Look again. It's looks more like a new MO-style cartridge. It has a built in BIOS chip which will prevent copying. Now, while I'll agree that it's round and shiny, they aren't *that* similar.
What can you do with the 24 hour notice, that you should not have already done?
Well, the big thing would have to be page optimization. Now while cleaner HTML, images, etc. are part of this and really should be done regularly, it also can come down to the early removal of video clips and downloads, better descriptions of images and smaller thumbnails.
24 hours would also give you time to set up a redirection system - say just an HTTP Auto-Refresh to another server with a better cost per transfered GB in large numbers or just better reliability. Not a domain name movement or a new pipe, but a redirect. Hell, set up a system where a university or something helps.
24 hours would also give one time to decide on a shutoff point - the point at which one cannot afford any more bandwidth. If I find out that I can only really afford 10GB over a two day span, then so be it. I can make sure my provider will cut me off instead of keep racking it up.
24 hours is also nice for ADDING info - it would give you time to add further test results or put up that bit of source code that EVERYONE will want.
This is very bad. When I was in school, my site (NDNet - http://ndnet.hypermart.net) was doing well and I worked on it often. Some jerk decides to spread rumors that it's porn (this is middle school, so there are too many idiots to find the culprit from) and it gets blocked by the school. Nothing I could do could get the sysadmin to unblock it.
At least it told me that it was blocked and who blocked it. This will probably just appear to be a 404 or a downed server - if an ISP were to say "in accordance with PA law, this site is forfeit", it could be construed as releasing the list. You break the law to find out that a site is blocked, but if you own a site that could reasonably deserve being blocked you *aren't* breaking the law (well, at least not the PA state law.)
As a Pennsylvanian, my 'net is now compromised, and only now am I of voting age. DAMN!!!
Um, I'm sorry, but that's a bit off. On my Celeron 566, when it only had a voodoo 3 and 128MB ram, both GBA and PSX games (that I own legally, my brothers own the systems and I maintain backups) ran beautifully. After some more upgrades (384MB ram, GF2MXPCI64MB, WinXP) it's sweet.
Now, while this system may not have all that hardware, it also isn't dealing with windows. Also, there need not be repeated compatibility fixes (if the code works on a GP32, it'll work on any GP32). So while I'm not saying it's probable, it's possible.
If anything, only having 8MB (or Mb?) of RAM would be the real limit, unless an emulator that ran the rom straight of the SM card could be made, but in that case SmartMedia becomes a roadblock to deal with.
As for emulators never being as good as the real thing, I gotta disagree. It may seem cheap, but the ability to save states and bigger/better/higher res screens always are nice, and on a PC controllers are cheap and often rumble or are wireless.
With the advent of HDTV, with truly decent resolution, everything that needs a screen will go to one box.
Think about it. The Dreamcast had the ability, with a simple box, to output VGA. TV tuners make cable/antenna TV on your PC viable. On the other hand, WebTV and Tivo have interfaces that would benefit from HDTV resolution.
What we really need is a ETHERNET-STYLE Video bus. Choose a device (no matter what room), choose a screen, and go.
This should not be implemented for a couple of reasons. First off, as many have noted, discussions will be half full when unpaid users gain access.
Second, moderation will become worthless. A Future post has the advantage of more time to be moderated, so it will have a bit of a bonus - maybe only a point or two, but enough that moderation becomes (more) unequal.
Third, while this could be seen as political, if a majority of the paid users vocally agree with one postition on an article, then the entire thread can be bent toward it. If Paid users like position A and have 20 minutes to toss in a bunch of posts about it, then suddenly position B seems to be a silent minority and must prove their point against an established position.
I don't like the idea of future links either. It allows people to set up their arguement already, and it will eventually just cause a site to be slashdotted before the unwashed masses even get the link - Pre-cog Slashdotting, anyone?
Technically, isn't the Windows registry in more than one file? Under XP, my user folder (under Documents and Settings) has NTUSER.DAT. I'm not sure where the remainder is under XP, but NTUSER is only 2.5MB - because I believe it only contains HKEY_CURRENT_USER.
That said, XP should make a backup of the registry AUTOMATICALLY. I lost a perfectly good Win2K installation because of a corrupt registry hive. A second and even third copy, updated at shutdown (face it, it wouldn't add much time and most PCs shut off themselves unless you go to the trouble disabling ACPI) would be a smart idea.
Why, oh why did they post this?
on
Server In A Fly
·
· Score: 1
It's an impressive little thing, I agree, but we're SLASHDOTTING IT!!!
It's either going to be reanimated as a plain old zombie fly or, due to excess heat, etc. from the chip, mutate into some sort of Zombie Flyzilla!
Maybe that isn't so bad. Toss in 802.11b hardware and some other guts - broadband wireless access for all!
Couldn't this also be used for some unsavory applications? Such as: making sure you read your printed EULA, tracking paper files through a building, etc.
This would also encourage companies to lay low with limited production for 2 years and then BLAM!! full scale legitimate infringement.
That's what happens when a patent expires anyway, but it isn't my point. I should have worded my argument more like:
If there is a significant commercial or publicly personal use of a patented innovation, the patent holder has X days to respond to it.
The goal is to prevent companies like SBC from sitting on this type of patent. Given a longer patent term, this approach would be ok, but on UI patents it is important for easy reevaluation - for example, if Apple had held a strong patent on handheld handwriting recognition, and then Palm, making a similar product, came along *years* later after Apple had stopped developing handwriting recognition products, then Palm should have the right to question Apple's suitability to holding a patent on it. Or even if this Apple was still developing it, it could be argued that it should be diluted - Apple had been given an oppotunity (measured in years) to profit from the innovation, and now ubiquitious, whether in need or in use of a patented technique/tehcnology/etc. This isn't an exact guide to what I would hope patent law to be - like I said, both the numbers and the terms aren't set in stone - but they are ideas. Hmm, I wonder if my ideas for patent reform are patentable - then, I can offer the government free use of it, bringing attention to the situation.;)
Problems would result in establishing a bright line around what exactly constitutes a "similar software patent".
can't patent a process that is argued "unique" by simply automating an old manual process onto a computer)
Didn't you just answer your own question? I'm only arguing that even the most radical UI/software innovations should not be given a standard patent.
Not always true. [haledorr.com]
Yes, but even the end of that piece points out severe flaws. It limits most forms of arguing against a patent (most prior art, most legal manuevers, etc.). And, it can STREGTHEN some patents. There is no way that this, for example, could hit the 1-Click patent Amazon holds - prior art is not patents and not a printed publication, it's all digital real-world examples, which are hard to argue existed at that point even in a typical case. While it may be deemed obvious, it may not.
This is truly an unacceptable situation. Many posts I've seen call for IP reform, and I think that it needs to be specific, as in:
1) If you do not enforce a patent against a certain infringement within two years, you lose the right to enforce it. If you don't LEARN about it until that point, well, tough.
2) Current User-Interface patents and similar software patents are released into the public domain two years after application, and new ones will be denied patent protection. Between junk like Amazon's 1-Click and this mess, we need to stop this type of patent.
3) In liu of this, a new type of UI/Software algorithm protection needs to be established with reasonably high entry guidelines - industry/community review, intense prior art search, reasonable announcement, significant achievement, etc. These would not have a preset term - this would be decided on with the application, with NO recommendation by the person applying. This would prevent 'hyperlink' patents but would secure important developments, like the predictive text input system on slashdot a month or two ago and other INNOVATIONS.
It's nice to call for patent reform, but you need to say what you want. The numbers and specifics are arbitrary, but you get the idea.
Tell your congresscritter that you want patent reform and then they'll probably *lengthen* the terms.
Exactly. I set up a radio transmitter rig near a recent Super Bowl and good grief - you would think they would use the radio controlled football sparingly, but no - every single play!
Sadly, I have to work today especially because of this event, so I won't get the chance to see the Ads. Now, as soon as there is the standard internet archive up, just point me at it.
Really, there is nothing big here. This is a PR move that is meant to reduce the effect of those who want to see Microsoft source code.
By doing this, they don't appease the people who read Slashdot and know C++. They appease John Doe who only heard about source code from the antitrust trial. By saying that some government organizations can view the code, they can ensure that the opening of source code will not be an issue for some time.
It seems as if Microsoft is getting ready for another major expansion - with the trial dead, PR moves like these, and a bunch of new products in the wings (the video iPod-style media player, etc.), it's almost ready.
Where to begin.... I'll only deconstruct the SecurityFocus message.
First, the fact that these programs have exploits is no surprise, but one media clip (probably MPEG (maybe MP3)), since while Windows Media Player and WinAMP offer universal playback, do ALL of them? Could one file even hit exploits in all these programs?
Second, since each is likely to have a different vulnerability, the amount of worm data in a file would be a decent chunk. Wouldn't it be noticed?
Third, an NDA would state that there can be no mention of it until it is ACTIVATED and USED. Now, Ad-aware-style programs will pop up to clean it if it exists.
Fourth, how many files would this have to be to get 95% of P2P users? The only way it could is by infecting every file you share, but SOMEBODY would have to notice that, whether the file size changes or some A/V data is thrown out.
Also, the idea of "specially formatted P2P requests" to inform RIAA is laughable. Even if the P2P software itself were compromised, a firewall user could notice it. Furthermore, consider the average media collection - hundreds of MP3s. Considering it would have to send artist name and song name, the amount of data would be well over 1MB unless compressed, and even then on dialup users it would have to be staggered.
Also, what kind of backend would this take? Multiple servers, a huge internet connection. Considering how big the P2P networks are, wouldn't this have to be a massive monitoring system? There aren't that many locations with these resources INSTALLED, so finding the facility would not be hard.
And why mention you have a IDENTICAL worm that you use to build a DDOS NET? Simple. Get those who don't care about privacy too much kicked up about that.
Finally, this sounds very strangely like RIAA-induced hypnosis - here are a few lines which show that they probably are lying and not even working with RIAA, just agree with RIAA's ideas.
"victim" (not the
hard-working artists who p2p technology rapes, and the RIAA protects)
4) Don't fuck with the RIAA again, scriptkids.
Until we became RIAA contracters, the best they could do was to passively
monitor traffic. Our contributions to the RIAA have given them the power
to actively control the majority of hosts using these networks.
There are some spelling mistakes. There are factual holes that they cover with the claim of an NDA. In short, the probability of a hoax is about 98%.
Before the Radeon, ATI was barely hanging on with the 3D Rage Pro series and OEM partnerships (Dell shipped some, I have one).
Yet they came back with a card equal to what was actually ON the market at the time and at a decent cost. They seemed to have improved their drivers and, in short, became a major player.
I'm not saying that this card has any chance of shaking up the market in it's current form, but what could change between now and the release date? What if they up the clock speed, or the memory speed or amount? What if they mention it has Kyro-II style rendering which is VERY efficient? If I had an AGP slot, I wouldn't count it out yet.
As I've mentioned, whlie I'd love to, it isn't practical for at least 6 months.
I have only one ATX case. It's a small tower. Two 5.25 drive bays, one 3.5, 3 PCI slots and an AMR slot.
Now, if I get a new MOBO, this case is USELESS. Why? First, I'm hoping to get more slots, preferably an AGP slot for one thing.
Second, what are the chances that I can find one that WOULD fit?
Third, wouldn't the ports also be rearranged a bit?
I do plan on an overhaul someday soon, but right now it's impractical. I'm just asking in case it STAYS impractical.
Also, as another poster pointed out, PCI video cards are nice for second displays. Yeah, they make dual-head monitors, but then both displays share the same video card AND are typically not the most high-end chipsets. Also, if I buy a nice high-end card and then decide I'd like a second display, what then?
Hence, I consider PCI video cards still practical. And with PCI X as yet another poster mentioned, throughput will become high enough (1 GB/sec), not to help me now, but be reasonable in the future since most systems, if they have an AGP slot, have one, not two.
Then why would you be considering hundreds of dollars for a new video card when you can probably get a replacement motherboard for under $50?
Simple. First off, I don't need latest and greatest, and PCI IS usually cheaper. Second, A new mobo would need a new case, since I have a cheap IBM, and probably a new processor to replace my Celeron 566.
AGP exists for a reason...
I know. However, just because it exists doesn't mean absolute abandonment is necessary. Heck, a second screen on those single AGP-slot equipped systems could be done via PCI.
On a side note however, what is PCI (32 and 64 bit) throughput? If it's less than, say, 300MBPS, couldn't an external USB2 videocard be made? (I know USB2 is 480MBPS, I'm just leaving bandwidth for other devices.)
Slashdot Mirror
Look again. It's looks more like a new MO-style cartridge. It has a built in BIOS chip which will prevent copying. Now, while I'll agree that it's round and shiny, they aren't *that* similar.
What can you do with the 24 hour notice, that you should not have already done?
Well, the big thing would have to be page optimization. Now while cleaner HTML, images, etc. are part of this and really should be done regularly, it also can come down to the early removal of video clips and downloads, better descriptions of images and smaller thumbnails.
24 hours would also give you time to set up a redirection system - say just an HTTP Auto-Refresh to another server with a better cost per transfered GB in large numbers or just better reliability. Not a domain name movement or a new pipe, but a redirect. Hell, set up a system where a university or something helps.
24 hours would also give one time to decide on a shutoff point - the point at which one cannot afford any more bandwidth. If I find out that I can only really afford 10GB over a two day span, then so be it. I can make sure my provider will cut me off instead of keep racking it up.
24 hours is also nice for ADDING info - it would give you time to add further test results or put up that bit of source code that EVERYONE will want.
This is very bad. When I was in school, my site (NDNet - http://ndnet.hypermart.net) was doing well and I worked on it often. Some jerk decides to spread rumors that it's porn (this is middle school, so there are too many idiots to find the culprit from) and it gets blocked by the school. Nothing I could do could get the sysadmin to unblock it.
At least it told me that it was blocked and who blocked it. This will probably just appear to be a 404 or a downed server - if an ISP were to say "in accordance with PA law, this site is forfeit", it could be construed as releasing the list. You break the law to find out that a site is blocked, but if you own a site that could reasonably deserve being blocked you *aren't* breaking the law (well, at least not the PA state law.)
As a Pennsylvanian, my 'net is now compromised, and only now am I of voting age. DAMN!!!
Perhaps that explains why he's only nailed 423 sites.
On a side note, I'm a Pennsylvanian, so my internet is compromised. And NOW I'm of voting age. DAMN!
Um, I'm sorry, but that's a bit off. On my Celeron 566, when it only had a voodoo 3 and 128MB ram, both GBA and PSX games (that I own legally, my brothers own the systems and I maintain backups) ran beautifully. After some more upgrades (384MB ram, GF2MXPCI64MB, WinXP) it's sweet.
Now, while this system may not have all that hardware, it also isn't dealing with windows. Also, there need not be repeated compatibility fixes (if the code works on a GP32, it'll work on any GP32). So while I'm not saying it's probable, it's possible.
If anything, only having 8MB (or Mb?) of RAM would be the real limit, unless an emulator that ran the rom straight of the SM card could be made, but in that case SmartMedia becomes a roadblock to deal with. As for emulators never being as good as the real thing, I gotta disagree. It may seem cheap, but the ability to save states and bigger/better/higher res screens always are nice, and on a PC controllers are cheap and often rumble or are wireless.
With the advent of HDTV, with truly decent resolution, everything that needs a screen will go to one box.
Think about it. The Dreamcast had the ability, with a simple box, to output VGA. TV tuners make cable/antenna TV on your PC viable. On the other hand, WebTV and Tivo have interfaces that would benefit from HDTV resolution.
What we really need is a ETHERNET-STYLE Video bus. Choose a device (no matter what room), choose a screen, and go.
This should not be implemented for a couple of reasons. First off, as many have noted, discussions will be half full when unpaid users gain access.
Second, moderation will become worthless. A Future post has the advantage of more time to be moderated, so it will have a bit of a bonus - maybe only a point or two, but enough that moderation becomes (more) unequal.
Third, while this could be seen as political, if a majority of the paid users vocally agree with one postition on an article, then the entire thread can be bent toward it. If Paid users like position A and have 20 minutes to toss in a bunch of posts about it, then suddenly position B seems to be a silent minority and must prove their point against an established position.
I don't like the idea of future links either. It allows people to set up their arguement already, and it will eventually just cause a site to be slashdotted before the unwashed masses even get the link - Pre-cog Slashdotting, anyone?
Technically, isn't the Windows registry in more than one file? Under XP, my user folder (under Documents and Settings) has NTUSER.DAT. I'm not sure where the remainder is under XP, but NTUSER is only 2.5MB - because I believe it only contains HKEY_CURRENT_USER.
That said, XP should make a backup of the registry AUTOMATICALLY. I lost a perfectly good Win2K installation because of a corrupt registry hive. A second and even third copy, updated at shutdown (face it, it wouldn't add much time and most PCs shut off themselves unless you go to the trouble disabling ACPI) would be a smart idea.
It's an impressive little thing, I agree, but we're SLASHDOTTING IT!!!
It's either going to be reanimated as a plain old zombie fly or, due to excess heat, etc. from the chip, mutate into some sort of Zombie Flyzilla!
Maybe that isn't so bad. Toss in 802.11b hardware and some other guts - broadband wireless access for all!
I've never played D&D - doing so required friends (which I'm already out of the running) that liked the game.
Still, I did collect a large number of AD&D cards, though I lost those after some water damage.
I've played Baldur's Gate, and it's pretty decent, but how much better is an actual D&D game?
Couldn't this also be used for some unsavory applications? Such as: making sure you read your printed EULA, tracking paper files through a building, etc.
This would also encourage companies to lay low with limited production for 2 years and then BLAM!! full scale legitimate infringement. That's what happens when a patent expires anyway, but it isn't my point. I should have worded my argument more like:
;)
If there is a significant commercial or publicly personal use of a patented innovation, the patent holder has X days to respond to it.
The goal is to prevent companies like SBC from sitting on this type of patent. Given a longer patent term, this approach would be ok, but on UI patents it is important for easy reevaluation - for example, if Apple had held a strong patent on handheld handwriting recognition, and then Palm, making a similar product, came along *years* later after Apple had stopped developing handwriting recognition products, then Palm should have the right to question Apple's suitability to holding a patent on it. Or even if this Apple was still developing it, it could be argued that it should be diluted - Apple had been given an oppotunity (measured in years) to profit from the innovation, and now ubiquitious, whether in need or in use of a patented technique/tehcnology/etc. This isn't an exact guide to what I would hope patent law to be - like I said, both the numbers and the terms aren't set in stone - but they are ideas. Hmm, I wonder if my ideas for patent reform are patentable - then, I can offer the government free use of it, bringing attention to the situation.
Problems would result in establishing a bright line around what exactly constitutes a "similar software patent".
can't patent a process that is argued "unique" by simply automating an old manual process onto a computer)
Didn't you just answer your own question? I'm only arguing that even the most radical UI/software innovations should not be given a standard patent.
Not always true. [haledorr.com]
Yes, but even the end of that piece points out severe flaws. It limits most forms of arguing against a patent (most prior art, most legal manuevers, etc.). And, it can STREGTHEN some patents. There is no way that this, for example, could hit the 1-Click patent Amazon holds - prior art is not patents and not a printed publication, it's all digital real-world examples, which are hard to argue existed at that point even in a typical case. While it may be deemed obvious, it may not.
This is truly an unacceptable situation. Many posts I've seen call for IP reform, and I think that it needs to be specific, as in:
1) If you do not enforce a patent against a certain infringement within two years, you lose the right to enforce it. If you don't LEARN about it until that point, well, tough.
2) Current User-Interface patents and similar software patents are released into the public domain two years after application, and new ones will be denied patent protection. Between junk like Amazon's 1-Click and this mess, we need to stop this type of patent.
3) In liu of this, a new type of UI/Software algorithm protection needs to be established with reasonably high entry guidelines - industry/community review, intense prior art search, reasonable announcement, significant achievement, etc. These would not have a preset term - this would be decided on with the application, with NO recommendation by the person applying. This would prevent 'hyperlink' patents but would secure important developments, like the predictive text input system on slashdot a month or two ago and other INNOVATIONS.
It's nice to call for patent reform, but you need to say what you want. The numbers and specifics are arbitrary, but you get the idea.
Tell your congresscritter that you want patent reform and then they'll probably *lengthen* the terms.
Of, course, it was a transmitter as well, so I *played* a bit too. That's why the Steelers lost to the Cowboys.
Honestly, though, after that they upgraded it with 1024-bit encryption. Using more than one ball eacdh with it's own key, I can't touch it. Drat.
Exactly. I set up a radio transmitter rig near a recent Super Bowl and good grief - you would think they would use the radio controlled football sparingly, but no - every single play!
Sadly, I have to work today especially because of this event, so I won't get the chance to see the Ads. Now, as soon as there is the standard internet archive up, just point me at it.
Really, there is nothing big here. This is a PR move that is meant to reduce the effect of those who want to see Microsoft source code.
By doing this, they don't appease the people who read Slashdot and know C++. They appease John Doe who only heard about source code from the antitrust trial. By saying that some government organizations can view the code, they can ensure that the opening of source code will not be an issue for some time.
It seems as if Microsoft is getting ready for another major expansion - with the trial dead, PR moves like these, and a bunch of new products in the wings (the video iPod-style media player, etc.), it's almost ready.
I know. I plan an upgrade.
Where to begin.... I'll only deconstruct the SecurityFocus message.
First, the fact that these programs have exploits is no surprise, but one media clip (probably MPEG (maybe MP3)), since while Windows Media Player and WinAMP offer universal playback, do ALL of them? Could one file even hit exploits in all these programs?
Second, since each is likely to have a different vulnerability, the amount of worm data in a file would be a decent chunk. Wouldn't it be noticed?
Third, an NDA would state that there can be no mention of it until it is ACTIVATED and USED. Now, Ad-aware-style programs will pop up to clean it if it exists.
Fourth, how many files would this have to be to get 95% of P2P users? The only way it could is by infecting every file you share, but SOMEBODY would have to notice that, whether the file size changes or some A/V data is thrown out.
Also, the idea of "specially formatted P2P requests" to inform RIAA is laughable. Even if the P2P software itself were compromised, a firewall user could notice it. Furthermore, consider the average media collection - hundreds of MP3s. Considering it would have to send artist name and song name, the amount of data would be well over 1MB unless compressed, and even then on dialup users it would have to be staggered.
Also, what kind of backend would this take? Multiple servers, a huge internet connection. Considering how big the P2P networks are, wouldn't this have to be a massive monitoring system? There aren't that many locations with these resources INSTALLED, so finding the facility would not be hard.
And why mention you have a IDENTICAL worm that you use to build a DDOS NET? Simple. Get those who don't care about privacy too much kicked up about that.
Finally, this sounds very strangely like RIAA-induced hypnosis - here are a few lines which show that they probably are lying and not even working with RIAA, just agree with RIAA's ideas.
"victim" (not the hard-working artists who p2p technology rapes, and the RIAA protects)
4) Don't fuck with the RIAA again, scriptkids.
Until we became RIAA contracters, the best they could do was to passively monitor traffic. Our contributions to the RIAA have given them the power to actively control the majority of hosts using these networks.
There are some spelling mistakes. There are factual holes that they cover with the claim of an NDA. In short, the probability of a hoax is about 98%.
As for S3 not having a chance, I don't agree.
Before the Radeon, ATI was barely hanging on with the 3D Rage Pro series and OEM partnerships (Dell shipped some, I have one).
Yet they came back with a card equal to what was actually ON the market at the time and at a decent cost. They seemed to have improved their drivers and, in short, became a major player.
I'm not saying that this card has any chance of shaking up the market in it's current form, but what could change between now and the release date? What if they up the clock speed, or the memory speed or amount? What if they mention it has Kyro-II style rendering which is VERY efficient? If I had an AGP slot, I wouldn't count it out yet.
As I've mentioned, whlie I'd love to, it isn't practical for at least 6 months.
I have only one ATX case. It's a small tower. Two 5.25 drive bays, one 3.5, 3 PCI slots and an AMR slot.
Now, if I get a new MOBO, this case is USELESS. Why? First, I'm hoping to get more slots, preferably an AGP slot for one thing.
Second, what are the chances that I can find one that WOULD fit?
Third, wouldn't the ports also be rearranged a bit?
I do plan on an overhaul someday soon, but right now it's impractical. I'm just asking in case it STAYS impractical.
Also, as another poster pointed out, PCI video cards are nice for second displays. Yeah, they make dual-head monitors, but then both displays share the same video card AND are typically not the most high-end chipsets. Also, if I buy a nice high-end card and then decide I'd like a second display, what then?
Hence, I consider PCI video cards still practical. And with PCI X as yet another poster mentioned, throughput will become high enough (1 GB/sec), not to help me now, but be reasonable in the future since most systems, if they have an AGP slot, have one, not two.
I agree, however, I'm trying to stagger upgrades. If I buy a better PCI video card, I can scoot in in the new system I'll buy in a year or so.
That I may have to look into. I've seen it but thought it was about equal. Time to crunch numbers....
Ok, you tell me where, I'll buy it on Thursday (payday)....
I know. However, just because it exists doesn't mean absolute abandonment is necessary. Heck, a second screen on those single AGP-slot equipped systems could be done via PCI.
On a side note however, what is PCI (32 and 64 bit) throughput? If it's less than, say, 300MBPS, couldn't an external USB2 videocard be made? (I know USB2 is 480MBPS, I'm just leaving bandwidth for other devices.)