|
2010-11-24
, 14:22
|
|
Posts: 3,524 |
Thanked: 2,958 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Delta Quadrant
|
#1282
|
|
2010-11-24
, 14:27
|
|
Posts: 3,524 |
Thanked: 2,958 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Delta Quadrant
|
#1283
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Capt'n Corrupt For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-11-24
, 14:34
|
|
Posts: 3,524 |
Thanked: 2,958 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Delta Quadrant
|
#1284
|
|
2010-11-24
, 14:48
|
Posts: 968 |
Thanked: 974 times |
Joined on Nov 2008
@ Ohio
|
#1285
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08iBWAgjEvk
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to lemmyslender For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-11-24
, 15:03
|
|
Posts: 3,524 |
Thanked: 2,958 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Delta Quadrant
|
#1286
|
Watching this review, I saw something I hadn't noticed before. Speaker placement. It appears that the stereo speakers are both on the same short side.
Won't this somewhat affect watching media? For most uses, the speaker location wouldn't matter. But for videos, wouldn't you primarily be watching in landscape? You won't get real stereo sound with both speakers on one side. Even listening to music would likely sound better with a larger separation of speakers. Seems like that is a big use case oversight? I would guess if you want to watch a movie, earphones are in order. Otherwise, it'll be just like having mono output, and potentially distracting.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Capt'n Corrupt For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-11-24
, 15:13
|
|
Posts: 3,524 |
Thanked: 2,958 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Delta Quadrant
|
#1287
|
The High-Speed part of the specification is not mandatory, and hence only devices sporting the "+HS" will actually support the Bluetooth over Wifi high-speed data transfer. A Bluetooth 3.0 device without the HS suffix will not support High Speed, and needs to only support Unicast Connectionless Data (UCD), as shown in the Bluetooth 3.0+HS specification, Vol0, section 4.1 Specification Naming Conventions.
|
2010-11-24
, 16:18
|
Posts: 968 |
Thanked: 974 times |
Joined on Nov 2008
@ Ohio
|
#1288
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lemmyslender For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-11-24
, 16:30
|
|
Posts: 2,142 |
Thanked: 2,054 times |
Joined on Dec 2006
@ Sicily
|
#1289
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to debernardis For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-11-24
, 17:19
|
Posts: 25 |
Thanked: 24 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
|
#1290
|
I just found out that the reason Skyfire 3.0 loads pages so rapidly is that it uses the Opera mini method of server resource-consolidation prior to transfer. In other words, far fewer files are transferred from the server and so the page loads much faster.
http://pocketnow.com/software-1/new-...cks-more-proof
I'm on the fence about this. If it does indeed lower bandwidth, and increases speed, and above all works well, then why not use this feature for public data. Of course, ssl encrypted data would be out of the question for this method of optimization.
I think I'd stick with the stock browser IFF it improved scrolling with flash objects and improved general performance. Other than that, I'd be willing to give Opera Mobile and Skyfire 3.0 a go, as they seem to offer quite a solid user experience.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AndyG For This Useful Post: | ||
Tags |
android envy, buzz..buzz buzz, core failure, crapdroid, galaxy fap, galaxy tab, ipad killer, samsung, tab trolls, tablet envy |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4znvD-7VDA
I've not watched it, but it seems that it will be exciting!
Google should take it's own advice and update the stock browser