• Windows XP Pro (for the Remote Desktop capablities)
• Another computer on the network

The solution I found was this:

1. Visit nVidia’s driver website and download the new drivers
2. Enable RDP
3. Turn off your computer, install the new cards
4. Start up your computer.  You will experience lots of artifacting.  Just log on to your user’s account.
5. On the computer not in use, connect via RDP to the SLI’d computer.  Log in and take over the computer.  Install the drivers remotely.

If all goes well, this will solve your problem–I know it did for me.

At the start of the article, RMS starts off by setting the scene by portraying the “unethical system of restrictions that Microsoft, like many other software companies, imposes on its customers.“  Really?  I am sorry but, in the end, Microsoft is a business and it is licensed to do what it feels best helps out Microsoft.  I dislike a lot of what they do, but they are a business.  That’s how they are supposed to work.  Why is RMS not attacking other industries, like the food industry?  Coca-Cola is, after all, ‘closed source’ and we are all dependant on them to keep making Coca-Cola for us to be able to drink it.  RMS is simply attacking the easiest target in this argument over Free Software.  Why not attack Apple every time they release their latest iPod or iMac?  I would imagine the main reason is that it is much harder to attack a company like Apple that doesn’t have the same instant dislike that Microsoft seems to invoke in most people.

RMS also attacks Bill Gates quite a bit in this article, even though he claims that Gates “doesn’t matter.”  His fourth paragraph is almost exclusively an attack on Bill Gates.

Gates’ philanthropy for health care for poor countries has won some people’s good opinion. The LA Times reported that his foundation spends five to 10% of its money annually and invests the rest, sometimes in companies it suggests cause environmental degradation and illness in the same poor countries.

I am incredulous that RMS is attacking what Bill Gates is doing with his foundation.  If Gates is investing the majority of his money (at this point) into companies that are researching ways to solve problems that are common in the developing world, isn’t that a personal decision that Gates must make?  Why is that a bad decision?  I don’t understand why RMS is aggravated with Gates over Gates’ personal foundation.

Of course, RMS also attacks many other things.  He makes a horrible summary of a letter that Gates wrote during a time when all of his software was being heavily pirated.  Why should Gates not dislike piracy?  He is a software manufacturer and, according to some, the person solely responsible for selling software for money instead of bundled with a machine.  Gates has that right, just as RMS had the right to develop emacs and license it under the GPL.  That’s a choice that has both good and bad sides.  Also, RMS isn’t fooling anyone by calling DRM “Digital Restrictions Management.”  Really, he isn’t.  In fact, going to google and typing in “define:drm” brings up only one instance of the word ‘restriction’ and no definitions that include the word in the abbreviation.

RMS needs to wake up and realize that most users don’t care about the fact that Microsoft and their products are closed source.  They don’t care.  They don’t even know what the hell closed source even means.  All that they know is that ‘Linux’ sounds funny, ‘GNU/Linux’ sounds even funnier, and they are familiar with Windows.  Maybe one day Linux will win the ‘war’ of Operating Systems and will have Microsoft-like dominance.  I, personally, welcome the day.  I enjoy Linux and the benefits of it, but I do not hate everyone who likes Windows (or OS X, Solaris, etc).  If Microsoft and their products are really that inferior, then people will move over and then Windows will become less popular.  If not then the Open-Source community has no one to blame but themselves.