3 ms·

Realistically, if we're docking next to a monitor at a desk do we really want to congest wireless networks when we can plug in for the best latency?

nomel 5y ago
> Realistically, if we're docking next to a monitor I sincerely hope that the future doesn't involve wires. Incremental improvement will be required to reach that future. This is one of them, so I welcome it.
- NoPicklez 5y ago
  I completely agree, but for things that "just need to work" I'll be using wires until there is no noticeable difference in using the two.
- mavhc 5y ago
  Wires also provide power
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    Wireless can also provide power. Note that i'm not saying it's a good way, as it has very low efficiency.
    - NoPicklez 5y ago
      Wireless can provide power, but currently only at extremely short distances. At which point you need a wire to the device providing the wireless power anyway, so you may as well just plug it in.
  - nomel 5y ago
    True, but even now, I only charge my devices while I'm sleeping.
Zandikar 5y ago
Exactly. People asking for more penetration/range are asking for higher power devices that interfere with each other. In an increasingly interconnected and "smart" world, where even doorbells and light bulbs are networked, you really do not want higher penetration. Think it was bad getting interference on your headset when you put something in the microwave? Imagine how bad it would be if everyone had a "smart" home and all of those devices on the block were competing with each other for the same spectrum. Lower power, lower latency, lower penetration at reasonable bandwidths and lower costs should absolutely be the goal. That's not to say high penetration wireless doesn't have it's uses, it absolutely does, but those are few and far between in a consumer usecase, especially if you can run an affordable lower power, lower penetration meshnet that doesn't cause interference with your own devices, or with your neighbors.

nomel 5y ago

> Realistically, if we're docking next to a monitor I sincerely hope that the future doesn't involve wires. Incremental improvement will be required to reach that future. This is one of them, so I welcome it.

NoPicklez 5y ago
I completely agree, but for things that "just need to work" I'll be using wires until there is no noticeable difference in using the two.
mavhc 5y ago
Wires also provide power
- southerntofu 5y ago
  Wireless can also provide power. Note that i'm not saying it's a good way, as it has very low efficiency.
  - NoPicklez 5y ago
    Wireless can provide power, but currently only at extremely short distances. At which point you need a wire to the device providing the wireless power anyway, so you may as well just plug it in.
- nomel 5y ago
  True, but even now, I only charge my devices while I'm sleeping.

Zandikar 5y ago

Exactly. People asking for more penetration/range are asking for higher power devices that interfere with each other. In an increasingly interconnected and "smart" world, where even doorbells and light bulbs are networked, you really do not want higher penetration. Think it was bad getting interference on your headset when you put something in the microwave? Imagine how bad it would be if everyone had a "smart" home and all of those devices on the block were competing with each other for the same spectrum. Lower power, lower latency, lower penetration at reasonable bandwidths and lower costs should absolutely be the goal. That's not to say high penetration wireless doesn't have it's uses, it absolutely does, but those are few and far between in a consumer usecase, especially if you can run an affordable lower power, lower penetration meshnet that doesn't cause interference with your own devices, or with your neighbors.