Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #50784 > unrolled thread

OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-10-26 13:29 -0500
    Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-26 13:49 -0500
    Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-26 11:57 -0700
      Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-26 14:21 -0500
      Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-10-26 15:14 -0500
      Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-10-26 18:15 -0500
        Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-10-27 14:16 +1300
          Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-10-26 21:09 -0500
            Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? "Ted L." <tedl719@yahoo.com> - 2013-10-26 22:29 -0500
            Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-10-27 17:07 +1300
              Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-10-27 20:03 -0500
                Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-28 14:36 +1300
                  Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-10-27 20:46 -0500
                    Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-10-28 09:51 -0500
                      Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 09:27 +1300
                        Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-10-28 16:07 -0500
                          Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 13:36 +1300
                            Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-10-28 21:43 -0500
                              Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2013-10-29 06:12 -0400
          Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2013-10-27 11:19 -0400
            Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2013-10-27 08:24 -0700
            Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-28 09:56 +1300
            Re: OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-27 20:56 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#50784 — OT? Apple TV, WiFi, and Mavericks?

I *think* this fits this NG; can't tell where else it would!  (There 
doesn't seem to be an Apple TV NG.)

Mavericks is supposed to be able to drive both the HDMI port and the 
main display, with separate menu bars etc.  (you could have separate 
displays with earlier versions of the OS, but only one of them could 
have the menu bar.)

(This would be on my MacBook Pro Retina, but presumably it would apply 
to a variety of, but not all, other hardware models.)

Does anyone know if instead of the hardwired HDMI it could use an Apple 
TV wifi connection instead?  (I know it can do it mirroring the native 
screen, but could it also do it as a separate display?)

Furthermore, could the Apple TV connection be a direct ad hoc wifi 
connection, rather than via a router's net?  (There is some chatter in 
the Apple support discussion groups on this, but it is as clear as mud 
as to what the real capabilities are.)

The idea of course is to be able to use an HDTV as an additional monitor 
without having to be hardwired to it.

Ted Lee
Minnetonka, MN

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#50787

On 2013-10-26 18:29:47 +0000, Ted Lee said:

> I *think* this fits this NG; can't tell where else it would!  (There 
> doesn't seem to be an Apple TV NG.)
> 
> Mavericks is supposed to be able to drive both the HDMI port and the 
> main display, with separate menu bars etc.  (you could have separate 
> displays with earlier versions of the OS, but only one of them could 
> have the menu bar.)
> 
> (This would be on my MacBook Pro Retina, but presumably it would apply 
> to a variety of, but not all, other hardware models.)
> 
> Does anyone know if instead of the hardwired HDMI it could use an Apple 
> TV wifi connection instead?  (I know it can do it mirroring the native 
> screen, but could it also do it as a separate display?)
> 
> Furthermore, could the Apple TV connection be a direct ad hoc wifi 
> connection, rather than via a router's net?  (There is some chatter in 
> the Apple support discussion groups on this, but it is as clear as mud 
> as to what the real capabilities are.)
> 
> The idea of course is to be able to use an HDTV as an additional 
> monitor without having to be hardwired to it.
> 
> Ted Lee
> Minnetonka, MN

From what I've tried and the little I've read about it, I think Airplay 
to the ATV is strictly mirroring.

-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50789

On 2013-10-26 18:29:47 +0000, Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> said:

> I *think* this fits this NG; can't tell where else it would!  (There 
> doesn't seem to be an Apple TV NG.)
> 
> Mavericks is supposed to be able to drive both the HDMI port and the 
> main display, with separate menu bars etc.  (you could have separate 
> displays with earlier versions of the OS, but only one of them could 
> have the menu bar.)
> 
> (This would be on my MacBook Pro Retina, but presumably it would apply 
> to a variety of, but not all, other hardware models.)
> 
> Does anyone know if instead of the hardwired HDMI it could use an Apple 
> TV wifi connection instead?  (I know it can do it mirroring the native 
> screen, but could it also do it as a separate display?)
> 
> Furthermore, could the Apple TV connection be a direct ad hoc wifi 
> connection, rather than via a router's net?  (There is some chatter in 
> the Apple support discussion groups on this, but it is as clear as mud 
> as to what the real capabilities are.)
> 
> The idea of course is to be able to use an HDTV as an additional 
> monitor without having to be hardwired to it.
> 
> Ted Lee
> Minnetonka, MN

This might help some:
< 
http://www.appletvhacks.net/2013/06/10/os-x-mavericks-lets-you-use-your-hdtv-as-a-second-display-using-apple-tv-and-airplay/ 
>
< 
http://www.macworld.com/article/2042936/hands-on-with-os-x-mavericks-multiple-display-support.html 
>
< 
http://www.besttechie.com/2013/10/23/os-x-mavericks-unleashed-a-look-at-airplay-display/ 
>

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50791

On 2013-10-26 18:57:10 +0000, Savageduck said:

> On 2013-10-26 18:29:47 +0000, Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> said:
> 
>> I *think* this fits this NG; can't tell where else it would!  (There 
>> doesn't seem to be an Apple TV NG.)
>> 
>> Mavericks is supposed to be able to drive both the HDMI port and the 
>> main display, with separate menu bars etc.  (you could have separate 
>> displays with earlier versions of the OS, but only one of them could 
>> have the menu bar.)
>> 
>> (This would be on my MacBook Pro Retina, but presumably it would apply 
>> to a variety of, but not all, other hardware models.)
>> 
>> Does anyone know if instead of the hardwired HDMI it could use an Apple 
>> TV wifi connection instead?  (I know it can do it mirroring the native 
>> screen, but could it also do it as a separate display?)
>> 
>> Furthermore, could the Apple TV connection be a direct ad hoc wifi 
>> connection, rather than via a router's net?  (There is some chatter in 
>> the Apple support discussion groups on this, but it is as clear as mud 
>> as to what the real capabilities are.)
>> 
>> The idea of course is to be able to use an HDTV as an additional 
>> monitor without having to be hardwired to it.
>> 
>> Ted Lee
>> Minnetonka, MN
> 
> This might help some:
> < 
> http://www.appletvhacks.net/2013/06/10/os-x-mavericks-lets-you-use-your-hdtv-as-a-second-display-using-apple-tv-and-airplay/ 
> 
>> 
> < 
> http://www.macworld.com/article/2042936/hands-on-with-os-x-mavericks-multiple-display-support.html 
> 
>> 
> < 
> http://www.besttechie.com/2013/10/23/os-x-mavericks-unleashed-a-look-at-airplay-display/ 
> 

thanks for that!!  I hadn't actually used Airplay with Mavericks and 
didn't realize that they had improved it that much.


-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50797

On 10/26/13, 1:57 PM, Savageduck wrote:

>
> This might help some:
> <
> http://www.appletvhacks.net/2013/06/10/os-x-mavericks-lets-you-use-your-hdtv-as-a-second-display-using-apple-tv-and-airplay/
>
>>
> <
> http://www.macworld.com/article/2042936/hands-on-with-os-x-mavericks-multiple-display-support.html
>
>>
> <
> http://www.besttechie.com/2013/10/23/os-x-mavericks-unleashed-a-look-at-airplay-display/
>
>>
>

Thanks -- I'll give them a look.  I hadn't searched with the right keywords!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50817

On 10/26/13, 1:57 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> This might help some:
> <
> http://www.appletvhacks.net/2013/06/10/os-x-mavericks-lets-you-use-your-hdtv-as-a-second-display-using-apple-tv-and-airplay/
>
>>
> <
> http://www.macworld.com/article/2042936/hands-on-with-os-x-mavericks-multiple-display-support.html
>
>>
> <
> http://www.besttechie.com/2013/10/23/os-x-mavericks-unleashed-a-look-at-airplay-display/
>
>>

Thanks.   That pretty much answers the question of whether the HDTV and 
internal monitor can be truly separate displays.  It doesn't answer the 
question of whether the MacBook and Apple TV can form an ad hoc net or 
if they have to join the net formed by my router (upstairs).  The idea 
of the video having to go upstairs to the router and then come back 
downstairs to the TV is at least annoying, if not a game killer.  While 
the router/laptop do both support wifi-N, at that distance the speed is 
only about 120 Mbps (depending on the phase of the moon).  It'd be 
especially annoying if it had to be that way when the Apple TV would 
only be a dozen feet or so away from the computer!  Oh well, at worse I 
could get a cheap router and locate it next to the Apple TV (which would 
be next to the HDTV itself.)  But I doubt the MacBook could talk on two 
wifi nets at the same time, so it couldn't both be connected to the 
internet and to the Apple TV.  Botheration...  hmmm, now if I got a 
second cheap router, set it up as a relay and connected it to the router 
that's connecting my computer to the Apple TV, it just might work.........

Ted Lee
Minnetonka, MN

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50849

Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> wrote:

> On 10/26/13, 1:57 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> > This might help some:
> > <
> >
> >http://www.appletvhacks.net/2013/06/10/os-x-mavericks-lets-you-use-your-h
> >dtv-as-a-second-display-using-apple-tv-and-airplay/
> >
> >>
> > <
> >
> >http://www.macworld.com/article/2042936/hands-on-with-os-x-mavericks-mult
> >iple-display-support.html
> >
> >>
> > <
> >
> >http://www.besttechie.com/2013/10/23/os-x-mavericks-unleashed-a-look-at-a
> >irplay-display/
> >
> >>
> 
> Thanks.   That pretty much answers the question of whether the HDTV and
> internal monitor can be truly separate displays.

I didn't check the articles, but I hope they mention that this only
applies to Mac models which already supported AirPlay mirroring, which
was introduced in new models from 2011.

> It doesn't answer the question of whether the MacBook and Apple TV can
> form an ad hoc net or if they have to join the net formed by my router
> (upstairs). The idea of the video having to go upstairs to the router
> and then come back downstairs to the TV is at least annoying, if not
> a game killer.

The Apple TV doesn't have the ability to create a WiFi network, only
join an existing one. Your Mac could create an ad hoc network and you
could then get the Apple TV to join it, but your Mac couldn't be
connected to your router's WiFi network at the same time.

The best solution would be if you can connect the Apple TV to your
router via Ethernet. That is how I have mine set up, so it avoids the
double WiFi hop. Alternatively, your MacBook could be connected via
Ethernet but that won't work if you want to move it around.

The AirDrop capabilities Apple has been adding in recent Mac and iOS
models open the possibility that Apple could support AirPlay to an Apple
TV without having to connect to the same WiFi network, but the Apple TV
needs a hardware upgrade first to add that capability. That would be an
obvious feature in a new model.

> While the router/laptop do both support wifi-N, at that distance the speed
> is only about 120 Mbps (depending on the phase of the moon).  It'd be
> especially annoying if it had to be that way when the Apple TV would only
> be a dozen feet or so away from the computer!  Oh well, at worse I could
> get a cheap router and locate it next to the Apple TV (which would be next
> to the HDTV itself.)  But I doubt the MacBook could talk on two wifi nets
> at the same time, so it couldn't both be connected to the internet and to
> the Apple TV.  Botheration...  hmmm, now if I got a second cheap router,
> set it up as a relay and connected it to the router that's connecting my
> computer to the Apple TV, it just might work.........

A relayed WiFi connection will be no better than the original solution -
there are still two WiFi hops between the computer and Apple TV.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50854

On 10/26/13, 8:16 PM, David Empson wrote:
> A relayed WiFi connection will be no better than the original solution -
> there are still two WiFi hops between the computer and Apple TV.

I wasn't thinking clearly!  The "house" router/network has to be 
upstairs because that's where the DSL connection is.  But what I could 
do is get a cheap router that can be used as a relay.  That would be 
downstairs and connect to the upstairs router via wifi.  It would also 
be connected to the Apple TV (were I to get one) by ethernet.  Using 
your solution, the Mac could set up an ad hoc network that the Apple TV 
would connect to, all of ten feet away, say.  Presumably, then, the Mac 
could connect to the network (and the other computers in my house) 
through the route from the Apple TV to the downstairs router to 
upstairs.  And to the HDTV via the Apple TV.  I already have a router 
that could work as the relay (an old Linksys travel router) but it's 
only wifi-G so I'd want to get a new one that handles N.  (The router 
upstairs handles N.)  I'm going to see if I can find some Apple TV docs 
to find it out if it can be configured to connect to an ad hoc network.

Ted Lee
Minnetonka, MN

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50863

On 10/26/13, 9:09 PM, Ted Lee wrote:
> I'm going to see if I can find some Apple TV docs to find it out if it
> can be configured to connect to an ad hoc network.

OK, looking at some comments in the Apple TV support forum at Apple it 
appears that an Apple TV can be connected to either an ethernet or wifi 
net, but not both.  So, I'd have to put a base station for my network 
downstairs and use a relay upstairs.  I'm assuming there are wifi-N 
routers that can be configured as a relay although I don't know if the 
one I have happens to be one.  Why do they make it so complicated? (-:

-- 
Ted L.

Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50865

Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> wrote:

> On 10/26/13, 8:16 PM, David Empson wrote:
> > A relayed WiFi connection will be no better than the original solution -
> > there are still two WiFi hops between the computer and Apple TV.
> 
> I wasn't thinking clearly!  The "house" router/network has to be 
> upstairs because that's where the DSL connection is.  But what I could
> do is get a cheap router that can be used as a relay.  That would be 
> downstairs and connect to the upstairs router via wifi.  It would also
> be connected to the Apple TV (were I to get one) by ethernet.

That is what I assumed you meant by having another relaying router
downstairs. Still involves a double WiFi link (computer to main router,
then main router to second router).

There is a possibility your computer is able to connect directly to the
second router, which would be determined by relative signal strength, so
likely if it is the closer one to the computer. The million dollar
question is how the second router deals with traffic between two
stations which are connected to it: will it forward everything back to
the main router (resulting in three WiFi hops), or straight to the
Ethernet port (resulting in one WiFi hop)?

> Using your solution, the Mac could set up an ad hoc network that the Apple
> TV would connect to, all of ten feet away, say.  Presumably, then, the Mac
> could connect to the network (and the other computers in my house) through
> the route from the Apple TV to the downstairs router to upstairs.

No. The Apple TV can't route network traffic between two networks. The
Mac would lose contact with the rest of your network (and the Internet).

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50988

On 10/26/13, 11:07 PM, David Empson wrote:
> That is what I assumed you meant by having another relaying router
> downstairs. Still involves a double WiFi link (computer to main router,
> then main router to second router).
>
> There is a possibility your computer is able to connect directly to the
> second router, which would be determined by relative signal strength, so
> likely if it is the closer one to the computer. The million dollar
> question is how the second router deals with traffic between two
> stations which are connected to it: will it forward everything back to
> the main router (resulting in three WiFi hops), or straight to the
> Ethernet port (resulting in one WiFi hop)?

This is definitely a case where a picture would be worth a thousand 
words -- especially tired words!

Anyway, in order to minimize wifi hops/distances it looks like I need to 
put the full-blown router (aka AP or base station) downstairs next to 
the ATV and replace it upstairs with a wifi router that can be put into 
client-bridge mode (I think that's the right terminology), with that 
connected to the internet via the local network upstairs.  At this point 
this discussion has nothing to do with comp.sys.mac.system; sorry.

Problem is, it doesn't look like there are many wifi routers that can 
actually be put into client-bridge mode (or maybe all it needs is just 
client-mode) and I don't expect them to be cheap -- at least not for 
wifi-N.  More research here needed...  Openwrt would work for some 
wifi-G routers I know; dunno if there's a version for n.

Ted

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50995

In article <l4kd5c$t4t$1@dont-email.me>, Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> wrote:
> On 10/26/13, 11:07 PM, David Empson wrote:
> > 
> > That is what I assumed you meant by having another relaying router
> > downstairs. Still involves a double WiFi link (computer to main router,
> > then main router to second router).
> >
> > There is a possibility your computer is able to connect directly to the
> > second router, which would be determined by relative signal strength, so
> > likely if it is the closer one to the computer. The million dollar
> > question is how the second router deals with traffic between two
> > stations which are connected to it: will it forward everything back to
> > the main router (resulting in three WiFi hops), or straight to the
> > Ethernet port (resulting in one WiFi hop)?
> 
> This is definitely a case where a picture would be worth a thousand 
> words -- especially tired words!
> 
> Anyway, in order to minimize wifi hops/distances it looks like I need to 
> put the full-blown router (aka AP or base station) downstairs next to 
> the ATV and replace it upstairs with a wifi router that can be put into 
> client-bridge mode (I think that's the right terminology), with that 
> connected to the internet via the local network upstairs.  At this point 
> this discussion has nothing to do with comp.sys.mac.system; sorry.
> 
> Problem is, it doesn't look like there are many wifi routers that can 
> actually be put into client-bridge mode (or maybe all it needs is just 
> client-mode) and I don't expect them to be cheap -- at least not for 
> wifi-N.  More research here needed...  Openwrt would work for some 
> wifi-G routers I know; dunno if there's a version for n.

The best (not necessarily the easiest or cheapest) solution would be to
put an new internet / phone socket next to the TV so you can plug the
modem-router directly in at that location. Then use wi-fi extenders
upstairs if needed.  :-)

I don't know if the speed would be good enough for video, but another
option could be to use the house's existing electrical wiring as
network cabling from the modem-router upstairs - there's must be a
power socket near the TV, which would then give a direct cabled
connection. Something like Belkin's Powerline range,
http://www.belkin.com/networking/powerline/


The houses around our neighbourhood were all designed to be
(supposedly) "future proof", so all the main rooms (bedrooms, lounge,
dining, etc.) have a wallplate with both a TV and phone socket in them,
and a patch panel / switchboard in the garage ... of course this was 12
or so years ago before fibre was considered a reality, so internally
it's all normal wiring.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50997

On 10/27/13, 8:36 PM, Your Name wrote:
> The best (not necessarily the easiest or cheapest) solution would be to
> put an new internet / phone socket next to the TV so you can plug the
> modem-router directly in at that location. Then use wi-fi extenders
> upstairs if needed.:-)

I actually thought about that as I was writing my last reply.  When the 
house was built I had them run phone wires all over the place (this was 
long before even cable TV) but unfortunately not one anywhere near where 
the TV in question is now located.

Ted

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51048

On 10/27/13, 8:46 PM, Ted Lee wrote:
> On 10/27/13, 8:36 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> The best (not necessarily the easiest or cheapest) solution would be to
>> put an new internet / phone socket next to the TV so you can plug the
>> modem-router directly in at that location. Then use wi-fi extenders
>> upstairs if needed.:-)
>
> I actually thought about that as I was writing my last reply.  When the
> house was built I had them run phone wires all over the place (this was
> long before even cable TV) but unfortunately not one anywhere near where
> the TV in question is now located.
>
> Ted

Better solution.  I don't know why I hadn't thought of it before; I 
don't think anywhere here mentioned it: powerline networking.  For under 
50$ one can get a pair of adapters that in effect turn the house wiring 
into one big ethernet.  Recent technology now gives speeds faster than 
wifi -- and it's a lot easier to figure out what to get and set up than 
fussing with client/bridge/repeater modes etc.  I haven't yet found any 
clear answer to the question of whether the adapters have to be on the 
same leg of the power line, but it appears they don't have to be from 
some comments.  The only caution I've really seen is they have to be 
plugged directly into wall sockets (not through a surge protector and 
probably not through an extension cord) but that'd be no big deal for 
what I'm thinking of.

Ted

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51096

In article <l4ltm6$6gt$1@dont-email.me>, Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> wrote:

> On 10/27/13, 8:46 PM, Ted Lee wrote:
> > On 10/27/13, 8:36 PM, Your Name wrote:
> >> The best (not necessarily the easiest or cheapest) solution would be to
> >> put an new internet / phone socket next to the TV so you can plug the
> >> modem-router directly in at that location. Then use wi-fi extenders
> >> upstairs if needed.:-)
> >
> > I actually thought about that as I was writing my last reply.  When the
> > house was built I had them run phone wires all over the place (this was
> > long before even cable TV) but unfortunately not one anywhere near where
> > the TV in question is now located.
> >
> > Ted
> 
> Better solution.  I don't know why I hadn't thought of it before; I 
> don't think anywhere here mentioned it: powerline networking.
<snip>

Oi!! Liar, liar, pants on fire!  :-)

I did suggest using the existing electrical wiring yesterday in the
same message as the trimmed paragraph you replied to above. I gave the
Belkin website link too, although there are other makers of similar
products.

The only problem could be whether or not it's good enough for video.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51106

On 10/28/13, 3:27 PM, Your Name wrote:
> Oi!! Liar, liar, pants on fire!:-)
>
> I did suggest using the existing electrical wiring yesterday in the
> same message as the trimmed paragraph you replied to above. I gave the
> Belkin website link too, although there are other makers of similar
> products.
>
So you did!  Not only can't I write well, I guess I can't read well either.

> The only problem could be whether or not it's good enough for video.

I wonder if either of the places I'm likely to get one (Best Buy or 
Micro Center) have a no-questions-asked return policy? (-: I've been 
looking at reviews of the gadgets and there are wide inconsistencies in 
what they say about what kind of performance one can actually get.  A 
further confusion is I don't think they're always consistent or clear 
about whether the speed is reported in Mb(its)/s or MB(ytes)/s.  (And 
there is always the question of whether the ethernet connections 
themselves are 100MB or 1000MB -- I can't even say offhand what my 
routers are capable of.)

Ted

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51138

In article <l4mjmr$kmf$1@dont-email.me>, Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> wrote:

> On 10/28/13, 3:27 PM, Your Name wrote:
> > 
> > Oi!! Liar, liar, pants on fire!:-)
> >
> > I did suggest using the existing electrical wiring yesterday in the
> > same message as the trimmed paragraph you replied to above. I gave the
> > Belkin website link too, although there are other makers of similar
> > products.
> 
> So you did!  Not only can't I write well, I guess I can't read well either.
> 
> 
> > The only problem could be whether or not it's good enough for video.
> 
> I wonder if either of the places I'm likely to get one (Best Buy or 
> Micro Center) have a no-questions-asked return policy? (-: I've been 
> looking at reviews of the gadgets and there are wide inconsistencies in 
> what they say about what kind of performance one can actually get.  A 
> further confusion is I don't think they're always consistent or clear 
> about whether the speed is reported in Mb(its)/s or MB(ytes)/s.  (And 
> there is always the question of whether the ethernet connections 
> themselves are 100MB or 1000MB -- I can't even say offhand what my 
> routers are capable of.)

Another option that I've never used could be to move the Apple TV box
up next to the modem-router and plug it in with a cable, then use one
of the wireless "video sender" devices to get the video onto the TV
downstairs. Most have IR capabilities as well so remotes still
function. Something like the various models on this Amazon page:
<http://www.amazon.com/vStar-Digital-Wireless-Sender-DMA3000T/dp/B004BUY
YJI>

Another option would be to plug the computer directly into the TV with
a video adapter.

Of course the most obvious and cheapest option is to simply move the
Apple TV and TV set upstairs next to the modem-router.  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51145

On 10/28/13, 7:36 PM, Your Name wrote:
> Another option that I've never used could be to move the Apple TV box
> up next to the modem-router and plug it in with a cable, then use one
> of the wireless "video sender" devices to get the video onto the TV
> downstairs. Most have IR capabilities as well so remotes still
> function. Something like the various models on this Amazon page:
> <http://www.amazon.com/vStar-Digital-Wireless-Sender-DMA3000T/dp/B004BUY
> YJI>
>
> Another option would be to plug the computer directly into the TV with
> a video adapter.
>
> Of course the most obvious and cheapest option is to simply move the
> Apple TV and TV set upstairs next to the modem-router.:-)

I'm afraid none of those will work -- even though wifi-n is faster than 
wifi-G, my house geometry (walls, floors) is such that it isn't fast 
enough to drive video from upstairs to downstairs.  So the ATV has to be 
downstairs with the wifi-n router there (over that short a distance -- 
10 feet or so line of sight -- speed should be good enough to drive the 
TV from the computer.)  I suppose it's possible wifi-ac would be fast 
enough, but then I'd have to buy *two* new wifi-ac boxes of some kind -- 
definitely more expensive than the powerline adapters.  (If they're fast 
enough.)

Ted

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51174

On 10/28/13, 10:43 PM, Ted Lee wrote:
> On 10/28/13, 7:36 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> Another option that I've never used could be to move the Apple TV box
>> up next to the modem-router and plug it in with a cable, then use one
>> of the wireless "video sender" devices to get the video onto the TV
>> downstairs. Most have IR capabilities as well so remotes still
>> function. Something like the various models on this Amazon page:
>> <http://www.amazon.com/vStar-Digital-Wireless-Sender-DMA3000T/dp/B004BUY
>> YJI>
>>
>> Another option would be to plug the computer directly into the TV with
>> a video adapter.
>>
>> Of course the most obvious and cheapest option is to simply move the
>> Apple TV and TV set upstairs next to the modem-router.:-)
>
> I'm afraid none of those will work -- even though wifi-n is faster than
> wifi-G, my house geometry (walls, floors) is such that it isn't fast
> enough to drive video from upstairs to downstairs.  So the ATV has to be
> downstairs with the wifi-n router there (over that short a distance --
> 10 feet or so line of sight -- speed should be good enough to drive the
> TV from the computer.)  I suppose it's possible wifi-ac would be fast
> enough, but then I'd have to buy *two* new wifi-ac boxes of some kind --
> definitely more expensive than the powerline adapters.  (If they're fast
> enough.)
>
> Ted
Some of the folks over at alt.internet.wireless seem to know quite a bit 
about this stuff though most of it is over my head.  You might try 
posting there as well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50885

In article <1lbekf6.1qpdcreirk9e7N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
 dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> The Apple TV doesn't have the ability to create a WiFi network, only
> join an existing one. Your Mac could create an ad hoc network and you
> could then get the Apple TV to join it, but your Mac couldn't be
> connected to your router's WiFi network at the same time.

Please pardon my colossal ignorance on this subject, but my current TV 
is over 20 years old. I'd like to divert slightly from the thrust of the 
thread to ask this:

What about the new TVs which have built-in wifi? I've never understood 
what that was to be used for or how it would work. Could you connect it 
to your wireless router or a Mac ad hoc WAP and then do screen sharing? 
If so, could that do extended screen space as well as mirroring?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web