Not yet, anyway. I can always dream, as I've proven by patiently waiting over 10 years for more than 15 categories and multiple categories per item. . . .
Bluetooth 2.0 is really pretty nice - my daughter's phone has it and the audio quality is better, in addition to the technical spec improvement. Cheers, Don p.s. I fixed your bottom posting!! p.p.s. I prefer top posting. p.p.p.s. That's because when I'm reading email on my Treo, finding bottom posts amongs all the >'s and >>'s and >>>'s is a real pain!! :-) ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Kaplan Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Treo] Nah, the real difference is that the Treo doesn't have 2.0. (ps: I fixed your top-posting.) -- Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol "Ahh. Rest is good...and so is a nice lean pastrami with just a little mustard and an Antarean pickle!" (Abbut, B5 "Deathwalker") On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:22:21 -0500 you said: > On 3/9/07, Nico <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:holvoetn%40gmail.com> > wrote: > > 2.0 is up to 3 times faster then 1.2, uses less power and has better > > error > > performance (it can self correct a bit more). > > Non-engineer enough ? ;-) > > See here <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth#Bluetooth_2.0 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth#Bluetooth_2.0> >. > I thought the real difference between 2.0 and 1.2 was .8 ;-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
