This is why I have an optical backup of my iTunes and iPhoto libraries on dual-layered DVD-Rs. A Blu-ray drive, however, would make that process so much easier. Just 1 disk instead of 3 to back up my photos or 4 instead of 12 to back up my iTunes.
To store 125GB would cost you $18.75 a month on Amazon S3.
Or $60 a year using Carbonite.
From a backup perspective Time Machine + Carbonite beats Time Machine + BR unless I happen to be parking those BR disks offsite. Why? The most likely failure mode (single disk...either in the Mac or Time Machine) is covered. I need a two disk failure before I need to go to either Carbonite or BR.
What is the most likely 2 disk failure scenario? My house burns down or someone breaks in and steals all my stuff. Will they actually take the TC in the equipment closet? Meh. If they find it anyway.
suggesting that earlier plans to offer Blu-ray technology on the new all-in-one desktops may have been pulled back just before the systems went into production last month.
actually they were probably pulled, if there was anything to pull, about the same time they started putting SD slots on the laptops and extras on the digital downloads (which required lead time to have had titles ready for the Sept release so that wasn't a last minute idea)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55
You can now get the new Pioneer internal Blu-ray burner for $250.
but are they slot loading, use the same connections required in an imac, what about drivers, license fees etc.
there's more than just the price of the burner to consider
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Apple is dragging its feet in adopting Blu-ray technology and at this point is far from being innovative. This rumour is truly annoying.
key is RUMOUR. as in not a fact. not something Apple has said.
so it is possible that, where feasible a blue ray drive would be included. it might only be the Mac Pro and online but those are the machines they are trying to put on the desks of the folks using things like Final Cut Studio so one can see the train of thought going there
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2
If I were to guess, they want to wait until the next Apple TV is ready and the iTunes store is upgraded to 1080p before offering Blu-ray. I doubt that they would want to make Blu-ray appear to be better than their iTunes store offerings.
or consider that they aren't going with native Blu-ray because of itunes and Apple tv, period.
Quote:
OSX will need an update, so will iTunes, Quicktime, and dvd player.
none of which would be that major an issue.
Quote:
Or of course they could be running into production problems with the hardware.
cue the rumors that the drives were being made by the same factory that was making the cameras for the ipod touches (that were so bad they 23rd hour pulled them and made up some malarky about 'game devices')
Quote:
I see a video centric event coming eventually, and could become an annual thing like the music (iPod) one they have in the fall.
i see if anything, itunes being renamed to iMedia and the Sept event being about both audio and video as needed
The first two pages of comments were an absolutely amazement to me. Virtually all about BlueRay. Who the heck cares? (And I say this as someone who wants BlueRay.) All this BlueRay talk is irrelevant when it most assuredly will be a BTO option at some point. So let it go!
Personally I'd rather Apple get rid of the optical drive altogether on a MBP and give us three bays for at least 3 SSD drives. I'm very much of the sort that wants his movies carried internally. The problem is the extra effort to carry all those optical disks and keep them scratch free. Frankly Apples iTunes is good enough for that.
As for a TV in the house I gave up on that. Between cable costs and the price on DVDs it is cheaper to go the movies once a week.
Quote:
Now if you want to talk about the real meat of this article, this comment is more spot on...
Now think deeply, people. Think. Do you honestly expect that a 1.7 or even a 2.0GHz 4-core CPU (even i7 based) could hold a candle to a 3.06GHz 2-core iMac in terms of "real world performance"?
The problem here is that performance on these processors will be all over the map. This due to a number of issues. But I think you are right in that a 2GHz processor will have a hard time competeing with the Core 2 processors running at 3GHz. That due to the Turbo Boost not always cranking up to max clock speed.
Many will argue that only one processor is used for for single threaded programs and that they will run just as well. Well it may or may not. The problem is a modern Mac is almost never running just one program. Plus you have GCD trying to do it's best to leverage all those cores, so it is not likely that the processor will have many opportunities to run in single core mode. This doesn't even discuss the temperature of the processor which is always a problem on Apple computers (no turbo boost when hot)
Lately I've been hearing that you might get 20% more performance clock for clock. That is very possible but it still doesn't hit the performance of the top of the line Core 2 processors. This is why I say things might actually suck if Turbo Boost can't kick in. What it comes down to is that it will depend and eclipsing todays iMacs is not a given.
Quote:
If you do think that, you are deceived.
Well I think that might be a bit strong. The potential is there for good performance in certain situations. But I don't think people understand how modern computers work. First they may have many processes running at the same time even if they aren't user processes. Second programs use system resources which may be highly threaded. The idea that we are in a single threaded world just isn't true anymore. So how often will the processor actually be able to Turbo Boost. No body knows but in many cases single thread performance will suck.
Quote:
As was the case with the very first PPC Macs that were slow because there wasn't enough "native" software out there for them, slow clocked 4-core CPUs will be hindered by the lack of multi-core software available for them. The end result is that a 4-core iMac -- at sub-2GHz clock speeds -- would certainly feel much slower than the current high-end iMac.
This isn't the case either. The problem is there are few programs that I would call hard single threaded programs anymore. Many common programs that users take advantage of are already threaded and more are every day. Even the lowly word processor is threaded these days. Many apps will run just fine on these processors. Combined with SL and the better multi processing behaviour of the i5 & i7 processors the performance may be very acceptable. But (it is a big one) hard single threaded portions of a program will suffer if the processor can't Turbo Boost.
Will people be disappointed with the new iMacs if they go this route(mobile processors)? I'm not sure because it will very much depend on each users load on the computer and software choices. Will it feel slower, well maybe, you might be uderestimating just how responsive the machine might feel with quad cores. GCD and other feature of SL really have had a significant impact on how my MBP fells. Until I see and work with one of these new machines, I'm not going to guess at performance or feel.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong. I too want a quad-core iMac. My goodness do I want that. But I want it at a clock speed that rivals what we have now.
Well when you talk about clock speed this way I think you don't know what you are talking about. Todays processors do one hell of a lot more than the Core 2s of yesterday, clock for clock. The other problem is that intel simply doesn't have faster clock rate mobile processors right now.
Quote:
It doesn't necessarily need to go as high as 3.06GHz (which may be impossible in terms of cooling in an iMac), but it certainly should be above 2.5GHz.
Well that would be nice but we will likely have to wait for 32nm processors for a good clock rate. Again that is if Apple goes with these new mobile processors. If they go the XEON route we might get closer. But right now +3.0 GHz is only going to be hit via Turbo Boost when it can kick in. But you are right in a sense to get the same performance at the chips base speed we will need a 2.5 GHz processor, otherwise you will have to rely on the variability in Turbo Boost. In any event we will have to watch carefully for thermal throttling on the new machines.
Quote:
Again, think "real world" practical performance here people. With all this talk of low clock speeds, a dark cloud has come over what was an otherwise exciting time for me: the imminent release of new iMacs with "compelling new features."
Don't let the dark clouds in yet! We will know in the near future what will actually be in the machines. But yeah if the machines have the rumored mobile processors I wouldn't buy until I see some ethical testing. Apple however has choices and maybe they will make the right choice.
Quote:
But for me, just how "compelling" those new iMacs will be will be locked to the clock speed (i.e., real world performance).
OK but realize clock rate isn't an indicator of real world performance relative to older machines. This idea that clock rate means anything relative to different generations of processors have to die. At best you can say that 2.5 GHz is the minimum you need to get similar performance to Core 2. Even then that has to be qualified by saying that it excludes Turbo Boost.
All in all I have to agree with the pessimism you display. If Apple goes the mobile processor route performance will be all over the map with more variables than most people are use to. Interesting times ahead.
The quality of Blue Ray is better then regular DVDs. Further, the storage is better as well. Still those limited reasons to like Blue Ray do not come any where near the reasons to dislike Blue Ray.
First, Blue Ray disks are typically quite a bit more expensive then regular DVDs. Second, although the price of players are coming down, a $200 Blue Ray player doesn't satisfy the same quality level that a $50 DVD player does. The cheap Blue Ray players are made from low quality parts. You get what you pay for. Third, Apple doesn't want to put Blue Ray players on a Mac because Sony's license requires the OS and hardware to be locked down to prevent any possibility of the ripping of Blue Rays movies. This effects the quality of hardware performance even when the disks aren't being used. In other words, the putting a Blue Ray drive in a Mac will lower all Mac Blue Ray equipped Macs performance as the processors will be more taxed to comply with all the DRM requirements imposed by Sony. The Blue Screen of death will become far more common. Fourth, I legally rip movies all the time. For instance, all my DVDs are copied to a server so I can access them from a central location. Blue Ray prevents this.
Although slightly old, this link explains the reasons consumers should dislike Blue Ray. Don't buy the hype. Blue Ray really is a bag of hurt.
LET'S REPLACE BLURAY WITH "mac" AND DVD WITH "pc" AND LET'S SEE:-
The quality of MAC is better then PC. Further, the LOOKS is better as well. Still those limited reasons to like MAC do not come any where near the reasons to dislike PC.
First, MAC's are typically quite a bit more expensive then regular PC. Second, although the price of MACS are coming down, a $2000 MAC doesn't satisfy the same quality level that a $500 PC does. The cheap MAC are made from low quality parts. You get what you pay for.
The MAC Screen of death will become far more common.
Don't buy the hype. MAC IS really is a bag of hurt.
Both WoW and Sims 3 have Mac-versions. I'm thinking of boot-camping, but hopefully that won't be necessary!
Thanks again! Sounds like great news that Photoshop is running on your computer! I'm so used to bad computers (is currently typing on a Asus Eee 900 who hates me) that even a bad version of iMac would probably give me an orgasm. Not literally...
Both WoW and Sims 3 have Mac-versions. I'm thinking of boot-camping, but hopefully that won't be necessary!
Thanks again! Sounds like great news that Photoshop is running on your computer! I'm so used to bad computers (is currently typing on a Asus Eee 900 who hates me) that even a bad version of iMac would probably give me an orgasm. Not literally...
You're assuming I'm a guy because I'm interested in iMacs and joke about sex? Or just because I'm posting on an internet-forum?
Then, I'm assuming you're a fat, american guy who base all your prejudice against women based on Desperate Housewives and Sex and the city, since you have never got the chance to be with a real one (maybe except for your mom).
For more inspiration on how to become even more of a sexist: Join Usama bin Laden and his 'gang'!
I think that is the kind of his point. If they haven?t added it to the Mac Pro and haven?t added support to the OS for AACS to play DRMed Blu-ray media then why should we expect Apple to give the iMac an option. It?s not a professional machine and it?s not their biggest seller. It?s a pointless place to start. On top of that, Blu-ray adoption on PCs have shown to been low
And in other news, adoption of expensive PCs has also been shown to be low...looks like Apple should stop selling computers then
Blu-ray appeals to the average consumer as well as professionals.
As a side note - did I miss the people who always say that Apple are moving away from optical drives and no one needs them anymore?? I miss those guys
You're assuming I'm a guy because I'm interested in iMacs and joke about sex? Or just because I'm posting on an internet-forum?
Then, I'm assuming you're a fat, american guy who base all your prejudice against women based on Desperate Housewives and Sex and the city, since you have never got the chance to be with a real one (maybe except for your mom).
For more inspiration on how to become even more of a sexist: Join Usama bin Laden and his 'gang'!
Now look who's whistlin' Dixie. Americans are fat? You said it not me. If you've bumped into my posts/questions you'd know that not only am I the furthest place from North America but also post remotely while enjoying my sushi and sometimes macha tea latte exactly where they both originated.
You have a big FAT chip on your shoulder that probably matches the rest of you just fine. I said "She's a guy" and you reply with the above? Wow you have some issues to sort out. Good thing you have forums to fall back on when you're lonely. Don't watch Larry David. You might get angry and throw the TV out the window.
You believe Usāmah bin Lādin carried out 911 don't you. You poor thing.
What do you mean "far more strict than DVD", there are three regions in blu-ray, eight in DVD, has is three more restrictive than eight?
That wasn't what I was referring to. DVD players that were region free came out not too long after DVD's became mainstream ? in Australia at least, but I think the world over. The encryption that enforced regionality on dvds was not very strong and quickly became meaningless. But the companies that want strict region encoding on BR have learned their lesson. There are no region-free players in my country or, i am pretty sure, all of Europe (we are in the same region for BR, though not for dvd).
My point was that if Apple have to enforce this strict region encoding in a BR player through differences in the OS then it would indeed be "a bag of hurt" ? for the consumer and for Apple.
I know that these issues may be largely invisible in the U.S. where most people will only ever think about one region, but they are not invisible to the rest of the world. They are brought home every time we see what is available on Amazon.
Now look who's whistlin' Dixie. Americans are fat? You said it not me. If you've bumped into my posts/questions you'd know that not only am I the furthest place from North America but also post remotely while enjoying my sushi and sometimes macha tea latte exactly where they both originated.
You have a big FAT chip on your shoulder that probably matches the rest of you just fine. I said "She's a guy" and you reply with the above? Wow you have some issues to sort out. Good thing you have forums to fall back on when you're lonely. Don't watch Larry David. You might get angry and throw the TV out the window.
You believe Usāmah bin Lādin carried out 911 don't you. You poor thing.
.
Nope, I didn't say Americans are fat, that was purely you. I made a random assumption about you like you did of me concerning my gender. Maybe you should focus more on your reading skills than the sushi. Now I just think you're an idiot living in Japan.
Again you make an assumtion based on nothing: "You believe Usāmah bin Lādin carried out 911 don't you. You poor thing." No, I never said that. You made an offensive comment, accusing me of lying about my sex for no apparent reason - probably just because you have nothing better to do than "eat sushi, drink tea" and post nasty things on various internet forums. I wonder who's the lonely one.
My point was and still is: You don't have to be a dude to post here or show interest in Mac. I've been accused of being one before because some guys just can't handle the fact that women have other interests than family and being a house-wife. And thus, the comparison to an islamic fundamentalist who probably shares that view on women.
That wasn't what I was referring to. DVD players that were region free came out not too long after DVD's became mainstream ? in Australia at least, but I think the world over. The encryption that enforced regionality on dvds was not very strong and quickly became meaningless. But the companies that want strict region encoding on BR have learned their lesson. There are no region-free players in my country or, i am pretty sure, all of Europe (we are in the same region for BR, though not for dvd).
Just because you can get region free DVD players does not mean that the DVD forum agree with them.
You can purchase region free blu-ray players, you just need to look in the right place. And the real fact is, with the smaller number of regions now, you don't hit as many issues as you did with DVD, and unlike DVD they actually sell region free blu-ray discs.
Nope, I didn't say Americans are fat, that was purely you. I made a random assumption about you like you did of me concerning my gender. Maybe you should focus more on your reading skills than the sushi. Now I just think you're an idiot living in Japan.
Again you make an assumtion based on nothing: "You believe Usāmah bin Lādin carried out 911 don't you. You poor thing." No, I never said that. You made an offensive comment, accusing me of lying about my sex for no apparent reason - probably just because you have nothing better to do than "eat sushi, drink tea" and post nasty things on various internet forums. I wonder who's the lonely one.
My point was and still is: You don't have to be a dude to post here or show interest in Mac. I've been accused of being one before because some guys just can't handle the fact that women have other interests than family and being a house-wife. And thus, the comparison to an islamic fundamentalist who probably shares that view on women.
Moving on.
You said fat American. Why not fat Bulgarian? Don't play miss innocent now. Stereotyping hypocrite.
Hey you're smart. You figured out that sushi + macha latte = Japan. Not that I threw that out there for you to guess at or anything.
Who said you have to be a dude to post here? Not me. Show me the quote. Again you're the one making assumptions and that ASSumption illustrates that you have a big FAT chip on your shoulder. You don't even know why I said "she's probably a guy dude" do you? It's called a joke. I was teasing that other guy because he was getting all excited when you mentioned some sexual stuff and on the internet many girls are guys pretending to be girls. I wasn't even talking to you until you had to bud in. I bet if I winked at you at work you'd get all flushed and then sue me when you realized I wasn't winking at you.
To store 125GB would cost you $18.75 a month on Amazon S3.
Or $60 a year using Carbonite.
Now that I've organized the crap out of my iTunes and iPhoto libraries, they don't change all that much from month to month. As such, I don't need to backup them up monthly. So for me, backing up to $10-$12 worth of BR discs every other or every third month would be a nice economical solution. Currently, I do this with DVDs, but I'm eager to switch to a BR drive. Since I see my brother-in-law and sister weekly, I just keep the discs there. So for me, the price falls somewhere between your Amazon and Carbonite prices and I don't have to go through the process of trying to upload over 100GB every other month. My upload speed is only in the 2-3Mbps range. BTW, I also need the BR drive for HD content delivery from FCS.
From a backup perspective Time Machine + Carbonite beats Time Machine + BR unless I happen to be parking those BR disks offsite. Why? The most likely failure mode (single disk...either in the Mac or Time Machine) is covered. I need a two disk failure before I need to go to either Carbonite or BR.
Your solution works for you and mine works for me. BTW, my brother got surcharged by his ISP for exceeding is monthly upload limit. Granted, he's on a different ISP than I am, but backing up online clearly wasn't the best solution for him.
What is the most likely 2 disk failure scenario? My house burns down or someone breaks in and steals all my stuff. Will they actually take the TC in the equipment closet? Meh. If they find it anyway.
...but are they slot loading, use the same connections required in an imac, what about drivers, license fees etc.
there's more than just the price of the burner to consider
The drive I spoke of would be the kind I would put in a Mac Pro which I'd also be buying. As such, I don't have to worry about it being slot loading, drivers usually don't cost anything and I've never had to pay separate licensing fees for optical drives before (that weren't transparently built into the price of the drive). Since I won't be watching movies on my Mac, there really isn't anything much more I need to consider. I also own FCS and Toast and they all support Blu-ray burning, so for me, it's really just the price of the drive (and blank discs) and a new Mac Pro (which will be a whopper).
Comments
This is why I have an optical backup of my iTunes and iPhoto libraries on dual-layered DVD-Rs. A Blu-ray drive, however, would make that process so much easier. Just 1 disk instead of 3 to back up my photos or 4 instead of 12 to back up my iTunes.
To store 125GB would cost you $18.75 a month on Amazon S3.
Or $60 a year using Carbonite.
From a backup perspective Time Machine + Carbonite beats Time Machine + BR unless I happen to be parking those BR disks offsite. Why? The most likely failure mode (single disk...either in the Mac or Time Machine) is covered. I need a two disk failure before I need to go to either Carbonite or BR.
What is the most likely 2 disk failure scenario? My house burns down or someone breaks in and steals all my stuff. Will they actually take the TC in the equipment closet? Meh. If they find it anyway.
suggesting that earlier plans to offer Blu-ray technology on the new all-in-one desktops may have been pulled back just before the systems went into production last month.
actually they were probably pulled, if there was anything to pull, about the same time they started putting SD slots on the laptops and extras on the digital downloads (which required lead time to have had titles ready for the Sept release so that wasn't a last minute idea)
You can now get the new Pioneer internal Blu-ray burner for $250.
but are they slot loading, use the same connections required in an imac, what about drivers, license fees etc.
there's more than just the price of the burner to consider
Apple is dragging its feet in adopting Blu-ray technology and at this point is far from being innovative. This rumour is truly annoying.
key is RUMOUR. as in not a fact. not something Apple has said.
so it is possible that, where feasible a blue ray drive would be included. it might only be the Mac Pro and online but those are the machines they are trying to put on the desks of the folks using things like Final Cut Studio so one can see the train of thought going there
If I were to guess, they want to wait until the next Apple TV is ready and the iTunes store is upgraded to 1080p before offering Blu-ray. I doubt that they would want to make Blu-ray appear to be better than their iTunes store offerings.
or consider that they aren't going with native Blu-ray because of itunes and Apple tv, period.
OSX will need an update, so will iTunes, Quicktime, and dvd player.
none of which would be that major an issue.
Or of course they could be running into production problems with the hardware.
cue the rumors that the drives were being made by the same factory that was making the cameras for the ipod touches (that were so bad they 23rd hour pulled them and made up some malarky about 'game devices')
I see a video centric event coming eventually, and could become an annual thing like the music (iPod) one they have in the fall.
i see if anything, itunes being renamed to iMedia and the Sept event being about both audio and video as needed
The first two pages of comments were an absolutely amazement to me. Virtually all about BlueRay. Who the heck cares? (And I say this as someone who wants BlueRay.) All this BlueRay talk is irrelevant when it most assuredly will be a BTO option at some point. So let it go!
Personally I'd rather Apple get rid of the optical drive altogether on a MBP and give us three bays for at least 3 SSD drives. I'm very much of the sort that wants his movies carried internally. The problem is the extra effort to carry all those optical disks and keep them scratch free. Frankly Apples iTunes is good enough for that.
As for a TV in the house I gave up on that. Between cable costs and the price on DVDs it is cheaper to go the movies once a week.
Now if you want to talk about the real meat of this article, this comment is more spot on...
Now think deeply, people. Think. Do you honestly expect that a 1.7 or even a 2.0GHz 4-core CPU (even i7 based) could hold a candle to a 3.06GHz 2-core iMac in terms of "real world performance"?
The problem here is that performance on these processors will be all over the map. This due to a number of issues. But I think you are right in that a 2GHz processor will have a hard time competeing with the Core 2 processors running at 3GHz. That due to the Turbo Boost not always cranking up to max clock speed.
Many will argue that only one processor is used for for single threaded programs and that they will run just as well. Well it may or may not. The problem is a modern Mac is almost never running just one program. Plus you have GCD trying to do it's best to leverage all those cores, so it is not likely that the processor will have many opportunities to run in single core mode. This doesn't even discuss the temperature of the processor which is always a problem on Apple computers (no turbo boost when hot)
Lately I've been hearing that you might get 20% more performance clock for clock. That is very possible but it still doesn't hit the performance of the top of the line Core 2 processors. This is why I say things might actually suck if Turbo Boost can't kick in. What it comes down to is that it will depend and eclipsing todays iMacs is not a given.
If you do think that, you are deceived.
Well I think that might be a bit strong. The potential is there for good performance in certain situations. But I don't think people understand how modern computers work. First they may have many processes running at the same time even if they aren't user processes. Second programs use system resources which may be highly threaded. The idea that we are in a single threaded world just isn't true anymore. So how often will the processor actually be able to Turbo Boost. No body knows but in many cases single thread performance will suck.
As was the case with the very first PPC Macs that were slow because there wasn't enough "native" software out there for them, slow clocked 4-core CPUs will be hindered by the lack of multi-core software available for them. The end result is that a 4-core iMac -- at sub-2GHz clock speeds -- would certainly feel much slower than the current high-end iMac.
This isn't the case either. The problem is there are few programs that I would call hard single threaded programs anymore. Many common programs that users take advantage of are already threaded and more are every day. Even the lowly word processor is threaded these days. Many apps will run just fine on these processors. Combined with SL and the better multi processing behaviour of the i5 & i7 processors the performance may be very acceptable. But (it is a big one) hard single threaded portions of a program will suffer if the processor can't Turbo Boost.
Will people be disappointed with the new iMacs if they go this route(mobile processors)? I'm not sure because it will very much depend on each users load on the computer and software choices. Will it feel slower, well maybe, you might be uderestimating just how responsive the machine might feel with quad cores. GCD and other feature of SL really have had a significant impact on how my MBP fells. Until I see and work with one of these new machines, I'm not going to guess at performance or feel.
Don't get me wrong. I too want a quad-core iMac. My goodness do I want that. But I want it at a clock speed that rivals what we have now.
Well when you talk about clock speed this way I think you don't know what you are talking about. Todays processors do one hell of a lot more than the Core 2s of yesterday, clock for clock. The other problem is that intel simply doesn't have faster clock rate mobile processors right now.
It doesn't necessarily need to go as high as 3.06GHz (which may be impossible in terms of cooling in an iMac), but it certainly should be above 2.5GHz.
Well that would be nice but we will likely have to wait for 32nm processors for a good clock rate. Again that is if Apple goes with these new mobile processors. If they go the XEON route we might get closer. But right now +3.0 GHz is only going to be hit via Turbo Boost when it can kick in. But you are right in a sense to get the same performance at the chips base speed we will need a 2.5 GHz processor, otherwise you will have to rely on the variability in Turbo Boost. In any event we will have to watch carefully for thermal throttling on the new machines.
Again, think "real world" practical performance here people. With all this talk of low clock speeds, a dark cloud has come over what was an otherwise exciting time for me: the imminent release of new iMacs with "compelling new features."
Don't let the dark clouds in yet! We will know in the near future what will actually be in the machines. But yeah if the machines have the rumored mobile processors I wouldn't buy until I see some ethical testing. Apple however has choices and maybe they will make the right choice.
But for me, just how "compelling" those new iMacs will be will be locked to the clock speed (i.e., real world performance).
OK but realize clock rate isn't an indicator of real world performance relative to older machines. This idea that clock rate means anything relative to different generations of processors have to die. At best you can say that 2.5 GHz is the minimum you need to get similar performance to Core 2. Even then that has to be qualified by saying that it excludes Turbo Boost.
All in all I have to agree with the pessimism you display. If Apple goes the mobile processor route performance will be all over the map with more variables than most people are use to. Interesting times ahead.
Dave
The idea of Apple including a read-only Blu-ray drive is preposterous.
I'd love to see a Blu-ray drive, but ONLY one that can burn Blu-ray disks.
Contrary to some people's fantasies, one still needs the ability to burn CDs and DVDs.
I think he means a DVD/CD burner that also plays Blu-Ray media.
The quality of Blue Ray is better then regular DVDs. Further, the storage is better as well. Still those limited reasons to like Blue Ray do not come any where near the reasons to dislike Blue Ray.
First, Blue Ray disks are typically quite a bit more expensive then regular DVDs. Second, although the price of players are coming down, a $200 Blue Ray player doesn't satisfy the same quality level that a $50 DVD player does. The cheap Blue Ray players are made from low quality parts. You get what you pay for. Third, Apple doesn't want to put Blue Ray players on a Mac because Sony's license requires the OS and hardware to be locked down to prevent any possibility of the ripping of Blue Rays movies. This effects the quality of hardware performance even when the disks aren't being used. In other words, the putting a Blue Ray drive in a Mac will lower all Mac Blue Ray equipped Macs performance as the processors will be more taxed to comply with all the DRM requirements imposed by Sony. The Blue Screen of death will become far more common. Fourth, I legally rip movies all the time. For instance, all my DVDs are copied to a server so I can access them from a central location. Blue Ray prevents this.
Although slightly old, this link explains the reasons consumers should dislike Blue Ray. Don't buy the hype. Blue Ray really is a bag of hurt.
http://www.savedpennies.com/?p=112
LET'S REPLACE BLURAY WITH "mac" AND DVD WITH "pc" AND LET'S SEE:-
The quality of MAC is better then PC. Further, the LOOKS is better as well. Still those limited reasons to like MAC do not come any where near the reasons to dislike PC.
First, MAC's are typically quite a bit more expensive then regular PC. Second, although the price of MACS are coming down, a $2000 MAC doesn't satisfy the same quality level that a $500 PC does. The cheap MAC are made from low quality parts. You get what you pay for.
The MAC Screen of death will become far more common.
Don't buy the hype. MAC IS really is a bag of hurt.
As a girl who gets turned on by the design of the iMac and its sexiness, I'm asking why you WOULDN'T want to watch it as much as possible?
(oh, and I don't own a TV...)
I don't blame you for the smoking icon .... after reading your post I wanted to have a smoke, then I remembered ... I haven't smoked in 20 years!
Both WoW and Sims 3 have Mac-versions. I'm thinking of boot-camping, but hopefully that won't be necessary!
Thanks again! Sounds like great news that Photoshop is running on your computer! I'm so used to bad computers (is currently typing on a Asus Eee 900 who hates me) that even a bad version of iMac would probably give me an orgasm. Not literally...
Now I definitely have to start smoking again.
Both WoW and Sims 3 have Mac-versions. I'm thinking of boot-camping, but hopefully that won't be necessary!
Thanks again! Sounds like great news that Photoshop is running on your computer! I'm so used to bad computers (is currently typing on a Asus Eee 900 who hates me) that even a bad version of iMac would probably give me an orgasm. Not literally...
Now I definitely have to start smoking again.
She's a guy dude. Long live the internet.
She's a guy dude. Long live the internet.
You're assuming I'm a guy because I'm interested in iMacs and joke about sex? Or just because I'm posting on an internet-forum?
Then, I'm assuming you're a fat, american guy who base all your prejudice against women based on Desperate Housewives and Sex and the city, since you have never got the chance to be with a real one (maybe except for your mom).
For more inspiration on how to become even more of a sexist: Join Usama bin Laden and his 'gang'!
Now I definitely have to start smoking again.
I don't smoke, I just put the smokey-smiley there because it looked cool...
Don't start! It's disgusting!
I think that is the kind of his point. If they haven?t added it to the Mac Pro and haven?t added support to the OS for AACS to play DRMed Blu-ray media then why should we expect Apple to give the iMac an option. It?s not a professional machine and it?s not their biggest seller. It?s a pointless place to start. On top of that, Blu-ray adoption on PCs have shown to been low
And in other news, adoption of expensive PCs has also been shown to be low...looks like Apple should stop selling computers then
Blu-ray appeals to the average consumer as well as professionals.
As a side note - did I miss the people who always say that Apple are moving away from optical drives and no one needs them anymore?? I miss those guys
You're assuming I'm a guy because I'm interested in iMacs and joke about sex? Or just because I'm posting on an internet-forum?
Then, I'm assuming you're a fat, american guy who base all your prejudice against women based on Desperate Housewives and Sex and the city, since you have never got the chance to be with a real one (maybe except for your mom).
For more inspiration on how to become even more of a sexist: Join Usama bin Laden and his 'gang'!
Now look who's whistlin' Dixie. Americans are fat? You said it not me. If you've bumped into my posts/questions you'd know that not only am I the furthest place from North America but also post remotely while enjoying my sushi and sometimes macha tea latte exactly where they both originated.
You have a big FAT chip on your shoulder that probably matches the rest of you just fine. I said "She's a guy" and you reply with the above? Wow you have some issues to sort out. Good thing you have forums to fall back on when you're lonely. Don't watch Larry David. You might get angry and throw the TV out the window.
You believe Usāmah bin Lādin carried out 911 don't you. You poor thing.
.
What do you mean "far more strict than DVD", there are three regions in blu-ray, eight in DVD, has is three more restrictive than eight?
That wasn't what I was referring to. DVD players that were region free came out not too long after DVD's became mainstream ? in Australia at least, but I think the world over. The encryption that enforced regionality on dvds was not very strong and quickly became meaningless. But the companies that want strict region encoding on BR have learned their lesson. There are no region-free players in my country or, i am pretty sure, all of Europe (we are in the same region for BR, though not for dvd).
My point was that if Apple have to enforce this strict region encoding in a BR player through differences in the OS then it would indeed be "a bag of hurt" ? for the consumer and for Apple.
I know that these issues may be largely invisible in the U.S. where most people will only ever think about one region, but they are not invisible to the rest of the world. They are brought home every time we see what is available on Amazon.
You really aren't going to benefit viewing a Blue Ray movie on a 20-24" screen.
I don't see why people keep repeating this.
The 24" iMac has full 1080p resolution... How is this of no benefit in watching HD movies?
Now look who's whistlin' Dixie. Americans are fat? You said it not me. If you've bumped into my posts/questions you'd know that not only am I the furthest place from North America but also post remotely while enjoying my sushi and sometimes macha tea latte exactly where they both originated.
You have a big FAT chip on your shoulder that probably matches the rest of you just fine. I said "She's a guy" and you reply with the above? Wow you have some issues to sort out. Good thing you have forums to fall back on when you're lonely. Don't watch Larry David. You might get angry and throw the TV out the window.
You believe Usāmah bin Lādin carried out 911 don't you. You poor thing.
.
Nope, I didn't say Americans are fat, that was purely you. I made a random assumption about you like you did of me concerning my gender. Maybe you should focus more on your reading skills than the sushi. Now I just think you're an idiot living in Japan.
Again you make an assumtion based on nothing: "You believe Usāmah bin Lādin carried out 911 don't you. You poor thing." No, I never said that. You made an offensive comment, accusing me of lying about my sex for no apparent reason - probably just because you have nothing better to do than "eat sushi, drink tea" and post nasty things on various internet forums. I wonder who's the lonely one.
My point was and still is: You don't have to be a dude to post here or show interest in Mac. I've been accused of being one before because some guys just can't handle the fact that women have other interests than family and being a house-wife. And thus, the comparison to an islamic fundamentalist who probably shares that view on women.
Moving on.
That wasn't what I was referring to. DVD players that were region free came out not too long after DVD's became mainstream ? in Australia at least, but I think the world over. The encryption that enforced regionality on dvds was not very strong and quickly became meaningless. But the companies that want strict region encoding on BR have learned their lesson. There are no region-free players in my country or, i am pretty sure, all of Europe (we are in the same region for BR, though not for dvd).
Just because you can get region free DVD players does not mean that the DVD forum agree with them.
You can purchase region free blu-ray players, you just need to look in the right place. And the real fact is, with the smaller number of regions now, you don't hit as many issues as you did with DVD, and unlike DVD they actually sell region free blu-ray discs.
Nope, I didn't say Americans are fat, that was purely you. I made a random assumption about you like you did of me concerning my gender. Maybe you should focus more on your reading skills than the sushi. Now I just think you're an idiot living in Japan.
Again you make an assumtion based on nothing: "You believe Usāmah bin Lādin carried out 911 don't you. You poor thing." No, I never said that. You made an offensive comment, accusing me of lying about my sex for no apparent reason - probably just because you have nothing better to do than "eat sushi, drink tea" and post nasty things on various internet forums. I wonder who's the lonely one.
My point was and still is: You don't have to be a dude to post here or show interest in Mac. I've been accused of being one before because some guys just can't handle the fact that women have other interests than family and being a house-wife. And thus, the comparison to an islamic fundamentalist who probably shares that view on women.
Moving on.
You said fat American. Why not fat Bulgarian? Don't play miss innocent now. Stereotyping hypocrite.
Hey you're smart. You figured out that sushi + macha latte = Japan. Not that I threw that out there for you to guess at or anything.
Who said you have to be a dude to post here? Not me. Show me the quote. Again you're the one making assumptions and that ASSumption illustrates that you have a big FAT chip on your shoulder. You don't even know why I said "she's probably a guy dude" do you? It's called a joke. I was teasing that other guy because he was getting all excited when you mentioned some sexual stuff and on the internet many girls are guys pretending to be girls. I wasn't even talking to you until you had to bud in. I bet if I winked at you at work you'd get all flushed and then sue me when you realized I wasn't winking at you.
I'm on to another thread big mamma. Enjoy.
To store 125GB would cost you $18.75 a month on Amazon S3.
Or $60 a year using Carbonite.
Now that I've organized the crap out of my iTunes and iPhoto libraries, they don't change all that much from month to month. As such, I don't need to backup them up monthly. So for me, backing up to $10-$12 worth of BR discs every other or every third month would be a nice economical solution. Currently, I do this with DVDs, but I'm eager to switch to a BR drive. Since I see my brother-in-law and sister weekly, I just keep the discs there. So for me, the price falls somewhere between your Amazon and Carbonite prices and I don't have to go through the process of trying to upload over 100GB every other month. My upload speed is only in the 2-3Mbps range. BTW, I also need the BR drive for HD content delivery from FCS.
From a backup perspective Time Machine + Carbonite beats Time Machine + BR unless I happen to be parking those BR disks offsite. Why? The most likely failure mode (single disk...either in the Mac or Time Machine) is covered. I need a two disk failure before I need to go to either Carbonite or BR.
Your solution works for you and mine works for me. BTW, my brother got surcharged by his ISP for exceeding is monthly upload limit. Granted, he's on a different ISP than I am, but backing up online clearly wasn't the best solution for him.
What is the most likely 2 disk failure scenario? My house burns down or someone breaks in and steals all my stuff. Will they actually take the TC in the equipment closet? Meh. If they find it anyway.
...but are they slot loading, use the same connections required in an imac, what about drivers, license fees etc.
there's more than just the price of the burner to consider
The drive I spoke of would be the kind I would put in a Mac Pro which I'd also be buying. As such, I don't have to worry about it being slot loading, drivers usually don't cost anything and I've never had to pay separate licensing fees for optical drives before (that weren't transparently built into the price of the drive). Since I won't be watching movies on my Mac, there really isn't anything much more I need to consider. I also own FCS and Toast and they all support Blu-ray burning, so for me, it's really just the price of the drive (and blank discs) and a new Mac Pro (which will be a whopper).