ksjenkins
08-11-2003, 04:37 PM
Has anyone noticed over the last couple of months big Computing sources can't seem to get the specs right? Here is one that jumped out at me:
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,111642,00.asp
The last page quotes 320x320 screen on the NZ-90!:p
This article was posted last week and no mention of the NX80 / 73, these guy's are way behind.
I've noticed many different spec's for the UX's screen 420x320 while others report 450x320, or 320x320 etc... For most of these outfits it would seem that they are at least familiar with this little corner of the computing world, and wouldn't make these simple mistakes.
For someone who does a lot of research online, I would be confused and could be eliminating many options because of falsely reported info.
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,111642,00.asp
The last page quotes 320x320 screen on the NZ-90!:p
This article was posted last week and no mention of the NX80 / 73, these guy's are way behind.
I've noticed many different spec's for the UX's screen 420x320 while others report 450x320, or 320x320 etc... For most of these outfits it would seem that they are at least familiar with this little corner of the computing world, and wouldn't make these simple mistakes.
For someone who does a lot of research online, I would be confused and could be eliminating many options because of falsely reported info.