Fire-wireless or USB ultraband
http://intel.com/pressroom/archive/r..._news_040218c&
This forum has discussed firewireless before, but this is the first substantial effort to date. Unless it is just a vaporware attempt.
This forum has discussed firewireless before, but this is the first substantial effort to date. Unless it is just a vaporware attempt.
Comments
Originally posted by geobe
http://intel.com/pressroom/archive/r..._news_040218c&
This forum has discussed firewireless before, but this is the first substantial effort to date. Unless it is just a vaporware attempt.
"Firewireless" (actually IEEE 802.15) is a VERY substantial effort with many powerhouse companies backing it.
Wireless USB is nowhere near the capacity of 802.15, it is more competition for bluetooth.
They are completely different technologies for different tasks.
http://web.gat.com/photonics/uwb/ima...complexity.pdf
Originally posted by atomicham
They are completely different technologies for different tasks.
I'm going to reply to myself because after doing some reading, I think that Intel's wireless USB may actually be their implementation of IEEE 802.15 which may be quite confusing. I'm not sure about it. Intel is one of the big investors in 802.15.
Here is the press release of 802.15.3 being "firewireless":
Press Release
Here is a Cringely article about why 802.15 is so important:
I, Cringely
The bandwidth is important, but, more importantly is guarantee of bandwidth. To connect home entertainment devices (HiDef, etc.), you need a guaranteed bandwidth, not, a scaling bandwidth like "airport".
Originally posted by ipodandimac
hmmm... after skimming through that article, I think bluetooth will evolve and still be used in cell phones and keyboards, etc, and firewireless will give us wireless monitors and everything.
480Mbps can't even do 640x480 at 24fps. You could compress the signal, but then the cost of the monitor shoots up because suddenly it has to have a real-time decompressor. Any lossless compression still won't buy you much, and who wants to luck at a UI compressed with MPEG-4 for any period of time?
We're a long, long way from wireless monitors.
640 x 480 * 4 (bytes/pixel) * 24 = ~29 MB/s
480 (Mb/s) / 8 = 60 MB/s
correct me if i'm wrong but 29 < 60?
Also, if lossless compression were factored in, we could see wireless monitors (fancy your home-based tablet consisting of just a screen and stylus with a basestation?) using even higher resolutions. I'm not saying there IS or even WILL BE a market for this tech, but you have to admit that it opens up some exciting possibilities.
Originally posted by jamm
erm...
640 x 480 * 4 (bytes/pixel) * 24 = ~29 MB/s
480 (Mb/s) / 8 = 60 MB/s
correct me if i'm wrong but 29 < 60?
Also, if lossless compression were factored in, we could see wireless monitors (fancy your home-based tablet consisting of just a screen and stylus with a basestation?) using even higher resolutions. I'm not saying there IS or even WILL BE a market for this tech, but you have to admit that it opens up some exciting possibilities.
Took me a moment to realize you have a 24fps assumption up there. Most CRTs run between 72 and 80Hz. LCDs are a completely different beast, but I'd run with equivalent numbers there as well.
Which triples your bandwidth, bumping it over the 60MB/s by quite a bit... like 50%.