or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › How many gigs of Hardrive space would a HDTV feature length movie use?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How many gigs of Hardrive space would a HDTV feature length movie use?

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
...and how long would it take to download over broadband??

Thanks in advance
Fight for the smallest minority- "The individual"
Reply
Fight for the smallest minority- "The individual"
Reply
post #2 of 33
How long is the movie? At what resolution? What format? How fast is your broadband? Etc., etc.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #3 of 33
Oooh, a story problem...

If we use JVC's DTheatre spec (uses DVHS as a transport for pre-recorded HD Movies) as a starting point, we're looking at a bitrate of about 28 Mbps.

28 Mbps = 3.5 MB/s
2 hour movie = 7200 seconds

3.5 MB/s x 7200s = 25.2 GB
Wow, big.

According to DSL Reports, my cable modem's downlink clocks in at 1393kbps.

1393 kbps = 174 KB/s
25.2 GB = 25,200,000 KB

So we're looking at just over 40 hours to download.
Bicycling to Blockbuster for a copy on Blu-Ray might be faster, but certainly not as convenient.
post #4 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by dglow
Oooh, a story problem...

If we use JVC's DTheatre spec (uses DVHS as a transport for pre-recorded HD Movies) as a starting point, we're looking at a bitrate of about 28 Mbps.

That is in MPEG 2, using something like H.264 or VC-1 (which is much more efficient and is the codec of choice for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray), you could get the same quality at around half the bitrate.

Quote:
28 Mbps = 3.5 MB/s
2 hour movie = 7200 seconds

3.5 MB/s x 7200s = 25.2 GB
Wow, big.

So for H.264/VC-1 it would be more like:

14 Mbps = 1.66 MB/s
1.66 x 7200 = 11.67 GB

So still quite big, but more manageable than 25GBs.

Quote:
According to DSL Reports, my cable modem's downlink clocks in at 1393kbps.

1393 kbps = 174 KB/s
25.2 GB = 25,200,000 KB

So we're looking at just over 40 hours to download.
Bicycling to Blockbuster for a copy on Blu-Ray might be faster, but certainly not as convenient.

According to the same test, my cable is clocking in at 2792 kbps (I have a 3Mbps connection).

2792 kbps = 340 KB/s

Translates into about 9.5 hours (around 18.6 hours on your connection). Better, but still easier to just go to blockbuster and rip it your self (assuming that the encryption gets cracked at some point).

But, if you are talking about how much space does HD takes up compared to DV (for consumer/prosumer editing), if your HD is recorded in MPEG 2 then you are looking at the same storage space as DV (HDV uses the same bitrate as DV). So you get better quality in the same file size. Pretty cool.
post #5 of 33
http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/h264faq.html

Says 7-8 Mbps if i am reading it right.
post #6 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by kupan787
That is in MPEG 2, using something like H.264 or VC-1 (which is much more efficient and is the codec of choice for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray), you could get the same quality at around half the bitrate.



So for H.264/VC-1 it would be more like:

14 Mbps = 1.66 MB/s
1.66 x 7200 = 11.67 GB

So still quite big, but more manageable than 25GBs.



According to the same test, my cable is clocking in at 2792 kbps (I have a 3Mbps connection).

2792 kbps = 340 KB/s

Translates into about 9.5 hours (around 18.6 hours on your connection). Better, but still easier to just go to blockbuster and rip it your self (assuming that the encryption gets cracked at some point).

But, if you are talking about how much space does HD takes up compared to DV (for consumer/prosumer editing), if your HD is recorded in MPEG 2 then you are looking at the same storage space as DV (HDV uses the same bitrate as DV). So you get better quality in the same file size. Pretty cool.

Not bad for an 'overnight' download or a 'while you're at work' download.

Aries 1B
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
post #7 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan22t
http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/h264faq.html

Says 7-8 Mbps if i am reading it right.

Interesting...

Quote:
HD MPEG-2 content at 1920x1080 traditionally runs at 12-20 Mbps, while H.264 can deliver 1920x1080 content at 7-8 Mbps at the same or better quality.

So revising my numbers now:

8 Mbps = 976 KB/s
976 x 7200 = 6.8 GB

That is a huge difference, and puts HD movies in the download range of a DVD movie today.

One one hand I would think that the studios would use a higher bitrate, for better quality. However, today with DVDs, the max bitrate is 9MB/sec (or maybe 10?), but most DVDs are encoded at 6-7 MB/sec (not counting SUPERBIT dvds). So I wouldn't be surprised if the studios use this 8MB/sec figure rather than a 12-14MB/sec.

Interestingly enough, this really changes a lot of what I thought in the format war. With the whole Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD war, a lot of people throw around the size of Blu-Ray as a big thing. If full quality HD movies are fitting in less than 7 GB of space, that leaves 18 GB of space for whatever the want to cram on an HD-DVD disk. My first estimates were for much less free space on an HD-DVD disk, but still enough to pack on all the extras one could want. But this new figure really changes that by a lot.
post #8 of 33
Thread Starter 
Do you guys think downloading h264 HD movies online is something the average consumer actually would do?

Or do you think the most realistic way the average person to get personal copies of a particular HD movies would be by coping them onto a DVR/tivo like device or software-based app to a harddrive through their existing cable or satellite service?

After the movie is was stored on the hardrive then a next-gen version of an ipod would be used as a portable storage device that would replace any need to use hd-dvd or blu-ray discs to transport movies from one location to another.
Fight for the smallest minority- "The individual"
Reply
Fight for the smallest minority- "The individual"
Reply
post #9 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by johnsocal
Do you guys think downloading h264 HD movies online is something the average consumer actually would do?

Yes. But it does not seem to be practical right now. Or of great strategic significance to Apple at the moment. Im not sure when the pieces will fall together either... no timeframe that anyone would dare label as "soon".

1) The current state of Broadband speed and proliferation
2) The potentially dramatic infrastructure changes that Apple would need to make in order to deliver the content.
3) Getting all the various movie studios involved and interested. They aren't feeling the burn of illegal movie downloads quite like the music industry thinks that they themselves are.
4) Current hard-drive sizes.

That said... i definitely would like to see an Apple Movie Store and be able to stream videos that i purchased for 14.99 over the Airport to my TV.
post #10 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by kupan787
Interestingly enough, this really changes a lot of what I thought in the format war. With the whole Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD war, a lot of people throw around the size of Blu-Ray as a big thing. If full quality HD movies are fitting in less than 7 GB of space, that leaves 18 GB of space for whatever the want to cram on an HD-DVD disk. My first estimates were for much less free space on an HD-DVD disk, but still enough to pack on all the extras one could want. But this new figure really changes that by a lot.

No matter what:

its going to end up so that the studios/companies still "have" to create "box sets" with multiple discs. One for each film in the series... or one for several TV episodes. Making it appear far more reasonable to scale the price with amount of content time.
post #11 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan22t
No matter what:

its going to end up so that the studios/companies still "have" to create "box sets" with multiple discs. One for each film in the series... or one for several TV episodes. Making it appear far more reasonable to scale the price with amount of content time.

ah, HD-DVD/Blu-Ray and Apple/Sony/Movies etc. is all about marketing and packaging....
post #12 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by kupan787
Interestingly enough, this really changes a lot of what I thought in the format war. With the whole Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD war, a lot of people throw around the size of Blu-Ray as a big thing. If full quality HD movies are fitting in less than 7 GB of space, that leaves 18 GB of space for whatever the want to cram on an HD-DVD disk. My first estimates were for much less free space on an HD-DVD disk, but still enough to pack on all the extras one could want. But this new figure really changes that by a lot.

Full quality? Hardly. Using 7 to 8 Mbits with H.264 would be okay for broadcast HDTV but you are going to want the studios to use a lot more than that for pre-recorded Blu-Ray or HD-DVD movies. Think 12 to 15 Mbits for H.264. Otherwise you might as well not waste your money on it. The extra capacity of Blu-Ray will come in handy for those who want to record HDTV content. A more advanced disc (Blu-Ray) and a more advanced codec (H.264) combine to give you the best possible picture and sound quality not to mention bang for your buck.

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply
post #13 of 33
Currently broadcasters are using very low bitrates with MPEG-2 so I guess 7 to 8 Mbits with MPEG-4 (H.264) would actually be an improvement but you still wouldn't want them to use this for pre-recorded discs. It varries a lot but if you're buying a movie on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD it should be better than what you see broadcast on TV. A lot better. Most people haven't seen demos that show the true potential of HDTV however.

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply
post #14 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by 1984
It varries a lot but if you're buying a movie on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD it should be better than what you see broadcast on TV. A lot better.

Dear god I hope so.

My HD goes from really good (most football games, and most of Discovery HD) to mediocre (primetime TV shows). Sometimes you can see artifacting. Bleh!

My whole point was that right now the DVD spec allows for bitrates upto 9 Mbps (maybe 10). What do the studios use? Anywhere from 4-7. So my guess is that with HD, things wont change. Studios aren't going to be using the highest bitrate possible, they will use a lower bitrate (not only because there encoders are more efficient then yours or mine, but for other reasons I am sure). I think I have read that past 14 Mbps, VC-1 and H.264 don't improve at all (diminishing returns). So if 14 is the "max", then I would bet studios use anywhere from 7-10. And then it plays close to what my calculations are above.
post #15 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan22t
No matter what:

its going to end up so that the studios/companies still "have" to create "box sets" with multiple discs. One for each film in the series... or one for several TV episodes. Making it appear far more reasonable to scale the price with amount of content time.

But at non-HD quality, it looks like h.264 could be streamed or nearly streamed over the majority of broadband connections.

I still think the iTMS of video will be download of TV programs available at the time of broadcast using h.264. Direct sales back to the studios, bypassing the cable companies. Not 2 hours of HD, which will stay in the domain of NetFlix, but 30 or 60 minutes of (high quality, mind you) standard definition programs, no commercials, even if you don't get the channel from your cable provider. All programs stay in the library, so you can go and download your favorite Gilligan's Island episode any time you want. $1 per half hour - flat rate.

That will be what Apple first offers in the HTPC space.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
post #16 of 33
The best way to ell you what is the average size of HDTV movies is to show you...this is from one of my 8 250GB hard drives on my media server...to figure out the actual mbps rate go to IMDB and find out the lenght of each movie...



These are all Mpeg2 transport streams captured from a SA3250HD box via Firewire with VirtualDVHS.
post #17 of 33
Did you have to manually organize and make all those icons and folder names or is there a program out there I should know about?

The #1 thing I find frustrating with EyeTV is the folder structure:
horrid misuse of cool technology
SSBA.COM
Reply
horrid misuse of cool technology
SSBA.COM
Reply
post #18 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by Ebby
Did you have to manually organize and make all those icons and folder names or is there a program out there I should know about?

I manually take each transport stream file and put it in a folder and create the icon by copy/paste the large image from Amazon. It looks really good when you set the folders to large icons of 128x128.
post #19 of 33
A standard definition (SD) HD video (720p) encoded with H.264 would stream at about 300KB/s so an hour of video would take up 1.08GB/hr. You could view it in real time with a 3Mbit/s connection. It could be downloaded to a Mac mini which is hooked up to a HDTV screen. A 90 min. video would take about 90 minutes to download but you could either watch in real time or download and view later. About 90% of HDTV content is in the SD format.
post #20 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by Rolo
A standard definition (SD) HD video (720p) encoded with H.264 would stream at about 300KB/s so an hour of video would take up 1.08GB/hr. You could view it in real time with a 3Mbit/s connection. It could be downloaded to a Mac mini which is hooked up to a HDTV screen. A 90 min. video would take about 90 minutes to download but you could either watch in real time or download and view later. About 90% of HDTV content is in the SD format.

What are you talking about? Standard definition HD video? 720p/1080i is high definition. Standard definition is 480i/p. A standard definition video (say a DVD for example), compressed using H.264, would be closer to 100KB/sec, which is streamable over DSL.
post #21 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by Rolo
A standard definition (SD) HD video (720p) encoded with H.264 would stream at about 300KB/s so an hour of video would take up 1.08GB/hr. You could view it in real time with a 3Mbit/s connection. It could be downloaded to a Mac mini which is hooked up to a HDTV screen. A 90 min. video would take about 90 minutes to download but you could either watch in real time or download and view later. About 90% of HDTV content is in the SD format.

What about 24p? I know this is the year of HD, but I'll get to that...
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
post #22 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by kupan787
What are you talking about? Standard definition HD video? 720p/1080i is high definition. Standard definition is 480i/p. A standard definition video (say a DVD for example), compressed using H.264, would be closer to 100KB/sec, which is streamable over DSL.

Sorry, I screwed up the terminology but the numbers were correct. As if there isn't enough confusion about what HDTV is. EDTV (enhanced definition) is actually what you described referring to 480i/p. SD can be less than that.

The truth is even more confusing. Actual viewable area resolutions for HDTV are 540p, 810i or better.

Thanks for setting me straight.
post #23 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by johnsonwax
What about 24p? I know this is the year of HD, but I'll get to that...

24p refers to 24 frames per second, as opposed to 30 fps or 60 fields/s interlaced. 24p is perfect for film conversion since film is already 24 fps. The lower frame rate also lowers the file size a little.
post #24 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by Rolo
24p refers to 24 frames per second, as opposed to 30 fps or 60 fields/s interlaced. 24p is perfect for film conversion since film is already 24 fps. The lower frame rate also lowers the file size a little.

Ok. I don't want HD. I want plain-jane, boring NTSC video. The shit that my dad sees on his old Magnavox. <curmudgeon>goddamn number and letter hoobajoo</curmudgeon>. If I wanted a copy of West Wing that I'd get off of a standard DVD or TiVo, but in h.264 instead. What kind of file size are we looking at?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
post #25 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by Rolo
Sorry, I screwed up the terminology but the numbers were correct. As if there isn't enough confusion about what HDTV is. EDTV (enhanced definition) is actually what you described referring to 480i/p. SD can be less than that.

I thought EDTV was that wacky 852x480 resolution on plasma sets. 480i is standard def (NTSC standard or whatever). 480p is I guess the EDTV stuff (720x480)

Quote:
The truth is even more confusing. Actual viewable area resolutions for HDTV are 540p, 810i or better.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Wait a minute. I knew that most HD sets were unable to display the full 1920 horizontal lines (most can do anywhere from 1200 to 1600). But I have never read that they can't do all the vertical lines (720 and 1080 depending on the native res of the display). Just out of curiosity, where did you read that?

Everything I have ever seen (which I could be wrong) has said basically the following:

The ATSC standard includes 18 DTV broadcast formats, all of which fall under one of two categories: High-Definition Television (HDTV) or Standard-Definition Television (SDTV). In the Fall of 2000, the U.S. Consumer Electronics Association issued more detailed terminology for the various classes of reception and display for digital televisions, and introduced a third category, Enhanced Definition Television, (EDTV), which fits in between SDTV and HDTV.

HDTV encompasses six video formats, including the 1080-line interlaced (1080i) format at either 24, 30 or 60 pictures per second, and the 720-line progressive (720p) format at the same picture rates. All these formats will have a wide-screen, 16:9, aspect ratio.

The SDTV formats encompass 12 different versions of a 480-line signal-some progressive, some interlaced. The aspect ratio for the 480-line signal can be either the wide-screen 16:9 format or the standard width 4:3 format that is like our current analog NTSC television system.
post #26 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by johnsonwax
Ok. I don't want HD. I want plain-jane, boring NTSC video. The shit that my dad sees on his old Magnavox. <curmudgeon>goddamn number and letter hoobajoo</curmudgeon>. If I wanted a copy of West Wing that I'd get off of a standard DVD or TiVo, but in h.264 instead. What kind of file size are we looking at?

You should be able to do 720x480, at about 100KB/sec (streamable over DSL) using H.264. It would look just like what you get now from your cable provide or over the air (non-HD of course). In reality, you could probably do a smaller bitrate, because I think you could do 100KB/sec with 3ivx today, and H.264 is supposed to be better.

Right now, I have a copy of The West Wing, recorded with Xvid (from an HD stream) at a bitrate of 121.4 KB/sec. The resolution is 624x352, and the total file size is 314.9. So using H.264, you could do a lot better.
post #27 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by kupan787
You should be able to do 720x480, at about 100KB/sec (streamable over DSL) using H.264. It would look just like what you get now from your cable provide or over the air (non-HD of course). In reality, you could probably do a smaller bitrate, because I think you could do 100KB/sec with 3ivx today, and H.264 is supposed to be better.

Right now, I have a copy of The West Wing, recorded with Xvid (from an HD stream) at a bitrate of 121.4 KB/sec. The resolution is 624x352, and the total file size is 314.9. So using H.264, you could do a lot better.

Thank you. That's exactly what I needed. BTW, could the whole HD resolution/interlace/progressive thing be any more confusing? I swear, if they don't sort it out, they will never get a huge chunk of the market to buy in. Most people just want to buy a damn TV.

Well, it looks like roughly the same percentage of the market that can utilize the iTMS as it was meant to be could stream broadcast TV over their connection using h.264, or could do a somewhat delayed stream of lower quality HD instead. That's roughly 40% of the US population. That's a huge market should Apple decide to bypass the cable companies.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
post #28 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by johnsonwax
Thank you. That's exactly what I needed. BTW, could the whole HD resolution/interlace/progressive thing be any more confusing? I swear, if they don't sort it out, they will never get a huge chunk of the market to buy in. Most people just want to buy a damn TV.

Well, it looks like roughly the same percentage of the market that can utilize the iTMS as it was meant to be could stream broadcast TV over their connection using h.264, or could do a somewhat delayed stream of lower quality HD instead. That's roughly 40% of the US population. That's a huge market should Apple decide to bypass the cable companies.


Just because I feel like, I'd like to point out some irony.


That 40% of the population you speak of will only be able to utilize streamed video because they have cable!

Remember? That's what provides that high bandwidth connection?


They're not bypassing the cable monoliths just yet.


Getting closer though.
Is anyone else as shocked as I am that this handle wasn't taken?!

Come on, people! iRobot?!
Reply
Is anyone else as shocked as I am that this handle wasn't taken?!

Come on, people! iRobot?!
Reply
post #29 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by iRobot
Just because I feel like, I'd like to point out some irony.


That 40% of the population you speak of will only be able to utilize streamed video because they have cable!

Remember? That's what provides that high bandwidth connection?

They're not bypassing the cable monoliths just yet.
Getting closer though.

Well, they could have DSL... though point taken.

I think the issue is that the cable companies limit access to content - even if the customer is willing to pay for it. I have Cox for cable and suffered through ads related to this: http://espn.go.com/gen/alettertoourfans.html

I didn't have an opinion on the whole ESPN thing, but many people did and the conflict between the cable providers and networks really became apparent. Steve, clearly, is firmly in the camp of the networks.

So, I pay Cox $30/month for basic service and Bravo sees maybe a nickel of that? (I have about 100 channels) The advertisers pay for viewer audience, but get nothing if it's recorded. Since the cable companies want to auto-delete after a certain period, it further erodes the ability of the networks to make money off of their content. But if Bravo got $1 from me so I could hold onto my favorite 'Inside the Actors Studio' with good quality, I'd think that'd be appealing - especially if I don't have to remember 7 months later to buy the season DVD for it.

It bypasses the cable companies in the sense that they offer flat-rate broadband and they have to compete with DLS. They don't get to limit your access or how long your set-top PVR keeps the thing, or what have you. They lose control. Steve digs that.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
post #30 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by johnsonwax
Well, they could have DSL... though point taken.

I think the issue is that the cable companies limit access to content - even if the customer is willing to pay for it. I have Cox for cable and suffered through ads related to this: http://espn.go.com/gen/alettertoourfans.html

I didn't have an opinion on the whole ESPN thing, but many people did and the conflict between the cable providers and networks really became apparent. Steve, clearly, is firmly in the camp of the networks.

So, I pay Cox $30/month for basic service and Bravo sees maybe a nickel of that? (I have about 100 channels) The advertisers pay for viewer audience, but get nothing if it's recorded. Since the cable companies want to auto-delete after a certain period, it further erodes the ability of the networks to make money off of their content. But if Bravo got $1 from me so I could hold onto my favorite 'Inside the Actors Studio' with good quality, I'd think that'd be appealing - especially if I don't have to remember 7 months later to buy the season DVD for it.

It bypasses the cable companies in the sense that they offer flat-rate broadband and they have to compete with DLS. They don't get to limit your access or how long your set-top PVR keeps the thing, or what have you. They lose control. Steve digs that.


Agreed. And all very good points. Sounds totally reasonable to me.
Is anyone else as shocked as I am that this handle wasn't taken?!

Come on, people! iRobot?!
Reply
Is anyone else as shocked as I am that this handle wasn't taken?!

Come on, people! iRobot?!
Reply
post #31 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by johnsonwax
Thank you. That's exactly what I needed. BTW, could the whole HD resolution/interlace/progressive thing be any more confusing? I swear, if they don't sort it out, they will never get a huge chunk of the market to buy in. Most people just want to buy a damn TV.

that's where Apple will come in and p*own
(though not this year, maybe years after... steve needs to fall in love with his tivo first... then set out to destroy tivo)


GO BUILD YOUR BLOODY MEDIA CENTERS ALREADY !!
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=50122
post #32 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by iRobot
[B]That 40% of the population you speak of will only be able to utilize streamed video because they have cable!

What about fiber to home. Coming soon to a home near you. In fact, there is a fiber just a block away from my house that has never been turned on.
horrid misuse of cool technology
SSBA.COM
Reply
horrid misuse of cool technology
SSBA.COM
Reply
post #33 of 33
Quote:
Originally posted by Ebby
What about fiber to home. Coming soon to a home near you. In fact, there is a fiber just a block away from my house that has never been turned on.

Heh, there's fiber less than 60 ft from my parents home. (My home until college, just recently)


Nothing happened there either...
Is anyone else as shocked as I am that this handle wasn't taken?!

Come on, people! iRobot?!
Reply
Is anyone else as shocked as I am that this handle wasn't taken?!

Come on, people! iRobot?!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › How many gigs of Hardrive space would a HDTV feature length movie use?