backtop

Print 47 comment(s) - last by Hare.. on Aug 26 at 5:39 PM
Gaming on a Mac becomes even more interesting

Parallels announced this week that it is working on a new version of Parallels Desktop for Macs that will allow the virtualized guest operating system to use 3D acceleration hardware in real time. The company said that while it's not available yet, it plans to introduce 3D acceleration so that those who want to run 3D applications in a virtualized Windows XP do not have to dual boot their Intel-Macs to do so. Best of all, Parallels said that 3D acceleration will be "fast."

Spokesperson for Parallels Ben Rudolph said that his company is doing very well with virtualization for the Mac platform, and that 3D acceleration is definitely in the pipeline. Rudolph also talked a bit about VMware's recent announcement on developing virtualization for the Mac platform as well. "“While we’re glad that VMWare is endorsing the Apple market and foresaw their entry as part of their focus on enterprise-class software and building products for highly technical users like software developers and testers, we believe that Desktop’s unmatched ease of use, consumer-focused feature set, as well as our strong backing from Apple and great retail presence in the Apple Stores, Staples, Office Depot and more, will keep us the number one choice for Apple users who want to run Windows on their Macs," Rudolph said.

This week Parallels also introduced a new beta upgrade for its Parallels Desktop for Mac. The update introduces various fixes and new features and improvements including better USB 2.0 support and improved sound. One of the most noticeable improvements was video acceleration performance, which has significantly improved over the previous version. Movies and videos now play quite smoothly. Some of the new improvements include:
  • Video output improvement and acceleration
  • Added multi interfaces USB devices support (including Windows Mobile 2005 devices)
  • Added isochronous USB devices support (including WebCam devices)
  • Minor USB fixes
  • Keyboard support improvement: Eject CD key support, left/right Shift/Ctrl/Alt (Option)/Windows keys difference support
  • Added virtual disk cache policy option: Mac OS X performance optimized or guest OS performance optimized
  • Image Tool fixes
  • Optimized disk cache policy for Suspend/Resume feature
  • Windows ME Suspend/Resume fix
  • Shared Folders first time access acceleration
  • Clipboard synchronization tool fixes (unreadable symbols sometimes added during copy and paste)
  • Sound playback improvement
  • Sound recording improvement
  • Minor Full Screen mode fixes
  • “Unable to allocate virtual memory” during virtual machine power on fix
  • Minor GUI fixes and improvements
  • Solaris doesn’t work with more than one virtual disk fix
Users who want to try out the new update can check it out here.

Although the new 3D acceleration feature for Parallels Desktop for Mac sounds exciting, DailyTech reported earlier this week that TransGaming will be introducing a product called Cider that will allow Intel-Mac users to play Windows-based games all without the need for emulation or virtualization or anything of that nature. TransGaming claims that Cider will be exceptionally fast and also support 3D acceleration. Cider works by translating API calls that a game makes into something that works in OS X. The company hopes to have Cider available soon.

At its annual World Wide Developers Conference this week, Apple made no mention of virtualization support in its next big release of OS X -- codenamed Leopard. However, Apple indicated that Boot Camp will come out of beta. Despite having mentioned that it will not be introducing its own virtualization into OS X, many think that virtualization is one of the "top secret" features that Apple said it needed to keep under wraps until later.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
why?
By InuYasha on 8/9/2006 3:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
are there any popular apps that run only on OS X? I still dont find the reason to use it now we can get XP on Macs.




RE: why?
By slashbinslashbash on 8/9/2006 3:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand, iCal, Mail.app, Final Cut Pro.... not to mention the benefits of OS X such as Exposé, Spotlight, built-in PDF handling, an aesthetically pleasing interface, built-in UNIX shell/daemons/Apache/etc....


RE: why?
By retrospooty on 8/10/2006 11:01:00 AM , Rating: 2
What compelling things to these apps do that you cant do on a PC? Just curious.


By hmurchison on 8/10/2006 2:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
OS X offers applications that are powerful but also fun to use because care was put into the UI. That doesn't appeal to some folks and Mac users are fine with that. Everyone has their something but it is nice to have support for both OS because some apps fall between the cracks.



By retrospooty on 8/10/2006 8:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
"applications that are powerful but also fun to use because care was put into the UI"

That sounds nice, but it really doesnt explain anything. I have used OSX (although not any of those apps) and I wasnt at all impressed with the UI, or the speed. It's just OK to me. Not really better or worse than Windows XP.


By JeffDM on 8/12/2006 6:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
I think OS X is a lot less of problem to maintain. There's no registry to muck up and most of the time, uninstalling means just deleting the app. The user interface is generally a lot more consistent. All the included apps are designed to work well with each other. The security model is considerably better, I think, because you don't have to be running administrator or power user to run programs. Given that administration features are locked away behind an administration password, there's a lot less risk to letting someone use your computer. It's trivial to boot from an external drive, and you don't have to modify the bootloader to do so, which is nice for occasional system maintainance, I used it for when I upgraded hard drives.

The main reason I like OS X is because of Quicksilver, which is a third party program. Any address book entry, any bookmarked web site and any program is available at the press of a few keys, and you don't have to set up hot keys for every one, it automatically learns from what you type.


RE: why?
By icarus4586 on 8/9/2006 4:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
As odd as it might initially sound, OS X is becoming the operating system of choice for many computing professionals. There are all kinds of things that you can do in a Unix-like OS that you can't do in Windows. OS X supports far more proprietary programs than other Unices while still providing the Unix and GNU tools that many rely on. Not to mention the fact that it's pretty and (arguably) easier to use than the competition.

As a personal anecdote, I'm a Computer Engineering major. My university has a large art school in addition to a large engineering school. I found myself using Macs because there were lots of them around, and I found myself loving OS X. Earlier this year I bought an Intel Mac Mini. In my opinion, Apple's got a winning strategy.


RE: why?
By pdude on 8/9/06, Rating: -1
RE: why?
By kelmon on 8/10/2006 8:21:36 AM , Rating: 2
Oddly, our closed computers run on the same components found in non-closed computers and therefore we like to know what's coming just as much as anyone else. I've been following Core Duo and Core 2 Duo like a hawk ever since Apple announced the switch to Intel so I visit sites like this to check on the release schedules and benchmarks when they're available.

I guess we're probably interested in computing in general so it makes sense to track trends and, sometime, comment on topics like these when the inevitable FUD appears.


RE: why?
By The Boston Dangler on 8/10/2006 7:44:35 PM , Rating: 2
If so, that statement is very wrong. Apple continues to use proprietary systems. The Anandtech preview of the Mac Pro did not confirm 3rd party FB-DDR2, hard drives, or optical drives would work with the system. As always, audio and video subsystems are totally Mac version only. Not only that, but weaker for the same price or more.

Now that i think about it, "weaker for the same price or more" kinda describes all Apple products for the past 20+ years. Ooops.


RE: why?
By plinden on 8/11/2006 12:13:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Anandtech preview of the Mac Pro did not confirm 3rd party FB-DDR2, hard drives, or optical drives would work with the system.

AnandTech couldn't confirm that since they didn't have one to work with. However, third party RAM modules already exist, e.g. from OWC for about $500, and arstechnica installed two Maxtor hard drives for their review.


RE: why?
By sxr7171 on 8/12/2006 4:45:36 PM , Rating: 2
Not another Carnegie kid....


RE: why?
By Shadowself on 8/9/2006 4:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
Depends upon how you define "popular". With less than 5% of the worldwide market (and even by a Mac fanatic's standards less than 10% of the users in the world use Macs) I would suppose that even if 100% of those Mac users had installed and daily use a certain Mac only application there would be people such as yourself which would state that it is not a "popular" app. How could really it be "popular" application with less than 5% of the market (or 10% of computer users) using it?

The more interesting question is, "Are there any truly compelling applications which are Mac only?"


RE: why?
By Phynaz on 8/9/2006 4:36:40 PM , Rating: 1
How about popular in a vertical market?

Graphics arts (think advertising, communications) is close to 100% Mac.


RE: why?
By Ralph The Magician on 8/9/2006 10:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yeap. If I had to venture a guess, I'd probably say that 85% of all media is created and editing on Macs.

With 19m Mac OS X users now, and with every other Apple customer last quarter being new to the Mac, their market share is going to be pretty impressive by year's end. I'd go as far to say that by the end of the year, Apple will have the highest market share they have ever had.


RE: why?
By tuteja1986 on 8/9/2006 11:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
"I'd probably say that 85% of all media is created and editing on Macs. "

I find that very hard to believe , Example Starwars 3 which is 100% per-render on AMD 64bit WIndows PC. http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2005/05/24/amd_lucas_...

Most Video editing users just have the mentality they have to use a Mac if they want to do video editing when you really aren't getting any real benefit then buying over priced Mac machine which are now just like normal PC machine but with MAC OSX.


RE: why?
By rklaver on 8/10/2006 12:10:12 AM , Rating: 2
Most Video editing users just have the mentality they have to use a Mac if they want to do video editing

Are you speaking of this from experience or did you make this up on your own? The fact of the matter is most PC video editing apps under $1,500 is crap and do not come close to operating like a true pro product. The only exception is Avid Xpress Pro, and don't give me that "what about Premiere and Vegas video BS...it's crap too, and if you add these to your website or resume you'll be the laughing stock.

The purpose for a video person getting a Mac is for Final Cut Pro, and shake and maybe motion, and the fact that 9.8 times out of 10 their camera or deck will have little problems interfacing with the Mac or FCP. On top of that deadlines are usually down to the wire, and the last thing an editor need to deal with are driver issues, chipset compatibility issues, or weather the firewire card needs to be seated in slot 2 or slot 5 so it doesn't compete with the capture card.

Star Wars 3... your one of those people that turned your bike into a land speeder, aren't you? For one thing Star Wars was probably created on and SGI and RENDERED on the AMD's. But if I'm wrong well then the statemnet that was made was for 85% so I guess ILM is the 15% that didn't use a Mac :-)


RE: why?
By Garreye on 8/10/2006 1:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
I've edited on both Final Cut Pro and Adobe Premiere/After Effects, I don't see how you think Premiere is crap, I'd prefer it anyday and I know lots of people who would as well, especially 2.0. I don't see how you'd be a "laughing stock" for having knowledge of more software on your resume either, of course I could see if you had premiere it might not be very good.

Also worth noting Superman Returns was edited with Premiere.


RE: why?
By Garreye on 8/10/2006 1:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
should be: of course I could see if you had onlypremiere it might not be very good.


RE: why?
By rklaver on 8/11/2006 12:31:02 AM , Rating: 2
yeah laughing stock was probably a bit harsh, and your last statement is true.


That's Premiere Pro
By hmurchison on 8/10/2006 2:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
The old Premiere was a different codebase and really did suck. The newer Premier Pro is a capable NLE and you can do excellent things with it. Vegas from Sony isn't half bad as well.



Nope
By hmurchison on 8/10/2006 2:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
Most video editors believe they have to use an Avid running on a PC. Apple has made great strides into turning the Mac into a capable video production platform but PCs and Avid still dominate.

I take offense to your over prices assumption. The new Mac Pro is as affordable as any comperable Workstation out there. The whole "macs are over priced" mantra gets tired when people say it without actually looking at the current pricing.



RE: Nope
By rklaver on 8/11/2006 12:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you for the most part. Aside from the hard core Avid fanboy editors, most editors get stuck with an Avid on the PC due to market saturation, plus I think Avid lost a lot of interest in the Apple platform when FCP came out, because the Avid PC offerings are much better.

But most people have never seen pricing for and Avid or Autodesk NLE. Haven't seen quotes in a few years but Smoke on Linux ran for $50,000 while Smoke on SGI went for $95,000+. Avid DS Nitris will probably run you $100K. So to do HD editing... $3,300 for a high end Mac, $1,000 for FCP, and another say $2,000 for a real-time effects/SDI capture card, another 2,000 for the full Adobe Production Suite (for After Effects, Photoshop and Illustrator)So for roughly $8K you can get something that comes real close to a high end box. Not so over priced anymore is it?


RE: why?
By tuteja1986 on 8/9/2006 11:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
Woo , been a mac/pc user for years and once never thought it had something that could totally own a pc ;( Mac suffers from 3rd party developers support. Alot of awesome software 3rd party software i use on pc aren't avaliabe on mac.


RE: why?
By Chillin1248 on 8/10/2006 3:28:20 AM , Rating: 3
What nearly killed me once was looking at a Mac.

My buddy has a Mac and I was over at his house one day editing a video, I noticed a lot of stuff at the bottom of the screen and I asked is that the GUI links. He said no, those were all running programs... I nearly had a heart attack. If Windows was running all those simaltaneously god knows if it would ever reboot again.


RE: why?
By kelmon on 8/10/2006 8:35:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The more interesting question is, "Are there any truly compelling applications which are Mac only?"


As far as I am concerned, the iLife suite by itself is worth the price of Mac by itself (not including iWeb which needs work). A couple of weekends back I produced a DVD of a friend's wedding using iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie HD and iDVD - it was an absolute joy with everything integrating together beautifully.

After this my favourites are ones like Adium, Delicious Library, Ecto, Growl, Office:mac 2004, OmniGraffle Pro, OmniOutliner Pro, Poisoned, Quicksilver, SQLGrinder, Transmit and VoodooPad.

As far as pro applications are concerned, I think the video editing discussion covers that one but it's not something that I've gotten into yet - iLife is fine for the moment. Aperture is a possibility if my photography warrants it but not yet.


RE: why?
By plinden on 8/10/2006 3:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
Even if no other reason, a good response to "why?" is that it is dangerous for the computer "eco-system" to be dominated by a single OS. Witness the virus outbreaks of the past few years - if the installed base was e.g. 50% Windows, 25% OS X and 25% other *nix, we could all rest a little easier knowing that malware outbreaks could be more easily contained.

Crossplatform file format compatibility is no longer an issue, and most major applications either run in OS X or Linux or have an equivalent in OS X or Linux (there are a few niche products that require Windows) so unless there is a compelling reason to run Windows (e.g. if you need AutoCAD), I think the question is "why run Windows?"


Mac vs. PC
By bldckstark on 8/10/2006 1:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, will someone please tell me. I can't afford to buy a bunch of $3K Macs. I can build a reasonably comparable PC for half that. How do I get PC performance and PC price in a Mac? I would really like to know. I would like to have my kids and wife on Macs but I can't afford it. I have 5 PC's with about $3-4K in them and they all run games and the like with 2XXX+ AMD 64 cpu's, 600 series GPU's, and .5 to 1 GB memory. I have a friend with an older Mac and he puts out a Christmas DVD each year (sorry I'm not familiar with the program names) that puts mine to shame, and I'm the one who showed him how to do everything. The amount of time he spends in front of the computer to do this is much less than mine. It takes longer to render (25-50%) but he doesn't have to be there for hours doing the editing.
I guess what I am saying is this. If MS is stealing every idea Jobs ever had, why is Mac software still so much better? Where is the PC software equivalent of the Mac creativity suites?




RE: Mac vs. PC
By Phynaz on 8/10/2006 1:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
Mac Pro isn't meant for you.

Look at the other models that are in your price range.


RE: Mac vs. PC
By plinden on 8/10/2006 2:30:10 PM , Rating: 2
The iMac is the closest to what you want. A 17" iMac is $1300, and despite being out for six months, is still roughly the same price of a smaller form factor PC e.g. the Dell XPS200, when it's configured to roughly the same specs (Dells start at lower price/spec point but quickly get more expensive as you add stuff, while Apple doesn't let you downgrade, i.e. you're stuck with Bluetooth even if you think you won't need it). And yes, I know, it's still more expensive than the XPS200, but not by much. But then, if smaller form factor is not important, you have to compare with less expensive PCs.

The iMac has the disadvantage of not being upgradeable apart from RAM ... which is a big minus for those who read sites like AnandTech. I put off getting a Mac for a couple of years because I didn't need a PowerMac and wanted upgradeability, but eventually I realised that I wasn't using my PC for games any more, and the only upgrades I had made to it in two years was extra memory and a wireless card. The Intel iMac had everything I needed for the next couple of years, so I took the plunge, and I don't regret it. I really am more productive on it, and since I no longer play games, I don't miss that aspect.

However, if games are important to you and your family, I would suggest you not buy only Macs. Keep one or two PCs around for the kids.

And if I were in the market for a Mac now, I would wait. Macs have always been upgraded on a roughly six month schedule so I would expect an upgrade in the next few weeks.


RE: Mac vs. PC
By hmurchison on 8/10/2006 2:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
Mac mini for the wife and kids.

Beefy tower for you.


RE: Mac vs. PC
By The Boston Dangler on 8/10/2006 8:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
"How do I get PC performance and PC price in a Mac?"

You build a system based on the latest Intel hardware.

"I would like to have my kids and wife on Macs but I can't afford it."

The Mac Mini is the most affordable choice, but they are excruciatingly weak computers, even by Apple standards. And once you get done loading up on options, you could have had a real computer for the same price.

"I have a friend with an older Mac and he puts out a Christmas DVD each year (sorry I'm not familiar with the program names) that puts mine to shame"

This is part of another Apple myth. Adobe makes/aquires some of the best tools out there. For years, they optimized the code to suit Apples. Photoshop, et cetera, does quite well on Macs, up to OS9. With OSX, Apple released Final Cut Pro, biting the hand that fed it. So, Adobe now optimizes for WinXP. Purchasing a PC and the Photoshop/Premiere bundle is still cheaper than a Mac.

"If MS is stealing every idea Jobs ever had"

Jobs is all about marketing, not tech development. That, and he is every bit the thief Gates or anyone else is.

"Where is the PC software equivalent of the Mac creativity suites?"

They're all over the place, because they aren't sold by a single company, like Apple does. I suggest looking harder.


RE: Mac vs. PC
By rklaver on 8/11/2006 1:07:39 AM , Rating: 2
excruciatingly weak computers

I wouldn't go that far, they are about as fast a decent laptop, which runs most software pretty good, including video apps. Encoding my take a bit longer.

Purchasing a PC and the Photoshop/Premiere bundle is still cheaper than a Mac.

ummm...no. Adobe's Premiere suite will run you $2,000. iLife will set you back a whole $79 or $99 for the family pack and the learning curve would be a lot smaller than the Adobe suite.

"Where is the PC software equivalent of the Mac creativity suites?"
They're all over the place, because they aren't sold by a single company, like Apple does. I suggest looking harder.

That's the catch, you get it all with iLife and you don't have to figure out and hunt for all the tools you need, with far less possible compatibiliy issues.


RE: Mac vs. PC
By The Boston Dangler on 8/11/2006 7:39:44 PM , Rating: 2
Adobe sells the Photoshop/Premiere Essentials bundle for about $100. As you said, the learning curve is probably easier on iLife.


RE: Mac vs. PC
By rklaver on 8/11/2006 7:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
Ah... The Elements packages...forgot about that those.


douches
By goku on 8/13/2006 12:22:27 AM , Rating: 1
Well if this software works as well as it's suppose to, then why in the FUCK aren't these worthless douchebags not making this software for linux? If this software was completely or nearly completely flawless, allowing me to play games in linux, emulating XP, I'd switch to linux and wouldn't look back.




RE: douches
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/14/2006 2:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
Because it isnt, its just better than dual booting. Anyone expecting to game on MAC hardware, with performance that rivals any normal PC needs to be taken out back and shot. But for anything besides gaming, this software will eliminate the annoyance of having to reboot the machine in Windows and then reboot again to get back to OSX. Which is really their goal here, and for that goal this software should work wonderfully. But gaming while it might be decent on a self built Linux system, The MAC is a closed environment so they dont need to think about supporting lots of different builds/distros/hardware. For gaming it will still royally suck, thats just never been MAC's strongpoint.


RE: douches
By Tyler 86 on 8/15/2006 10:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
If only they realized how large the gaming population was, and how easy it was to target them with such a product, or even a promise...
Well, TransGaming - http://www.transgaming.com/ - take a look.

I'd rather be taken out beind the chemical shed and shot than to give up even a glimpse of hope at playing next generation games on a fantastic dual Woodcrest sporting Mac Pro... :P

I don't think I'll spend the money on one directly... but I won't think twice to buy a used one.


RE: douches
By Hare on 8/26/2006 5:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone expecting to game on MAC hardware, with performance that rivals any normal PC needs to be taken out back and shot.
Exactly. Because Core Duo in a mac is totally different than Core Duo in a PC. Same thing with 7900GTX, put it inside a mac and you it will magically drop the clockrate by 50% ;)

You do know that the pcs and macs use identical Cpus and Gpus? The performance is identical if you boot to windows. With virtualization the performance should be adequate but not "great".


I wouldn't mind this for Windows
By ChronoReverse on 8/9/2006 8:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
It'd be nice to be able to run a virtual machine with 3D acceleration. Running Vista in a VM is rather a nightmare.




RE: I wouldn't mind this for Windows
By stmok on 8/9/2006 9:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
I've tried both the Linux and Windows versions of Parallels, and its pretty darn good. (not quite as mature as VMware, but very good on the performance side).

Although this announcement is for Mac users, I would definitely be interested if they began throwing 3D Acceleration on the Linux and Windows versions!


By ChronoReverse on 8/10/2006 11:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
I followed up this afterwards and found out that VMware workstation 5 actually has an experimental 3D acceleration mode. But it doesn't support advanced features like shaders. When I get a chance I'll have to try it out with Vista.


for linux
By Visual on 8/10/2006 12:21:04 AM , Rating: 2
i want this virtual machine software for linux too - shouldn't be too hard to port




RE: for linux
By plinden on 8/10/2006 12:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
It is available for Linux and Windows, for $50 - http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/

I've tried it out on my work-provided Dell D810 (not dual core, no hardware virtualization) and it's comparable in performance to VMWare, i.e. about 1/4 the CPU speed - like a 800MHz P4 on a 2.26GHz Pentium-M.

Parallels flies (roughly equivalent to a 1.6GHz Pentium-M) on my 1.83GHz Core Duo iMac so it shows the advantages of the dual core and the built in virtualization.

I haven't had a chance to try out VMWare or Parallels on a Core Duo - I could, I suppose, run Boot Camp on my iMac and install XP, Parallels, then XP in a Parallels VM ... but I can't be bothered.

The advantage of Parallels on Linux and Windows, over VMWare, is that if you don't have access to VMWare VMs, you can set up your own VMs for much less than with VMWare's Workstation.

But if, as in my case, your employer has a set of VMWare VMs available, you can use VMPlayer for free. Although I think Parallels is a great product, if and when VMWare releases VMPlayer for the Mac, I'll switch to it to get the VMs from work.

Anyway, to address the topic of the original article - I don't think any of we Mac users should get too excited by this. I seriously doubt that we'll be able to play the most up to date games even with better 3D acceleration. It'll be better, but still not near native GPU framerates.



RE: for linux
By Visual on 8/14/2006 2:40:15 AM , Rating: 2
um, dude, parallels workstation doesn't have 3d acceleration, not even plans for it. so, no, its not available on linux.


By Scott66 on 8/10/2006 2:05:58 AM , Rating: 2
I have been frustrated about how much of the media has reported how underwhelmed they were with the featureset of Leapord. This is the only article which reported that Jobs, in his keynote, stated there are features being kept under wraps and will be revealed later.

I just wished the media would also have held off on the wonders of Vista until the feature-frozen version was finalized. Microsoft wouldn't have dissappointed so many with its unfulfilled promises.




Village Idiots
By hmurchison on 8/10/2006 2:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
Jobs clearly stated there are "Top Secret" features coming.

The problem with the media is that they only know the surface stuff. When Quartz Compositing came to OS X they didn't have a clue what that mean.

When Core Data (SQLite based API) came they didn't have a clue what that meant for applications

Core Animation comes and they yawn and say "why would I want to flip pictures around"?

I've given up reading mainstream eRags because they can't see the forest through the trees.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki