Apple notebook overhaul rumored for mid-October - Page 4

From the Engadget article:

"If you couldn't tell from the pictures already, they both look very good, and although the HD DVD version has more detail and no compression artifacts at all, the Apple TV has less compression then expected. We'd go as far as to say that compression artifacts are very unnoticeable for the most part."

This was on a 60" 1080P Pioneer, arguably the best television made by anyone. The "more detail" comment about HD DVD you can throw out due to the 1280 x 800 screen on the Sony.

Five articles, and all you take away from it is the one comment about how Apple's HD content's quality is adequate? "Very good" is not how I would describe Blu-Ray. Upconverted DVD looks "very good". Blu-Ray looks amazing. 4mbps internet-streamed "HD" content is not a suitable replacement for Blu-Ray, and it's certainly not a legitimate reason not to offer Blu-Ray capabilities whatsoever. If nothing else, Blu-Ray burning capabilities would sure come in handy when backing up that 16GB a season of downloaded episodes takes up. Engadget did after all end by saying, "Ultimatly, we'll stick with HD DVD and Blu-ray".


You're not making sense. If I save a 1280x800 jpeg in photoshop at 90% quality, and another copy at 30% quality, why would you not be able to see the difference on a screen of equal size, seated in your lap?

You have valid points, but the quality is rating is highly subjective. upconverting DVD players may be "very good" to you right now, but in a few years it'll probably be just "good" or "okay". We can however make a scientific determination of which formats are better than others in terms of quality. Blu-ray being the best one out there.

But there are other factors to consider and an important, which the iTS has proven to be the case with music is that "good enough" coupled with convenience is a very powerful combination. There are plenty of examples of better tech losing out to lesser tech because it was to costly, too difficult to use and/or people simply didn't care about the increased quality at the time. With most people's experience of HDTV coming from their cable providers getting an HD movie from iTS that plays almost right away (depending on your connection) and looks better than SDTV is enough to satisfy most people's needs.

As for Blu-ray for backing up files, you can already do that on a Mac with an external burner. I know Toast Titanium supports Blu-ray data burnings. The only place that it would make real sense and not be too cost prohibitive would be in the Mac Pro, but we've seen no evidence that Apple is working to update their Pro apps to support the format. This is the first place you'd expect to see a BRD in a Mac so I'm fairly certain we won't see a Blu-ray SuperDrive in any Mac notebooks or the iMac with the next revision. On top of that I can't find any that fit the 9.5mm size and the 12.5mm version for a slot-loading burner is around $700. I don't think a Combo drive (if there is a 9.5mm version) would make sense either as it could only play video.

Right, but Apple still offers the ability to play and rip CDs in your Mac, despite iTunes offering a good enough quality alternative. Just because most people are satisfied with HD that looks more like DVD, largely because they haven't been exposed to actual HD, is that any reason for Apple to pretend like a better format doesn't exist? Especially when every other PC manufacturer is already building Blu-Ray playback into their computers, at lower prices than what Apple's charging for computers without? Seems silly that I've got a stack of discs a brand new MacBook Pro can't read because it's still equipped with the last-generation optical drive, while even a $999 VAIO can read them.

And Blu-Ray's not going to be a losing format to Apple TV, so this seems to be a case of Apple just being ignorant. Besides, you can't buy low-bitrate HD movies from Apple even if you wanted to; it's a rental only system.


As a leader in Pro Video Applications, Apple should be at the forefront of offering Blu-Ray playback and burning, not dead last. Unless of course they're going to start letting Final Cut and iMovie users start hosting their HD videos on the iTunes Store as well?

YES MINI in OCT

I sell alot of mini for avg Desktop users (IE) moms and dads. I have been hoping for a mini update for the last few months.

consultant
http://connected-computer.com

CD copying and disc burning made sense when iTunes was frist released. For starters, there was no iTS to buy music from. Secondly, when the iTS did open people wanted a way to play CDs in their cars. Mp3 input jacks and iPod integration wasn't in 90% of vehicles as they are now, in the US.

As for Apple thinking that a better format doesn't exist, I think that is a stretch. It wasn't until January of this year that Blu-ray officially beat HD-DVD and Apple already had their updates ready to go. Only the iMac was updates later in. Apple has now had time to see that BR is the victory and the next optical format, but I still don't' see how people expect them in their notebooks and iMacs. Probably the same people that expected a 64GB iPod Touch 6 months after the 32GB came out.

The fist Macs you should expect it in is the Mac Pro. The next would the 24" iMac and 17" MacBook Pro. Not because of price, but because of space.


That isn't a fair comparison. First of all, you can get an external BRD. Secondly, to be a $999 and have BRD means that the VAIO doesn't have the performance of even a MB, much less a MBP, and the player is being sold at a loss from Sony to push the format. Besides that, the cheapest BRD I can find for a MBP or iMac is $700 and would only fit in the 17" MBP and the 24" iMac which takes 12.5mm drives. Should Apple build a a 2" thick notebook just so it put in a cheap tray-loading BRD to appease a small part of it's fan base?


AppleTV is just a media extender, competing with optical media players. I'd don't see how optical media will win against media extenders in the long run. But we're talking about the computer, not the living room. You only need a stand alone player in the living room to play BR movies that. Sure, some people want to play them on their computers but how common is that and how much sense does that make? Do you remember the BRD that came out in the first Sony notebooks? They were big and heavy and wouldn't get through a 2 hour movie if you were on battery. Imagine the outcry if Apple did that.


I agree that having Bluoray support for external drives in their Pro apps would be nice. I'd think that this would have come before any Blu-ray software, so are they compleltely going to forego BR altogether or were they just waiting for a victor. Has there been any major updates to their Pro apps since Blu-ray won?

CD copying and disc burning made sense when iTunes was frist released. For starters, there was no iTS to buy music from. Secondly, when the iTS did open people wanted a way to play CDs in their cars. Mp3 input jacks and iPod integration wasn't in 90% of vehicles as they are now, in the US.

As for Apple thinking that a better format doesn't exist, I think that is a stretch. It wasn't until January of this year that Blu-ray officially beat HD-DVD and Apple already had their updates ready to go. Only the iMac was updates later in. Apple has now had time to see that BR is the victory and the next optical format, but I still don't' see how people expect them in their notebooks and iMacs. Probably the same people that expected a 64GB iPod Touch 6 months after the 32GB came out.

The fist Macs you should expect it in is the Mac Pro. The next would the 24" iMac and 17" MacBook Pro. Not because of price, but because of space.


That isn't a fair comparison. First of all, you can get an external BRD. Secondly, to be a $999 and have BRD means that the VAIO doesn't have the performance of even a MB, much less a MBP, and the player is being sold at a loss from Sony to push the format. Besides that, the cheapest BRD I can find for a MBP or iMac is $700 and would only fit in the 17" MBP and the 24" iMac which takes 12.5mm drives. Should Apple build a a 2" thick notebook just so it put in a cheap tray-loading BRD to appease a small part of it's fan base?


AppleTV is just a media extender, competing with optical media players. I'd don't see how optical media will win against media extenders in the long run. But we're talking about the computer, not the living room. You only need a stand alone player in the living room to play BR movies that. Sure, some people want to play them on their computers but how common is that and how much sense does that make? Do you remember the BRD that came out in the first Sony notebooks? They were big and heavy and wouldn't get through a 2 hour movie if you were on battery. Imagine the outcry if Apple did that.


I agree that having Bluoray support for external drives in their Pro apps would be nice. I'd think that this would have come before any Blu-ray software, so are they compleltely going to forego BR altogether or were they just waiting for a victor. Has there been any major updates to their Pro apps since Blu-ray won?

Part of the reason for this is Apple has been in no hurry to add the necessary DRM to OS X for Blu-ray playback.



Blu-ray will ultimately loose to digital downloads, whether it will be iTunes or not remains to be seen.



Independent content producers are not rushing to author in Blu-ray. Blu-ray burners are expensive and slow. Blu-ray players have not yet had significant market penetration.

Cory's statement about BRD competing with AppleTV is the wrong focus. It's HD optical media and HD optical players (BR in this case) competing with digital downloads and media extenders.

You hit the nail squarely on the head and frankly I hope that Apple never screws up Mac OS the way MS screwed up Vista in part to make the Bluray people happy.

Now that doesn't mean that I don't want to see Bluray in the Macs it is just that I don't want to see the OS screwed up to the point that reliability and freedom go out the window. From that perspective Apple can take as long as they need to get the right hardware and software in place to handle Bluray without damaging the OS.

Ultimately that remains to be seen. As long as bandwidth is priced out of reach of a good percentage of the population we will have BluRay around. Especially considering the advent of bandwidth caps, regressive contracts and other anti consumer practices of the pipe holders. Picking up a BluRay disk doesn't involve a contract for services nor does it impact and bandwidth quota you may suffer from. From the stanpoint of economics downloads would have to be extremely cheap to beat the economies of BluRay.

Well we could argue that because I do believe that content providers are switching over to HD. The media they use to distribute that content on depends on their customers. As to market penetration BluTay is it right now if you are looking for HD video in a CD format.

As to net distribution of video well it isn't good enough where I live. BluRay will continue to compete as long as the content becomes more economical and outclasses DVDs. Hey maybe we will get fiber to the home here one day ( not likely ) and my perspective will change but right now bandwidth is far to expensive to justify.


Dave

Maybe Apple knows something we don't, and they will be announcing something better in the spring …

Maybe Apple will announce that Blue-ray is an OPTION on the new desktop units (or MBP), this way, if you really want it, you can have it, but Apple doesn't have to go out and invest a ton of time and money, on a technology that might be gone before it's here.

Who currently offers Blue-ray drives standard on their machines? what does it add to the cost?

I wonder how many they sell w/ the Blue-ray drives?

I have been in business for a long time, and have yet, to have a need (in my business) for a Blue-ray drive, to read or write to?

Yes I know there are folks and businesses out there who would love to have a Blue-ray unit, but do they already have a external unit, and if so, would they go out and buy a new Mac just to have ANOTHER blue-ray unit?

*** Question, how many folks out there would spend the bucks for a new Mac, if it had Blue-ray?

*** how many haven't yet purchased a new Mac, hoping they come out with one, and how many will run out and purchase one, when and if they do come out with a new desktop / MBP with Blue-ray standard or as an option?

Skip

PS For me, it is not a deal breaker …

All the major OEMs offer BRD with some of their products, but none offer BRD options that would fit in the any Mac, except the Mac Pro. The closest I can fine on Google Shopping is a $700 slot-loading 12.5mm Panasonic BRD. That will only fit in the 24" iMac and the 17" MBP. I see no evidence of a 9.5mm BRD, but at this point it doesn't matter as $700 is cost prohibitive and a 9.5mm would be even more costly. If Apple did offer it we'd get surely get posters hear complaining that Apple is ripping off the consumer because they can get an entire PS3 for $400 and Apple is charges $700 for only a BRD. The comparison doesn't work but they won't see past the word Blur-ray. Apple could offer an external drive solution that could use a 12.5mm drive or a larger slot loading drive, but will they go that route? I don't think so.


I'd like to know how many they sell, too. Offering the drive certainly doesn't mean it's ideal for the computer or that it's being purchased. Sony is selling cheap notebooks with BRDs, so it appears that they are selling them at loss to push the format. How many of these machines can run the movie well. How many can play a 2 hour BR movie on battery power without the machine dying before the film finishes? How may have the HDCP so playing to an external display produces BR quality video?

Don't be so sure.


You keep on using this as your reference, but there are several things that you are forgetting:

1.) It's a burner; the drives in the cheaper laptops are BD-ROM/DVD±RW combo drives which are much cheaper.
2.) That's the retail price, not the OEM price.
3.) That's a slot loader; drives in the cheaper laptops are tray-loaders.

You can configure a Dell Inspiron 1525 with a BD-ROM/DVD±RW combo drive for a total cost of $649 (the BD drive is a $150 premium over a DVD-ROM/CD±RW combo drive and $120 more than a DVD burner drive), so don't be so sure that that $999 Sony is a loss-leader.

They are cheaper, but they are also pointlessm, except using as a talking point. Have a BR reader would do nothing to help Apple or its Pro users who are wanting a burner.


The retail price most closely matches what Apple would charge the customer. Consider this would most likely be higher since it's a lower volume option for its higher-end customers.


You can't convince me that Apple will add a half inch thickness to it's notebooks just so it can add non-burning, tray-loading Blu-ray player. No matter how you cut it doesn't make fiscal sense to ruin a product just to include a BR reader. Note that Sony doesn't even offer BR to it's equivalently thin notebooks.

In the long term I don't think this will be that much of a problem. Competition will force internet service providers to increase capacity and bandwidth. Not only will traditional copper/fiber providers compete with each other, they will be forced to compete against emerging wireless data technologies such as WiMax and LTE.

Broadband internet service has far and away more market penetration than Blu-ray. The younger generation coming up will be far more educated on downloading content than the older generations used to physical media.


Major studios are producing Blu-ray content. Even within that studio Blu-ray offering is much smaller than its DVD offering. Currently for the most part they only release their most profitable films as Blu-ray.

The majority of Final Cut Studio users are small production shops and individuals. Those content producers are in no rush to author in Blu-ray.

The only people who are readily downloading their movies instead of buying/renting DVD or Blu-Ray are internet pirates, and they're not terribly concerned about safe storage of their terabytes of movies because they stole them for free. The rest of the world isn't clamoring for internet-served movies and television; they just understand that some day that's how it will be. That day has not yet come, though.


Blu-Ray is already accounting for up to 12% of weekly DVD sales. Apple's weekly iTunes movie sales (not rentals) is not a number they've been willing to give out.


As a Final Cut Studio user, I disagree. Apple gave us the ability to edit high definition years ago, but we're still waiting for a way to watch the final product on our television that isn't on a standard definition DVD or a low-bitrate Apple TV.

Judging from the way Steve practically drooled when he mentioned the word HD in his iPod/MUSIC presentation Tuesday, I'd say there is an excellent chance we'll see a HD screen option "for the Holiday season," possibly on the new 17" MBP. Indeed, there is no reason not to try it out on the folks who use those machines for the highest quality "mobile" work available.

The only thing Mr Jobs seems to care about more these days is "thin". He was looking a lot better, though, wasn't he.

Maybe I've just done a poor job explaining myself. Here's my assumption: Very few people drive their 1080P 60" Pioneer plasma with a laptop optical drive. Instead, they are using a stand-alone player. If you're watching a movie directly on your Sony laptop's screen with its 1280 x 800 screen or whatever, you're basically viewing a movie on one of the worst "television" screen made by anyone. Blu-Ray, Apple iTMS, or whatever, you're not getting high quality because your weakest link truly is weak.

To shift to a car analogy, it's like a Yugo owner trying to turn his car into a hot rod by going with premium gasoline. It won't work and that's why I think Blu-Ray playback on a lowly laptop is an overkill that you'll almost never be able to take advantage of.

No, I understand what you're saying, it's just that what you're saying is wrong

You are correct that you won't see all that Blu-Ray has to offer on a 1280x800 screen, because you're scaling down a 1920x1080 image to fit that screen, but what you're failing to acknowledge is that even without that additional resolution, Blu-Ray's still going to look far and away superior to Apple's low-bitrate "HD" downloads. You don't need a 60" Plasma to see the quality difference between an image saved at 100% quality and the same image saved at 33% quality. It doesn't matter if you're looking at the image on your laptop two feet in front of your face, or on a 60" Plasma eight feet away; the difference in quality would be equally apparent.

I agree all of the pieces are not yet in place for video downloads to gain a tipping point. But it will get there. I believe sooner than later. Successful efforts such as Hulu, Joost, iPlayer and others are the beginning.

To say that people are only stealing online content is an old argument which is being proven wrong by the evidence of a growing and thriving downloading market.

Report: Digital Music Download Sales to Pass CD Sales by 2012 Video won't be far behind.



I'm not necessarily pitting iTunes sales directly against Blu-ray. I'm saying download sales in general will become more popular than physical media sales.

Blu-ray still has some catching up to do with DVD still being 88% of sales.



You may want it personally. But you are not representative of the majority of Final Cut Studio users.

As solipsism pointed out, that burner is for DVD and CD-ROM, whereas the BluRay is Read Only and thus pointless for developers needing to Burn to BluRay.

Not all Apple's customers are pros. In fact, I'd hazard that the majority are consumers. In which case, a read-only BD drive is not "pointless", you use it to watch blu-ray films; as I said earlier you can use DVI out to view on a large screen, so the resolution of the built-in screen isn't always an issue.



Not necessarily true. A few years back, the retail price of a 1.8" HDD was more than Apple charged for an iPod of the same capacity.



I'm not trying to convince you of that. I don't think Apple will do it, neither do I think they should. What I am trying to convince you of is that Sony aren't making a loss on their $999 laptop with built-in blu-ray.


Off topic:


Please read my signature. I'm raising this because I've never seen you get this right.

I might be misunderstanding you, but there's already an option for a 1920x1200 screen in the 17" MBP. And everything down to the macbook can display 720p HD content at full size.

They are mostly consumers, and that number is growing faster than the Pro market, but still contend that a BR-ROM is still cost prohibitive.s, even if it were 9.5mm and was the price of the current $150 price you mentioned. But I can't find a drive that would fit in most of the Mac lineup, and even a BR-ROM would be cost prohibitive when compared to a standalone appliance, which makes the argument of using the video-out a moot point for the consumer since it's an expensive, complex setup that disables using the PC for other functions while it's connected. There will some consumers that would want it but there are also consumers that still get serial ports and RJ-11 jacks on their PCs.

edit: If you Google it, Panasonic did announce 9.5mm tray-loading BR reader/burners back in December 2007 to be demoed at CES in 2008, but since then there has been no word and no sales that i can find that makes this a viable product ready for Apple in October. Perhaps in January, at MacWorld, after Blu-ray takes a biggest chunk out of DVD this holiday season with lower priced players.


You could be right, but I don't remember that. I do recall the 1" drives were pretty expensive if you wanted to fix your iPod Mini, but that is what you expect when buying replacement parts, and it wasn't more than the iPod itself.


They were, but maybe they aren't any longer. What we need to decide is if a Blu-ray ROM would even make sense for Apple. I don't think so. If they were going to offer it would be for their Professional market. This would be mean an option for the Mac Pro, MBP 17" and iMac 24", and a new version of Apple's Pro apps being released to take advantage of this optional drive.


Seriously? If I were a rampant abuser of the incorrectly placed apostrophe I'd understand the correction.

I agree that finding a drive thin enough and slot-loading is an issue for Apple.



FYI, I don't know why it's called BD-ROM, but it is.

expensive, complex setup? Hardly. Most flat screens have HDMI inputs on the side (easy to get to for a temporary connection), and the MacBooks have optical audio out. It's a matter of two cables. I often connect my MacBook to my 50" plasma via HDMI and home theatre amplifier via optical cable and it works very well.

The thing is, that when the rest of the market offers BD-ROM at the $999 price point and below, and with Apple you don't get it even when paying twice as much, that can feel a bit galling. There's only so far Apple can push it in terms of lacking features before it puts people off.


that was kind of my point... you are! I have never seen you write "its" when meaning "belonging to it", you always use "it's" which is incorrect.

That makes sense as CD-ROM and DVD-ROM all refer to the word disc.


Compared to putting in a disc into a dedicated player and flipping the TV to appropriate component or HDMI input, yet. There is no DVD app to launch and put in full screen, no mail or IM or any other apps to turn off that could cause sounds or popups to interfere or interrupt your playback.



I don't buy this argument, putting a BRD into a computer doesn't make it a more advanced notebook. Even without the BRD there is no way that Dell or Sony are selling a $999 notebook that has a better processor than a MB (except for perhaps right now while Apple is still waiting to release Montevina, but that would probably only be with a system around $999 without a BRD), but with a BRD we are talking about an even worse performing system. Especially if they are making a profit on the high-end option of a BRD.


I don't care about too much about my grammar and spelling here since it's a tech forum, but I do spend plenty of time on etymology forums so I have grown accustomed to abiding my proper English rules. You'll have to point some out to me as I don't believe you can say I'm rampant.

You are absolutely right, of course. I was really thinking of the availability of content and ways to use that marvelous capability.

I really would like to use these computer screens for TV rather than having to buy a TV that gives me less.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You claim Apple is taking away 67% of what the original video has to offer by both compressing and encoding for 720P. I claim that the lousy Sony laptop screen can only display 33% (picking a number just for fun) of what the original video has to offer anyway. Let's be real here... laptop drives, even at equal resolution, are nowhere close to a high quality TV set display. Black levels, sharpness, response, they're all inferior. Now that you brought up the percentage thing, please tell us what percentage you assign to the Sony laptop for ability to display the original content.

Jeez!

I just wish they would hurry up and release whatever it is that they're going to release, already!

I'm really up against it... I desperately need a MacBook Pro for my work but it would be idiotic to buy one right now with a new iteration just around the corner.

If I buy one now it's going to plummet in value when the new one is announced but I need one right now for work that is in hand!

The only consolation is that they are bound to have worked the kinks out of the current model by now (it's got to be about two hundred years old).

The value is relative. You shouldn't care that the current MBP will be $300 cheaper on Apple's website if you plan on using it for a couple years. The value at its EOL won't be too much different from the next model, even if their is a case change. What is important is your need for a computer now. If you can wait, until the reported October 14th date, then you should if you need to have the latest HW, but if it's affecting your ability to do work by not having one then you should buy one. Today is the last day to get your free iPod with the BtS program.

The 'kinks' issue is also valid. I'd recommend to anyone that is buying their first Mac or that will be using it as their primary machine for work to hold off to see what issues might arise with a new build.

If you need the kit, you need the kit. Right?

If I turn down work because I don't have the necessary kit, then that's costing me money as well.

But Jobs & Co. have a nasty habit of standing on stage and telling everyone that the new iteration is far faster than the previous. The performance gaps have been huge in the past, and I don't care how dispassionately you look at it, it always sticks in the craw. Especially when the new design packs more of a punch at a cheaper price point and Apple can't give the previous generation away via the refurb site.

I've been in that situation before, and I didn't enjoy it much.

If I'm plonking down my hard-earned I want to make damn sure that I'm getting absolutely the best value for money. I just always seem to need a machine just before the new kit is announced. Even my Apple Business Advisor has been applauding my hesitation to buy the current model.

Frustrating. I just wish that Apple would pre-announce products it's not as though their ship isn't leaking as it is. At least that way I could make an informed decision about whether to hold out or not. It's the not knowing what's coming that is the pain.

Grrrrr....

pre-announce? they might as well shut the doors of the store between releases. Who would buy the current model if they knew in a month or two it was going to change drastically (or speed bump).

As with any tech, it goes without saying, your purchase is obsolete when you walk out the door with it. No matter, the question is, does it satisfy your current needs?

I don't really see what is so frustrating. You know they are coming, you just don't know when. You Apple is secretive, so that isn't a surprise. In fact, it's part of what makes their products so news worthy. You know they will have Montevina/Penryn chips. If you look at the chip over chip comparisons you can see that the speed increases for the model you want won't be that dramatic in terms on raw processing. An average of only 200MHz and that will bested another half-year down the road.

Macs do have good resale value as it is, so selling it on eBay won't be a problem if you want to get a new one shortly shouldn't be much of an issue. or you could by a used machine or a cheap Dell or HP for $400 to tide you over and then keep as a backup or sell it. Or you could by an MSI Wind and install OSx86 on it, and then keep it as ultra-portable backup, assuming you could get by with it in the interim. Or you can wait 2 weeks and then buy a new MBP within 14 days of the suspected release. Then you can return the old MBP for a new one and pay the 10% restocking fee. Or just use what you have now.

I agree, Im pissed that I am passing up the back to school deal, throwing away the free ipod, just so I dont kick myself when the new macbook come out. If I knew what was going to be in them, then I could just be like, Ehhh yeah ill stick with the old ones, or wow I will wait for the new ones. The only thing I am really hoping for is a dedicated video card of some sort in the macbook. I actually like the white and black, and would almost want them to keep that instead of the aluminum.

Then get a current MB with the iPod today. Or buy an older MB on the refurb site. I'm guessing that compared to what you have now it will be considerably faster.

I wouldn't expect a discrete GPU in the MB. Montevina has the GMA X4500 which is much better than the GMA X3100 and uses less power. Since the 1300 can run DVI and the internal LCD just fine I see no reason for it on their basic notebook.

In that case you should definitely get the current one. All signs point to the next one being aluminium and there's no way they'll have dedicated graphics.

1) You claimed it had to be 32" to be WS. This is false...which is why you got the link to prove this.

2) The 30" ACD is a bit long of tooth but is widescreen and 30". As is the Dell 2008 30" widescreen montitor (new) and the HP 30" widescreen monitor (new), the Samsung 30" widescreen monitor (new)...

3) A 32" monitor like most HDTVs would SUCK because the resolution is so low. The "outdated" ACD is 2560 x 1600 vs a 32" HDTV at 1920x1080. Actually most 32" TVs are probably 720p these days since they are "small".

The 30" ACD does need a refresh but is a better monitor than any 32" HDTV. Today the largest common widescreen COMPUTER monitor is 30".

4) OMG - that's so funny - you're clueless AND unwilling to accept new information without getting smacked by a cluebat in the face.

Perhaps the thing that he's confused by is that widescreen computer monitors are 16:10 whilst widescreen displays are 16:9? Whatever, both ratios are "widescreen" in that they're wider than 4:3.

Having said that, there's a new manufacturing facility that came online recently making 16.4" 16:9 panels for laptops. Sony are using them in their FW series, but they've got a resolution of "only" 1600 x 900, I don't know if they're available with higher resolution.

Indeed. I just would have thought BRD-ROM would make more sense, but I guess the "B" in BD is standing for "Blu-ray" rather than just "Blu".



OK, I'll give you complicated. But not expensive. The opposite, in fact.

The thing is, that right now Blu-ray players have a very low market penetration. However, now that the HD format war is over and more and more HDTVs are sold, you can be sure that folk will be more and more interested in getting a BD player. So, if they're getting a new computer and that has blu-ray: bonus! No need to buy a dedicated player! You save money. Currently, I've an HD-ready plasma but only a DVD player; if the new MacBook Pro has BD-ROM then I won't need to bother getting a stand-alone blu-ray deck.


If AI's search engine allowed me to search for "it's", then I would. You'll just have to take my word for it

Have you used the 15.4" at 1920x1200? The real estate is nice but a tad small to work with for long periods. Maybe Im just getting old.


Its not open source but pirated.


Again, its not open source. Linux is open source. OSX is not. Darwin is open source. OSX is not. If your going to steal, go for it. I'll likely try to OSX on a netbook at some point to fool around but don't kid yourself. If you do it for a real work machine its theft.

(' deliberately removed so Mr. H goes insane. Id have ' some plural's except I didnt have any. Until now.)