ILNews

Technology Untangled: Intel WiDi laptops provide wireless HDTV display

Stephen Bour
February 1, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

technology-bourIntel Wireless Display Technology, WiDi (pronounced why-die), is the clever extra feature that may already be on your latest computer. If you are shopping for a new model, it is a feature worth seeking out because it can simplify the process of connecting your laptop computer to a bigger display for court or for a boardroom presentation. This article will look at a simple-to-use technology that allows you to wirelessly connect to a big-screen high-definition television.

Typically, the best method to present your computer screen on an HDTV has been with a VGA-type computer monitor cable. Virtually all HDTVs have a monitor port like this (also often labeled as RGB). For a courtroom setting, that usually requires a long VGA cable, and a long audio cable for full multimedia capability. Most laptops now come with an HDMI output port allowing transmission of high-definition video and audio to an HDTV. While HDMI has made connecting simpler, it still requires a long cable running across the room.

WiDi allows you to cut the cable and present high-definition 1080p video to a large screen HDTV without being limited by the length of your HDMI cable. This technology uses a WiFi signal, so you can expect a wireless range similar to that of a typical WiFi Internet link.

This technology is ideal for users who have wide-ranging multimedia collections stored on their home computers. Sharing photos, videos and music with others can get a bit cramped when everyone is crowded around a 15-inch laptop screen. But this technology is a great way to present PowerPoint slides, deposition videos and legal documents on the existing HDTV screens that have become common in law firms and are becoming more common in many courtrooms.

Intel essentially incorporated a wireless transmitter in many of its laptops that use its 2nd Generation Core i3/i5/i7 processors with Intel HD graphics (in my case the processor is an Intel Core i7-2670QM quad core). This wireless transmitting technology has been built into many new laptops for about the last year, and it seems that more models have been coming out with this feature. To determine if your computer already has it, click on the “Start” icon on the lower left of your screen and type “WiDi” in the search window. See if WiDi shows in the “programs” list and launch from there.

If shopping, you have to read pretty far down into the specification sheet of any computer you are considering. Even if a computer has an Intel 2nd Generation Core processor, the WiDi feature may not be included since not all computer models are configured to take advantage of it. Sometimes you might see an extra sticker on the palm rest area of a new computer that says “Intel WiDi Wireless Display.”

While the transmitter is already built in, you still need a separate receiver that plugs into the HDTV ($79-$99). Two of the best are the Belkin Screencast TV Adapter and the Netgear PUSH2TV HD Adapter.

I found the setup of the Belkin Screencast refreshingly uncomplicated. I simply connected the HDMI and power cables, followed a few simple on-screen instructions and was up and running. I had to make only one adjustment, increasing the image size to eliminate black bars from around the edges of the screen. These receivers also have standard resolution jacks (video/yellow) and (audio/red and white) to allow connectivity to older TVs. These jacks could also be used to connect an LCD projector. You won’t have the stunning resolution of HDTV, but you will still be able to run your laptop wirelessly.

One security question answered itself as I prepared the receiver. A unique code is displayed on the TV that must be typed in on your laptop to couple the transmitter and receiver. This prevents you from accidentally beaming your exhibits to the courtroom next door. You can choose between duplicate display or extended display by pressing the Windows + P keys (the Windows symbol key is on the bottom left row). I like extended display because it allows you, for example, to play a video on the big screen and simultaneously sort through your exhibit spreadsheet during a trial. You can also use Windows + P to blank the TV display or the laptop display.

If you are in the market for a new laptop, shopping for models with Intel Wireless Display Technology could help narrow your search. WiDi is a feature that doesn’t seem to cost much more, but it does substantially increase the utility value of a computer if you think you will ever need to make presentations with it.•

Stephen Bour (bourtech@iquest.net) is an engineer and legal technology consultant in Indianapolis. His company, the Alliance for Litigation Support Inc., includes Bour Technical Services and Alliance Court Reporting. Areas of service include legal videography, tape analysis, document scanning to CD and courtroom presentation support. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT