ciTiger
May 3, 11:09 AM
That's nice from Apple, I personally find the Magic Mouse useless for what I do, it's just a nice toy. And a Trackpad would be more useful just for the Multitouch Gestures in combination with a Real Mouse
My thoughts exactly!
I remember watching the keynote where some top guy from Apple demoed onthe iLife things and he didn't seem to handle the magic mouse that well... Sometimes he had to repeat the gesture 2 or 3 times to get it right...
My thoughts exactly!
I remember watching the keynote where some top guy from Apple demoed onthe iLife things and he didn't seem to handle the magic mouse that well... Sometimes he had to repeat the gesture 2 or 3 times to get it right...
puckhead193
Aug 28, 12:25 PM
if apple wants to stay competivie, they need to release updates tomorrow.. not wait for paris but tomorrow. Plus i can order a new iMac this week and still get my free ipod nano :D
w00master
Nov 14, 12:44 PM
Serious, dude. You seem to be like those people who have their fingers in their ears singing "la, la, la, la, la I can't hear you".
Apple is the copyright holder of those images and they provide the right to use those images in Applications running on macs via the API on a Mac running OS X. Rogue Amoeba was taking those images and distributing them via a WiFi network to another device where they have not licensed the display of those specific icons. This is really no different than if you licensed icons for use in your desktop application and then decided to use it in a few websites or a client server app without clearing it with the licenser first.
Rogue Amoeba could avoided all of those trouble by supplying their own icons. It also appears from the screenshot that they were taking two icons from OS X and superimposing them on each other.
There is one possibility that perhaps not been considered. What if Apple does not own the exclusive copyright to those images and has instead licensed them for a specific use within OS X on a mac and any other use would be a violation of that license?
Sorry, but I disagree. Personally, it seems to me that the extreme fanboys have their fingers in their ears. I completely understand Apple's need to protect their trademarks and copyrights. However, in this case, I do not agree that Rogue Amoeba did ANY of this.
Again, to quote Gruber:
"the Airfoil Speakers Touch iPhone app does not contain any of these images. It contains no pictures of Apple computers. It contains no icons of Apple applications. It displays these images after they are sent across the network by Airfoil for Mac. Airfoil for Mac reads these images using public official Mac OS X APIs. I.e. Airfoil Speakers Touch can only show a picture of the Mac it is connected to because the image is sent from the Mac it is connected to."
To continue on... these apologies and justification has been going on for a LONG time now on. Normally, I side with Apple. However, I'm sick and tired of people calling us "whiners" or continually try to justify "Apple's actions." I love Apple, but imho I am a CONSUMER first before I am a fan. Constantly hurting top tier developers hurts me as a consumer, because it potentially restricts the type of killer apps that can come out of the amazing iPhone platform. All I'm asking is for Apple to ease up a bit. Give these developers room to thrive.
w00master
Apple is the copyright holder of those images and they provide the right to use those images in Applications running on macs via the API on a Mac running OS X. Rogue Amoeba was taking those images and distributing them via a WiFi network to another device where they have not licensed the display of those specific icons. This is really no different than if you licensed icons for use in your desktop application and then decided to use it in a few websites or a client server app without clearing it with the licenser first.
Rogue Amoeba could avoided all of those trouble by supplying their own icons. It also appears from the screenshot that they were taking two icons from OS X and superimposing them on each other.
There is one possibility that perhaps not been considered. What if Apple does not own the exclusive copyright to those images and has instead licensed them for a specific use within OS X on a mac and any other use would be a violation of that license?
Sorry, but I disagree. Personally, it seems to me that the extreme fanboys have their fingers in their ears. I completely understand Apple's need to protect their trademarks and copyrights. However, in this case, I do not agree that Rogue Amoeba did ANY of this.
Again, to quote Gruber:
"the Airfoil Speakers Touch iPhone app does not contain any of these images. It contains no pictures of Apple computers. It contains no icons of Apple applications. It displays these images after they are sent across the network by Airfoil for Mac. Airfoil for Mac reads these images using public official Mac OS X APIs. I.e. Airfoil Speakers Touch can only show a picture of the Mac it is connected to because the image is sent from the Mac it is connected to."
To continue on... these apologies and justification has been going on for a LONG time now on. Normally, I side with Apple. However, I'm sick and tired of people calling us "whiners" or continually try to justify "Apple's actions." I love Apple, but imho I am a CONSUMER first before I am a fan. Constantly hurting top tier developers hurts me as a consumer, because it potentially restricts the type of killer apps that can come out of the amazing iPhone platform. All I'm asking is for Apple to ease up a bit. Give these developers room to thrive.
w00master
dukebound85
Apr 11, 10:31 PM
Well, if we're talking about ideal conditions...
;)
The Shell Opel got close to 400mpg back in the 70s. Now Shell sponsors the Eco Challenge and the top internal combustion car for 2010 was over 6000mpg while the top fuel cell car was over 10,000mpg.
No... those aren't typos.
http://www.sonoma.fr/projects/SECOM_EU/src/iFrame.php?f_compGroup=7vtbzw2hj2&f_DispUnits=mpg&
Well dang, I wouldn't mind paying 3.60 for a years worth of driving for me lol
;)
The Shell Opel got close to 400mpg back in the 70s. Now Shell sponsors the Eco Challenge and the top internal combustion car for 2010 was over 6000mpg while the top fuel cell car was over 10,000mpg.
No... those aren't typos.
http://www.sonoma.fr/projects/SECOM_EU/src/iFrame.php?f_compGroup=7vtbzw2hj2&f_DispUnits=mpg&
Well dang, I wouldn't mind paying 3.60 for a years worth of driving for me lol
dornoforpyros
Sep 14, 07:11 PM
damn you apple! now my purchase is delayed further, ok, this is the last 11 days I swear...yeah I've been saying that for every date for the last month, the 5th, the 12...now the 24th.
ericswyatt
Apr 30, 02:42 PM
I have had my iMac for about 9 months.. looks like it will be going on Craigslist next week!! ;)
:apple::apple::apple::apple::apple:
Hey, where are you located and what are the specs? I might be interested...
:apple::apple::apple::apple::apple:
Hey, where are you located and what are the specs? I might be interested...
zap2
May 3, 05:21 PM
...and we like to hook up our consoles to our monitors... I really hope this deal about the failed Target Mode is some kind of misunderstanding.
Yes, this is a stupid limitation Apple has put into place. I hope with adaptors, you'll be able to hook up mini-displayports, HDMI, DVI, and what not.
But Apple has also been weird about its target display mode...putting it only on the 24'' and 27'' model. Its a neat feature, but I doubt I'd grab a 27'' just for that.
It might convince a few people to to for the 27'', but if the 21.5'' had it, that might convince some Mac Mini owners to go for it.
Yes, this is a stupid limitation Apple has put into place. I hope with adaptors, you'll be able to hook up mini-displayports, HDMI, DVI, and what not.
But Apple has also been weird about its target display mode...putting it only on the 24'' and 27'' model. Its a neat feature, but I doubt I'd grab a 27'' just for that.
It might convince a few people to to for the 27'', but if the 21.5'' had it, that might convince some Mac Mini owners to go for it.
CorvetteZR1
Apr 30, 05:54 PM
Here come the "My iMac's overheating" threads.
hypmatize
Mar 11, 03:56 AM
I think the bottom line is don't download anything that you don't trust like on any other platform and 99% of the time you will be fine. Believe it or not all platforms are pretty safe as long as you use common sense.
Popeye206
Apr 22, 08:51 AM
You never OWNED any of this stuff. You owned the physical media, and you had an unlimited license to you. The technology is just clarifying this.
If you had actually owned it, you could have copied it as much as you wanted-- legally-- and resold the copies to others. You have been capable of doing this, but it was illegal; it also was difficult to enforce the law. Now the technology is actually starting to match your legal rights. It's actually wonderful. You are not losing anything you had legally, but the true owners (the content creators and the people who support them financially) can stop getting ripped off by criminals.
+1 LOL!
Have to laugh... so many people here are upset about nothing. All it says in this rumor is that you would have the option of storing your libraries on-line and access them from multiple points. And if you upload something you already "own" they will take that too. Not just what you've purchased from iTunes.
It's a value added service that I'm sure Apple is looking to do something different with and I'm sure there's more to the story... like that this will be used for Video, books and other media too. The advantages:
love you more than i can say.
I love you more than words can
i love you more than i can say
i love you more than i can say
i love you more than i can say
I love you more than I can say.
i love you more than i can say
love you more than words can
i love you more than i can say
If you had actually owned it, you could have copied it as much as you wanted-- legally-- and resold the copies to others. You have been capable of doing this, but it was illegal; it also was difficult to enforce the law. Now the technology is actually starting to match your legal rights. It's actually wonderful. You are not losing anything you had legally, but the true owners (the content creators and the people who support them financially) can stop getting ripped off by criminals.
+1 LOL!
Have to laugh... so many people here are upset about nothing. All it says in this rumor is that you would have the option of storing your libraries on-line and access them from multiple points. And if you upload something you already "own" they will take that too. Not just what you've purchased from iTunes.
It's a value added service that I'm sure Apple is looking to do something different with and I'm sure there's more to the story... like that this will be used for Video, books and other media too. The advantages:
bearcatrp
Apr 20, 10:10 AM
This is total BS. We should have been informed of this and a way to turn it off or delete the file on our own. As for the poster above who stated it only goes to your computer, I highly doubt it. This is another big brother tracking honest citizens. Hope a class action does happen. I will definitely sign on!
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
QuarterSwede
Sep 15, 06:56 PM
The biggest reason phones suck today is because the interfaces are horrible (SE's being the best of them all). Motorola's phones are nice but their UI's are awful. What I am expecting from Apple is an easy to use phone that looks great and has, nothing less than, an excellent UI. And of course it'll work with iSync ... that's just obvious.
Paulhammer
Sep 14, 08:44 AM
The invitation suggests Aperture, but could it also be an extreme closeup of an isight camera on a black anodized MBP? ;) :cool: :D :eek: :confused:
Young Spade
Apr 23, 09:39 PM
Normally, I would say I could go either way with the optical drive. But lately, I have been having to burn a lot of CD's and DVD's for people. I would be willing to give up the optical drive for a second hard drive in a MBP. I would want a thunderbolt quad core with 4gb ram. I need a min of 750gb in hard drive space.
If the price of SSD was not so high, I would look into an AIR. A 13-inch quad core air with 4gb ram would be sweet. I just priced out what I would need in an AIR (but drive still too small) and it comes to the price of just getting a MBP.
If I had the money for that I would have jumped on that the second it came out. I seriously thought about getting the MBA a month ago but didn't have the funds for it at that time. I could have waited until this summer but I found a good deal on a blackbook and ended up getting that.
In the future I'll definitely see how they hold up compared to other computers.
If the price of SSD was not so high, I would look into an AIR. A 13-inch quad core air with 4gb ram would be sweet. I just priced out what I would need in an AIR (but drive still too small) and it comes to the price of just getting a MBP.
If I had the money for that I would have jumped on that the second it came out. I seriously thought about getting the MBA a month ago but didn't have the funds for it at that time. I could have waited until this summer but I found a good deal on a blackbook and ended up getting that.
In the future I'll definitely see how they hold up compared to other computers.
Atlasland
Sep 10, 04:50 AM
So where would this go? Into the fabled Pro minitower? There's nowhere else.
manu chao
Apr 11, 07:34 AM
Airfoil still needs the Airfoil installed on your computer to work, it won't run with just the iOS apps. I think pika2000 is asking about iOS apps that emulate an airport express, so that you could send the same audio to every device in your house.
Well, you CAN send the same audio to every device in your house, as long as the audio originates on your Mac (which includes simply plugging in any iOS device or iPod into your Mac).
Well, you CAN send the same audio to every device in your house, as long as the audio originates on your Mac (which includes simply plugging in any iOS device or iPod into your Mac).
MattInOz
Sep 5, 05:48 PM
i know, but in that case apple has to port front row to windows. Or they have to implement front row into itunes or something like that, so that it will work exactly the same way on windows as on mac. as long as they have itunes installed. but that way, all media files (movie store movies, avi, divx, video_ts folders and even photo's) should be stored inside itunes.
Given all the magic that makes Front Row possible is quartz and quartz is just an Apple specific layer to the OpenGL language, which can run purely on the the GPU, then really Airport A/V is just an upgrade that includes a GPU.
The ARM cpu of the current Airport could do what is does now, plus the minor extra work of handling the remote control.
That gives you the same expirence with the Airport connecting to either a Mac or Windows on the network.
Given all the magic that makes Front Row possible is quartz and quartz is just an Apple specific layer to the OpenGL language, which can run purely on the the GPU, then really Airport A/V is just an upgrade that includes a GPU.
The ARM cpu of the current Airport could do what is does now, plus the minor extra work of handling the remote control.
That gives you the same expirence with the Airport connecting to either a Mac or Windows on the network.
doctoree
Nov 13, 01:04 PM
Lets see how long they will stay away. There are buckets of DOLLARS waiting to be made in the App Store.
sam10685
Sep 10, 09:14 AM
Wonder how the 24" iMac at 2.33GHz will fare.
i don't know-- but i have a feeling it'll be really fast and a good seller. i'd go to the Apple Store down town and look at the 20" iMac and think "goodness... any bigger and it wouldn't fit on the table." now, for the same price as a 30'' ACD, you get a monitor that is just a little smaller than the 30" PLUS you get a really really good computer. if Apple does't sell a large ammount of these than something is wrong.
i don't know-- but i have a feeling it'll be really fast and a good seller. i'd go to the Apple Store down town and look at the 20" iMac and think "goodness... any bigger and it wouldn't fit on the table." now, for the same price as a 30'' ACD, you get a monitor that is just a little smaller than the 30" PLUS you get a really really good computer. if Apple does't sell a large ammount of these than something is wrong.
splintah
Oct 28, 05:38 AM
i just signed up and I also send an email to steve
i dont understand how someone doesnt support that
you dont even have to pay anything
and enviromental protection is a good thing in hopefully everybodys opinion
i dont understand how someone doesnt support that
you dont even have to pay anything
and enviromental protection is a good thing in hopefully everybodys opinion
monaarts
Apr 4, 11:58 AM
Seems unfair to kill someone for robbery. Yes they're breaking the law, but only deserve a prison sentence. Do you really really think someone should be shot and killed for attempting to steal a few laptops and smash a few windows? If you do then man you have issues.
I don't think the "deserve" to be shot but if they get shot and killed while doing it, they should have known better. What if someone broke into your house and mentally harmed your family? They only deserve to be locked up for a couple of months, right?
- Joe
I don't think the "deserve" to be shot but if they get shot and killed while doing it, they should have known better. What if someone broke into your house and mentally harmed your family? They only deserve to be locked up for a couple of months, right?
- Joe
gugy
Sep 19, 03:39 PM
From what I've heard, the quality is pretty close to DVD. Have you compared the two? What is your complaint about quality?
First of all I am not complaining. So don't jump to conclusions.
I am stating the obvious. DVD frame size is better than 640x480 frame size.
I acknowledge that the itunes movies are probably good. I just saying that I rather have the DVD frame size and quality. Plus I can have a physical DVD for back up with bonus, extras etc. It's just a preference.
First of all I am not complaining. So don't jump to conclusions.
I am stating the obvious. DVD frame size is better than 640x480 frame size.
I acknowledge that the itunes movies are probably good. I just saying that I rather have the DVD frame size and quality. Plus I can have a physical DVD for back up with bonus, extras etc. It's just a preference.
zer0sum
Mar 21, 11:20 PM
False. Read post #95 and post #59.
Not false read #104 :D
Not false read #104 :D