<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_31_0546257</id>
	<title>Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6 &mdash; Gaming On Six Panels</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1270031340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hothardware.com/" rel="nofollow">MojoKid</a> writes <i>"AMD's 6-output Radeon has been seen in action at a number of events, but today the ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6 Edition is being officially launched. HotHardware <a href="http://hothardware.com/Articles/ATI-Radeon-HD-5870-Eyefinity-6-Edition/">paired the card up with six 22" Dell LCD panels in a 3x2 configuration</a> &mdash; with a max resolution of 5760x2160 &mdash; and ran it through a number of popular titles including <em>Dirt 2</em>, <em>Battlefield: Bad Company 2</em>, <em>Left 4 Dead 2</em> and <em>Crysis</em>.  For specialized, high-end graphics cards like this, the market potential may be relatively small. If, however, the idea of multi-monitor gaming is appealing to you and you've got the means to score one of these cards (along with multiple displays), you won't be disappointed."</i>
Reader Vigile adds a different analysis of the card's six-monitor gaming: "PC Perspective found <a href="http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=889">FPS games were basically unplayable because of the bezel</a> through the middle of their vision while RTS and racing games like <em>StarCraft 2</em> and <em>DiRT 2</em> were spectacular."</htmltext>
<tokenext>MojoKid writes " AMD 's 6-output Radeon has been seen in action at a number of events , but today the ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6 Edition is being officially launched .
HotHardware paired the card up with six 22 " Dell LCD panels in a 3x2 configuration    with a max resolution of 5760x2160    and ran it through a number of popular titles including Dirt 2 , Battlefield : Bad Company 2 , Left 4 Dead 2 and Crysis .
For specialized , high-end graphics cards like this , the market potential may be relatively small .
If , however , the idea of multi-monitor gaming is appealing to you and you 've got the means to score one of these cards ( along with multiple displays ) , you wo n't be disappointed .
" Reader Vigile adds a different analysis of the card 's six-monitor gaming : " PC Perspective found FPS games were basically unplayable because of the bezel through the middle of their vision while RTS and racing games like StarCraft 2 and DiRT 2 were spectacular .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MojoKid writes "AMD's 6-output Radeon has been seen in action at a number of events, but today the ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6 Edition is being officially launched.
HotHardware paired the card up with six 22" Dell LCD panels in a 3x2 configuration — with a max resolution of 5760x2160 — and ran it through a number of popular titles including Dirt 2, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Left 4 Dead 2 and Crysis.
For specialized, high-end graphics cards like this, the market potential may be relatively small.
If, however, the idea of multi-monitor gaming is appealing to you and you've got the means to score one of these cards (along with multiple displays), you won't be disappointed.
"
Reader Vigile adds a different analysis of the card's six-monitor gaming: "PC Perspective found FPS games were basically unplayable because of the bezel through the middle of their vision while RTS and racing games like StarCraft 2 and DiRT 2 were spectacular.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685726</id>
	<title>Not just for gamers</title>
	<author>Stenchwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1270040520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In addition to the 6 screen setup acting at one unit, the screens will, I assume, be able to act independently of one another for 6 separate screens, or possibly even 2 or 4 combined with 4 or 2 staying independent, respectively. This would allow for imaging-types of applications (MRI's, Digital X-Rays, CAD) be displayed on a large surface while having a few separate screens for applications that do not require visuals - all on the same machine. I can totally see this being used is hospitals and graphics design studios where large resolution is crucial, while allowing lower resolution apps open at the same time to prevent alt-tabbing between and thus increasing efficiency.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to the 6 screen setup acting at one unit , the screens will , I assume , be able to act independently of one another for 6 separate screens , or possibly even 2 or 4 combined with 4 or 2 staying independent , respectively .
This would allow for imaging-types of applications ( MRI 's , Digital X-Rays , CAD ) be displayed on a large surface while having a few separate screens for applications that do not require visuals - all on the same machine .
I can totally see this being used is hospitals and graphics design studios where large resolution is crucial , while allowing lower resolution apps open at the same time to prevent alt-tabbing between and thus increasing efficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to the 6 screen setup acting at one unit, the screens will, I assume, be able to act independently of one another for 6 separate screens, or possibly even 2 or 4 combined with 4 or 2 staying independent, respectively.
This would allow for imaging-types of applications (MRI's, Digital X-Rays, CAD) be displayed on a large surface while having a few separate screens for applications that do not require visuals - all on the same machine.
I can totally see this being used is hospitals and graphics design studios where large resolution is crucial, while allowing lower resolution apps open at the same time to prevent alt-tabbing between and thus increasing efficiency.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31689256</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270056780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with a single large HDTV is that you're going to have a very hard time getting the same field of view coverage that you would with multiple individual monitors curved around your viewing position. With multiple monitors one can cover ~140-160 degrees of your field of view, and to get that from a flat TV would mean having to have your nose pressed up against the screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with a single large HDTV is that you 're going to have a very hard time getting the same field of view coverage that you would with multiple individual monitors curved around your viewing position .
With multiple monitors one can cover ~ 140-160 degrees of your field of view , and to get that from a flat TV would mean having to have your nose pressed up against the screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with a single large HDTV is that you're going to have a very hard time getting the same field of view coverage that you would with multiple individual monitors curved around your viewing position.
With multiple monitors one can cover ~140-160 degrees of your field of view, and to get that from a flat TV would mean having to have your nose pressed up against the screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31698662</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>junjie\_1024</author>
	<datestamp>1270118460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Women who love fashion must love <a href="http://www.mychanelmall.com/" title="mychanelmall.com" rel="nofollow">Chanel handbags</a> [mychanelmall.com]. Chanel handbags vary in designs, sizes, colors and styles. If you love big bags, you can choose <a href="http://www.mychanelmall.com/" title="mychanelmall.com" rel="nofollow">Chanel bags</a> [mychanelmall.com]. If you love cute bags, you can choose Chanle bags, too. <a href="http://www.mychanelmall.com/" title="mychanelmall.com" rel="nofollow">Chanel wallets</a> [mychanelmall.com] are also best-sellers.
<a href="http://www.mychanelmall.com/chanel-new-arrivals-c-1.html" title="mychanelmall.com" rel="nofollow">Black Chanel handbag</a> [mychanelmall.com]is the classic representative of Chanel handbags. <a href="http://www.mychanelmall.com/chanel-new-arrivals-c-1.html" title="mychanelmall.com" rel="nofollow">Pink Chanel handbags</a> [mychanelmall.com] make women full of attractiveness and allure. Spring is the best season to add something fresh to your attire. Buying Chanel handbags online is a good way to get cheap Chanel handbags. Numerious <a href="http://www.mychanelmall.com/chanel-2008-collection-c-3.html" title="mychanelmall.com" rel="nofollow">discount Chanel handbags</a> [mychanelmall.com] of Chanel handbags 2009 collection are waiting for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Women who love fashion must love Chanel handbags [ mychanelmall.com ] .
Chanel handbags vary in designs , sizes , colors and styles .
If you love big bags , you can choose Chanel bags [ mychanelmall.com ] .
If you love cute bags , you can choose Chanle bags , too .
Chanel wallets [ mychanelmall.com ] are also best-sellers .
Black Chanel handbag [ mychanelmall.com ] is the classic representative of Chanel handbags .
Pink Chanel handbags [ mychanelmall.com ] make women full of attractiveness and allure .
Spring is the best season to add something fresh to your attire .
Buying Chanel handbags online is a good way to get cheap Chanel handbags .
Numerious discount Chanel handbags [ mychanelmall.com ] of Chanel handbags 2009 collection are waiting for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Women who love fashion must love Chanel handbags [mychanelmall.com].
Chanel handbags vary in designs, sizes, colors and styles.
If you love big bags, you can choose Chanel bags [mychanelmall.com].
If you love cute bags, you can choose Chanle bags, too.
Chanel wallets [mychanelmall.com] are also best-sellers.
Black Chanel handbag [mychanelmall.com]is the classic representative of Chanel handbags.
Pink Chanel handbags [mychanelmall.com] make women full of attractiveness and allure.
Spring is the best season to add something fresh to your attire.
Buying Chanel handbags online is a good way to get cheap Chanel handbags.
Numerious discount Chanel handbags [mychanelmall.com] of Chanel handbags 2009 collection are waiting for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31689446</id>
	<title>Bezel comments</title>
	<author>Penguin Follower</author>
	<datestamp>1270057620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"PC Perspective found FPS games were basically unplayable because of the bezel through the middle of their vision..."</p></div></blockquote><p>So just do 3x1 monitors and you won't have a bezel going through the center of your view.... You can just by 3 big monitors instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" PC Perspective found FPS games were basically unplayable because of the bezel through the middle of their vision... " So just do 3x1 monitors and you wo n't have a bezel going through the center of your view.... You can just by 3 big monitors instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"PC Perspective found FPS games were basically unplayable because of the bezel through the middle of their vision..."So just do 3x1 monitors and you won't have a bezel going through the center of your view.... You can just by 3 big monitors instead.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31687796</id>
	<title>Overheard at nVidia:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270050720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Fuck everything, we're doing seven panels.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck everything , we 're doing seven panels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck everything, we're doing seven panels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686178</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>Custard Horse</author>
	<datestamp>1270043640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bezel hack!  Can some mod kick him to validate my poor game play?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bezel hack !
Can some mod kick him to validate my poor game play ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bezel hack!
Can some mod kick him to validate my poor game play?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686394</id>
	<title>PAX East</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270044900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were showing MW2 with this setup at PAX East.  It was horrible, the crosshairs on the screen wanted to fall right between the split of the top and bottom row of monitors.  It was really awkard for your eyes to jump across the edge of one monitor and onto another one to follow the crosshair.  Terrible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were showing MW2 with this setup at PAX East .
It was horrible , the crosshairs on the screen wanted to fall right between the split of the top and bottom row of monitors .
It was really awkard for your eyes to jump across the edge of one monitor and onto another one to follow the crosshair .
Terrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were showing MW2 with this setup at PAX East.
It was horrible, the crosshairs on the screen wanted to fall right between the split of the top and bottom row of monitors.
It was really awkard for your eyes to jump across the edge of one monitor and onto another one to follow the crosshair.
Terrible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31688122</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1270051920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is the increased resolution of 6 screens really that much of an improvement over one large Full HD television, that the fact there are lines running right through your vision is acceptable?</p></div><p>Think about it. You could have 6 Full HD televisions...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the increased resolution of 6 screens really that much of an improvement over one large Full HD television , that the fact there are lines running right through your vision is acceptable ? Think about it .
You could have 6 Full HD televisions.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the increased resolution of 6 screens really that much of an improvement over one large Full HD television, that the fact there are lines running right through your vision is acceptable?Think about it.
You could have 6 Full HD televisions...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685646</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270039800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just pretend the Halo helmet has a built in roll cage. Safety first!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just pretend the Halo helmet has a built in roll cage .
Safety first !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just pretend the Halo helmet has a built in roll cage.
Safety first!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686976</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270047600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned!</p></div><p>Yeah,   "6 to one, half a dozen to another"   see what I did there,   you said it like this,   but I said it like This!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other as far as I 'm concerned ! Yeah , " 6 to one , half a dozen to another " see what I did there , you said it like this , but I said it like This !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned!Yeah,   "6 to one, half a dozen to another"   see what I did there,   you said it like this,   but I said it like This!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686108</id>
	<title>Re:Been running Eyefinity, my thoughts...</title>
	<author>MistrBlank</author>
	<datestamp>1270043160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should turn the screens to portrait.</p><p>The 3600x1600 will be much more viewable with most games and the screen won't seem so dauntingly vast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should turn the screens to portrait.The 3600x1600 will be much more viewable with most games and the screen wo n't seem so dauntingly vast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should turn the screens to portrait.The 3600x1600 will be much more viewable with most games and the screen won't seem so dauntingly vast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685680</id>
	<title>5 could be also a decent number...</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1270040040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...with screens rotated 90 degrees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...with screens rotated 90 degrees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...with screens rotated 90 degrees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31687292</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>director\_mr</author>
	<datestamp>1270048980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From my perspective, it might be ideal to have 5 screens in eyefinity.  3 across the middle, and one on top and on the bottom in the middle.  That allows me to see above and below and to the sides.  Does eyefinity allow this kind of setup?</htmltext>
<tokenext>From my perspective , it might be ideal to have 5 screens in eyefinity .
3 across the middle , and one on top and on the bottom in the middle .
That allows me to see above and below and to the sides .
Does eyefinity allow this kind of setup ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my perspective, it might be ideal to have 5 screens in eyefinity.
3 across the middle, and one on top and on the bottom in the middle.
That allows me to see above and below and to the sides.
Does eyefinity allow this kind of setup?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188</id>
	<title>6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270035540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is the increased resolution of 6 screens really that much of an improvement over one large Full HD television, that the fact there are lines running right through your vision is acceptable? I really doubt that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the increased resolution of 6 screens really that much of an improvement over one large Full HD television , that the fact there are lines running right through your vision is acceptable ?
I really doubt that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the increased resolution of 6 screens really that much of an improvement over one large Full HD television, that the fact there are lines running right through your vision is acceptable?
I really doubt that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685810</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270041300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) one large TV is significantly harder to make versus 6 smaller TVs<br>2) one large TV is significantly harder to distribute<br>3) said large TV will also probably cost significantly more than the sum of 6 smaller ones<br>4) A Full HD resolution of one huge TV versus 6 smaller screens being combined in to a resolution that is higher?  No contest to who wins that.</p><p>All this will do (i hope) is get more manufacturers to try their hands at getting the screens smaller so that there doesn't need to be a huge frame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) one large TV is significantly harder to make versus 6 smaller TVs2 ) one large TV is significantly harder to distribute3 ) said large TV will also probably cost significantly more than the sum of 6 smaller ones4 ) A Full HD resolution of one huge TV versus 6 smaller screens being combined in to a resolution that is higher ?
No contest to who wins that.All this will do ( i hope ) is get more manufacturers to try their hands at getting the screens smaller so that there does n't need to be a huge frame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) one large TV is significantly harder to make versus 6 smaller TVs2) one large TV is significantly harder to distribute3) said large TV will also probably cost significantly more than the sum of 6 smaller ones4) A Full HD resolution of one huge TV versus 6 smaller screens being combined in to a resolution that is higher?
No contest to who wins that.All this will do (i hope) is get more manufacturers to try their hands at getting the screens smaller so that there doesn't need to be a huge frame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686010</id>
	<title>Eyefinity Portrait Mode</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270042680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I currently use an Eyefinity setup in Portrait Mode with a Dell 2408FWP and 2 Dell U2410s.</p><p>Here's my trippy background <a href="http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/1050/echo.jpg" title="imageshack.us" rel="nofollow">http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/1050/echo.jpg</a> [imageshack.us] (it's rather large at 3600x1920)</p><p>The setup is pretty awesome in my opinion and is pretty easily driven by my single 5870.</p><p>I do, from time to time, run into an issue where the card hits its framebuffer from being limited to 1GB or RAM so I believe I will upgrade for the sole purpose of getting that additional 1GB of RAM. I also believe the E6 cards probably come with some minor revisions to their architecture and BIOS that may allow them to be overclocked a little better than the original batch of 1GB cards that were released on Launch Day (When I got mine)</p><p>I do understand the laws of supply &amp; demand may cause some to raise prices somewhat, but I am hoping that the new cards are not offered at some outrageous price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I currently use an Eyefinity setup in Portrait Mode with a Dell 2408FWP and 2 Dell U2410s.Here 's my trippy background http : //img638.imageshack.us/img638/1050/echo.jpg [ imageshack.us ] ( it 's rather large at 3600x1920 ) The setup is pretty awesome in my opinion and is pretty easily driven by my single 5870.I do , from time to time , run into an issue where the card hits its framebuffer from being limited to 1GB or RAM so I believe I will upgrade for the sole purpose of getting that additional 1GB of RAM .
I also believe the E6 cards probably come with some minor revisions to their architecture and BIOS that may allow them to be overclocked a little better than the original batch of 1GB cards that were released on Launch Day ( When I got mine ) I do understand the laws of supply &amp; demand may cause some to raise prices somewhat , but I am hoping that the new cards are not offered at some outrageous price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I currently use an Eyefinity setup in Portrait Mode with a Dell 2408FWP and 2 Dell U2410s.Here's my trippy background http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/1050/echo.jpg [imageshack.us] (it's rather large at 3600x1920)The setup is pretty awesome in my opinion and is pretty easily driven by my single 5870.I do, from time to time, run into an issue where the card hits its framebuffer from being limited to 1GB or RAM so I believe I will upgrade for the sole purpose of getting that additional 1GB of RAM.
I also believe the E6 cards probably come with some minor revisions to their architecture and BIOS that may allow them to be overclocked a little better than the original batch of 1GB cards that were released on Launch Day (When I got mine)I do understand the laws of supply &amp; demand may cause some to raise prices somewhat, but I am hoping that the new cards are not offered at some outrageous price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685538</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1270038960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends on your scale; with this, you can use six large Full HD televisions if you like, rather than those dinky little 22" LCDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on your scale ; with this , you can use six large Full HD televisions if you like , rather than those dinky little 22 " LCDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on your scale; with this, you can use six large Full HD televisions if you like, rather than those dinky little 22" LCDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685714</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory question...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1270040340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fancy ATI-specific screen melding tech? Probably not, at least for another few revisions of ATI's proprietary driver.<br> <br>

Having 6 heads out of a single PCIe 16x slot? Probably so.<br> <br>

Frankly, I'm not the gamer that I used to be, so I don't really care about the driver features that allow you to force multi-monitor functions on games that are ordinarily single monitor. I'm interested in the fact that 6-headed graphics cards are now within the realm of gamer enthusiasts(ie. ~$500, stocked by normal retailers, drivers downloadable without support agreements, and so forth) rather than super-pricey financial workstation integrators and custom display wall types. I can only assume that Matrox has been praying fervently for the demise of the entire ATI driver team in a messy accident; because it is only ATI's somewhat uneven reputation in regards to software that is keeping them relevant now that this thing is in the wild.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fancy ATI-specific screen melding tech ?
Probably not , at least for another few revisions of ATI 's proprietary driver .
Having 6 heads out of a single PCIe 16x slot ?
Probably so .
Frankly , I 'm not the gamer that I used to be , so I do n't really care about the driver features that allow you to force multi-monitor functions on games that are ordinarily single monitor .
I 'm interested in the fact that 6-headed graphics cards are now within the realm of gamer enthusiasts ( ie .
~ $ 500 , stocked by normal retailers , drivers downloadable without support agreements , and so forth ) rather than super-pricey financial workstation integrators and custom display wall types .
I can only assume that Matrox has been praying fervently for the demise of the entire ATI driver team in a messy accident ; because it is only ATI 's somewhat uneven reputation in regards to software that is keeping them relevant now that this thing is in the wild .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fancy ATI-specific screen melding tech?
Probably not, at least for another few revisions of ATI's proprietary driver.
Having 6 heads out of a single PCIe 16x slot?
Probably so.
Frankly, I'm not the gamer that I used to be, so I don't really care about the driver features that allow you to force multi-monitor functions on games that are ordinarily single monitor.
I'm interested in the fact that 6-headed graphics cards are now within the realm of gamer enthusiasts(ie.
~$500, stocked by normal retailers, drivers downloadable without support agreements, and so forth) rather than super-pricey financial workstation integrators and custom display wall types.
I can only assume that Matrox has been praying fervently for the demise of the entire ATI driver team in a messy accident; because it is only ATI's somewhat uneven reputation in regards to software that is keeping them relevant now that this thing is in the wild.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685396</id>
	<title>Obligatory question...</title>
	<author>Yuioup</author>
	<datestamp>1270037580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and can you do this on Linux?</p><p>No?</p><p>Then I'm not interested<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and can you do this on Linux ? No ? Then I 'm not interested .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and can you do this on Linux?No?Then I'm not interested ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685454</id>
	<title>Been running Eyefinity, my thoughts...</title>
	<author>kcbnac</author>
	<datestamp>1270038120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am currently running with an Eyefinity setup - Radeon HD5770, with 3 20" displays at 1600x1200 each.  (Traded up from a HD4850, brought down the idle temp and fan noise, and gained Eyefinity capability) So I'm running at 4800x1200, when it is set up as a "single panel."  I've got the left and right monitors set up at a slight angle.</p><p>Most games work fine with it, some that aren't designed to scale to such a ratio I have to keep at a single monitor's resolution - but when it detects something running fullscreen, at say, 1600x1200 (each monitor's native display) it just mirrors it across all three.</p><p>Some games like RTSes have a GUI interface at the bottom - some just move the corners (unit details, commands) and leave plenty of space in between - others 'stretch' - so games will have to be patched or designed with this in mind, to fully work.  (If it doesn't, at least it degrades relatively gracefully)</p><p>Some games don't scale at all - and when they go above a certain resolution, just stretch in general, or zoom their interfaces based on the aspect ratio it can generate.  These ones I have to keep at a lower resolution.</p><p>So far all of the Source engine games from Valve work great - I haven't tried Counter-Strike: Source, but everything newer works fine, giving me peripheral vision.  I just hope Valve updates these to allow the HUD to be movable - only downside to them that I've encountered yet.</p><p>Fallout 3 works with it, with some tweaking - had to edit the configuration file to move the HUD interface options, and fix the PipBoy 3000 interface - it zoomed too close to see the top and bottom.</p><p>So as we discover more games that do or don't work - let the developers know, hopefully they'll update their games to support the aspect ratio.  At a minimum at least it degrades gracefully if it can't use the extra monitors - and by making it available on all of the 5xxx series cards, it will become a standard.  Hopefully nVidia is able to implement a similar feature so that it isn't a manufacturer-centric feature that some developers won't support since it isn't 100\% usable...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am currently running with an Eyefinity setup - Radeon HD5770 , with 3 20 " displays at 1600x1200 each .
( Traded up from a HD4850 , brought down the idle temp and fan noise , and gained Eyefinity capability ) So I 'm running at 4800x1200 , when it is set up as a " single panel .
" I 've got the left and right monitors set up at a slight angle.Most games work fine with it , some that are n't designed to scale to such a ratio I have to keep at a single monitor 's resolution - but when it detects something running fullscreen , at say , 1600x1200 ( each monitor 's native display ) it just mirrors it across all three.Some games like RTSes have a GUI interface at the bottom - some just move the corners ( unit details , commands ) and leave plenty of space in between - others 'stretch ' - so games will have to be patched or designed with this in mind , to fully work .
( If it does n't , at least it degrades relatively gracefully ) Some games do n't scale at all - and when they go above a certain resolution , just stretch in general , or zoom their interfaces based on the aspect ratio it can generate .
These ones I have to keep at a lower resolution.So far all of the Source engine games from Valve work great - I have n't tried Counter-Strike : Source , but everything newer works fine , giving me peripheral vision .
I just hope Valve updates these to allow the HUD to be movable - only downside to them that I 've encountered yet.Fallout 3 works with it , with some tweaking - had to edit the configuration file to move the HUD interface options , and fix the PipBoy 3000 interface - it zoomed too close to see the top and bottom.So as we discover more games that do or do n't work - let the developers know , hopefully they 'll update their games to support the aspect ratio .
At a minimum at least it degrades gracefully if it ca n't use the extra monitors - and by making it available on all of the 5xxx series cards , it will become a standard .
Hopefully nVidia is able to implement a similar feature so that it is n't a manufacturer-centric feature that some developers wo n't support since it is n't 100 \ % usable.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am currently running with an Eyefinity setup - Radeon HD5770, with 3 20" displays at 1600x1200 each.
(Traded up from a HD4850, brought down the idle temp and fan noise, and gained Eyefinity capability) So I'm running at 4800x1200, when it is set up as a "single panel.
"  I've got the left and right monitors set up at a slight angle.Most games work fine with it, some that aren't designed to scale to such a ratio I have to keep at a single monitor's resolution - but when it detects something running fullscreen, at say, 1600x1200 (each monitor's native display) it just mirrors it across all three.Some games like RTSes have a GUI interface at the bottom - some just move the corners (unit details, commands) and leave plenty of space in between - others 'stretch' - so games will have to be patched or designed with this in mind, to fully work.
(If it doesn't, at least it degrades relatively gracefully)Some games don't scale at all - and when they go above a certain resolution, just stretch in general, or zoom their interfaces based on the aspect ratio it can generate.
These ones I have to keep at a lower resolution.So far all of the Source engine games from Valve work great - I haven't tried Counter-Strike: Source, but everything newer works fine, giving me peripheral vision.
I just hope Valve updates these to allow the HUD to be movable - only downside to them that I've encountered yet.Fallout 3 works with it, with some tweaking - had to edit the configuration file to move the HUD interface options, and fix the PipBoy 3000 interface - it zoomed too close to see the top and bottom.So as we discover more games that do or don't work - let the developers know, hopefully they'll update their games to support the aspect ratio.
At a minimum at least it degrades gracefully if it can't use the extra monitors - and by making it available on all of the 5xxx series cards, it will become a standard.
Hopefully nVidia is able to implement a similar feature so that it isn't a manufacturer-centric feature that some developers won't support since it isn't 100\% usable...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685958</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>srussia</author>
	<datestamp>1270042260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, the frames between the monitors would drive me insane.</p></div><p>That's okay, I only play Tie figher sims anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , the frames between the monitors would drive me insane.That 's okay , I only play Tie figher sims anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, the frames between the monitors would drive me insane.That's okay, I only play Tie figher sims anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31688416</id>
	<title>anyone know if the ati linux drivers work for this</title>
	<author>t35t0r</author>
	<datestamp>1270053060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>anyone know if the ati linux drivers work for this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>anyone know if the ati linux drivers work for this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anyone know if the ati linux drivers work for this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685444</id>
	<title>Am I the only one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270038060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...who read "Gaming On Six Pixels?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...who read " Gaming On Six Pixels ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...who read "Gaming On Six Pixels?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686392</id>
	<title>Radeon HD 5000 series</title>
	<author>CockMonster</author>
	<datestamp>1270044900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it the same situation with these cards as with the Radeon Mobility HD cards whereby you cannot download updated drivers directly from ATI but must go to your PC/laptop manufacturer instead?

Is there proper Linux support (proprietary drivers)?

There's not for the Mobility cards</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it the same situation with these cards as with the Radeon Mobility HD cards whereby you can not download updated drivers directly from ATI but must go to your PC/laptop manufacturer instead ?
Is there proper Linux support ( proprietary drivers ) ?
There 's not for the Mobility cards</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it the same situation with these cards as with the Radeon Mobility HD cards whereby you cannot download updated drivers directly from ATI but must go to your PC/laptop manufacturer instead?
Is there proper Linux support (proprietary drivers)?
There's not for the Mobility cards</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686166</id>
	<title>Seems strange</title>
	<author>dushkin</author>
	<datestamp>1270043520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have two screens. I like it. I play the occasional game. When I play a game, I look at one screen. It's a shooter. It has my target right in the middle. I want to be able to glance at the screen and see EVERYTHING.</p><p>The bezel just means there's this clear border - "this is screen 1, this is screen 2" and makes it hard for me to imagine anything else.</p><p>The other thing. Why not get 3 screens? That way you get a clear middle and then two more screens you can do stuff on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have two screens .
I like it .
I play the occasional game .
When I play a game , I look at one screen .
It 's a shooter .
It has my target right in the middle .
I want to be able to glance at the screen and see EVERYTHING.The bezel just means there 's this clear border - " this is screen 1 , this is screen 2 " and makes it hard for me to imagine anything else.The other thing .
Why not get 3 screens ?
That way you get a clear middle and then two more screens you can do stuff on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have two screens.
I like it.
I play the occasional game.
When I play a game, I look at one screen.
It's a shooter.
It has my target right in the middle.
I want to be able to glance at the screen and see EVERYTHING.The bezel just means there's this clear border - "this is screen 1, this is screen 2" and makes it hard for me to imagine anything else.The other thing.
Why not get 3 screens?
That way you get a clear middle and then two more screens you can do stuff on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686300</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>bluesatin</author>
	<datestamp>1270044300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One thing to point out with those videos and the review is that the FOV is like a typical monitor.</p></div><p>That entirely depends on what game you're playing, most games allow you to adjust the FOV at least to some extent, even if you have to dig around in the settings files (which you have to do with most new games now anyway, as they seem to have their FOV set up for 4:3 monitors not 16:10).</p><p>Personally I would use 3 monitors and as I'm happy enough playing with 1 monitor, I'd increase the FOV to have the side-screens as peripheral vision; which you can't do with a large screen because you can't 'curve' it or sit closer because of it's pixel density.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing to point out with those videos and the review is that the FOV is like a typical monitor.That entirely depends on what game you 're playing , most games allow you to adjust the FOV at least to some extent , even if you have to dig around in the settings files ( which you have to do with most new games now anyway , as they seem to have their FOV set up for 4 : 3 monitors not 16 : 10 ) .Personally I would use 3 monitors and as I 'm happy enough playing with 1 monitor , I 'd increase the FOV to have the side-screens as peripheral vision ; which you ca n't do with a large screen because you ca n't 'curve ' it or sit closer because of it 's pixel density .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing to point out with those videos and the review is that the FOV is like a typical monitor.That entirely depends on what game you're playing, most games allow you to adjust the FOV at least to some extent, even if you have to dig around in the settings files (which you have to do with most new games now anyway, as they seem to have their FOV set up for 4:3 monitors not 16:10).Personally I would use 3 monitors and as I'm happy enough playing with 1 monitor, I'd increase the FOV to have the side-screens as peripheral vision; which you can't do with a large screen because you can't 'curve' it or sit closer because of it's pixel density.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685634</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270039740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why didn't they make it an odd number so that you could have a center screen without having two monitor edges dead center?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did n't they make it an odd number so that you could have a center screen without having two monitor edges dead center ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why didn't they make it an odd number so that you could have a center screen without having two monitor edges dead center?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685620</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>KillzoneNET</author>
	<datestamp>1270039500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking at the videos, I can confidently say that yes, it'd be better to get a large TV.</p><p>One thing to point out with those videos and the review is that the FOV is like a typical monitor. He goes on to mention how great it is, but its really just him sitting 3 feet in front of a 66" display. Anyone will say the same thing playing a game on a typical 40-50" display running at a much lower 1080p resolution.</p><p>The key to playing in such an array is to get immersion in games. You're much better off making a configuration of 1x3 displays so that you get a very high FOV and not just a glorified big screen TV. Hell you can save yourself more than $1200 in monitors (assuming you go for 22" each at $250 each) by getting a nice HD projector and a screen (or wall). It eliminates the heat and power consumption and not to mention there are no gaps. Sit up close and there you go, a fake 2x3 Eyefinity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at the videos , I can confidently say that yes , it 'd be better to get a large TV.One thing to point out with those videos and the review is that the FOV is like a typical monitor .
He goes on to mention how great it is , but its really just him sitting 3 feet in front of a 66 " display .
Anyone will say the same thing playing a game on a typical 40-50 " display running at a much lower 1080p resolution.The key to playing in such an array is to get immersion in games .
You 're much better off making a configuration of 1x3 displays so that you get a very high FOV and not just a glorified big screen TV .
Hell you can save yourself more than $ 1200 in monitors ( assuming you go for 22 " each at $ 250 each ) by getting a nice HD projector and a screen ( or wall ) .
It eliminates the heat and power consumption and not to mention there are no gaps .
Sit up close and there you go , a fake 2x3 Eyefinity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at the videos, I can confidently say that yes, it'd be better to get a large TV.One thing to point out with those videos and the review is that the FOV is like a typical monitor.
He goes on to mention how great it is, but its really just him sitting 3 feet in front of a 66" display.
Anyone will say the same thing playing a game on a typical 40-50" display running at a much lower 1080p resolution.The key to playing in such an array is to get immersion in games.
You're much better off making a configuration of 1x3 displays so that you get a very high FOV and not just a glorified big screen TV.
Hell you can save yourself more than $1200 in monitors (assuming you go for 22" each at $250 each) by getting a nice HD projector and a screen (or wall).
It eliminates the heat and power consumption and not to mention there are no gaps.
Sit up close and there you go, a fake 2x3 Eyefinity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685200</id>
	<title>6 is unplayable</title>
	<author>loufoque</author>
	<datestamp>1270035720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>6 is stupid.<br>Either go for 3 or 9.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>6 is stupid.Either go for 3 or 9 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>6 is stupid.Either go for 3 or 9.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31724138</id>
	<title>Not only for gaming</title>
	<author>Heymdall</author>
	<datestamp>1270396740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, gaming isn't much of my thing (anymore). But with decent software supplied with it it'd make a great tool for (in my case art) video presentations having a different video on each LCD. Instead of needing a separate computer for each video, I could use one computer and have 6 lcds connected to it.
Neat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , gaming is n't much of my thing ( anymore ) .
But with decent software supplied with it it 'd make a great tool for ( in my case art ) video presentations having a different video on each LCD .
Instead of needing a separate computer for each video , I could use one computer and have 6 lcds connected to it .
Neat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, gaming isn't much of my thing (anymore).
But with decent software supplied with it it'd make a great tool for (in my case art) video presentations having a different video on each LCD.
Instead of needing a separate computer for each video, I could use one computer and have 6 lcds connected to it.
Neat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31689274</id>
	<title>Duh!</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1270056900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>PC Perspective found FPS games were basically unplayable because of the bezel through the middle of their vision</i> FPS games have a target crosshair in the exact middle of the screen. Everybody knows you need an odd number of screen in each direction to be able to target anything, i.e. either 3 screens or 9 screens for multiscreen FPS. Also, at about 4k x 4k resolution human perception reaches the point where you can't make out individual pixels while the entire screen is in your field of view; higher resolutions than that are only useful if you are going to lean in and focus on a specific area. Since most games are horizontally oriented, I don't see much use for having more than 3 screens, except for in a flight simulator, or perhaps having a fourth screen just for status info.</htmltext>
<tokenext>PC Perspective found FPS games were basically unplayable because of the bezel through the middle of their vision FPS games have a target crosshair in the exact middle of the screen .
Everybody knows you need an odd number of screen in each direction to be able to target anything , i.e .
either 3 screens or 9 screens for multiscreen FPS .
Also , at about 4k x 4k resolution human perception reaches the point where you ca n't make out individual pixels while the entire screen is in your field of view ; higher resolutions than that are only useful if you are going to lean in and focus on a specific area .
Since most games are horizontally oriented , I do n't see much use for having more than 3 screens , except for in a flight simulator , or perhaps having a fourth screen just for status info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PC Perspective found FPS games were basically unplayable because of the bezel through the middle of their vision FPS games have a target crosshair in the exact middle of the screen.
Everybody knows you need an odd number of screen in each direction to be able to target anything, i.e.
either 3 screens or 9 screens for multiscreen FPS.
Also, at about 4k x 4k resolution human perception reaches the point where you can't make out individual pixels while the entire screen is in your field of view; higher resolutions than that are only useful if you are going to lean in and focus on a specific area.
Since most games are horizontally oriented, I don't see much use for having more than 3 screens, except for in a flight simulator, or perhaps having a fourth screen just for status info.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686208</id>
	<title>I don't really see...</title>
	<author>PhongUK</author>
	<datestamp>1270043880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the point in this because, for gaming in say MW2 or CS:S, you arn't interested in anything further out than a single monitor provides. The good players don't look around, they look blankly at the screen until they see something move and then twitch to it. Given that screen space of this vastness is going to put more of the game to your peripheral vision, i can't see the advantage. I'd be very surprised if you went to LAN parties and the 'elite' players used a setup like this.

It does have its advantages for strategy games however where more screen real-estate is valuable and for movies, but for that to be any fun to use manufacturers will have to make specialist monitors with no screen frames.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the point in this because , for gaming in say MW2 or CS : S , you ar n't interested in anything further out than a single monitor provides .
The good players do n't look around , they look blankly at the screen until they see something move and then twitch to it .
Given that screen space of this vastness is going to put more of the game to your peripheral vision , i ca n't see the advantage .
I 'd be very surprised if you went to LAN parties and the 'elite ' players used a setup like this .
It does have its advantages for strategy games however where more screen real-estate is valuable and for movies , but for that to be any fun to use manufacturers will have to make specialist monitors with no screen frames .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the point in this because, for gaming in say MW2 or CS:S, you arn't interested in anything further out than a single monitor provides.
The good players don't look around, they look blankly at the screen until they see something move and then twitch to it.
Given that screen space of this vastness is going to put more of the game to your peripheral vision, i can't see the advantage.
I'd be very surprised if you went to LAN parties and the 'elite' players used a setup like this.
It does have its advantages for strategy games however where more screen real-estate is valuable and for movies, but for that to be any fun to use manufacturers will have to make specialist monitors with no screen frames.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31698708</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>junjie\_1024</author>
	<datestamp>1270119060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Women who love fashion must love <a href="http://www.mychanelmall.com/" title="mychanelmall.com" rel="nofollow">Chanel handbags</a> [mychanelmall.com]. Chanel handbags vary in designs, sizes, colors and styles. If you love big bags, you can choose <a href="http://www.mychanelmall.com/" title="mychanelmall.com" rel="nofollow">Chanel bags</a> [mychanelmall.com]. If you love cute bags, you can choose Chanle bags, too. <a href="http://www.mychanelmall.com/" title="mychanelmall.com" rel="nofollow">Chanel wallets</a> [mychanelmall.com] are also best-sellers.
<a href="http://www.mychanelmall.com/chanel-new-arrivals-c-1.html" title="mychanelmall.com" rel="nofollow">Black Chanel handbag</a> [mychanelmall.com]is the classic representative of Chanel handbags. <a href="http://www.mychanelmall.com/chanel-new-arrivals-c-1.html" title="mychanelmall.com" rel="nofollow">Pink Chanel handbags</a> [mychanelmall.com] make women full of attractiveness and allure. Spring is the best season to add something fresh to your attire. Buying Chanel handbags online is a good way to get cheap Chanel handbags. Numerious <a href="http://www.mychanelmall.com/chanel-2008-collection-c-3.html" title="mychanelmall.com" rel="nofollow">discount Chanel handbags</a> [mychanelmall.com] of Chanel handbags 2009 collection are waiting for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Women who love fashion must love Chanel handbags [ mychanelmall.com ] .
Chanel handbags vary in designs , sizes , colors and styles .
If you love big bags , you can choose Chanel bags [ mychanelmall.com ] .
If you love cute bags , you can choose Chanle bags , too .
Chanel wallets [ mychanelmall.com ] are also best-sellers .
Black Chanel handbag [ mychanelmall.com ] is the classic representative of Chanel handbags .
Pink Chanel handbags [ mychanelmall.com ] make women full of attractiveness and allure .
Spring is the best season to add something fresh to your attire .
Buying Chanel handbags online is a good way to get cheap Chanel handbags .
Numerious discount Chanel handbags [ mychanelmall.com ] of Chanel handbags 2009 collection are waiting for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Women who love fashion must love Chanel handbags [mychanelmall.com].
Chanel handbags vary in designs, sizes, colors and styles.
If you love big bags, you can choose Chanel bags [mychanelmall.com].
If you love cute bags, you can choose Chanle bags, too.
Chanel wallets [mychanelmall.com] are also best-sellers.
Black Chanel handbag [mychanelmall.com]is the classic representative of Chanel handbags.
Pink Chanel handbags [mychanelmall.com] make women full of attractiveness and allure.
Spring is the best season to add something fresh to your attire.
Buying Chanel handbags online is a good way to get cheap Chanel handbags.
Numerious discount Chanel handbags [mychanelmall.com] of Chanel handbags 2009 collection are waiting for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31689578</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1270058160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since, the choice of monitor or Full HD television is totally unrelated to the number of displays, the real question becomes, is a line running through your vision better or worse than not having that vision at all.  Since the first monitor will be their either way, and it is only a question of whether you add the other 5 monitors above, left and right of where your current screen currently ends.<br> <br>

The ultimate setup would be to have projectors on the outside of a box made of screens that you can see the picture on that is projected from the outside, and putting one projector on each side so that you are sitting in a fully enclosed cube where all six sides are a display.  Obviously the floor would be the hardest to set up, but many homes being built now have a balcony in the front room, and thus have a two story room that is tall enough that you could put a gaming platform in it to accomplish the full gaming box.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since , the choice of monitor or Full HD television is totally unrelated to the number of displays , the real question becomes , is a line running through your vision better or worse than not having that vision at all .
Since the first monitor will be their either way , and it is only a question of whether you add the other 5 monitors above , left and right of where your current screen currently ends .
The ultimate setup would be to have projectors on the outside of a box made of screens that you can see the picture on that is projected from the outside , and putting one projector on each side so that you are sitting in a fully enclosed cube where all six sides are a display .
Obviously the floor would be the hardest to set up , but many homes being built now have a balcony in the front room , and thus have a two story room that is tall enough that you could put a gaming platform in it to accomplish the full gaming box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since, the choice of monitor or Full HD television is totally unrelated to the number of displays, the real question becomes, is a line running through your vision better or worse than not having that vision at all.
Since the first monitor will be their either way, and it is only a question of whether you add the other 5 monitors above, left and right of where your current screen currently ends.
The ultimate setup would be to have projectors on the outside of a box made of screens that you can see the picture on that is projected from the outside, and putting one projector on each side so that you are sitting in a fully enclosed cube where all six sides are a display.
Obviously the floor would be the hardest to set up, but many homes being built now have a balcony in the front room, and thus have a two story room that is tall enough that you could put a gaming platform in it to accomplish the full gaming box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686016</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1270042680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you can try 2880 x 900 via <a href="http://www.necdisplay.com/newtechnologies/curveddisplay/" title="necdisplay.com">http://www.necdisplay.com/newtechnologies/curveddisplay/</a> [necdisplay.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>you can try 2880 x 900 via http : //www.necdisplay.com/newtechnologies/curveddisplay/ [ necdisplay.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can try 2880 x 900 via http://www.necdisplay.com/newtechnologies/curveddisplay/ [necdisplay.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31688284</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1270052580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One thing to point out with those videos and the review is that the FOV is like a typical monitor.</p></div></blockquote><p>Mmm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... no, it's not the same. Regular wide screen TV: 16x9. Regular wide screen monitor: 16x9 or16x10</p><p>A six monitor (3x2) wide screen setup will be: 48x18 (16x3 and 9x2) or 48x20 (16x3 and 10x2). This is 24x9 or 24x10 which is 50\% wider than 16x6 and 16x10 respectively. But thank you for playing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing to point out with those videos and the review is that the FOV is like a typical monitor.Mmm ... no , it 's not the same .
Regular wide screen TV : 16x9 .
Regular wide screen monitor : 16x9 or16x10A six monitor ( 3x2 ) wide screen setup will be : 48x18 ( 16x3 and 9x2 ) or 48x20 ( 16x3 and 10x2 ) .
This is 24x9 or 24x10 which is 50 \ % wider than 16x6 and 16x10 respectively .
But thank you for playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing to point out with those videos and the review is that the FOV is like a typical monitor.Mmm ... no, it's not the same.
Regular wide screen TV: 16x9.
Regular wide screen monitor: 16x9 or16x10A six monitor (3x2) wide screen setup will be: 48x18 (16x3 and 9x2) or 48x20 (16x3 and 10x2).
This is 24x9 or 24x10 which is 50\% wider than 16x6 and 16x10 respectively.
But thank you for playing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686040</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1270042800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes,  6 1080p screen 1.5 feet from my eyes is 8000\% better than 1 62" 1080p screen 1.5 feet from my eyes.  there is a crapload more resolution in the 6 panels together than ANY big TV made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , 6 1080p screen 1.5 feet from my eyes is 8000 \ % better than 1 62 " 1080p screen 1.5 feet from my eyes .
there is a crapload more resolution in the 6 panels together than ANY big TV made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes,  6 1080p screen 1.5 feet from my eyes is 8000\% better than 1 62" 1080p screen 1.5 feet from my eyes.
there is a crapload more resolution in the 6 panels together than ANY big TV made.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31688054</id>
	<title>Cool trick but</title>
	<author>bobjr94</author>
	<datestamp>1270051740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, you can just plug in your 49" (what I did) HDTV and go gaming, do web sites or whatever,  or buy 6 identical monitors &amp; mounts and set it all up and in the end have higher resolution but have your
windows all split into 6 parts ? Maybe for gaming it would work, but for web sites, having text split between monitors is really annoying. I think even for videos it would be rather annoying. What if amd drops support for this in a few years when you are ready for an upgrade ?

Just wait a few years until 2k &amp; 4k hdtv become available, you will have better resolution and one clean screen with out breaks. And no worries about being stuck to one manufacturer, you will be able to plug your 1 cable into about any computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you can just plug in your 49 " ( what I did ) HDTV and go gaming , do web sites or whatever , or buy 6 identical monitors &amp; mounts and set it all up and in the end have higher resolution but have your windows all split into 6 parts ?
Maybe for gaming it would work , but for web sites , having text split between monitors is really annoying .
I think even for videos it would be rather annoying .
What if amd drops support for this in a few years when you are ready for an upgrade ?
Just wait a few years until 2k &amp; 4k hdtv become available , you will have better resolution and one clean screen with out breaks .
And no worries about being stuck to one manufacturer , you will be able to plug your 1 cable into about any computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you can just plug in your 49" (what I did) HDTV and go gaming, do web sites or whatever,  or buy 6 identical monitors &amp; mounts and set it all up and in the end have higher resolution but have your
windows all split into 6 parts ?
Maybe for gaming it would work, but for web sites, having text split between monitors is really annoying.
I think even for videos it would be rather annoying.
What if amd drops support for this in a few years when you are ready for an upgrade ?
Just wait a few years until 2k &amp; 4k hdtv become available, you will have better resolution and one clean screen with out breaks.
And no worries about being stuck to one manufacturer, you will be able to plug your 1 cable into about any computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685230</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1270036020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nevermind 6, let us talk 3 (since this works better in most types of games, also FPS). With three big monitors you can effectivelly almost fill your field of vision (perhaps even with the left and right one tilting slightly, so three monitors form a semi-arc)</p><p>With one big TV...not really; unless you sit so "close" that it's no longer an enjoyable experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nevermind 6 , let us talk 3 ( since this works better in most types of games , also FPS ) .
With three big monitors you can effectivelly almost fill your field of vision ( perhaps even with the left and right one tilting slightly , so three monitors form a semi-arc ) With one big TV...not really ; unless you sit so " close " that it 's no longer an enjoyable experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nevermind 6, let us talk 3 (since this works better in most types of games, also FPS).
With three big monitors you can effectivelly almost fill your field of vision (perhaps even with the left and right one tilting slightly, so three monitors form a semi-arc)With one big TV...not really; unless you sit so "close" that it's no longer an enjoyable experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31692218</id>
	<title>since when is..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270068660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>30 fps "smooth" and "acceptable" for gaming....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>30 fps " smooth " and " acceptable " for gaming... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>30 fps "smooth" and "acceptable" for gaming....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686492</id>
	<title>Scooped by over a week.</title>
	<author>Chas</author>
	<datestamp>1270045440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's <a href="http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/03/24/ati\_radeon\_5870\_2gb\_3x2\_eyefinity\_gaming\_experience" title="hardocp.com">a review</a> [hardocp.com] of the same setup by HardOCP.  Complete with video of not only gaming but screen setup, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a review [ hardocp.com ] of the same setup by HardOCP .
Complete with video of not only gaming but screen setup , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a review [hardocp.com] of the same setup by HardOCP.
Complete with video of not only gaming but screen setup, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685670</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1270039980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its 6 of one and half a dozen of the other <i>only on crossfire capable motherboards</i>.<br> <br>

The great unwashed, with their single PCIe 16x slot, have to settle for "6 of one <i>or</i> half a dozen of the other"....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its 6 of one and half a dozen of the other only on crossfire capable motherboards .
The great unwashed , with their single PCIe 16x slot , have to settle for " 6 of one or half a dozen of the other " ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its 6 of one and half a dozen of the other only on crossfire capable motherboards.
The great unwashed, with their single PCIe 16x slot, have to settle for "6 of one or half a dozen of the other"....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685146</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>Stooshie</author>
	<datestamp>1270035240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other as far as I 'm concerned !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686234</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270043940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 22" monitors they are using are 1080, so it would be 6X the resolution compared to a TV the same size.  This is the problem with TVs a 62" TV is the same resolution as a 22" TV...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 22 " monitors they are using are 1080 , so it would be 6X the resolution compared to a TV the same size .
This is the problem with TVs a 62 " TV is the same resolution as a 22 " TV.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 22" monitors they are using are 1080, so it would be 6X the resolution compared to a TV the same size.
This is the problem with TVs a 62" TV is the same resolution as a 22" TV...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31687570</id>
	<title>Re:Been running Eyefinity, my thoughts...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270050000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Grats on the +5 Q.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Grats on the + 5 Q .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Grats on the +5 Q.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685660</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>iamhassi</author>
	<datestamp>1270039860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=889&amp;type=expert&amp;pid=13" title="pcper.com">FTA:</a> [pcper.com] <br>
<i> <b>"Should you find yourself multi-monitor curious..."</b> </i>
<br> <br>
hey!  whoa!  slow down there partner!  I mean, yeah sure I'm <i>interested</i> in six monitors, but <i>curious</i>?  No, no I am <i> <b>not</b> curious</i>... about anything... <a href="http://www.tv.com/seinfeld/the-outing/episode/2297/summary.html?tag=page\_body" title="tv.com">not that there is anything wrong with that</a> [tv.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : [ pcper.com ] " Should you find yourself multi-monitor curious... " hey !
whoa ! slow down there partner !
I mean , yeah sure I 'm interested in six monitors , but curious ?
No , no I am not curious... about anything... not that there is anything wrong with that [ tv.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA: [pcper.com] 
 "Should you find yourself multi-monitor curious..." 
 
hey!
whoa!  slow down there partner!
I mean, yeah sure I'm interested in six monitors, but curious?
No, no I am  not curious... about anything... not that there is anything wrong with that [tv.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31688412</id>
	<title>Video overlay?  multi-screen video?</title>
	<author>way2trivial</author>
	<datestamp>1270053060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having many different multi screen setups-<br>my biggest gripe is whenever I stretch an actual video across multiple monitors--<br>only one monitor gets the output--  the rest are black</p><p>any chance I can expand VLC to span- and the video will as well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having many different multi screen setups-my biggest gripe is whenever I stretch an actual video across multiple monitors--only one monitor gets the output-- the rest are blackany chance I can expand VLC to span- and the video will as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having many different multi screen setups-my biggest gripe is whenever I stretch an actual video across multiple monitors--only one monitor gets the output--  the rest are blackany chance I can expand VLC to span- and the video will as well?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685472</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory question...</title>
	<author>MrHanky</author>
	<datestamp>1270038240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't you just check before whining? This is the internet: type in "eyefinity linux" into Bing or Google or whatever and shut the fuck up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't you just check before whining ?
This is the internet : type in " eyefinity linux " into Bing or Google or whatever and shut the fuck up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't you just check before whining?
This is the internet: type in "eyefinity linux" into Bing or Google or whatever and shut the fuck up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685208</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>bbqsrc</author>
	<datestamp>1270035780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most TVs can only handle resolutions of up to 1920x1080, as they're made for HD video, so there is a slight advantage to the multiple monitor layout. However, the frames between the monitors would drive me insane.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most TVs can only handle resolutions of up to 1920x1080 , as they 're made for HD video , so there is a slight advantage to the multiple monitor layout .
However , the frames between the monitors would drive me insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most TVs can only handle resolutions of up to 1920x1080, as they're made for HD video, so there is a slight advantage to the multiple monitor layout.
However, the frames between the monitors would drive me insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686320</id>
	<title>Quadroplex setup</title>
	<author>sanosuke001</author>
	<datestamp>1270044420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>At work, we have dual 4K projectors behind a 32:9, 15 foot wide piece of glass on our main visualization display (we do 3D visualization software) and we run a system with two Quadroplex boxes (two quadro 5800's each I believe) and nVidia's drivers are a long way from actually working correctly for us. We see a lot of tearing when in mosaic mode and multiple opengl contexts can't run concurrently (it only allows half resolution height when doing so) and makes the system very unstable. Seeing that this card doesn't require clock sync and works with six screens seamlessly, it looks like a viable alternative to us. Considering that two cards could run our 7680x2160 screen (our 4K projectors are four 1080p screens each) it might be advantageous for us to upgrade had we not just bought the new quadroplexes (nVidia told us to update our quadroplexes as our old ones didn't support the mosaic mode correctly; unfortunately, the new ones don't seem to either...)<br> <br>

I see these cards more useful to those with setups like ours; projectors that can display without borders and for high-quality visualizations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At work , we have dual 4K projectors behind a 32 : 9 , 15 foot wide piece of glass on our main visualization display ( we do 3D visualization software ) and we run a system with two Quadroplex boxes ( two quadro 5800 's each I believe ) and nVidia 's drivers are a long way from actually working correctly for us .
We see a lot of tearing when in mosaic mode and multiple opengl contexts ca n't run concurrently ( it only allows half resolution height when doing so ) and makes the system very unstable .
Seeing that this card does n't require clock sync and works with six screens seamlessly , it looks like a viable alternative to us .
Considering that two cards could run our 7680x2160 screen ( our 4K projectors are four 1080p screens each ) it might be advantageous for us to upgrade had we not just bought the new quadroplexes ( nVidia told us to update our quadroplexes as our old ones did n't support the mosaic mode correctly ; unfortunately , the new ones do n't seem to either... ) I see these cards more useful to those with setups like ours ; projectors that can display without borders and for high-quality visualizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At work, we have dual 4K projectors behind a 32:9, 15 foot wide piece of glass on our main visualization display (we do 3D visualization software) and we run a system with two Quadroplex boxes (two quadro 5800's each I believe) and nVidia's drivers are a long way from actually working correctly for us.
We see a lot of tearing when in mosaic mode and multiple opengl contexts can't run concurrently (it only allows half resolution height when doing so) and makes the system very unstable.
Seeing that this card doesn't require clock sync and works with six screens seamlessly, it looks like a viable alternative to us.
Considering that two cards could run our 7680x2160 screen (our 4K projectors are four 1080p screens each) it might be advantageous for us to upgrade had we not just bought the new quadroplexes (nVidia told us to update our quadroplexes as our old ones didn't support the mosaic mode correctly; unfortunately, the new ones don't seem to either...) 

I see these cards more useful to those with setups like ours; projectors that can display without borders and for high-quality visualizations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686350</id>
	<title>A cheap(ish) version</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270044600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Running ubuntu: http://blog.jasonmorton.com/?p=24</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Running ubuntu : http : //blog.jasonmorton.com/ ? p = 24</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Running ubuntu: http://blog.jasonmorton.com/?p=24</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31688466</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270053240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FPS games would benefit from a single row of an odd number of screens 3-5(so that the middle view is clear).  If you could  rotate the monitors "wide" axis vertically you might even be able to see 5 screens at once!</p><p>Driving &amp; Flight sims would easily gain from six.</p><p>RTSs easily from 6.</p><p>MMO's well, six screens is a good start. I could easily employ more between all the support programs one can use as well as running more than one account, watching movies, displaying maps, etc, etc, etc.</p><p>And finally p0rn.  Well I don't know if getting an extreme high rez look at some of them is such a good idea.  "Wow look you can even see the HPV warts on that hookers ass!"  A little too much realism, no thanks, but being able to do a Marty McFly Jr. with six monitors showing six p0rns at once.  Or one p0rn, the weather channel, the music channel......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FPS games would benefit from a single row of an odd number of screens 3-5 ( so that the middle view is clear ) .
If you could rotate the monitors " wide " axis vertically you might even be able to see 5 screens at once ! Driving &amp; Flight sims would easily gain from six.RTSs easily from 6.MMO 's well , six screens is a good start .
I could easily employ more between all the support programs one can use as well as running more than one account , watching movies , displaying maps , etc , etc , etc.And finally p0rn .
Well I do n't know if getting an extreme high rez look at some of them is such a good idea .
" Wow look you can even see the HPV warts on that hookers ass !
" A little too much realism , no thanks , but being able to do a Marty McFly Jr. with six monitors showing six p0rns at once .
Or one p0rn , the weather channel , the music channel..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FPS games would benefit from a single row of an odd number of screens 3-5(so that the middle view is clear).
If you could  rotate the monitors "wide" axis vertically you might even be able to see 5 screens at once!Driving &amp; Flight sims would easily gain from six.RTSs easily from 6.MMO's well, six screens is a good start.
I could easily employ more between all the support programs one can use as well as running more than one account, watching movies, displaying maps, etc, etc, etc.And finally p0rn.
Well I don't know if getting an extreme high rez look at some of them is such a good idea.
"Wow look you can even see the HPV warts on that hookers ass!
"  A little too much realism, no thanks, but being able to do a Marty McFly Jr. with six monitors showing six p0rns at once.
Or one p0rn, the weather channel, the music channel......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31690136</id>
	<title>Re:Overheard at nVidia:</title>
	<author>Penguin Follower</author>
	<datestamp>1270060500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Fuck everything, we're doing seven panels.</i> </p></div><p> <a href="http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news\_item&amp;px=NzUyNQ" title="phoronix.com">http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news\_item&amp;px=NzUyNQ</a> [phoronix.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck everything , we 're doing seven panels .
http : //www.phoronix.com/scan.php ? page = news \ _item&amp;px = NzUyNQ [ phoronix.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Fuck everything, we're doing seven panels.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news\_item&amp;px=NzUyNQ [phoronix.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31687796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31693236</id>
	<title>Re:Been running Eyefinity, my thoughts...</title>
	<author>aka1nas</author>
	<datestamp>1270029180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nvidia users are supposed to get triple-head gaming with SLI support later in April with the new driverset for Fermi.  It will require two or more cards in SLI as they only offer dual output cards. The feature name is 3d Vision Surround, but the triple-head feature is not tied to the 3d vision part.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nvidia users are supposed to get triple-head gaming with SLI support later in April with the new driverset for Fermi .
It will require two or more cards in SLI as they only offer dual output cards .
The feature name is 3d Vision Surround , but the triple-head feature is not tied to the 3d vision part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nvidia users are supposed to get triple-head gaming with SLI support later in April with the new driverset for Fermi.
It will require two or more cards in SLI as they only offer dual output cards.
The feature name is 3d Vision Surround, but the triple-head feature is not tied to the 3d vision part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685550</id>
	<title>Single-page link</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1270039020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://hothardware.com/printarticle.aspx?articleid=1480" title="hothardware.com" rel="nofollow">http://hothardware.com/printarticle.aspx?articleid=1480</a> [hothardware.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //hothardware.com/printarticle.aspx ? articleid = 1480 [ hothardware.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://hothardware.com/printarticle.aspx?articleid=1480 [hothardware.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686072</id>
	<title>42 comments and counting</title>
	<author>Provocateur</author>
	<datestamp>1270042980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The pr0n enthusiasts must still be asleep; there has been no mention yet. Either that, or the world will definitely come to an end tomorrow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The pr0n enthusiasts must still be asleep ; there has been no mention yet .
Either that , or the world will definitely come to an end tomorrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pr0n enthusiasts must still be asleep; there has been no mention yet.
Either that, or the world will definitely come to an end tomorrow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685308</id>
	<title>2.72 TFLOPS</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1270036680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine a beowulf cluster of those!</p><p>Heh... I remember doing my graduate numerical electromagnetics research using a DEC/Alpha that performed in the MFLOP range... Boy I wonder if I could run all my old FORTRAN77 code on this thing!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine a beowulf cluster of those ! Heh... I remember doing my graduate numerical electromagnetics research using a DEC/Alpha that performed in the MFLOP range... Boy I wonder if I could run all my old FORTRAN77 code on this thing !
: p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine a beowulf cluster of those!Heh... I remember doing my graduate numerical electromagnetics research using a DEC/Alpha that performed in the MFLOP range... Boy I wonder if I could run all my old FORTRAN77 code on this thing!
:p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31698342</id>
	<title>Re:6x 22"? What about one large TV?</title>
	<author>drkim</author>
	<datestamp>1270113600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually - this gives me an idea...
<br>
What if you had 3 (or 6) HD <b>projectors</b> aligned so there was no gap or overlap? Then you could have the full resolution with no seam. You could even project into a hemispherical screen...?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually - this gives me an idea.. . What if you had 3 ( or 6 ) HD projectors aligned so there was no gap or overlap ?
Then you could have the full resolution with no seam .
You could even project into a hemispherical screen... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually - this gives me an idea...

What if you had 3 (or 6) HD projectors aligned so there was no gap or overlap?
Then you could have the full resolution with no seam.
You could even project into a hemispherical screen...?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686146</id>
	<title>EVE ONLINE!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270043340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what i want this for!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what i want this for !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what i want this for!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685522</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one...</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1270038840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31687294</id>
	<title>Re:6 is unplayable</title>
	<author>oldspewey</author>
	<datestamp>1270048980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mine goes to eleven.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mine goes to eleven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mine goes to eleven.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31687012</id>
	<title>A Stepping Stone</title>
	<author>\_bug\_</author>
	<datestamp>1270047720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next we'll see a six-panel LCD without bezels that can deform from a flat screen to having the monitors on either end of a 3x2 tilt out to create a concave screen (with proper distortion applied to the video simulate peripheral view) that creates an amazing and immerse experience.</p><p>But that's just a stop-gap (and probably a very expensive one at that).</p><p>The real end to this road is a giant 3-6' tall OLED screen that starts out flat, but can then be curved to create a similar wrap-around viewing experience. Only with OLEDs it will be one big, bendable screen and it'll cost a lot less in terms of electricity to run. Some kind of controller that handles video input would be responsible for detecting the curve in the screen and distorting the input video as necessary to make the whole thing look fan-fucking-tastic.</p><p>I give it 20 years. But this will be mainstream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next we 'll see a six-panel LCD without bezels that can deform from a flat screen to having the monitors on either end of a 3x2 tilt out to create a concave screen ( with proper distortion applied to the video simulate peripheral view ) that creates an amazing and immerse experience.But that 's just a stop-gap ( and probably a very expensive one at that ) .The real end to this road is a giant 3-6 ' tall OLED screen that starts out flat , but can then be curved to create a similar wrap-around viewing experience .
Only with OLEDs it will be one big , bendable screen and it 'll cost a lot less in terms of electricity to run .
Some kind of controller that handles video input would be responsible for detecting the curve in the screen and distorting the input video as necessary to make the whole thing look fan-fucking-tastic.I give it 20 years .
But this will be mainstream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next we'll see a six-panel LCD without bezels that can deform from a flat screen to having the monitors on either end of a 3x2 tilt out to create a concave screen (with proper distortion applied to the video simulate peripheral view) that creates an amazing and immerse experience.But that's just a stop-gap (and probably a very expensive one at that).The real end to this road is a giant 3-6' tall OLED screen that starts out flat, but can then be curved to create a similar wrap-around viewing experience.
Only with OLEDs it will be one big, bendable screen and it'll cost a lot less in terms of electricity to run.
Some kind of controller that handles video input would be responsible for detecting the curve in the screen and distorting the input video as necessary to make the whole thing look fan-fucking-tastic.I give it 20 years.
But this will be mainstream.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31688122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31693236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31687570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31690136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31687796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31688284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31698342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31688466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31687294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31698662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31687292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31698708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31689256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0546257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31689578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0546257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0546257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31687796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31690136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0546257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31698708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31698662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0546257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0546257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31688416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0546257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0546257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31689256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31689578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31688284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31698342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31687292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31688122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31688466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0546257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31687570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31693236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0546257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0546257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31687294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31685680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0546257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0546257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0546257.31686010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
