Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB? - Hardware

This is a discussion on Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB? - Hardware ; These days, every possible accessory seems to be "bluetooth" / USB interfaced. But I've never seen a "USB" monitor advertised. (neither bluetooth, of course) Neither CRT (who buys those!? ) nor LCD. Why is that? A bandwidth limitation? Or a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

  1. Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    These days, every possible accessory seems to be "bluetooth" / USB
    interfaced. But I've never seen a "USB" monitor advertised. (neither
    bluetooth, of course) Neither CRT (who buys those!? ) nor LCD.

    Why is that? A bandwidth limitation? Or a need that doesn't exist? I doubt
    that is the reason since if I can want a USB headset why not a USB monitor?

    Besides there are "good" quality headsets available even on bluetooth. Is
    "acceptable-quality" sound transmission fundamentally a lower bandwidth
    process than "acceptable-quality" images? What is the ratio of the max
    bandwidth attainable over USB vs bluetooth vs "traditional-monitor-
    connections".

    I cannot think of any other peripheral that isn't available in a USB
    version if not bluetooth. Do others have examples of they know? Just
    curious....


    --
    Rahul

  2. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:17:57 +0000, Rahul rearranged some electrons to
    say:

    > These days, every possible accessory seems to be "bluetooth" / USB
    > interfaced. But I've never seen a "USB" monitor advertised. (neither
    > bluetooth, of course) Neither CRT (who buys those!? ) nor LCD.
    >
    > Why is that? A bandwidth limitation? Or a need that doesn't exist? I
    > doubt that is the reason since if I can want a USB headset why not a USB
    > monitor?
    >
    > Besides there are "good" quality headsets available even on bluetooth.
    > Is "acceptable-quality" sound transmission fundamentally a lower
    > bandwidth process than "acceptable-quality" images? What is the ratio of
    > the max bandwidth attainable over USB vs bluetooth vs
    > "traditional-monitor- connections".
    >
    > I cannot think of any other peripheral that isn't available in a USB
    > version if not bluetooth. Do others have examples of they know? Just
    > curious....


    Example for a medium resolution:

    1024 x 768 pixels x 24 bits per pixel x 30 frames per second
    = 566 Mbits/sec.

    USB 2.0 high speed = 480 Mbits/sec


  3. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    Rahul wrote:
    > These days, every possible accessory seems to be "bluetooth" / USB
    > interfaced. But I've never seen a "USB" monitor advertised. (neither
    > bluetooth, of course) Neither CRT (who buys those!? ) nor LCD.
    >
    > Why is that? A bandwidth limitation? Or a need that doesn't exist?
    > I doubt that is the reason since if I can want a USB headset why
    > not a USB monitor?
    >
    > Besides there are "good" quality headsets available even on
    > bluetooth. Is "acceptable-quality" sound transmission fundamentally
    > a lower bandwidth process than "acceptable-quality" images? What is
    > the ratio of the max bandwidth attainable over USB vs bluetooth vs
    > "traditional-monitor- connections".
    >
    > I cannot think of any other peripheral that isn't available in a USB
    > version if not bluetooth. Do others have examples of they know? Just
    > curious....


    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/oth...g-sm940ux.html
    http://www.everythingusb.com/samsung...0ux_11970.html

    Google is not your enemy.

    --
    Shenan Stanley
    MS-MVP
    --
    How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html



  4. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    Rahul wrote:
    > These days, every possible accessory seems to be "bluetooth" / USB
    > interfaced. But I've never seen a "USB" monitor advertised. (neither
    > bluetooth, of course) Neither CRT (who buys those!? ) nor LCD.
    >
    > Why is that? A bandwidth limitation? Or a need that doesn't exist?
    > I doubt that is the reason since if I can want a USB headset why
    > not a USB monitor?
    >
    > Besides there are "good" quality headsets available even on
    > bluetooth. Is "acceptable-quality" sound transmission fundamentally
    > a lower bandwidth process than "acceptable-quality" images? What is
    > the ratio of the max bandwidth attainable over USB vs bluetooth vs
    > "traditional-monitor- connections".
    >
    > I cannot think of any other peripheral that isn't available in a USB
    > version if not bluetooth. Do others have examples of they know? Just
    > curious....


    Shenan Stanley wrote:
    > http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/oth...g-sm940ux.html
    > http://www.everythingusb.com/samsung...0ux_11970.html
    >
    > Google is not your enemy.


    Go a step beyond...
    http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3715636

    --
    Shenan Stanley
    MS-MVP
    --
    How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html



  5. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    Rahul wrote:
    > These days, every possible accessory seems to be "bluetooth" / USB
    > interfaced. But I've never seen a "USB" monitor advertised. (neither
    > bluetooth, of course) Neither CRT (who buys those!? ) nor LCD.
    >
    > Why is that? A bandwidth limitation? Or a need that doesn't exist? I doubt
    > that is the reason since if I can want a USB headset why not a USB monitor?
    >
    > Besides there are "good" quality headsets available even on bluetooth. Is
    > "acceptable-quality" sound transmission fundamentally a lower bandwidth
    > process than "acceptable-quality" images? What is the ratio of the max
    > bandwidth attainable over USB vs bluetooth vs "traditional-monitor-
    > connections".
    >
    > I cannot think of any other peripheral that isn't available in a USB
    > version if not bluetooth. Do others have examples of they know? Just
    > curious....
    >
    >


    This monitor has a USB2.0 interface to drive the video display
    (as well as the more ordinary and higher bandwidth interfaces).
    It uses a compressed data stream, to compensate for the limitations
    of USB2 bandwidth.

    http://www.everythingusb.com/samsung...0ux_11970.html

    You can also find display adapters, with USB on one end, and VGA
    on the other end. The resolution options offered are not that
    good, which is a limitation. Presumably one of those chips is
    what is hiding inside the Samsung monitor.

    Also, there is a subtle difference, between VGA, DVI, and USB. The
    first two are being used to retransmit a full frame image, over
    and over again. The USB is used to carry difference information
    (repaint areas of the screen that have changed), because sending
    the full frame over and over again, would make the screen impossibly
    slow. As it is, USB devices like this, tend to offer a "slide show",
    and you would notice the transmission method affecting your perception
    of the experience.

    Bluetooth is 3 megabits/sec max as far as I know. USB2.0 is 480 megabits/sec
    theoretical, and somewhat less in practical usage.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usb

    It wouldn't be fair or meaningful, to compare DVI to those two. But just
    for kicks, a single link DVI uses three diff pairs RGB with data streams on them.
    At a so-called 165MHz clock, each diff pair runs at 1650 megabits/sec, or
    a total of 4950 megabits/sec. Dual link uses two instances of the interface,
    for double that bandwidth (but dual link is not commonly used for your
    average cheap LCD monitor). Just to offer some perspective with respect
    to USB2.0.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface

    Paul

  6. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?


    "Rahul" wrote in message
    news:Xns9ADCCE2A53BF66650A1FC0D7811DDBC81@85.214.9 0.236...
    > These days, every possible accessory seems to be "bluetooth" / USB
    > interfaced. But I've never seen a "USB" monitor advertised. (neither
    > bluetooth, of course) Neither CRT (who buys those!? ) nor LCD.
    >
    > Why is that? A bandwidth limitation? Or a need that doesn't exist? I doubt
    > that is the reason since if I can want a USB headset why not a USB
    > monitor?
    >
    > Besides there are "good" quality headsets available even on bluetooth. Is
    > "acceptable-quality" sound transmission fundamentally a lower bandwidth
    > process than "acceptable-quality" images? What is the ratio of the max
    > bandwidth attainable over USB vs bluetooth vs "traditional-monitor-
    > connections".
    >
    > I cannot think of any other peripheral that isn't available in a USB
    > version if not bluetooth. Do others have examples of they know? Just
    > curious....
    >


    It is perfect feasible to run a computer display via the USB interface (and
    there are examples of this in practice). However, having said that, the USB
    interface is far from an ideal choice for the job. The biggest limitations
    are the limited bandwidth and that the host USB port (the one on the PC)
    requires a considerable amount of CPU support when transmitting and
    receiving data. Since this will be happening more or less continuously, the
    CPU will have difficulty finding enough time for all the other activities
    that it has to support. In general, it is most desireable to take as much
    of the graphic functions away from the main CPU as possible. This is why
    PCs have a dedicated Graphics Processor with its own dedicated interface
    with the monitor. Then the CP can get on with doing what it does best.



  7. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    "Shenan Stanley" wrote in news:uZEZDiu5IHA.1176
    @TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

    >
    > http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/oth...g-sm940ux.html
    > http://www.everythingusb.com/samsung...0ux_11970.html


    Thanks Shenan! This is definately news to me. Very interesting, these USB-
    monitors.

    --
    Rahul

  8. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    "M.I.5" wrote in
    news:487d9e82$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

    >the CPU will have difficulty finding enough
    > time for all the other activities that it has to support. In general,
    > it is most desireable to take as much of the graphic functions away
    > from the main CPU as possible.


    Why specifically graphics? Let's say I'm watching a movie with a VGA-DVI
    linked LCD screen but USB-linked speakers. The sound processing for USB
    still falls onto the CPU. Is sound processing as a rule "cheaper" than
    video?

    >This is why PCs have a dedicated
    > Graphics Processor with its own dedicated interface with the monitor.


    They used to have "dedicated sound cards" too, I remember. I'm just curious
    how those (and their "dedicated" interfaces) dissappeared much before the
    VGA/DVI. Is sound processing fundamentally "easier" (or lower bandwidth)
    than video or is it just an artifact of the specific way technology has
    developed.


    --
    Rahul

  9. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    Paul wrote in news:g5jl95$lc5$1@aioe.org:

    > Bluetooth is 3 megabits/sec max as far as I know. USB2.0 is 480
    > megabits/sec theoretical, and somewhat less in practical usage.
    >


    Thanks Paul. Does anyone know of scales that compare the bandwidth required
    to get an "acceptable" human-perceived level of sound vs video. Again,
    harps on my point of whether video *needs* a higher bandwidth channel than
    sound.

    Do my eyes capture at a higher bandwidth biologically than my ears? Only of
    academic interest.

    --
    Rahul

  10. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    Rahul wrote:
    > Is sound processing as a rule "cheaper" than video?


    Yes. Remember the good old days when audio was stored on compact casettes
    and also video was stored on VHS tapes? If I remember right the compact
    audio tape casette was a lot smaller than a VHS video tape.

    Today the physical size isn't such an obvious difference. A CD for music
    has exactly the same size as a DVD which stores video. However, the CD and
    the DVD are completely different media and if you compare those media when
    it comes to storing data you will find that an audio CD usually stores
    data equvalent to about 700 MB. A dual layer video DVD is capable to store
    about 8 GB which is more than ten times as much as the audio CD.

    The audio CD can contain up to 80 minutes of uncompressed sound sampled at
    44.1 kHz with 16 bits per sample.

    The DVD typically contains up to two hours of video and sound, but then
    the video as well as the sound is heavily compressed with different mpeg
    technologies.

    If you use such compressions technologies on an audio CD you
    can burn your music as mp3 files. Doing so you will find that you can
    easily put ten times as much music on a single CD.

    So in short, video takes about 100 times as much bandwidt as audio and
    then we are still only looking at TV resolution which is something like
    720x576 at 25 Hz. Today a 24 inch computer monitor has a typical
    resolution of 1920x1200 pixels and is typically updated in 60 Hz. Compared
    to the TV resolution this increases bandwidth with yet another factor of
    about 10.

    So when you compare your computer speakers with your computer
    monitor you are comparing bandwidths which differ approximately 1000 times.

    regards Henrik
    --
    The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
    hc3(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
    root@localhost postmaster@localhost


  11. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    Henrik Carlqvist wrote in
    newsan.2008.07.16.18.05.21.162966@deadspam.com:

    > So when you compare your computer speakers with your computer
    > monitor you are comparing bandwidths which differ approximately 1000
    > times.


    Thanks Henrik! That makes a lot of sense now. Hmm...seems like I should
    trust my eyes a lot more than my ears based on that staggering factor in
    bandwidth difference.


    --
    Rahul

  12. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    Rahul wrote:
    > Paul wrote in news:g5jl95$lc5$1@aioe.org:
    >
    >> Bluetooth is 3 megabits/sec max as far as I know. USB2.0 is 480
    >> megabits/sec theoretical, and somewhat less in practical usage.
    >>

    >
    > Thanks Paul. Does anyone know of scales that compare the bandwidth required
    > to get an "acceptable" human-perceived level of sound vs video. Again,
    > harps on my point of whether video *needs* a higher bandwidth channel than
    > sound.
    >
    > Do my eyes capture at a higher bandwidth biologically than my ears? Only of
    > academic interest.
    >


    Your telephone and the audio bandwidth it uses, should be evidence that
    audio doesn't need much bandwidth at all. For example, an older
    Unix workstation I used to use, had only an 8KHz sampling rate. And
    yet I was able to listen to music while I worked, using it. An 8KHz
    sampling rate, times 8 bits per sample, means only 64 kilobits/sec is
    used per channel. Even USB 1.1 is enough to handle that, and in practice,
    higher sampling rates or more bits per sample can be used.

    I don't think I can answer your question about the human visual
    system. For example, in this article, I don't see anything with
    megabits/sec in it :-)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_cortex

    Paul



  13. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    Hi,

    Henrik Carlqvist wrote:

    > So when you compare your computer speakers with your computer
    > monitor you are comparing bandwidths which differ approximately 1000
    > times.


    So a picture *IS* worth a thousand words.

    Cheers,
    John McCallum


  14. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    In article ,
    Rahul wrote:
    > "M.I.5" wrote in
    > news:487d9e82$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:
    >
    > >the CPU will have difficulty finding enough
    > > time for all the other activities that it has to support. In general,
    > > it is most desireable to take as much of the graphic functions away
    > > from the main CPU as possible.

    >
    > Why specifically graphics? Let's say I'm watching a movie with a VGA-DVI
    > linked LCD screen but USB-linked speakers. The sound processing for USB
    > still falls onto the CPU. Is sound processing as a rule "cheaper" than
    > video?
    >
    > >This is why PCs have a dedicated
    > > Graphics Processor with its own dedicated interface with the monitor.

    >
    > They used to have "dedicated sound cards" too, I remember.


    Still do. I use one every day. I had it, and liked its operation and
    port selection more than I liked the onboard one. With many motherboards,
    you can't not get some peripherals.

    > I'm just curious
    > how those (and their "dedicated" interfaces) dissappeared much before the
    > VGA/DVI. Is sound processing fundamentally "easier" (or lower bandwidth)
    > than video or is it just an artifact of the specific way technology has
    > developed.


    Audio (my card, YMMV):

    16 bits/sample * 4 channels * 44100 samples/sec = 2,822,400 bits/sec
    ~= 2.7 Mb/sec. Mic and line in raise that to 16*7*44100 = 4,939,200 bps
    ~= 4/7 Mb/s

    Video (ditto)
    1600x1200 pixels * 2 monitors * 60 refreshes/sec * 24 bpp
    = 5,529,600,000 bits/sec ~= 5300 Mb/sec

    So I'd say that in this case, video definitely sucks up more bandwidth.

    --
    -eben QebWenE01R@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
    A. A Top Poster \ http://www.fscked.co.uk/
    B. Who's there? \ writing/
    A. Knock-knock -- from bobward@xxx.com \ top-posting-cuss.html

  15. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    In article <1Wdgk.246063$SV4.187976@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
    anon wrote:
    >
    > In , Rahul
    > writes:
    > >These days, every possible accessory seems to be "bluetooth" / USB
    > >interfaced. But I've never seen a "USB" monitor advertised. (neither
    > >bluetooth, of course) Neither CRT (who buys those!? ) nor LCD.
    > >
    > >Why is that? A bandwidth limitation? Or a need that doesn't exist? I doubt
    > >that is the reason since if I can want a USB headset why not a USB monitor?

    >
    > But the primary reason I believe is the industry knows there are other
    > ways to send the audio(two-way stereo) and video(one-way sd/hd)
    > without use of USB/Bluetooth. These devices are available and price
    > is reasonable for the SD version and they do not require drivers, so
    > they can be use with any system or monitor. Version have been
    > available for over 25 years, but most people do not use them.
    >
    > Also, a direct video connection is faster. And with the move to HD
    > monitors the bandwidth may become to great for a USB and other USB
    > devices to maintain an error-free data transfer. Or do you want artifacts
    > in both your monitor or camera.


    And then some "genius" will have the idea of implementing proprietary
    data compression in the driver, and we'll have "Winmonitors".
    Yee-haw...

    --
    -eben QebWenE01R@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81

    Hi! I'm a .sig virus! Copy me to your .sig!


  16. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    What Drivers?

    It all hardware (FCC licensed). Just plug it in and your "good-to-go". And
    with a range of 100 .. 500 feet its about the same as most wireless home
    internet systems which beats Bluetooth with its drivers and range limit of
    30 feet (if your lucky).


    In , ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) writes:
    >In article <1Wdgk.246063$SV4.187976@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
    >anon wrote:
    >>
    >> In , Rahul
    >> writes:
    >> >These days, every possible accessory seems to be "bluetooth" / USB
    >> >interfaced. But I've never seen a "USB" monitor advertised. (neither
    >> >bluetooth, of course) Neither CRT (who buys those!? ) nor LCD.
    >> >
    >> >Why is that? A bandwidth limitation? Or a need that doesn't exist? I doubt
    >> >that is the reason since if I can want a USB headset why not a USB monitor?

    >>
    >> But the primary reason I believe is the industry knows there are other
    >> ways to send the audio(two-way stereo) and video(one-way sd/hd)
    >> without use of USB/Bluetooth. These devices are available and price
    >> is reasonable for the SD version and they do not require drivers, so
    >> they can be use with any system or monitor. Version have been
    >> available for over 25 years, but most people do not use them.
    >>
    >> Also, a direct video connection is faster. And with the move to HD
    >> monitors the bandwidth may become to great for a USB and other USB
    >> devices to maintain an error-free data transfer. Or do you want artifacts
    >> in both your monitor or camera.

    >
    >And then some "genius" will have the idea of implementing proprietary
    >data compression in the driver, and we'll have "Winmonitors".
    >Yee-haw...
    >
    >--
    >-eben QebWenE01R@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
    >
    > Hi! I'm a .sig virus! Copy me to your .sig!
    >



  17. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    In article ,
    anon wrote:
    > In , ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) writes:
    > >In article <1Wdgk.246063$SV4.187976@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
    > >anon wrote:
    > >>
    > >> In , Rahul
    > >> writes:
    > >> >These days, every possible accessory seems to be "bluetooth" / USB
    > >> >interfaced. But I've never seen a "USB" monitor advertised. (neither
    > >> >bluetooth, of course) Neither CRT (who buys those!? ) nor LCD.
    > >> >
    > >> >Why is that? A bandwidth limitation? Or a need that doesn't exist? I doubt
    > >> >that is the reason since if I can want a USB headset why not a USB

    > monitor?
    > >>
    > >> But the primary reason I believe is the industry knows there are other
    > >> ways to send the audio(two-way stereo) and video(one-way sd/hd)
    > >> without use of USB/Bluetooth. These devices are available and price
    > >> is reasonable for the SD version and they do not require drivers, so
    > >> they can be use with any system or monitor. Version have been
    > >> available for over 25 years, but most people do not use them.
    > >>
    > >> Also, a direct video connection is faster. And with the move to HD
    > >> monitors the bandwidth may become to great for a USB and other USB
    > >> devices to maintain an error-free data transfer. Or do you want artifacts
    > >> in both your monitor or camera.

    > >
    > >And then some "genius" will have the idea of implementing proprietary
    > >data compression in the driver, and we'll have "Winmonitors".
    > >Yee-haw...
    > >

    > What Drivers?


    Of course there are drivers. What do you think's on the volume it
    offers you the first time you connect to it? You think your computer
    will automatically know what to do with device #XXXX/#YYYY whenever
    it shows up?

    > It all hardware (FCC licensed). Just plug it in and your "good-to-go". And
    > with a range of 100 .. 500 feet its about the same as most wireless home
    > internet systems which beats Bluetooth with its drivers and range limit of
    > 30 feet (if your lucky).


    Right, it's magic. This is in direct opposition to the data at
    http://www.everythingusb.com/samsung...0ux_11970.html
    In particular, the bit that says:

    ,--
    | Simply plug in the USB monitor as an administrator, and an 8MB virtual
    | CD drive will appear on your computer[.] .... Once the virtual CD is
    | loaded, Windows ... will ... install the drivers.
    '--

    I'm sure that eventually they'll handle _both_ OSes...

    --
    The mnky gibbering and screeching used to keep me up at night, although
    in the lst week or so it's prtty mch tailed off to nthng. The smell has
    gttn noticbly worse in the last cple of days, too. The next time I get
    a barrl full of mnkys, I'm going to try taking the lid off. -groo, AFCA

  18. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    The version I was talking about, allows the computer owner to choose any
    video card they want and that apart device just plugs into it. The other part
    plugs into any monitor that you want. Basically you could say it act like an
    wireless extension for the video cable.

    If you have to buy a version that uses a USB and software. You have only
    small number vendors and cards to choose from. Try. ATI or IOGEAR. ATI
    had a line of external products back in 2006 and has since switch to
    extrernal PCI Express 2.0 for 2008 because of the 4GB bandwidth.



    In , ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) writes:
    >In article ,
    >anon wrote:
    >> In , ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) writes:
    >> >In article <1Wdgk.246063$SV4.187976@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
    >> >anon wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> In , Rahul
    >> >> writes:
    >> >> >These days, every possible accessory seems to be "bluetooth" / USB
    >> >> >interfaced. But I've never seen a "USB" monitor advertised. (neither
    >> >> >bluetooth, of course) Neither CRT (who buys those!? ) nor LCD.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >Why is that? A bandwidth limitation? Or a need that doesn't exist? I doubt
    >> >> >that is the reason since if I can want a USB headset why not a USB

    >> monitor?
    >> >>
    >> >> But the primary reason I believe is the industry knows there are other
    >> >> ways to send the audio(two-way stereo) and video(one-way sd/hd)
    >> >> without use of USB/Bluetooth. These devices are available and price
    >> >> is reasonable for the SD version and they do not require drivers, so
    >> >> they can be use with any system or monitor. Version have been
    >> >> available for over 25 years, but most people do not use them.
    >> >>
    >> >> Also, a direct video connection is faster. And with the move to HD
    >> >> monitors the bandwidth may become to great for a USB and other USB
    >> >> devices to maintain an error-free data transfer. Or do you want artifacts
    >> >> in both your monitor or camera.
    >> >
    >> >And then some "genius" will have the idea of implementing proprietary
    >> >data compression in the driver, and we'll have "Winmonitors".
    >> >Yee-haw...
    >> >

    >> What Drivers?

    >
    >Of course there are drivers. What do you think's on the volume it
    >offers you the first time you connect to it? You think your computer
    >will automatically know what to do with device #XXXX/#YYYY whenever
    >it shows up?
    >
    >> It all hardware (FCC licensed). Just plug it in and your "good-to-go". And
    >> with a range of 100 .. 500 feet its about the same as most wireless home
    >> internet systems which beats Bluetooth with its drivers and range limit of
    >> 30 feet (if your lucky).

    >
    >Right, it's magic. This is in direct opposition to the data at
    >http://www.everythingusb.com/samsung...0ux_11970.html
    >In particular, the bit that says:
    >
    >,--
    >| Simply plug in the USB monitor as an administrator, and an 8MB virtual
    >| CD drive will appear on your computer[.] .... Once the virtual CD is
    >| loaded, Windows ... will ... install the drivers.
    >'--
    >
    >I'm sure that eventually they'll handle _both_ OSes...
    >
    >--
    >The mnky gibbering and screeching used to keep me up at night, although
    >in the lst week or so it's prtty mch tailed off to nthng. The smell has
    >gttn noticbly worse in the last cple of days, too. The next time I get
    >a barrl full of mnkys, I'm going to try taking the lid off. -groo, AFCA



  19. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    In article ,
    anon wrote:
    >
    > In , ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) writes:
    > >In article ,
    > >anon wrote:
    > >> In , ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) writes:
    > >> >
    > >> >And then some "genius" will have the idea of implementing proprietary
    > >> >data compression in the driver, and we'll have "Winmonitors".
    > >> >Yee-haw...
    > >> >
    > >> What Drivers?

    > >
    > >Of course there are drivers. What do you think's on the volume it
    > >offers you the first time you connect to it? You think your computer
    > >will automatically know what to do with device #XXXX/#YYYY whenever
    > >it shows up?
    > >

    > The version I was talking about, allows the computer owner to choose any
    > video card they want and that apart device just plugs into it. The other part
    > plugs into any monitor that you want. Basically you could say it act like an
    > wireless extension for the video cable.


    So your device still uses a driver to a video card, and something
    proprietary gets shoved down the USB cable.

    --
    -eben QebWenE01R@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
    PISCES: Try to avoid any Virgos or Leos with the Ebola
    virus. You are the Lord of the Dance, no matter what those
    idiots at work say. -- Weird Al, _Your Horoscope for Today_

  20. Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?

    The first version does not use USB it uses the RGB signals only. No
    software needed!

    For the other two I have talk about, one version is Apple which may be
    proprietary but "WHO CARES" its an Apple. The second is from ATI which
    has so open software for other ATI cards so no proprietary and again
    "WHO CARES" it works.

    Linux is "OPEN SOURCE" but it does allow and execute "close source"
    software. So, again "WHO CARES"!



    In , ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) writes:
    >In article ,
    >anon wrote:
    >>
    >> In , ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) writes:
    >> >In article ,
    >> >anon wrote:
    >> >> In , ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) writes:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >And then some "genius" will have the idea of implementing proprietary
    >> >> >data compression in the driver, and we'll have "Winmonitors".
    >> >> >Yee-haw...
    >> >> >
    >> >> What Drivers?
    >> >
    >> >Of course there are drivers. What do you think's on the volume it
    >> >offers you the first time you connect to it? You think your computer
    >> >will automatically know what to do with device #XXXX/#YYYY whenever
    >> >it shows up?
    >> >

    >> The version I was talking about, allows the computer owner to choose any
    >> video card they want and that apart device just plugs into it. The other part
    >> plugs into any monitor that you want. Basically you could say it act like an
    >> wireless extension for the video cable.

    >
    >So your device still uses a driver to a video card, and something
    >proprietary gets shoved down the USB cable.
    >
    >--
    >-eben QebWenE01R@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
    >PISCES: Try to avoid any Virgos or Leos with the Ebola
    >virus. You are the Lord of the Dance, no matter what those
    >idiots at work say. -- Weird Al, _Your Horoscope for Today_



+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast