In Tng, Voyager, you have Holodecks, in voyager, you have holo emiters in Sickbay, Engineering etc. with the prometheus having them all over the ship. Now in Discovery you have the Holographic in room calls.. but they were just "light show" ones that were just for talking. Further on in Voyager, the EMH can interact with there suroundings.. SO! Why not have holo emiters in everybody's room? Maybe for Housekeeping? have the main computer pop up a hologram to clean the place? vacuum? ( Hmm.. 24th century Roomba.. hehe) Maybe a couple that are seperated, can make a limited interactive hologram of themselves? So maybe if they get lonely they can pop them up, have dinner, etc.? How about a holographic nanny for the children, or helper? child cries and it pops on to feed it, change it, ect.?? Just ideas
I wouldn't be surprised if every room was holodeck capable by the end of the 24th century / early 25th century. But next would be Particle Synthesis technology =D.
Also, civilians might have much more advanced tech than the military here. Flotter for example appeared fully and physically interactive, and Janeway had played with it in her childhood already. No doubt some people would prefer not to have holograms everywhere, just like some prefer not to have televisions or music or artificial lighting. Might be there'd be a special room for holographic interactions: not a home holosuite comparable to a movie theater, but a room-with-hologram comparable to the one room in the house where the TV set sits. Might be we never went to that room when we visited Earth households in the various shows... Timo Saloniemi
The holodeck would seem (to me) to require a fairly elaborate set up. The same for a EMH. A simple "image only" hologram (like Riker's dancing girls holo) could be available commonly.
In the Voyager episode "Night" it is suggested to place some holo emitters in a cargo bay turning it into another holodeck, so it seems viable. Picard has such a projector integrated in his desk which is rarely used. You don't require sophisticated holograms for this sort of things. According to Riker, starships clean themselves somehow, and since starfleet ships including the Ent-D usually don't have those fancy holo(deck) emitters all over the place, I guess they (also civilians) use drones like the ones shown in Discovery or perhaps the transporter.
I remember the TNG Tech Manual said there were forcefield emitters in every room that could be used for fire fighting (enclosing the fire and smothering it). Forcefields could be used to clean, as well. The stupidest possible way would be to use little one-inch forcefields to push along the surfaces in the room, collecting dust and debris, and then pushing it all into the replicator, where the hardware for trash disposal is.
I would think Voyager's Doctor makes a great argument for ship wide holo emitters to allow for extra holographic crewmwmembers wherever needed (say, damage control?) Maybe Picard will answer this question?
I'm no expert, but I would imagine it mostly comes down to power and the sophistication of emitters. A simple hologram, as depicted in Picards desk and on Discovery, would probably be rather small drain on power. But once you start adding in the emitters to allow the hologram to interact with other objects, then it turns into a much bigger drain. Hell, maybe that was one of the issue on Voyager, since they had the EMH running almost 24/7, that was what was sucking down so much of their resources.
Which reminds me... Isn't "suit" actually still the correct way to say "suite" in militaryspeak? That is, a destroyer has an "electronic warfare suit" rather than an "electronic warfare suite", despite basically every popular militaria book and wikipedia entry getting that dead wrong? In careless wikipediaspeak, Quark's facility is a suite in the sense of being a set of multiple rooms (but only when turned on!), and a suite (more properly suit) of gadgetry needed to produce the illusion (even when turned off). A suit you wear is naturally a suite of clothing, only nobody gets that one wrong and says "sweet!". Unless the suit is on Rene Auberjonois, of course. Timo Saloniemi
I really don't know whether it's an outdated exclusively British idea or something, as I can find no confirmation online. It just appears in certain older books about naval warfare. I'm sorta hoping military/militaria experts here would chime in. (How do you do the invocations? I mean, the @J.T.B. thing? Ahh, that way...) Timo Saloniemi
Oddly, my sources suggest almost the opposite as suit appears to derive from the Vulgar Latin sequita, via the Old French "si(e)ute, and the Anglo-Norman suite meaning "to follow". So suite would technically be the correct form for at least a suit of clothes or playing cards. Still not sure where "lawsuit" fits in though.