A neat idea for Windows...

[orangecat]

I had this idea just a few minutes ago where I could have one PC that is very powerful and have multiple people use it as if they where on their own PC from a small low power device. It would basically be a nvidia GRID and shield like setup but multiple users could be logged on at the same time and it would split the CPU cores and stuff depending on the amount of users. i currently own a PC and my father likes to use it because he doesn't have one of his own. rather then spending a ton of cash on a new PC he could just buy a cheap notebook or whatever and just stream all of what he needs to do form the powerhouse PC to this small laptop or something. i think it would be a good idea when CPUs become at least 8 cores as a low end CPU and 16 for high end so multiple users like 4 can use the PC and still have tons of power.

 

Just an idea.

[Excon]

So have multiple computers connected to a central server like schools already have?

[Vitalius]

This already exists. 

Here where I work, we have these tiny little boxes that are similar to a Rasberry Pi that link to a server and work from there. They are attached to the back of monitors. Basically, all the heavy lifting is done by the server, but the little boxes are to connect and give power to USB stuff as well as handle the monitor/inputs.

You get the idea. 

[orangecat]

So have multiple computers connected to a central server like school already have.

Yea but I want that at home.

[orangecat]

This already exists. 

Here where I work, we have these tiny little things that are similar to a Rasberry Pi that link to a server and work from there. Basically, all the heavy lifting is done by the server, but the little boxes are to connect and give power to USB stuff as well as handle the monitor/inputs.

You get the idea. 

yea but I want a solution for home use that i can game and brows the web on not just doing work. i knwo ti already exists but not in a way that i can build a PC and just have multiple users on it at the same time.

[Bluejay0]

Yea but I want that at home.

 

I would not see this for home use since there would be normally a family PC. But now that times have changed, this may not be the case. Laptops, HTPCs, and normal desktops are now being common so this could be used. As for costs, you would need a strong connection, no? Costs for a stong connection would be high here in the US and even then we don't have EXTREMELY fast speed. For such a set up, I wouldn't see this hitting home.

[Vitalius]

Neat ideas tend to have neat solutions...

[Dr3nz4r]

interessting situation would be: 1 PC to two PC's so you got one pc, 2 sets of pheripherals and two monitors with two people working simultaneously at thier "own" PC with thier own OS and such on ONE PC.

[megadarkwood]

So something DIY?

[Wulfgar]

They're called thin clients.

[CynicalRootVegetable]

Man, timeshare is making a comeback!

[MdX MaxX]

You can already do this using Windows's built-in Remote Desktop protocol.

 

I believe you have to use a little hack to enable concurrent users (Google it) but once you do that multiple people can log onto and use a single computer through Remote Desktop simultaneously.

[Dr3nz4r]

You can already do this using Windows's built-in Remote Desktop protocol.

 

I believe you have to use a little hack to enable concurrent users (Google it) but once you do that multiple people can log onto and use a single computer through Remote Desktop simultaneously.

through remote.. yes but you still need atleast 2 pc's then... the "server" and the clients..

what i emant is, everything on ONE pc.. list 2 pc's merged into one, with one cpu etc

[MdX MaxX]

through remote.. yes but you still need atleast 2 pc's then... the "server" and the clients..

what i emant is, everything on ONE pc.. list 2 pc's merged into one, with one cpu etc

Well, I was addressing the OP's situation.

 

But yes, that would be interesting.  The only method I can think of for concurrent users without a client PC would be the virtual machine solution Vitalius posted, but even that's logically a separate machine, so programs and such wouldn't be shared between users.

[Dr3nz4r]

Well, I was addressing the OP's situation.

 

But yes, that would be interesting.  The only method I can think of for concurrent users without a client PC would be the virtual machine solution Vitalius posted, but even that's logically a separate machine, so programs and such wouldn't be shared between users.

that would save offices and schools a butt ton of money.. my school for example has 20 pc's in each classroom, it got 7 buildings with 21 rooms each, so thats 21*20 PC's which are all the same, and are running thier OS off a few high speed gigabit servers. reducing the amount of clients by just the half would save so much money, that schools count start to invest into hygienics, atleast in my school... the person inventing such a methos will be just genious.. even if that thing costs like 50bucks... per PC

[IdeaStormer]

You can do this with Windows Terminal Server, then again you could always do this with Linux and VNC or just by displaying X windows on your remote computer.

 

No need to re-invent the wheel.

[orangecat]

I would not see this for home use since there would be normally a family PC. But now that times have changed, this may not be the case. Laptops, HTPCs, and normal desktops are now being common so this could be used. As for costs, you would need a strong connection, no? Costs for a stong connection would be high here in the US and even then we don't have EXTREMELY fast speed. For such a set up, I wouldn't see this hitting home.

It is right now expensive to implement this idea but a few years from now it wont be.

[Bluejay0]

It is right now expensive to implement this idea but a few years from now it wont be.

We don't know that for sure Kilo, we'll just have to wait to see for ourselves.

[orangecat]

Neat ideas tend to have neat solutions...

yea but virtual machines cant use the full power of the system. What if I want to game while someone watches a youtube video. it just not the same.

[orangecat]

We don't know that for sure Kilo, we'll just have to wait to see for ourselves.

Maybe it wont happen in the next 5 years but it will happen one day its already slowly becoming a thing with nvidia grid.

[Vitalius]

yea but virtual machines cant use the full power of the system. What if I want to game while someone watches a youtube video. it just not the same.

Simple. Allocate 5% of the resources to the Virtual machine and let them watch their video while you game. 

Honestly, I have a second monitor, if someone wants to watch a video while I play a game, they can. I usually have Youtube up while I play games anyway because I have so little time to watch videos lately. 

[orangecat]

Simple. Allocate 5% of the resources to the Virtual machine and let them watch their video while you game. 

Honestly, I have a second monitor, if someone wants to watch a video while I play a game, they can. I usually have Youtube up while I play games anyway because I have so little time to watch videos lately. 

But hardware acceleration is very crap in virtual machines. just sayin its not as good as running the software natively.

[Vitalius]

But hardware acceleration is very crap in virtual machines. just sayin its not as good as running the software natively.

... What does a Youtube Video have to do with hardware acceleration? *serious question*

[orangecat]

... What does a Youtube Video have to do with hardware acceleration? *serious question*

in all seriousness nothing. the CPU can handle it just fine but they offload it to the GPU instead. ill try it with hardware acceleration off for a few days and see what happens.