Windows Manager Via Pandora?


TylerAW

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
357
I have seen some apps running on the iPhone and other smart phones that let you manage you're PC remotely over the internet and all though they are not going to be full speed I was wondering does anybody know of an Open Source program that we could use on our Pandora's? Even if it only ran @ 15FPS I would love to play just a few games for the heck of it or at least manage my files while I'm away. AKA I mean cloud computing :p I mean I know I have seen World of Warcraft running on the generation 1 iPhones and the person could at least do some basic things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you mean something like vnc? That's been doable since at least the Palm III a decade plus ago, and it works on most devices.


Like here, I mean:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/9xNfZBUC89Q?feature=oembed

I was playing Civ on a 160x160 resolution PDA this way last millennium over a cellular connection. It was amazingly, amazingly terrible with the technology of the time ... but it worked!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was just thinking about VNC I don't really understand what the limitations are. I think I understand that large games are unplayable because of the image processing involved, but what about watching Netflix via VNC over a wireless-N USB? I mean ED was using blender through VNC right? I really don't understand why we can't make our own version of OnLive. I know I've said this before, but I feel like I am missing some crucial detail as to why this won't work. I understand that image processing needs work, but wouldn't that mean that only certain things would be unplayable/doable? Is their some metric I can apply as to what would work and what wouldn't? Why are the OnLive people the only ones who can do this?
 
Is there a way to boost the upload speed on a home computer? I'm assuming that is the bottleneck in speed.
 
Is there a way to boost the upload speed on a home computer? I'm assuming that is the bottleneck in speed.
Tesla coils. That otta give your computer a kick in the pants.
I was thinking more along the lines of a gaming network card or something.
But then you won't have balls of fire.


zjJR3.png



Edit: Tesla kicks ass.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was thinking more along the lines of a gaming network card or something.

uh...huh


if it's over the net the limiting factor is your isp, so bitch at them and threaten to leave, though usually it's actually the quality of whatever line you have to your house, good luck with geting that replaced
 
I was just thinking about VNC I don't really understand what the limitations are. I think I understand that large games are unplayable because of the image processing involved, but what about watching Netflix via VNC over a wireless-N USB? I mean ED was using blender through VNC right? I really don't understand why we can't make our own version of OnLive. I know I've said this before, but I feel like I am missing some crucial detail as to why this won't work. I understand that image processing needs work, but wouldn't that mean that only certain things would be unplayable/doable? Is their some metric I can apply as to what would work and what wouldn't? Why are the OnLive people the only ones who can do this?

The thing is, OnLive does not work.


As for the VNC, it's pretty slow but cross-platform solution. If you only use windows then use RTP or w/e the protocol was (See ED's video)


If linux, there are plenty of solutions. One would be SSH, but I doubt Pandora has the extension for the X access. (As it only supports gles, which is dull.. We really need open drivers.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was thinking more along the lines of a gaming network card or something.
Gaming network cards bypass the software in the OS that handles your network and replaces it with pure hardware, shaving milliseconds off your ping time. People pay outrages prices for these because they think getting a ping of 90ms will give them an edge over someone with a ping of 100ms in FPS choice of the day. It doesn't actually improve throughput in any way.
 
The thing is, OnLive does not work.


As for the VNC, it's pretty slow but cross-platform solution. If you only use windows then use RTP or w/e the protocol was (See ED's video)


If linux, there are plenty of solutions. One would be SSH, but I doubt Pandora has the extension for the X access. (As it only supports gles, which is dull.. We really need open drivers.)

Yah I know about OnLive not working. I just don't understand why something like VNC, which is open source and seems to perform a similar function to OnLive, is free to port and use but OnLive (or its missing cousin) is not. It seems like if you can make a VNC you should be able to make an open source OnLive. I understand why OnLive keeps their code a secret, I just don't get why VNC does not work like OnLive does. Or why it takes so much more bandwidth and processing power.
 
The thing is, OnLive does not work.


As for the VNC, it's pretty slow but cross-platform solution. If you only use windows then use RTP or w/e the protocol was (See ED's video)


If linux, there are plenty of solutions. One would be SSH, but I doubt Pandora has the extension for the X access. (As it only supports gles, which is dull.. We really need open drivers.)

Yah I know about OnLive not working. I just don't understand why something like VNC, which is open source and seems to perform a similar function to OnLive, is free to port and use but OnLive (or its missing cousin) is not. It seems like if you can make a VNC you should be able to make an open source OnLive. I understand why OnLive keeps their code a secret, I just don't get why VNC does not work like OnLive does. Or why it takes so much more bandwidth and processing power.
Well you could make an open OnLive it's not like this idea is new Remote Play on the PSP and PS3 was around launch of the PS3 so people know of this idea. The reason OnLive works more or less is because they have massive upload speeds and the download speed of somebodies computer is typically more than upload. I have tried OnLive and all though blurry and grainy it does work @ 60fps, than again I can download up to 2-3 MB/s
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was thinking of Nikola Tesla, but Tesla motors are also very cool!

I know, I just wanted an excuse to look at the roadster for a while. :D

Our very own David Bowman. Image taken before acquisition of moustache curling tongs. :p

That's how I look when I wake up in the morning, glowing power orbs and all. They make showering difficult.
 
The thing is, OnLive does not work.


As for the VNC, it's pretty slow but cross-platform solution. If you only use windows then use RTP or w/e the protocol was (See ED's video)


If linux, there are plenty of solutions. One would be SSH, but I doubt Pandora has the extension for the X access. (As it only supports gles, which is dull.. We really need open drivers.)

Yah I know about OnLive not working. I just don't understand why something like VNC, which is open source and seems to perform a similar function to OnLive, is free to port and use but OnLive (or its missing cousin) is not. It seems like if you can make a VNC you should be able to make an open source OnLive. I understand why OnLive keeps their code a secret, I just don't get why VNC does not work like OnLive does. Or why it takes so much more bandwidth and processing power.

I think I can help with this issue actually... I saw a presentation on the way OnLive works from it's CEO, so this is second hand information but it basically boils down to how you transmit the data. The amount of data traveling from you video output to your monitor is more than you can reasonably push over the network uncompressed, so it needs to be compressed somehow to optimize performance over the wire. Most streaming sites, video tech, and remote desktop access software and frankly everything I'm aware of before onlive used a compression technique called Group of Pictures. This works similarly to the way early file compression worked. In file compression you can find, say, a string of 100 zeros and replace them with some shorthand like 100[0] so what once took 100 characters now takes 6. In video you wait for a series of screens to flip by, analyze the bits that remain static and don't bother sending those chunks duplicated over the wire. So an unchanging background with a single character on it in video you would only send the background portion once while the character may need to be sent many times as he changed positions etc. (Clearly this is oversimplified ;) )


What OnLive tries to do is approach video compression in a different way. Instead of relying on groups of pictures that have already needed rendering, analyzing them for similarities, and sending the compressed results of that analysis (part of why you have to buffer everything first) they created an process that takes advantage of the way the human eye tracks motion. In short, while we are perfectly capable of seeing still images and discerning between 1080p and 720i, if the image is moving you can render it with significantly less detail and people don't notice. So what OnLive tries to do is subdivide a single image into the bits that are still versus moving and achieve compression by degrading the quality of the bits in motion. This is supposed to allow them to show us remote executing images without needing to buffer, compare, compress, and send the images which takes up so much time that the controls no longer feel responsive. If I remember correctly they decided that any delay in response to a button push more than 80ms was perceptible and experience breaking. The challenge then was to enable sufficient compression via this new algorithm to keep the images on the screen reacting within that 80ms window. This is why they have distance from their servers issues, and network latency issues that cause the screens to go low def. It's also why there's a delay between action and seeing the results when you RDP/VNC into remote systems. Same thing if you stream video in an remote desktop session... you get stutters as it tries to Group of Images compress the screens.


Now someone COULD create software to do compression the same way onlive does it, but you'd still experience quality issues as your latency connecting to that machine increased. The main issue is that they just thought of it/implemented it (software first, on chip second) and no one has pulled the chips apart to reverse engineer the algorithm that I'm aware of. I bet if it's successful long term it's just a matter of time though.


For 99% of remote desktop access though no one needs that kind of response time :/
 
Now, I don't want to break your wall of texts nor the tests you've made with OnLive.. But simple thing called round-trip time proves the whole thing useless, especially on huge load.
 
Back
Top