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
Windows 95 vs Console Gaming ? • Page 4
Pageof 4 First / Last
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 :/
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
Edited by Dirtbox at 21:15:49 13-02-2013
Fake_Blood 5,273 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 6 years ago
You'd still need a cat5 or wifi for that right?
Changed for [link=http://www.amazon.co.uk/F5L049EA-Wireless-Quality-Warranty-standard/dp/B002XDFUE8/ref=pd_cp_computers_0">this and combine it with
Maturin 3,671 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 6 years ago
Don't you have to have a laptop with a wireless display to use that 1080p streamer you linked to?
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 2,680 posts
Seen 50 seconds ago
Registered 5 years ago
Intel claims 60ms latency on Ivy Bridge systems and 250ms on Sandy Bridge, using one of the new adapters60ms 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
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.
Latency FreeAh, the difference is, Intel's WiDi solution isn't the same thing. Asus has a better product.
WiCast supports latency free (less than 1ms) transmission, providing users with fluid and stutter-free playback of HD content.
Edited by Dirtbox at 00:24:48 14-02-2013
liohuffman 28 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 3 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?