or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Suddenly Newton

It's a negotiating tactic.
It's an iPhone 4S in the photo.
I wasn't suggesting anything of that nature. How did you get that from my post? I know it is about adopting Apple's file format.
I agree with this. And really, is this Microsoft who was famous for NIH (not invented here) syndrome, adopting an Apple format this early in the game? I'm shocked!
Oh cool! I'd let Microsoft do it. Because it won't matter. It's not worth the effort to block. Besides, people have reverse engineered Microsoft Office file formats all the time. It's not like this is unprecedented.
If the "screen" in the schematic drawing is indeed 53.7mm wide, and we assume that maybe the cutout for the screen is larger than the screen itself, then how long would a 16:9 screen be? Answer: 95.5mm. That would yield a 109.6mm diagonal screen, or 4.3" screen.A 16:9 screen would be too short for the molding.
 I don't think it's the same resolution. If you believe that the inset rectangular area shown in the drawing is the screen, then it would appear to have a 2:1 aspect ratio instead of the current 16:9 aspect. One possibility is that've added more pixels so it's a 1280x640 display. That's 2:1.
 The side view in the drawing isn't to the same scale as the top, so I can't simply count pixels. I could scale it down to match, but then we're in danger of increasing the amount of error. There aren't enough pixels in the image for a high precision estimate when it comes the thickness. But just eyeballing it, it appears to be impressively thin: more like the iPhone 5s than the iPhone 3GS.
Not sure if Corrections could answer that. He speaks of DED in the third person. How could he know the answers to your questions?
Not hysteria, preference.In all fairness.
New Posts  All Forums: