I'm working on a hardware device that will plug into the USB port of a mobile phone and transmit data from one phone to another at very high speeds. The data is being carried over visible light (so it would appear that you are plugging in an external flashlight to your phone, except that it's carrying data). Data transmission for the first prototype will be 10 Mbps, later prototypes will be able to reach 100 Mbps.
I think this opens up some interesting possibilities for new app development, since you are now providing a low latency, high speed connection between adjacent devices. The fact that the user will be able to see where the data is going also provides some potentially useful feedback. The immediately obvious apps are for things like fast file transfers (pushing a song from one phone to the next), gaming (imagine playing blackjack where a "dealer" points their phone at other phones and deals cards just as they would in real life), and mobile payments (light transfer is private).
I'd be interested to see if this is something the developer community would be interested in getting their hands on and what sort of applications come to mind.
Cheers!
I have an android phone (x10 2.3.3) and I would like to mount it to my Xoom (3.2 hammerhead) wirelessly. When I connect my phone via usb OTG cable it works perfectly but I would prefer to get the same or similar results over wifi or bluetooth. I know there are many different file transfer apps but I dont want to have to download every file, this is mainly for looking at pics and maybe listening to music.
On a side note I have noticed that there are not many apps out there that integrate phones with tablets. I would assume most android tablet users would have an android phone as well. Another thing I would really like to do with my devices would be to use my phone as a mouse to control my tablet via bluetooth or any other wireless means.
I f anyone has some suggestions I would appreciate it after searching high and low for these type of integrated apps.
You can use Astaro to do so. It supports both wireless and bluetooth file transfers.
Why do they bother to still design tablets with the CPU/GPU on board? When I think about the future of windows with windows 8 I think about tablets being heavier to run the x86 architecture and I wonder why not just use something like intels widi and transmit only the picture to a tablet and have a server plugged in doing all the processing, maybe even running another instance or switchable session of the OS attached to a standard desktop display/keyboard mouse. The tablet would of course still need a processor but only to process a ready to go image, audio and to interpret touch inputs and transmit them to the server. This would allow for larger batteries and be much more cost effective in the long run.
Of course we will still need today's style for outside the home/office but like the desktop there is still a market for the LAN only machines.
Maybe this is already available and someone can point me to where I can buy it now! :x
You want the cloud? Not ready yet. Until then, splashtop will have to do. Also, botnet.
jdeoxys said:
You want the cloud? Not ready yet. Until then, splashtop will have to do. Also, botnet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, nothing over the internet. I'm simply talking about a wireless display with a battery but one that can transmit touch inputs. Not sure how else to put it but if you have seen the wireless transmitter and receivers for HDMI, similar to this.
Does anyone see where I'm going with this? Windows 8 is touch screen but the best I could find that are desktop-like is the dell ST2220T which only has 2 touch points that is not cetified for windows 8 which I believe accepts up to 4.
Next I looked at tablets and there are a few budget(if you can call $500 with a small display, bad/slow graphics card and little storage budget) that look promising but could easily have 100 hardware issues that would drive me nuts and then theres the name brand stuff like samsungs $1,000 pc tablets which still suffer from built in gpu's that suck.
My idea would simply be the cost of a screen and battery if you already own a desktop with say, intel widi (wireless display) and some sort of input receiver to receive the touch commands from the tablet display. The performance would be virtually unlimited!
Are you basically talking about a device that connects through your local network to a transmitting PC running an OS of your choosing? Sort of like a portable monitor that doubles as a touchscreen?
Constant wifi or similar connection would drain the battery as well. Also, that would require a whole separate computer to run the system itself (if you're doing it at home), or a fast, VERY low latency broadband connection to a cloud (so forget about the device being very cheap just because you have to somehow pay for the server-side as well). Otherwise you'd be struggling with laggy UI which is the exact opposite of what everyone wants.
So... not for a few more years... or decades
Tristanlogd said:
Are you basically talking about a device that connects through your local network to a transmitting PC running an OS of your choosing? Sort of like a portable monitor that doubles as a touchscreen?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Like a portable monitor with touchscreen that transmits touch inputs/commands wirelessly back to the desktop just like a mouse.
I don't think transmitting through networks is a good idea and thats why I mentioned the Intel WIDI wireless display technology that is already in most new Inte'ls so all we would really need to change on the PC side is a customized wireless receiver for the touch inputs.
Hell, I'm thinking about calling a friend who is an EE and getting something made if nobody else is...lol.
aard said:
Constant wifi or similar connection would drain the battery as well. Also, that would require a whole separate computer to run the system itself (if you're doing it at home), or a fast, VERY low latency broadband connection to a cloud (so forget about the device being very cheap just because you have to somehow pay for the server-side as well). Otherwise you'd be struggling with laggy UI which is the exact opposite of what everyone wants.
So... not for a few more years... or decades
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Eh the technology is here with http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/intel-wireless-display.html
Using wifi isn't efficient, but tablets use most of their energy on the display and processing. Since all you would be doing is signal processing vs actual computation @ the tablet end you would use considerably less juice. Like Half.
You are talking direct wireless connection from tablet to monitor, not going through a wireless router or connection? Interesting idea, but why not just go through a wireless connection? Wouldn't this also kind of tether you to your pc? Splashtop or Logmein allows you to do this anywhere.
Tristanlogd said:
You are talking direct wireless connection from tablet to monitor, not going through a wireless router or connection? Interesting idea, but why not just go through a wireless connection? Wouldn't this also kind of tether you to your pc? Splashtop or Logmein allows you to do this anywhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All I'm talking about is a PC or laptop with a second display thats wireless. Then we call it a tablet because it has a touch screen that sends signals back to the PC or laptop to move the mouse or rather gestures. Not cloud computing, I have done this and it's terrible. Cloud is basically remote desktop which is choppy and worse then current tablets. What I'm talking about would make the performance increase as Intel claims virtually no latency with WIDI and even 5 milliseconds would be hard to notice considering how laggy android is as it's basically a virtual machine.
Hereis a clip I just found, not sure if it's available yet but:
Now ASUS brings another solution to the table, the WiCast, which can be connected to any computer and any television and promises latency-free 1080p video and audio.
ok, so i was wondering if i could use android mini pc as a low cost nas solution by using following method.
1) plug in external hdd to mini pc.
2)buy an additional usb to gigabit ethernet adapter and plug the same to mini pc and gigabit router.
3)now install samba app from play store and share hdd from it.
would this create a viable nas solution. ? what speeds could i expect with this? if someone with mini pc could try this out and let me know, it would be very generous of him.
I'm interested in the gigabit USB adapter, any links?
usb to ethernet
It can be easily found on ebay or amazon
gigabit usb adapter and transfer speed
The gigabit adapters I see on ebay are usb 3.0. I don't know about yours, but my device doesn't have usb 3.0. You can plug the network adapter in to a usb 2.0 port, but usb 2.0 has a theoretical max transfer rate of 480 Mbit/s, or 60 MByte/s, and it's never going to be that fast in the real world. The same holds true for the usb hard drive. I think you'd be lucky to get 30 MB/s out of this set up.
But if all you need is 20-30 MB/s, this should work fine. That's probably fast enough to stream an HD video off of tolerably, maybe even two simultaneously. But not if you have more than just one or two users hitting it with data requests at the same time.
CX-919 Android Mini PC
why can i Enable security/Unknown sources on CX-919 Android Mini PC
Anyone attempted?
Did anyone try this? I'm about to...
I've just setup mk808 with KSWEB to use as a home web server (tired of paying for hosting..). Successfully migrated my previously hosted website incl. my sql database. Hoping this device will also double up as a NAS solution so I can stream local content to ROKU 3. I have two googletv's (logitech and vizio) both read from the hdd connected on my network but turns out no LAN support on my new ROKU (fail). Lets see if my $39 investment can solve web hosting AND NAS needs...
Be glad to hear from anyone that's tried.
It would work but wont be very fast, first bottleneck is the internal memory/sd card, second is the USB interface
USB2.0 data transfer peaks 480Mb/sec theoretically, i.e 60MB/s MAX.
USB3.0 is much faster
With gibabit you can get 60-100MB+ depending on the IO source.
I am just asking to see if anyone has any ideas about the limiting factors or fixes to get high refresh rates working. I am trying to get a Razer Phone 2 to output 2k144 to an external monitor with desktop mode running Linage OS 18.1. However it will only output 60hz and I have also tested my current main phone (ROG Phone 5s) which itself will only output 100hz. The dock and connection is perfectly capable of 144hz but the devices refuse to output at that refresh rate. I'm not sure if maybe it is an SOC limitation but I would think even the SD845 was more then capable of driving 2 different 2k120 streams at least. So I suspect maybe there is another limitation with the desktop mode or kernel.
Refresh rate depends on hardware built-in: To set it enter the device Settings, go to the touch panel section of the terminal, locate an option called a similar to ” Screen update frequency “, there choose between the different modes offered by the manufacturer itself.