5 ms·
Miracast is, if I'm not mistaken, wireless only which in my mind makes it pretty darn useless. At least since all wireless implementations I've tried have been
by tjoff 4y ago
Miracast is, if I'm not mistaken, wireless only which in my mind makes it pretty darn useless.
At least since all wireless implementations I've tried have been very flaky and after the first the initial "this is pretty cool", immediately followed by "ouch, the input lag".
Which then is followed by flaky connections and if on a phone ridiculous battery drain. It is nothing but a source of frustration and waste of time so anytime I hear the word I just tune out.
- shrx 4y ago> Miracast is, if I'm not mistaken, wireless only Wow, that's an insane software design choice. edit: looks like there's support for Miracast over Ethernet at least in Windows: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/surface-hub/miracast-over-infrastructure https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/surface-hub/miracast-over-...
- llui85 4y agoUnfortunately it still requires a Wi-Fi adapter: It is important to note that Miracast over Infrastructure is not a replacement for standard Miracast. Instead, the functionality is complementary, and provides an advantage to users who are part of the enterprise network. Discovery requests to identify Miracast receivers can only occur through the Wi-Fi adapter. Once the receivers have been identified, Windows 10 can then attempt the connection to the network.