Thin Clients wrote:
The power required to render full screen on the server and the bandwidth
to send it down isn't anything that would be cost effective today. And
what's your full screen? 640x480 or 1920x1200? Huge difference in the
amount of horsepower required to shoot those pixels down the screen.
Understood, but Assume each SunRay has a 100Mb/s link to a dedicated
switch
port, With a big enough server farm paid for by all my TCO savings,
shouldn't it work?
Hmmm - let's see.
30 frames/sec * (1920 * 1200) pixels/frame * 24 bits/pixel = 1.7 Gb/s [1]!
It's even overwhelming for 100Mb/s ethernet at 640x480 (210 Mb/s)
I guess not...
Full motion, full screen video is going to require compression
which means codecs on the client. The question always becomes
"which codecs do you choose?" since the media world has so many
"standards", and getting onto the codec treadmill is an enormous
committment of resources (the army of lawyers marching in this
space doesn't help either).
OTOH, most of the applications people describe for video on the
desktop don't seem to require full motion, full screen resolution.
Certainly not conferencing, or corporate communications. Maybe
training videos.
-Bob
[1] By the way, this is absurdly high resolution for video, not even HDTV
has a resolution this high (720p60: 1280x720 1080i50: 1920x1080), let
alone PAL (square pix: 768x576) or NTSC (square pix: 720x540).
_______________________________________________
SunRay-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
