I was going through WMVHD.com's HD videos and I found a video thats 2:44 and its file size is 153MB (Its called "Ray" BTW), then I was going through Apple's HD gallary, and I saw a video thats 2:40 (119MB, called "kingdom of Heaven), then it hit me. Apple's [H.264] video was: 1280x544 - 696320 total pixels - 119MB WMVHD's was: 1280x720 - 921600 total pixels - 153MB meaning that the H.264 video is 75% of the WMV resolution wise, but 77% of the file size, AND the WMV is 4 seconds longer. On top of that, the WMV codec is older. So my question is, what is so great about the new H.264 codec? Can some one fill me in? If I recall, Apple was claiming double the video size, but half the file size. I imagine that both websites have their videos encoded at their highest quality to show off their codec. I know about the H.264's scalability, standards and so forth, so I guess whats bugging me is the efficiency. Efficiency brings up even more "woes" with the new H.264 codec, which is processor efficiency, Apple requires a G5 (1.8, I think) as the minimum to play HD content, which I think is way too high... Waaay too high. WMV requires 2.4 Ghz processor. G5's weren't even avaliable untill the middle of 2003, which means that if you want to enjoy HD H.264, your system must be no more than 2 years old... I don't know when the 2.4 P4 came out, but I bought my PC (soon to be replaced by a PB 17 1.67 ) in mid 2002, yet it still has the minimum amount of horse power to play HD content. I don't get it. Is there something I don't know? It really pisses me off that this new H.264 codec is such a CPU rapist, because my [future] PB won't be able to play it (smooth) due to such high requirements. I just want a 2005 PB ($2699! ) to be able to play what the PC could do in 2002 for 599! IT IS DRIVING ME CRAZY AS I'M DYING FOR MY PB!!! It makes me so sad... Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong with any of my calculations.