What possible difference does it make who you buy your battery from?
Do you realize you're arguing about what an inconvenience it is to replace a battery in a computer you don't own? In a hypothetical setting potentially three years in the future?
C'mon people... it's a battery fer gawd's sake. It's not even a requirement for using a laptop, it's a luxury alternative. You want an economy solution... it's called an extension cord.
The "Pro" in professional indicates it's designed primarily for professional use, and "professional use" means you use it to make money. If you can't justify $179 for a battery for a computer you've earned a living off of for a couple years or more, you need to re-evaluate you priorities. Chances are you spent more than that in a month just to drive to work last summer.
If you can justify >$3K for a cool consumer game and web browsing, email computer, another $179 after 3 years won't stop the purchase. That kind of user will probably never buy a second battery, 'cuz he'll want a newer computer in less than three years.
I think I agree with Anand on OS X being more power efficient than Vista or XP. MS simply doesn't optimize Windows to be very power efficient. They really can't as there are too many different configurations to support, and they really can't employ a deep power management strategy as what works for one configuration may fubar another.
Really? I looked. But I did not find any lighter than 7 lbs. Granted, Dell's and HP's websites are complicated mazes to wade through, but I didn't find any. Care to say which models? Apple is very precise in its marketing taglines. It should be true, at least for all shipping models from all reputable manufacturers.
Yeah I agree about the Maze and HP is at least 5X worse than Dell. From what I can tell both models have been out for awhile.
Apple could say they have the highest battery time and most powerful <7 pound 17'' notebook as both of these laptops (HP and Dell) have smaller batteries and less powerful parts. Apple definately gets credit in my book for packing more powerful components into a thinner 6.6 pounds. For something comparable component wise from either Dell, HP, or other PC vendors you have to go to >7.8 pounds.
Before Macworld: "We can't wait, this will be cool! A new Mac Mini, blah blah blah."
After Macworld: "This sucks, Macworld sucks, WAAAAAH. Where is my Mac Mini?" Your fault for believing the rumors!
Fucking crybabies! A MacBook Pro 17" that is much more advanced and costs the SAME as the previous model. That is a great deal. But because of the recession you expect Apple to sell it for what, $1,000? Get a clue. It was pretty well known that there would not be any major announcements. However, the new MacBook Pro 17" is great for those that desire such a laptop. The MacMini is a piece of shit and you would have complained more if the only thing announced was a lousy update to that worthless machine.
For the morons that think they can sue Apple because of the battery in the MacBook Pro 17", read the fine print NOW:
Testing conducted by Apple in December 2008 using preproduction 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo–based MacBook Pro (17-inch) units with a Better Battery Life setting. Battery life depends on configuration and use. See www.apple.com/batteries for more information. The wireless productivity test measures battery life by wirelessly browsing various websites and editing text in a word processing document with display brightness set to 50%.
Apple does not warrant the battery beyond Apple's one-year Limited Warranty. The battery has a limited number of charge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by an Apple Service Provider. Battery life and charge cycles vary by use and settings. See www.apple.com/batteries for more information.
Batteries don't last forever and you might have to replace the battery and have Apple do it for you! So don't think about calling your dipshit lawyer thinking you have a gripe because you didn't read the footnotes!
I was thinking the exact same thing- could they be any more off their rockers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncbill
A nearly $3,000 computer in the midst of the worst recession since WWII.
Whither the $600 Mac mini?
I guess you guys didn't read the article about the rip off MacTablet by Axiotron? $2,799 is a great price for the top of the line MacBook Pro, especially one that is far more advanced than the previous model. Those dipshits at Axiotron are trying to sell their sad little tablet computer for $5,000!
Well let's see: Blu-Ray is being adopted faster than DVD did in it's first two years, so I suppose the relevance would be that if Apple was quick to add DVD playback to the Mac in the late 90's, they should be even quicker to add Blu-Ray support. Or do you think Apple jumped the gun on that whole DVD niche thing?
Advocates of BR are seeing victory just by seeing that BR is actually selling at all. I guess you gotta' take it where you can get it.
In 1999 DVD offered significant advantages over alternatives in content distribution and storage. Unfortunately times have changed and discs are not necessarily the best solutions anymore.
Quote:
So, one tenth of the population is just supposed to accept they can't play their films on even a $2800 Mac? When every other computer manufacturer offers the capability? I mean, despite the 400% sales increase of Blu-Ray discs during the month of December in the UK, heaven forbid UK Mac users be able to play those new 1.5 million discs in their computers, right? I mean really, who needs to be able to play those 1.7 million Blu-Ray copies of the Dark Knight? That would be silly. Or you know, maybe since the number of Blu-Ray discs sold of a single movie outnumbers Apple's monthly computer sales by two to one, they ought to think about supporting those discs? just a thought.
I don't think Apple is that concerned about 1/10th of the population.
Quote:
What is your triumph? That every Mac user has to watch the same shitty quality video as you?
The far majority of people find that same shitty quality video perfectly fine. So much so that few people are buying BR players.
Thanks. Yeah. HP is confusing at best. It took me awhile to find out what "starting weight" meant for the both Dell and the HP, and I'm still suspicious of the HP advertising. For the Dell, note number 7 next to the weight spec on the Vostro 1710 states:
Preliminary starting weight of 6.5 lbs (2.95 kg) with Genuine Windows Vista® Business, 15.4" WXGA panel, 160GB HDD, DVD/RW, integrated graphics and 6-cell battery. Weight varies with configuration and manufacturing variability
Umm, it's 6.5 lbs with the 15.4" screen for supposed 17" screen laptop? For the HP weight spec, I'm kind of suspicious about them including the weight of all of the components such as wireless (Wi-Fi and Bluetooth) modules and things like that. 0.1 lbs isn't much.
Quote:
Apple could say they have the highest battery time and most powerful <7 pound 17'' notebook as both of these laptops (HP and Dell) have smaller batteries and less powerful parts. Apple definately gets credit in my book for packing more powerful components into a thinner 6.6 pounds. For something comparable component wise from either Dell, HP, or other PC vendors you have to go to >7.8 pounds.
Its nitpicking but I like truth in advertising.
Me too. But it's not only Apple who games their specification charts. It's quite clear that Windows vendors do the exact same thing, and are even more insidious at it than Apple. HP quotes a thickness dimension for many of the laptops that is the thinnest portion (actually, nearly all Windows vendors do this). They quote the 6830 as having a 1.3" thickness, but that is at the front. I have yet to find the thickness of it at the thickest point. HP and Dell both pulled a battery stunt 5 months ago quoting 24 and 19 hour battery lifes for various machines, and continues to quote it while putting the fact that it requires an external battery, specific screen, XP or whatnot likely running at idle. And one should be suspicious with the weight spec too.
As far as the MBP 17", I think thinnest and lightest is fairly justified. Just like last year when the MBA was advertised as the thinnest was fairly justified.
Thanks. Yeah. HP is confusing at best. It took me awhile to find out what "starting weight" meant for the both Dell and the HP, and I'm still suspicious of the HP advertising. For the Dell, note number 7 next to the weight spec on the Vostro 1710 states:
Preliminary starting weight of 6.5 lbs (2.95 kg) with Genuine Windows Vista® Business, 15.4" WXGA panel, 160GB HDD, DVD/RW, integrated graphics and 6-cell battery. Weight varies with configuration and manufacturing variability
Umm, it's 6.5 lbs with the 15.4" screen for supposed 17" screen laptop? For the HP weight spec, I'm kind of suspicious about them including the weight of all of the components such as wireless (Wi-Fi and Bluetooth) modules and things like that. 0.1 lbs isn't much.
Me too. But it's not only Apple who games their specification charts. It's quite clear that Windows vendors do the exact same thing, and are even more insidious at it than Apple. HP quotes a thickness dimension for many of the laptops that is the thinnest portion (actually, nearly all Windows vendors do this). They quote the 6830 as having a 1.3" thickness, but that is at the front. I have yet to find the thickness of it at the thickest point. HP and Dell both pulled a battery stunt 5 months ago quoting 24 and 19 hour battery lifes for various machines, and continues to quote it while putting the fact that it requires an external battery, specific screen, XP or whatnot likely running at idle. And one should be suspicious with the weight spec too.
As far as the MBP 17", I think thinnest and lightest is fairly justified. Just like last year when the MBA was advertised as the thinnest was fairly justified.
Guess I missed that - seems strange as that model only comes in 17''. Ive noticed Dell's website has 'number notes' that sometimes reflect other models. Problems I expect may be worse for HP as they offer so many models that are similar its near impossible to differentiate them.
The specs in the note 7 appear appear similar to the 15.4'' Vostro model. Strangely when you check compare vostro models at http://www.dell.com/content/products...n&s=bsd&~ck=mn the 17'' list at 6.5 lbs while the 15.4'' are at 5.73 lbs. Then again these numbers could be BS esp as if you said you include common options such as bluetooth or wireless (can anyone fairly call that a notebook?).
Oh well - the more Apple pushes for lighter notebook the more lighter they'll get
Advocates of BR are seeing victory just by seeing that BR is actually selling at all. I guess you gotta' take it where you can get it.
In 1999 DVD offered significant advantages over alternatives in content distribution and storage. Unfortunately times have changed and discs are not necessarily the best solutions anymore.
I don't think Apple is that concerned about 1/10th of the population.
The far majority of people find that same shitty quality video perfectly fine. So much so that few people are buying BR players.
The reason why few are buying Blu-Ray players for their TVs is because most people haven't bought an HDTV, because HDTVs are far too expensive. But we're not talking about TV that's in your living room. We're talking about Blu-Ray on laptop computers.
By your logic, we should have stuck with VHS when DVD was introduced. It was out for years before I ever saw a movie played from a DVD disc, with the exception of the PowerBook G3 which had an onboard hardware DVD decoder. DVDs looked great on that 14" 1024 x 768 TFT screen. Apple was one of the first computer companies that put a DVD player in their notebook, even though the DVD market was far less than 10% of the video market at the time.
Today, I have a MacBook Pro with a 17" 1920 x 1200 screen. That is a high resolution screen. Upscaling standard definition DVDs to full screen looks awful. There aren't enough lines of resolution in the DVD images to fill the screen and when it's upscaled the movies lack clarity and look blurry or fuzzy. Today many PC laptops, and many more each month, are shipping with Blu-Ray players or burners and the software to play HD Blu-Ray movies. If I put a MacBook Pro playing a DVD, say, Iron Man, next to a Vaio playing Iron Man on Blu-Ray, the MacBook is going to look "shitty". Apple needs to get with the times and the HD switch and understand that most people don't want movies clogging up their hard drives requiring more and more drive space be purchased, drive space that can be deleted by a simple hard drive failure. As iTunes offers zero real HD content, the only way to play Blu-Ray movies on a MacBook is by using a 3rd party external Blu-Ray player and the open source VLC. Apple needs to update their optical drives to Blu-Ray. You will still be able to play your shitty looking DVDs as Blu-Ray is backwards compatible, but I'll move up to watching HD movies on my HD screen.
I have a friend who works in DVD production for a large (one of the Biggest) movie studios. They laid off their entire HD DVD department 2 years ago. They have added personnel to their Blu-Ray production team and over time their Blu-Ray production will supplant their DVD production. Blu-Ray is the future for 1080p HD movies in the home and on the PC. Apple wants you to buy 480p or maybe 720p content from them online but they don't offer it except to Apple TV owners but how many people own Apple TVs? This is beside the fact that the majority of Americans have poor internet service. My "broadband" DSL rarely goes above 900 kbps. Try downloading an HD movie on that! I have to wait for YouTube videos. Steve Jobs comment about how you need a very large HDTV to watch HD movies is incorrect. Modern computer screens are very high resolution and so require content that is of appropriate resolution.
The reason why few are buying Blu-Ray players for their TVs is because most people haven't bought an HDTV, because HDTVs are far too expensive. But we're not talking about TV that's in your living room. We're talking about Blu-Ray on laptop computers.
The sales of HDTV's have far outpaced BR sales. At this point any new TV you purchase is going to be either 720 or 1080.
Quote:
By your logic, we should have stuck with VHS when DVD was introduced. It was out for years before I ever saw a movie played from a DVD disc
You seemed to not read this part of my post you linked to.
"In 1999 DVD offered significant advantages over alternatives in content distribution and storage. Unfortunately times have changed and discs are not necessarily the best solutions anymore."
Quote:
Upscaling standard definition DVDs to full screen looks awful.
I agree this does not look as good as BR, but it works fine for the majority of people.
Quote:
Apple needs to get with the times and the HD switch and understand that most people don't want movies clogging up their hard drives requiring more and more drive space be purchased, drive space that can be deleted by a simple hard drive failure.
What most people are you talking about? Those same people who are clogging up their hard drives with music.
Quote:
As iTunes offers zero real HD content.
720P is a real and official HD standard. Several broadcast television networks are broadcasting their HD in 720P. Which can look better than 1080i.
Quote:
I have a friend who works in DVD production for a large (one of the Biggest) movie studios. They laid off their entire HD DVD department 2 years ago. They have added personnel to their Blu-Ray production team and over time their Blu-Ray production will supplant their DVD production. Blu-Ray is the future for 1080p HD movies in the home and on the PC.
BR will likely supplant DVD when studios stop making DVD's. But for the foreseeable future DVD will still far outsell BR.
I don't think Apple is that concerned about 1/10th of the population.
Ironic, since Apple themselves finally reached 10% marketshare in December. And they sure put a lot of concern into that whole Apple TV thing, despite that it's marketshare isn't even measurable compared to Blu-Ray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The far majority of people find that same shitty quality video perfectly fine. So much so that few people are buying BR players.
Maybe you missed the part where sales of Blu-Ray players are higher than DVD players were in its first two years? And again, Apple adopted DVD in their Macs at about the same point in its life that we are now with Blu-Ray. Do you think Apple should have waited another 2-4 years to pick up on that whole DVD thing? How about the additional storage space it could mean for archiving? Wouldn't it be nice if you could archive all of that crappy compressed "HD" content you're buying from Apple onto a 25 or 50GB disc? How about Apple's Pro users? Don't you think they might like to start authoring Blu-Ray discs? Or at the very least, be able to archive files to a disc larger than 8.5GB?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
720P is a real and official HD standard. Several broadcast television networks are broadcasting their HD in 720P. Which can look better than 1080i.
Yes, 720p is a real official HD standard. But Apple's 720p content is such a low bitrate that the resolution means nothing; Apple's "HD" is more like upconverted DVD in terms of sharpness and clarity. It's worse than the ultra-compressed broadcast feeds, which are a joke themselves. And all of this low-bitrate shitty "HD" content that companies like Apple and the cable providers are advertising is part of the reason people like you don't think HD looks much better than DVD; their "HD" content doesn't.
Ironic, since Apple themselves finally reached 10% marketshare in December. And they sure put a lot of concern into that whole Apple TV thing, despite that it's marketshare isn't even measurable compared to Blu-Ray.
ten percent of ten percent is hardly enough to justify B-R on macs, in my opinion. and now, i am pretty well happy to ditch internal optical drives from laptops, and just plug in an external on the odd occasion i still use one.
Quote:
Maybe you missed the part where sales of Blu-Ray players are higher than DVD players were in its first two years? And again, Apple adopted DVD in their Macs at about the same point in its life that we are now with Blu-Ray. Do you think Apple should have waited another 2-4 years to pick up on that whole DVD thing?
How about the additional storage space it could mean for archiving? Wouldn't it be nice if you could archive all of that crappy compressed "HD" content you're buying from Apple onto a 25 or 50GB disc? How about Apple's Pro users? Don't you think they might like to start authoring Blu-Ray discs? Or at the very least, be able to archive files to a disc larger than 8.5GB?
as someone who works in the post-production video and dvd authoring industry, in an almost exclusively mac-based environment, of course i would like to see apple adopt B-R for it's pro-lines at least. on the apple side of things, the problem is partly technical - the BD and BD-J spec and DVDSP - and partly political, ie physical media (+sony) vs downloads.
comparing apple's adoption of dvd technology and the boom in dvd production to the situation with B-R, however, is simplistic. unfortunately due to sony's overbearing and draconian licensing structure (and again the complexities of the BD spec and the (re)training required for authoring), even if apple put B-R burners in it's machines we would not see the kind of production revolution that took place with sd-dvd again.
additionally, the infrastructure costs for non-studio production houses adopting B-R are huge, and at present smaller distributors don't want to pay the increased production costs - especially considering the premium on the retail price of a B-R disc comes nowhere near covering the increased production cost per disc.
Comments
To bad i dont really want to carry around a 17" laptop, my 15" is fine
Didn't Phil say it was a new screen during the Keynote?
The best screen they've ever fitted to a notebook?
Higher colour gamut etc. etc.?
Yeah you have the Glossy option or you pay an extra $50 and they fit a Matt (or anti glare) screen, without the black rim.
Why should you have to buy an Apple battery?
What possible difference does it make who you buy your battery from?
Do you realize you're arguing about what an inconvenience it is to replace a battery in a computer you don't own? In a hypothetical setting potentially three years in the future?
C'mon people... it's a battery fer gawd's sake. It's not even a requirement for using a laptop, it's a luxury alternative. You want an economy solution... it's called an extension cord.
The "Pro" in professional indicates it's designed primarily for professional use, and "professional use" means you use it to make money. If you can't justify $179 for a battery for a computer you've earned a living off of for a couple years or more, you need to re-evaluate you priorities. Chances are you spent more than that in a month just to drive to work last summer.
If you can justify >$3K for a cool consumer game and web browsing, email computer, another $179 after 3 years won't stop the purchase. That kind of user will probably never buy a second battery, 'cuz he'll want a newer computer in less than three years.
I think I agree with Anand on OS X being more power efficient than Vista or XP. MS simply doesn't optimize Windows to be very power efficient. They really can't as there are too many different configurations to support, and they really can't employ a deep power management strategy as what works for one configuration may fubar another.
Really? I looked. But I did not find any lighter than 7 lbs. Granted, Dell's and HP's websites are complicated mazes to wade through, but I didn't find any. Care to say which models? Apple is very precise in its marketing taglines. It should be true, at least for all shipping models from all reputable manufacturers.
Yeah I agree about the Maze and HP is at least 5X worse than Dell. From what I can tell both models have been out for awhile.
HP Compaq 6830
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en...5-3688712.html
Dell Vostro 1710
http://www.dell.com/content/products...=04&l=en&s=bsd
Both are listed at 6.5 lbs
Apple could say they have the highest battery time and most powerful <7 pound 17'' notebook as both of these laptops (HP and Dell) have smaller batteries and less powerful parts. Apple definately gets credit in my book for packing more powerful components into a thinner 6.6 pounds. For something comparable component wise from either Dell, HP, or other PC vendors you have to go to >7.8 pounds.
Its nitpicking but I like truth in advertising.
Before Macworld: "We can't wait, this will be cool! A new Mac Mini, blah blah blah."
After Macworld: "This sucks, Macworld sucks, WAAAAAH. Where is my Mac Mini?" Your fault for believing the rumors!
Fucking crybabies! A MacBook Pro 17" that is much more advanced and costs the SAME as the previous model. That is a great deal. But because of the recession you expect Apple to sell it for what, $1,000? Get a clue. It was pretty well known that there would not be any major announcements. However, the new MacBook Pro 17" is great for those that desire such a laptop. The MacMini is a piece of shit and you would have complained more if the only thing announced was a lousy update to that worthless machine.
Testing conducted by Apple in December 2008 using preproduction 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo–based MacBook Pro (17-inch) units with a Better Battery Life setting. Battery life depends on configuration and use. See www.apple.com/batteries for more information. The wireless productivity test measures battery life by wirelessly browsing various websites and editing text in a word processing document with display brightness set to 50%.
Apple does not warrant the battery beyond Apple's one-year Limited Warranty. The battery has a limited number of charge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by an Apple Service Provider. Battery life and charge cycles vary by use and settings. See www.apple.com/batteries for more information.
Batteries don't last forever and you might have to replace the battery and have Apple do it for you! So don't think about calling your dipshit lawyer thinking you have a gripe because you didn't read the footnotes!
I was thinking the exact same thing- could they be any more off their rockers?
A nearly $3,000 computer in the midst of the worst recession since WWII.
Whither the $600 Mac mini?
I guess you guys didn't read the article about the rip off MacTablet by Axiotron? $2,799 is a great price for the top of the line MacBook Pro, especially one that is far more advanced than the previous model. Those dipshits at Axiotron are trying to sell their sad little tablet computer for $5,000!
Well let's see: Blu-Ray is being adopted faster than DVD did in it's first two years, so I suppose the relevance would be that if Apple was quick to add DVD playback to the Mac in the late 90's, they should be even quicker to add Blu-Ray support. Or do you think Apple jumped the gun on that whole DVD niche thing?
Advocates of BR are seeing victory just by seeing that BR is actually selling at all. I guess you gotta' take it where you can get it.
In 1999 DVD offered significant advantages over alternatives in content distribution and storage. Unfortunately times have changed and discs are not necessarily the best solutions anymore.
So, one tenth of the population is just supposed to accept they can't play their films on even a $2800 Mac? When every other computer manufacturer offers the capability? I mean, despite the 400% sales increase of Blu-Ray discs during the month of December in the UK, heaven forbid UK Mac users be able to play those new 1.5 million discs in their computers, right? I mean really, who needs to be able to play those 1.7 million Blu-Ray copies of the Dark Knight? That would be silly. Or you know, maybe since the number of Blu-Ray discs sold of a single movie outnumbers Apple's monthly computer sales by two to one, they ought to think about supporting those discs? just a thought.
I don't think Apple is that concerned about 1/10th of the population.
What is your triumph? That every Mac user has to watch the same shitty quality video as you?
The far majority of people find that same shitty quality video perfectly fine. So much so that few people are buying BR players.
I really don't like the non-removable battery. What is Apple thinking?
Yeah I agree about the Maze and HP is at least 5X worse than Dell. From what I can tell both models have been out for awhile.
HP Compaq 6830
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en...5-3688712.html
Dell Vostro 1710
http://www.dell.com/content/products...=04&l=en&s=bsd
Both are listed at 6.5 lbs
Thanks. Yeah. HP is confusing at best. It took me awhile to find out what "starting weight" meant for the both Dell and the HP, and I'm still suspicious of the HP advertising. For the Dell, note number 7 next to the weight spec on the Vostro 1710 states:
Preliminary starting weight of 6.5 lbs (2.95 kg) with Genuine Windows Vista® Business, 15.4" WXGA panel, 160GB HDD, DVD/RW, integrated graphics and 6-cell battery. Weight varies with configuration and manufacturing variability
Umm, it's 6.5 lbs with the 15.4" screen for supposed 17" screen laptop? For the HP weight spec, I'm kind of suspicious about them including the weight of all of the components such as wireless (Wi-Fi and Bluetooth) modules and things like that. 0.1 lbs isn't much.
Apple could say they have the highest battery time and most powerful <7 pound 17'' notebook as both of these laptops (HP and Dell) have smaller batteries and less powerful parts. Apple definately gets credit in my book for packing more powerful components into a thinner 6.6 pounds. For something comparable component wise from either Dell, HP, or other PC vendors you have to go to >7.8 pounds.
Its nitpicking but I like truth in advertising.
Me too. But it's not only Apple who games their specification charts. It's quite clear that Windows vendors do the exact same thing, and are even more insidious at it than Apple. HP quotes a thickness dimension for many of the laptops that is the thinnest portion (actually, nearly all Windows vendors do this). They quote the 6830 as having a 1.3" thickness, but that is at the front. I have yet to find the thickness of it at the thickest point. HP and Dell both pulled a battery stunt 5 months ago quoting 24 and 19 hour battery lifes for various machines, and continues to quote it while putting the fact that it requires an external battery, specific screen, XP or whatnot likely running at idle. And one should be suspicious with the weight spec too.
As far as the MBP 17", I think thinnest and lightest is fairly justified. Just like last year when the MBA was advertised as the thinnest was fairly justified.
Thanks. Yeah. HP is confusing at best. It took me awhile to find out what "starting weight" meant for the both Dell and the HP, and I'm still suspicious of the HP advertising. For the Dell, note number 7 next to the weight spec on the Vostro 1710 states:
Preliminary starting weight of 6.5 lbs (2.95 kg) with Genuine Windows Vista® Business, 15.4" WXGA panel, 160GB HDD, DVD/RW, integrated graphics and 6-cell battery. Weight varies with configuration and manufacturing variability
Umm, it's 6.5 lbs with the 15.4" screen for supposed 17" screen laptop? For the HP weight spec, I'm kind of suspicious about them including the weight of all of the components such as wireless (Wi-Fi and Bluetooth) modules and things like that. 0.1 lbs isn't much.
Me too. But it's not only Apple who games their specification charts. It's quite clear that Windows vendors do the exact same thing, and are even more insidious at it than Apple. HP quotes a thickness dimension for many of the laptops that is the thinnest portion (actually, nearly all Windows vendors do this). They quote the 6830 as having a 1.3" thickness, but that is at the front. I have yet to find the thickness of it at the thickest point. HP and Dell both pulled a battery stunt 5 months ago quoting 24 and 19 hour battery lifes for various machines, and continues to quote it while putting the fact that it requires an external battery, specific screen, XP or whatnot likely running at idle. And one should be suspicious with the weight spec too.
As far as the MBP 17", I think thinnest and lightest is fairly justified. Just like last year when the MBA was advertised as the thinnest was fairly justified.
Guess I missed that - seems strange as that model only comes in 17''. Ive noticed Dell's website has 'number notes' that sometimes reflect other models. Problems I expect may be worse for HP as they offer so many models that are similar its near impossible to differentiate them.
The specs in the note 7 appear appear similar to the 15.4'' Vostro model. Strangely when you check compare vostro models at http://www.dell.com/content/products...n&s=bsd&~ck=mn the 17'' list at 6.5 lbs while the 15.4'' are at 5.73 lbs. Then again these numbers could be BS esp as if you said you include common options such as bluetooth or wireless (can anyone fairly call that a notebook?).
Oh well - the more Apple pushes for lighter notebook the more lighter they'll get
Advocates of BR are seeing victory just by seeing that BR is actually selling at all. I guess you gotta' take it where you can get it.
In 1999 DVD offered significant advantages over alternatives in content distribution and storage. Unfortunately times have changed and discs are not necessarily the best solutions anymore.
I don't think Apple is that concerned about 1/10th of the population.
The far majority of people find that same shitty quality video perfectly fine. So much so that few people are buying BR players.
The reason why few are buying Blu-Ray players for their TVs is because most people haven't bought an HDTV, because HDTVs are far too expensive. But we're not talking about TV that's in your living room. We're talking about Blu-Ray on laptop computers.
By your logic, we should have stuck with VHS when DVD was introduced. It was out for years before I ever saw a movie played from a DVD disc, with the exception of the PowerBook G3 which had an onboard hardware DVD decoder. DVDs looked great on that 14" 1024 x 768 TFT screen. Apple was one of the first computer companies that put a DVD player in their notebook, even though the DVD market was far less than 10% of the video market at the time.
Today, I have a MacBook Pro with a 17" 1920 x 1200 screen. That is a high resolution screen. Upscaling standard definition DVDs to full screen looks awful. There aren't enough lines of resolution in the DVD images to fill the screen and when it's upscaled the movies lack clarity and look blurry or fuzzy. Today many PC laptops, and many more each month, are shipping with Blu-Ray players or burners and the software to play HD Blu-Ray movies. If I put a MacBook Pro playing a DVD, say, Iron Man, next to a Vaio playing Iron Man on Blu-Ray, the MacBook is going to look "shitty". Apple needs to get with the times and the HD switch and understand that most people don't want movies clogging up their hard drives requiring more and more drive space be purchased, drive space that can be deleted by a simple hard drive failure. As iTunes offers zero real HD content, the only way to play Blu-Ray movies on a MacBook is by using a 3rd party external Blu-Ray player and the open source VLC. Apple needs to update their optical drives to Blu-Ray. You will still be able to play your shitty looking DVDs as Blu-Ray is backwards compatible, but I'll move up to watching HD movies on my HD screen.
I have a friend who works in DVD production for a large (one of the Biggest) movie studios. They laid off their entire HD DVD department 2 years ago. They have added personnel to their Blu-Ray production team and over time their Blu-Ray production will supplant their DVD production. Blu-Ray is the future for 1080p HD movies in the home and on the PC. Apple wants you to buy 480p or maybe 720p content from them online but they don't offer it except to Apple TV owners but how many people own Apple TVs? This is beside the fact that the majority of Americans have poor internet service. My "broadband" DSL rarely goes above 900 kbps. Try downloading an HD movie on that! I have to wait for YouTube videos. Steve Jobs comment about how you need a very large HDTV to watch HD movies is incorrect. Modern computer screens are very high resolution and so require content that is of appropriate resolution.
The reason why few are buying Blu-Ray players for their TVs is because most people haven't bought an HDTV, because HDTVs are far too expensive. But we're not talking about TV that's in your living room. We're talking about Blu-Ray on laptop computers.
The sales of HDTV's have far outpaced BR sales. At this point any new TV you purchase is going to be either 720 or 1080.
By your logic, we should have stuck with VHS when DVD was introduced. It was out for years before I ever saw a movie played from a DVD disc
You seemed to not read this part of my post you linked to.
"In 1999 DVD offered significant advantages over alternatives in content distribution and storage. Unfortunately times have changed and discs are not necessarily the best solutions anymore."
Upscaling standard definition DVDs to full screen looks awful.
I agree this does not look as good as BR, but it works fine for the majority of people.
Apple needs to get with the times and the HD switch and understand that most people don't want movies clogging up their hard drives requiring more and more drive space be purchased, drive space that can be deleted by a simple hard drive failure.
What most people are you talking about? Those same people who are clogging up their hard drives with music.
As iTunes offers zero real HD content.
720P is a real and official HD standard. Several broadcast television networks are broadcasting their HD in 720P. Which can look better than 1080i.
I have a friend who works in DVD production for a large (one of the Biggest) movie studios. They laid off their entire HD DVD department 2 years ago. They have added personnel to their Blu-Ray production team and over time their Blu-Ray production will supplant their DVD production. Blu-Ray is the future for 1080p HD movies in the home and on the PC.
BR will likely supplant DVD when studios stop making DVD's. But for the foreseeable future DVD will still far outsell BR.
I don't think Apple is that concerned about 1/10th of the population.
Ironic, since Apple themselves finally reached 10% marketshare in December. And they sure put a lot of concern into that whole Apple TV thing, despite that it's marketshare isn't even measurable compared to Blu-Ray.
The far majority of people find that same shitty quality video perfectly fine. So much so that few people are buying BR players.
Maybe you missed the part where sales of Blu-Ray players are higher than DVD players were in its first two years? And again, Apple adopted DVD in their Macs at about the same point in its life that we are now with Blu-Ray. Do you think Apple should have waited another 2-4 years to pick up on that whole DVD thing? How about the additional storage space it could mean for archiving? Wouldn't it be nice if you could archive all of that crappy compressed "HD" content you're buying from Apple onto a 25 or 50GB disc? How about Apple's Pro users? Don't you think they might like to start authoring Blu-Ray discs? Or at the very least, be able to archive files to a disc larger than 8.5GB?
720P is a real and official HD standard. Several broadcast television networks are broadcasting their HD in 720P. Which can look better than 1080i.
Yes, 720p is a real official HD standard. But Apple's 720p content is such a low bitrate that the resolution means nothing; Apple's "HD" is more like upconverted DVD in terms of sharpness and clarity. It's worse than the ultra-compressed broadcast feeds, which are a joke themselves. And all of this low-bitrate shitty "HD" content that companies like Apple and the cable providers are advertising is part of the reason people like you don't think HD looks much better than DVD; their "HD" content doesn't.
Ironic, since Apple themselves finally reached 10% marketshare in December. And they sure put a lot of concern into that whole Apple TV thing, despite that it's marketshare isn't even measurable compared to Blu-Ray.
ten percent of ten percent is hardly enough to justify B-R on macs, in my opinion. and now, i am pretty well happy to ditch internal optical drives from laptops, and just plug in an external on the odd occasion i still use one.
Maybe you missed the part where sales of Blu-Ray players are higher than DVD players were in its first two years? And again, Apple adopted DVD in their Macs at about the same point in its life that we are now with Blu-Ray. Do you think Apple should have waited another 2-4 years to pick up on that whole DVD thing?
How about the additional storage space it could mean for archiving? Wouldn't it be nice if you could archive all of that crappy compressed "HD" content you're buying from Apple onto a 25 or 50GB disc? How about Apple's Pro users? Don't you think they might like to start authoring Blu-Ray discs? Or at the very least, be able to archive files to a disc larger than 8.5GB?
as someone who works in the post-production video and dvd authoring industry, in an almost exclusively mac-based environment, of course i would like to see apple adopt B-R for it's pro-lines at least. on the apple side of things, the problem is partly technical - the BD and BD-J spec and DVDSP - and partly political, ie physical media (+sony) vs downloads.
comparing apple's adoption of dvd technology and the boom in dvd production to the situation with B-R, however, is simplistic. unfortunately due to sony's overbearing and draconian licensing structure (and again the complexities of the BD spec and the (re)training required for authoring), even if apple put B-R burners in it's machines we would not see the kind of production revolution that took place with sd-dvd again.
additionally, the infrastructure costs for non-studio production houses adopting B-R are huge, and at present smaller distributors don't want to pay the increased production costs - especially considering the premium on the retail price of a B-R disc comes nowhere near covering the increased production cost per disc.