With double wide graphics cards in sli configuration becoming common and now the ageia physx cards, high end users will soon have to choose between a sound card or a physics acceleration card because both use the pci interface. Not many things though currently use the pci-e slots aside from graphics cards, so why don't they make sound or physics acceleration cards for this interface?

You tell 'em, man!

Interesting question, many answers. Motherboards of old used to have more slots available, and that would be one way to relieve the problem. Another would be to give more space around the present slots, as all the stuff that's being hung on the sides of cards, particularly high end graphics cards, is further eating up space to the point that sometimes a PCI slot is there but can't be accessed. Unfortunately, making more space would probably entail making a larger board overall than what the present ATX board provides, and of course, a larger case to contain the new board. Maybe that really should happen, but it probably won't.

Using the PCI-E_1 slot is an answer, as long as someone isn't already using it for something else. Engineering the thing is another hastle. Normally that slot is used only when the usual PCI E slots are not, something of a use this one or use that one, but not both situation,. Yes it probably could be done, but I don't know how it could be done.

Back to my observation in the first paragraph, probably the best solution is an all new motherboard design. Even then, there probably would be many problems entailed in changing operating systems to handle all this. With all the problems that Microsoft is having designing VISTA, such changes more than likely will not happen.

"Normally that slot is used only when the usual PCI E slots are not, something of a use this one or use that one, but not both situation,. " HUH? What are you muttering about? The PCIe lanes are always open, they don't go away just by plugging in a video card. Most SLI motherboards will drop the both PCIe 16X slots to 8X, but thats not a biggie. Either way, the PCIe 1X slots still have their 1X of bandwith.

You don't need a new operating system to handle a new motherboard design. Do you use a different version of windows for ATX than for BTX or for SFF PC's? (We're talking about a re-designed layout mind you, NOT about completely new technology)

When you made the quote, you might have considered the sentence I wrote before that. Yes, I know that the PCI e_1 slot can be used, but I've seen it used a number of times when people tried to put in a card that wasn't compatible with the other cards and system crashes started. So it becomes a matter of designing the hardware and associated software to accomidate using the slot without interfering with anything else. No question that its possible to do it.

I see that I wasn't clear in my writing. I meant that with a design change, there would be a technology change to go with it. That was what I meant about having an all new motherboard design. You are correct, changing only the board layout would require no real change in the OS.

Even so, I don't see the need for a completely new operating system. Just a bunch of new drivers. For example, when WinXP first came out Firewire & USB 2.0 were not common at all so the operating system could not use them on its own. But the manufacturers wrote some extra drivers and everything worked until the funcionality was included in SP1/SP2. I'm sure that with the right drivers you can run Windows 95 with PCI-e, SATAII, Firewire 800 etc.

Referring back to my original post, I wrote:

"there would probably be many problems entailed in changing operating systems to handle all this. With all the problems that Microsoft us having designing VISTA, such changes more than likely will not happen."

I was not meaning to change operating systems in the sense of changing from Win 3.1 to Windows 95, not Win 95 to Win 98, or to WIn XP. Drivers, patches, minor code changes were what I meant. Those would be changes within the operating system required to handle changes in the numbers of slots available or the usage of the slots. As yor example states, firewire and USB 2.0 weren't there when XP came out, but they were added. Likewise, the changes of slot numbers and useage aren't there now, but they could be added, therefore effecting changes within the operating system.

Tied in with my next sentence concerning VISTA and all the delays that have occured with it, I think these changes in the operating system probably won't happen, at least not for a while. Microsoft has had nothing but trouble with VISTA. We read constantly of changes. Will there be one version of the OS, or five, or two? Will some of the features have to be removed because of lawsuits, or other features get added? How buggy have the betas been, with conflicts in programing and such? As difficult as VISTA is at present, I don't think Microsoft is going to be adding any extra features right now. Maybe they will in the future, the far future, but I don't know. If sufficient demand is there, I expect they can and will be added.

My personal opinion, and its just an opinion, is that Microsoft should have taken XP64 Pro and added the necessary drivers to it to make a home version. It could have added DX10 as part of an "XP64 Home" version, or as a later patch. Same with all the other stuff that they wanted to add in. But they didn't, and so we consumers wait, and wait, and wait.

Damn, theres a reason why soundcards arent on PCI-E, but I cant recall at the time of writing. A few people wondered why creative didnt make their X-Fi for PCI-E, and they replied with somethign about issues using the PCI-E bus. Either that, or they said the PCI bus was sufficient. Not sure which one is right atm. I'll check back when I find out why.

As for the physics boards, they should really be on PCI-E, granted. Mainly though, its down to the fact that more people these days still have PCI slots compared to PCI-E 1x. So by adopting standard whiteslots, they've widened their market considerably.

NO NO NO, WRONG WRONG WRONG.
"Drivers, patches, minor code changes were what I meant." New driver, thats it. The OS and Hardware are independant. One doesn't care about the other. All thats needed is the driver so that they can talk to each other. No change in the source code is needed for the OS, simply the instructions of how to "talk" (use) the hardware.
"the changes of slot numbers and useage aren't there now, but they could be added, therefore effecting changes within the operating system." What limits the number of slots (as far as I'm aware of) is the capabilities of the southbridge. Some SB's can handle only 6 USB2 ports, others can handle 10. The number of lanes of PCIe is again a matter of North and Southbridges, it has nothing to do with the OS.
"Microsoft should have taken XP64 Pro and added the necessary drivers to it to make a home version" Maybe, but it would still be patched, buggy, nonsecure software. Vista is a new os, unlike any we've seen before. (yes, never seen from MS, but seen other places...)
"It could have added DX10 as part of an "XP64 Home" version, or as a later patch." WRONG! Have you read anything about DX10? It is completely different from any form of DX before it. There will never be a DX10 "port" to winXP or earlier. It works in a completely different way then the other DXs, and won't work on anything but vista. (this is the reason I'm holding off on the DX10 bandwagon. I will not "upgrade" to a first gen OS. MS OS at that...)

I think that making a physics baord for the PCI-E 1x slot would have been a good idea. So what if most people still don't have the ports. Make cards for both, similar to the way both PCI and PCI-E versions of graphics cards are made. A card using PCI-E 1x would give better performance for those who have the slot available, and would give added incentive for those who don't to upgrade their motherboards.

[quote="4745454b"]NO NO NO, WRONG WRONG WRONG.
"Drivers, patches, minor code changes were what I meant." New driver, thats it. The OS and Hardware are independant. One doesn't care about the other. All thats needed is the driver so that they can talk to each other. No change in the source code is needed for the OS, simply the instructions of how to "talk" (use) the hardware.
"
I think we have one of those "failures to communicate" happening here. I write that I meant a new driver could be added. Is that wrong? I refer to patches that allow the new driver to be downloaded into an OS that doesn't already have it. Is that wrong? Call it a patch, update, or whatever, something new has been written and incorporated. Does not a new driver or a patch to add it into and existing OS involve making a overall code change? Is that wrong? Something has to change so that new driver is incorporated into the original OS. Call it an instruction change to "talk" to the hardware or whatever, its still a change.

Think about WinXP and all the changes that have occured with it through the years, the original XP, XP with service pack 1, with service pack 2. The main OS is the same, yet it has had many changes to make it more functional or secure through the years. That's the type of thing I'm talking about, not changes to a base OS, but changes in the overall package.

Yes I've read some about DX10. Maybe not as much as you. I know it has a lot of changes, not just software, but changes required in hardware. It can't be plugged into XP, because XP is 32 bit while DX10 is 64 bit. But XP64 is 64 bit, so while the code changes might be substantial, I believe it could have been done. I wrote that DX10 could have been written as a "part of an XP64 Home version" not as a port in it. A part and a port are two different things. Maybe it wouldn't have been easy to write the code changes, I grant that. But VISTA has proven to be no easy thing in itself, so what is the effective difference?

Correct, I don't consider a drive to be change in the source code. The problem with using DX10 in XP isn't a matter of "bitness" as far as I know. The issue is how the OS sends and recieves commands from the video and audio devices. The one that gets mentioned the most is that audio sounds are kept out of ring zero, so that if the sound crashes, only the program ends, not the entire OS. I don't know why they couldn't port DX10 to XP, I guess it would require an entire rework of the OS. (to keep drivers out of lower ring levels. If my memory serves, win9x introduced ring zero drivers to make things faster.)

Easy answer: They're stupid.

Seriously, I'm seeing motherboards with 3 x1 slots and only 1 standard PCI slot, yet card makers don't think there are enough x1 slots to justify development. They're still living in the 1990's.

The only way you're going to see it is if they see the market for it. Scream at manufacturers. Get 1000 of your friends to scream at manufacturers. Tell them you have all these useless x1 slots and no spare PCI slots.

they will soon, PCI slots will gradually fading away to make way for PCI-E 1X. it is same as ISA slot in the old days, u cant expect them to dissapear overnight once new architecture arrive.
So, in few years, maybe 2-3 years, PCI slot were no longer common, u will see motherboards all equipped with PCI-E 1Xs. and so does sound cards and Physic cards, they will be PCI-E 1X interface.but i doubt anyone will buy physics card, since Nvidia and ATI will integrate PPU on to their GPU, or maybe a separate PPU chip on the same card.

sorry for me still being a bit of a noob. but what is a physics card??
what does it do that a normal GPU dont? and what do you use them for?

It doesn't do anything right now. Games aren't written for them.

It adds a bunch of real-world physics to a game, which allows things like bouncing rocks, bullet richochets, and flowing water to follow a non-fixed path.

oh.. i thought it was something like that.. but DX9 card does support that dont they?

It costs money to bring a new product to market, so give them a chance. It was a smart business decision to bring one product out, generate some cash flow and interest, get some games to actually support the cards, then work on the next generation. You don't put money into bringing products out that won't sell. Weither the physics card will sell at a