Zune HD – Thank goodness for Google’s cached pages

Everybody’s buzzing about the leaked Zune HD artwork that engadget got the scoop on, and are speculating (both directly and indirectly) as to what may be in it, but few are actually pointing out the original source, a now-removed page of a designer who has quite the history of brilliant art. So what’s a guy like me to do when I need to see the proof myself – without the engadget logo? Simple, do a Google search…

As I just mentioned, the page has been pulled, but the images haven’t, as you will see if you look at the cached page. All of the images are displayed on that specific cache, except for the most famous image (strangely, but being image #7 it wasn’t hard to figure out this direct link). Otherwise, here are the original images that I’ve downloaded: (And as a disclaimer: these images are the property of their respected owners and do not apply to my blog’s CC license.)

But really, the cache data (and the direct link to the images) show that they were uploaded in March and were available for quite some time before someone caught on to it…

Oh, and there is mention that the screen is 1.85:1, versus the typical “wide screen” format of 16:9, where people have counted the pixels (I’ve done it myself) to determine the ratio. The differences between the 2 ratios are pretty small to the untrained eye, but trust me: counting pixels on such a small image can yield pretty erratic results, and the likelihood that the artwork has photoshopped the screen image means a decrease in accuracy. Personally, I’d prefer 16:9 over 1.85:1 for the sake of watching HDTV on it. And using the argument that it’d be designed to watch movies (especially ones downloaded from Netflix) with it’s 1.85:1 ratio screen is a bit moot, since modern movies typically use a ratio of 2.35:1. No matter which ratio, some content will always have bars, whether it’s letterboxed or pillerboxed…

Windows 7 is rumored to be delayed, but is it?

04-13-2009 UPDATE: I should articulate that I’ve seen rumors from more reliable sources (e.g. sites that don’t stand to gain anything by producing negative remarks) that there’s a possible release date of May 9th for the RC. While I still believe that an April release is possible, I can understand why MS might hold off until May… and technically, since they’ve never committed to a date, it wouldn’t be delayed if it’s released in May.

The “Windows 7 Team” blog posted an article discussing upgrading to the RC build, which they’re specifically asking testers to upgrade from Vista—which, for those of us who are running the beta full-time, means that we’ll have to reinstall Vista to comply with their wishes. While it can be annoying and time consuming, I have no problem participating in something that I’m sure will make the final product easier for less-technical (and experienced) users… it’s the sort of thing that eventually does come back to make my life a bit easier when I’m doing quasi-tech support.

But what I really wanted to point out is that this post of theirs, regarding upgrading, would seem a bit early to begin discussing the RC build when the latest rumors* have it that the RC build will be released some time in May. Really, isn’t it a bit strange that they’d start taking about upgrading this early in April, when the first round of rumors suggested the RC would be released around April 10th?

Now I’m not suggesting or betting that we’ll see MS announce the RC this week, but I’ve got to believe that such an announcement will be coming before month’s end, primarily because the tech community has a short memory span…

Who knows, maybe I’m completely off my rocker. (And yes, this is my official disclaimer.)

 

* Most of those rumors, from what I can gather, originate from non-PC news sources – the type that would get great pleasure out of seeing anything Microsoft-related get delayed.