ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/16/2018 02:34 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  5.802 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
05/06/2007 07:56 PM ID: 62234 Permalink   

Split-Screen Technology Reduces Computer Costs

 

New technology from Microsoft's research team in Bangalore may have solved many problems for small business and developing nations with a new technology based on a very old concept.

"At the most basic level, we are allowing two users to work completely independently on the same machine, sharing the processor and the monitor," said Udai Singh Pawar, assistant researcher and project leader.

Currently working prototypes use 19 inch monitors, but can work with as little as a 15 inch monitor. The new technology would be completely software-based, so the purchase of new computers would not be necessary.

 
  Source: dsc.discovery.com  
    WebReporter: NicPre Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  21 Comments
  
  Sorry...  
 
Hate to comment on my own post, but I don't see why they didn't think of this YEARS AGO / like when Nintendo 64 ported Starcraft and split the screens.

And if they did, could anyone show me any news articles related to it? It just seems to me like this would have been a no brainer. Perhaps they kept it quiet so they could sell more PC's..
-np-
 
  by: NicPre     05/06/2007 08:22 PM     
  hmm  
 
Its probably due to the evolution of processing power and cost.
 
  by: kuhl   05/06/2007 08:28 PM     
  about bloody time!  
 
SGI has had this functionality for years, I think even just basic UNIX might have it.
 
  by: catalyst   05/06/2007 09:41 PM     
  Microsoft is behind  
 
This is something the open source community has had going for years. You could also simply run multiple monitors, keyboards, and mice off the same box. That would be a lot better than having to share a monitor with somebody. If you ran Linux, then the money you'd save on the software would allow you to buy another monitor, another mouse, and another keyboard.
 
  by: Dark_Stang   05/06/2007 09:54 PM     
  rofl...  
 
What happens when one computer goes down?

Now they'll have several people not able to work instead of just the one.
 
  by: splicer   05/06/2007 10:14 PM     
  @splicer  
 
simple, all files used by the user are on a raid server. when the workstaion goes down, replace it with a backup workstation. all the users need to do is log back into the domain and access their stuff
 
  by: maccheese   05/06/2007 10:45 PM     
  that  
 
would be distracting, especially if the other person is checking myspace or surfing porn. ok im joking but still, watching two mice, split screen, on one monitor doesnt sound fun.
 
  by: robplatt   05/06/2007 11:26 PM     
  LOL  
 
Yea this definetly sucks for the workers. My workstation is a tripple monitor system that I get to my self, i couldn't imagine doing my job on half a screen!
 
  by: OneEightSeven   05/07/2007 12:33 AM     
  you've got it all wrong  
 
187: It's not really a split screen, the title is slightly misleading in that regard. It is one computer that is acting like multiple computers, each user has a seperate keyboard, mouse and monitor that shows their own desktop, processes, etc. It really is nothing new, everyone else has been doing it since the beginning of computers, it's just that Microsoft has finally caught on.

NicPre: The poor N64 barely had the processing and graphics power to run one TV screen, let alone multiple screens with different views. If that is what you meant... maybe I misunderstood.


I love how this comes from the discovery channel as if this is some new technology.
 
  by: rapscaLLion   05/07/2007 05:39 AM     
  @rapscaLLion  
 
No, I don't have it wrong. I know what a terminal is, this is not what they are talking about:

"At the most basic level, we are allowing two users to work completely independently on the same machine, sharing the processor and the monitor,"

Please re-read.
 
  by: OneEightSeven   05/07/2007 10:48 AM     
  Screenshot  
   
  by: OneEightSeven   05/07/2007 10:50 AM     
  This seems  
 
To be the most pointless idea ever.

Why?

I could understand two monitors and people using one machine, but share a moniter?

No, frankly.
 
  by: GogeVandire   05/07/2007 01:42 PM     
  @Goge  
 
It's primarily aimed at developing countries, where a
person is still way cheaper than a computer.
 
  by: Mister crank     05/07/2007 03:30 PM     
  I'm thinking this is impracticle..  
 
My reasoning is: Where would the computer reside? If you have two people in different offices sharing the same computer, who would get access to the CD-ROM or the floppy drive? In my company no one shares an office. And I would think in my company is like many others so this wouldn't be ideal...
Maybe some type of dual access port with two dummy terminal connected to the actual computer on a network, but then, this has been available for decades...
 
  by: Allanthar     05/07/2007 03:58 PM     
  .,.,.  
 
Ya Maccheese I know that part but that doesn't help anything when there's a hardware issue which will stop more then one person working especially with the "less hardware means more" mentality.
 
  by: splicer   05/07/2007 04:32 PM     
  @Allanthar  
 
"I'm thinking this is impracticle..
My reasoning is: Where would the computer reside? If you have two people in different offices sharing the same computer, who would get access to the CD-ROM or the floppy drive? In my company no one shares an office. And I would think in my company is like many others so this wouldn't be ideal... Maybe some type of dual access port with two dummy terminal connected to the actual computer on a network, but then, this has been available for decades..."

this is a good point but it come with a but...

not all offices are like this... ever seen offices almost entirely comprised of cubicals? this is mostly for devoloping nations which probably can't afford to have workstation computer (quite bit more expensive than a standard desktop with some video cards alone exceeding $2,500) for every employeee they need to have.

some offices like call centers sometimes don't even have cubicals... this would be ideal for call centers to cut costs, as they are not always using the computer but rather only while they need to for a costumer (not that employeees wont use it for personal use Like shortnews...lol).
 
  by: havoc666     05/07/2007 05:19 PM     
  @splicer  
 
most offices i know of use workstation computers which are significantly more reliable; hardware wise.
 
  by: havoc666     05/07/2007 05:23 PM     
  @gogevandire  
 
quote: 'This seems to be the most pointless idea ever. Why? '


It's a good idea because (this is off the top of my head, so hang on to your butts:)

1. Not every entity on the planet is financially well off.

2. Cash-strapped non-profits/schools can double their computer-access. This, to me, was the first and most obvious benefit to come to mind.

3. More people can have more access to information at the same time in places such as a library, gov't office (job-seekers in a busy Unemployment Office, for example), and hospitals etc...


I really don't see how you came to make such a point-blank dismissal of this idea, unless you were being frank and honest, or trollin'.
 
  by: theironboard     05/07/2007 07:38 PM     
  ;p...  
 
Where as the workstation hardware is more standard so there are less issues,but reliable doesn't mean infallible.

This would work perfectly for schools, libraries, or other area that don't need to have the machines working all the time.
But when you put this in a business atmosphere every time there's a hardware issue you lose twice the time, assuming there's only two people on the machine.
 
  by: splicer   05/07/2007 10:39 PM     
  ...  
 
ATTN: all those that think 'MS is *just* catching up.. there has been software that worked on win98 that could turn a single machine-dual screen/kb/mouse into two (virtual) machines, I don't remember it's name cause I never even bothered with it..
I had two full computers side by side back then just to get kicking, I can't imagine how it would be to share the hardware of those days (P3 or perhaps early P4 based systems).

I have to agree with Goge that this is a pointless idea, especially if it's meant to be used in developing countries! the idea of a poor/developing country economy means they'd be using cheap hardware, ie 15" CRT monitors, which are too small to begin with, they'd be much better off buying a second 15" monitor, instead of this software.
 
  by: deadmeat     05/08/2007 01:38 AM     
  Sounds like terminal services to me.  
 
If i read this right, it's bringing MS server tech (and citrix too for that matter) to the PC world on the cheap. A server running Terminal Services can handle as many remote users as it's resources allow all virtually. You could accomplish the same thing through say, 4 sets of mice/kboards/monitors all attached to the same CPU. If they are LITERALLY sharing a screen that sounds a little hokey. Then again, i don't live in rural bangladesh where there's 1 comp per square mile. I'm spoiled.
 
  by: etown411   05/11/2007 09:40 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com