems to mind measuring the degree to which things are different. For example, "the difference between 3 and 5 is 2; the difference between 1 and 2 is 1," are very concise and unambiguous statements that measure difference.

Sometimes it's useful to avoid complete precision or to estimate difference, such as the statement, "PI and 3.1415 are somewhat different." No one knows exactly how different they are, but we know they're not as different as PI and 3.0000.

Let's switch the discussion to "sets" and talk about degrees of unique. A Venn diagram with two sets sharing no common elements can be drawn by two non-intersecting circles. Another Venn diagram with two sets that share all but one element can be drawn several ways--concentric circles of almost the same diameter, or two almost entirely intersecting circles just a hair offset from each other. (Note the phrases "almost the same" and "a hair offset" both describe relative degrees of difference. Sorry for my "lazy" use of language.)

Now, are the sets in the second diagram unique? Of course. But are they as unique as the first sets? Of course not. One pair of sets has almost all common elements, while the other has no common elements.

Using your limited understanding of language, there would be no linguistic method for expressing relativity between entities. The English language has *always* relied on modifiers of absolutes to describe degrees of difference. It's not bastardization or destruction, it's normal communication.

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[DunbarTheInept]

"More unique" makes as much sense as "More biggest" or "More tallest". "More different" makes sense because it is analogous to "more big (bigger)", or "more tall (taller)". "Unique" already has a notion of singularity embedded into the word to begin with, just like "tallest" and "biggest" do. Other words you used in your alleged analogy do not, which is why your analogy is not an analogy.

Re:Wondering about licensing and grammar

[Big_Al_B]

I'm not acquiesing on my argument (which contained synonyms, not analogies), BUT for the record:

I apologize for my "don't be dense" comment. I was immature and rude. It turns out that our little debate on this topic is not unique :^) See: unique and read the usage notes, if you're interested.

Since more practiced writers than me are arguing about it, I'm just going to lay down my saber here.

Watch out for the licensing issues here

[Amiga Lover]

from the review the units abilities"

1 PC can be used by 2 users at the same time

2 users can browse the internet, send and receive email at the same time

2 users can access all software installed on the PC at the same time (Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Data Base, games, etc.)

2 users can play games against each other with a dual-port VGA card

I know many softwares of mine have claims that only one person may use it on one machine at one time. What does this mean? If two Excels are loaded on the same machine at the same time where is the licensing happening? No check over network will find any but it's own self running when really it's running for another user anyway on the same machine and that would still end up being a violation of the licensing of a product.

MS would not be amused.

Re:Watch out for the licensing issues here

[Peredur]

Great, now MS will buy these guys out after a long lawsuit. Then they will add this feature to their "premium" OS and charge twice as much for it. One thing though... will a BSOD affecting one person affect the other? I'd bet so.

Re:Watch out for the licensing issues here

[drinkypoo]

This seems pretty simple to me, if the license says it can only be in use on one computer at a time, then both of you can use it. It's not like multiuser computers and compatibility execution environments didn't exist when the vast majority of licenses were written. If it says only one copy of it can be in use at a time, well the copy in memory which is executed is definitely a copy, from a technical standpoint, so both of you cannot use it. Finally, if it says that only one instance can be running at a time, again, only one of you can use it.

MS probably is amused, one way or another. We'll find out as OS updates come out that either help or break this software.

Re:Watch out for the licensing issues here

[randyest]

Anandtech didn't seem to care about potential licensing problems (at least they didn't mention it):

We set up 2 users who were checking email, writing in Word and adding data to spreadsheets. We had no problem getting our single-user installation of Microsoft Office to work just as if these were separate PC's. We also saw no perceptible difference in performance when we ran the 860Twin as a single user or with 2 users working. We can only assume that the time-slicing mechanism used to enable Magic Twin works very well.

And, since:

This isn't true networking; rather, it is just clever and transparent time-slicing, but the multiplexing is all but invisible to each of the two users.

I don't think there could be a licensing issue. EULA usually give you right to use the product on one machine (or in case of some high-cost EDA, per CPU). I've never seen a limit on the number of users, simultaneous or otherwise. This is one machine. It splits the output (and input) via timeslicing to let two users on the machine at once, but it's still just one machine (one CPU).

If this is a problem, so is my dual-monitor PC -- technically I could open 2 copies of Word and use one with the mouse (and, say, and on-screen keyboard or voice recognition) and let someone else use the keyboard on the other. I think I can do that legally -- I have a license for that product on one machine, and I'm using it on one machine.

Also, going even more extreme: two people working on the same document (thinking and discussing together, maybe taking turns typing, whatever) would require a second license.

I don't think so, unless publishers update the EULAs to account for this new multi-user PC. Which I guess is possible.

Re:Watch out for the licensing issues here

[NanoGator]

I'm curious if you can run two simultaneous copies of Photoshop. For some reaason, Adobe only allows one instance at a time...

Re:Watch out for the licensing issues here

[prat393]

The difference here is that you pay for a license to use it on your computer. It's just multiple instances on the same computer - there's no network in use here, and the 2 end users are sitting AT the same computer, which just happens to have more than one monitor. Licenses distinguish about running over a network by saying that the application is being displayed and interacted with on one computer, but is hosted on/executed on another, interonnected by some kind of network. A dual head VGA card and two keyboards are still just a "1 CPU" license.

Re:Watch out for the licensing issues here

[Jeremy Erwin]

There are two kinds of software companies--those who are blissfully unaware of multi-user computing, and those that have developed nasty little license administration servers to charge for such activity. Wolfram, for instance, charges through the nose if a user wants to run more than one instance of Mathematica.

Re:Watch out for the licensing issues here

[dustman]

I remember reading that the original arguments in favor of software licenses was this:

Computer code is protected under copyright, every time you run a program, it is being copied from your hard drive (or other storage medium) into the computer memory. So, you are not allowed to do this (you are not the copyright holder) by default, and by agreeing to the license you are allowed to make the copy (just like the GPL, conceptually).

From the above post:

I know many softwares of mine have claims that only one person may use it on one machine at one time.

It would be interesting to take a similiar literal interpretation of law/agreement to note that on a single processor machine, only one instance of a program is ever running at the same time... The machine is just switching back and forth quite often :)

Re:Watch out for the licensing issues here

[Unknown Lamer]

The copying from long term storage into RAM is covered by Fair Use. Distribution to other users is not. This is why "End User License Agreements" are intrinsically invalid (they cover use when copyright only allows the copyright holder to control distrbution).

Re:Watch out for the licensing issues here

[tepples]

The copying from long term storage into RAM is covered by Fair Use.

The specific statute allowing U.S. residents to do this is 17 USC 117.

Re:Watch out for the licensing issues here

[1u3hr]

I'm curious if you can run two simultaneous copies of Photoshop. For some reaason, Adobe only allows one instance at a time...

But you can certainly have more than one file open. Of course you'd be stepping over each other's palette and tool selections, so it might not be very practical.

Re:Watch out for the licensing issues here

[julesh]

Computer code is protected under copyright, every time you run a program, it is being copied from your hard drive (or other storage medium) into the computer memory. So, you are not allowed to do this (you are not the copyright holder) by default, and by agreeing to the license you are allowed to make the copy (just like the GPL, conceptually).

Generally speaking, running a second copy of the same program on a single computer won't make a second copy of its program code in memory, only of the data that it is using. The pages of memory that contain the code are shared between both instances. As the data is not fixed in advance, it is probably not covered by copyright.

Wow, Just wow

[JoeShmoe950]

Thats a great idea. Never seen anything like it. I have similar problems. For example, while my sister visits barbie, I wouldn't get kicked off,we could both be on it and not know it. Playing two intensive games at once might not work though. Its a great idea. All I can say

Ready for the jokes?

[eric76]

How about the blonde who had one of these with a KVM switch to handle both screens?

Happens all the time where I work

[Neil Blender]

The user of the windows box and the admin trying to fix it working together as one. I see it everyday.

awesome. two player doom3

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome! Now we will be able to play two-player Doom 3 using one computer.

Taking a step back?

[mizidymizark]

Is it me, or is this returning to the days of dumb terminals? I think this is practical for some of the suggestions they had, ie. 2 children doing homework, but this is hardly a revolutionary idea.

Re:Taking a step back?

[ckaminski]

Why is that so bad? With CPU power getting so crazy these days, and the needs of most users far outstripping their usage, why shouldn't we go back to timesharing, in limited usage scenarios? This is a *GREAT* solution for my dad's small office where he needs to bill customers, and my mom needs to invoice the vendors, enter PO's.

Re:Taking a step back?

[gunix]

No, it's not dumb terminals. It's many individuals using a computer. The only revolutionary idea is that they are using the same computer and thus saving money by not buying them an individual machine. I think this is very great unless you have very high requirements!

Re:Taking a step back?

[julesh]

I've always believed multi-user workstations are a good idea. Unfortunately, Windows licensing renders it too expensive for real use at the moment (as I understand it, you need Windows + 2 client access licenses for it, which is more expensive than 2 windows licenses). I think MS may work out a deal for it in the near future if it takes off though.

The advantages are:

- You need less total processor power: a twin CPU 2GHz desktop machine ought to be capable of giving 4-8 users (depending on usage patterns) almost indistinguishable performance from a single process each, and substantially better at times.

- You need less memory: program code that multiple users are running can be shared

- You need less hard disk space: only one OS / set of apps installation required. A single 40Gb disk ought to be adequate for 8 average users, and you don't seem to be able to buy smaller disks any more.

So, basically a single GBP 1500 machine ought to be able to cope where previously 8 x GBP 500 machines were necessary. It'll also need less maintenance.

Ad?

[Gyorg_Lavode]

What's it mean when there is an advertisment for the box being reviewed right beside the review?...

Re:Ad?

[Ark42]

It means you aren't blocking advertisements properly.

Re:Ad?

[Gyorg_Lavode]

We don't get that kinda lee-way at work. We can't even change our background image.

Re:Ad?

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

We can't even change our background image.

Aha! Well in Soviet Russia your background image can't even change you!

or something like that...

This is good and all but...

[TechnologyX]

How will it know which virus to run first?

Re:This is good and all but...

[Ieshan]

The two-headed ogre of spyware will tell it what to do.

Get ready to pay

[MakoStorm]

I am sure Microsoft will find a way to double charge this with fee's or they all ready have some way to recoup their "loss" in this.

You never get something for nothing......ever..

I'm not bitter.

Sooo

[OverlordQ]

what happends when you BSOD twice? Do they cancel each other out and the computer works again?

Re:Sooo

[say]

Well, minus multiplied with minus becomes a positive. So I guess it would cancel out. On the other hand, Windows would probably BSOD when trying to multiply something. So, we get (--)-, which is -. A BSOD. Now, if the bluescreen subroutine (known internally in microsoft as "void releaseDateFixer(void)") also BSODs, you would be back in the graphical interface again. To crash the BSOD routine, you would probably need to do something as cruel as... plugging in a new printer or something.

Re:Sooo

[steeef]

I think the real question is: What happens when Slashdot runs a Windows story that doesn't have a comment joking about a BSOD? Does the site implode?

These have been around for some time

[spidergoat2]

These are nothing new. The PCBuddy has been around for a number of years. We don't pay much attention to this stuff in the USA because PC's and parts are cheap. These devices are popular in third world countries where resources are streched.

Re:These have been around for some time

[Tango42]

My Mum (a teacher) used to use something like this in her school, to save money. It was all software based IIRC (except the switch so you could have a monitor, keyboard and mouse each). That was at least 5 years ago.

Re:These have been around for some time

[gabebear]

Here is a link to Applica's website. They have made PC Buddy for a number of years. They have PCI cards to let up to 5 users use the same copy of Windows. The video cards included are strictly 2-D accelerated only though.

I have this already

[AtariAmarok]

Two users on my PC at once? I already have this. Not only am I using it, but Bill Gates apparently has free range over the thing, as does Bonzi Buddy. I bet if I run AdAware, I'll find a half-dozen other unknowns sharing it with me as well!

Can someone please tell me...

[Steamhead]

What the difference between this and remote xwindows session is?

Re:Can someone please tell me...

[Vengeance]

Ummm, what's the difference?

This is restricted to only two users, isn't portable across a network to other machines, requires rather specialized hardware, and will cost you money.

Oh yes, and let us not forget the BSOD!

Yup, I think that about covers it.

Re:Can someone please tell me...

[lga]

This is pretty much equivalent to having 2 X Sessions running on seperate Keyboard, mouse, and monitor in the same machine. I've taken a hard look at the XFree86 code and the only things preventing this right now (under linux) is that XFree86 opens the console directly and lacks an evdev input module for the keyboard.

I have just posted about the same thing in this post. I didn't realise that X couldn't do it yet, I thought my second monitor driver was the only problem. Oh well. How much code needs to be changed to stop X opening the console? Can it just be redirected to another virtual terminal?

Re:Can someone please tell me...

[Doubting Thomas]

This guy claims to have figured out how to make XFree86 allow dual user mode. Haven't tried it yet, though.

cost?

[nizo]

It kept saying low cost, but no prices (or resellers) were mentioned, and the manufacturer decided that everyone had to have shockwave to view their website :-(

an idea

[bsDaemon]

the PC model is kind of really not that good of an idea, all things concidered. I am sure those of who are network admins or some such at companies know that individual PCs on the desks of the employees is headache central.
Why not take the terminal server model into the homes? There would need to be only one machine, it could sit in the closet w/ the cable modem or whatever, out of the way. Perhaps with a CD changer or virtual disk mirrors to keep it from really needing to be accessed. Then there could be wireless heads around the house, one for each member of the family, say. Then everyone can use the computer at the same time and need only one copy of the OS, anti-virus, et cetera. It'd be a lot neater to handle.

Re:an idea

[ThisIsFred]

Why not take the terminal server model into the homes? There would need to be only one machine, it could sit in the closet w/ the cable modem or whatever, out of the way.

AKA, the "Network Computer", or "NC". Two problems with that model: Vendors wanted direct control for licensing and software distribution considerations. There still aren't enough high-bandwidth Internet connections for that to become popular. Plus the schemes proposed were pay-per-use, which consumers apparently hate.

I kicked around the concept of having a big, honkin' X "server" and two X terminals. It does kind of present some inconveniences with large audio and video files, or 3D games. Plus, I'd rather have something more efficient power-wise if I'm going to stick it in a closet and forget about it. Someday...

Re:an idea

[Jeremy Erwin]

I kicked around the concept of having a big, honkin' X "server" and two X terminals.

It probably didn't work all that well because the usual model is to have two X servers, and client apps running on the central machine...

Re:an idea

[wwest4]

> the PC model is kind of really not that good of an idea,

this completely depends on what your requirements are. terminal servers have disadvantages:

1) economy requires large investments along the upgrade path. you keep replacing one monster server each X years.

2) all eggs in one basket. if your 'mainframe' is down, so is everything else

3) a generalized OS/hw config can only do everything so well. compromises must be made, and all sorts of conflicts can occur without clever planning, preparations, special peripherals, and/or workarounds. you don't have to worry about this with specialized hw (e.g. a media PC, a game PC, an office productivity box, a recipe kiosk for the kitchen, a car PC, a palm, etc). this works in an office, which has relatively heterogeneous needs and lots of money, compared to a household which has all of these totally unrelated needs and (probably) not a ton of cash or credit lying around for each upgrade.

4) networks are not yet fast, responsive or ubiquitous enough. if i want 30 fps video, i want it now, and i want it wherever i am, then i can't serve it off of a mainframe. maybe someday, but not yet.

> It'd be a lot neater to handle.

but not yet practical for the avg. home user.

Re:an idea

[ThisIsFred]

Note how I placed quotation marks around the word "server". I understand that the terminology is used differently with X. The rest of the computing world understands "server" to mean "the big box in the closet". I did that to clear up any confusion for people that may not be familiar with X.

Soooooo....

[pr0ntab]

Does the hard drive look seperate for each user? Or are they piggy-backing onto the Fast User Switching / Built-in Terminal Server feature of XP to provide user seperation?

The article is _light_ on detail for a five page pseudo-advertisement.

Fuck.

Anyone remember the BUDDY?

[vasqzr]

Betwin Buddy

Buddy betwin - Betwin B-680 - Enables 2 Users or more to share 1 PC

Sometimes one computer just isn't enough. With buddy betwin, you don't have to spend thousands of dollars on a second PC. This device lets you connect a second keyboard, mouse and monitor to your existing computer to create a second, fully functional PC. Share drives, printers, scanners, software, and even surf the Internet at the same time using only one modem, one telephone line and one Internet Service Provider account. Start taking full advantage of your computer's power! Every member of your household can be online simultaneously. You can track your investments while your spouse sends e-mail and your high-schooler downloads information for a homework assignment - all at the same time, and using just one Internet connection. It enables up to four additional users to share the computing power and resources of a single computer running Windows 2000 or XP. This is perfect for the home and small office. Simply install it into your computer and connect an additional monitor, keyboard and mouse. Windows ® will recognize all the devices automatically. Now you can do your work while the kids play their games!

Never got to use one. How did/didn't it work?

Re:Anyone remember the BUDDY?

[michrech]

We have one of these in it's plastic bag in the shop. It consisted of an ISA card that looked *exactly* like a NIC (including the RJ-45 socket in it's back), a regular CAT-5 cable, a little box that plugged into the other end of the cable (which had a PS/2 keyboard and mouse port, plus video). You install the NIC-like card into the 'host' computer, install the software, and when windows pops up, the driver loads, and a second 'windows' pops up on the remote monitor. At this point, two users could do whatever two users could do with whatever hardware was on the system.

Worked rather well, for it's day. Definatly needed a decent machine, though. When the second user started working, you could notice little 'hickups' in the speed department.. =]

Re:Anyone remember the BUDDY?

[241comp]

Actually, you can still get the BeTwin software (http://www.thinsoftinc.com/products_betwin_info.h tml) and all it requires is a dual-head video card or multiple cards and USB kybd, mouse and optional USB speakers. I installed and ran the demo of the software on my PC back in 2001 and I could run 2 instances of C&C Renegade (FPS) at 800x600 on a dual-head GF2 card. It worked really well for all other applications I tried. You can still download a demo of the software here: http://www.thinsoftinc.com/download_2002.php or buy a copy for ~$100. It worked great for me and I've been contemplating using it to add a terminal on my Windows machine downstairs and in the third floor rec room. My computer sits idle most of the time anyway.

Re:Anyone remember the BUDDY?

[Kris_J]

Shiney. Now I can use the dual-head PCs I've been ordering to provide extra stations in times of peak load, or if a staff member's PC dies. Must try it.

Not the first...

[tbase]

Maybe the first SFF, but I remember seeing a PCI card available in some catalog somewhere that would allow you to do this with any PC. Anyone remember the name of that one?

Re:Not the first...

[michrech]

Maybe the first SFF, but I remember seeing a PCI card available in some catalog somewhere that would allow you to do this with any PC. Anyone remember the name of that one?

It was called "Buddy".

Here.

Unique? No... but legal questions?

[NitroWolf]

It's not unique. This has been around for more than a decade. I remember an add on card for sale in CompUSA that allowed this exact thing.

I never bought one, because I never had a need. But this is no unique, in so far as allowing to people to use the same box via a mouse and keyboard. It's kinda nice to see this functionality updated, but it's certianly not unique.

However, it leads to some legal question for software licenses.

Most EULA's say you can run "One instance of the software on ONE machine at a time" - how does this apply to this machine? If you run two instances of a software package on the same machine, are you in violation of the EULA? My gut reation is yes... but will they really care?

Depends. If it's not popular, this obviously won't be inforced, but if this is something that becomes more popular, will we start to see software that won't let you run multiple instances of it at once?

The article says you can play head to head VGA games against each other... but how does that work if you're only running one instance, or are you running two instances?

This just doesn't seem all that practical for game playing. For productivity apps, though, this could be killer for cube rats. IT could deploy one machine for two cubes, cutting your hardware budget, and support in half!

Lots of questions, both technical and legal need to be worked out before this could really take off. Couple that with the fact that previous attempts at this didn't seem to fly, for whatever reason, it makes me wonder if this isn't already a dead technology.

Re:Unique? No... but legal questions?

[g0bshiTe]

The article says you can play head to head VGA games against each other... but how does that work if you're only running one instance, or are you running two instances?

Just imagine the resources byte from two players on the same box.

Unless tehy are playing DigDug from maime.

Re:Unique? No... but legal questions?

[DeepDarkSky]

I think you need to define "one instance", and you need to find out whether "run" is included, as in "run one instance..."

The reason that's important is you could INSTALL one instance and RUN multiple instances on one machine at a time. Most applications (MS Word, Excel, etc.) allows multiple instances to RUN on one machine, but not necessarily allow multiple instances to be INSTALLED on one machine.

In those cases, in any case, we know the intention is really, one user per license per machine. In many application servers that used, say, Terminal Services on Windows (Remote Desktop), where people are actually running their windows sessions on the server, they need to have a license for an application per desktop, but it's dynamically allocated by use.

Re:Unique? No... but legal questions?

[lboxman]

IT could deploy one machine for two cubes, cutting your hardware budget, and support in half!

Actually, I bet it would increase support costs, not to mention the fact that if one box goes down, two users can't work.

Re:Unique? No... but legal questions?

[Xeo 024]

You're right this isn't unique, in fact they had a mini-computer called the Virtual PC Buddy B-210, but the main difference between the Jetway machine and the PC Buddy, is that the PC Buddy could share it's resources with up to five people, instead of Jetway's two.

Re:Unique? No... but legal questions?

[LaForce]

I'm more interested to know if the system does in fact support games on both terminals at the same time, as the article fails to mention testing anything but office apps.

According to the article, they use a standard Nvidia card for the graphics. AFAIK, current 3d chipsets(excluding CAD cards) will only render on one of the attached monitors at a time.

Anyone know how this might work?

Re:Unique? No... but legal questions?

[Carl T]

For productivity apps, though, this could be killer for cube rats. IT could deploy one machine for two cubes, cutting your hardware budget, and support in half!

Hardware budget in half? Not if you still need two screens and two sets of input devices. And the computer itself will be more expensive than a normal one, so the gain would be less than the cost of a single machine.

As for support... well, software support is what costs money, or so I believe. It comes down to whether it's proportional to the number of machines or how much they're used. My guess would be mostly the latter if we're talking about MS Windows, and then there's little to gain here. It could even be that sharing a machine like this brings about trouble of its own. Ditto for hardware. But what's most worrying from a business point of view is that every time one person's computer is down, so is another's. Potentially doubling downtime to save maybe $200 (a wild guess, admittedly) per person per three years doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Re:Unique? No... but legal questions?

[arbitrary nickname]

If you've got a multi-monitor set up, at least with 2 separate gfx cards (one AGP, one PCI), each one can have it's own D3DDevice object. You can run them both at once :) But 99% of games just use the primary device, and don't give you a chance to use any others...

Re:Unique? No... but legal questions?

[brre]

It's not unique. This has been around for more than a decade...

More like three decades.

Wow, a computer that lets 2 users run different apps at the same time -- a bold leap into the 1970s!!

What will they think of next???

Re:Unique? No... but legal questions?

[lga]

Most EULA's say you can run "One instance of the software on ONE machine at a time" - how does this apply to this machine?

Well technically unless you have more than one processor, it can only give cycles to one user at a time, it just switches every few microseconds...
I don't think the software publishers will go for that concept though!

Re:Unique? No... but legal questions?

[ScrewMaster]

Well, given the price of a good bookshelf system nowadays I would say that from a space-efficiency standpoint you're just as well off with two separate machines. And so far as IT goes, when you need to upgrade a system you now have two workers idle instead of only one, and if the hard drive blows chunks you also have two workers idle instead of only one. My feeling is that this would be great if computers cost $3,000 instead of $300: it's a solution to a problem that disappeared long ago. It's dead tech, all right ... stillborn. Really, it's a return to the mainframe/minicomputer ideal of sharing expensive processor time. Unfortunately, processor power is dirt cheap nowadays, so there really is no need to share it, certainly not for the target market of general office use.

Re:Unique? No... but legal questions?

[Myself]

Yeah, it was called the Buddy, and the old incarnation sucked. It was a PCI board which was essentially a video card plus a PS/2 keyboard and mouse controller. The video capabilities were terrible (sync rate limited to 60Hz, IIRC), and the second keyboard was prone to random resets and other problems.

The new incarnation of Buddy seems to address all those problems by using standard hardware. Buddy and BeTwin (they look like the same software) appear to work with any PCI video board that'll coexist with other video hardware, and since they use USB keyboards and mice (and audio, if you want), the proprietary controller problems should be gone too.

The new Buddy doesn't stop at 2 stations, either. It'll happily run up to 5, which might have a chance of using some of the absurd CPU power available in a modern PC. They have a trial version up for download, I might have to check my hardware compatibility and tinker with it later.

Two blue screens of death for the price of one...

[SmackCrackandPot]

... that's got to be a bargain!

XP License

[vasqzr]

http://slashdot.org/yro/02/03/17/2333207.shtml?tid =109>Microsoft XP License prohibits VNC?

Re:XP License

[MakoStorm]

Indeed.

But there is a lot of stuff about an XP machine to remote fix another XP machine or lower. It seems if you use an XP machine to VNC another XP machine or "lower" OS like Win2k you are allright. But if you use Win2k to Remote fix an XP machine, you are in violation.

*shrugs* If you have windows legally on both machines it shouldnt be a problem!

Pair programming

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I can do pair programming!

Big *TWO* users?

[fishbowl]

> who | wc -l
488
> uptime
2:27pm up 54 days, 21:23, 488 users, load average: 0.09, 0.18, 0.23

Re:Big *TWO* users?

[tomstdenis]

I'll bite. Why do you have 488 users [unique or multiple logins]? I mean I just did the same thing on my box [one shell open, in X/icewm, firefox/tvtime/gaim open] and got "2".

So either you have way too many of shells open or have a lot of users of one computer...

As for the uptime that's nothing spectacular.

Tom

Re:Big *TWO* users?

[Neil Blender]

> who | wc -l
488
> uptime
2:27pm up 54 days, 21:23, 488 users, load average: 0.09, 0.18, 0.23

And what are those users doing? Not existing?

Re:Big *TWO* users?

[An Onerous Coward]

In preparation for the same joke, I logged into my university's Sparc server. Here's my version:

finger | wc -l
84

For some systems, this is a very reasonable number of users.

Re:Big *TWO* users?

[tjwhaynes]

> who | wc -l
488
> uptime
2:27pm up 54 days, 21:23, 488 users, load average: 0.09, 0.18, 0.23

And what are those users doing? Not existing?

At 9.23pm (i.e. at NIGHT) I hope they are doing something other than burning CPU cycles :-)

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

Re:Big *TWO* users?

[fishbowl]

>And what are those users doing? Not existing?

Many are running pine. Bunch are running mathematica/MathKernel. Few lynx sessions.
None of my business really, and less of yours.

People are flaming me, and completely miss my point. 2 users on a host shouldn't be news (and it isn't).

To be fair, the particular host, which I just picked at random, is an sun4u 80. Admittedly I could have been more fair, or at least more apples-to-apples and used a BSD intel box instead.
Apologies.

If I load Mandrake 10...

[AhBeeDoi]

...will I owe Darl $1,398?

The Great Microsofto!

[WwWonka]

Audience applauds as the the Great Microsofto finishes showing his "two users logged into one Windows PC trick".

[The Great Microsofto] And now ladies and gentlemen I will take this text file and magically change the owner!!!

audience gasps as he waves his wand over the file

[The Great Microsofto] WALLAH! This file has now mysteriously changed owners!

audience explodes withs cheers

[Guy in back row to a friend] Ha, that's no trick I saw him use "chown" from here.

Obligatory

[wembley]

"Imagine a Beowulf cluster of this!"

(Not "these", in this case)

Ummm...

[redune45]

It appears that it doesn't even do the dual user function out of the box
From the article "What Do You Need for a Twin PC?.... Dual Head VGA - the 860Twin comes with just a single VGA connector, so you must add a Dual Head VGA card for Twin PC operation."

So I would buy this box, then have to immediatly buy a new graphics card, thus making the one it came with useless?

Hard to see the advantages of this thing outweighing two seperate machines.

Bite me whoever modded my comment down

[Seng]

It's a legit comment you mod-nazis... They plainly push the fact that you can play head-to-head games if you get a dual-port VGA card... It doesn't do much good to tout that as a selling point if the games play like shit!

Re:Bite me whoever modded my comment down

[syukton]

because of course everyone is going to spend several hundred dollars on a machine to play games with and not to enhance worker productivity.

Productivity? whassat?!

this wasn't a review

[bmajik]

this was an ad.

not a single thing was said about how it works. How does the 2nd keyboard direct its keystrokes to the 2nd display ? Is the 2nd display an RDP client, or is it a 2nd monitor of window session 0 ? Are the two users running as different XP logins ? what does the magic twin software do ? new keyboard driver ? new mouse driver ? new audio driver ?

Without knowing how this thing works, it's a non article.

Re:this wasn't a review

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot called it a "review". Anandtech called it a "first look". Two different beasts.

To me, it is just an informative piece, no reason to put it on slashdot with just this single link. There are other links people have given that are also useful...

Re:this wasn't a review

[Lours]

> not a single thing was said about how it works

This effectively lowers the usefulness of the article.

Plus, I'd add that this can probably be done without needing any special motherboard features. I guess that this is something that can (has been ?) done under Linux by a sufficiently motivated group of volunteers -> handle the 2nd video output of a dual output card as the 2nd user's exclusive display, add a usb keyboard + mouse and redirect their output to the 2nd user's display system (I guess X doesn't do that yet, but it surely can be done) and you have it.

That might also be a big plus for selling Linux to the masses.

Add that once you have extended X (and whatever more is involved) to handle this, you can add as many PCI video cards and USB keyboards/mouses as you want users to use the machine simultaneously.
Which makes it possible to create a simple family internet/entertainment system at relatively low cost provided the software used don't need much constant horsepower.

Buying specific hardware to have this feature seems to me pointless.
Does anyone know of existing open source projects similar to this ? Could be something I'll use if there were ;)

More information plus pricing

[erick99]

This website does a pretty good job explaining the technology involved and also provides some pricing.

Happy Trails!

Erick

Re:More information plus pricing

[Ben Hutchings]

There is no obvious delay because of the Time-slicing/Multiplexing technology built-in. Each user gets an exact and extremely short defined moment to access to the PC system, devices, applications and Windows itself.

Wow! It has multitasking!

Resources are only claimed for nanoseconds at a time.

OK, now they're just lying.

So buy a server, install...

[Ayanami Rei]

Citrix or Unix (whatever variety), then use XTerminal thin clients or Citrix thin clients.

Duhhh! Welcome to the 1980s.

The Mainframe is BACK!

[code addict]

Am I the only one that thinks this sounds like a mini version of a mainframe w/terminals? Maybe that's the next trend in computing, one PC per household, with multiple terminals for each family member!

First we have unix on mainframes, then Windows on PCs, and now we're moving back to Unix on mainframes again... ;)

XP Tablet Edition

[FriedTurkey]

If you click on the "PC" link on the page it will take you to the Windows XP tablet edition. This leads my to believe one of the users is actually a "tablet".

What about windows 98?

[Darth Fredd]

I remember being able to do this all the way back in 98. Multiple keyboards, mice, monitors..at least, it was claimed. I never got the hardware together to test it, and I would, except I still don't own enough hardware (aka USB mice and keyboards), and my former 98 box is running redhat now.

But anyways. Back in the day, this was one of the things that enthralled me as a computing newbie. I wasn't sure how it worked, and looking back, I suppose it used USB (did they have usb?), and.. ..ah, the memories.. ..ah, the blue screens..

could developers....

[zogger]

..use this? Be compiling and what not on one side, running the compiled code or working on writing on the other? Seems like one practical use. Or having one of the sides be for casually being on the net, while the other side is more open in admin mode for working, or are they both as vulnerable?

no, didn't RTA.

Also via a PCI card

[phoebe]

Applica have been doing this for a bit, they also sell 4-station cards so that 5 users can share one PC!

Windows stealing

[g0bshiTe]

It wasn't enough to steal Windows from Xerox. Now they have to go and steal ideas from *nix. Hasn't that been standard in *nix environments for awhile?

Does this mean that when purchasing a Windows liscense users will now have to decide whether or not the need a liscence and a half? Or just the single.

Oh I'll have the single please. And crack it later

What will this do to Grandma and Grandpa computer user? Imagine your grandparents out getting their first PC.

The technobable alone is staggering.
I know what you are thinking, "not me I'm the uber geek".

Well think back to your first box, how much did you know?
Chances are older consumers purchasing new systems, some for the first time, may be frightened off or taken advantage of.

Microsoft needs to stop. How much money is enough?

I have an idea for Microsofts new business model.
Do one thing.
Do it well.
You guys already have the world by the short n curlies.

Besides when the rest of the world realizes that there are Linux distros out there for less than half the cost of a Windows liscnse, they will switch.
As for me, I've had enough B$ from M$.

THANK YOU!
Mr. Torvalds

forget the licensing issues...

[No. 24601]

this is one of the most useless ideas out there. I don't see any reason for people to purchase hw so they can use the same Windows box. PCs are sufficiently cheap right now that you're better off buying two and hooking them up over ethernet. You can still share files, share apps, etc. but crashes will affect only one user rather than two. Windows is not a multi-user system... it was designed for one user, and when it comes down to it XP is just a hack for multiple profiles.

A real solution, that's already been mentioned here, is having one Linux box and setting up multiple desktops with VNC. That's if you absolutely must combine your systems or want to have apps installed on one setup. You can have as many dumb terminals as you want hooked into that machine.

Making a machine multi-user is a software problem not a hardware one and this idea will FAIL.

Re:forget the licensing issues...

[Jeremy Erwin]

I use VNC occasionally, as I have a fairly powerful desktop machine in one room, and a somewhat underpowered laptop that I use elsewhere. But the OS I use, MacOSX 10.3, is somewhat uncooperative. 10.3 looks horrible with 256 colors, and you lose the benefits of expose.

X11 apps might work well across the network-- but not every programmer debugs and optimizes cross network performance.

Great Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just a Great Idea.

Lets take an OS with a Security model that can't even handle a single user, and put a second user on it!

Now when my wife clicks on the nice little file attachment in her email I get the secret toy suprise.

Simply brilliant.

Install guide has some more details...

[morcheeba]

From their MagicTwin XP software install manual:

We can only guarantee that the program will properly run on a completely reinstalled Windows XP system, using the latest hardware drivers and system requirements, without third-party software and hardware.

.. so as long as you don't try to run any applications on it, you'll be fine! The software is fully tied to Windows XP, so no chance of running other operating systems. It looks like there is only one copy of Windows XP running, but then Page 13 has this quote:

Microsoft Windows License Request: After you have read and accept the Microsoft license terms, the MagicTwin software will explicitly ask you, the licensee, whether you have obtained a sufficient number of Windows licenses. If your choice is "NO" then at every restart the software will notify you of this issue.

Page 8 tells you to turn off the system standby in XP's power management. Guess they don't have that working well. But they do warn the second user if the first user decides to shut down the system.

Re:Install guide has some more details...

[John Hansen]

But they do warn the second user if the first user decides to shut down the system.

What, you mean like...

Broadcast message from root (pts/4) (Sat Apr 17 02:47:52 2004):

The system is going down for system halt NOW!

Oh, the horror!

Re:Install guide has some more details...

[Lussarn]

The software is fully tied to Windows XP

I don't think there should be much of a problem doing this on the free *nixes anyway.

2*VGA
2*mouse
2*keyboard

Start one X with one vga, mouse keyboard.
Doesn't sound like rocket science. And I don't see why you would need any special hardware (like this) for it either.

Re:Install guide has some more details...

[morcheeba]

They had mentioned it was a hardware-based solution, so I didn't know if the BIOS was doing the timesharing -- if so, then it might be possible to run one Windows XP terminal and one Linux terminal, but that's not the case.

Software makers already do.

[FreeLinux]

There are already a few misguided posts on the matter so hopefully, I can clear this up for you.

Microsoft and many other software makers already address this licensing issue. On this machine Microsoft requires either two licenses for Windows or one Windows license and a Terminal Server Client Access license. For MS Office a license is required for each per seat instance. SO, two users in Word requires two licenses.

This same licensing system is also required by many/most other commercial vendors. Anyone familiar with Terminal services or Citrix should be familiar with this licensing model. If they aren't Microsoft will enjoy speaking with them.

Re:Software makers already do.

[1u3hr]

Microsoft and many other software makers already address this licensing issue. On this machine Microsoft requires either two licenses for Windows or one Windows license and a Terminal Server Client Access license. For MS Office a license is required for each per seat instance. So, two users in Word requires two licenses.

I don't think they've addressed this at all. Is the word "seat" used in the licence? How is it defined? You can certainly use it with two monitors, and as many input devices as you like. There is only one processor and there is only one instance running at any moment. I think a good case could be made that this is legally no different than two people sharing a PC in the fashion of one sliding into the other's "seat".

Of course if MS wants to break it they can do it easily, it needs software that enables it, presumably built with cooperation from MS -- so unless they hid their intentions from MS, MS must already have given approval at some level. If this takes off, MS'll just make sure it doesn't work in the standard install of Windows and Office, and require a special version.

Re:Software makers already do.

[Skuld-Chan]

Anyone familiar with Terminal services or Citrix should be familiar with this licensing model

That I am :). Not to nitpick but XP Pro and 2000 Pro come with a TSCAL. So you'd only need two licenses of Office etc.

Re:Software makers already do.

[Zak3056]

On this machine Microsoft requires either two licenses for Windows or one Windows license and a Terminal Server Client Access license.

I don't believe it's quite that simple. Windows XP licensing allows one remote desktop user, no terminal services CAL required. Undoubtedly, you're correct about Office (I'm sure there's a citrix/similar clause in the license somewhere that covers this) but it's worth noting that for something like Exchange, you would not necessarily require 2 CALs as long as you bought device CALs instead of user CALs.

Gah, what a mess. No problems like this in the FOSS world, thank god. :)

SunBlade 2500 with two users and two keyboards

[maitas]

Actually sun's SunBlade 2500 workstation can be used by two users simoultaneously, with two keyboards and two graphics boards sharing resources! (Solaris 9 and up only)

Re:SunBlade 2500 with two users and two keyboards

[drfreak]

I remember the first time I saw a double-headed config. It was a Sun box, and you can guess what was used for the demo. A nudie of Madonna.

what d'ya bet

[ch-chuck]

that one user will end up sending email to the other via an AOL server in Chicago, when they could have easily used "net send ..." ?

Re:what d'ya bet

[pla]

that one user will end up sending email to the other via an AOL server in Chicago, when they could have easily used "net send ..." ?

Since "net send" doesn't understand the idea of a truly multiheaded system, the desktop it shows up on would occur pretty much by chance (or, more likely, always on the primary head).

Irrelevant, though, since the two users would need to occupy nearby physical locations - At best, you could probably put this in one room and run the second head through the wall into an adjacent room (in which case, I suspect you have it right, they'd probably try to chat via Chicago or some other equally remote place (where do AIM's servers live?) rather than just talking directly).

Overall, not worth the trouble. For the extra money (and you still need two monitors/keyboards/mice, plus the thing doesn't even come with a dual-headed video card!), you could make a far more stable second system.

linux and windows

[xluap]

Would it be possible for 1 user to run windows, while the other user runs linux?

Re:linux and windows

[Neil Blender]

Would it be possible for 1 user to run windows, while the other user runs linux?

You could use VMWare. But you'd probably be better off running Windows on top of Linux to accomplish this.

should possible on any PC with sufficient hardware

[anarcat]

Ingredients:

- 2 video cards
- 2 screens
- 4 free keyboard/mouse ports (USB or PS/2)
- appropriate keyboards and mice (USB or PS/2)
- a PC with enough RAM and CPU power
- any UNIX with X installed

Recipe:

(1) setup a first X with the first set of video/mouse/keyboard, in its own config file
(2) redo (1) with the second set.

What am I missing here? What's keeping 2 X servers to use their own displays and inputs on a same machine?

I don't see the big deal here.

Jetway's website (html)

[plasmd]

For those who can't get past the shockwave, here's a link to the html page with the description of the product:

http://www.jetway.com.tw/evisn/product/mimiq/miniq 2usr.htm

BFD. . .

[bplipschitz]

you still have to go to all the work of removing the viral OS, configure *nix and get it working properly. Just because it's a SFF doesn't make me want to run out and buy one.

However, a Russian Beowulf cluster of these, and all your base are belong to us!

oh right...

[anarcat]

You said "windows" eh?

Nevermind then. :)

and no mention of game performance either

[freejamesbrown]

not a very thorough test... can we get a double running benchmark?
m.

Licensing

[nurb432]

No need to wonder, most consumer retail licenses prohibit concurrent users.

So, it looks like dual purchases.. if you want to stay legal...

And if you dont care about being legal, why bother with this at all, just get windows server and run terminal services.. instant multiple user setup.

It means

[bonch]

This site is owned by a Linux company. Didn't you know that?

It's kind of an amusing joke--all the anti-capitalism spiel you read daily here, all done on a corporate-owned website...OSDN's "tech news" site which just so happens to post a lot of articles that are derogatory toward competitors.

Just saying. I find it funny is all.

Networking?

[222]

Im really curious to see how they handle head to head gaming...
Although they didnt mention it in the article, i can imagine that some sort of clever networking setup was required, for both "machines" to be recognized by any modern game.
My best guess is that the primary "slice" runs as a NAT server for the secondary, but this is simply speculation. Anyone have more info on this?

dual consoles

[ChristTrekker]

Heck, if I could get two physical consoles (video, kbd, mouse) for my Mac, it would be more than enough computer for my wife and I to use simultaneously. Most of the time, the machine is idling cycles. We don't need a second computer, we need a second console for the first computer.

Re:dual consoles

[drfreak]

I wonder.. doesn't OSX run an X server and your gui is just quartz-wm? Maybe you could just run a second X server? :)

Re:dual consoles

[ChristTrekker]

You can run X11 on OS X, and QuartzWM is a WM that Apple designed to look like the Aqua/Quartz/whatever-it-is-today GUI. But X11 is not the native GUI of the Mac. The feel is completely different.

Old news... sort of....

[myusername]

There used to be a product that did this.
I think the name of the product was Buddy B-200
Here is a few links
http://www.thinsoftinc.com/products_betwin_info.ht ml
http://www.vnunet.com/Products/Hardware/104120

Re:Old news... sort of....

[myusername]

Sorry... Here is the link to the one that is available, the buddy B-680

http://www.thinsoftinc.com/products_buddy_info.htm l

From what I can tell from searching google, it goes for about $150

What is Buddy B-680 Premium/Lite?

Buddy B-680 Premium/Lite is a kit bundled with Buddy software which enables two to five users to share the computing power and resources of a single computer (Host PC). All users can simultaneously perform any tasks that they would perform on a standard Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Professional or Home Edition. With Buddy B-680 Premium, additional users are supported by adding PCI video cards and monitors along with USB keyboards & mice, Buddy USB Audio Hub, USB & Video combo cable, and speakers (optional). For Buddy-680 Lite, additional users are supported by adding PCI video cards and monitors along with PS/2 keyboards & mice, Buddy USB-to-PS/2 converter, USB & Video combo cable, and speakers (optional). Buddy B-680 Premium/Lite enables two users (up to a maximum of five users) to work simultaneously on the same or different software applications, share a printer, CD-ROM drive, and even surf the Internet independently with one phone line, one ISP account and one modem. This saves tremendous costs! How does Buddy software work? Today's PCs are extremely powerful. Even while you're working on your PC, a significant portion of the PC's processing power goes unused. With our latest developed Buddy software, two to five users* can share the computing power and resources of the Host PC at the same time.

Re:should possible on any PC with sufficient hardw

[Qwell]

Not a whole lot keeps two X servers from running locally. I saw this howto at tldp.org a few months ago, and was very interested. It requires a kernel patch or two, but it seems very nice.
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/XFree-Local-multi-user-HOWTO /

Security Holes

[nightsweat]

I thought with the usual Microsoft security holes that Windows users already had people sharing their PC.

Yes! that's my 100th attempt at Karma whoring! Thank you, thank you!

Not so

[Anonymous Coward]

The specialized motherboard is for dealing with the multiple keyboards and such.

The system has only one processor and one video card... would you call those "non-critical chips"?

The main thing here is that the company that made it sells motherboards. They didn't develop this to sell the software... they did it to sell more motherboards. The software would probably work on a normal motherboard with no problems if the company took the locks off, except that you'd be stuck using USB devices only. No PS/2 splitter functionality.

Re:Not so

[w3weasel]

in this case, yes, they are quite non-critical for the purposes of dual-user/single-box. If the industry supports this little abomination, then perhaps in the near future we will see some maturation of true, multiple concurrent local terminal sessions supporting multiple users in the modern OS's.
A propietary MoBo to allow this function will not be a savings over two low-end mobos, because of lower production, lower demand, limited expandability/upgradability.

MS Windows

[leandrod]

Shouldn't we always say MS Windows, since there is the X Window System, the window managers, and other windowing systems around?

Can be done with Linux, on (some) commodity HW

[slk]

In short, see http://cambuca.ldhs.cetuc.puc-rio.br/multiuser/for the XFree86 patches.

I have this working (and working quite well) with the following hardware configuration:

Asus A7V600 in an Antec Sonata case
AMD Barton 2500+, 1GB RAM
3 40GB ATA disks

First user:
Matrox AGP G450 dual, with two heads, using Xinerama, PS/2 keyboard and rodent

Second user:
ATI Radeon 7000 PCI, one head, and with a USB keyboard and rodent

(OS is Fedora Core 1, with a patched X server)

It's fast, stable, quiet (the Sonata is a really nice case), and environmentally friendly (half the power, solid waste, etc. of having two PCs)

The only real issue is that switching sound between the two 'sides' is currently manual (either plug/unplug speakers, or a switchbox, or a splitter)

Re:Can be done with Linux, on (some) commodity HW

[Maljin Jolt]

The only real issue is that switching sound between the two 'sides' is currently manual (either plug/unplug speakers, or a switchbox, or a splitter)

Did you tried *two* soundcards, preferably PCI devices?

Re:Can be done with Linux, on (some) commodity HW

[drfreak]

Both users could probably utilize the same sound card using a sound server such as arts or esd.

Buddy

[eyeN]

http://www.buddy.com.sg/

Not much mention of game/movie performance

[Sark666]

It mentions it can do it, but the review didn't seem to stress the system with some multimedia stuff. The reason I mention this is because twinview tech from ati and nvidia does have limitations. With opengl apps (I believe d3d as well), you can only have vsync on one output at any given time. Also with movieplayback, you only get hardware overlay to one display.

This has bugged me in trying to set up nvidia's tvout with linux. I almost wish it was like the older tv outs where it was just a copy. Both had overlay, both had vsync. Yes you had to lower your monitor refresh and you were stuck with a copy of the screen, but everything just worked.

Paired

[Anonymous Coward]

"For MS Office a license is required for each per seat instance. SO, two users in Word requires two licenses."

Ok, so it's per-seat. Is Visual C++ per seat, and what implications does this have for extreme programming?

This post is meant to be funny. I don't care about extreme programming.

Re:Paired

[Rick and Roll]

Ok, so it's per-seat. Is Visual C++ per seat, and what implications does this have for extreme programming?

Visual C++ is per seat. Extreme Programming is not alright. Extreme Programmers are pirates. They are an evil group of people who have figured out a way to get around our DRM. But it will not be tolerated. We are hard at work, finding a way to stop them, and force the people who leech off another user's terminal to pay up. Our current strategy is to make maximum font size in Windows 6 points. Then another person will not be able to read.

This will be a huge inconvenience for all of the people who don't engace in this dispicible practice. But all you pirates out there made us do it. I hope you're happy. And by the way, did I mention that what you are doing is stealing? Sincerely,

Craig Mundie
Microsoft

Re:Paired

[mabinogi]

take a wild guess

Re:should possible on any PC with sufficient hardw

[stmpynode]

This in response to your sig.

COBOL is one of my favorite languages to program in. :p Good thing you can't punch people thorugh the internet yet...

Can WIndows be removed

[BillsPetMonkey]

and reformatted with ext2fs and then run some multiuser Unix-like system like Lynux? Then you could have a multiuser system without the specialised form factor stuff. Kewl!

Downtime?

[Onikuma]

It would seem to me that two users = twice as likely to crash.
And this is windows we're talking about. Imagine the downtime *shudders*
No thanks.

NOT a new concept...

[i-Chaos]

Many, many years ago, I came across an article in a Hong Kong magazine regarding a piece of software called "Betwin," which does the same thing. Googling will find you links like:
Buddy and Another version called Buddy Betwin

Basically the same thing...
Nothing new here, move on...

Re:Two blue screens of death for the price of one.

[DA-MAN]

Or worse, when the machine craps out (and runnin windows you know it will....) you'll have to reinstall XP TWICE!?!?!?!?

Damnit, preview your posts!

[teamhasnoi]

If you have windows machine as the main one: VNC2VNC . Works with anything that I can get VNC on, although the scroll wheel doesn't work. I use it to control my Beige g3 from my Northgate keyboard (on XP).

This works just like multiple monitors, and I highly recommend it if you have several computers sitting next to each other.

I have been trying to do this for ages...

[lga]

...but I see no need for a special motherboard.

I have a laptop which obviously has it's own keyboard, trackpad and LCD - that's the first user. I also have a second monitor plugged in, and a USB keyboard and mouse. It seems to me that if the software could cope with it, a second person should be able to use the computer at the same time.

Unfortunately I haven't got the second monitor working under Linux, (crappy drivers from VIA) otherwise it would be simple to run another X server linked to the external devices. Windows runs the second monitor OK, but it doesn't have any way to run it independantly of the main user.

I have ended up using an old SGI Indigo to run programs on the laptop over X for the second user, which doesn't always work with modern X programs.

Re:I have been trying to do this for ages...

[Vengeance]

Chances are you have only one true display device, and the output is simply routed to either internal or external ports. If you see two entirely separate video devices, I'd imagine it's a lot more likely to work. But I'm suspecting that it's just one device, and the two screens cannot be independently controlled.

Re:I have been trying to do this for ages...

[lga]

No, it's two independant monitors, I can have multiple desktops under Windows XP.

So does that mean you can get ...

[Dark$ide]

... the viruses and spyware installed twice as quickly.

Wow!

[mckeowbc]

Someday I see there being computers with hundreds of screens attached to them and everyone can do work at once, and access all the programs on the system. Won't it be great? And maybe you'll even be able to access this wonderful maching remotely through a phone line. Wow...the future is going to be great, but what are we going to do with all these punch cards?

How to do this "easily" on linux?

[zaroastra]

Some time I read about it in Linuxplanet
with something similar to linux.
I think it's about time to address this on linux don't you? Why do you still have to do kernel hacking and XFree hacking to achieve this, it should come as standard option.
If there is already an easy way to achieve it, not requiring big recompiling, can someone point me to it?

Re:How to do this "easily" on linux?

[drfreak]

All linux distributions can do this, and just like most open source stuff, there are a few ways.

For two PCs there is always XDMCP or vnc or ssh port forwarding.

For one PC as above, just put two video cards in. Linux has no problem accepting multiple mice/displays/keyboards. You just have to set it all up in XF86Config. Given a fast enough PC, you can probably play hardware-accelerated 3d games between two people on the same computer as the article hinted to.

Nothing special

[Tiersten]

It's been done before as evident by this review at DansData. That package does come with an addon card but it's just a crap PCI video card and nothing special. It's all software driven.

Chances are that there isn't any special hardware component on the Jetway motherboards but just that the drivers check for a BIOS signature.

On the other hand...

[SuperKendall]

He knows the site with a review is also advertising the product reviewed, whereas other ad-blocking users have no idea a connection exists!

Re:I want the opposite... uh..

[DougMelvin]

Cluster?
Or *gasp* slashdot? (1 client + 1 server + any number of internet routers...)

Re:Standard "Multi-threading" issues?

[Wesley Felter]

Windows Terminal Server works; why can't this work?

MS does indeed require multiple licenses...

[Anonymous Coward]

We looked at this kind of technology (dual user and quad user desktop systems) and asked the hardware salesrep about software licensing and he was quite adamant about the ** "single copy of the software runs just perfectly fine" and kept skirting the question about the legality. While he was in my bosses office, my boss called our MS Licensing gestapo on the speaker phone (we have a special volume license agreement with MS, survived an audit and thus have a ummm, errr.... shall we call it an "intimate" relationship with this goon). Mr. Gestapo was real curious about these multiuser PC's and desired to know more about who all might have already bought some of them. The hardware rep started getting really antsy, concluded his demo rather abruptly and left.

** Yep, the software technically runs just fine and dandy... but then again a Windows 2000 server for which you only bought 5 CALS will happily share files and printers for a 1000 workstations too.

Sorry, but English is not enforceable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dictionary definitions are a description of how the language is used by the public, not the other way around. If it makes sense to other people, it's legitimate English. The more people that understand it, the more legitimate it is. The language continues to adapt itself to the people that use it - it's an ongoing process that's still happening and will continue. Words exist to allow expression of concepts, including previously unknown concepts, not to limit the speaker to off-the-shelf ideas.

In your example, modifers to "unique" DO in fact make sense - have understandable meaning, and are therefore valid as an English construct. You can't invalidate the idea because of your "pure" definition of the words used.

In fact, if I take your black-and-white definition literally, then EVERYTHING is "unique" - i.e., different from everything else in some way, however small the difference. Since *everything* is "unique" then nothing is not unique, and the word becomes useless. Remove the context and you remove the meaning.

Ah, say you, it's all a matter of degree? Well that's what I'm saying. In the context it was presented in, it's an amount... not a yes/no, pass/fail, black/white, either/or.

Re:Sorry, but English is not enforceable.

[DunbarTheInept]

I agree that if the utterance has understandable meaning then it can be legitimate. I disagree that this example of "somewhat unique" that the two of you are talking about has understandable meaning, however.

Re:Sorry, but English is not enforceable.

[drinkypoo]

This is true of any language. However in English it is just plain lame to say something is somewhat unique. This is because unique has only one meaning. (Though it is not unique in this regard, even a little bit.) There are several words which mean what "nearly unique" or "mostly unique" or any oxymoronic phrase like that would be trying to express, which would be something to the effect of extraordinary, scarce, or unusual.

With at least highly apt replacements available, it's hard to see why someone would have to abuse the word unique like that.

For those DIY types...

[michrech]

...there exists a motherboard that you can use to build a 2 user machine for your own home or business, although it's a regular ATX board.

Clicky.

There is one for the Intel crowd and one for the AMD crowd.

We have one of these in the shop, though I haven't gotten around to tinerking with it yet.

What about siamese twins?

[Mustang Matt]

What do your licenses say about them?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

[Orne]

I think it's called "telnet"...

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

[No Such Agency]

I was going to say... if you're browsing several web pages at once, you're basically "using" several computers from one UI. The only difference is your access privileges - which could be set up in a on a subnet to allow full access to multiple computers from one terminal. Even Windows will allow you to share C:\ which would give you full access.

DoubleDos

[march]

Anyone remember DoubleDos from the ancient pre-Windoze days? I was running my Fido BBS on one hald of my '86 and doing my school projects in the remaining 320k second half.

Pretty cool for its day. Although, not as cool as IBM's VM at the time.

And, oh wait - I'm doing the same thing with my XFree86 Linux box today.

define anti-capitalism

[gad_zuki!]

>all the anti-capitalism spiel you read daily here

On a site that cheers when Novell or IBM works with Linux?

On a site where people

Re:define anti-capitalism

[gad_zuki!]

Whoops, hit enter by accident.

Again, there are die-hard OSS types, but most posters I've read have everyday IT jobs or are trying to find work.

Capitalism

Function: noun
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Funny, I'm not seeing too many "THE STATE MUST OWN ALL MEANS OF PRODUCTION" comments modded up to 5 here.

Or are you using "anti-capitalism" in the Rush Limbaugh sense which means "any criticism against the status quo of business/wall-street?"

Yawn

[DunbarTheInept]

I already did the same thing with plain old X-windows on a linux *LAPTOP*. Windows is so behind the times. (With X, you can define the two outputs of the video card (VGA out and the LCD screen) to be different screens altogether, and define one to use the laptop's keyboard and laptop's touchpad, and the other to use a usb keyboard and mouse, and violla, localhost:1.0 is user 1 on the laptop, and localhost:2.0 is user 2 using the usb keyboard, mouse, and the external VGA monitor.)

not one machine for two cubes...

[eegad]

one cube for two users!

remember, think with your manager hat on.

Re:Windows

[jtev]

Wack, it's gota be Wack, after all this is windows we're talking about.

It Means Nothing

[rsmith-mac]

For most sites, I might be a bit concerned about such a pairing, but AnandTech is a different case, since they're so open about their operations. All of AnandTech's advertising is through a third party; AnandTech can revoke an ad if it's too flashy or something like that, but the third party is the one who sells ads. As a result, there is a level of disconnection between the ads and the reviews, so that in this case, if Jetway sent the product in to be reviewed(which is my guess), there's not a direct conflict of interest since AnandTech didn't sell Jetway the ad in the first place.

This doesn't mean that there absolutely isn't any favor buying going on, but I'm going to trust AnandTech on this one.

HOLY JESUS

[pr0ntab]

ROTFLMAO.

Is that honestly the _first_ thing you thought of when you saw my signature?

It's quite a leap (but I laughed anyway, once I remembered what it was)

my Jetway motherboard was a lemon

[Shreela]

Hubby bought a Jetway MB for my pc a few years ago; it died a little over a year later. He tested the power supply with the voltmeter, and said it was ok, but the motherboard wouldn't do anything.

Re:rendering!

[gabebear]

depending on how it is slicing the CPU cycles, you could end up with each user getting exactly half of the CPU time, whether they are using it or not, in effect giving you two computers at half the speed.

Then what's the root comparative?

[tepples]

If "unique" is the superlative form of a given adjective, then what form would you use as the root form or even the comparative of that adjective?

One needs a new Mac for Mac OS X

[tepples]

If I cannot do it after spending $300 on XP Pro, but I can do it with $139 Mac OS X

To those who already own a relatively recent x86 PC and an 8-year-old Macintosh computer with a 75 MHz CPU, Mac OS X costs $800 for a new eMac. Free operating systems such as GNU/* and *BSD have the advantage that unlike proprietary operating systems, they can be stripped down to run on the obsolete hardware common in public schools and working-class homes.

Re:anybody done dual head linux?

[gabebear]

It's a lot harder to get a dual consoled Linux desktop than a dual X-windows Linux Box.

• If you want multiple consoles with seperate keyboards/mice, then you are looking for The Linux Console Project, I've never played with this
• If you just want multiple X-Sessions running with sperate keyboards/mice, then you should just need to seperate all your keyboard, mice, and screens into sperate ServerLayout sections of your XF86Config-4 file. check here for documentation, This isn't actually all that hard.

hmm

[MasTRE]

Do I smell one of those rare OSS Wintel projects springing up? Surely we can do a better job as a huge, global collective than Jetway can. Or is there already something like this out there?

It would be interesting if someone who actually has this software can snoop a round a bit and see just what the "Magic" is.

Re:anybody done dual head linux?

[temojen]

Have you read the HOWTO you've linked to? It requires you to install a kernel patched with the Linux Console Project changes, backported to the 2.4 series, and a modified X Server.

Nothing special

[Ogerman]

You can do this with XFree86 using any commodity hardware.. two video cards, two USB keyboards and mice. *yawn* And unlike with Windows, it's not a hack and there aren't licensing issues. (-:

Someone thought about me!

[guttergod]

Finally a fullblown computer solution for my (and my) schizophrenia.

built into windows?

[dreadlock9]

Why not build this functionality into Windows itself? If you have a dual head video card already, isn't it feasable to have 2 sets of USB keyboards and mice, and tell the OS which device controls which monitor? Software alone can do this, so you could make a dual PC using any motherboard.

Re:anybody done dual head linux?

[gabebear]

The HOWTO has a LOT of info that you can ignore, but there are quite a few gotcha's if you aren't aware of them. It is the most complete reference I know of for getting X-windows setup with 2 seperate heads.

I guess I should have said that it is pretty easy, given a few things.

• You are running a 2.6 kernel (I am)
• You are running Debian (I am), Debian unstable has an Xserver reaady for multiple X-heads, and no special issues

It was easy for me at least, I didn't patch a thing or install any extra software. It was mainly an issue of getting the input devices all setup correctly.

My setup:

1. Geforce4MX/USB Keyboard/USB Mouse
2. Matrox G200-TV/PS2 keyboard/serial Wacom tablet

I don't use it this way anymore, I now have it setup as a regular dual-head box again.

Re: You've forgotten MS Terminal Services.

[jaseuk]

Microsoft Terminal Services Server does multi-user very nicely, and has alot of features that are missing from WinVNC. You can take your locally attached drives, printers, serial devices and sound across with your connection. Last time I checked VNC does none of this.

We use Terminal Services at work (with a Linux load balancer) to save on support and hardware upgrade costs.

A fairly inexpensive server can handle around 50-60 remote desktop sessions. Typically ms-office, e-mail, web browsing and access to accounting and database frontends.

It runs fine on old hardware or thin-clients. We are starting to get away from the haphazzard desktop upgrades that prevented us from ever being able to produce a standard desktop image, pcs are bought on a departmental and team basis depending on how much money is left in the budget.

So we have around 150 laptops and 300 desktops a year upgraded and spread amongst 1300 users. You can't believe how many different variations of PC specs, operating system and application versions there are even within a single team.

Terminal services are allowing the desktop support people to get back on top of this, as people are moved onto terminal services there underlying machine becomes irrelevant, there should be no new desktops purchased as we can either recycle an old pc or use a linux based system with rdesktop, or make use of a wyse thin-client.

Its not suitable for everyone, particularly those using graphics / design apps, but for the vast majority of administrative staff (most of our operation) it does the job well and cuts down on support costs and it is getting us out of a rather large mess.

Anyway back to your original point, it is no longer true that microsoft do not produce a good multi-user system. If you've used RDP you can't not admit that it works well, it works just as well multi-user on multi-user enabled windows.

Just die already.

[OwP_Fabricated]

Dear lord, more comedy impaired BSOD and Virus jokes.

Uh

[bonch]

I'm using it in the Slashdot sense, in which any company that seeks to make money gets a dollar sign in their name and is declared "evil."

Yes, the fact that IBM and Novell support Linux is an example of hypocrisy, especially considering how evil IBM has been in the past. You always get Slashdotters telling me "I can't trust Microsoft because of their past behavior," but they'll curl up in IBM's lap simply because IBM supports their favorite hobby OS.

Yes, Slashdot is anti-capitalism. It's not even a question. Next.