One Video Card, 12 Monitors

Jamie found a story that might make your jaw drop if you happen to have some need to put 12 video cards in your machine. Although if that isn't enough, you can always install two of these. I don't think I'm kidding.

Comments

Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understood what seems to be an arbitrary restriction: Only two video outs per card.

Re:Sounds good.

[FatRichie]

I always assumed it was for performance reasons. Though 12 seems a bit ridiculous (and awesome), I've always wanted to put four together with a little more convenience.

Re:Sounds good.

[UnknowingFool]

Realistically how many different displays can the average consumer use at a time? Gamers might want 3 or 4 and then they are landscaping them so that they can see left, center, and right. Given that and the cost (both monetary and performance) of adding more displays to a card, means that I think 2 is about right. For specialized applications like store displays, etc, more displays is better but it is not a high volume market.

Re:Sounds good.

[Cylix]

I haven't really checked modern chipsets, but some older nvidia models definitely had a performance drop.

My preferred setup is one larger horizontal display for environments which require directx/opengl. That is paired with a second vertical display which usually has non-interactive statistic and monitoring applications running.

There was a significant drop in performance regarding the accelerated output and unless there is a specific chip driving each display I suspect this will always be true. However, given the advancement of video controllers today it will likely be less of an impact as performance increases. Specifically, I don't recall noticing an impact on my now defunct GT 290. However, being defunct and sitting on my coffee table I can no longer confirm.

Re:Sounds good.

[rcpitt]

I currently run 4 monitors - used to run 6 but that was before I got the 1920x1280 units I currently have.

IMHO - you will never come close to having a paperless office until the screen real estate comes at least close to (or over) the desk real estate.

I write articles and code - and find that having the reference stuff up at the same time on another screen, with graphics on another, makes writing a LOT faster!!!

Re:Sounds good.

[Kjella]

As a person more or less forced to use two at work, I hate it with a vengeance because it's all one big virtual desktop because of citrix and every application feels like popping up dialogs across the middle. Three would be infinitely much better than two, at least there no "#%5%%%#"# bar dead center. I know you can do that with a regular Radeon 5xxx if you have DP displays or an active converter, but I'd love to see it become standard like double DVI ports have been for a while.

Re:Sounds good.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Not really arbitrary: Historically, with analog outputs, you needed one RAMDAC, plus associated passives and connector, per video output. For cost reasons, one or two RAMDACs got folded pretty quickly into common display controller chipsets, just to save on the number of packages on the card. This area was where the massive economies of scale lived. If you didn't mind paying more, people like Matrox have always been willing to sell you cards with more heads.

With the newer digital interconnects, you need a TMDS out, plus associated passives and connector, per video output. Again, deviating from the mass-market-friendly 1 or 2 outs configuration has always been possible; but pricey.

The only really novel aspect of this ATI "Eyefinity" stuff is that ATI decided to crank up the number of outputs supported, by default, right in their silicon, so sharply and thus brought lots and lots of heads into the realm of "commodity gamer cards" rather than "underperforming, yet strikingly expensive, niche cards".

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just that. Who's going to pay for that? Even if you were financially able to buy the displays in the first place, the cost of keeping that rig going could pay down you second mortgage.

Re:Sounds good.

[BrokenHalo]

Though 12 seems a bit ridiculous (and awesome), I've always wanted to put four together with a little more convenience.

I used to run two screens on my home Linux desktop box (via xinerama), but those were CRT devices. In an attempt to cut down on power usage, I have now replaced them with a single, large LCD display. I still have the multiple nVidia cards linked together in the computer housing, but I believe that's probably drawing far more power than is actually useful.

I used to do a lot of graphics-intensive molecular modelling and rendering, but now that I've digressed into other fields, I can afford to be a little less "cool".

Re:Sounds good.

[Klinky]

Meh, one of my LCDs takes 1/3rd the power of my old 21" CRT. The card itself is large because of the ports, it will probably not use much more power than it's 2/3 output sibling.

Re:Sounds good.

[dave420]

What O/S are you using? If it's Windows, are you using the ATI drivers? Native multiple-display configuration in Windows will never put a pop-up across the centre of your screens. I've been running multiple displays for years, and I've yet to see one.

Re:Sounds good.

[sco08y]

Realistically how many different displays can the average consumer use at a time?

Not the average consumer, but at Fort Knox, the Armor School has a huge building full of tank simulators that are laid out (on the inside) pretty closely to the real thing. Each little periscope gets its own little display, and you have screens all around the turret, so you could definitely use a card that had a dozen outputs.

I'm not at all sure what the volume of the market is. The military is pretty big by itself, and when you add in law enforcement training, you've gotten pretty huge. The key to working with vehicles is rehearsal, and simulators make that pretty cheap.

Re:Sounds good.

[Beardo the Bearded]

I'm an Electrical Engineer. I do a fair bit of spec writing and drafting.

I have 2 monitors right now, and I could easily have two more and replace one of mine with a much bigger monitor. (The seams really mess up the visuals when working with large drafts.)

I would anticipate that most people who use their computers for the same kind of work would want:
1. One big monitor. The bigger the better. 36" would be about right.
2. One communications monitor.
3. One datasheet monitor.
4. Once spec monitor.

The last three could be normal sized, e.g. 22".

Re:Sounds good.

[pnutjam]

Hahaha...

Ask me how I know you don't use citrix...

Re:Sounds good.

[tinkerghost]

I write articles and code - and find that having the reference stuff up at the same time on another screen, with graphics on another, makes writing a LOT faster!!!

My preference is 3 monitors:

• Coding - the IDE or Nedit windows.
• Reference - Usually both language reference windows for rarely used commands and the project reference on the same window.
• Testing - Web browser or testing script windows depending on the project.

With that setup, I don't have to flip between desktops to work & doing reference checks is as simple as looking between the monitors. No flipping back & forth between the project reference & the test results you just compare the 2 windows & be done with it.

That said, I can't even think of what I would do with 12 monitors other than running a kiosk with each K/V/M setup dedicated to it's own OS image.

Re:Sounds good.

[bami]

Get your boss to get some licenses to this:
http://www.realtimesoft.com/ultramon/

I was an internet at some random software company for 6 months, and it helps when maximizing windows, stupid pop-up boxes appearing everywhere and just helps with sorting windows, even on uneven monitors. I run it myself on a 1680x1050 monitor next to a 1280x1024 monitor, and it really helps with stupid dialog boxes.

Re:Sounds good.

[xianthax]

I'm also an EE, i use 6 x 22" screens in a 3w x 2h setup using a single nvidia card and a pair of matrox triplehead2go units.

I've been using this setup for over a year or so and couldn't imagine doing design work efficiently on anything smaller.

My usual setup is something like:

1 screen with schematic
1 screen with board layout (or firmware IDE)
1 screen with e-mail/IM/etc
1 screen with browser
2 screens with datasheets or extra browsers or terminals

Some times i also need to work with multiple VM's / remote desktop connections and having a full screen for each one is great.

I would like to eventually change to 1 large center screen and rotate the 2 22" screens on the sides of it to a portrait orientation for better datasheet reading but thats not really possible right now under linux with the nvidia + triplehead2go approach

I'm hoping nvidia will put out a similar type of card as the ati linux drivers are pretty meh.

I've messed around with viewing things on all 6 monitors at once, movies/games. Never really liked it. I just need all the space.

Getting more monitors has been the biggest increase in my productivity since i left college, i can see the same being true for anyone doing design work on a computer (CAD, graphics editing, video editing, etc).

Re:Sounds good.

[DutchUncle]

With this you could set up an entire store, or museum, or trade-show display on one system (with SSD and full RAM, of course). Years ago I helped configure and pack ten computers for a trade show booth; this would make life much easier, and save on shipping and setup complexity.

We keep re-inventing the mainframe ;-) because, you know what, for some problems a centralized server is the best solution.

Re:Sounds good.

[dave420]

The post I responded to never mentioned how they are using citrix. There are many ways.

Re:Sounds good.

[SnarfQuest]

If you, like me, are planning on taking over the world, and converting the entire population into mindless zombie slaves, the more monitors you have the better. Controlling all those zombies takes a lot of real estate.

Re:Sounds good.

[SQLGuru]

The fourth (and possibly fifth) monitors can be remoted into your dev server(s) so that you can watch and tweak them (web server, db server, etc.). They aren't as critical, so they can be smaller or placed in a different row, depending on your preferences. Still not 12, though.

Re:Sounds good.

[nj_peeps]

I could see this being useful in a NOC setup. the NOC for my job has 12 PC's that run 25 monitors. I helped them out with buy setting upSynergy to cut down on the number of keyboards and mice, but with two of these cards, we could could cut that down to one or two PC's. It would make life for the NOC admin's much easier, not to mention the cost savings on running 10 less PC's.

Re:Sounds good.

[Arthur Grumbine]

I was an internet at some random software company for 6 months...

How did you get that job?!

Re:Sounds good.

[Kjella]

In citrix-based companies, not that many as you start citrix and it runs a full screen session with your desktop. Everything you need to use is in citrix so there's no point in having citrix on one screen and something else on the other, that has at least been the way in the three companies I've seen though I admit only one has used this dual-screen setup. And that citrix desktop has no clue it's actually split over two monitors, leading to the results I talked about.

Re:Sounds good.

[iprefermuffins]

Well, he wasn't a truck driver. Maybe a plumber?

Re:Sounds good.

[Beardo the Bearded]

Rotating your firmware monitor is the best thing you can do for yourself. The only problem is that the manufacturers assume that you'd never do that so the display is sub-par, but it's perfectly suitable for an IDE.

Re:Sounds good.

[agm]

If only KDE4 would support 3 (or more) monitors in a accelerated setup. I also use 3 monitors, but am stuck with KDE3 until the issues with KDE4 and multi-head are sorted out.

Re:Sounds good.

[Kjella]

And it's related to DisplayPort, because DP doesn't need a clock signal generator. If you want to use 3+ screens, anything past the first two must be DP or use an active DP converter. Too bad so many low-end monitors ship with it.

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

His real name is Neo. He became one with the matrix ^h^h^h^h^h^h internet only to realize he was stuck inside the bounds of his company's intranet.

Re:Sounds good.

[OrangeCatholic]

>I write articles and code - and find that having the reference stuff up at the same time on another screen, with graphics on another, makes writing a LOT faster!!!

Good. Here's another tip: use Xwindows virtual desktops. I used to use two 18" x a grid of nine = EIGHTEEN displays.

That was ten years ago. Flipping between the virtual desktops? Instantaneous with a keyboard shortcut. (The reason I got up to 3x3 is because there was no performance loss. I probably could have done 4x4 or 5x5. This was the 8mb card era too. Linux is just fast as fuck.)

Caveat, you need the right display manager. Crucial features:

* The ability to make a 2D grid of your choice. 2x2, 2x3, 3x3, etc. NOT just a "stack." Your shit will get lost in a stack of anything.
* Small picture-in-picture window showing what apps are open on your virtuals.
* Programmable keyboard shortcuts. If you have to switch displays with a mouse, you might as well forget it and stick to minimizing.

Now you've made me curious if Windows has caught up....Something tells me it's still clunky...

Re:Sounds good.

[OrangeCatholic]

>That said, I can't even think of what I would do with 12 monitors

I've done it (virtually). You fill them with crap. Open a browser window with your favorite news site (slashdot?) Leave it open...forever.

I have papers on my desk I haven't read in weeks. Is this any different?

Re:Sounds good.

[OrangeCatholic]

>every application feels like popping up dialogs across the middle.

I suspect the problem is that somewhere in here, you are using Windows. I'm betting Citrix runs Windows remotely on a Windows terminal? Blah.

The only "work" I would do on Windows is maybe Word/Excel/Photoshop. And if I'm using Excel, then obviously I'm not working very hard.

Re:Sounds good.

[OrangeCatholic]

I'm just wondering where you put them all. I can't imagine a room big enough (in a house) to fit 12 monitors. I wouldn't get small ones, either. Although you might be forced to.

Re:Sounds good.

[Gromius]

I have a 12 24in monitor setup at work when I'm on shift. The guy next to me has 6 24in + 4 40 inch monitors. Its very nice :) Although the heat they kick out is insane. We do actually need it as well so this card is of interest to us

To prove it, heres a web cam, my station is the big one at the end. That said I imagine we are a fairly unique case, I dont think many people need to monitor and control the triggering and data acquisition of a large particle physics experiment. But just pointing out there is a use case for the card :P

Re:Sounds good.

[damien_kane]

The post I responded to never mentioned how they are using citrix. There are many ways.

From GGP:

...it's all one big virtual desktop because of citrix

Re:Sounds good.

[rcpitt]

I use 12 virtual desktops in addition to the 4 monitors.

I can't begin to tell all the things that having this much virtual and real video desktop means to my productivity.

Re:Sounds good.

[thsths]

And I don't understand why you cannot buy one big monitor instead of several small ones. The screen area is the same, which is main cost factor, so why are decent sized displays (1920x1200 and up) still so expensive?

Can You Install Three?

[eldavojohn]

I know that motherboards only support two but I seem to recall a story of someone who might be interested in that.

Also, in the article, they call this behemoth "Powercolor innovation." I'd rather we called it "Powercolor scaling" unless they actually tackled the problem in some way other than slapping to cards together into one.

Re:Can You Install Three?

[UninformedCoward]

Only 2? What about Tri-SLi.

Re:Can You Install Three?

[TheThiefMaster]

It's an ATI card, therefore uses crossfire and not SLi.

It's also a 3-backplate card, good luck finding a motherboard with three pci-e x16 slots spaced far enough apart.

Re:Can You Install Three?

[dave420]

Like this one? It supports 4-way CrossFire (or SLI), and has enough PCIe x16 slots to cope with three of these cards.

Re:Can You Install Three?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article you linked: "The GA-X58A-UD9 has seven physical PCIe x16 slots." That's "only" enough for two of these - they take three slots, not just two.

Re:Can You Install Three?

[TheThiefMaster]

Only just, and you'd need a case that has backplates for two more slots than the height of a full ATX motherboard.

On the other hand, can you imagine a PC with a 36-monitor display?

Re:Can You Install Three?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the ASUS Crosshair IV Formula coupled with a set of three HIS Radeon HD 5550 1GB DDR2 (H555HS1G).. it should work, no? These cards are low-profile and passively cooled. Wouldn't be ideal for gaming but you'd get a working, low-noise triple-head setup. On Linux you would be limited to Xinerama for the foreseeable future but work is underway to support multiple cards with XRandr, this would pave the way for hardware accelerated graphics on multiple heads.

My own setup is a dual-head Radeon HD4850 (passively cooled). These cards are clunky but descent for gaming. I'm stuck with Xinerama for now but I'm hoping that'll change eventually.

Your point is valid, it isn't easy to find 3xPCI-e board with good spacing but I don't think you ever will unless you change the ATX standard. The more cards you have the more cramped you'll be - thus limiting your selection of "good" cards. High-end cards run hot, they need cooling and they will be thicker.

Re:Can You Install Three?

[dlochinski]

Umm, ever see EVGA 4-way sli boards? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188059 And the 3-way sli boards can be well spaced out too http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188046

Re:Can You Install Three?

[TheThiefMaster]

Two things:
1: You clearly missed the other guy replying (much earlier) with the 7-slot gigabyte board.
2: The slots on that 3-way board only have one slot between, so can only take 2-slot cards. This is a 3-slot card, it won't fit.

Re:Can You Install Three?

[dissy]

From the article you linked: "The GA-X58A-UD9 has seven physical PCIe x16 slots." That's "only" enough for two of these - they take three slots, not just two.

They require 3 back plate slots each yes, but only two PCIe slots per card.

At least this is the design of the standard HD5970 card, and they do not state any differently in the article to assume otherwise.

Re:Can You Install Three?

[dave420]

No, they don't need 3x PCIe x16 slots each, just one, and they use the other two simply for space. You plug 2 in, covering up the first 6, then put the last one on the last uncovered slot, hanging over the board. Common practice.

Re:Can You Install Three?

[dave420]

Correction - yup, they need two slots each. My bad.

Re:Can You Install Three?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like this one? It supports 4-way CrossFire (or SLI), and has enough PCIe x16 slots to cope with three of these cards.

If it takes up 2 slots in my chassis, then as far as I'm concerned it is 2 "cards", even if it's all mounted on a single PCB.

You can always install HOW many?

[Anonymous Coward]

From 12 to 2 is an increase of -10.

Re:You can always install HOW many?

[DeadDecoy]

The summary is poorly worded. ATI's Powercolor HD5970 video card supports 12 display outputs. If you have two, you go up to 24 display outputs. At that point, you could monitor the whole of the matrix.

Re:You can always install HOW many?

[eldavojohn]

From 12 to 2 is an increase of -10.

The single video card has twelve outputs. On a Crossfire capable motherboard, you could possibly install two of these (pending room on your motherboard and inside your case). This would bring your grand total output to 24 monitors. RTFA next time before attempting math.

Re:You can always install HOW many?

[kj_kabaje]

Not to start a UID fight, but you must be new here. ;-)

Re:You can always install HOW many?

[dave420]

You can install 3 of these cards, for 36 displays, if you use one of the more extreme motherboards (that are loaded with PCIe x16 slots). Heck, those motherboards support 4-way CrossFire (or SLI), so if they can get the cards down in size, 48 displays from one motherboard would be trivial to implement. Tasty.

Re:You can always install HOW many?

[gstoddart]

The summary is poorly worded. ATI's Powercolor HD5970 video card supports 12 display outputs. If you have two, you go up to 24 display outputs.

I don't think you're correct (but I'm not going to say it very firmly because I don't know that you're not. ;-)
The article appears to say ...

As one HD5870 Eyefinity GPU card has six Displayport outputs for, yes, six displays in parallel, it shouldn't be too difficult to get twelve Displayport outputs from a hypothetical HD5970 Eyefinity, if it existed.

I think the HD5970 supports six, and the HD5970 is a non-existent device postulated by the author -- one assumes that would be consistent with the model numbering.

The 12-monitor version may not exist yet. Six monitors ought to be enough for anybody. ;-)

Re:You can always install HOW many?

[gstoddart]

However, since the picture shows an HD5970 that has 12-ports, I'm obviously wrong. :-P

Re:You can always install HOW many?

[Phroggy]

Did someone call for a UID fight?

Multi-seat Computing

[timeOday]

I think a 4 or 6 core CPU could support 12 users in many cases. I could see building a computer lab at a school this way to minimize administrative burden. But it's too bad multi-seat linux doesn't work better. I have struggled with it on and off over the years, and it just doesn't seem to have critical mass of interest to gain real distro support.

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[Anonymous Coward]

What you need is some sort of box specifically designed for "multi-seat computing". I think you could do better than 3 users per core. Of course, if you dropped the graphical requirements a bit, you could probably get even more...

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[Sycraft-fu]

Thing is I don't think you'd have any real gain over a thin client/server kind of model, and there's no possibility for scaling or redundancy with something like this.

So it is going to cost you a good bit to get a system with this. You have to have a reasonably powerful computer, of course, which you'd need with a server as well but then there's the card, which is not cheap. A regular 5970 is $600-800 depending on configuration, this one will easily break a grand I'm sure.

Because of that you'd save little, if any, money over cheap systems acting as thin clients (or dedicated thin client hardware) and a server.

The only advantage I can see is the 3D support. However, with 12 monitors, the card is going to be extremely heavily taxed if you are trying to do 3D on all of them. You won't get all that high a performance.

Now a thin client/server model has several advantages over the single system. For one, you can scale it easily. If clients aren't using the system much you can add more until it is loaded. There's no hard limit. Likewise servers can be added fairly transparent to the clients. Then there's the possibility for redundancy. You can have a group of servers on the back end and if one fails, there's no outage. With a multi-display system, a system failure takes out all the nodes it was running. Finally there's a placement advantage. DP has a fairly short range so all your nodes will be within a few meters of the system. With a client/server system you can have them pretty much anywhere, ethernet goes 100m per cable and switches can repeat it as necessary.

So I think that's why you don't see much interest for this sort of thing. If people want shared processing resources, having it on a server makes sense. If people want dedicated processing resources, well then they aren't going to want others on it.

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[vlm]

Because of that you'd save little, if any, money over cheap systems acting as thin clients

Good detailed technical analysis, but I can get an equally valid argument by working a different angle.

Unless you're doing something real weird/wrong, the cheapest part of a computer lab is the hard drive, video card, chassis, etc. Zero that out, and you've got something very unusual, rare, and complicated, yet remains at 99% of the total cost, that being mostly salary and indirect costs (health insurance, pension, etc) and stuff like HVAC, electric bill, fractional capital expense of the building, cost of electrical and LAN wiring and related hardware... If you want to save a whopping 1% of the total cost of ownership, the very superficial answer is just install 99 computers instead of 100.

If your 24 room school costs $12M to build, which seems believable, then your empty room cost $500K. You can pull your hair out to "save" $2500 worth of hard drives and $1250 worth of chassis/power supplies, but that's a false economy. And you'll never be able to piecewise upgrade.

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[timeOday]

If your 24 room school costs $12M to build, which seems believable, then your empty room cost $500K. You can pull your hair out to "save" $2500 worth of hard drives and $1250 worth of chassis/power supplies, but that's a false economy. And you'll never be able to piecewise upgrade.

I agree the multi-seat would probably only help IF it economized those things - real estate square footage and administrative cost. Unfortunately my own experience with multi-seat tells me that as things stand, it's easier just to maintain N computers. And PCs have gotten more power efficient with CPU speed scaling (for desktops too) and "green" hard drives etc, so consolidating several PCs doesn't save so much on energy anymore either.

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[Locutus]

multi-seat is like virtual machines in that 90% of the population know only Windows or Mac and they just don't understand this stuff. I even showed a multi-seat laptop to an IT guy to show how they could reduce the number of computers used in their kiosk filled showroom but he still didn't get it. I had proposed running the multi-seat Linux to reduce the number of PCs and then where they needed to run Windows, the multi-seat system could run either one or two virtual machine instances of Windows.

So, if you think it's difficult to get people to understand what Linux is, try to get their little brains around one computer with 12 displays and 12 users all using the same computer. I'd bet they won't get it that each user, display, kbd, mouse are able to do anything a normal computer user can do.

If our schools and libraries had people who could understand this stuff, Linux and OSS would be the savior from the school systems budget cuts. IMO

LoB

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[hairyfeet]

The problem with Linux saving money in schools is this: The guys that really REALLY know Linux, the real gurus that could wrap their head around what you are suggesting and set up and maintain a good working solution, would end up costing your more $$$$$ than the solution would be worth. Because I have known a few gurus in my day, and they get paid the big bucks. The chump change and belly button lint that the average public schools offer IT wouldn't even get those guys to show up for an interview.

Like it or not, a GPO locked down Windows really isn't hard to admin. Hell with the easy GUI of WinServer I could probably teach my oldest boy in less than a month everything he would need to manage a group of desktops with GPO. With Linux you better know your way around bash, have good CLI-foo, be good at problem solving and trawling forums for when you get "update foo broke my hardware" and generally be a hell of a lot more knowledgeable on the in and outs of your chosen distro to really get the most out of it. And the guys that can do that with ease are already booked to the eyes and simply don't have the long hours for low pay that school IT guys have to deal with.

So in the end you would be penny wise and pound foolish because any money you saved on desktops would be gone and more on the Linux guru to maintain it. But on the plus side I'm sure the Linux gurus here LIKE getting paid a hell of a lot more than the Windows guys, so I'm sure it all evens out ;-)

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[SnarfQuest]

Back in the day, we had 30+ users on a PDP-11/70, with good response. Now you have a machine 3000X faster, and have problems supporting a single user. Aren't advances in technology amazing?

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[ckaminski]

Except four of us could run an iLO-based server distro over a WAN for an entire district of 50 schools from one room. Make the average hardware replacement call every day per 100 PCs, and you're still not even taxing my resources (except perhaps driving time). Even better if your school stocks spares in case of failure - you can batch your repair events per site.

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[ckaminski]

Don't get me started. I'm getting a brand new Core i7 with 8GB of RAM to replace my T2300 with 3GB of RAM... It's probably going to slow me down another 10%, I bet.

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[kenh]

THat is an amazingly odd way to try and squeeze more simultaneous users out of one box. FIrst you take a four or six core CPU, add an ungodly-expensive video card, and then (I assume) a couple dozen USB ports for keyboards/mice THEN you get to write the glue software to make it all work together.

Exactly how would this be more useful than a dozen Atom-based systems at $200/each (plus monitors/keyboards/mice, common requirement for either your solution or mine)? Assuming the appropriate software exists (and I don't think it does), if the main unit goes down, all 12 users are SOL, but with my RAIPC (Redundant Array of Inexpensive PCs) you can keep working until all 12 systems go down!

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[hairyfeet]

And you don't have a job? I've found guys like you that actually have teh skillz (and aren't some basement nerd bullshitting themselves) are few and far between, and when you find them are already making assloads of money and the company has to worry about them being head hunted.

And lets be honest here: A Winserver controlling GPO locked down Windows desktops is really easy to manage as well. With everything able to be done via GUI, and the MMC being probably one of the easiest interfaces I've ever had to deal with, teaching someone to control a bunch of Win desktops via GPOs is really pretty simple.

And finally don't forget the "PHB factor", because while colleges may pay decent K-12 doesn't want to pay jack for IT on average, I know because I've helped out from time to time with my local middle school. The asst principal practically begged me to take the job has the head IT guy for the local district, but when I found out what it paid (really crappy hours and 25k, if you want to know) I said no thanks. The hours suck, the pay is lousy, the hardware is usually out of date (and it is like going 10 rounds with a grizzly to get them to spend money on new hardware) and you usually end up spending more time just trying to keep the huge mish mash of crap working than you do actually doing any IT work.

As I said I know a few "Linux gurus" like yourself, and they get paid the big bucks, have great benefits, nearly always have top notch gear, usually have no problems get approval for new purchases (because they can show maximum benefit from each bit of hardware) and even get paid when they're at home watching the game because they carry a beeper and can be called in at any time. When a guy is getting top class pay and benefits talking them into "slumming it" with the crap you have to deal with at most public schools is damned near impossible. It is just simple economics 101, Linux takes more knowledge and more work to set up, more skill to fix, and therefor gets paid more $$$ for admins worth their salt. And that is of course if you can even FIND a really good Linux admin, whereas you can literally throw a rock and hit a MCSE nowadays.

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[gangien]

yeah good luck having 30 people place Starcraft 2 on those machines.

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[Locutus]

you're looking at it all wrong. There is a huge base of future school IT people right there in the schools. It might take one guru but that one guru running a single lab would kick start the process when every student in the class gets to take everything home for free and there's more where that came from for free. Out of those kids will come a few who dig this stuff and they could be hired for credits the next semester to help run the lab. Get a few and now you have a few labs and more kids who want to and will learn more.

In 3 years you have graduating seniors who could be hired for 25K to run a lab and help that guru do even more.

With Windows, how are any of the students going to take home Windows Server and all the various server software and dig into it to learn more and more? Not only that, they'll need pretty high end hardware to run it too. Linux and the OSS give the kids a chance to jump out of their parents financial situation while Windows keeps them stuck and needing handouts to get a leg up.

So is that guru really that expensive? The savings from having to purchase anti-virus software for the systems is probably enough to help cover some of the extra costs.

LoB

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[Anonymous Coward]

In MY day, we played Hunt the Wumpus on those machines - and we liked it!

Now get off my yard!

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[Eivind]

But that's over-simplifying to the point where it's nonsense. The useful lifetime of the building is just -slightly- longer than the useful lifetime of the computer, you know ?

Furthermore, for a typical school, the building AND equipment cost a small fraction of the salary. So the real important part, for low TCO, is that the computers, whatever sort they are, are easy to maintain and service.

Multi-seat may or may not help. If the additional complexity causes maintenance-problems, it's gonna hurt. But if that part is fairly dependable, it'll help simply because it reduces the count of machines to maintain. Maintaining 10 quad-seat machines should be less job than maintaining 40 single-seat ones. (stronger CPU and more RAM doesn't tend to add to maintenance at all)

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[vlm]

The useful lifetime of the building is just -slightly- longer than the useful lifetime of the computer, you know ?

Careful careful, nothing public schools like to do more than grub for money by holding press conferences showing the kids are still using textbooks from 1970.

Maintaining 10 quad-seat machines should be less job than maintaining 40 single-seat ones.

Unless they have a dell onsite service contract for the off the shelf 40 single seats so downtime is minimal, but the weird quad seat things need mail order or ebay type repairs. Generic is always cheaper than niche name brand.

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[Luyseyal]

If the main unit goes down, all 12 users are SOL, but with my RAIPC (Redundant Array of Inexpensive PCs) you can keep working until all 12 systems go down!

Heh, that made me think how unsuccessful RAID would have been if it had been called "RAIP".

-l

The summary . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . it needs some work . . .

Re:The summary . . .

[mujadaddy]

Indeed. The summary and title were so at odds... I had to RTFA!

...I'll be in the corner of shame.

Only one problem

[Pojut]

Once you go past a three screen Eyefinity setup, Bezels become a real serious problem. With three displays it's no big deal, since the center monitor serves as your primary view while the other two monitors expand your peripheral vision...but with 6 monitors, you will have bezels crossing the center of your point of view, making things real wonky.

Yes, it's awesome having the size, but until someone releases a bezel-less six monitor system, it's kind of a waste of time. Besides, with how much a six monitor setup would cost, you may as well buy a good quality projector.

Re:Only one problem

[0100010001010011]

Unless you do a 4x3 setup.

Or you can get 6 users each with 2 monitors.

Re:Only one problem

[Monkeedude1212]

You just need to set them up all around you and play with the 360 view mod in Unreal Tournament.

Re:Only one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

4 rows of 3 monitors seems, centered on one of the rows seems doable...

Re:Only one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Or...six good quality projectors. No more bezel issue, and six times the resolution!

Re:Only one problem

[Monkeedude1212]

Good God I'd hate to be the one who has to set THAT up.

We can barely get our projectors to stay level, let alone line it up other screens.

Re:Only one problem

[Locke2005]

The rule is you need an odd number of monitors in each direction, so 3x3 should also be fine. Agreed, anything past 3 monitors per person is just fucking ridiculous.

Re:Only one problem

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Apparently, the really classy setups(in addition to just having decently rigid mounting hardware) will allow the images to overlap slightly, and then, using feedback provided by one or more cameras, tweak the brightness and color balance of each output until the whole image looks good.

Re:Only one problem

[mrops]

...you may as well buy a good quality projector.

or get 6 relatively low quality (as in not too bright) high resolution projectors and solve the bezel problem by carefully aligning the 6 projectors.

Project small and bright, get a crispy, high resolution display.

Re:Only one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I currently administer a "multimedia presentation" that uses 13 precisely calibrated projectors to display the show. 3 for the main screen, 4 for the backgrounds on the stage, and another 5 reflecting off of mirrors and onto a special screen to give it a "ghostly" 3D effect.

If one projector is off by a half inch it throws the whole show out of alignment... I've had some fun days let me tell you... 6 projectors aligned to give 1 giant screen wouldn't be *too* bad, you just have to make sure you have proper grids to help with initial alignment.

I've setup a Eyefinity card to 3 of these projectors to make a massive 3x1 screen. Good times :)

Re:Only one problem

[vlm]

And every 500 hours (aka 20.8 days at 24x7) all the projectors will time out and refuse to display anything but "time to change the bulb!" and of course, taking a page from the inkjet manufacturers, the bulb unit will be roughly 1/4 to 1/2 the cost of the projector. And of course you didn't budget for monthly bulb replacements. Even better if "only one guy" can fix the projectors but don't worry he's on call, all the freaking time he's on call, oh is he ever.

Something similar to this has happened at all three NOCs I've worked at.

F those projector guys and the horse they rode in on, I'll never voluntarily buy a projector again as long as I live.

Re:Only one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I think more likely this may reduce the cost of syncing up a true 3d display device (those display devices with multiple layers of actual displays stacked on top of each other). You know, those multilayered LCD gems that are dropping in price. One of the problems years ago when I read about them is getting the information in them to sync up, since the display output was limited; those video solutions were usually slow, showing fixed nondynamic display information (the object shown really didn't move much), and expensive.

I'm not sure how much this video card costs, but now you just need a display device where each layer is an HDMI port, and it sounds like you can actually go up to about 48 outputs (Crossfire supposedly can communicate across 4 cards, and each card has 12 devices, so if you can find a motherboard that supports 4 with the slots spaced accordingly, it's conceivable). For conventional monitors, yeah, 12 may be too much, but for 3d, I could see using 48 easily--decent laptop resolution 1600x900 15" monitors x 6 per layer (3x2), 8 layers deep, so that would translate (16:9 dimensions, 15" actual display diagonal) to a start in a decent sized truer 3d consumer display.

In fact, this is cool enough that maybe some other company may start thinking about stacked multilayered LCDs with truer 3d, the kind that don't need glasses, for the general consumer. HDMI, if I recall, can also be reduced in size too substantially, so the bulk of the card output in supporting 12 HDMI outputs could be customized into a cable (they're doing it this way for the 12 regular HDMI cable setup).

Re:Only one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Just use 9 (center monitor with 8 peripherals).

Dont have to use all 12 at once if you dont want to.

Re:Only one problem

[TheLink]

That seems easy compared to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8-kqovVjss

Or the other related stuff...

Re:Only one problem

[TheLink]

Any videos of that you can show?

So far I've seen stuff like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8-kqovVjss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqF3GTwlFE4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXTB1yxvmoo

Would be interesting to hear comments from you on this as you seem to be doing similar stuff.

Re:Only one problem

[cruachan]

4 works well actually. I have 3 in the classic 'one in the middle and one each side' layout, then a fourth further around on my right which has all those programs one wants open but doesn't really work on all the time - Skype, IM client (pidgin) iTunes and Spotify in my case.

The three centrals are 24" and the fourth 22" - I figure monitors are cheap and if you go for duel PCI Express slots on your motherboard you've got the plug for the fourth monitor so why no use it?

Re:Only one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

And even without high end hardware, add in the fact that this is a single video card projecting (presumably) a single buffer, OpenGL texture mapping can handle efficiently all the leveling and color tweaking required.

There was a while ago a story on a university using many projectors with a single camera that handled the overlap and mapping.

Re:Only one problem

[alta]

sounds like you're just thinking about gaming. Sure, that would suck for gaming, but I'm running a very productive 4 monitor set up now. In order from left to right, 22"@1920*1080, 22"@1920*1080, 26"@1920*1200, 22"@1600*1200.

The 26" HDTV sits directly in front because it's got the most to look at. Code goes here. To the right, toolbars, pallets, menus, etc. To the left go the results of what I'm programming (PHP/PERL/HTML/CSS) to the left of that lies the mail, instant messengers and other distractions.

Re:Only one problem

[ninjacheeseburger]

This graphics card will be perfect for http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/100607.html .

Re:Only one problem

[Khyber]

"And every 500 hours (aka 20.8 days at 24x7) all the projectors will time out and refuse to display anything but "time to change the bulb!""

Bypass the UHP ballast and toss a 100w LED in there. No more bulb display notice, at least 15,000 hours lamp life.

Re:Only one problem

[nj_peeps]

Or...six good quality projectors. No more bezel issue, and six times the resolution!

And a drive-in-movie screen to project it on, unless you have that much space in your house...

Re:Only one problem

[vlm]

One of the projector models at one of the NOCs had a plan to prevent that:

1) Integrated optics. The first lens was mounted in the lamp "module" and the module was sealed. you'd have to find a way to bust open the module without cracking the lens or screwing up its alignment.

2) ID chip, much like an ink jet cartridge. "Hmmmm. lamp serial number 98243804728531 has been operated for 1000 hours or whatever". Yes, on the control menu, where you'd do things like brightness/contrast, there was an option to display the serial number and hours used on the screen.

So there's some serious problems in the way, both optically and electronically.

Supposedly this was a "feature" as a detonating halogen bulb could destroy the optics. So, stop them from using one past its prime, and if it blows up and takes out the first lens, thats OK since every bulb module comes complete with a new lens. Also you can't touch the glass bulb if its inside a sealed module. As a side note it also made the projector very profitable for the manufacturer.

And there is a problem in that I've never seen a single point source white LED much above 6 watts or so. You can buy multiple LED modules that insert into a standard edison lightbulb socket, but thats not going to work. If you can buy a 100 watt single chip LED I'd be impressed to see it.

Re:Only one problem

[ckaminski]

Except the best projectors in the world are barely approaching my 46" TV in terms of pixel density, luminosity and clarity at 5 times the price. Yeah, you can get a 120 inch display pretty cheap, but it looks like crap.

You have an excellent point about the bezels, though.

Re:Only one problem

[Khyber]

I can get single-chip multi-emitter Quantum Well LEDs all day long at 100w, all single-package.

I mean, look at my signature. I do *WAY* more than just that with LED, that just happens to be what I chose to do professionally.

http://www.ledssuperbright.com/100w-white-high-power-led-p-226

There you go. I'm actually waiting for the manufacturer to be able to do the entire package in a customized color blend so I can provide a fully-functional horticultural light in a single ultra-small package.

Re:Only one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool, but wouldn't a phlatlight CSM-360 do it a bit more efficiently?

Re:Only one problem

[vlm]

Now that is extremely cool.

Let me introduce you to your rabid future fan club, over at:

http://modulatedlight.org/

I know, that they don't know, that you exist, and they'll be very excited to meet you. They/us think the best thing out there is the Luxeons series, and I think they'll find your website very interesting indeed.

Porn...

[Anonymous Coward]

an immersive 3D 'cave' environment with a giant dome of two dozen 3D enabled monitors truly surrounding you

just got a hell lot better.

Re:Porn...

[silverglade00]

"Whoa! It's like I'm actually inside..."

Wish I Could Afford That Many Monitors

[ATestR]

This is a cool card, but how many of us would ever buy one? Even if the cost of this unit is equivalent to another high end video card, putting a dozen or so on my desk is more cash that I budget in a year for toys.

Admittedly, I find the idea of having many monitors attractive. I use a dual monitor setup at work, and I find it restrictive to go back to one monitor on my home laptop. What I'd like to have is a 2(h) x 3(w) array of monitors... someday.

Re:Wish I Could Afford That Many Monitors

[Monkeedude1212]

I'd like to have a full 1080p with 4:3 aspect ratio, with each pixel having its own dedicated 32" LCD monitor. They'd be all on the ground and I'd have to use it from my glass helicopter up above, but I'd essentially have the biggest screen there is, at approximately 34560 inches. ... Someday...

Re:Wish I Could Afford That Many Monitors

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the monitors would be 1600-2500 depending on what you got plus the 500-1000 for the cards and cables. NEVER mind your powerbill...

Thinking of doing this to my laptop...
http://hackaday.com/2010/05/19/cramming-more-pixels-into-a-thinkpad/

Re:Wish I Could Afford That Many Monitors

[j_sp_r]

A few days ago I discussed that idea, but then standing upright with CRT monitors. Assuming 40x30cm 15" monitors, that would mean a 300m tall building that is 400m wide. Apart from the support, getting all pixels to change at the same instant will be a challange! Still, awesome. Who wants to donate his/her CRT (I need 2 073 600) and (at 60 watts a screen) a 125 MW powerplant (TerraPower&Toshiba have a nice reactor I read yesterday).

That leaves making the structure and pulling cables. Driving it can be done by some smart electronics, that generate a all blue/red/green VGA signal with simple logic.

Re:Wish I Could Afford That Many Monitors

[Anonymous Coward]

1080p is not 4:3 aspect ratio - it's 16:9 aspect ratio.

If you are going to dream, at least do it in the correct aspect ratio!

Re:Wish I Could Afford That Many Monitors

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, there's a deminishing return with more monitors. I'm at 3 right now (which is nice, especially for those programs that insist on putting things in the MIDDLE of your screen). I don't think I'll ever go to 4. Just no need for it.

Re:Wish I Could Afford That Many Monitors

[toddestan]

It can be if you have non-square pixels. I still have nightmares about CGA.

Matrox?

[strayant]

Hasn't Matrox been producing multi-output cards for years? How is this any different? http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/

Re:Matrox?

[ZERO1ZERO]

Yeah. Matrox alway get forgotten when it come to these things. What this does offer, is some 'power' with your multiple screens, matrox lost the 'framerate/3d tech' battle a long time ago to the likes of nvidia, ati, and probably even 3dfx. They then seemed to specialise in video editing, multi monitor and all that sort of thing, ideal for traders etc.

This card looks to be aimed squarely at gameers looking for an eyefinity setup, and/or internet e-epeen enlargement.

Re:Matrox?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In terms of number of outputs, Matrox has indeed been doing it for years. The difference is that their gear tends to be fairly expensive(particularly when you consider its brutally tepid performance) niche stuff. According to their price sheet, their 8-head will run you $2K. Their cheapest quad-head is $330. And these are for display controllers that are basically suited for 2D applications.

By contrast, the ATI stuff, with vastly superior GPU peformance, and typically more RAM, is cheaper. 5-heads will run you $220. 6 will run about $500; because you can't seem to get 6 without a 5870, which isn't a cheap chip.

This 12-head monster, since it is probably a relatively short-run enthusiast catcher, may well land in the ~$1000-~$1500 zone; but that will still make it cheaper, faster, and with more heads and RAM than the Matrox equivalent.

Re:Matrox?

[dave420]

These don't cost thousands, the outputs are all digital, and these can play games.

Re:Matrox?

[djdanlib]

Matrox has cards going up to 8 heads. This one does 12.

Although, I wonder if you can use the TripleHead2Go DP Edition in combination with this 12-screen monster, for a total of 36 per card or 72 if you have two cards. The mind boggles.

Re:Matrox?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the niche they went for when they failed to make a profit on the consumer and low-end business markets. Now all they have going for them is existing customer relationships and their inertia. Expect Matrox to disappear in the next five years.

The article is about a video card with 12 sockets

[FoolishOwl]

So, presumably, if you installed two of those cards, you could hook up twenty-four monitors.

12 outputs, not 12 cards

[halivar]

The title is correct while the summary is false.

Re:12 outputs, not 12 cards

[Anonymous Coward]

Reread the sentence. The "12 cards" is a subjunctive - a hypothetical. i.e., if you ever wanted to put 12 video cards in your machine (and presumably couldn't or had difficulty doing it) then this would make your jaw drop.

Can you imagine

[thijsh]

a Beowulf cluster of those?

But seriously wouldn't it be possible to hack a displayport as high-speed interconnect and use this for computation?

Re:Can you imagine

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Not usefully. Since Displayport is designed as a video interconnect, it is largely uni-directional(not entirely, but the bi-directional aux channel is 1Mb/s in 1.1 and 720Mb/s in 1.2, while the uni-directional graphics channels are up to 8.64 Gb/s or 17.28Gb/s respectively).

Displayport framegrabbers, which would allow a PC to receive the displayport signal(so you could implement a full duplex interconnect by having 1 video card and 1 grabber in each PC, and running two cables), do exist; but they are very pricey specialty hardware, mostly designed for testing purposes.

You might be able to do something with just the aux channel; but GigE would be both faster and cheaper.

A cave

[UninformedCoward]

In this respect the Powercolor innovation is great, as everyone can have a true immersive 3D cave even at home

How is this a selling point? Can you get anymore true 3D cave immersion than my mom's basement?

Re:A cave

[Anonymous Coward]

In this respect the Powercolor innovation is great, as everyone can have a true immersive 3D cave even at home

How is this a selling point? Can you get anymore true 3D cave immersion than my mom's basement?

your mom's vajayjay.

Users per computer

[tepples]

Realistically how many different displays can the average consumer use at a time?

Consumer, singular, or consumers, plural? If mainstream operating systems didn't have a problem recognizing multiple keyboards and mice and separating their input, then one could share a desktop computer among multiple users that way. Then a personal computer could become a family computer,* and school computer labs could get away with using less hardware.

* Even if you aren't running an NES emulator.

Re:Users per computer

[Darkness404]

But its a whole lot cheaper to buy cheap-as-free hardware and a lot easier to set up.

How many people realistically want to share a desktop with their parents? And how? I don't know about you but I really wouldn't want to be sitting next to my parents while using the computer. Unless we have insanely long cables running to each person's room, I just don't see that as feasible.

Lets just assume that each card costs ~$600 for the time being. Now, you can get several thin clients for that price, 2 decent desktops, or one really good desktop. Why would a school want to use a system that requires lots of maintenance, relies on a single, fail-able system, and isn't exactly cheap.

If one computer worth $300 completely fails, you are out $300 and one workstation. If this card fails you are out ~$600 with no salvageable parts (even on a totally broken motherboard you can usually salvage a HDD, any PCI cards and optical drives) and multiple workstations down.

Really, thin clients are the way to go, cheaper, replaceable hardware wins out over expensive, maintenance-prone hardware.

Plus, if the average person can't even get a network set up, how do you expect them to configure multi-user support?

Re:Users per computer

[UnknowingFool]

Consumer, singular, or consumers, plural? If mainstream operating systems didn't have a problem recognizing multiple keyboards and mice and separating their input, then one could share a desktop computer among multiple users that way. Then a personal computer could become a family computer,* and school computer labs could get away with using less hardware.

I think what you propose while theoretically simple is not practically easy to implement. Up until this generation of multi-core desktops could desktops handle more than one user at once? Then the comes the question whether the OS could handle it. Windows (unless running Citrix) would not have been able to. Linux would but most consumers don't use Linux at home for their desktops. After all that, then comes the practical matter of implementing/administrating such an environment. Consumers are at the point where they can network multiple computers. It is far easier to get another desktop than implement some sort of display/input sharing like in the old TimeSharing days.

Re:Users per computer

[tepples]

It is far easier to get another desktop than implement some sort of display/input sharing like in the old TimeSharing days.

Then why do so many people still game on consoles? In part it's because the multiplayer environment on video game consoles, especially Wii, encourages a split or otherwise shared screen, not a LAN of machines.

Re:Users per computer

[UnknowingFool]

Then why do so many people still game on consoles? In part it's because the multiplayer environment on video game consoles, especially Wii, encourages a split or otherwise shared screen, not a LAN of machines.

A game console is designed from the beginning to share multiple inputs. Also the multiple players are running one program and performing the same function in the same environment. Multi-user sharing will have to take into account that users will not be in the same environments/functions. To scale that up to true multi-user sharing as you propose requires a lot of work and cooperation between hardware and software. And then there is the implementation/administration aspects. Not that it is not possible, merely it is far easier to implement networking.

Re:Users per computer

[hairyfeet]

Noooo, as someone who builds and repairs PCs I'll be happy to tell you why many game on consoles: It is because they are clueless. Not trying to be insulting, just stating a fact. You ask them what OS they have? Windows something. CPU? Don't know. Graphics? RAM? HDD space? Anything other than they have a PC? No clue at all. They don't know if it is good, bad, shitty or great. They just have no clue at all.

And THAT is why folks game on consoles. You have to know a little more about your PC than where the on switch is to game with one, like what kind of graphics, RAM, and CPU you have so you can read system requirements on the box. With consoles if it is for Wii and they have a Wii? All is good. Same with x360 and PS2/PS3, if you have one it works, no need for knowing anything other than which kind you have.

As for TFA, while I can see a few uses, like maybe for stock traders and others that need as much instant info as possible, I doubt many gamers would go for this. For regular gamers the most is usually 2-3 displays, and the "money is no object" hardcore gamers that I know have ditched monitors altogether and gone for those big ass widescreen HDTVs. Playing Bioshock on a 6 foot screen? It's nice, reaaal nice. While you won't get the DPI you would get with an assload of monitors, you don't get the bezels either and the ePeen factor is always higher for one really uber sized display.

Plus when you aren't gaming it is great to watch movies and sports on, so it has extra value. Finally the GF or wife doesn't bitch nearly as much when you bring in the widescreen, as long as you let her watch her shows on it. The guys I know that have tried using their triple setup as an "all in one" to watch TV as well as game had to deal with the GF bitching about how the bezel bothered her. That little line really seems to bother the shit out of the females for some reason. While I had no problem tuning it out and neither did the customer, that is all his GF would talk about, until he broke down and bought a large TV for her to watch.Remember guys, ultimately SHE is in charge. You make THINK you're in charge, but you're not, she merely lets you think that to spare your feelings.

Re:Users per computer

[icebraining]

It depends. My father had a computer with a motherboard with two mouse and keyboard PS2 ports plus two VGA ports, Windows XP and some special software (MagicTwin IIRC) to enable Windows to run two different user accounts. It worked fine and it was much cheaper for his (really small) office.

Re:Users per computer

[Anonymous Coward]

This can already be done for $70 per seat, under linux or Windows XP/windows 2003r1-2008r2 server.

http://www.ncomputing.com/

we buy the x550s as they have the best bang-for buck in a classroom, but the L300s look pretty awesome for a more robust business setup. Couple servers set to failover, redundant data storage... Complete system redundancy for less than standalone workstations.

Re:Users per computer

[CronoCloud]

Noooo, as someone who builds and repairs PCs I'll be happy to tell you why many game on consoles: It is because they are clueless. Not trying to be insulting, just stating a fact.

I'm a console gamer. PS3. Though I do on occasion play games in a terminal.

[quote]You ask them what OS they have?[/quote]

Fedora 13 64-bit and Windows 7 64-bit.

CPU?

Athlon II x2 240.

Graphics? RAM? HDD space?

Nvidia 6150SE
3GB
500GB (split between Win7 and Fedora 13)

They don't know if it is good, bad, shitty or great. They just have no clue at all.

The computer is good for your basic use scenario, it's not a gaming rig, doesn't have to be, I have a PS3. I could make do without the Windows partition, but keep it, just in case. Had Linux on my PS3, used it as my desktop until I got this machine and then updated it's firmware to 3.21.

Re:Users per computer

[NervousWreck]

There should be a market for some kind of kvm switch that works the other way around though I have no idea how it would be implemented.

Re:Users per computer

[tepples]

it's not a gaming rig, doesn't have to be, I have a PS3.

What do you do when you want to play a video game by a developer that Sony has turned down?

Re:Users per computer

[tepples]

ncomputing

My experience with NComputing wasn't so good.

Re:Users per computer

[neumayr]

I beg to differ.
Some people (most console gamers I know) prefer consoles exactly because they have a clue. Tthey know what it entails to get a game running on computers, and want nothing none of it.
They want to be entertained, and not have to tinker around with their computers first.

Re:Users per computer

[hesiod]

Reverse KVMs exist, and I have used one, though it doesn't allow two people to use the same PC at the same time. It just attaches two keyboards, mouses, and monitors and you can switch between the sets. It's of limited use, except if you have one person that needs access to their computer from two different locations in their office.

Re:Users per computer

[realityimpaired]

*nods* I bought a console for exactly that reason.

And also to get out of the upgrade cycle to keep up with the latest and greatest games... if you want to run some title that just came out last week on your PC, you might need to have put in another $1000 into your computer since you bought it last year. (exaggerating but essentially the point). If you want to run the latest and greatest on your game console, you just need to have the game console. A game that came out last week will run on the same hardware that came out two years ago, and that hardware will never need an upgrade as long as it's the current generation of console, and it could be several years before the next gen comes out. $250 well spent, don't you think?

Re:Users per computer

[hairyfeet]

That may have been true during the days of Win9x, or even pre SP3, but honestly I haven't had to tweak squat to game on my PC in so long I can't even remember. One of the reasons I pushed my gamer customers to get Windows 7 (which they all love BTW) is that it takes the guesswork out of modern games. The WEI (Windows Experience Index) shows you where any weak spots may be, the games library shows you what the games WEI is, will even allow you to update manually or have it auto updated for you, it is pretty much "click and go" now.

Between Windows 7 HP X64 taking care of my new games, and Good Old Games offering tons of games that all "just work" on x86 and x64, the days of jumping through hoops just to play games are pretty much over. Between Steam and GOG you don't even have to leave your house anymore, just whip out your CC and in a couple of minutes you have a new game installed and ready to play. I honestly don't know how you could ask for easier than that. And of course with Steam and GOG I don't have to worry about switching discs and scratched games, something console games can't match.

Re:Users per computer

[CronoCloud]

Why would I care? There's more games that I'd like to play released for the PS3 than I could ever play or buy for that matter. I'm under no obligation to play "indie" games just because they're "indie". Especially since some indie developers aren't really all that original and spend their time cloning Diablo or various puzzle games.

http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1643024&cid=32110438

Re:Users per computer

[Anonymous Coward]

>If mainstream operating systems didn't have a problem recognizing multiple keyboards and mice and separating their input, then one could share a desktop computer among multiple users

You CAN it's called TELNET. And Xserver will send the visual output anywhere on the network.

Hell, one of the first pranks you pull in college is to tell your friend to type "xshow+" and pop goatse up on their screen.

Unless mainstream=Windows/Mac. I'll admit I'm using Windows now, but it's starting to bore me. 2000-->XP-->Win7 is really the same experience.

Re:Users per computer

[CronoCloud]

And of course with Steam and GOG I don't have to worry about switching discs and scratched games, something console games can't match.

Actually, they can match with the download services of PSN and XBLM. Scratched discs are also a relic of the past. While PSone discs were quite prone to them, PS2 and PS3 discs are not.

Slashdotted

[RobinEggs]

Apparently it's so overwhelming in its power and beauty my current graphics card can't bear to render it! It just gets halfway through, and then after the third set of HDMI ports comes into view it chokes up and halts, too depressed and intimidated to go further.

Seriously, though, either my connection sucks or the pictures are all slashdotted.

Obligatory

[COMON$]

Finally, a tool that will allow me to watch all my porn subscriptions simultaneously...

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

You only have 12 porn subscriptions?

Laughable or inevitable?

[sarysa]

I've been doing two at work for years now -- up to three because sometimes I need to work on a mac, and look at code for an iPhone port when working with another platform.

I've hit 4 a few times, as I may bring in my home PC for Linux use, but currently only three at once ever get any significant attention. Still, the notion of 3-6 monitor gaming has always appealed to me. If they can thin the borders of monitors for cheap, I'd seriously consider a 6 setup...

Great Idea

[Reason58]

I just had a great idea, you guys. "Virtual Monitors".

Ok, ok, hear me out.

Through software your computer will generate virtual monitors which can be used to contain an application in a little box on your screen. You can then have several applications open at the same time on the same screen simply by arranging those boxes so that you can see them all. This is especially easy since monitors are larger than ever now.

I am going to be seriously rich. Maybe I will buy some new windows.

Re:Great Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds a lot like unix/linux to me.....

Re:Great Idea

[Darkness404]

I kinda think the guy was going for a +5 funny mod though....

Re:Great Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Unix and linux look more like a typewriter.

It sounds like those totally ghey OS's like Amiga and Mac.

Re:Great Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Quckly! Patent that skanker!

Re:Great Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah, but I'm not sure he even deserved the +3 funny he got right now.

Re:Great Idea

[XMode]

Ha ha. Very funny.

In all seriousness though virtual monitors can be good for some things but completely useless for others.

Lets take for example my last job. Essentially my job was to monitor a whole bunch of graphs and if any of them did something unexpected, investigate why and then report it to someone. It was a lot more complicated than that (which is why we couldn't just trigger an alert in software, although we did have some) but we needed screen real estate and lots of it. We ended up with 8 20" monitors per person, meaning we had to use 4 video cards, 2 in 2 separate machines, and use synergy to link them so we could easily mouse from one to the other.

A single machine with all 8 monitors attached would have saved as a lot of messing around if one of the apps needed to be fixed/patched or when something went wrong. Having to log in to 2 machines at the start of your shift was also annoying as hell.

Welcome to news of yesterday

[Khenke]

A quick google show that this so called "news" is at least a month old:
http://www.guru3d.com/news/powercolor-radeon-hd-5970-with-12-displayport-outputs/

/. start to feel like looking in last year diary. I honesty don't know why I bother to visit /. any more.

Re:Welcome to news of yesterday

[aicrules]

Why? Because Slashdot, while often somewhat current (within days) is NOT a late breaking news site. It is a place where news from around the tech world is brought into the discussion forum of this site's readership. The value is NOT as an RSS aggregator, but in the bringing together of geographically dispersed IT minded people who can read a story (or at least the summary or title) and discuss it. While the release of this particular video card may not have happened yesterday, the /. discussion of it is just a valid today as it was 30 days ago.

Re:Welcome to news of yesterday

[Khenke]

I really liked /. once in a time. But why I don't as much any more is not just that this news is old (most are not on /.)
It's that this news is old with a very bad summery that is more what I expect from Facebook than /. and it feels like the poster haven't even read the article.

And the really horrible is that once I could read any news on /. and feel that it was interesting for me as a nerd. Now days it is few per week that are really interesting.
Either I have become as much a nerd that not even /. can safety me, or /. has become less news for nerds.
But I guess /. has to go the way of all social media, it start with a selected few and when it become too popular that selected few has to start all over (like Myspace, Facebook and all other).

I do like to hear from people that have in depth knowledge about the articles, but I get the feeling many/most have already left (or are just drowning in all comments).

Sorry for being off topic, but I have been waiting a long time for that article about the old /. times to write in.

Re:Welcome to news of yesterday

[Anonymous Coward]

Then do us all a favor and stop coming here and filling threads with these whiny "omg /. sucks" posts.

If you don't know why you bother to visit this site then you should just stop and save us the pain.

Multimonitor output not for home use

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume that this card is designed for commercial display systems. IE, Jumbotrons or other large scale displays.

Make companies make video systems that interlace 9+ monitors to create one "screen", but, they can also make it so each monitor has a dedicated display.

Uses include Vegas style gambling sports books, jumbotrons, side-line display boards, etc.

By adding in the 3d computing, they can now do a lot more on-the-fly transformations and also provide some fun 3d displays. IE, how about when a horse moves up, a well formed 3d object "flips" and creates a visually appealing (and exciting) transition, thus hooking people into watching.

Just my two anonymous cents.

reminds me of the guy with 36 WoW accounts

[circletimessquare]

http://www.playkon.com/news-2601-How-To-Solo-Sunwell-With-36-WoW-Accounts.html

so that will be three cards please

Wish I Could Afford That Many Desks

[b4k3d b34nz]

I have dual 24" monitors on my desk. Add in the laptop, a lamp, and the pictures of my cat and I could maybe fit one more monitor without having to buy another desk. 3 more desks would run me around $10000. $1000 for the desks, and $9000 for the addition that I would have to build onto my house to support my desk fantasy.

Re:Wish I Could Afford That Many Desks

[vlm]

Add in the laptop, a lamp, and the pictures of my cat and I could maybe fit one more monitor without having to buy another desk.

The picture of the cat goes on as a background image. 12 monitors emit enough light that you don't need a lamp, in fact, you'll probably need suntan oil.

How high's your ceiling? Sounds like you can go three across, so thats only four monitors tall. Given the current fad of that stupid extra wide HDTV form factor, four monitors probably stacks up to about four feet tall. Put the picture of the cat, a weather radar, and a pic of your significant other on the top row, and its all very manageable. With some custom desk work, which you can apparently afford, you can put one row somewhat below eye level, one at eye level, one somewhat above eye level and the very tippy toppy row holding the aforementioned cat picture, radar, family pixs, etc. You can blog about your cat on the lower nine monitors, top three just for show.

3 more desks would run me around $10000.

Holy crap. That's over $3K per desk. The slashdot stereotype is a dude with a $500 computer containing a $2000 video card but no money for furniture meaning he sits on an overturned 5 gallon bucket and uses a bare 60 watt incandescent bulb for light hanging from his moms basement ceiling. And I thought I was a little metro-whatever-ual because I have a $800 oak veneer armoire and a $400 chair. For $3K that desk must be made out of solid panels of pure sterling silver or be at least 400 years old.

Re:Wish I Could Afford That Many Desks

[karnal]

You could dedicate one monitor to pictures of your cat. Blam. Problem solved for one monitor.

Also, I forsee a stacked-pipes arrangement - similar to some drum sets - to where you have the monitors stacked above the current ones with mounting brackets. I would love to do this at work with my 2 sets of 2 monitors (2 monitors on laptop, 2 on the desktop) because my current setup of 4 wide means the one on the far right side doesn't get used at all.....

Re:Wish I Could Afford That Many Desks

[gstoddart]

Given the current fad of that stupid extra wide HDTV form factor

Actually, I used to dislike widescreen monitors. Now I actually kind of like it, as long it's a "square pixel" monitor -- meaning a circle is still a circle, and text isn't squished.

I'm sitting in front of a 22" monitor running at a native 1920x1080 -- it's pretty sweet, and you can put multiple windows side-by-side (since a window at full-width is usually useless for most things). It takes a fraction of the desk space as my old 19" multi-sync which I ran at 1600x1200, and once you change the way you lay out your windows, it's a *lot* better.

Throw in some virtual desktops, and I've got like 8 square feet or so of desktops. More if you go into three dimensions by having multiple VMWare images with their own virtual desktops for certain tasks.

I've seen way too many monitors that would be good for watching movies on because they're a "wide screen", but for text and images they're crap -- they've got a pixel count that makes it a 4:3 monitor, but a shape that makes it a 16:9 monitor. Those ones drive me nuts, they're not even a computer monitor in my opinion, they're a TV that does crappy computer graphics.

Re:Wish I Could Afford That Many Desks

[b4k3d b34nz]

I love this discussion already. What I meant by $10000 is $1000 for the desks and $9000 for the addition I thought I would have to build onto my home office to fit the 3 new desks. However, you've solved that whole space problem, except that I might need to buy a hydraulic chair system so that I can see the monitors on the top row. I like it.

Re:Wish I Could Afford That Many Desks

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap. That's over $3K per desk.

$1000 for the desks, and $9000 for the addition that I would have to build onto my house to support my desk fantasy.

Sounds closer to $350 a desk...

Re:Wish I Could Afford That Many Desks

[Anonymous Coward]

Or read another sentence

Re:Wish I Could Afford That Many Desks

[Anonymous Coward]

I have dual 24" 1920x1600 monitors on my desk... and I put them in portrait mode. The footprint is quite small that way, and turning the widescreen into a tallscreen really makes for good display of text, with a 2400x1920 work area. And as long as I am careful, I can open wide things like spreadsheets across both monitors; I just have to be careful about sliding one of the columns to match up at the bezels so there aren't words or numbers displayed with one character on each side of the bezels.

I think having a third one in there would be great, but it would take too much hassle at work as I'd have to get a special video card rather than just scrounge up a spare monitor to connect to the existing card, as I did to get this setup.

Re:Wish I Could Afford That Many Desks

[vlm]

However, you've solved that whole space problem, except that I might need to buy a hydraulic chair system so that I can see the monitors on the top row.

The top row is for when you lean back in your reclining chair and cackle like a James Bond villain. At a glance, like once an hour, you can see your security cam / weather radar / web cam / itunes music playlist, etc. Normally, you wouldn't stare at it, but its for stuff you "instantly" need to see at a glance.

The 3rd row at slightly below eye level is ideal for "real work" the bottom row is ideal for graphs, and the second from the top is ideal for scrolling log files. Ideal for scrolling log files because the "action" is mostly at the bottom of the screen, you don't have to crane your neck up unless you missed something. Similarly, the graphs on the bottom row should normally be out of sight low, but if something like CPU maxes out, it'll flash into your field of vision and you can actively glance down at it.

Yes, why yes I have worked in / around NOCs for well over a decade, yes. And my description is a somewhat heavily modified version of my favorite NOC layout.

Re:Wish I Could Afford That Many Desks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, basement renovations are *very* expensive

flightsim anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the ultimate flight simulator.... I wonder if flightgear can drive this?

24 girls, 12 cups?

[DeskLazer]

thanks but no thanks!

Simultaneous blog monitoring

[QuincyDurant]

Back in the day, political spin doctors and crisis managers kept three televisions going at all types to see how the networks were treating their candidate, cause, product, or company. Now that media is interactive and diffuse, 24 monitors doesn't seem like too many for a single spokesperson to use on a revolving office year to quite literally spin real-time news and comment.

revolving office chair not year

[QuincyDurant]

Oops. For some of us, even a single monitor is too many.

One Dozen picture frames?

[vlm]

Would this card drive one dozen monitors set up as digital picture frames?

I have a linux based file server in the basement that does not really do anything with its video output.

If I could hook up 12 picture frame monitors in various rooms of my house, that would be fun.

I don't want the extreme headache of manually updating 12 SDHC or CF cards. I don't want 12 individual stupid yearly subscriptions to some internet ripoff company that'll probably go out of business and make my investment obsolete the week after I buy them.

I just want to drop .jpgs into certain folders on my pre-existing file server and have the pictures randomly displayed thru the house, shuffling perhaps every 10 minutes. Also I'll have certain webcams periodically downloaded and added to the mix. And a cron job to display certain pictures at certain times, etc. A couple lines of perl, bash, and wget, thats what I'm talking about.

Re:One Dozen picture frames?

[Zerth]

How about 12 USB mini-monitors, with USB->network adapters.

A fair bit cheaper, unless you want 15"+ frames.

Re:One Dozen picture frames?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In principle? Sure. In practice, it would be unlikely to be economic. Your basic copper displayport connection is only specced for a 15 meter run, less if you need full bandwidth. Fiber is supported, for longer runs; but the price sheet for that is, as they say, Not In Kansas Anymore... Combine this with the fact that displayport monitors tend to command a modest premium over your basic VGA/DVI jobbies, and you end up in a situation where you would actually save money by buying 12 all-in-one PCs(or, if you don't mind small screens, a batch of the upcoming android tablets, or some higher-end digiframe that somebody has hacked linux onto), and just having them grab the pictures over a wireless network.

Unless you have a rather small house, and don't mind running wires, you'll definitely spend more on displayport cable extenders than you will on all that redundant computing power. Economies of scale...

Re:One Dozen picture frames?

[vlm]

Didn't even know those existed, googled, was surprised.

Being a cheap bastard I'd have problems paying twice as much for a 7 inch monitor as I currently pay for a 20 inch monitor.

And all the ads mention windoze/mac compatibility, the exact two OS choices that I would never use on my fileserver.

Re:One Dozen picture frames?

[vlm]

Your basic copper displayport connection is only specced for a 15 meter run

I've had enough experience to know that historically most specs for non-cutting edge products are pretty bogus. I have run RS-232 for hundreds of feet at high speeds, done some things with Ethernet CAT-5 cable and wire nuts that I'm not entirely proud of, it works because the specs are designed so no matter how carelessly the cables are laid (wrapped around fluorescent fixtures, run thru the arc welding workshop, etc) the thing will work 99.99999% of the time to minimize product support calls. But I'm willing to "experiment" a bit, to push the envelope.

On the other hand it should be theoretically possible to design a port that will test cable capacitance or something and fail if it doesn't like it.

So, will displayport REALLY only work 15 M (which is, after all 45 feet!) or will it not? Maybe too new of a technology for anyone to really know.

Even if you toss 7 feet at each end of the cable for vertical runs (probably very pessimistic) a 15M cable could serve one floor on any wall of a square house that is 42 feet on a side, which is some 1764 square feet. If you're willing to limit yourself to the inside walls only, and assume McMansion style 20 foot rooms, that's a 9800 sq foot house... I'd hate to live in a place like that, but at least my displayport cables would work.

Re:One Dozen picture frames?

[Anonymous Coward]

This uses DisplayPort, so

a) Maximum cable length of 3m (~10ft) from PC to display
b) Maximum length of 15m (~45ft) for reduced bandwidth
c) I don't think anyone does this in plenum grade (not that you probably care about anything like fire codes)
d) Wi-Fi Picture Frames tend to start at $150 or so. 12 - 24 monitors, plus pc, plus this very specialized card, plus cabling? No way you'll approach $150 per endpoint.

I think someone just told you about a new hammer drill and you're wondering if it can be used instead of your mom's shoe for hanging pictures...

Re:One Dozen picture frames?

[evilviper]

I don't want the extreme headache of manually updating 12 SDHC or CF cards. I don't want 12 individual stupid yearly subscriptions to some internet ripoff company that'll probably go out of business and make my investment obsolete the week after I buy them.

Well, since a 1GB digital picture frame goes for $60, which doesn't require a fancy video card, and can be updated via USB, I'd say you've got an unnecessarily expensive idea there...

Now, USB has a strict 5 meter distance limit, but there are some devices that claim to extend that out substantially, though I recommend testing carefully.

Re:One Dozen picture frames?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Kodak WiFi frames let you get your pictures from any old RSS feed so you don't have to get any stupid yearly subscriptions from anyone.
Like the ones from Flikr or Picasa.

Re:One Dozen picture frames?

[kenh]

Really, you want to run VGA/DVI cables around your house instead?

Haven't you heard of converting older laptops into picture frames? I have to believe there are WiFi-enabled picture frames out there...

Re:One Dozen picture frames?

[Zerth]

Where do you get 20 inch monitors for $50?

Or, alternatively, wherever you are seeing 7 inch monitors for more than $100-ish, stay away... Well, unless they have touch.

While the ones I know of don't support linux directly, linux supports the ones built on DisplayLink controllers.

Re:One Dozen picture frames?

[RAMMS EIN]

Alright, so do you have links to those cheap USB monitors you are talking about? I seem to have trouble finding them.

Re:One Dozen picture frames?

[vlm]

Really, you want to run VGA/DVI cables around your house instead?

I'm going to have to run AC to each frame anyway, since I'm not going to have extension cords dangling everywhere, so may as well run some VGA. Pulling cables is one of those things that people whom don't know how think is some sort of unlearnable gift, but once you know how, it's merely a grimy filthy task.

Haven't you heard of converting older laptops into picture frames?

Yes and being the handy guy that I am I could do it easily, but I'm not too comfortable hanging that on the wall, each one is extremely bulky heavy and full of moving parts hard drives and cooling fans. Its possible to invest "tens of dollars" and "a hundred hours" each, but my lifestyle at this time is a bit better oriented toward "a hundred dollars" and minutes of cable pulling for each. And with my luck, the week after I finish, the screen backlight will finally wear out, or the kids will knock it off the wall, and I get to start all over again.

I have to believe there are WiFi-enabled picture frames out there...

Yes, they do, and that is the aforementioned insane subscription model. You should see some of the knee slapping BS in the marketing material for those devices. We are to believe that in this era of multicore GHZ class CPUs, a hundred MHZ CPU could never handle the processing involved in displaying a VGA class picture on a screen, so they need to stick their heads in as middle men and collect a substantial monthly fee, despite my real world experience viewing VGA pictures on a XT class 8 MHZ computer in the 80s.

Re:One Dozen picture frames?

[sam0737]

Get a Wifi enabled picture frame is more easy to route the VGA/DVI/Display port cables for more than a few meters/feets long, * 12 times.

Re:One Dozen picture frames?

[toddestan]

Thinkgeek has them: http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/usb-gadgets/c609/

What brand of thin client?

[tepples]

But its a whole lot cheaper to buy cheap-as-free hardware

I'm not familiar with "cheap-as-free", or how the first result from Google relates to computer hardware. Are you talking about buying broken PCs and seeing what you can salvage? That's not cheap as free; that's labor-intensive.

If this card fails you are out ~$600 with no salvageable parts (even on a totally broken motherboard you can usually salvage a HDD, any PCI cards and optical drives) and multiple workstations down.

That's why you buy either the extended replacement plan (for home use) or a spare card (for school or Internet cafe use), and you put in a 2-monitor video card to regain the use of two workstations until your replacement comes in the mail.

Really, thin clients are the way to go

What brand of thin client do you recommend? I tried an NComputing thin client box; Flash video was a smurfing slideshow. I imagine that anything using OpenGL or DirectX graphics would go slideshow as well. But the card in the article is a Radeon.

Re:What brand of thin client?

[Changa_MC]

what ncomputing client did you use? the L300 and x550 are the only ones I've used, and the first ones that list support for full-screen video.

Possible inspiration

[jamie]

reminds me of the onion

i have two of these 26" suckers:

[circletimessquare]

http://www.newegg.com/product/product.aspx?item=N82E16824255011

each is 1920x1200

i put one in landscape mode, then i bought an articulating monitor arm, and i put the other one in portrait mode. the setup looks schizophrenic, but listen up folks:

browsing the internet on a 16:9 monitor in portrait mode is a dream

try it some day. you capture so much of a webpage you are usually peering at through a slit you are constantly scrolling through with lots of unused screen real estate on either side

as a web developer, it helps too, believe me: the landscape mode screen for code/ packet inspection/ debugging/ email, etc... the other screen for a really good 10,000 foot overview of what you are actually putting up in the browser in terms of page layout

trust me folks: get a 16:9 monitor and put it in portrait mode if you browse a lot on the internet. it is about as good as it gets in terms of ui experience

Re:i have two of these 26" suckers:

[FatRichie]

This is EXACTLY what I've wanted to do for a long time! I can't justify the cost of nice LCDs right now while I've got a pile of CRTs to use. But someday... someday!!!

Re:i have two of these 26" suckers:

[Michael Kristopeit]

or get a 4:3 monitor and put it in landscape mode and have everything you've described, and 33% more width.

the aspect ratio doesn't matter nearly as much as diagonal screen size and resolution.

Re:i have two of these 26" suckers:

[Michael Kristopeit]

...get a 4:3 monitor and put it in portrait mode....

Re:i have two of these 26" suckers:

[toastar]

Pfft... 26"

IMQHO Nothing Beats 2-3 30"s Sure it might take up a bit of desk space, But you get 8-12million pixels. To get the same number of pixels on your 26" you literally need twice as many Screens.

Re:i have two of these 26" suckers:

[schon]

Gotta say I agree - I did the same thing - only except I bought one with a swivel, so I don't need an articulating arm. :)

It took a few hourst getting the display set up correctly.. most software (including xrandr and nvidia's twinview) expect that you have all monitors set to the same orientation. Xinerama to the rescue :)

Re:i have two of these 26" suckers:

[Anonymous Coward]

I've done this as well when working with code. A widescreen display in portrait mode for your code is much easier to read and go through.

Re:i have two of these 26" suckers:

[NervousWreck]

Done that with a spare 17". Aspect ratio isn't quite as good on mine and the display itself isn't that great, but I can imagine.

Re:i have two of these 26" suckers:

[Golddess]

and have everything you've described

A quick check of Newegg shows only a single 4:3 monitor that would have more than a 1600 pixel height in such a configuration, and it costs over 3 grand.

Re:i have two of these 26" suckers:

[Michael Kristopeit]

you get what you pay for... but right now it does look like the market is arbitrarily pushing the 16:9 format.

Re:i have two of these 26" suckers:

[OrangeCatholic]

Go outside and look at the horizon. There's 360 degrees horizontal, all of which are potentially interesting. And only 90 degrees up. Of those, probably only 10-20 degrees have any content, the rest is sky. Even if you're smack-dab in front of a house, probably still only 45 degrees.

That's why monitors got wider, theoretically.

In a practical sense, it's easier to make film wider than taller, since making it taller increases the length of the roll. But again, that's a happy convergence with the horizon thing. If a filmmaker did in fact need a taller image, they could simply flip the camera on its side, but interestingly, nobody has ever decided to do a whole film in portrait mode.

If you don't have time to go outside, watch Lawrence of Arabia and you'll see what I mean.

Re:i have two of these 26" suckers:

[Anonymous Coward]

if you've never taken the time, or been given the opportunity to view the nude female form, you'll notice it is usually more than 5 times taller than it is wide.

Re:i have two of these 26" suckers:

[OrangeCatholic]

>browsing the internet on a 16:9 monitor in portrait mode is a dream

Great point. I'll have to try it. Right now (in landscape mode), the only comments I can read are yours and half of my textarea. In a discussion with 200+ comments....my $500 monitor shows me ONE LOL.

Re:i have two of these 26" suckers:

[paulej72]

Not when she is lying down.

Re:i have two of these 26" suckers:

[Phroggy]

HELL YES. I've been doing this at work - dual 22" LCDs, the main one in landscape mode and the second one in portrait mode. I can drag things between them depending on what I'm working on and what size works better.

Re:i have two of these 26" suckers:

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly, and this counter argument balancing act affecting aspect ratio standards is obviously leading us towards the golden rectangle. it's only a matter of time.

Re:i have two of these 26" suckers:

[jonbryce]

That's fine for pictures. You want as much picture in your field of vision as possible, and that means widescreen. However for text, you don't want the lines too long, because then it is difficult to find the beginning of the next line. So you want tall narrow columns.

Re:i have two of these 26" suckers:

[rcpitt]

Sometimes being able to extend a log file across all 4 monitors is the only way to really see what is happening - and even then some log lines end up wrapping.

Displayport is a pain in the ass

[billcopc]

I have a few beefs (beeves?) about this product:

1. Displayport is a pain in the ass, with its use of active vs passive adapters, both of which are still hard to find and confusing to the average consumer. Few displays ship with Displayport, and of those few, hardly any ship with a suitable cable, instead relying on HDMI or DVI. The cable isn't cheap.

2. Why did they spread to a 3rd slot ? Couldn't they have placed all 12 connectors in a single row, rotated 90 degrees ? Or at least split them off to a breakout cable. Motherboards are designed for double-wide cards, as they usually gap the two PCI-E 16x slots with a relatively puny 4x slot. A 3-slot card means no SLI/Crossfire in all but the most ridiculous boards e.g. Asus P6T6.

3. Everyone talks about LCD bezels getting thinner, but the average monitor is still a big clunky mess. Considering the exorbitant costs involved, and the fact that you still have bezels at least 1/2", I think the typical spendy gamer would be better served by a large LCD or Plasma TV. Sure, you will get better resolution out of 6 displays, but is 5760x2160 really worth the extra $3000 it will cost to pull off ?

4. Generally, the people who actually need (not just want) display matrices are those who couldn't care less about gaming performance. This is where Matrox comes in, because their GPUs suck but they are firmly entrenched in the pro multi-display market. Their M9188 card supports 8 displays on a single-slot card. Sure, it costs something like $2000, but if you're in the type of work that requires 8 displays (or 16), money is no object.

5. At some point, you need to consider the ratio of CPU/GPU to displays. At one point I had 7 displays, but they were fed via 3 PCs, linked together using Synergy. As a coder, it's really no big issue to have my IDE on one machine, my browser on a second, and a test environment (read: pr0n) on another. It's not like I'm going to maximize one window across 7 screens (not even pr0n).

So yeah, I think this product is a dead-end promo gimmick, as is most of the stuff at Computex. Just a bunch of tech firms showing off for bragging rights.

Re:Displayport is a pain in the ass

[t35t0r]

it's not meant for the average consumer. But there are big corporations/firms/universities who would love to have this card.

Re:Displayport is a pain in the ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Dell monitors have DisplayPort, and the one I bought (the 30") came with the DisplayPort cable in the box.

I recently bought a HD 5770, and I plugged the Dell into the DisplayPort, and two other monitors into the two DVI ports, yielding a very useful 3 monitor setup. No, a TV would NOT do as good a job.

I have been using multi-monitor setups since the time I had a monochrome adapter for one and an EGA for the other (the monochrome was very useful for running SoftICE). I've only used up to 4 monitors at a time so far, but I'd certainly consider using 6 (and ATI already released a 6 port card). 12? Not sure I'd have a lot of use for it, but I can see it displacing some Matrox cards, purely because it uses standard drivers, rather than Matrox's (I've had considerable pain with Matrox drivers in the past). The fact that it is considerably cheaper than Matrox is a bonus. The fact that it doesn't use some stupid specialised cable (like the Matrox low-profile card Y connectors to dual VGA or dual DVI) is another bonus - using standard cables is good.

Bezels are generally not a problem, because I don't often spread one window across multiple monitors - it's very useful to have e-mail maximised on one monitor, IDE on another, program under test in another - I really like the fact that both Windows and Mac will maximise a window to the size of the monitor it is on.

Given that I'm running a multi-core CPU, and some of the monitors are displaying low-bandwidth information (like e-mail), I have no lack of CPU speed.

Re:Displayport is a pain in the ass

[tuxicle]

Generally, the people who actually need (not just want) display matrices are those who couldn't care less about gaming performance.

I disagree. There are lots of CAD users who would like additional monitors, and most CAD software these days can take advantage of GPUs for accelerated rendering. For example, I use Altium Designer, a PCB design program. The main layout part uses DirectX rendering for speed, and the board layout can be switched to 3D to examine mechanical layouts etc. A second monitor helps in that you can have both board layout as well as schematic up at the same time.

Re:Displayport is a pain in the ass

[billcopc]

Sure it uses GPU acceleration, but how much 3D performance is "enough" ? These cards are designed to push over a billion textured polygons per second with little regard for accuracy - speed is king in the gaming arena. It just seems like a very mismatched feature set and I can't picture a professional user wanting this noisy game card.

Please start working on SR-IOV

[Anonymous Coward]

If this card had SR-IOV, 12 virtual machines could has native graphics and displays on a single workstation. Add 12 USB hubs and you have your classroom. You can even make it a beowulf just to be cool.

Why am I thinking of

[TheDarkener]

2 girls one cup? 1 girl, 12 cups? 12 monitors, 2 girls, a USB hub and a can of whipped cream?

I need to stop smoking so much pot.

Good for traders

[InsertWittyNameHere]

When I look out my office window (I know "OMG HE HAS WINDOW!") I see into the office of some stock traders and they each have 8 monitors (2 rows of 4).

Guys like them are probably the target audience. Also places like Network Operation Centers usually have a lot of screens displaying various maps, graphs, charts, etc

youtube: xplane on 24 monitors on ubuntu

[t35t0r]

xplane on 24 monitors on ubuntu out of one box, but I think this was using 4 of the 6 output eyefinity cards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6Vf8R_gOec

Assuming that the 6 output cards use 2 card slot spaces each, then you'd have 8 used. It looks like this HD5970 uses 3 slots so you could still only get two of these cards into that same system. If you could get one more rear slot to be available you might be able to fit 3 of these cards into one machine and you'd get a 36 monitor output (each monitor at 1920x1200). You could have a 9 (*1920) wide by 4 monitors high (* 1200), which is about 79.1 megapixels . Or you could do a 6 x 6 .

yours may be bigger than mine

[circletimessquare]

but mine is vertical and erect while yours is horizontal and flaccid

so my equipment is superior, at least that's what your mom and your girlfriend always tell me

Re:yours may be bigger than mine

[Anonymous Coward]

damn, how embarrassing - i forgot to click on Post Anonymously

Re:yours may be bigger than mine

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont worry, your atrocious lack of capitals gives you away everytime anyway.

Holodeck?

[Caviller]

Actually...12 ports is the perfect number for a stereoscoptic cube. A single card that can do that has never been seen until today. We might finally be getting to the GPU power levels needed for a mostly realistic, true 3D environment, and all of that out of just a single machine instead of the many machines needed now. That my friends is progress!

WarGames

[HTH NE1]

Or one row of five large 4:3 displays and a second row of six smaller 4:3 displays and one 2:1 display, and you'd have the perfect setup to monitor the world's nuclear arsenal while also cracking 10-character launch codes and playing tic-tac-toe.

Re:SGI?

[dwater]

well, sgi's old dg5-8 could do 8 monitors, but you could have 16 per machine.

price...er...yeah...ok...

12 At Once

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd need 10 more to keep up with this guy (in the second row).

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/files/2008/01/capt.d794d60e50934a459f887af2202e3c01.germany_markets_xhd106.jpg

Can You Install Twelve?

[ArundelCastle]

Twelve video cards with twelve ports? That's just gross.

My God!

[Torodung]

That's the second biggest video card I've ever seen.

(and no, I'm not kidding)

--
Toro

Re:My God!

[Khyber]

The ones in the PS/2 IBM servers were bigger than that, my friend.

With an astonishing 256KB of RAM.

Sharp 60" with 2.4/4.1mm bezel.

[eddy]

They're making progress. Sharp is coming out with a 60" LCD with bezel widths of 2.4 mm and 4.1 mm (with video). Still room for improvement.

And oh, I'll take three :-\

Re:Sharp 60" with 2.4/4.1mm bezel.

[toddestan]

Ugh, 1,366 x 768 pixels on a 60" monitor? At that point your pixels are almost a square mm. Make one with a decent DPI, say 150 PPI and all I would need is one monitor.

Yes, I know that's not what the screen is for.

Lack of imagination

[slim]

Everyone's thinking about desktops; maybe that's not the target market.

Think info displays in railway stations etc.
Think multimedia displays in bars and clubs.
Think art installations.
Think information status displays for monitoring.
Think information radiators for agile dev teams.

There's all kinds of situations where it is very useful to drive lots and lots of monitors from one machine.

What about...

[TheBilgeRat]

a Beowulf cluster of THOSE jobbies....

NComputing no less expensive than nettop

[tepples]

what ncomputing client did you use?

It was an L230. At that price, we could have gone with an ION nettop PC, and that's what we did after that debacle.

Re:NComputing no less expensive than nettop

[Changa_MC]

You ran explicitly unsupported software then.

And a nettop runs windows, which makes it another point of failure. The L series primarily saves on support, since all software deployment is on the server, and all hardware is on-the-fly swappable. 2 redundant servers replacing 20 workstations means zero downtime for about the same cost.

I said elsewhere we use x550s, that's where you save money.

Been there done that. Yes, it's awesome.

[pigeon768]

Consumer, singular, or consumers, plural? If mainstream operating systems didn't have a problem recognizing multiple keyboards and mice and separating their input, then one could share a desktop computer among multiple users that way. Then a personal computer could become a family computer,* and school computer labs could get away with using less hardware.

Are you suggesting Linux is not a mainstream operating system? It's had support for this since 2001. Schools in Brazil do exactly that. I run such a configuration at home. One keyboard/mouse on my couch, video plugged into my TV, and a keyboard/video/mouse in the bedroom. I can play eve online while my hypothetical girlfriend watches charmed on mythtv.

If you are suggesting that linux is not mainstream, why not just say Windows instead of "mainstream operating systems"?

Mac OS X is far more mainstream than Linux

[tepples]

If you are suggesting that linux is not mainstream, why not just say Windows instead of "mainstream operating systems"?

Because I was trying to cover both Windows and Mac OS X, not just Windows.

ATI? No Thanks.

[Bigbutt]

With their driver issues, they could have the super best card in the land and it won't make any difference since the drivers suck so badly you have to upgrade them constantly until you get a (hopefully) semi-stable release (it only boots once in a while now).

[John]

Re:ATI? No Thanks.

[springbox]

What driver issues? Maybe you're thinking of the pre-AMD ATI. I heard all sorts of scary stories before buying a HD 5770, but I haven't had any problems with it. The performance is quite good too.

Don't need 26"

[Benfea]

I have a 23" 1920x1080 set on a $50 pivot mount, and I can indeed verify that message boards, articles, and other text-heavy pages look great in a vertical orientation.

Utility indeed doubtful

[complacence]

you capture so much of a webpage you are usually peering at through a slit you are constantly scrolling through with lots of unused screen real estate on either side

Your eyes are aligned horizontally. Your vertical FOV angle is limited. With your 9:16 setup you have to actually move your eyes up and down. With a 16:9 setup you can keep looking at the same "slit" (hurr hurr) while you scroll the content past it.

Seems to me the only advantage your setup has is that you can get a better overview of a long page. But you couldn't read any of it because, to take it all in, you'd have to move too far away to read any.

Re:Utility indeed doubtful

[realityimpaired]

It's also worth pointing out that with most 16:9 screens, the resolution on the display is enough that you can actually have multiple windows side-by-side. I used it a lot in university... I'd tile the windows horizontally, and would have whatever I was reading on one side, whatever I was writing on the other. Even now as I type this reply, I have my web browser tiled on the right, with my e-mail tiled on the left. Half of a 1920x1080 screen is plenty of pixels for reading a site like Slashdot, and I can easily multi-task.

I do agree that it's a question of having enough pixels to actually accomplish work. But most humans don't really have the processing power between their ears to focus on more than one or two tasks at a time, and a single high resolution display is enough for that, IMO. Operating a multi-screen multi-desktop environment made a lot more sense when you were stuck with a 640x480 workspace, but these days not so much. :) Outside of specialized work or display, I think it's really more trouble (and cost) than it's worth for most computer users. And no, I don't think that writing a research paper or coding/testing output are such specialized tasks.

Re:Utility indeed doubtful

[nospam007]

Most modern electronic railway dispatch systems L90 use tons of monitors and would use more if they could.

http://www.bahnhof-muehltal.de/images/estw.jpg

Re:Utility indeed doubtful

[OrangeCatholic]

See my comment 1280x1024 two displays nine virtuals total area 7680x3072 = 23.6 megapixel ten years ago on a single 32mb video card.

That was for coding.

Right now I have (basically) one monitor and no virtuals. I have 7 tabs open on Chrome. To look at a different web page, I have to move my mouse all the way to the top of the screen.

With more displays (physical or virtual) I could look at any of them with no movement, immediately. I just don't think you realize it can be faster.

Re:Utility indeed doubtful

[BKX]

While you may have a point with the eye alignment, I still have to second the GP. I currently use three monitors (Radeon HD5770 ftw), one 4:3 19" and two 16:9 23"ers, one in portrait and one in landscape. The portrait is far superior for website reading. The main problem with landscape reading on a widescreen monitor is the width of the lines. Your head actually has to move sideways. And you're always scrolling. With a portrait widescreen, you rarely scroll and the lines are short enough for efficient reading. To combat the effects of having to sit far back to use all three monitors, I use 120dpi instead of 96dpi. World of difference.

Re:Utility indeed doubtful

[Anonymous Coward]

To look at a different web page, I have to move my mouse all the way to the top of the screen.

That what keyboard shortcuts are for, specifically Ctrl-PgUp/Ctrl-PgDn or Ctrl-1..9

Coolness Factor for the Budding Evil Genius

[cdavidneely]

As a budding evil genius I can definitely see a use for this. Screens to monitor my growing army of robotic servants. Screens to monitor my outside and inside security. A good view from the robotic fly I sent to investigate my enemies business. Beside the fact that this has a really high evil genius coolness factor of being the center of an electronic universe just like I am the center of the real universe. Borderline Narcissist. I'll show you just how borderline my Narcissism is my dear therapist.

Beware of cooling side effects

[MaunaLoa]

Be sure to factor in the thrust generated by the extremely powerful cooling fan - you wouldn't want your box taking off...

Half way there...

[CYDVicious]

There's lots of arguments for using multiple monitors, for the past 4 years I've had upto 7monitors at one point and have scaled back to 5. It really is all about screen real estate. As a developer, the more monitors I have, the easier it becomes to be productive at multitasking.

Working as an e-commerce developer, this is how I typically manage the monitors.
One monitor dedicated to email.
One monitor shared between Tailing log files and file manager, I find it's easiest to share if both windows have maximized height, but 90% width, and one aligned to the left of the screen the other to the right, so I can easily "select" between the two, at the same time not requiring any additional actions to bring one window forwards.
One monitor dedicated for a browser, usually front and center
One monitor dedicated for the code editor of choice
Finally one monitor to collect misc items, which may include IM client, emails I am composing, music player, perhaps even another browser for compatibility or for coding reference. This monitor is usually on the far end of the setup of monitors.

Here's a shot of my current setup: http://twitpic.com/1uv28l

The stacked monitor is on a different machine than the other 5.

~CYD

Terminal Services Client Access License pricing

[tepples]

You ran explicitly unsupported software then.

I understand, but the problem is that too much software that people expect to be supported is unsupported, or at least it was back when L230 was top of the line.

I said elsewhere we use x550s, that's where you save money.

If you can keep all workstations within 30 feet of a full-size desktop PC with a PCI slot. (Do new computers still have PCI slots, or is it all PCIe now?) Now I realize that in a school computer lab or Internet cafe, the range limitation is not a problem. But it was a problem where I tried them, which is why we used the L series and perhaps why I forgot about the X series. Besides, you will still need a Windows TS or RDS CAL for each workstation that runs even one app that is not ported to Linux, and at $150 each, the licenses alone almost as expensive as a nettop.

Re:Terminal Services Client Access License pricing

[Changa_MC]

Ah, that's a big difference. In your situation I take it all back, nettops are a better bet. Especially since Microsoft is basically giving XP away to keep linux off them.

We're academic, so Microsoft charges us $6 per device, plus $17.50 per user, plus $88.50 per server. A total of $558.50 for 20 users.

A business would pay $40 per device, $149 per user, plus $1024 per server. That's $4044 for 20 users.

And if you have uniform hardware with user data stored centrally, the administration headaches will be trivially worse or the same as L300s.

Multi-card support broken in Linux

[echusarcana]

Except multi-card support is broken in the X server at the moment for all major distros, so having many outputs on a single cards is actually quite useful. You'll be very lucky to get two identical cards working on Ubuntu or SUSE right now no matter what drivers you use.

Many applications need numerous displays off of a single computer where remote X usage will not suffice. Think control rooms, large installations, classrooms, etc.

I think I speak for all of us when I say...

[frank_adrian314159]

To hell with the stupid looking card, where the hell are the pix of the "pretty lady Tia" mentioned in the article? I call shenanigans...

ever read a newspaper?

[circletimessquare]

look at the dimensions. that's not random

there's visual utility in a tall vertical monitor. maybe it somehow flows with how the mind organizes visua information, but there's something definitely to it

so don't talk in hypotheticals, just try a 16:9 in portrait mode, you'll see, it just feels better

Re:ever read a newspaper?

[complacence]

I was envious. ;)

Choose a more descriptive subject line next time

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a better subject for your message: "One problem: bezel width" Reading that, I bet 70% of Slashdot readers would get your point, without even reading the body of your message. Show some respect for your readers.

Finally...

[gov_coder]

A suitable wall-covering for my man-cave. If only I could afford the inevitable divorce that would stem from spending thousands of dollars on the stuff.

just for the record

[circletimessquare]

i have been posting on slashdot for years, a couple times a week at least, hundreds, maybe thousands of comments, and never once have i posted anonymously

i simply don't see the need. i'm not ashamed of anything i say

maybe in retrospect i've said something embarrassing, but at the time of posting, it's my personality to just blurt it out. i've never really been embarrassed about anything i want to say. maybe i lack shame. but there's very little to be ashamed about here, so what's the big deal?

what i am saying is: i don't even understand why anyone would ever want post anything anonymously. its an alien concept to my personality

Interesting..

[phylevn]

Interesting for security solutions..