PCI Express 3.0 Delayed Till 2011 80
Professor_Quail writes "PC Magazine reports that the PCI SIG has officially delayed the release of the PCI Express 3.0 specification until the second quarter of 2010. Originally, the PCI Express 3.0 specification called for the spec itself to be released this year, with products due about a year after the spec's release, or in 2010."
Re:Delayed the release? (Score:5, Informative)
So the spec is complete, but were not gonna tell you what it says!
Doesn't make sense!
The article says they're working on getting it to be backward compliant with the current PCIe specs. You probably don't want to start building to the spec until that's in place anyway. You can find a lot of information on PCIe 3.0 [pcisig.com] on the FAQ on their site. If you're a member of PCI SIG, you might even be able to get the preliminary spec, who knows?
Re:whats in 3.0? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.ni.com/pxi/mxiexpress/ [ni.com]
Re:whats in 3.0? (Score:3, Informative)
As the AC above me referenced, National Instruments uses PCI-e for a lot of their backplane communications in their equipment.
Re:Good Cause Creative still cant handle PCIe now! (Score:5, Informative)
Creative purchased their drivers off of a third party company and then just updated them over the years. This literally happened since the soundriver products began. Once Vista came out with an entirely new sound infrastructure nobody at Creative had the expertise to write a decent driver so they cobbled one together (with Microsoft's help) from their old horrible drivers.
Fact is - Creative soundscards aren't worth while because the drivers are so poor. Even if the sound hardware could potentially take load off of the CPU, you're more likely to spend endless hours messing with it and even if it does work it won't work as effectively as one might hope.
Re:whats in 3.0? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Till, until and 'til (Score:2, Informative)
Til(l) was the original form of the word. The redundant prefix un(d) was added later, and nowadays people mistake till as a shortened version of until, which gives 'til. So, there's nothing wrong with the headline.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=till [etymonline.com]
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=until [etymonline.com]