I don't see why people keep saying wireless displays are not possible....they already exist.
Yes, you need to have a beefy display (some sort of CPU, memory, etc), but "smart displays" are already on the market...they sit there and act as regular displays when on the stand, and can be removed and carted about at will like a tablet PC. If you want to argue that it can no longer be called a display, fine, but whatever you call it, it exists.
Definitely not in that incarnation. Just how is one supposed to easily reattach the screen? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>LOL! What rock have you been under. Better tell Viewsonic & Microsoft that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Something like that has been feasible for a long time now. XTerms were able to build a GUI in real time over a 9600BAUD connection. As long as you're not planning on doing anything too intensive, all you have to do is send data about what kind of window to draw how large, and where, and let the client do the actual work of drawing. This works because it usually doesn't take much bandwidth to describe a GUI abstractly, text is cheap, users are incredibly slow (from a computer's standpoint), and the client can handle things like window dragging, menus and highlighting without needing to communicate with the server.
However, as soon as you get into any streaming or real-time issues, things change. Sure, you can compress things within an inch of their lives, but who wants to work in a UI that looks like a crunched JPEG? Monitor cables stream gigabytes per second. You can get around that, but with an interface like Aqua, and using the sorts of apps that Apple is pushing hard, it is not an easy thing to accomplish.
I don't think Jobs will accept an "Aqua, Jr." interface if he won't accept an "Internet, Jr." experience. Wireless displays are definitely coming - Rendezvous is a very interesting technology from this point of view, but it'll be a real engineering coup if Apple can roll one out now that isn't compromised in some significant way.
Well, if you look closely, you'll see that neither of those links point to a device which actually recieves wireless VIDEO. As Amorph and fishdoc said, those are really tablet computers with Graphics on board. If you are simply transmitting graphic instructions, then it is possible. (Or for any smart-asses out there, wireless video is, of course, possible when analog, as in broadcast TV.)
But, again, as Amorph said, true wireless video would have to be so compressed at any reasonable color depth/resolution that it would suck. Hence my original comment.
If the picture is meant to represent an iMac that has a detatchable tablet, instead of just a wireless display, then sure, it is possible. I took the picture to be a wireless display, which would either suck due to compression, or due to the crappy graphics card stuck inside the display (assuming you can't put a Raedon in the monitor itself, if so, then maybe.) Still a bad idea, though.
Sorry I looked so stupid to you all. <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
[quote](Or for any smart-asses out there, wireless video is, of course, possible when analog, as in broadcast TV.)<hr></blockquote>
What about HDTV's over the air signals? Thems digital ain't they? Theys all them ones and zeros which is why you either get picture or nada. (OK there's artifacting which is the tuner extrapolating because of lack of signal, yadda, yadda) It's not like the old days of being able to watch TV through the static.
What about HDTV's over the air signals? Thems digital ain't they? Theys all them ones and zeros which is why you either get picture or nada. (OK there's artifacting which is the tuner extrapolating because of lack of signal, yadda, yadda) It's not like the old days of being able to watch TV through the static.
Something like that has been feasible for a long time now. XTerms were able to build a GUI in real time over a 9600BAUD connection. As long as you're not planning on doing anything too intensive, all you have to do is send data about what kind of window to draw how large, and where, and let the client do the actual work of drawing. This works because it usually doesn't take much bandwidth to describe a GUI abstractly, text is cheap, users are incredibly slow (from a computer's standpoint), and the client can handle things like window dragging, menus and highlighting without needing to communicate with the server.
However, as soon as you get into any streaming or real-time issues, things change. Sure, you can compress things within an inch of their lives, but who wants to work in a UI that looks like a crunched JPEG? Monitor cables stream gigabytes per second. You can get around that, but with an interface like Aqua, and using the sorts of apps that Apple is pushing hard, it is not an easy thing to accomplish.
I don't think Jobs will accept an "Aqua, Jr." interface if he won't accept an "Internet, Jr." experience. Wireless displays are definitely coming - Rendezvous is a very interesting technology from this point of view, but it'll be a real engineering coup if Apple can roll one out now that isn't compromised in some significant way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would it be possible to do something like:
The computer (desktop) would transmit wirelessly an MPEG4 stream of the display in realtime (it would have a dedicated MPEG4 chip for encoding). The "monitor" would then have some kind of MPEG4 decoder chip in it, and would display that video on screen.
For testing, I took a 12 second video clip at 720x480 and encoded it in MPEG4 at the highest bit setting (which was 2048 kbits/sec or 256k/sec), and 30 FPS. The resulting file took 24 seconds to encode. Now if we had a dedicated MPEG4 encoder chip in the computer, I am sure we could do this encoding in realtime. And a 256k/sec file could stream over the current Airport (which does about 1300 k/sec peak), so easlily doable over the new 54 MBit wireless standard. There is plenty enough bandwidth left to send signals back to the computer to tell it to move the mouse, and such (only question is how close to realtime could that happen...)
Is any of this possible you think, or am I just way out there?
Comments
[ 12-23-2002: Message edited by: Transcendental Octothorpe ]</p>
That's the next iMac for the unfortunate soul who breaks their iMac and the screen falls off.
apple also uses 3 curves for wireless stuff so i wouldn't expect them to use 4 for that
[ 12-23-2002: Message edited by: ast3r3x ]</p>
Yes, you need to have a beefy display (some sort of CPU, memory, etc), but "smart displays" are already on the market...they sit there and act as regular displays when on the stand, and can be removed and carted about at will like a tablet PC. If you want to argue that it can no longer be called a display, fine, but whatever you call it, it exists.
Fish
<strong>No. Wireless digital video isn't feasable yet.
[ 12-23-2002: Message edited by: Transcendental Octothorpe ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL! What rock have you been under. Better tell Viewsonic & Microsoft that.
<a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-965350.html"; target="_blank">Wireless digital video</a>
...ohhh should I add more??
<a href="http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2897948,00.html"; target="_blank">More non-feasable wireless video displays not in the works!</a>
[ 12-23-2002: Message edited by: trailmaster308 ]</p>
How Stupid.
God I hope not! Who needs a new one? The one we got is sweet!
<strong>LOL! What rock have you been under. Better tell Viewsonic & Microsoft that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Something like that has been feasible for a long time now. XTerms were able to build a GUI in real time over a 9600BAUD connection. As long as you're not planning on doing anything too intensive, all you have to do is send data about what kind of window to draw how large, and where, and let the client do the actual work of drawing. This works because it usually doesn't take much bandwidth to describe a GUI abstractly, text is cheap, users are incredibly slow (from a computer's standpoint), and the client can handle things like window dragging, menus and highlighting without needing to communicate with the server.
However, as soon as you get into any streaming or real-time issues, things change. Sure, you can compress things within an inch of their lives, but who wants to work in a UI that looks like a crunched JPEG? Monitor cables stream gigabytes per second. You can get around that, but with an interface like Aqua, and using the sorts of apps that Apple is pushing hard, it is not an easy thing to accomplish.
I don't think Jobs will accept an "Aqua, Jr." interface if he won't accept an "Internet, Jr." experience. Wireless displays are definitely coming - Rendezvous is a very interesting technology from this point of view, but it'll be a real engineering coup if Apple can roll one out now that isn't compromised in some significant way.
We can all join hands and pray that it isn't.
<strong>We can all join hands and pray that it isn't.
Yeah, there is the fact that it just looks bizarre when it's, um, beheaded like that.
<strong>
LOL! What rock have you been under. Better tell Viewsonic & Microsoft that.
<a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-965350.html"; target="_blank">Wireless digital video</a>
...ohhh should I add more??
<a href="http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2897948,00.html"; target="_blank">More non-feasable wireless video displays not in the works!</a>
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, if you look closely, you'll see that neither of those links point to a device which actually recieves wireless VIDEO. As Amorph and fishdoc said, those are really tablet computers with Graphics on board. If you are simply transmitting graphic instructions, then it is possible. (Or for any smart-asses out there, wireless video is, of course, possible when analog, as in broadcast TV.)
But, again, as Amorph said, true wireless video would have to be so compressed at any reasonable color depth/resolution that it would suck. Hence my original comment.
If the picture is meant to represent an iMac that has a detatchable tablet, instead of just a wireless display, then sure, it is possible. I took the picture to be a wireless display, which would either suck due to compression, or due to the crappy graphics card stuck inside the display (assuming you can't put a Raedon in the monitor itself, if so, then maybe.) Still a bad idea, though.
Sorry I looked so stupid to you all. <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
[ 12-23-2002: Message edited by: Transcendental Octothorpe ]</p>
What about HDTV's over the air signals? Thems digital ain't they? Theys all them ones and zeros which is why you either get picture or nada. (OK there's artifacting which is the tuner extrapolating because of lack of signal, yadda, yadda) It's not like the old days of being able to watch TV through the static.
--Mike
[ 12-23-2002: Message edited by: mjpaci ]</p>
<strong>
What about HDTV's over the air signals? Thems digital ain't they? Theys all them ones and zeros which is why you either get picture or nada. (OK there's artifacting which is the tuner extrapolating because of lack of signal, yadda, yadda) It's not like the old days of being able to watch TV through the static.
--Mike
[ 12-23-2002: Message edited by: mjpaci ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
check the resolution of HDTV.
If this is the new iMac, i aint buying it.
<strong>That mac looks like some kind of motorized articulating dildo.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's because the posted pic is the female version. Just wait to you see the male version. :eek:
<strong>
Something like that has been feasible for a long time now. XTerms were able to build a GUI in real time over a 9600BAUD connection. As long as you're not planning on doing anything too intensive, all you have to do is send data about what kind of window to draw how large, and where, and let the client do the actual work of drawing. This works because it usually doesn't take much bandwidth to describe a GUI abstractly, text is cheap, users are incredibly slow (from a computer's standpoint), and the client can handle things like window dragging, menus and highlighting without needing to communicate with the server.
However, as soon as you get into any streaming or real-time issues, things change. Sure, you can compress things within an inch of their lives, but who wants to work in a UI that looks like a crunched JPEG? Monitor cables stream gigabytes per second. You can get around that, but with an interface like Aqua, and using the sorts of apps that Apple is pushing hard, it is not an easy thing to accomplish.
I don't think Jobs will accept an "Aqua, Jr." interface if he won't accept an "Internet, Jr." experience. Wireless displays are definitely coming - Rendezvous is a very interesting technology from this point of view, but it'll be a real engineering coup if Apple can roll one out now that isn't compromised in some significant way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would it be possible to do something like:
The computer (desktop) would transmit wirelessly an MPEG4 stream of the display in realtime (it would have a dedicated MPEG4 chip for encoding). The "monitor" would then have some kind of MPEG4 decoder chip in it, and would display that video on screen.
For testing, I took a 12 second video clip at 720x480 and encoded it in MPEG4 at the highest bit setting (which was 2048 kbits/sec or 256k/sec), and 30 FPS. The resulting file took 24 seconds to encode. Now if we had a dedicated MPEG4 encoder chip in the computer, I am sure we could do this encoding in realtime. And a 256k/sec file could stream over the current Airport (which does about 1300 k/sec peak), so easlily doable over the new 54 MBit wireless standard. There is plenty enough bandwidth left to send signals back to the computer to tell it to move the mouse, and such (only question is how close to realtime could that happen...)
Is any of this possible you think, or am I just way out there?