Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?
- From: phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx
- Date: 24 Jul 2008 17:09:31 GMT
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:26:31 +0100 "M.I.5?" <no.one@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|
| "Rahul" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| news:Xns9ADCCE2A53BF66650A1FC0D7811DDBC81@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|> 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) |
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?
- From: Joe Pfeiffer
- Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?
- References:
- Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?
- From: M.I.5¾
- Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?
- Prev by Date: Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?
- Next by Date: Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?
- Next by thread: Re: Why do not CRT/LCD monitors come with USB?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
