Windows 95 vs Console Gaming ? Page 4

  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

    Next
  • Dirtbox 13 Feb 2013 19:39:21 88,798 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Post deleted
  • 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 88,798 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Post deleted
  • Dirtbox 13 Feb 2013 21:09:08 88,798 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Post deleted
  • Fake_Blood 13 Feb 2013 21:16:39 7,272 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    You'd still need a cat5 or wifi for that right?
  • Dirtbox 13 Feb 2013 22:04:27 88,798 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Post deleted
  • 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 88,798 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Post deleted
  • Rodpad 14 Feb 2013 00:06:18 2,944 posts
    Seen 21 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    http://hothardware.com/News/-Intels-Launches-WiDi-35-Faster-Lower-Latency-Miracast-Certified-USB-Support/

    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 88,798 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Post deleted
  • Dirtbox 14 Feb 2013 00:19:15 88,798 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Post deleted
  • 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

    Next
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.