Google's Chromecast device has been around for some time now. It enables you to stream contents from a computer or supported mobile device using apps to a compatible screen.
The price point is very tempting and setup is not difficult at all as well.
Microsoft announced the Wireless Display Adapter a couple of days ago and it looks on first glance like an expensive Chromecast device.
When you look closer though, you will notice that the two devices do not offer the same functionality and are not really comparable.
The Wireless Display Adapter will be available for $59.95, about $25 more than what a Chromecast costs.
Overview of components and requirements
If you have read about Google's Chromecast before or have one at home, you will notice the differences between the devices immediately.
Google's Chromecast is not as limited as Microsoft's Wireless Display Adapter when it comes to supported systems. It supports all major versions of Windows and also Mac Os X, Linux and Chrome OS, and also Android and iOS on the mobile side of things.
It is quite telling that Google's device supports all versions of Windows currently supported by Microsoft while the companies own Wireless Display Adapter does not.
If you compare the streaming itself, you will notice another huge difference. The Chromecast requires a WiFi source to work at all while Microsoft's device does not as it uses WiFi Direct. That's huge, especially for business and Enterprise users but also for situations where Wifi or Internet is not available, not reliable or not secure.
There is also a difference as to what can be streamed. Microsoft's Wireless Display Adapter can mirror the screen of the device while Google's Chromecast main purpose is to stream select contents, Internet media streams, local media or web browser tabs but not the screen of the device in general.
Meet the Microsoft Wireless Display Adapter video
So which is the right one?
There is no direct answer to that that fits everyone. Microsoft's Wireless Display Adapter is held back by its system requirements and its price, while Google's Chromecast requires a WiFi source and is limited in terms of what can be cast to the screen.
If you ask me, I'd pick Microsoft's casting device if I'd have compatible devices. Yes, it is more expensive but it does not phone home like the Chromecast does. I don't want a company to record what I cast and from where I cast it.
What about you? Do you favor one of the devices or another one not mentioned at all?
Advertising revenue is falling fast across the Internet, and independently-run sites like Ghacks are hit hardest by it. The advertising model in its current form is coming to an end, and we have to find other ways to continue operating this site.
We are committed to keeping our content free and independent, which means no paywalls, no sponsored posts, no annoying ad formats or subscription fees.
If you like our content, and would like to help, please consider making a contribution:
Ghacks is a technology news blog that was founded in 2005 by Martin Brinkmann. It has since then become one of the most popular tech news sites on the Internet with five authors and regular contributions from freelance writers.