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 <c6cdl5-aaj.ln1@royalty.mine.nu>, ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) writes:
>In article <f9Agk.127014$102.120364@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>anon <no to spamers> wrote:
>>
>> In <ndial5-7rl.ln1@royalty.mine.nu>, ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) writes:
>> >In article <C6vgk.126671$102.50383@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> >anon <no to spamers> wrote:
>> >> In <oo99l5-hva.ln1@royalty.mine.nu>, 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_

In article <7gXgk.128537$102.15822@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
anon <no to spamers> wrote:
> In <c6cdl5-aaj.ln1@royalty.mine.nu>, ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) writes:
> >In article <f9Agk.127014$102.120364@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> >anon <no to spamers> wrote:
> >>
> >> In <ndial5-7rl.ln1@royalty.mine.nu>, ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) writes:
> >> >In article <C6vgk.126671$102.50383@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> >> >anon <no to spamers> wrote:
> >> >> 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.
> >
> The first version does not use USB it uses the RGB signals only.

What makes the RGB signals, some hardware? Bet that hardware has a
driver. "Software you already have" != "no software".

--
There's a term for those who fantasize that the world works in
precisely the way that produces maximum convenience for them,
despite years of evidence to the contrary. The term is "Morons".
GA in <fp0m8j$lb0$1@reader2.panix.com>

Todays camera may or may not have a software driver. And back in the 80s
sat receiver / CD / VCR were non cpu also. Even the first DVDs were non
cpu. And, today those devices that are still non-cpu, do not have a
software driver.

TROLL!!!


In <hdmfl5-acm.ln1@royalty.mine.nu>, ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) writes:
>In article <7gXgk.128537$102.15822@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>anon <no to spamers> wrote:
>> In <c6cdl5-aaj.ln1@royalty.mine.nu>, ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) writes:
>> >In article <f9Agk.127014$102.120364@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> >anon <no to spamers> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In <ndial5-7rl.ln1@royalty.mine.nu>, ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) writes:
>> >> >In article <C6vgk.126671$102.50383@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> >> >anon <no to spamers> wrote:
>> >> >> What Drivers?
>> >> >
>> >> >Of course there are drivers. What do you think's on the volume it
>> >> >offers you the first time you connect to it? You think your computer
>> >> >will automatically know what to do with device #XXXX/#YYYY whenever
>> >> >it shows up?
>> >> >
>> >> The version I was talking about, allows the computer owner to choose any
>> >> video card they want and that apart device just plugs into it. The
>> >> other part plugs into any monitor that you want. Basically you could say
>> >> it act like an wireless extension for the video cable.
>> >
>> >So your device still uses a driver to a video card, and something
>> >proprietary gets shoved down the USB cable.
>> >
>> The first version does not use USB it uses the RGB signals only.
>
>What makes the RGB signals, some hardware? Bet that hardware has a
>driver. "Software you already have" != "no software".
>
>--
>There's a term for those who fantasize that the world works in
>precisely the way that produces maximum convenience for them,
>despite years of evidence to the contrary. The term is "Morons".
> GA in <fp0m8j$lb0$1@reader2.panix.com>

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:32:38 +0200 (CEST) david <none@nospam.com> wrote:
| 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

That's for the old model of retransmitting every bit over and over and over
faster than you can see it change.

USB (or Firewire or ethernet) might well be practical if the video model is
changed to where the monitor acts like a VNC client and the traffic across
the wire represents only what is updated most of the time (and occaisionally
a full refresh can be made in case of lost pixels).

That might not do so well for those HD 1920 x 1080 at 60 Hz progressive TV
sports programs. But it would be fine for 99% of office desktop uses and
99% of non-video home computer uses.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In comp.os.linux.hardware Paul <nospam@needed.com> wrote:

| 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

And what kind of support for this exists in Linux? X? DirectFB?


| 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.

And even dual-link DVI won't be able to handle what is coming in the future
of video and TV (10+ years from now). Be prepared for a video display device
that can do extreme video, but takes its input in VNC (for desktop) or MPEG
(for video) formats over whatever connection medium is available as long as
it is fast enough. Ideally the display can have both at the same time, with
VNC providing the base layout, and MPEG for a specific video feed that can
be directed to whatever region of the display is desired (or the whole screen)
with the HDCP decoding done in the display, where needed. Then the OS only
has to layout the screen and pass the stream (which would be two way between
the display and video source when HDCP is involved).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:26:31 +0100 "M.I.5?" <no.one@no.where.no_spam.co.uk> wrote:
|
| "Rahul" <nospam@nospam.invalid> 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.

We need a new kind of interface. Existing ones like USB, Firewire, and SATA,
were designed for specific purposes original and were, or will be, repurposed
for other things. That's really not very good design. Something that is
designed to allow _any_ kind of devide from the outset, with _standard_
protocols included for a large variety of device uses (only ONE driver is
needed for any one class of device, regardless of manufacturer or model),
all designed with the future in mind for things like expanding to higher
and higher bandwidths, metal and optical medium, hermaphroditic connectors,
and multi-lane options. IMHO, this needs to be part of the redesign of the
PC internal bus as well (PCIe is only partly headed in the right direction).
Ultimately a SoC chip would have RAM internal and this interface coming out
directly for a very tiny but powerful machine (no more north and south bridge
and other mainboard bulkiness).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:05:21 +0200 Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> wrote:
| Rahul <nospam@nospam.invalid> 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.

However, the handling of these devices has not been uniform. For example
a DVD player that can also play audio CDs, including MP3 CDs (CD in data
format with MP3 files in an ISO filesystem), is NOT able to handle those
same MP3 files in the new ISO filesystem used on all DVDs).

Ideally a device should treat all media it gets in a uniform way (but CD
audio format is a forced exception), and support every filessytem it knows
how to support on every media it can support, along with every file format.
So if the player has an SDHC flash memory card, it can handle everything on
the memory card that it could handle on any CD or DVD. If it has a USB
port, it can handle anything on a USB flash key or a USB RAID hub that has
a dozen 1TB drives plugged in (that would be a LOT of music or video or
picture slide shows, etc).


| 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.

Compressed video takes less. Over the air TV (USA) is 19.39 megabits per second
and can put noth only both audio and video in there, but multiple subchannels
of it. I know of at least 2 TV stations running one HD channel and two SD
channels over their 19.39 mbps data stream. Now this MPEG2 compression, and
the better MPEG4 compression that isn't used on over the air TV but is used in
other places, isn't what is good for a workstation desktop display. But for
that we can use the VNC protocol (or a better version of it). Add the ability
to feed both a VNC stream and an MPEG stream, with instructions on what part
of the screen each stream is displayed in (overlayed), and you get the best
of both and support pixel perfect computer application display and TV grade
video at the same time (even in a window).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 10:19:36 -0400 Hactar <ebenZEROONE@verizon.net> wrote:
| In article <1Wdgk.246063$SV4.187976@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
| anon <no to spamers> wrote:
|>
|> In <Xns9ADCCE2A53BF66650A1FC0D7811DDBC81@85.214.90.23 6>, Rahul
|> <nospam@nospam.invalid> 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".

The key is for open standards groups to do it first. When they have failed
to be "on the ball" then we get propritary junk.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net writes:
>
> We need a new kind of interface. Existing ones like USB, Firewire, and SATA,
> were designed for specific purposes original and were, or will be,
> repurposed

Ummm, USB? USB most definitely designed from the ground up to be used
for a wide variety of devices.

> for other things. That's really not very good design. Something that is
> designed to allow _any_ kind of devide from the outset, with _standard_
> protocols included for a large variety of device uses (only ONE driver is
> needed for any one class of device, regardless of manufacturer or
> model),

A compliant USB device of a particular class can be used with a
generic driver. The device may implement additional functionality
which requires a special driver, but core functionality can be
accessed without it (yes, I know Windows tends to not realize this.
That's not a weakness in USB).

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

> Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> wrote:
> | 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.

The above finally resulted in a conclusion that as a rule of thumb
computer graphics needs about 1000 times as much bandwidth compared to
computer sound.

> | 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.
>
> However, the handling of these devices has not been uniform. For example
> a DVD player that can also play audio CDs, including MP3 CDs (CD in data
> format with MP3 files in an ISO filesystem), is NOT able to handle those
> same MP3 files in the new ISO filesystem used on all DVDs).

That is a choise that some manufacturers have done. Other brands are
capable of playing mp3 files from DVD media.

> | 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.

> Compressed video takes less. Over the air TV (USA) is 19.39 megabits
> per second and can put noth only both audio and video in there, but
> multiple subchannels of it.

Yes, with destructive compression algorithms like mpeg it is possible to
lower the need for bandwidth. However, in those 19.39 Megabits per second,
how many Megabits are used for audio and how many Megabits are used for
video? Without knowing the true answer I would guess that aout 0.12
Megabits per second are used for audio and the remaining 19.27 Megabits
per second are used for video. So we still have a factor of more than 150
for a video resolution far below what a 24" computer monitor can handle
and a refresh rate which is about half the refresh rate you would expect
on a computer monitor.

> Now this MPEG2 compression, and the better MPEG4 compression that isn't
> used on over the air TV but is used in other places, isn't what is good
> for a workstation desktop display. But for that we can use the VNC
> protocol (or a better version of it). Add the ability to feed both a
> VNC stream and an MPEG stream, with instructions on what part of the
> screen each stream is displayed in (overlayed), and you get the best of
> both and support pixel perfect computer application display and TV grade
> video at the same time (even in a window).

These are some interesting thoughts that probably would result in
something useful for most users. However, some users running heavy
graphical simulations or playing games like first person shooters would
probably suffer from bandwidth limitations and/or distorted images with
such a solution using USB to transfer video.

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