HN Explorer

Ask HN: A Laptop that outsources processing to a Desktop?

6 points by imakesnowflakes ↗ HN
Why does not this exist? A laptop that just contains a display, a keyboard and a mouse/trackpad, that just take input and send them to desktop and just display what the desktop broadcasts? I have a powerful desktop at home, but I don't want to spend all day sitting in front of it. If I have such a device, I can work from anywhere in my home. And it would not fry my lap like a cheap laptop do...

The way I see it, if you are living in a hot country, the actual machine does not even need to be inside your home, heating your rooms...

Why does not this exist?

38 comments

[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 91.8 ms ] thread
bigiain
I know people who do this with EC2 instances. You don't even need to own a powerful desktop to make this work.

(thin client, fat client, thin client - the more things change the more they stay the same...)

vytautask
Just buy an ultrabook/some laptop with good screen, good network card and long-lasting battery. If heat is the problem for you, I would suggest some aluminum-encased laptop that would disperse heat more easily. IMHO, probably Google chromebook (https://www.google.com/chromebook/) is the kind of device you are looking for...

Also what you need is a remote desktop app. There are quite a few nowadays (from "Remote Desktop" in Windows, to TeamViewer, VNC or etc.). A quite good list is in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_s... .

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
imakesnowflakes
Yes. I know about those. I am a software developer.

Buying an ultrabook/laptop just for continence seem a bit overkill to me. Those are not exactly cheap. But that is not the point. The point is how much untapped potential is there in existing systems. I think we should be trying to extract as much value from the existing set up, before buying more redundant stuff. We already have wireless keyboards and mouse. We just need an Lcd with bundled transmitter/reciever with enough bandwidth. Making It is quite trivial compared to the convenience it will provide. It might even be able to support multiple users. Put one desktop in your basement, and the whole family can use these dumb wireless terminals.

vytautask
"Bundled with transmitter/receiver" is the tricky part. How would you configure such device? How it would know where and how to convert/send/receive signal? To solve those basic problems you'll need some computational power. There we arrive at thin clients (for example like those: http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/cloud-client-computing?stp...). Some of them do have wireless connectivity...
imakesnowflakes
In the same way wireless keyboards and mouses work. You use a receiver/transmitter pair. It does not require any computational power. A receiver can be tuned to a particular transmitter. We might have to encrypt the display transmission. But it am sure it can be done using dedicated hardware.
joefarish
Sounds like you just want a wireless display adapter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiDi
imakesnowflakes
Yes. That is what I am talking about. It seems like there are already cheap devices that can do wireless HDMI streaming [1].

[1] http://www.amazon.in/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps...

rahimnathwani
You're not going to like the latency of using Airplay or similar over wifi, unless you're doing something non-interactive (like watching a movie).
imakesnowflakes
Is that so? I am not sure why there would be a noticeable latency. Wireless keyboards and mouse works fine from a distance. Besides, I am not suggesting using wifi for this, but a direct radio link.
rahimnathwani
"Is that so?"

Yes.

"I am not sure why there would be a noticeable latency."

Even if you don't understand it, the latency will still affect you.

"Wireless keyboards and mouse works fine from a distance."

Yes, they do. That's irrelevant. They don't use wi-fi, and they transmit significantly less data than used in a video signal.

"Besides, I am not suggesting using wifi for this, but a direct radio link."

You are suggesting using wifi. Your comment, to which I responded, included a link to an HDMI stick which streams video over wifi.

I'm suggesting that the device you linked (along with every other HDMI/wi-fi stick) will not serve your purpose, due to latency.

Feel free to buy it and report back your results if they differ :)

imakesnowflakes
>I'm suggesting that the device you linked (along with every other HDMI/wi-fi stick) will not serve your purpose..

Cool. Was not suggesting to use WiFi, Sorry for the misunderstanding. Also, I think you might be confusing latency with throughput.

rahimnathwani
"I think you might be confusing latency with throughput"

No, I'm not.

The problem with streaming video over wifi (e.g. Airplay) is latency, not throughput. That's why watching videos is fine (you don't care if there's a lag, as long as audio is travelling along the same path), but interactive stuff (like normal work) feels off.

imakesnowflakes
Ok. I thought so because you mentioned wireless keyboards transmit less data than a video signal..
CyberFonic
Have you looked at VNC? It does exactly what you are describing. See: http://www.tightvnc.com/
imakesnowflakes
Not sure. VNC is a program that runs on a computer. But we don't need a computer to simply relay input/output to a desktop. What I am suggesting is such a setup. We already have cheap wireless keyboards and mouse. We just need a lcd with a reciever/transmitter with sufficient bandwidth and bundle them together in a compact package, that act as a dumb terminal of sorts.
DrScump
You mean, like an X terminal?

Actually, a Chromebook is kind of like that - a browser only.

vansteen
I never heard about such a device but I have a Motorola LAPDOCK to control my raspberry. I guess the raspberry could be adapted to control a distant desktop (adding a wifi or bluetooth card, a battery of some sort and a VNC-like software)

Or even using a Motorola LAPDOCK + Smartphone with remote-control app

See Motorola Lapdock: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004M17D62/

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
veddox
Wouldn't that be terribly inefficient? I'm hazarding a guess here, but I think that no matter what kind of networking technology you use, it's going to be dreadfully slow as compared to doing it locally.

Plus, the laptop would lose 90% of its mobility advantage, as it would always have to be in the (network-) vicinity of a desktop.

imakesnowflakes
> it's going to be dreadfully slow as compared to doing it locally.

We don't use networking. We use direct RF link.

>Plus, the laptop would lose 90% of its mobility advantage, as it would always have to be in the (network-) vicinity of a desktop.

This is not a replacement for laptop. But an extension of a desktop. Instead of having to sit directly infront of it, you can work from anywhere in the same building.

ProblemFactory
So you are looking for a device that contains a laptop body, screen, keyboard, touchpad, speakers, battery, battery charger, RF antennas, and enough processing power to decode and display the video stream arriving over radio?

My guess is that this would cost at least 80% of a similar quality laptop that also includes "computer parts" and works as an actual computer. Hell, the current HDMI video streaming dongles like Chromecast have more processing power built in than my first actual laptop.

imakesnowflakes
>My guess is that this would cost at least 80% of a similar quality laptop that also includes "computer parts" and works as an actual computer.

80%? Without cpu, harddisk, memory, motherboard and without having to cramming all of this into a small space, without heat and power management circulatory to provide and manage power for all of these things? So in a laptop, you think these amount to only 20% of the cost?

> enough processing power to decode and display the video stream arriving over radio

How much processing power did your 20 year old television set have?

polar8
Your 20 year old television's resolution is a bit lower than 2560x1440 :)
imakesnowflakes
You see, this already exists [1]. It costs around 2000 Rs, that is like $30, A wireless mouse and keyboard will cost around the same. So for $60 you will have all the component to make this work.

Let me say this again. For 60$ worth of components you can have a remote control that will let you work on your desktop from anywhere in your home.

Will you be interested?

[1] http://www.amazon.in/eShop24x7-Wireless-Display-Miracast-Air...

bigiain
Check things like this out: http://lg.io/2015/07/05/revised-and-much-faster-run-your-own...

If you've close enough to an AWS datacenter, you can reasonably play modern 3D games on a remote machine over the internet.

The internet is _surprisingly_ fast. There's a rant somewhere from John Carmack were he points out he can get packets to London faster than he can change pixels on his monitor...

Edit: See John Carmack's answer here: http://superuser.com/questions/419070/transatlantic-ping-fas...

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
[dead] runjake
You mean, something like X11? Something like VNC? Something like Microsoft's RDP? Something like 9P? Something like TeamViewer? Something like Citrix? Something like vCloud Air? Or something else?

Side tirade: These kinds of "Why does this not exist?"|"Why don't they just do $x" questions [1] seem to be a trend as of late on HN.

Do some basic Googling and gaining of situational awareness before asking flat-out dumb questions. Exercise some basic critical thinking. Consider that others have probably already deeply examined the problem domain and they don't do something in particular because it's a bad idea.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10586642 , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10586642 , and whatever that Ask HN lost Malaysian flight thread was that asked why aircraft didn't broadcast their location

imakesnowflakes
No. Nothing like them at all. Please read more carefully. What I suggest does not have a processor. It just relays input/output.
pkinsky
It relays input/output over a network without a processor?
imakesnowflakes
It does not use a network. It uses direct RF link. Like wireless keyboards and mouses do. Imagine getting a wireless keyboard and mouse and a wireless hdmi adapter. You plug the transmitters of these wireless keyboard and mouse to your desktops usb. You attach the transmitter of wirless hdmi adapter to the hdmi port of your desktop.

Now you can take the display, keyboard and mouse to anywhere the range of the radios allows and work from there. Pack the items at the receiving end into a compact/cheap package and I think you ll have a great product.

bigiain
That's a pretty narrow interpretation of "does not have a processor". Keyboards and mice have processors. HDMI adapters have processors. Wireless transmitters and receivers have processors. Linking all those processors together requires - you guessed it, a processor. By the time you get there, the cost difference between a dedicated micro processor chip like a mouse or keyboard controller compared to a fairly powerful SOC like the ARM chip on a RaspberryPi is down in the "cup of coffee or two" range.

You could pretty much do exactly what you describe with a RaspberryPi and some software - instead of two or three dedicated mouse/keyboard/monitor tx/rx pairs, you plug those peripherals into the 'Pi and use WiFi and software. (Note: a RaspberyPi isn't the ideal candidate for this, they made design decisions way back that limit the network throughput, so I don't _think_ you'll get full HD video over the WiFi adaptor because of the way it's sitting on the relatively slow and congested USB bus, but that's not a fundamental flaw in the idea, just an implementation detail the 'Pi designers chose to make back in '12 or '13 that you wouldn't need to follow now...)

For very little more than a Raspberry Pi (plus power supply and USB WiFi adapter), you can get many "mini pc"s now - I've got an Ainol Mini PC which is an entire Windows 8 machine, with WiFi/USB/HDMI/power-supply(including an internal battery good for ~10hours) - and you can get them for around $80US ex China now. I'm not sure how much more "compact/cheap" you're thinking of, but I wonder how big the market of people who would use your hypothetical gadget but only buy one at a pricepoint somewhere under $80 is - when the alternative is a full blown, if somewhat under powered PC.

imakesnowflakes
>That's a pretty narrow interpretation of "does not have a processor". Keyboards and mice have processors. HDMI adapters have processors. Wireless transmitters and receivers have processors.

Damn. Is it really possible that you cannot infer what I meant by the "processor" from the context?

>Linking all those processors together requires - you guessed it, a processor.

Wrong. There is no "linking" required at the device. Each of these can communicate independently..

And the solution involving pi is adds unnecessary overheads and limitation, which will greatly degrade the usability of this device.

dont-be-rude
> Do some basic Googling and gaining of situational awareness before asking flat-out dumb questions. Exercise some basic critical thinking.

There's no need to be so rude. Telling someone they are being "flat-out dumb" is not appropriate discourse on HN.

michaelbuddy
it's kind of what a steam machine link device and the new xbox one streaming are. You are able to run games on a less powerful system as long as the wifi or hard wired network are pretty robust.