NachoGrande
Mar 29, 12:38 PM
Microsoft should work on perfecting windows before starting a mobile OS
They already have. Have you used Windows 7? It's been flawless for me.
They already have. Have you used Windows 7? It's been flawless for me.
Ommid
Apr 25, 12:56 PM
Hilarious to all those people who jumped on the THUNDERBOLT bandwagon. No thunderbolt devices yet and they have the hideous old case design.
:rolleyes:
But they have an i7, 13 inch machine. :confused:
:rolleyes:
But they have an i7, 13 inch machine. :confused:
thejadedmonkey
Sep 4, 08:54 PM
Maybe I'm not doing this math right, but I'm not sure that's true. I can download a 4.7GB movie in about 2-3 hours over my internet connection (average speeds of 500Kb/sec). A 802.11a or g router transfers data at a max rate of 54Mbps or about 6.75MB/sec. That's about 12 times as fast, meaning that transmitting full DVD-quality video can occur in realtime, with plenty of bandwidth to spare to other functions while watching your movies. By the time HD video recording becomes standard, the Apple video airport express can be upgraded to 802.11n to provide even more bandwidth.
Do I have those figures wrong?
802.11g average transfer is 1/2 of it's max (on average). I'm too tired to do any math, but that would mean you'd only have 6 time as much speed, not 12.
Do I have those figures wrong?
802.11g average transfer is 1/2 of it's max (on average). I'm too tired to do any math, but that would mean you'd only have 6 time as much speed, not 12.
Hunts121
Jul 14, 09:56 AM
Right except iMac.... it'll go to Merom which is a drop-in replacement for Yonah (Core Duo)
Although I agree that eventually Mac mini and MacBook will be Merom, I think it may be many months later..... I think the mini with the Core Solo might get upgraded to Core Duo tho' ... so that Apple can boast to be the _only_ major manufacturer to use dual-core across the whole product range!
Note that if I'm right (trust me!), then there's a gap.... no Apple box with a Conroe? I don't think so.... Apple will introduce a new system with support for a single Conroe. Hopefully it won't be the MacPro with a different mobo, but a completely new box (fingers crossed).
Oh.... the recently released educational iMac won't get Merom at first either... it'll get left behind so as to make the proper iMacs better value and worth splashing out for! :)
I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.
Although I agree that eventually Mac mini and MacBook will be Merom, I think it may be many months later..... I think the mini with the Core Solo might get upgraded to Core Duo tho' ... so that Apple can boast to be the _only_ major manufacturer to use dual-core across the whole product range!
Note that if I'm right (trust me!), then there's a gap.... no Apple box with a Conroe? I don't think so.... Apple will introduce a new system with support for a single Conroe. Hopefully it won't be the MacPro with a different mobo, but a completely new box (fingers crossed).
Oh.... the recently released educational iMac won't get Merom at first either... it'll get left behind so as to make the proper iMacs better value and worth splashing out for! :)
I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.
Evangelion
Sep 5, 09:03 AM
If we see new macs when the store is up. then it will be clear that the upcoming event will be only iPod related. here's to mac updates this morning!:D
If there are Mac updates coming, why is only US store down?
If there are Mac updates coming, why is only US store down?
vwcruisn
Mar 23, 05:04 PM
There shouldn't even be checkpoints in the first place because they violate the 4th Amendment. Every person sitting in line at that checkpoint is accused of being drunk without reasonable doubt.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
Agree 100%.
There's a pretty good read here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli27.html
while I don't necessarily agree with all of his points/correlations, some really do make sense.
One of the most glaring problems with the drunk-driving laws in this country is that they clearly discriminate against and ruthlessly penalize only one class of dangerous drivers. Drunk drivers are subject to arrest, thousands of dollars of fines, lengthy jail or prison sentences, loss of driving "privileges," alcohol abuse counseling, probation, et cetera. Other dangerous drivers are not subject to these draconian penalties. If Grandma gets pulled over by the police for careening in and out of the median, for example, she will not be wrenched from her Cadillac, handcuffed, incarcerated, counseled, or fined into bankruptcy. At worst, so long as she has not hurt anyone, she will be escorted home and possibly lose her "privilege" to drive on government roads in the future (she will not lose the "privilege" of paying for government roads, however). Similarly, a man who chooses not to wear his DMV-mandated glasses or contact lenses while driving does not have to worry about getting stopped at "corrective lens checkpoints" manned by nightstick-wielding troopers searching for un-bespectacled drivers to humiliate, arrest, fine, and send to jail. On the contrary, this type of dangerous driver is merely instructed to wear his glasses if he is stopped by the police, and he is issued a perfunctory (and revenue-generating) citation. He certainly does not have to worry about the possibility of going to state prison for several years when he decides to drive without his glasses � unless he actually hurts someone.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
Agree 100%.
There's a pretty good read here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli27.html
while I don't necessarily agree with all of his points/correlations, some really do make sense.
One of the most glaring problems with the drunk-driving laws in this country is that they clearly discriminate against and ruthlessly penalize only one class of dangerous drivers. Drunk drivers are subject to arrest, thousands of dollars of fines, lengthy jail or prison sentences, loss of driving "privileges," alcohol abuse counseling, probation, et cetera. Other dangerous drivers are not subject to these draconian penalties. If Grandma gets pulled over by the police for careening in and out of the median, for example, she will not be wrenched from her Cadillac, handcuffed, incarcerated, counseled, or fined into bankruptcy. At worst, so long as she has not hurt anyone, she will be escorted home and possibly lose her "privilege" to drive on government roads in the future (she will not lose the "privilege" of paying for government roads, however). Similarly, a man who chooses not to wear his DMV-mandated glasses or contact lenses while driving does not have to worry about getting stopped at "corrective lens checkpoints" manned by nightstick-wielding troopers searching for un-bespectacled drivers to humiliate, arrest, fine, and send to jail. On the contrary, this type of dangerous driver is merely instructed to wear his glasses if he is stopped by the police, and he is issued a perfunctory (and revenue-generating) citation. He certainly does not have to worry about the possibility of going to state prison for several years when he decides to drive without his glasses � unless he actually hurts someone.
Roller
Sep 4, 06:53 PM
Not too many details: would this stream movies already downloaded or let you download/view simultaneously (like view on demand)?
cere
Apr 14, 02:02 PM
Yeah, it is. USB 3.0 is not that big of a step up from USB 2.0 so those that really need the extra bandwidth will not bother with it and go straight to Thunderbolt. Simple as that. Leave your rinky dink Toys R Us low bandwidth peripherals to USB and leave the big boy peripherals to Thunderbolt.
Sure you have, you've completely ignored my other post then changed the subject to reading comprehension to smokescreen the topic at hand. Oh and give me a break with your non-insult ********. You have been making jabs about short buses and taking comprehension classes over a Thunderbolt and USB discussion. If anything you are the one that needs to take some classes, maybe not on comprehension but I'm sure you get the idea.
Actually let's do a real recap:
You agree with a claim that Thunderbolt will be Mac only
I respond with an article that simply states it won't be
You respond with the reason it won't take off as manufacturers will have to add it separately
Econgeek tells you it's a completely different scenario because they don't need a license through Apple
I tell you Intel will be supporting both
You then start with your strawman argument and ignore a portion of what I stated
You also follow that up with some insults
I respond with video proof of why Thunderbolt will be popular with many devices
You ignore then respond with more insults
Honestly, can you try to post without arguing against claims I never made? That is at least 3 times now and it shows a lack of honesty or reading ability. I am not sure which.
I never said it was going to Mac only (though you have accused me of that twice). I agreed with the insinuation that it could be. I never said manufacturers would have to add it separately. I did say that the article you posted said only that it would be available to all and that it didn't say all would add it. Mainly, I said that, because you know, the article doesn't actually say that.
I think we are done. No point in debating someone that doesn't understand what he is reading and also makes up things to reply to. Arguing against someone that uses strawman arguments or misses common subtleties in language is bad enough. Arguing against someone that is making up things to argue against is pointless.
Sure you have, you've completely ignored my other post then changed the subject to reading comprehension to smokescreen the topic at hand. Oh and give me a break with your non-insult ********. You have been making jabs about short buses and taking comprehension classes over a Thunderbolt and USB discussion. If anything you are the one that needs to take some classes, maybe not on comprehension but I'm sure you get the idea.
Actually let's do a real recap:
You agree with a claim that Thunderbolt will be Mac only
I respond with an article that simply states it won't be
You respond with the reason it won't take off as manufacturers will have to add it separately
Econgeek tells you it's a completely different scenario because they don't need a license through Apple
I tell you Intel will be supporting both
You then start with your strawman argument and ignore a portion of what I stated
You also follow that up with some insults
I respond with video proof of why Thunderbolt will be popular with many devices
You ignore then respond with more insults
Honestly, can you try to post without arguing against claims I never made? That is at least 3 times now and it shows a lack of honesty or reading ability. I am not sure which.
I never said it was going to Mac only (though you have accused me of that twice). I agreed with the insinuation that it could be. I never said manufacturers would have to add it separately. I did say that the article you posted said only that it would be available to all and that it didn't say all would add it. Mainly, I said that, because you know, the article doesn't actually say that.
I think we are done. No point in debating someone that doesn't understand what he is reading and also makes up things to reply to. Arguing against someone that uses strawman arguments or misses common subtleties in language is bad enough. Arguing against someone that is making up things to argue against is pointless.
vvswarup
Apr 30, 09:49 PM
Microsoft doesn't really play in the consumer / gadget / toy market, which simply means that you don't get to see most of their products unless you work in a corporate data center. And unlike Apple, Microsoft -has- data center / server products that people WANT to use and that are years ahead of the pack (Sharepoint Portal Server, Exchange Server, SQL Server, Terminal Services, just to name a few) - and a LOT of their RD goes there.
This sounds like "sour grapes."
Also, nobody here should kid themselves - Microsoft still OWNS the desktop and office suite markets. Around a BILLION computers run their software, and even most Macs are dead in the water without Microsoft Office and/or Microsoft Windows (in Boot Camp, Parallels, Fusion, VirtualBox).
That's the whole point. Microsoft owns the desktop and office suite markets, yet, Microsoft is unwilling to move on to markets that have more potential to grow.
So Apple was more profitable in the last quarter. Big deal. Somebody with enough time on their hands might want to analyze the spending behavior and amount of staff and level of salaries to find out -WHY- that was the case. Maybe the guys at Microsoft have higher salaries and more vacation. Maybe Ballmer put more money into RD and marketing than in the last quarter. Maybe they bought more startups than before.
Nice try, but you're dead wrong here. Apple already beat Microsoft in revenue a couple of quarters ago. So don't even try to chalk it up to Apple being "cheap." Apple has already beaten Microsoft in Revenue.
Actually, who cares. Both companies are extremely profitable, but Microsoft has been profitable for a couple of decades more than Apple (who almost died in the 1990s while Microsoft was making more money than anybody else).
Now this is trying to make light of the matter. Apple beat out what was once the world's largest tech company. When Apple's market cap surpassed Microsoft's, people called Apple overvalued. They still call Apple overvalued. Now, Apple has beaten Microsoft in profits.
This sounds like "sour grapes."
Also, nobody here should kid themselves - Microsoft still OWNS the desktop and office suite markets. Around a BILLION computers run their software, and even most Macs are dead in the water without Microsoft Office and/or Microsoft Windows (in Boot Camp, Parallels, Fusion, VirtualBox).
That's the whole point. Microsoft owns the desktop and office suite markets, yet, Microsoft is unwilling to move on to markets that have more potential to grow.
So Apple was more profitable in the last quarter. Big deal. Somebody with enough time on their hands might want to analyze the spending behavior and amount of staff and level of salaries to find out -WHY- that was the case. Maybe the guys at Microsoft have higher salaries and more vacation. Maybe Ballmer put more money into RD and marketing than in the last quarter. Maybe they bought more startups than before.
Nice try, but you're dead wrong here. Apple already beat Microsoft in revenue a couple of quarters ago. So don't even try to chalk it up to Apple being "cheap." Apple has already beaten Microsoft in Revenue.
Actually, who cares. Both companies are extremely profitable, but Microsoft has been profitable for a couple of decades more than Apple (who almost died in the 1990s while Microsoft was making more money than anybody else).
Now this is trying to make light of the matter. Apple beat out what was once the world's largest tech company. When Apple's market cap surpassed Microsoft's, people called Apple overvalued. They still call Apple overvalued. Now, Apple has beaten Microsoft in profits.
KPATVPOD
Apr 20, 09:50 AM
Is the Program to read it Mac only or is there a PC version??
http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/#4
http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/#4
law guy
Sep 11, 08:38 PM
This is huge news. Where is everybody?!? :confused:
Am I the only one here who thinks this is gigantic news? I can hear a pin drop. The stunned silence is deafening. :eek: ;)
I agree - this is really something. As has been noted, it's just huge the increase in a short amount of time - the original Core release was only a short while back, then Core 2 Duo - which just made it into the iMacs - and now the Core 2 Quad release date of Mid-October! The pace is just astounding.
Not only that, but as Arn and others note, the Quad Xeons are on the way as well. So, there is the path for 8 core Mac Pros in the very near future.
Quad core iMacs, 8 core PMs (opps, I mean Mac Pros) - oh my.
This amazing chip release rate - and significant increases each - will really put Apple to the test in terms of updating products quickly to stay competitive in terms of hardware release. In the past, Apple had to deal with chip upgrades so infrequently. It's a great problem to have, I suppose.
I also echo the comments above re: isn't this the kind of thing that makes you glad Apple switched to Intel? Absolutely.
Am I the only one here who thinks this is gigantic news? I can hear a pin drop. The stunned silence is deafening. :eek: ;)
I agree - this is really something. As has been noted, it's just huge the increase in a short amount of time - the original Core release was only a short while back, then Core 2 Duo - which just made it into the iMacs - and now the Core 2 Quad release date of Mid-October! The pace is just astounding.
Not only that, but as Arn and others note, the Quad Xeons are on the way as well. So, there is the path for 8 core Mac Pros in the very near future.
Quad core iMacs, 8 core PMs (opps, I mean Mac Pros) - oh my.
This amazing chip release rate - and significant increases each - will really put Apple to the test in terms of updating products quickly to stay competitive in terms of hardware release. In the past, Apple had to deal with chip upgrades so infrequently. It's a great problem to have, I suppose.
I also echo the comments above re: isn't this the kind of thing that makes you glad Apple switched to Intel? Absolutely.
holycat
Sep 12, 03:10 PM
a liTTLe bit disappointed...:mad: :mad:
i wiLL still buy this 80Gb iPod with the iMac 24`:p :p
my 1st iPod and 1st Mac machine
i wiLL still buy this 80Gb iPod with the iMac 24`:p :p
my 1st iPod and 1st Mac machine
munkery
Apr 10, 04:17 PM
What exactly do you mean? Do you mean changing the default app for opening a file type, using the Get Info window? Or do you mean some modification to the app itself? If the former, it works the same in L and SL. I haven't tried the latter yet.
"Get Info" any of the softwares that came on your Mac by default, such as Safari, Mail, iTunes, etc. At the bottom of the "Get Info" screen, what users have write privileges to the app bundle?
In Leopard, both system and admin have write privileges. So, malware could modify these app bundles as a vector to hide payloads with user level access in admin accounts. Privilege escalation would still be required for more serious exploitation, such as rootkit installation.
In Snow Leopard, only system has write privileges. This represents a security improvement in SL. Apps installed via the Mac App Store also only have system with write privileges.
"Get Info" any of the softwares that came on your Mac by default, such as Safari, Mail, iTunes, etc. At the bottom of the "Get Info" screen, what users have write privileges to the app bundle?
In Leopard, both system and admin have write privileges. So, malware could modify these app bundles as a vector to hide payloads with user level access in admin accounts. Privilege escalation would still be required for more serious exploitation, such as rootkit installation.
In Snow Leopard, only system has write privileges. This represents a security improvement in SL. Apps installed via the Mac App Store also only have system with write privileges.
VanNess
Sep 1, 04:02 AM
Well, if any of this is true, I'm going to take a pass on this one.
First of all, I'm not really interested in buying movies. It's not the same as music, with movies one view is all it takes and I'm pretty much done. There are exceptions but they are rare - even rarer now considering the stuff studios are putting out these days. If the rumored price points stick, I can't see the value in downloading something that's likely going to occupy too much space on my drive and even more likely to be erased or burned to DVD - if burning is allowed. Counting up the time to download (ugh), the time to burn it to DVD (if it simply doesn't end up being erased altogether, permissable burning or not) for a movie I never had any intention on keeping in the first place and potentially coughing up about 15 bucks just so I get to join the movie download revolution just isn't adding up in my book.
Worse is if the movie is sub-DVD quality, and I have a bad bad feeling it will be. Ratcheting up H264 to DVD quality (or preferably better - much better) is going to make the download time way too long. In as much as Apple was originally competing with file sharing when it entered the music download biz, it had the advantage of offering consumers a consistent, great sounding, high quality sound file which in itself was desirable where songs that bounced around file sharing networks at the time weren't always so blessed. If Apple really wants to repeat the iTunes miracle again, they have to pull off the same thing with movies. In other words, an experience that is equal to or preferably better than the present DVD experience.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's Apple's intention this time around. My guess is that they are getting their rather sizable and feared (if your Sony, lol) foot in the door now before other online movie dot coms saturate the market and worse, much worse - bring their MS WMV DRM along with them. Apple can establish itself now and pander to the iPod/iTunes faithful and not find itself marginalized for selling online movies in the future by MS and it's C:/Windows/Windows_only/Windows_proprietary/DRM.
But not for me. I still think the online movie biz just isn't ready for prime time, and as a competitor or alternative to Netflix and the terrestrial-based movie rental outfits, far from it. But we'll see. I don't want to poo-poo something sight unseen, and maybe Apple has a surprise or two up it's sleeve - but I doubt it. We simply need better bandwidth than what we have in this country now for this stuff to really fly.
First of all, I'm not really interested in buying movies. It's not the same as music, with movies one view is all it takes and I'm pretty much done. There are exceptions but they are rare - even rarer now considering the stuff studios are putting out these days. If the rumored price points stick, I can't see the value in downloading something that's likely going to occupy too much space on my drive and even more likely to be erased or burned to DVD - if burning is allowed. Counting up the time to download (ugh), the time to burn it to DVD (if it simply doesn't end up being erased altogether, permissable burning or not) for a movie I never had any intention on keeping in the first place and potentially coughing up about 15 bucks just so I get to join the movie download revolution just isn't adding up in my book.
Worse is if the movie is sub-DVD quality, and I have a bad bad feeling it will be. Ratcheting up H264 to DVD quality (or preferably better - much better) is going to make the download time way too long. In as much as Apple was originally competing with file sharing when it entered the music download biz, it had the advantage of offering consumers a consistent, great sounding, high quality sound file which in itself was desirable where songs that bounced around file sharing networks at the time weren't always so blessed. If Apple really wants to repeat the iTunes miracle again, they have to pull off the same thing with movies. In other words, an experience that is equal to or preferably better than the present DVD experience.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's Apple's intention this time around. My guess is that they are getting their rather sizable and feared (if your Sony, lol) foot in the door now before other online movie dot coms saturate the market and worse, much worse - bring their MS WMV DRM along with them. Apple can establish itself now and pander to the iPod/iTunes faithful and not find itself marginalized for selling online movies in the future by MS and it's C:/Windows/Windows_only/Windows_proprietary/DRM.
But not for me. I still think the online movie biz just isn't ready for prime time, and as a competitor or alternative to Netflix and the terrestrial-based movie rental outfits, far from it. But we'll see. I don't want to poo-poo something sight unseen, and maybe Apple has a surprise or two up it's sleeve - but I doubt it. We simply need better bandwidth than what we have in this country now for this stuff to really fly.
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 07:48 PM
OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/servicePlansOptionsV2/FreeClearFairFlexiblePlans.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1436723&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_SCID=ECOMM&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_PCode=None&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_cartState=group
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/servicePlansOptionsV2/FreeClearFairFlexiblePlans.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1436723&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_SCID=ECOMM&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_PCode=None&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_cartState=group
roadbloc
Apr 4, 04:54 PM
I stand corrected.
mox358
Sep 4, 09:29 PM
There may be lots of TV options out there, but right now Apple isn't servicing any of them. They're losing potential business to 3rd Party companies like Elgato. If they released a simple box with analog/digital standard/hidef options, they would be servicing the overwhelming majority of the market (most digital, satelite and other special services require set-top boxes anyway).
I really doubt that Apple will put a TV tuner in this thing (if it's real). Think about it -
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
I really doubt that Apple will put a TV tuner in this thing (if it's real). Think about it -
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
DJMastaWes
Aug 28, 12:53 PM
I did say the may just announce them tomorrow, but that rumor of a large shipment coming in from overseas seems like a better indication of when they may be shipping.
If there annouced tomorrow that's 100% fine with me.
If there annouced tomorrow that's 100% fine with me.
Willis
Oct 12, 05:18 PM
It looks like a more "true" red to me!
Look at the upper left portion of the picture! MBP black anodized with C2D
W00t!
keep dreaming..... no C2D!
Look at the upper left portion of the picture! MBP black anodized with C2D
W00t!
keep dreaming..... no C2D!
bloodycape
Jul 14, 03:49 PM
Cnet net already has a 2 reviews and a one video for this chip on two different pcs. One is Dell the other is Falcon Northwest.
The dell review and video here.
The dell review and video here.
cube
Mar 30, 12:44 PM
App market?
Program Store?
Program Market?
App Hub?
App Universe?
App Base?
Tool Shed?
Imagination?
Hello?
What is the App Store? It is a store where you buy apps, an app store.
It's not a "shed where you buy apps", for example.
Program Store?
Program Market?
App Hub?
App Universe?
App Base?
Tool Shed?
Imagination?
Hello?
What is the App Store? It is a store where you buy apps, an app store.
It's not a "shed where you buy apps", for example.
jofarmer
Sep 12, 04:53 PM
See above I am testing this theory now and will report on the result in about a half hour.
Well, I'm looking forward to seeing the results. I just ripped a chapter to AVC using 768kps and 640x352 and playing it took my powerbook to 60%. We ARE talking about a powerful codec here.
But then again, 320x240 H.264 made my iBook G3 900 go chunky...
Well, I'm looking forward to seeing the results. I just ripped a chapter to AVC using 768kps and 640x352 and playing it took my powerbook to 60%. We ARE talking about a powerful codec here.
But then again, 320x240 H.264 made my iBook G3 900 go chunky...
doctor-don
Mar 29, 01:28 PM
Only way MS would get these numbers is if Windows Phone takes over the business cellular market.
The only way that would happen would be for the phone to be GIVEN away at a price so LOW that nobody would refuse it. And it would have to include a data plan that costs practically nothing. And it would have to be contract free.
Oh, look! There is an ad below this for HTC Aria™ for just 1� - Free shipping - AT&T.
The only way that would happen would be for the phone to be GIVEN away at a price so LOW that nobody would refuse it. And it would have to include a data plan that costs practically nothing. And it would have to be contract free.
Oh, look! There is an ad below this for HTC Aria™ for just 1� - Free shipping - AT&T.
weg
Aug 29, 02:25 AM
all the people who said it's only marginal at best can stick it where the sun don't shine!
The only place where I can use my PB 12"...
The only place where I can use my PB 12"...