iMikeT
Aug 29, 09:25 AM
If the GPU is upgraded, I'll definitely get one.
TerryJ
Jul 14, 08:25 AM
As purely a data storage format, obviously Blu-ray has the potential to store more data than HD DVD.
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
ellsworth
Apr 26, 12:50 PM
Ridiculous.
kalisphoenix
Jan 1, 07:47 PM
Pretty excited about this Stevenote.
* iTV
* Leopard
* iLife '07
The rumored stuff this year is all retarded. "Maybe we'll all get Apple phones!" And maybe I'll give a flying #$%^ at a rolling donut. I have a phone, and I spend approximately 3 minutes on it per month. My wife and I are thinking of going prepaid for this reason. The last thing I'm going to do is buy a danged smartphone.
Gah. It's all silly.
* iTV
* Leopard
* iLife '07
The rumored stuff this year is all retarded. "Maybe we'll all get Apple phones!" And maybe I'll give a flying #$%^ at a rolling donut. I have a phone, and I spend approximately 3 minutes on it per month. My wife and I are thinking of going prepaid for this reason. The last thing I'm going to do is buy a danged smartphone.
Gah. It's all silly.
BRLawyer
Aug 25, 04:02 PM
A second white plastic box with some wires connected to a MiniMac for the media centre? That would be tacky...
Instead, I'd expect The New Form-Factor Conroe Mini-Tower/Pizza-Box to be in a single black cabinet the size and shape of a DVD-player or other media component.
The would leave room for two 3.5" drives (1500 GB today), the TV tuner and compressors, and room for good cooling with some very quiet fans.
Would you expect anything less than great styling for the Apple media centre ?
And the mini tower Mac rumors live on...Mini Tower Mac = PowerBook G5...:rolleyes:
Instead, I'd expect The New Form-Factor Conroe Mini-Tower/Pizza-Box to be in a single black cabinet the size and shape of a DVD-player or other media component.
The would leave room for two 3.5" drives (1500 GB today), the TV tuner and compressors, and room for good cooling with some very quiet fans.
Would you expect anything less than great styling for the Apple media centre ?
And the mini tower Mac rumors live on...Mini Tower Mac = PowerBook G5...:rolleyes:
twoodcc
May 8, 10:13 AM
ive completely forgotten about this.. i wanna do it but i dont want my baby imac over heating :(
Well the bigadv units is where the points are at. I've heard of people doing them with an i7 iMac. You could give it a shot, and if you think it's too hit, then just stop it and do the a3 units
Well the bigadv units is where the points are at. I've heard of people doing them with an i7 iMac. You could give it a shot, and if you think it's too hit, then just stop it and do the a3 units
ten-oak-druid
Apr 26, 01:19 PM
The one argument Amazon can make is that they used "appstore" instead of "app store".
"Appstore" was a trademark held by a computer store that was later abandoned. When you search for "app store" in the TESS you find both but Apple's trademark is specifically "app store" with two words.
Not that I am an expert on the law of trademarks. Let them fight it out. What do I care. I'm just pointing out that the one word version of the trademark may not fall under Apple's two word trademark.
"Appstore" was a trademark held by a computer store that was later abandoned. When you search for "app store" in the TESS you find both but Apple's trademark is specifically "app store" with two words.
Not that I am an expert on the law of trademarks. Let them fight it out. What do I care. I'm just pointing out that the one word version of the trademark may not fall under Apple's two word trademark.
roadbloc
Apr 1, 10:13 AM
Guess why they are the only two removable apps?
http://cl.ly/5gbA/img.png
Were them two apps downloaded via the Mac App Store by any chance?
http://cl.ly/5gbA/img.png
Were them two apps downloaded via the Mac App Store by any chance?
Stella
Jun 24, 08:46 AM
We hope, Jobs said - many different iOS products later this year...
In other words:
Many more locked down products this year
:p
In other words:
Many more locked down products this year
:p
triceretops
Mar 22, 10:53 PM
Is there an app in which the face of the iPod touch/iPhone has a digital scroll wheel on the bottom half and a screen on the top half to simulate the iPod Classic interface? Maybe that would be enough to satiate the holders on to the classic?
Hmmmmm:rolleyes:
Hmmmmm:rolleyes:
dmcgann
Sep 8, 03:58 PM
i think apple will announce a hard drive specifically for these downloads approx the size of a dvd player! you put it on top of your dvd player and you can download the movie to the hard drive through airport! you can then wirelessly control the hard drive with your computer! this would make high def a possibility! just a thought!
indigoflowAS
Oct 23, 10:22 AM
This update had best show up w/ an updated GPU (256 X1600 standard at least), otherwise the ~10% performance increase and other oddball tidbits is hardly worth it.
I'm starting to think I'm gonna sit this one out, as on the edge of my seat I have been for some time. But at this rate, goodness knows when the next update will be. Back to my TiBook I go.
I'm starting to think I'm gonna sit this one out, as on the edge of my seat I have been for some time. But at this rate, goodness knows when the next update will be. Back to my TiBook I go.
rezenclowd3
Jan 30, 01:06 AM
^^^ I never got to do THAT in my Quattro. I'm quite jealous. I had planned on going to Tahoe....but as usual things in life happen. Instead I got to drag around 300lbs of extra weight and see how bad the 50/50 split pushes in AutoX events;) (to be fair, as there is no RWD Audi, the FWD pushes just as bad and is not any quicker or better handling on asphalt) I sure do miss the nicer interior of the Audi:rolleyes:
MCIowaRulz
Apr 12, 10:03 PM
Well i'll tell you this FCP 5 (floating around in places i won't mention) is around 1.5 GB so If it is on the App store It will be 1 BIG download for me.
(3 Mbps cable line here)
(3 Mbps cable line here)
RebootD
Apr 12, 09:09 PM
Final Cut X and 64bit whoo hoo.
quagmire
Jan 3, 02:10 PM
Still have the 2007 Saturn Aura XR. I think it will be the only car I will ever drive because after 4 years, it only has 20,000 miles on it. :p
http://gallery.me.com/quagmire2/100348/DSC_0502/web.jpg?ver=12940848050001
http://gallery.me.com/quagmire2/100348/DSC_0503/web.jpg?ver=12940848080001
http://gallery.me.com/quagmire2/100348/DSC_0507/web.jpg?ver=12940848100001
http://gallery.me.com/quagmire2/100348/DSC_0505/web.jpg?ver=12797434700001
http://gallery.me.com/quagmire2/100348/DSC_0502/web.jpg?ver=12940848050001
http://gallery.me.com/quagmire2/100348/DSC_0503/web.jpg?ver=12940848080001
http://gallery.me.com/quagmire2/100348/DSC_0507/web.jpg?ver=12940848100001
http://gallery.me.com/quagmire2/100348/DSC_0505/web.jpg?ver=12797434700001
PowerFullMac
Jan 12, 02:21 PM
I think Front Row itself is a bit crippled... I cant even play music in the main menu or when I watch a photo slideshow, exept that default crap!
rezenclowd3
Jan 9, 08:50 PM
It was/ is very clean and well cared for. Right now its a 5ft paint job, which is all orig :o I have all 22 years of records which is damn nice. How much did I pay? I'd rather not say, but as a reference, I think one looking for such a clean car in good mechanical condition pay $4-5k for a car with no mods. Blue book for these cars with the mileage they typically have is $2k. I completely overpaid for a stock car, however I wanted a clean/ mechanically excellent car that's ready for competition, so I was willing to pay quite a premium to find EXACTLY what I was looking for.
After owning this for a week and 1 day, I want to now purchase a 325i convertible. I missed a few steals last month :( However all would probably have needed just $3-4k in work to make it another DD.
BTW when quoting, at the max only include 1 pic. It's a pita to scroll through the same pics 2x. Thanks for the compliment though.
After owning this for a week and 1 day, I want to now purchase a 325i convertible. I missed a few steals last month :( However all would probably have needed just $3-4k in work to make it another DD.
BTW when quoting, at the max only include 1 pic. It's a pita to scroll through the same pics 2x. Thanks for the compliment though.
BLUELION
Apr 3, 01:42 PM
Apple is not trying to rub it in your face to other companies, but more important it is using the subtle nuance of the product as it targets partners into coming on board with the iPad, iPad2.
I actually think this isn't apples best ad. I mean there is nothing wrong with it, but I usually expect more from apple.
They better make another ipad 2 ad, because this is there only one
I actually think this isn't apples best ad. I mean there is nothing wrong with it, but I usually expect more from apple.
They better make another ipad 2 ad, because this is there only one
razzmatazz
Aug 6, 09:23 PM
ehhhhh? :confused:
I'm thinking he doesn't like Tiger
I'm thinking he doesn't like Tiger
wordoflife
Nov 27, 10:01 PM
http://www.pittsburghhotplate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/starbucks_il_divino.jpg
Was in the mood for one of these while getting my Mac looked at by a Genius..
Was in the mood for one of these while getting my Mac looked at by a Genius..
vincenz
Apr 3, 01:10 AM
Great ad, love the new direction
Earendil
Nov 27, 09:49 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
Bodypainter
May 3, 04:03 AM
oh guys, don't you understand what is going on here?
the iPhone and iPad is very sucessful therefore apple wants to bring all the user interface elements to the Mac too. and this actually makes sense. the only problem: we are used to the Mac os and don't want to give up our habits.
but there is no way around: it's time to melt iOS and Mac OS x. and apple is going to bring so many things to the os x that will confuse so many people. they have to solve so many problems like deletion of programs or the fullscreen dilemma.
I am very sure that they want the Mac os to behave like iOS. but iOS is based on the home screen and this terrible multitasking bar (double-click on home button) no trashcan (oho!) and no finder.
but there is also a good side to it. maybe the iOS is getting the "widget screen" too, because if apple is totally logical, the have to introduce this too (and mission control).
(written on an iPad)
the iPhone and iPad is very sucessful therefore apple wants to bring all the user interface elements to the Mac too. and this actually makes sense. the only problem: we are used to the Mac os and don't want to give up our habits.
but there is no way around: it's time to melt iOS and Mac OS x. and apple is going to bring so many things to the os x that will confuse so many people. they have to solve so many problems like deletion of programs or the fullscreen dilemma.
I am very sure that they want the Mac os to behave like iOS. but iOS is based on the home screen and this terrible multitasking bar (double-click on home button) no trashcan (oho!) and no finder.
but there is also a good side to it. maybe the iOS is getting the "widget screen" too, because if apple is totally logical, the have to introduce this too (and mission control).
(written on an iPad)
No comments:
Post a Comment