E.g., instead of watching the games on a say 21" monitor, use the Chromecast dongle to connect to a larger HDTV television set (which are readily available at reasonable prices) using one's own WiFi network.

Maybe use a 32" HDTV as a viewing device for games while continuing to use the PC's monitor for other applications, e.g., e-mail, web, etc. (the same as someone at work might have multiple monitors and use different monitors for different functions such as e-mail and word processing).

I assume it is very straightforward. Correct?

It works very well. You can also set up for split screen and view multiple games at once, while still browsing on your monitor.

It's excellent. I actually stream from my phone and use the laptop for browsing other MAC games. Amazingly good HD quality, too. Just need an HDMI output to plug it in to. Plus, you can switch to your regular input to see network or ESPN games and then back to the Chromecast input without any lag. On my remote, it's just a one click deal to go back and forth. I'm all-in on the Chromecast!

(10-13-2014 12:08 PM)axeme Wrote:  It's excellent. I actually stream from my phone and use the laptop for browsing other MAC games. Amazingly good HD quality, too. Just need an HDMI output to plug it in to. Plus, you can switch to your regular input to see network or ESPN games and then back to the Chromecast input without any lag. On my remote, it's just a one click deal to go back and forth. I'm all-in on the Chromecast!

Excellent. Thanks guys!

I can't use my regular television set for this.

Unbelievably, a few months after I bought a 46" television (this might have been what 4 or 5 years ago???), my telephone line outside took a lightning strike and cooked my telephone line. I had a telephone line plugged into the back of my DRV directly (without going through a surge protector) so my DVR and HDMI port got cooked also. (I felt bad for the DirecTV tech who had to deal with a bad television (HDMI port) AND a bad DVR. Now I go through Component 2).

Now I just want a 32" HD television to use with Chromecast off of my WiFi network. Set it on a small table and .

I have a small cheap computer hooked up to my TV (cost me ~$200ish). Portable, has horsepower, smaller than a laptop, HDMI & USB ports, wireless key & mouse (although I could get a USB remote thingy for any remote but I like mice vs remotes).

The reason I have this as opposed to Chromecast is because you can do everything with this (it's a full computer). I installed XBMC on it -- which allows me to watch ESPN3 with the ESPN add-on, plus watch movies & tv-shows right after their air for free. And other 'questionable' content.

I use Apple TV and have no issues. Co-worker uses Chromecast and says 95%-98% of the time it's great and every once in a while gets janky but closing and starting over usually fixes it. Based on my experience with streaming an iPad to Apple TV that would seem to be about right.

I'm a big believer that there is no one-size fits all solution.
My dad and brother both use Roku and are very happy. I only know one person with an Amazon Fire TV and they are pleased.

I'd say it really comes down to how want to use the device and your personal tastes.

I was using an old Mac Mini to my TV and it was just an annoyance to walk over and fire it up all the time and using bundled with my TV apps for Hulu and Netflix.

I elected against Chromecast for two reasons. One, I have an older laptop that doesn't always produce a stable picture at high resolutions. Two, I do a lot of streaming to TV and didn't want to always have either the laptop or iPad tied up. Otherwise it would have been perfect since I only needed it for ESPN and NeuLion content.

What I've found with Apple TV is I like the interface for Netflix on Apple TV better than the one on my Vizio TV.

I've also found I use HBO Go and Showtime Anywhere on Apple TV more than the on-demand from Direct, again because of interface.

Long way around to say if you are only using the Chromecast a couple times a week, I think you'll be very happy with it and will be glad you spent the money especially if it isn't tying up a device you'd be using during the program.

One other plus I'd give Chromecast. I travel A LOT. I'm finding that a slight majority of the hotels I stay at have TV's with a free HDMI port. Chromecast is so small that it's easy to pack with you so you can supplement the available TV offerings. I do a kludge solution of carrying a lightining to HDMI adapter and a short HDMI cable to mirror my iPad to the TV and some programming won't display full screen. My library offers five free movie downloads per month and I'll download one to my iPad early in the evening before the wifi gets overloaded and then watch it when I get back from supper but I usually only get half the screen used. A Chromecast I think would solve that.

I use Apple pretty heavily but I'm not a fan boy, I believe in finding the solution that fits your needs best.

When my brother and I were considering a device for my Dad for father's day, Roku was in my opinion the best option for him. He's hard of hearing, doesn't like to use his hearing aids and can't crank the volume when my mom is on the phone with one of her 5 surviving siblings (which is frequently). Being able to plug headphones into the remote made it the hands down best choice for him.

(10-14-2014 12:00 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  I have a small cheap computer hooked up to my TV (cost me ~$200ish). Portable, has horsepower, smaller than a laptop, HDMI & USB ports, wireless key & mouse (although I could get a USB remote thingy for any remote but I like mice vs remotes).

The reason I have this as opposed to Chromecast is because you can do everything with this (it's a full computer). I installed XBMC on it -- which allows me to watch ESPN3 with the ESPN add-on, plus watch movies & tv-shows right after their air for free. And other 'questionable' content.

You can achieve the same with a chromecast. . It's only $35 and there are plenty of Android apps such as popcorn time that allow you to watch whatever you want. It's much cleaner setup than hooking up a laptop especially with wall mounted tvs

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

IF you can run Ethernet (Cat 5 or Cat 6) cable from your router to where your TV is, that is, by far, the best solution. Connect the Ethernet cable to either an Apple TV or a Roku 3 and connect the box to your TV with an HDMI cable.

Both are more expensive than a Chromecast (app. $90), but with the ever-increasing use of ESPN3, I think it's well worth it if you're a college football fans.

Quote:You can achieve the same with a chromecast. . It's only $35 and there are plenty of Android apps such as popcorn time that allow you to watch whatever you want. It's much cleaner setup than hooking up a laptop especially with wall mounted tvs

Will XBMC running off an average or slightly-above-average Droid run smoothly at 720 AND be able to output thru Chromecast? No way would I want to run AppleTV (if they made it for Droid which they obviously don't), as XBMC is far more expansive (some people take an apple tv box, "hack" it to delete it's OS and put on Linux/XBMC).

Anyway, back to the point: I say smoothly running XBMC in HD, because that's a non-gray-area deal breaker. I have a cheapo Droid right now. Way slower than a "real" computer at 2x the price. However, I get to renew my phone very soon here. I got a Droid "Box" for $100 once -- sucked arse. Possibly better performing boxes @ $250 a pop, but I'd rather just get the Acer portable computer than a Droid Box (instead of a phone) if it's comparable price and way more powerful.

It's really not about the phone or the computer. They are just relaying your wifi signal to the Chrome dongle. As I said earlier, I 'cast' the signal with an iPhone 5s or a Macbook, but it's the strength of the wifi signal that determines the quality of the picture.

I'm lucky to have a great wifi connection at home so the HD picture is excellent. You could be running it off a high end computer, but if the signal is erratic, the feed won't be good. I know people who don't get a great ESPN3 feed on their computers so the Chromecast won't be any better. The internet feed strength is all.


Posted from the CSNbbs App.

Quote:It's really not about the phone or the computer. They are just relaying your wifi signal to the Chrome dongle.

I beg to differ. It IS about the phone or computer that's processing the video. If the small computer or Droid phone isn't powerful enough, directly connected to the TV or signaling to the Chrome dongle, then it's going to suck.

Chromecast is just a way to have your TV remotely connected to your device in the background, instead of direct-connect. Thing is, with my bro's Chromecast, it wouldn't show ANYTHING you do off your computer or phone -- just some of the things. But it is a wireless "receiver" though, so that's sweet.

Anyway, my point is -- always make sure one's Droid Phone, Droid Box, Small-Cheap Computer, or Laptop one's using to be the engine is sufficient to play HD stuff smoothly & consistently when you want to go beyond ESPN3 and play movies & tv-shows etc...

... and as you point out, you also have to look out for the signal strength on top of that when using Chromecast as your go-between.

Chromecast will use about 37% of your wifi capacity (not to be confused with your internet bandwidth). If you live in an apartment or an old neighborhood where houses are close together and there is risk of interference it could be an issue because there two streams going. One router to computer/tablet/phone and another from device to TV.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-14-2014 06:49 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  IF you can run Ethernet (Cat 5 or Cat 6) cable from your router to where your TV is, that is, by far, the best solution. Connect the Ethernet cable to either an Apple TV or a Roku 3 and connect the box to your TV with an HDMI cable.

Both are more expensive than a Chromecast (app. $90), but with the ever-increasing use of ESPN3, I think it's well worth it if you're a college football fans.

Interesting.

My local cable provider, Buckeye Cablesystem, clears ESPN3 via the ESPN website, but it isn't a provider that clears on Roku, so if I want to watch ESPN3 on a flat screen I have to use the HDMI out on my tablet and run the TV as an alternate screen. I like my Roku and I sense that if I did some digging I could find some things that I can do with it, but then I realize that it's just TV and probably not worth the time

I'm having 'fun' (in quotes).

I have my WiFi set up to use a guest account and when I tried my Chromecast I got couldn't connect to the Internet.

Then I tried to 'forget' that network and go into the WiFi network per se (not using the guest access) using the original P/W supplied with the router and now it reports it as being incorrect.

And, of course, to go through my iPad I had to upgrade IOS, etc...

Now I will go back through my Android phone...

BTW, which is the simplest way to connect and navigate even via a Cat5/6 cable using an iPad, Android phone, etc.

I'm looking for simplicity not elegance here and have no problem running an Ethernet cable to a box and HDMI to the television.

Which is the easiest option?

(10-15-2014 09:31 AM)emu steve Wrote:  BTW, which is the simplest way to connect and navigate even via a Cat5/6 cable using an iPad, Android phone, etc.

I'm looking for simplicity not elegance here and have no problem running an Ethernet cable to a box and HDMI to the television.

Which is the easiest option?

Simplicity, in my opinion, is ethernet connection to an Apple TV, Roku or Amazon Fire and use an app on the mobile device to control the box.

(10-15-2014 11:02 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:31 AM)emu steve Wrote:  BTW, which is the simplest way to connect and navigate even via a Cat5/6 cable using an iPad, Android phone, etc.

I'm looking for simplicity not elegance here and have no problem running an Ethernet cable to a box and HDMI to the television.

Which is the easiest option?

Simplicity, in my opinion, is ethernet connection to an Apple TV, Roku or Amazon Fire and use an app on the mobile device to control the box.

Essentially that takes the WiFi completely out of the equation, right?

It becomes a hard wired device...

(10-15-2014 11:02 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 09:31 AM)emu steve Wrote:  BTW, which is the simplest way to connect and navigate even via a Cat5/6 cable using an iPad, Android phone, etc.

I'm looking for simplicity not elegance here and have no problem running an Ethernet cable to a box and HDMI to the television.

Which is the easiest option?

Simplicity, in my opinion, is ethernet connection to an Apple TV, Roku or Amazon Fire and use an app on the mobile device to control the box.

No, you would use the remote for the box to control it. And, yes, that does take WiFi out of the equation, which is a plus. The Apple TV, the Roku and the Amazon Fire all come with remotes. I like the Roku 3 remote better than the Apple TV remote because it has more controls and a headphone jack for private listening. All the boxes come with several channels pre-installed and you can get more channels from their channel "stores." Most are free, but some you have to pay for. One other huge plus for the Roku is that you can stream all movies, TV shows and music from your computer to the Roku and then to your TV. The Apple TV restricts streaming to media from iTunes.

Here's a pic of the Roku home screen:

Since I'm on a roll (question after question...).

I can do WatchESPN using my computer (via WiFi or before that with direct connect to the cable modem).

[I have DirecTV for my television and my local cable company as my ISP.]

I get not authorized on my iPad and Android device for WatchESPN even after I logon with my e-mail associated with broadband ISP.

Does this sound right?