|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
10-23-2013, 01:34 AM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 8
|
How you can ditch your Displaylink adapter using a Apple TV
|
10-23-2013, 03:49 AM | #2 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5
|
Nice video! I've been pretty unhappy with DisplayLink in general, and Mavericks isn't helping, so I'm seriously considering this.
Do you notice a large CPU spike when you play video on the Apple TV screen? Also, you mentioned you had the Apple TV and your computer hooked up together, did you do this directly with an ethernet cable or through some type of router or switch? |
10-23-2013, 04:13 AM | #3 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
|
|
10-23-2013, 04:38 AM | #4 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 23
|
kinda embarrassing that you can get that from an apple TV over ethernet with all the overhead involved (even with gigabit) but somehow they can't get this thing working over a 5gbps USB 3.0 connection. And they claim they don't know how to "get the pixels" obviously airplay works. Seems like us mac users (probably one of the primary demographics for this type of product) just aren't important enough. Especially considering how long mavericks GM was available to test with.
edit: it also should be noted that the Apple TV has only a 10/100 ethernet port so… yeah… not even usb 2.0 bandwidth. Last edited by gilesmartin; 10-23-2013 at 04:42 AM. Reason: see above |
10-23-2013, 04:42 AM | #5 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
|
|
10-23-2013, 10:28 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,561
|
The Apple TV and AirPlay uses private APIs in OS X to get it's screen updates. These APIs are not public. We would LOVE to have access to this API as we could make an improved USB display solution without the issues that are seen today.
This has been discussed with Apple but they have been unwilling to give access to this private API. As you might understand this is very frustrating for us, as it makes our solution doesn't perform as well as it could because we're locked out of a private API. Wim |
10-23-2013, 12:42 PM | #7 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 23
|
Really? Then how come third parties are able to create devices that work with airplay mirroring. Just look at rplay for the raspberry pi or air server. And why does air display work perfectly on mavericks while your product does not? Apple changed the APIs, stop blaming them and stop waiting on them to change them. Find a way to make this work as is. If the eventually update the APIs... Great. You can release the current driver again. But in the mean time get off your ass and find a way to make things work. Figure out what air display and others are doing and publish a working beta. Or find a way to mimic an airplay device on localhost. You shouldn't have expected the GM to change before release and you shouldn't expect Apple to swoop in and fix your product for you.
|
10-23-2013, 03:49 PM | #8 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 39
|
Would agree here; at least now with Mavericks being able to use Airplay as another monitor. Would seem to me that making a small Airplay Server and then sending what it gets out to the USB should work.
There are some available here, some even open source: http://code.google.com/p/open-airplay/ |
10-23-2013, 05:39 PM | #9 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 8
|
CPU usage is around 1% additional at 720P on static screens like outlook. Video takes a larger hit at around 3% using mplayerX playing a full 1080P bluray rip around 30 gigs.
In my experience, this actually seems like less thank the displaylink process. I think airplay uses GPU acceleration to encode the video it sends so it doesn't need to use much CPU. One quirk I did notice was quickly switching displays with mplayerX several times fast causes it to stutter and requires a restart of the movie. This is all on a i7 2.3Ghz mini. So far so good! Tempted to buy 2 1080P IPS displays and a apple TV 3. |
10-23-2013, 07:16 PM | #10 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5
|
Awesome, thanks for posting that info! That CPU usage isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be - definitely less than what DisplayLink would use in similar situations.
|
|
|