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.
I hear ya, but I guess my dilemma is I do want a "Decent" video card, so if i am going to sacrifice video power for portability (meaning going macbook instead of macbook pro), then I would rather wait and at least have the better of the two integrated graphics cards. plus I have seen posts about Apple going with another chip manufacture because of the fact that the integrated Intel chip is well lets just say "Less then desirable". so that small hope still has be hanging on. I just really hope it comes true and they surprise us!
I hear ya, but I guess my dilemma is I do want a "Decent" video card, so if i am going to sacrifice video power for portability (meaning going macbook instead of macbook pro), then I would rather wait and at least have the better of the two integrated graphics cards. plus I have seen posts about Apple going with another chip manufacture because of the fact that the integrated Intel chip is well lets just say "Less then desirable". so that small hope still has be hanging on. I just really hope it comes true and they surprise us!
No integrated GPU will ever compare to a modern discrete GPU, but the X4500 is reportedly 200% faster than the X3100. It also uses less power. This is achieved from better HW acceleration, which the X3100 on my MB already excels at. I've had no issues with playing HD video while multi-tasking.
If you plan on playing any advanced MMORPGs or other graphic intensive games you may want to look into a MBP or check out the frame rate differences between the two. I'm sure there are sites that test different GPUs.
No integrated GPU will ever compare to a modern discrete GPU, but the X4500 is reportedly 200% faster than the X3100. It also uses less power. This is achieved from better HW acceleration, which the X3100 on my MB already excels at. I've had no issues with playing HD video while multi-tasking.
If you plan on playing any advanced MMORPGs or other graphic intensive games you may want to look into a MBP or check out the frame rate differences between the two. I'm sure there are sites that test different GPUs.
I have seen the framrates and they are horrible! lol.. your right im not planning on playing any "Advanced mmorpg's" but I do want to be able to play some games, which are older so im sure it will be just fine. the majority of what i want to do should be ok for just the macbook. Primarily for school, and software development both windows and mac. so i should be ok.
Macs make the best Win PCs. Vista's Aero works great with my 2.2GHz MB with its GMA X3100.
From what I have been seeing with the benchmarks it does seem that way. Which is why I am switching to the "Darkside" or leaving the "Darkside" whichever way you want to look at it. lol
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.
The fact that a 1280x800 laptop screen has poor contrast and response time compared to a high-end HDTV is not a factor here; the issue is with image clarity and sharpness. And if you can see the sharpness and clarity difference between a Blu-Ray and internet-served "HD" video on a crappy laptop screen (and you can), then you're really going to see it on a high-contrast, fast-response HDTV. Really, which of these options make more sense:
1. Apple adopts Blu-Ray in their Macs so users' computers can read the same discs they're playing on their televisions, simultaneously catching up with the rest of the PC industry in terms of price/performance.
2. Users opt for buying and renting uber-compressed movies and television shows from Apple because their low-contrast computer screens don't give them the full experience of an HDTV would anyhow, and either avoid watching movies/tv shows beyond their computer or equip their living room with an Apple TV instead of a Blu-Ray player so they can enjoy the same soft, compressed image on their HDTV.
You're getting a pretty poor experience by listening to music through a laptop's speakers, but you wouldn't use that as justification for eliminating the ability to CDs in a laptop, would you?
Can we be hopfull that it will be sooner then the 14th? I sure hope so...
The article explicitly only mentions 'MacBooks'. So the question is whether that means no MacBook Pros are shipping just yet or whether the analyst meant both and just used the common term.
Rumors suggest that MacBooks will gain aluminium casing and LED backlights so it could very well be that only MacBooks shipped.
Someone else suggested that perhaps the 'Pro' label will be removed and Apple will only sell 'MacBooks' with different specs. Kind of would make sense if both share the same aluminium design. Otherwise consumers would be confused about aluminium MacBooks and aluminium MacBook Pros.
In which case the analyst would be right in only mentioning 'MacBooks'.
In yet other rumors MacBook Pros are delayed behind MacBooks because of Nvidia's troubles. Since MacBooks use Intel's onboard graphics they can ship sooner.
So the quesiton is:
a) Will MacBooks be introduced in September and MacBook Pros October 14th? Would Apple even consider to have two separate events?
b) Will both MacBooks and MacBook Pros be introduced in September, sooner than most thought?
c) Will both be introduced mid October.
If the pricing is really agressive, then a huge demand could be possible at which point Apple better have many in store - hence deliveries starting 3-4 weeks earlier could make sense.
The fact that a 1280x800 laptop screen has poor contrast and response time compared to a high-end HDTV is not a factor here; the issue is with image clarity and sharpness. And if you can see the sharpness and clarity difference between a Blu-Ray and internet-served "HD" video on a crappy laptop screen (and you can), then you're really going to see it on a high-contrast, fast-response HDTV. Really, which of these options make more sense:
1. Apple adopts Blu-Ray in their Macs so users' computers can read the same discs they're playing on their televisions, simultaneously catching up with the rest of the PC industry in terms of price/performance.
2. Users opt for buying and renting uber-compressed movies and television shows from Apple because their low-contrast computer screens don't give them the full experience of an HDTV would anyhow, and either avoid watching movies/tv shows beyond their computer or equip their living room with an Apple TV instead of a Blu-Ray player so they can enjoy the same soft, compressed image on their HDTV.
You're getting a pretty poor experience by listening to music through a laptop's speakers, but you wouldn't use that as justification for eliminating the ability to CDs in a laptop, would you?
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.
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.
I think the only thing we disagree on is when a diskless world will be a reality. Music, at 99 cents a track, miniscule file size, and sound quality being more difficult to distinguish that image quality, has a much easier time gaining traction as a digital-only distribution. And even with iTunes massive presence in the music world, we're five+ years into the digital music revolution and there's still no shortage of CDs in physical stores, is there? To suggest that Apple doesn't need to offer Blu-Ray in their Macs because the day of digital video distribution is upon us would have been like suggesting Apple could yank CD playback in 2003.
The bandwidth, image quality, selection, and storage won't be ready for another 3-5 years if we're talking about a system equal to that of the digital music distribution system of 2003 when the iTunes Store first went live. It's slow, the files are huge, the quality is muddy, and studios make Apple and others pull movies as quickly as they add them, presumably due to distribution licensing limitations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Blu-ray still has some catching up to do with DVD still being 88% of sales.
It does, but Blu-Ray is growing much faster than digital movie sales, which is why I feel it would be premature to think Apple can opt out of offering Blu-Ray playback in favor of their not-ready-for-primetime digital video offerings. What's wrong with offering users both? Not everyone's going to buy an Apple TV for their living room, after all.
It does, but Blu-Ray is growing much faster than digital movie sales, which is why I feel it would be premature to think Apple can opt out of offering Blu-Ray playback in favor of their not-ready-for-primetime digital video offerings. What's wrong with offering users both? Not everyone's going to buy an Apple TV for their living room, after all.
? Do you have any links that back up BR growing faster than digital downloads?
? Is this a per household, per movie sale and/or rental, per drive sold or some other metric?
? Would they be offering users readers or readers/burners with each Mac?
? What drives would they use that would fit in Macs? (Note: Right now MBs, 15" MBPs and 20" iMacs use 9.5mm slot-loading drives, 17" MBPs and 24" iMacs use 12.7mm drives; Mac Pro is standard; I have no idea about the Mac Mini)
Ducking, no. I thought my response addressed your question. With a still image, sharpness and clarity will be the same on an HDTV as it would on a laptop screen, so flaws in the image in those regards won't be any less terrible on the laptop than the tv. With the HDTV though, you'll have the benefit of seeing the lack of contrast in super-compressed images. And with moving picture, because the HDTV will have better response time, the compression will be more apparent on the HDTV. This is why it makes more sense to take your Blu-Ray's from your television to your computer, versus taking your downloaded movies from your computer to your television.
Long story short, I want to be able to buy a Mac that can read the virtually-flawless movies I play on my television, versus having to buy highly-compressed movies on my computer and putting them on my television.
— Do you have any links that back up BR growing faster than digital downloads?
— Is this a per household, per movie sale and/or rental, per drive sold or some other metric?
Unfortunately, it does not appear digital movie sales compared to Blu-Ray or even DVD is a study anyone's conducted. Regarding digital movie sales figures, the best that can be found is in this press release from Apple in June. It states that they are renting and selling 50,000 movies per day, making them the world's most popular online movie store; the fact that they won't separate the rental numbers from the sales leads me to believe that the sales figures are nothing to brag about. It would be my guess that 90% of that 50,000-per-day is rentals, but even an extremely generous 50% would only be nine-million a year. Regarding Blu-Ray, the format was on on track in March to sell 15 million units this year, and since that time the format's cut of the DVD/Blu-Ray pie has increased from 8% to 12%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
— Would they be offering users readers or readers/burners with each Mac?
Readers for the MacBook and iMac, burners for the MacBook Pro and Mac Pro. The Pro apps don't need Blu-Ray authoring capabilities immediately; simply being able to archive files to 50GB discs would be greatly beneficial, even for you guys who would rather buy your movies from Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
— What drives would they use that would fit in Macs? (Note: Right now MBs, 15" MBPs and 20" iMacs use 9.5mm slot-loading drives, 17" MBPs and 24" iMacs use 12.7mm drives; Mac Pro is standard; I have no idea about the Mac Mini)
While Apple has yet to offer Blu-ray drives on its Mac line, that is expected to change in the not too distant future. AppleInsider has heard, but not yet confirmed, that the Cupertino-based company is actively courting Sony to obtain Blu-ray drives for its MacBook Pro line.
According to one tipster, Apple had hoped to offer a Blu-ray option alongside its just-released Penryn-based MacBook Pros, but Sony has faced some quality issues pertaining to the slot-loading mechanism and laser in the SuperDrives. Apple was reportedly offered Blu-ray Combo drives in the meantime, which it turned down.
I'm not a fan of "it's Apple they can do anything" philosophy. When the current MBP first came out the 15" didn't have DL burners in them even though the PowerBooks before them had DL burners so Apple does have to stick with what the technology can provide them.
1. Apple adopts Blu-Ray in their Macs so users' computers can read the same discs they're playing on their televisions, simultaneously catching up with the rest of the PC industry in terms of price/performance.
2. Users opt for buying and renting uber-compressed movies and television shows from Apple because their low-contrast computer screens don't give them the full experience of an HDTV would anyhow, and either avoid watching movies/tv shows beyond their computer or equip their living room with an Apple TV instead of a Blu-Ray player so they can enjoy the same soft, compressed image on their HDTV.
3. Users think it's okay because it's about par with overcompressed cable and sat HD feeds.
4. All of the Above. Apple will have Blu-Ray eventually but will continue to focus on aTV and iTunes vs traditional disc media.
Comments
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.
I hear ya, but I guess my dilemma is I do want a "Decent" video card, so if i am going to sacrifice video power for portability (meaning going macbook instead of macbook pro), then I would rather wait and at least have the better of the two integrated graphics cards. plus I have seen posts about Apple going with another chip manufacture because of the fact that the integrated Intel chip is well lets just say "Less then desirable". so that small hope still has be hanging on. I just really hope it comes true and they surprise us!
I hear ya, but I guess my dilemma is I do want a "Decent" video card, so if i am going to sacrifice video power for portability (meaning going macbook instead of macbook pro), then I would rather wait and at least have the better of the two integrated graphics cards. plus I have seen posts about Apple going with another chip manufacture because of the fact that the integrated Intel chip is well lets just say "Less then desirable". so that small hope still has be hanging on. I just really hope it comes true and they surprise us!
No integrated GPU will ever compare to a modern discrete GPU, but the X4500 is reportedly 200% faster than the X3100. It also uses less power. This is achieved from better HW acceleration, which the X3100 on my MB already excels at. I've had no issues with playing HD video while multi-tasking.
If you plan on playing any advanced MMORPGs or other graphic intensive games you may want to look into a MBP or check out the frame rate differences between the two. I'm sure there are sites that test different GPUs.
No integrated GPU will ever compare to a modern discrete GPU, but the X4500 is reportedly 200% faster than the X3100. It also uses less power. This is achieved from better HW acceleration, which the X3100 on my MB already excels at. I've had no issues with playing HD video while multi-tasking.
If you plan on playing any advanced MMORPGs or other graphic intensive games you may want to look into a MBP or check out the frame rate differences between the two. I'm sure there are sites that test different GPUs.
I have seen the framrates and they are horrible! lol.. your right im not planning on playing any "Advanced mmorpg's" but I do want to be able to play some games, which are older so im sure it will be just fine. the majority of what i want to do should be ok for just the macbook. Primarily for school, and software development both windows and mac. so i should be ok.
both windows and mac. so i should be ok.
Macs make the best Win PCs.
Macs make the best Win PCs.
From what I have been seeing with the benchmarks it does seem that way. Which is why I am switching to the "Darkside" or leaving the "Darkside" whichever way you want to look at it. lol
cluebat
That's getting used!
http://www.macrumors.com/2008/09/15/...ts-have-begun/
Can we be hopfull that it will be sooner then the 14th? I sure hope so...
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.
The fact that a 1280x800 laptop screen has poor contrast and response time compared to a high-end HDTV is not a factor here; the issue is with image clarity and sharpness. And if you can see the sharpness and clarity difference between a Blu-Ray and internet-served "HD" video on a crappy laptop screen (and you can), then you're really going to see it on a high-contrast, fast-response HDTV. Really, which of these options make more sense:
1. Apple adopts Blu-Ray in their Macs so users' computers can read the same discs they're playing on their televisions, simultaneously catching up with the rest of the PC industry in terms of price/performance.
2. Users opt for buying and renting uber-compressed movies and television shows from Apple because their low-contrast computer screens don't give them the full experience of an HDTV would anyhow, and either avoid watching movies/tv shows beyond their computer or equip their living room with an Apple TV instead of a Blu-Ray player so they can enjoy the same soft, compressed image on their HDTV.
You're getting a pretty poor experience by listening to music through a laptop's speakers, but you wouldn't use that as justification for eliminating the ability to CDs in a laptop, would you?
Check it out...
http://www.macrumors.com/2008/09/15/...ts-have-begun/
Can we be hopfull that it will be sooner then the 14th? I sure hope so...
The article explicitly only mentions 'MacBooks'. So the question is whether that means no MacBook Pros are shipping just yet or whether the analyst meant both and just used the common term.
Rumors suggest that MacBooks will gain aluminium casing and LED backlights so it could very well be that only MacBooks shipped.
Someone else suggested that perhaps the 'Pro' label will be removed and Apple will only sell 'MacBooks' with different specs. Kind of would make sense if both share the same aluminium design. Otherwise consumers would be confused about aluminium MacBooks and aluminium MacBook Pros.
In which case the analyst would be right in only mentioning 'MacBooks'.
In yet other rumors MacBook Pros are delayed behind MacBooks because of Nvidia's troubles. Since MacBooks use Intel's onboard graphics they can ship sooner.
So the quesiton is:
a) Will MacBooks be introduced in September and MacBook Pros October 14th? Would Apple even consider to have two separate events?
b) Will both MacBooks and MacBook Pros be introduced in September, sooner than most thought?
c) Will both be introduced mid October.
If the pricing is really agressive, then a huge demand could be possible at which point Apple better have many in store - hence deliveries starting 3-4 weeks earlier could make sense.
The fact that a 1280x800 laptop screen has poor contrast and response time compared to a high-end HDTV is not a factor here; the issue is with image clarity and sharpness. And if you can see the sharpness and clarity difference between a Blu-Ray and internet-served "HD" video on a crappy laptop screen (and you can), then you're really going to see it on a high-contrast, fast-response HDTV. Really, which of these options make more sense:
1. Apple adopts Blu-Ray in their Macs so users' computers can read the same discs they're playing on their televisions, simultaneously catching up with the rest of the PC industry in terms of price/performance.
2. Users opt for buying and renting uber-compressed movies and television shows from Apple because their low-contrast computer screens don't give them the full experience of an HDTV would anyhow, and either avoid watching movies/tv shows beyond their computer or equip their living room with an Apple TV instead of a Blu-Ray player so they can enjoy the same soft, compressed image on their HDTV.
You're getting a pretty poor experience by listening to music through a laptop's speakers, but you wouldn't use that as justification for eliminating the ability to CDs in a laptop, would you?
Ducking my question?
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.
I think the only thing we disagree on is when a diskless world will be a reality. Music, at 99 cents a track, miniscule file size, and sound quality being more difficult to distinguish that image quality, has a much easier time gaining traction as a digital-only distribution. And even with iTunes massive presence in the music world, we're five+ years into the digital music revolution and there's still no shortage of CDs in physical stores, is there? To suggest that Apple doesn't need to offer Blu-Ray in their Macs because the day of digital video distribution is upon us would have been like suggesting Apple could yank CD playback in 2003.
The bandwidth, image quality, selection, and storage won't be ready for another 3-5 years if we're talking about a system equal to that of the digital music distribution system of 2003 when the iTunes Store first went live. It's slow, the files are huge, the quality is muddy, and studios make Apple and others pull movies as quickly as they add them, presumably due to distribution licensing limitations.
Blu-ray still has some catching up to do with DVD still being 88% of sales.
It does, but Blu-Ray is growing much faster than digital movie sales, which is why I feel it would be premature to think Apple can opt out of offering Blu-Ray playback in favor of their not-ready-for-primetime digital video offerings. What's wrong with offering users both? Not everyone's going to buy an Apple TV for their living room, after all.
It does, but Blu-Ray is growing much faster than digital movie sales, which is why I feel it would be premature to think Apple can opt out of offering Blu-Ray playback in favor of their not-ready-for-primetime digital video offerings. What's wrong with offering users both? Not everyone's going to buy an Apple TV for their living room, after all.
? Do you have any links that back up BR growing faster than digital downloads?
? Is this a per household, per movie sale and/or rental, per drive sold or some other metric?
? Would they be offering users readers or readers/burners with each Mac?
? What drives would they use that would fit in Macs? (Note: Right now MBs, 15" MBPs and 20" iMacs use 9.5mm slot-loading drives, 17" MBPs and 24" iMacs use 12.7mm drives; Mac Pro is standard; I have no idea about the Mac Mini)
Ducking my question?
Ducking, no. I thought my response addressed your question. With a still image, sharpness and clarity will be the same on an HDTV as it would on a laptop screen, so flaws in the image in those regards won't be any less terrible on the laptop than the tv. With the HDTV though, you'll have the benefit of seeing the lack of contrast in super-compressed images. And with moving picture, because the HDTV will have better response time, the compression will be more apparent on the HDTV. This is why it makes more sense to take your Blu-Ray's from your television to your computer, versus taking your downloaded movies from your computer to your television.
Long story short, I want to be able to buy a Mac that can read the virtually-flawless movies I play on my television, versus having to buy highly-compressed movies on my computer and putting them on my television.
— Do you have any links that back up BR growing faster than digital downloads?
— Is this a per household, per movie sale and/or rental, per drive sold or some other metric?
Unfortunately, it does not appear digital movie sales compared to Blu-Ray or even DVD is a study anyone's conducted. Regarding digital movie sales figures, the best that can be found is in this press release from Apple in June. It states that they are renting and selling 50,000 movies per day, making them the world's most popular online movie store; the fact that they won't separate the rental numbers from the sales leads me to believe that the sales figures are nothing to brag about. It would be my guess that 90% of that 50,000-per-day is rentals, but even an extremely generous 50% would only be nine-million a year. Regarding Blu-Ray, the format was on on track in March to sell 15 million units this year, and since that time the format's cut of the DVD/Blu-Ray pie has increased from 8% to 12%.
— Would they be offering users readers or readers/burners with each Mac?
Readers for the MacBook and iMac, burners for the MacBook Pro and Mac Pro. The Pro apps don't need Blu-Ray authoring capabilities immediately; simply being able to archive files to 50GB discs would be greatly beneficial, even for you guys who would rather buy your movies from Apple.
— What drives would they use that would fit in Macs? (Note: Right now MBs, 15" MBPs and 20" iMacs use 9.5mm slot-loading drives, 17" MBPs and 24" iMacs use 12.7mm drives; Mac Pro is standard; I have no idea about the Mac Mini)
Surely, a company like Apple moves enough units that it could request a vendor build a Blu-Ray slot-loader for them?
While Apple has yet to offer Blu-ray drives on its Mac line, that is expected to change in the not too distant future. AppleInsider has heard, but not yet confirmed, that the Cupertino-based company is actively courting Sony to obtain Blu-ray drives for its MacBook Pro line.
According to one tipster, Apple had hoped to offer a Blu-ray option alongside its just-released Penryn-based MacBook Pros, but Sony has faced some quality issues pertaining to the slot-loading mechanism and laser in the SuperDrives. Apple was reportedly offered Blu-ray Combo drives in the meantime, which it turned down.
Surely, a company like Apple moves enough units that it could request a vendor build a Blu-Ray slot-loader for them?
I'm not a fan of "it's Apple they can do anything" philosophy. When the current MBP first came out the 15" didn't have DL burners in them even though the PowerBooks before them had DL burners so Apple does have to stick with what the technology can provide them.
1. Apple adopts Blu-Ray in their Macs so users' computers can read the same discs they're playing on their televisions, simultaneously catching up with the rest of the PC industry in terms of price/performance.
2. Users opt for buying and renting uber-compressed movies and television shows from Apple because their low-contrast computer screens don't give them the full experience of an HDTV would anyhow, and either avoid watching movies/tv shows beyond their computer or equip their living room with an Apple TV instead of a Blu-Ray player so they can enjoy the same soft, compressed image on their HDTV.
3. Users think it's okay because it's about par with overcompressed cable and sat HD feeds.
4. All of the Above. Apple will have Blu-Ray eventually but will continue to focus on aTV and iTunes vs traditional disc media.