Windows 95 vs Console Gaming ? Page 4

  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

  • Dirtbox 13 Feb 2013 19:39:21 88,486 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    My point is there is nothing on the market that is a small set top box that doesn't need any other hardware other than a transmitter from your desktop PC in another room that allows you to play games on your TV with a controller.

    Thunderbolt is not the answer, neither is a second PC nearby acting like a server. They're both obscenely expensive and/or convoluted to set up.

    This is something that someone has to make, the technology as I've explained a few times doesn't exist together in a single package designed for and marketed to gamers. I've explained what it needs to be numerous times.

    The tech exists separately, not together.

    Edited by Dirtbox at 19:53:04 13-02-2013
  • Deleted user 13 February 2013 20:18:50
    This seems to be almost what you describe. No option to plug KB+M or pad into the bit at the TV end though. Also: in-room only. Also: 160 :/
  • Dirtbox 13 Feb 2013 20:29:55 88,486 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Yeah, I know. There are loads of WiDi things that are better and cheaper than that. Always with the caveat of 'but you can't plug a controller into it' though.

    Edited by Dirtbox at 20:30:25 13-02-2013
  • Dirtbox 13 Feb 2013 21:09:08 88,486 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Oh hmm.

    I wonder...

    Edited by Dirtbox at 21:15:49 13-02-2013
  • Fake_Blood 13 Feb 2013 21:16:39 7,100 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    You'd still need a cat5 or wifi for that right?
  • Dirtbox 13 Feb 2013 22:04:27 88,486 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Changed for [link=">this and combine it with
  • Deleted user 13 February 2013 22:46:45
    Don't you have to have a laptop with a wireless display to use that 1080p streamer you linked to?
  • Dirtbox 13 Feb 2013 23:38:07 88,486 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Even if you do, which I doubt because I've never heard of such a thing, you can get an Asus Wicast.

    I'll let some wimmin explain.

    Edited by Dirtbox at 23:39:49 13-02-2013
  • Rodpad 14 Feb 2013 00:06:18 2,941 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago

    Intel claims 60ms latency on Ivy Bridge systems and 250ms on Sandy Bridge, using one of the new adapters
    60ms is impressive, but combined ontop of most modern telly's existing 33-100ms of display latency, that's going to feel a bit floaty.

    We are definitely getting there though. Give it a few years and the whole notion of an underpowered "Steam box" or HTPC will be completely obsolete when a simple Picture, sound and wireless USB box bridge your main PC to your living room TV wirelessly without any additional frames of latency.

    Edited by Roddles at 00:08:22 14-02-2013
  • Dirtbox 14 Feb 2013 00:15:48 88,486 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    As I said probably 10 times so far in this thread, it isn't there yet and my example is very much a quick google, but it seems like I'm about the only person that has apparently seen and understands this niche.

    However, that's not a new article and the newer Asus I was looking at earlier today said 1ms.
  • Dirtbox 14 Feb 2013 00:19:15 88,486 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago

    Latency Free

    WiCast supports latency free (less than 1ms) transmission, providing users with fluid and stutter-free playback of HD content.
    Ah, the difference is, Intel's WiDi solution isn't the same thing. Asus has a better product.

    Edited by Dirtbox at 00:24:48 14-02-2013
  • liohuffman 14 Feb 2013 19:34:29 28 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Another quick point re: Windows 95 - according to Alex St John (one of the DirectX creators) DirectX was originally called "the Manhattan Project" (and given a glowing X logo) to deliberately conjure up images of America annihiliating Japan (as in, Microsoft obliterating the Japanese games consoles), so perhaps Microsoft genuinely thought that Windows could compete with the PlayStation?

    Or then again, maybe it just their staff being playful / exuberant.

    It wouldn't be entirely unprecedented I guess, as I remember that Xbox was also called "Project Midway" for similar reasons (as it was "midway" between a PC and a console, and also referenced the American WW2 battle against Japan)

    I guess all of this goes full circle, as wasn't Xbox originally called DirectXbox?
  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.