Are there any Wireless PC monitors?

May 24, 2018 8:17AM PDT

Hello all.
so, the time that people used to say that tablets will replace pc's, has now passed. But, that is not to say that tablets are an impressive piece of tech.
Laptops will never be able to replace desktop pc's, because of all the advantages a tower will have (capacity, power, expandability etc).

Now to the question:
If i want to have a desktop tower in my home, but i don't want to be tied down to a corner of the house or on an office, does anyone know if there is a truly Wireless pc monitor that i can use with a desktop tower? And by that i mean only a pc monitor. Like, a screen with in built batteries, that can be wirelessly connected to the tower and with which i can use in my house. Now, the tower would have to be casting all content on to the monitor, and the monitor would have to be a touch screen. Probably the monitor would have a base over the tower so it can be used there, and for charging purposes.

No need for processors, cameras, or anything else other than touch sensors and receiving / sending radio sensor/s for the chosen option of casting. Now if that option should be wifi, you could actually use that monitor anywhere, and not only in your house.
that way, you could use the desktop tower, but anywhere (in your house or not), with all that amazing power and choices of a tower.
Has anyone ever seen something like this? And, yes, i know the apps that connect your tablet/phone to your computer, but that is not what i am asking. Besides, are those apps smooth enough by now?

best regards,

Discussion is locked

Reply to: Are there any Wireless PC monitors?
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Are there any Wireless PC monitors?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
Clarification Request
So let's look at WiFi a moment.
May 24, 2018 8:28AM PDT

I've yet to see any WiFi to Monitor solution that didn't employ some CPU and more.

The old RF to TV system was limited to 480i and as of today there are no 1080p wireless systems that don't use some CPU or such in the works.

So you are what they call unicorn hunting. Besides, where are the savings?

For this discussion I am reading your "true wireless" to be such that no computer is in the monitor.

Monitors now have processors in them. None are as you ask.

- Collapse -
Clarification Request
Yes, but today we call it...
May 26, 2018 8:01AM PDT

.... a TV. I have two HDTV's I use instead for monitors. Quite sufficient for both. Unless you need more than 70 Hz refresh rate, which most 60Hz TV's can do, then why split them up anymore? I will not buy "just a monitor" again.

- Collapse -
To answer the question
May 24, 2018 8:39AM PDT

You asked for a Wireless PC Monitor but without the usual attendant processors and such.

To that, no. There are reasons why this is so. It would take more than I'm willing to write why this is so I'm going to shortchange you here.

It may be possible to get a 1080i over the air with HDTV wireless standards but cost looks to be why it's not sold widely and then again it fails your no computer or CPU part of the question. If you look at WIRELESS HDMI you also find it's a power hog and so far has a short range.

- Collapse -
May 26, 2018 4:58AM PDT

Thank you for answering with some basic technical reasons, that provide a valid reason.

- Collapse -
May 24, 2018 10:27PM PDT

You want.
A wireless monitor.
Touch screen.
Runs on batteries.

Never seen such a thing.

- Collapse -
They also didn't want a processor there.
May 25, 2018 12:00PM PDT

"No need for processors" but wanted touch screen.

This is not to disparage the OP but they have a lot more to learn to find out why the answer is nope.

- Collapse -
If tech savvy then no forum post needed
May 26, 2018 3:51AM PDT

The title says it all. If one can not positively contribute, why would one bother with answering with a cynical connent.
I think my question is understandable. I get it, a touch screen needs a processor. And a sending-receiving radio sensor. I was asking about all the rest.

Anw, as I understand, there is no such thing as a wireless monitor. Its a unicorn, as a previous poster said.

Thank you to all the members who graciously took the time to put their two cents.

- Collapse -
May 26, 2018 6:39AM PDT

Now that you understand there was no such thing as you asked and have relented now you can see if what you want is on the market.

So far it's an unicorn unless we back off on other requirements and go with the usual streaming solutions.

As to adding a good reply I did note wireless HDMI but even that fails your need for touch screen and the battery power pack would be huge.

For now it looks like the usual tablet and screen sharing or streaming.

Note: Edited for my initial bad grammar.

Post was last edited on May 26, 2018 8:18 AM PDT

- Collapse -
Let's also note the Steam Link device.
May 29, 2018 8:52AM PDT

CNET Forums

Forum Info