or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by mugwump

Great name , Threepwood. I pulled the trigger this morning on the base model. Sheesh, 4MB of L2 cache -- My G5 towar only has 518K! It should provide teh snap. Nothing except the base model interested me. Reducing heat is a good thing, with the slightly cooler processor, graphics card, and hard drive than the previous 7200 option. An external drive via FireWire 800 will provide additional space if required. I could care less about the additional vid memory since...
Oh yeah, no problem to slap a film onto the screen. You'd think all smartphones would have 'em. But drawing on a screen, the processor having to listen for touch drawings, and increased luminance required to shine through the scuff marks make the device more complex. How's the battery life on the M600i? Maybe they could've added a few more battery millimeters. And when you write that it "reduces complexity", we are posting on two opposite ideas. It's easier to use a...
Interesting, at .6" it takes the touchscreen prize! 50% thicker than the Moto Q, but not bad.The touch screen is the most complexity, which is the point of my original post that you refuted with screen thickness. The wireless radio, battery, input knobs are a given.
Okay. A quick google found this information of touch screen phones: HP iPAQ hw6510 / hw6515\t.71" HP iPAQ hw6940 / hw6915\t.71" PPC-6600 / PPC-6601 / XV6600 (HTC Harrier)\t.74" Treo 680\t.8" PPC-6700 / XV-6700 (HTC Apache)\t.9"\t HTC TyTN\t.9" Hitachi G1000\t .9" Palm Treo 650 / 700p / 700w|wx\t.9" HTC Wizard / 8125 / 8100 / MDA (USA) / K-JAM\t.93" Motorola MPx\t .94" Samsung SCH-i730\t.93" Samsung SCH-i830 / IP-830w\t.97" Sony Ericsson P910A\t1.02" The Motorola Q is...
The nano is a thin device. Touch screen devices are not thin. It will be interesting what Apple will do with this. Mel, I'm sorry if you're getting upset with your posts. You quickly refuted my claim yet it's clear you haven't really refuted my claim. You're posting about some screen coatings, and I'm referring to the iPhone that would need to use the screen, the chip that must process it, and the illumination required to shine through it. But thanks for all of...
But those are not devices. I made it clear that touch screen devices are thicker than regular screen devices, and you disagreed saying the film is very thin. So, again, where are these thin devices? For example, the Treo is not a thin device.
mel, You claim that a touch screen only adds minimal thickness. Please link me to any "thin" device that has one. thx
It was so expensive because of fewer customers. The hardware color rollerball device was some serious bucks as well. That Silicon Color guy is a gifted programmer -- I caught one of this demonstrations and he said that he programs to the lowest levels of the graphic chip for greatest performance. There are some incredible capabilities that FCP could use from Final Touch. You can select the background and bring down the brightness, and then have the adjustments track...
Any touchscreen device requires more device thickness than a regular one. It will be interesting to see if they go for the thinner form instead. An Apple smartphone running mobile X will be great. I look forward to it.
A dual layer notebook DVD burner is $40, yet the MBP's don't have them. Some posters around here question the purchasing decisions of others, yet if the forthcoming MBP is significantly improved, why would someone drop $2500 on last year's model? It's not about just a chip drop-in, it's about a redesign of the existing issues. If the PC side are delivering at cheap cost, then this is what Apple needs to perform against. In the iPod world, they seem to over deliver --...
New Posts  All Forums: