Let's see - 2Mpix, 90fps, (assumed) 16-bit color depth, (assumed) no in-camera compression - that would generate almost 3Gbits/second. USB3.0 killer app? :-)

Try to get someone who doesn't look like a slightly special needs armed robber to appear in the pictures. Just a thought.

Well?

Or is it another load of Windows only crap.

Learn to read:

"While Philips makes no mention of Mac or Linux support – the software bundle is Windows only – the SPC1330 worked out of the box with Skype on both a MacBook Pro and an old Advent laptop running Ubuntu. Certainly, the MacBook's iSight camera performed better than the Dell's, but it was still left in the dust by the SPC1330."

Honestly, I don't know why some people bother.

Still, good image quality, and as my old Philips camera doesn't work on NT6 or above, I might have to have a shufty.

Steven R

I resemble that remark!

Alex - last para. bud. Yes it worked just fine with Skype on a Linux netbook and on a MacBook Pro.

You sir are a genius.

I laughed so much I think a little bit of wee came out.

Didn't mean any harm by it but the guy DOES look a bit special...

And I can't work out if "I resemble that remark!" is supposed to say 'resent' or if it's an attempt at a pun?

I think the 'Wanted dead or alive' poster effect says it all really.

Might be good for use with large FTIR touch screen setups.

For example MS surface.

I think you're all being a little harsh. I was going to say angry infant.

Clam.

Since when is digital zoom a feature of the lens?

...but if the reviewer could be encouraged to open a terminal shell, type 'lsusb' and report the chip in the device? Then non Ubuntu users would know whether or not the device is likely yot work with other distros.

Or they could, y'know, go and get a girlfriend instead.

So, the specs are 90fps but not, 8mp but not, and HD quality, but not.

Why the hell do they bother with the specs? Here, then - I'm going to sell a camera with 52 megapixels, 10,000 frames per second, and 256 bits per pixel color depth. Except not. What do I win?

Assholes.

Unless you took still images of a picture of a painting, I don't see the "consistently fine performance." A 75% rating is generous for a product that's ugly, takes bad pictures, and has false specifications all over the front of the box. I would have returned it for a refund.