“800×600 over DVI is at least 7 gigabits per second”

On what planet?

1920X1080 = 148.5 Million pixels
3 colors * 10 bits * 148.5 MPixels = 4.45Gbps

Full color, uncompressed 1080i = 4.45 Giga bits per second.

Please come back when you actually know what you are talking about. 800X600 is NOT at least 7Gbps, that is a completely ridiculous statement.

@Fartface, your “advanced math” is only valid for 1 fps, as you only counted 10bits x the resolution x number of colors. that gives you the bandwidth for one frame. , so please come back when you know what you’re actually talking about, or when you start using screens capable of more than one fps.

No, actually the math is weird, not wrong.
1920 * 1080 = 2.073.600 pixels (yes, 2 million pixels)

Let’s make this 28 frames / sec :
2073600 * 28 = 58.060.800 pixels

Now, 30 bits for every pixel and we get :
58060800 * 30 = 1.741.824.000 bits / stream of fullHD, 28fps
This is ~ 1.6 Gbps

Let’s do this one more time for 800 x 600, shall we ?
800 * 600 = 480.000 pixels
For 28 frames we have : 480000 * 28 = 13.440.000 pixels
30 bits every frame and we get : 403.200.000 bits for the stream, about 376 Mbps.

This is still a lot more than the max. Bluetooth 3 bandwidth.

That should actually work.
I can see this as a great front pannel for a media PC.
You could interface it through a serial port or USB and use the bluetooth with a WiMote as a remote for it. You could use it to stream audio without having the TV on or other functions like the ever pressant clock.
Maybe combine this with a PI to make a super low power media PC/Streamer http://www.raspberrypi.org/

Missed the point? when someone makes a completely outrageous and made up lie I miss the point?

Sounds like someone watches Fox News too much.

Hmm okay that makes sense, ScottInNH. No, I was actually thinking like a legit screen (second monitor) but I guessed since it was so small it might be able to run. Would dropping the framerate work? I mean, if it was, say, standard color, 240×320, and ~6fps, would that work? Anything really slow (<1fps) wouldn't be that useful but I think I could manage with more than one or two frames.

@Jordan – Well the short answer (and the one I’m most qualified to give ) is that this would never be suited as a second physical display.

Longer answer – there have been a few demos/prototypes of wireless displays… but as far as I know, none exist in the wild. Doubtful none of these prototypes use Bluetooth for video transport (I tried to Google it, doesn’t look promising). I’m not sure there’s even a “Bluetooth profile” for video, so that’s a barrier right there.

What this IS is an autonomous Linux box in small form factor, hackable, and cheap. So cheap in fact that it does make sense to use it purely as a display device (the basis of your question). But given the limits, I’d be curious to use it as a way to present data at regular intervals (ie, continuously upload a new image every 60 seconds, with data embedded in the image.. new email, weather map, etc). A desktop computer would be really good at making images which are densely packed with useful information. I’ve been thinking about doing this with my Nokia N800, as Nokia pretty much killed the Maemo ecosystem.

This device doesn’t appear to be available in the US, either.

@fatface: stop taking your low sperm count out on the rest of the world.

“Now if this just had WIFI it would be really handy.”

It involves more hardware (and power), but a quick hack would be to wire the serial port to a a openwrt router’s serial port, and use serial networking. Works fine for a lot of Arduino etc users.

When the Raspberry pi materializes, hopefully it works with $5 USB-wifi dongles, and there’s our cheap platform.

Okay, I tried it again with netmask 255.255.255.0 as per the site – I’ve tried that numerous times before I might add >__> – and now telnet seems to connect just fine. :T

I must be doing something dodgy. I’ve just noticed that the cursor is flashing on the frame today. There wasn’t any movement previously…