Wireless Monitors

drewprops · February 27, 2003 3:00PM

can't remember if we've done this topic lately

WIRELESS MONITORS

Are they possible yet?

What's the refresh rate on an LCD monitor, and is there any wireless technology fast enough to handle that refresh rate?

Application: Large monitor on desktop recognizes a laptop that enters its range. User parks computer in range of monitor and works from larger monitor. Lots of different scenarios and permutations.

Discuss.

fauxcaster · February 27, 2003 3:31PM

Bill Gates has 'mira' the software for driving ViewSonic Airpanels.

<a href="http://www.national.com/news/item/0,1735,717,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.national.com/news/item/0,1735,717,00.html</a>;

matt a · February 28, 2003 3:30PM

To cut to the chase: All "Mira" really does is make the panel wireless (ala Tablet PC). The guts for connectivity is in the panel itself. It has a processor, video card, and wireless connection built in amongst other things. The only thing it doesn't do is the processing which is handled by the CPU itself.

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Matt A ]

amorph · February 28, 2003 4:23PM

Matt's got it, basically. Remote desktop applications of any complexity have historically relied on there being some sort of processing power on the client side (HDTVs do, incidentally). So if you want to build a CPU, RAM and a graphics card into a Cinema Display, you could do that. If you want the monitor to remain dumb, you're talking about gigabytes of data per second, and wireless isn't even close to that. Not even FireWire is.

Now, if you make the monitor a little smart, say, about as smart as a digital TV, then you can compress the signal and stream your desktop. But even then you're talking about far more bandwidth than AirPort Extreme can hope to handle.

The Mira solution, which is basically the same idea as good old XTerm, works on the assumption that there's very little data to transfer - essentially, widget selections and keystrokes. When this assumption holds, it can be perfectly efficient: The XTerm we had lo these many years ago connected to the server via a 9600 BAUD modem. But as soon as you bring in bitmap graphics, and especially animation, you suddenly need lots of bandwidth and there's no way around it. That is, of course, exactly what Apple is bringing to the desktop, so an Apple wireless solution is some ways off.

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]

anonymous karma · February 28, 2003 4:24PM

Apple has had this for a while or so, believe or not. In fact, because Apple displays carry video, power, and USB in an integrated cable called ADC, all power and USB is also delivered wirelessly.

Don't believe me? Have a look!

<a href="http://www.apple.com/hardware/gallery/acd23_0319_480.html"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/hardware/gallery/acd23_0319_480.html</a>;

Now, what I'm waiting for is a bluetooth->USB convertor (the other direction - add USB ports via bluetooth)

matt a · February 28, 2003 7:39PM

[quote]Originally posted by Anonymous Karma:

Apple has had this for a while or so, believe or not. In fact, because Apple displays carry video, power, and USB in an integrated cable called ADC, all power and USB is also delivered wirelessly.

Don't believe me? Have a look!

<a href="http://www.apple.com/hardware/gallery/acd23_0319_480.html"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/hardware/gallery/acd23_0319_480.html</a>;

Now, what I'm waiting for is a bluetooth->USB convertor (the other direction - add USB ports via bluetooth)<hr></blockquote>

Karma, I get what you're trying to say but wireless is wireless no matter which way you spin it. Apples design on the Cinema Displays is second to none! But it's not wireless!

anonymous karma · February 28, 2003 9:15PM

[quote]Originally posted by Matt A:



Karma, I get what you're trying to say but wireless is wireless no matter which way you spin it. Apples design on the Cinema Displays is second to none! But it's not wireless!<hr></blockquote>

Take a closer look at that QTVR image.

Note the conspicuous abscence of any computer to provide that image on the display.

bandalay · February 28, 2003 10:57PM

[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

But as soon as you bring in bitmap graphics, and especially animation, you suddenly need lots of bandwidth and there's no way around it. That is, of course, exactly what Apple is bringing to the desktop, so an Apple wireless solution is some ways off.

]<hr></blockquote>

But who needs bitmaps - if the promise of Quartz is an interface assembled from vectors - not bitmaps - isn't Apple a large part of the way there already? We'll need onboard graphics processing and some memory resident type. Things will breakdown if one is editing raster images, but certainly word processing, and any terminal type apps should be straightforward..

drewprops · March 1, 2003 8:50AM

Totally unsure here, but aren't many of the OS X resources TIFF image? If I'm right, then I can safely say "them ain't vectors!!!".

When you minimize a window and the genie effect sucks it to the dock, that's a lot of rendering to do. Now wireless mice seem to work fairly well, but that seems a little different....not sure how though...

bandalay · March 1, 2003 10:36AM

[quote]Originally posted by drewprops:

Totally unsure here, but aren't many of the OS X resources TIFF image? If I'm right, then I can safely say "them ain't vectors!!!".<hr></blockquote>

But there's really no reason they couldn't become vectors. Only the icon resources would probably have to remain as raster, and they're small.

matt a · March 3, 2003 11:34AM

Karma, you dope, Apple is trying to focus the QTVR on the display itself and not anything else (CPU). Why would they just show the blank monitor when they can easily just place an image on it's screen to simulate it's resolution and clarity? Let it go Magoo!

neutrino23 · March 3, 2003 1:53PM

Sony sells something like this in Japan. They have a portable computer display tied in with a TV tuner so you can watch TV or use your computer anywhere in the home. It has not been a good seller. They had three models and dropped back to one model. It was expensive and the rated battery life was only about 45 minutes. Pretty lame.

If you assume a 1280 x 1024 screen with 16 graphics updated 30 fps you get about 80MB/s uncompressed. It would seem that even simple hardware compression would cut that in half and if you only transmit the changes from the key screens that number drops a lot. Most of the time nothing much is changing on the screen. This is well within the capability of Airport Extreme to handle. Even regular airport could handle this if you could accept an occaisional stutter. I'm not sure it is a good idea, it just seems technically possible.

amorph · March 3, 2003 1:56PM

[quote]Originally posted by bandalay:



But who needs bitmaps - if the promise of Quartz is an interface assembled from vectors - not bitmaps - isn't Apple a large part of the way there already?<hr></blockquote>

No.

Aqua assumes fixed pixel distances between UI elements, and so do the interfaces of almost every OS X application. Technologically, Quartz is capable of an all-vector UI. Practically, we're not there yet (although I can think of a few clever shortcuts to get there).

[quote]We'll need onboard graphics processing and some memory resident type. Things will breakdown if one is editing raster images, but certainly word processing, and any terminal type apps should be straightforward..<hr></blockquote>

But what sort of thing is Apple pushing? iMovie, iDVD, those cool OpenGL-powered transitions in Keynote, etc. They don't want to introduce a Mac - or part of a Mac - that can't function as a digital hub in even the most basic way. Terminal type apps have been straightforward for years now. As I said above, a 9600 BAUD modem can easily handle the bandwidth for basic GUI interactions and text editing. It's just that that isn't where Apple's going.

We're definitely closer to this sort of thing. But we're not there yet. In fact, since the next great thing in display tech is higher resolutions, I think we'll get a resolution independent GUI long before we get wireless - because, of course, higher res means more bandwidth.

whisper · March 3, 2003 7:46PM

[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

We're definitely closer to this sort of thing. But we're not there yet. In fact, since the next great thing in display tech is higher resolutions, I think we'll get a resolution independent GUI long before we get wireless - because, of course, higher res means more bandwidth.<hr></blockquote>

If we had a resolution independent GUI, there wouldn't be any super high bandwidth requirements because the only way to really gain resolution independence is to go all vectors.

amorph · March 3, 2003 7:52PM

[quote]Originally posted by Whisper:



If we had a resolution independent GUI, there wouldn't be any super high bandwidth requirements because the only way to really gain resolution independence is to go all vectors.<hr></blockquote>

You're forgetting that, at some point, you have to render to a great big bitmap. LCDs don't draw vectors. The bigger and higher resolution the display, the bigger the bitmap.

You can either do that beforehand, and transmit the screen to a dumb monitor over a really fat pipe (presumably with some form of compression, although that requires decompression capabilities on the monitor side), or turn the monitor into a computer with a buff enough CPU and graphics card to render vector data into a screen-size bitmap. Then, of course, you have all the data which can't be rendered in vectors, like that big Photoshop image you're working on, or the DVD you're trying to watch.

[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]

Wireless Monitors

Comments