Microsoft launched a wireless display adapter in 2014, giving users a way to stream content from a portable device to a TV without wires. Now the company has unveiled a new model with has a new design, reduced latency, and a lower price tag.

It’s available for pre-order for $50, and should begin shipping in March.

ms dongle_01

The Microsoft Wireless Display Adapter is basically a Miracast dongle for your TV, allowing you to stream content from any device that supports the wireless display protocol, including many Android phones and tablets.

It’s also Wi-Di certified, which means it supports Intel’s wireless display protocol.

Clearly Microsoft hopes you’ll use it with Windows phones, tablets, and notebooks though. The adapter lets Windows users mirror their screen on a TV, allowing you to view the same content on the big screen as you see on a smaller device. Or you can extend your desktop, just as you could if you connected a second monitor to the HDMI port of your laptop or tablet.

The wireless adapter connects to an HDMI port on you display and draws power from a USB cable. Microsoft says it can offer a reliable connection with devices up to 23 feet away.

via Microsoft Devices Blog

Support Liliputing

Liliputing's primary sources of revenue are advertising and affiliate links (if you click the "Shop" button at the top of the page and buy something on Amazon, for example, we'll get a small commission).

But there are several ways you can support the site directly even if you're using an ad blocker* and hate online shopping.

Contribute to our Patreon campaign

or...

Contribute via PayPal

* If you are using an ad blocker like uBlock Origin and seeing a pop-up message at the bottom of the screen, we have a guide that may help you disable it.

13 replies on “Microsoft’s new Wireless Display Adapter is cheaper, faster”

  1. My Roku already does this. No extra cost, no extra HDMI port tied up, no USB port tied up.

    1. No, you paid for your Roku, you already tied up a HDMI port for the Roku, and you already have a power source for the Roku…

      You just don’t need another device to do something the one you have can already do but that has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else who doesn’t already have a Roku or similar device and has to choose whether they’d be better off with a dedicated receiver or not…

    1. If the claim that they reduced the latency is true then yes… We’ll have to wait for hands on reviews to be sure, though, but the latency is why miracast streaming has traditionally had noticeable lag, dropped frames, etc…

  2. This seems a lot nicer than Chromecast, because you don’t have to log into a local network. But how many TVs have USB ports? Also, how many Android phones support this?

    1. In theory all you need is Android 4.2+ but as always things aren’t quite that simple.

  3. lol @ 50$. This is a gadget that is not worth its BOM and they want 50$.
    If it was wifi ad based ,, would have been something relevant but this thing can only be relevant bellow 10$ and even then it’s not worth buying this outdated technology.

      1. Don’t worry, just one of those commentators who likes to think they know what they’re talking about but really don’t…

        Like the only Miracast product even remotely below $10 is something like Rockchip’s solution, which is a low quality, less capable basic version that you’d likely only find in China or sold from China, and is primarily intended to be sold as a accessory for related phones that promote the feature… They actually usually run around $40 or more for even models that have been around over 2 years like Netgear’s PTV3000 P2TV…

        While there’s no indication what WiFi standard is supported, the links you provided does show that it covers both the 2.4GHz and 5GHz ranges for dual band support that helps optimize Miracast performance…

        But we can consider that previous models all had a issue that when mirroring you’d notice a significant lag but the simple fact they state they solved that issue suggest this is a significant improvement, assuming that claim is true… We’ll still have to wait for actual hands on reviews to be sure…

        General performance for Miracast has improved over the years but there’s still noticeable lag on even the best rated receivers… So it would be a significant improvement if they finally produce one that can keep it from being so noticeable…

        Though, not a issue if you just need to play media but games, web browsing, etc. usages can be a bit annoying with present receivers… Though, the performance of the transmitting device is also a factor, so we’ll see…

Comments are closed.