Point was backlit is not soem new found technology. It's old but marketed as PRO. It is in no way a characteristic of being PRO.
I agree that it's not new, but it does seem cost prohibitive on a notebook that is already selling so well. I will be getting Pro next time and one of those reasons is for the backlighting. The point I agree with is that it make no business sense to include it on the MB, at this point. If Apple can offer someone better for the keyboard/trackpad area, then I can see them adding it to the MB.
I agree that solipsism went a bit over the top there with the personal attack, but in this case it's you that's not seeing things rationally. Where are all the laptops at the MacBook's price (or lower) with backlit keyboards?
Now, if you want to complain about the bottom-end macbook still having a DVD-ROM/CD-RW drive instead of a DVD±RW drive, be my guest. That really is a joke, because now even laptops a third of the price of the MacBook have DVD±RW drives.
See BL keyboards was a point raised by someone else not by me. My point is that when a company is charging so much money they should provide quality stuff. If they r popular, it does not mean that they start doing nonsense stuff, which basically Microsoft does. You correctly raised the point of DVD ROM vs DVD RW drives. Similarly in hardware category, u can get a better hardware configuration from other companies at lesser price. Thing is when people raise the point that MB and MBPs are doing so fine so everything about them is justified. It doesn't make sense because the difference is Mac OS which stands tall. People primarily buy MBs and MBPs coz of OS X. People pay 1000 $ to buy a MB and it can't even have a card reader what a joke. If any company was producing a decent OS, I am pretty sure Apple would have found the going really tough. Everything about Apple is not so good...That's what I call rationale thinking......
Check this link. It will give you a view into the possibilities.
Apple historically does not use fast GPU's in ANY of it's notebooks. Or at least they use older ones usually on the market for 2 years or more. They also do not tend to give tremendous speed changes with notebooks from version to version.
I expect the new books to have like a Nvidia 9600+ mobile or ATI HD (Something) in them. You wont see a 9800 or a Dual card solution as they are way too hot and belong in 2" thick PC notebooks with 30 min battery life.
Hope this helps. (I hope they put some sort of quicker ATI personally, as ATI has shown the highest benchmarks for OpenGL and Apple pro app gpu rendering)
Using a chip-over-chip comparison based on price per 1000, this is the most likely upgrade cycle for Apple notebooks. iMacs are not listed as they were updated in April with a special Santa Rosa/Penryn that is not on Intel's pricing sheet. I'm guessing they will be updated in January.
There are few oddities (marked with red triangles) this time around with the small packages an reduced power, which is where my questions lay. For the MBP Apple has the option of choosing a $32 more expensive P9500 that has all the same performance as T9400 but with considerably less power usage. For the 2.26 and 1.4GHz chips there are both a 22 and 35mm^2 chip. The small form factor package has double the L2 Cache, but at a considerable jump in cost. I can't see Apple ruining margins that much for the MB, but they did say their would be lowered margins, but that typical of any product transition.
Anyway, here is my list of what I think we'll see in the next refresh.
Really? Removing the optical drive poses a problem to burning optical media? Who would have thought of that....
Is the sardonicism really necessary?
Quote:
You can buy a MacBook Air, if you really want a crippled computer, an optical drive doesn't really take that much space.
Crippled implies it can't do what people need it to do. If you need an optical drive then not having one obviously makes it crippled. But if you need a RJ-11 jack then Macs are crippled machines, too, by your definition. What is up for debate is the frequency of use of optical drive are for consumer notebooks. The ripping music argument is much less of an issue than it was a few years ago and will be even less of an issue in a few more years.
As for space, only the battery takes up more space in a notebook and it constraining the engineering options since the drive has to placed in a certain way.
I don't really care about the backlit keyboard. However, personally for me the most important feature I want is a 1920x1200 screen in a 15.4" macbook pro. I am very tired of waiting to upgrade my macbook to a macbook pro. Both Dell and Thinkpads have them.
Consider that maybe a good portion of Apples customer base don't want the high resolution screens. Don't get me wrong choice is always good but with matte screens added to the normal screens that would mean a lot of SKU's at each level. In any event if Apple isn't offering resolution options they have made the right choice, for many people the high resolution would be a bug negative.
Of course if Apple ever implements resolution indepedence this would not be a concern.
Quote:
I also think Apple has to do something about their pricing. I can get a dell xpsm1350 with a 2.4ghz processor, 4gb ram, 320GB 7200rpm drive, and 1920x1200 screen for $1500 and then run OSx86 on it.
Then go out and buy that Dell. Don't blame me though if the quality sucks, you would be better off comparing with a quality manufacture. Get one that runs Linux well and you will be all set.
The biggest problem with Apple is that they introduce a model and keep it static until the next update. Apple offers up the best values when the laptops are released as new or updates.
Quote:
I can't even buy a 15.4" macbook pro with a 320Gb drive or with a 1920x1200 screen. The closest I can come to that from apple is a 17" macbook pro with a 2.5ghz processor, 4GB ram, 200GB 7200rpm drive, and a 1920x1200 screen for $3149. Its over twice the price and I don't want the bigger size or the weight.
Then don't buy Apple. If you go to the BMW lot and look around and realize they don't have want you go to another manufacture. Same with PCs. Either Apple has what you want or they don't.
Quote:
I don't see the ipods lower prices as being the reason for the lower margin issue which was mentioned as being necessary so others can't compete. I have no clue what that could be but hopefully it will involve macbooks because right now they are seriously behind windows laptops as far as hardware is concerned.
If you are interested in Apple software why do you even worry about other hardware? Seriously? Moreso are you even bothering to compare hardware of the same quality. You mention Dell but of late they have been selling crap and as a result have a dwindling customer base.
In any event how many of those features do you need? The only one that I see people having consistant problems with is disk storage and that will always be an issue. You know that it won't be more than a few months after buying a laptop that new storage options will come out, you just can't dwell on it.
As to Apples statements on competitors not being able to compete against new Apple products. I really don't know what to think right now because the iPods did not impress me in that direction. Moreso I don't think the new iPods are the devices that will be impacting margins. Frankly I'm begining to think the old Reality Distortion Field is at work. Maybes the new laptops will be innovative but they are coming awfully late in the context of Apples statements. Apple could get a jump on the rest of the industry just by implementing some of the new battery technologies coming on line.
"Consider that maybe a good portion of Apples customer base don't want the high resolution screens. Don't get me wrong choice is always good but with matte screens added to the normal screens that would mean a lot of SKU's at each level. In any event if Apple isn't offering resolution options they have made the right choice, for many people the high resolution would be a bug negative.
Of course if Apple ever implements resolution indepedence this would not be a concern."
Apple offers a 1920x1200 option for the 17" - I was just thinking of the same for the 15.4". True it isn't for everyone - but for those of us that plug our macbooks into a 24" screen and run 1920x1200 on it because we run apps which require lots of screenspace like for palettes it is a godsend. Why? well because when we are mobile and not connected to that 24" screen and using a lower resolution our desktops are all messed up and there just isn't the screenspace. I could lug around a 17" pro but I really don't want that extra size and weight when I could get the same screensize on a 15.4".
"Then go out and buy that Dell. Don't blame me though if the quality sucks, you would be better off comparing with a quality manufacture. Get one that runs Linux well and you will be all set."
I think you missed where I said I would run OSx86 - it is the open source version of OSX - not linux. I have owned dells and agree the quality is far below macs - however when a mac costs twice as much it does make you think about getting a dell and running OSX on it. To be honest I would probably not go that route and would instead buy a refurb macbookpro for $1699 instead.
"Then don't buy Apple. If you go to the BMW lot and look around and realize they don't have want you go to another manufacture. Same with PCs. Either Apple has what you want or they don't."
I am only mentioning what I would like to see in a macbook pro. If people didn't tell BMW they wanted ipod integration would BMW have offered it? I want 1920x1200 in a 15.4" machine - I am sure a lot of people that need the extra screen real estate that resolution offers do as well. Sure its not for everyone but Apple offered it as an option for the 17" model and now that panels are available for the 15.4" size its not a big deal to offer it as an option for the 15.4" as well. It is not like they have to redesign anything for it.
"If you are interested in Apple software why do you even worry about other hardware? Seriously? Moreso are you even bothering to compare hardware of the same quality. You mention Dell but of late they have been selling crap and as a result have a dwindling customer base."
Simply because with the open source version of OSX I can run Apple Software on almost any laptop. I agree Apple outclasses all the other pc laptop vendors but like I said twice the cost is twice the cost.
Sony has a $1,000 laptop with built-in Blu-Ray playback. $999 buys a 15.4" 1280x800 screen, 2Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB of RAM, 250GB hard drive, and an optical drive that reads Blu-Ray and burns everything else. Granted, the thing weighs 6.4 pounds and only gets 1.5-4 hours of battery life, but that still leaves Apple's offerings looking pretty grim.
Meanwhile, we can't get any kind of Blu-Ray playback on a Mac no matter how much you spend. Is Apple the only computer manufacturer remaining that doesn't offer Blu-Ray? Oh that's right, we Mac users don't need Blu-Ray because Steve feels we're better off paying him $3-per episode or $5 per rental for DVD-quality "HD" content.
Sony has a $1,000 laptop with built-in Blu-Ray playback. $999 buys a 15.4" 1280x800 screen, 2Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB of RAM, 250GB hard drive, and an optical drive that reads Blu-Ray and burns everything else. Granted, the thing weighs 6.4 pounds and only gets 1.5-4 hours of battery life, but that still leaves Apple's offerings looking pretty grim.
Meanwhile, we can't get any kind of Blu-Ray playback on a Mac no matter how much you spend. Is Apple the only computer manufacturer remaining that doesn't offer Blu-Ray? Oh that's right, we Mac users don't need Blu-Ray because Steve feels we're better off paying him $3-per episode or $5 per rental for DVD-quality "HD" content.
Well, if you're disappointed in Apple's version of HD, how is it that you think Sony's 1280 x 800 screen is going to be any better?
Blue Ray can not be far off. Players are selling for under $300 at HHGreg this weekend. It is a matter of time...
The standalone players coming down in price is only one part of the equation. There is still an uncertainty of the need and want by computer users. There is also an engineering aspect to consider: Are there slot loading BRDs that as thin as the current MB/MBP/iMac SuperDrives?
Remember that original 15" CD MBPs didn't have a DL burner in them because they didn't make a DL layer burner thin enough. This was a step backwards from the PBs that did offer DL burning, so i don't think Apple it going to thicken up their notebook design just to accommodate a few geek fantasies.
The standalone players coming down in price is only one part of the equation. There is still an uncertainty of the need and want by computer users. There is also an engineering aspect to consider: Are there slot loading BRDs that as thin as the current MB/MBP/iMac SuperDrives?
Remember that original 15" CD MBPs didn't have a DL burner in them because they didn't make a DL layer burner thin enough. This was a step backwards from the PBs that did offer DL burning, so i don't think Apple it going to thicken up their notebook design just to accommodate a few geek fantasies.
I don't disagree with anything you say. I doubt we will see BR burners anytime soon though.
I don't disagree with anything you say. I doubt we will see BR burners anytime soon though.
I did find a slot loading BRD by Panasonic. It's the thinnest I can find is 12.7mm, while the current MBPs slot loading SuperDrive is 9.5mm thick.
edit: It appears that the 17" MBP and iMacs use a 12.5mm drive, so the Panasonic drive above would fit. However, the price is prohibitive for consumers but could be feasible for professionals even though an external drive would be cheaper and faster than these slim designs.
I did find a slot loading BRD by Panasonic. It's the thinnest I can find is 12.7mm, while the current MBPs slot loading SuperDrive is 9.5mm thick.
That's a blu-ray burner. Fingers-crossed that there's a BD-ROM/DVD±RW combo drive that's thin enough. I'm not holding my breath, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Well, if you're disappointed in Apple's version of HD, how is it that you think Sony's 1280 x 800 screen is going to be any better?
Firstly, there's more to HD than just the nominal resolution; if the video stream is encoded at a low bit-rate then codec artefacts effectively reduce the resolution. Secondly, on a screen 15.4" in size, a higher resolution than 1280 x 720 isn't necessary because at normal viewing distances the human eye can't resolve more information than that. Thirdly, for machines like the MacBook and MacBook Pro with their DVI out ports, the full 1920 x 1080 of Blu-ray could be exploited when connected to a larger external display.
I'm waiting for the new MacBook Pros, and whilst I would like to have a blu-ray drive it's not a deal-breaker if there isn't one.
Because Apple's version of HD content is 4mbps, where-as Blu-Ray is 25-35mbps. Resolution is not the factor.
Fine, but Sony's screen still can't display any better absolute resolution that what Apple is transmitting. If you want to talk about compression difference that's another matter but so far I don't recall anyone conclusively saying that Apple is over-compressing their content for transmission.
Crippled implies it can't do what people need it to do. If you need an optical drive then not having one obviously makes it crippled. But if you need a RJ-11 jack then Macs are crippled machines, too, by your definition. What is up for debate is the frequency of use of optical drive are for consumer notebooks. The ripping music argument is much less of an issue than it was a few years ago and will be even less of an issue in a few more years.
As for space, only the battery takes up more space in a notebook and it constraining the engineering options since the drive has to placed in a certain way.
Exactly. People name why they need an optical drive each time this issue comes up. But none of the reasons equate to something that most people have to do on a regular basis.
The main arguments against the optical drive are:
- the media is huge and takes a large amount of space
- most things that were once delivered on CD are available as a download
- the flash drives do a better job than optical for most uses
Now even if you could argue those points away, what cannot be justified is that the optical drive be built-in to a laptop. It can be external. It's now a minority of people who need an optical drive a lot so let them buy a bigger machine and stop loading up every one else.
I'm willing to bet money Apple will release a non-Air laptop without a optical drive by January.
Fine, but Sony's screen still can't display any better absolute resolution that what Apple is transmitting.
Huh? Screen-resolution is a non-issue. You would clearly see the difference between internet-served 4mbps "HD" content and a 25-35mbps Blu-Ray, even on a 1280x720 screen. You're not seeing the full 1080p image of the Blu-Ray, but on a 15" screen you don't need to. What you will see at that distance and screensize though is the shortcomings of 4mbps "HD" internet-served content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1
If you want to talk about compression difference that's another matter but so far I don't recall anyone conclusively saying that Apple is over-compressing their content for transmission.
Huh? Screen-resolution is a non-issue. You would clearly see the difference between internet-served 4mbps "HD" content and a 25-35mbps Blu-Ray, even on a 1280x720 screen. You're not seeing the full 1080p image of the Blu-Ray, but on a 15" screen you don't need to. What you will see at that distance and screensize though is the shortcomings of 4mbps "HD" internet-served content.
"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.
Comments
Point was backlit is not soem new found technology. It's old but marketed as PRO. It is in no way a characteristic of being PRO.
I agree that it's not new, but it does seem cost prohibitive on a notebook that is already selling so well. I will be getting Pro next time and one of those reasons is for the backlighting. The point I agree with is that it make no business sense to include it on the MB, at this point. If Apple can offer someone better for the keyboard/trackpad area, then I can see them adding it to the MB.
I agree that solipsism went a bit over the top there with the personal attack, but in this case it's you that's not seeing things rationally. Where are all the laptops at the MacBook's price (or lower) with backlit keyboards?
Now, if you want to complain about the bottom-end macbook still having a DVD-ROM/CD-RW drive instead of a DVD±RW drive, be my guest. That really is a joke, because now even laptops a third of the price of the MacBook have DVD±RW drives.
See BL keyboards was a point raised by someone else not by me. My point is that when a company is charging so much money they should provide quality stuff. If they r popular, it does not mean that they start doing nonsense stuff, which basically Microsoft does. You correctly raised the point of DVD ROM vs DVD RW drives. Similarly in hardware category, u can get a better hardware configuration from other companies at lesser price. Thing is when people raise the point that MB and MBPs are doing so fine so everything about them is justified. It doesn't make sense because the difference is Mac OS which stands tall. People primarily buy MBs and MBPs coz of OS X. People pay 1000 $ to buy a MB and it can't even have a card reader what a joke. If any company was producing a decent OS, I am pretty sure Apple would have found the going really tough. Everything about Apple is not so good...That's what I call rationale thinking......
Any speculation of what gpu they would use in the next macbook pro taking into consideration form factor, heat, and battery life?
Didn't think anyone responded to this yet or I have missed it,
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...ist.844.0.html
Check this link. It will give you a view into the possibilities.
Apple historically does not use fast GPU's in ANY of it's notebooks. Or at least they use older ones usually on the market for 2 years or more. They also do not tend to give tremendous speed changes with notebooks from version to version.
I expect the new books to have like a Nvidia 9600+ mobile or ATI HD (Something) in them. You wont see a 9800 or a Dual card solution as they are way too hot and belong in 2" thick PC notebooks with 30 min battery life.
Hope this helps. (I hope they put some sort of quicker ATI personally, as ATI has shown the highest benchmarks for OpenGL and Apple pro app gpu rendering)
There are few oddities (marked with red triangles) this time around with the small packages an reduced power, which is where my questions lay. For the MBP Apple has the option of choosing a $32 more expensive P9500 that has all the same performance as T9400 but with considerably less power usage. For the 2.26 and 1.4GHz chips there are both a 22 and 35mm^2 chip. The small form factor package has double the L2 Cache, but at a considerable jump in cost. I can't see Apple ruining margins that much for the MB, but they did say their would be lowered margins, but that typical of any product transition.
Anyway, here is my list of what I think we'll see in the next refresh.
The main gripes anyone has about removing the cd drive is
a) ripping music/movies
b) installing software
c) burning optical media
Really? Removing the optical drive poses a problem to burning optical media? Who would have thought of that...
You can buy a MacBook Air, if you really want a crippled computer, an optical drive doesn't really take that much space.
Really? Removing the optical drive poses a problem to burning optical media? Who would have thought of that....
Is the sardonicism really necessary?
You can buy a MacBook Air, if you really want a crippled computer, an optical drive doesn't really take that much space.
Crippled implies it can't do what people need it to do. If you need an optical drive then not having one obviously makes it crippled. But if you need a RJ-11 jack then Macs are crippled machines, too, by your definition. What is up for debate is the frequency of use of optical drive are for consumer notebooks. The ripping music argument is much less of an issue than it was a few years ago and will be even less of an issue in a few more years.
As for space, only the battery takes up more space in a notebook and it constraining the engineering options since the drive has to placed in a certain way.
I don't really care about the backlit keyboard. However, personally for me the most important feature I want is a 1920x1200 screen in a 15.4" macbook pro. I am very tired of waiting to upgrade my macbook to a macbook pro. Both Dell and Thinkpads have them.
Consider that maybe a good portion of Apples customer base don't want the high resolution screens. Don't get me wrong choice is always good but with matte screens added to the normal screens that would mean a lot of SKU's at each level. In any event if Apple isn't offering resolution options they have made the right choice, for many people the high resolution would be a bug negative.
Of course if Apple ever implements resolution indepedence this would not be a concern.
I also think Apple has to do something about their pricing. I can get a dell xpsm1350 with a 2.4ghz processor, 4gb ram, 320GB 7200rpm drive, and 1920x1200 screen for $1500 and then run OSx86 on it.
Then go out and buy that Dell. Don't blame me though if the quality sucks, you would be better off comparing with a quality manufacture. Get one that runs Linux well and you will be all set.
The biggest problem with Apple is that they introduce a model and keep it static until the next update. Apple offers up the best values when the laptops are released as new or updates.
I can't even buy a 15.4" macbook pro with a 320Gb drive or with a 1920x1200 screen. The closest I can come to that from apple is a 17" macbook pro with a 2.5ghz processor, 4GB ram, 200GB 7200rpm drive, and a 1920x1200 screen for $3149. Its over twice the price and I don't want the bigger size or the weight.
Then don't buy Apple. If you go to the BMW lot and look around and realize they don't have want you go to another manufacture. Same with PCs. Either Apple has what you want or they don't.
I don't see the ipods lower prices as being the reason for the lower margin issue which was mentioned as being necessary so others can't compete. I have no clue what that could be but hopefully it will involve macbooks because right now they are seriously behind windows laptops as far as hardware is concerned.
If you are interested in Apple software why do you even worry about other hardware? Seriously? Moreso are you even bothering to compare hardware of the same quality. You mention Dell but of late they have been selling crap and as a result have a dwindling customer base.
In any event how many of those features do you need? The only one that I see people having consistant problems with is disk storage and that will always be an issue. You know that it won't be more than a few months after buying a laptop that new storage options will come out, you just can't dwell on it.
As to Apples statements on competitors not being able to compete against new Apple products. I really don't know what to think right now because the iPods did not impress me in that direction. Moreso I don't think the new iPods are the devices that will be impacting margins. Frankly I'm begining to think the old Reality Distortion Field is at work. Maybes the new laptops will be innovative but they are coming awfully late in the context of Apples statements. Apple could get a jump on the rest of the industry just by implementing some of the new battery technologies coming on line.
Dave
"Consider that maybe a good portion of Apples customer base don't want the high resolution screens. Don't get me wrong choice is always good but with matte screens added to the normal screens that would mean a lot of SKU's at each level. In any event if Apple isn't offering resolution options they have made the right choice, for many people the high resolution would be a bug negative.
Of course if Apple ever implements resolution indepedence this would not be a concern."
Apple offers a 1920x1200 option for the 17" - I was just thinking of the same for the 15.4". True it isn't for everyone - but for those of us that plug our macbooks into a 24" screen and run 1920x1200 on it because we run apps which require lots of screenspace like for palettes it is a godsend. Why? well because when we are mobile and not connected to that 24" screen and using a lower resolution our desktops are all messed up and there just isn't the screenspace. I could lug around a 17" pro but I really don't want that extra size and weight when I could get the same screensize on a 15.4".
"Then go out and buy that Dell. Don't blame me though if the quality sucks, you would be better off comparing with a quality manufacture. Get one that runs Linux well and you will be all set."
I think you missed where I said I would run OSx86 - it is the open source version of OSX - not linux. I have owned dells and agree the quality is far below macs - however when a mac costs twice as much it does make you think about getting a dell and running OSX on it. To be honest I would probably not go that route and would instead buy a refurb macbookpro for $1699 instead.
"Then don't buy Apple. If you go to the BMW lot and look around and realize they don't have want you go to another manufacture. Same with PCs. Either Apple has what you want or they don't."
I am only mentioning what I would like to see in a macbook pro. If people didn't tell BMW they wanted ipod integration would BMW have offered it? I want 1920x1200 in a 15.4" machine - I am sure a lot of people that need the extra screen real estate that resolution offers do as well. Sure its not for everyone but Apple offered it as an option for the 17" model and now that panels are available for the 15.4" size its not a big deal to offer it as an option for the 15.4" as well. It is not like they have to redesign anything for it.
"If you are interested in Apple software why do you even worry about other hardware? Seriously? Moreso are you even bothering to compare hardware of the same quality. You mention Dell but of late they have been selling crap and as a result have a dwindling customer base."
Simply because with the open source version of OSX I can run Apple Software on almost any laptop. I agree Apple outclasses all the other pc laptop vendors but like I said twice the cost is twice the cost.
Meanwhile, we can't get any kind of Blu-Ray playback on a Mac no matter how much you spend. Is Apple the only computer manufacturer remaining that doesn't offer Blu-Ray? Oh that's right, we Mac users don't need Blu-Ray because Steve feels we're better off paying him $3-per episode or $5 per rental for DVD-quality "HD" content.
Sony has a $1,000 laptop with built-in Blu-Ray playback. $999 buys a 15.4" 1280x800 screen, 2Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB of RAM, 250GB hard drive, and an optical drive that reads Blu-Ray and burns everything else. Granted, the thing weighs 6.4 pounds and only gets 1.5-4 hours of battery life, but that still leaves Apple's offerings looking pretty grim.
Meanwhile, we can't get any kind of Blu-Ray playback on a Mac no matter how much you spend. Is Apple the only computer manufacturer remaining that doesn't offer Blu-Ray? Oh that's right, we Mac users don't need Blu-Ray because Steve feels we're better off paying him $3-per episode or $5 per rental for DVD-quality "HD" content.
Well, if you're disappointed in Apple's version of HD, how is it that you think Sony's 1280 x 800 screen is going to be any better?
Blue Ray can not be far off. Players are selling for under $300 at HHGreg this weekend. It is a matter of time...
The standalone players coming down in price is only one part of the equation. There is still an uncertainty of the need and want by computer users. There is also an engineering aspect to consider: Are there slot loading BRDs that as thin as the current MB/MBP/iMac SuperDrives?
Remember that original 15" CD MBPs didn't have a DL burner in them because they didn't make a DL layer burner thin enough. This was a step backwards from the PBs that did offer DL burning, so i don't think Apple it going to thicken up their notebook design just to accommodate a few geek fantasies.
The standalone players coming down in price is only one part of the equation. There is still an uncertainty of the need and want by computer users. There is also an engineering aspect to consider: Are there slot loading BRDs that as thin as the current MB/MBP/iMac SuperDrives?
Remember that original 15" CD MBPs didn't have a DL burner in them because they didn't make a DL layer burner thin enough. This was a step backwards from the PBs that did offer DL burning, so i don't think Apple it going to thicken up their notebook design just to accommodate a few geek fantasies.
I don't disagree with anything you say. I doubt we will see BR burners anytime soon though.
I don't disagree with anything you say. I doubt we will see BR burners anytime soon though.
I did find a slot loading BRD by Panasonic. It's the thinnest I can find is 12.7mm, while the current MBPs slot loading SuperDrive is 9.5mm thick.
edit: It appears that the 17" MBP and iMacs use a 12.5mm drive, so the Panasonic drive above would fit. However, the price is prohibitive for consumers but could be feasible for professionals even though an external drive would be cheaper and faster than these slim designs.
I did find a slot loading BRD by Panasonic. It's the thinnest I can find is 12.7mm, while the current MBPs slot loading SuperDrive is 9.5mm thick.
That's a blu-ray burner. Fingers-crossed that there's a BD-ROM/DVD±RW combo drive that's thin enough. I'm not holding my breath, though.
Well, if you're disappointed in Apple's version of HD, how is it that you think Sony's 1280 x 800 screen is going to be any better?
Firstly, there's more to HD than just the nominal resolution; if the video stream is encoded at a low bit-rate then codec artefacts effectively reduce the resolution. Secondly, on a screen 15.4" in size, a higher resolution than 1280 x 720 isn't necessary because at normal viewing distances the human eye can't resolve more information than that. Thirdly, for machines like the MacBook and MacBook Pro with their DVI out ports, the full 1920 x 1080 of Blu-ray could be exploited when connected to a larger external display.
I'm waiting for the new MacBook Pros, and whilst I would like to have a blu-ray drive it's not a deal-breaker if there isn't one.
Well, if you're disappointed in Apple's version of HD, how is it that you think Sony's 1280 x 800 screen is going to be any better?
Because Apple's version of HD content is 4mbps, where-as Blu-Ray is 25-35mbps. Resolution is not the factor.
Because Apple's version of HD content is 4mbps, where-as Blu-Ray is 25-35mbps. Resolution is not the factor.
Fine, but Sony's screen still can't display any better absolute resolution that what Apple is transmitting. If you want to talk about compression difference that's another matter but so far I don't recall anyone conclusively saying that Apple is over-compressing their content for transmission.
Is the sardonicism really necessary?
Crippled implies it can't do what people need it to do. If you need an optical drive then not having one obviously makes it crippled. But if you need a RJ-11 jack then Macs are crippled machines, too, by your definition. What is up for debate is the frequency of use of optical drive are for consumer notebooks. The ripping music argument is much less of an issue than it was a few years ago and will be even less of an issue in a few more years.
As for space, only the battery takes up more space in a notebook and it constraining the engineering options since the drive has to placed in a certain way.
Exactly. People name why they need an optical drive each time this issue comes up. But none of the reasons equate to something that most people have to do on a regular basis.
The main arguments against the optical drive are:
- the media is huge and takes a large amount of space
- most things that were once delivered on CD are available as a download
- the flash drives do a better job than optical for most uses
Now even if you could argue those points away, what cannot be justified is that the optical drive be built-in to a laptop. It can be external. It's now a minority of people who need an optical drive a lot so let them buy a bigger machine and stop loading up every one else.
I'm willing to bet money Apple will release a non-Air laptop without a optical drive by January.
Fine, but Sony's screen still can't display any better absolute resolution that what Apple is transmitting.
Huh? Screen-resolution is a non-issue. You would clearly see the difference between internet-served 4mbps "HD" content and a 25-35mbps Blu-Ray, even on a 1280x720 screen. You're not seeing the full 1080p image of the Blu-Ray, but on a 15" screen you don't need to. What you will see at that distance and screensize though is the shortcomings of 4mbps "HD" internet-served content.
If you want to talk about compression difference that's another matter but so far I don't recall anyone conclusively saying that Apple is over-compressing their content for transmission.
Then you've got some reading to do:
Appleinsider: iTunes HD Videos Low Bitrate
ZDNET: Don't believe the low-bitrate "Hd" lie
Engadget HD: Sizing Up Apple TV's HD
Internet Video: Is HD Video on the Web Really HD?
Gizmodo: Why HD Video Downloads Aren't Really HD
Huh? Screen-resolution is a non-issue. You would clearly see the difference between internet-served 4mbps "HD" content and a 25-35mbps Blu-Ray, even on a 1280x720 screen. You're not seeing the full 1080p image of the Blu-Ray, but on a 15" screen you don't need to. What you will see at that distance and screensize though is the shortcomings of 4mbps "HD" internet-served content.
Then you've got some reading to do:
Appleinsider: iTunes HD Videos Low Bitrate
ZDNET: Don't believe the low-bitrate "Hd" lie
Engadget HD: Sizing Up Apple TV's HD
Internet Video: Is HD Video on the Web Really HD?
Gizmodo: Why HD Video Downloads Aren't Really HD
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.