Blu-Ray is a mess. I was watching a Blu-Ray movie last night (or trying to) while it repeatedly connected to the internet, downloading "content" that I have absolutely no interest in watching. There's no way around watching endless previews, intros, etc... I just want to watch the goddam movie! But no, Sony says you have to do this and wade through 15 minutes of junk before you watch a movie that you thought was yours.
I don't think you own a Blu-ray player.
If you don't want the Blu-ray live feature on your device, then turn it off. Or if you don't want the Blu-ray live stuff, don't choose that option in the menus.
What movie do you have that forces you to watch previews? I only own 200 blu-rays, so maybe don't have the best knowledge, but all the previews on mine are skip-able.
And the other reason I know you don't have a Blu-ray player, Sony isn't incharge of Blu-ray, so Sony didn't force you to do anything
I've seen a lot of posts here complaining about the "small" or "%10" CPU upgrade. I would beg to differ. The change from Core 2 Duo to the Core iX chips is much more than clock frequency (Ghz) indicates (Familiar story, G3/G4/G5 fans?). Go find some benchmarks, and you'll find the change from Core 2 Duo to i5 or i7 most remarkable, beyond just the change from 2 to 4 processor cores. The i3 is only slightly faster, in some cases, than a C2D, but is an upgrade never-the-less and should also draw less power.
These are very good chips.
It's a switch from notebook-class to desktop-class chips too, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by troberts
I refuse to believe Apple thinks people who get the 21.5" model have no use for a quad-core processor.
What is the TDP of Quad-cores in comparison to the Dual-cores?
The iMac uses desktop CPUs, not laptop CPUs. Are these mobile graphics? Looking at desktop parts, the 4850 had a total bandwidth of 63.55 GB/s. The 5750 in the iMac has 73.6 GB/s. Not to mention a lot less electricity used. If these are laptop graphics being used then it's 54.4 vs 51.2, which would be a very small bandwidth decrease.
Although the iMacs transitioned to desktop CPUs last year, their form factor requires MXM mobile graphics (GPUs make more heat than CPUs do nowadays).
So the graphics that we see are mobile GPUs which cannot be directly correlated to their desktop counterparts.
The 5770 in the 27-inch quad core is no match for the 4850 it replaces, which had a 256-bit memory interface and 800 shaders compared to the 128-bit interface and 400 shaders of the mobile 5770.
Wow, that's absolutely laughable, especially at the price. Well at least I don't to find the money for a new PC for another 6 months at least, or I'll just go back to Dell.
A Dell???You can't possibly be serious...just do what i did and at least build yourself a top of the line machine to run OSX on, like what's on my signature.
We know it is an MXM module because that is what the previous iMacs used (thanks iFixit) and we know how many shaders it has because we have the specs for the 5750 MXM module.
I am not trying to be critical, but as a hackintosh builder, I often find it frustrating the lack of knowledge of PC parts during these discussions. The lack of knowledge is completely understandable, though, because Macs are black boxes for the most part, with specifications disclosed only to understand where different models slot. A Mac user only needs to understand a 5770 is better than a 4670. As a system builder, I have to know better.
The Mobile 5750 is no match for for the Mobile 4850 in games when it comes to framerate, though it ought to run most games fluently.
If I were to buy an iMac today, however, I would get the new one because I don't play games and I would appreciate the larger framebuffer (1GB vs 512MB) for Adobe Creative Suite and for Final Cut Studio 3.
However, I am going to wait to replace my hackintosh (more headache than they are worth, really) with an Intel Sandy Bridge equipped unit next year. It should have USB 3.0, quad core will be in the low-end models (Sandy Bridge starts at quad core) and we should have another generation of ATI and Nvidia cards.
Still, these are great units and the only reason I don't want to upgrade is because they would still only represent an incremental improvement over my hackintosh pro.
A Dell???You can't possibly be serious...just do what i did and at least build yourself a top of the line machine to run OSX on, like what's on my signature.
I've done that before and Dell is always far cheaper, but I don't go for the all in one Dell as I have no need of such a design. All I want is a desktop PC, I'm not so short of space that I can't fit a PC case off to one side. As Apple's only non all in one desktops either cost as much as a small planet, or are little toy PCs with no power/expandability.... then the iMac is the only option.
I wouldn't object to Apple's crazy pricing as much (I'm in the UK by the way, where we pay special Apple prices (ie. about 50% higher than in the US) if at least they adopted the latest tech. Blu-Ray and USB 3.0 should have been absolutely top of their list.
I bought a blu ray player without the wi fi antenna so when it boots up, I get a spinning gear for ten seconds and it's on with the show.
I've thought about disconnecting it from the network, but that would be a hassle. When you load a disc, there's no knowing in advance if it's going to want to connect, for how long, or for what purpose. It's just like going to a movie theater, except you don't have the option of simply showing up twenty minutes late.
The problem for me is that the Blu-Ray standard permits its playback hardware to take control away from the user. I would find that unacceptable in a computer. I don't want to be forced to disconnect my computer from the network or go through all sorts of other conniptions just to watch a movie. Given Apple's attention to detail - not to mention its desire for complete end-to-end control regarding the user experience - perhaps they're simply not willing to cede that much control to a standard over which they have absolutely no control.
Who knows what caused Apple to decide against Blu-Ray support, but using a computer and watching movies are two separate goals for me - especially when it comes to Blu-Ray and the amazing theater-quality experience it offers. You simply can't deliver that experience in a computer. The option would be nice, but it's not a deal-breaker. Not even close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB
BD-Live movies don't MAKE you view the downloadable content and force you into a non-theater experience. I think the key is the user has to actually read the items being selected before pressing ENTER on the remote.
Blu-Ray movies are all different from one another. It's apparently a very flexible media standard, so what you have to sit through depends how the disc is mastered. They simply disable whatever remote buttons they want. If there is a way to bypass all the nonsense, I don't know what it is. I've tried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukeskymac
How's that Apple tax working for ya, Microsoft trolls?
Feature for feature, there is no price difference. It's just that Dull and HP offer low, "teaser" prices for their PCs. When you add everything a Mac comes with out of the box, the price is the same. Always has been. Apple isn't stupid about pricing - they simply don't sell low-end gear.
Even if the PC makers were to give away their cheap junk hardware for free, you'd still have to pay Microsoft about $50 for Windows. I don't believe it's even possible to buy a PC without paying the license fee. That is a "tax".
Quote:
Originally Posted by marzetta7
It has only been 4/5 years since Blu-ray has been out
But barely two years since it emerged as the dominant standard over HD-DVD. It will prove to be a transitional technology as well.
Consider the widespread adoption of MPEG-3. Not a particularly good audio standard, pretty poor in fact. Yet it's been universally embraced as "good enough". Lossless audio will always be preferable to the audiophile, just like 1080p (or better) video will be preferable to the videophile, but streaming 720p video is probably going to enjoy widespread acceptance for a long time. Analogous to MP3s, it will be "good enough" for most.
For others, a high-end home theater will be preferable. Playing Blu-Ray movies on a computer will never be "good enough" for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
DVD is on it's (sic) way out, blu-ray is it's (sic) replacement. Avatar sold 40% of it's (sic) units on BD, so this is hardly a niche format with no future. No other format delivers 45mbit 1080p video with lossless 7.1 audio.
Pardon me kotatsu from the UK, but "it's" means "it is", even here in the colonies. I take it the King's English is not your native language?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
iTunes downloads, loaded with toxic DRM and at a whopping 5mbit 720p are clearly not comparable.
It's hard to imagine DRM implemented more completely than it has been with Blu-Ray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
If I were you, I'd take this refusal to properly update the PC line as a clear sign that Apple is beginning it's exit front he PC market altogether.
Alert the media! Apple abandons Blu-Ray! And the computer market! Altogether!
What an absurd statement.
Fortunately you're not me.
As for me, I'm laughing. At you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
Funnily enough, Dell, HP etc have had BD drives in their PCs for a very, very long time now, perhaps because they actually give a damn about consumer choice and new technology.
According to Apple the 3.2GHz Core i3 supports TurboBoost
According to Intel the 3.2GHz Core i3 does NOT support TurboBoost
One of them isn't telling the truth.
This is confusing. If the core i3 supported TurboBoost then it would be a low-end (dual core) i5 as I thought the only difference between the dual core i3 and i5 is the turbo functionality.
No matte BTO? Major disappointment. And a few more delayed (if not lost) sales here.
Seriously Apple, WTF? I'm not in the market for a $2000 mirror. Anti-glare glass IS available, and as Steve would say it'd be "not that hard" to offer a BTO option.
I wonder if this update is a f-you to those of us who NEED matte, or if this is just "more of the same" as Apple focuses on handhelds....
So, what will be the performance difference between the old C2D of yesterday's iMac vs the Core i3 of today's iMac?
Can't say, but I did a comparison of the C2D and an iMac with an i5. It was noticeable - enough of a performance difference for me not to want the C2D. I'm glad to see them move on.
Take it back to your local Apple Store. Today. This afternoon, if possible. And be nice about it. No, be exceedingly nice. The store manager has the power to help you out, so do everything in your power to make that as easy as possible.
If that doesn't work, call Apple instead.
Let us know how it worked out.
I'm a previous purchaser - in fact I have bought around half a dozen Macs over the years - but I didn't ever try to upgrade in the way that was suggested. While I suppose it might work, I don't see why Apple should even consider it. There was nothing wrong with the computer the poster bought, and this industry has a four-decade long history of quick updates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Based on what? That they aren't designing their systems the way you and the supergeeks that make up perhaps 5% of the customer base want them to be designed??
++
That other 95% is likely comparing this iMac to a much older version with far inferior specs, or thinking about it as their first Mac. The jump in performance, for them, will be significant.
It's hard to imagine DRM implemented more completely than it has been with Blu-ray.
I'd say the kind of DRM that makes you play the content on an Apple device. I like to buy my content once, not different times for what and where I want to view it.
* shrug * to each his own.
As for the Blu requiring you to download content, I think your just seeing the just terribly slow load times. Oppo 83 and the PS3 are smokin fast. I prefer the Oppo cause it's cool, quiet, the SE model has sick DACs analog outs and base management and aftermarket mods for better power supplies and clocks and does SACD.
I do have issues with all those previews some studios stick in front. Universal is good about them while Lionsgate and Disney make me want to discharge a firearm. Warner is getting worse. Some discs allow you to hit Top Menu to skip to the movie menu while others force you to keep hitting next track to finally arrive.
I know this borders on being another thread, but..
It seems to me that the overwhelming discussion here about blu ray support
is about watching movies on computers.
This is not the issue really, Mac folks are in large part content creators.
The real need for BR is for back-up of large amounts of data ( on optical not motorized)
and the biggest issue is really this,
- a quote from previous poster-
"hi def video, what exactly are you supposed to do with your masterpiece? Break it up into little pieces and put it in DVD's? Share it with the Mobile Me web gallery?"
and this
"No other format delivers 45mbit 1080p video with lossless 7.1 audio."
Without ways to author a master Hi Def audiophile product on the Mac for the
1st time in Apple history Macs cannot author the content it creates!
what? have to buy windows to do this??..
take your project to someone with a PC..
unthinkable...
We need BRD to author and securely store large volumes of content.
Without this option Mac content creators are at a huge disadvantage..
Come on Steve... at least a BTO burner and a little support...
Comments
OMG... I can't believe people are still bitching about Blu-Ray. It's simple really. Sony want's to charge too high of a licensing fee.
I can't believe people still think that Sony controls Blu-ray licencing. Sony isn't Blu-ray
Blu-Ray is a mess. I was watching a Blu-Ray movie last night (or trying to) while it repeatedly connected to the internet, downloading "content" that I have absolutely no interest in watching. There's no way around watching endless previews, intros, etc... I just want to watch the goddam movie! But no, Sony says you have to do this and wade through 15 minutes of junk before you watch a movie that you thought was yours.
I don't think you own a Blu-ray player.
If you don't want the Blu-ray live feature on your device, then turn it off. Or if you don't want the Blu-ray live stuff, don't choose that option in the menus.
What movie do you have that forces you to watch previews? I only own 200 blu-rays, so maybe don't have the best knowledge, but all the previews on mine are skip-able.
And the other reason I know you don't have a Blu-ray player, Sony isn't incharge of Blu-ray, so Sony didn't force you to do anything
I refuse to believe Apple thinks people who get the 21.5" model have no use for a quad-core processor.
Probably just a space + heat dissipation issue.
I've seen a lot of posts here complaining about the "small" or "%10" CPU upgrade. I would beg to differ. The change from Core 2 Duo to the Core iX chips is much more than clock frequency (Ghz) indicates (Familiar story, G3/G4/G5 fans?). Go find some benchmarks, and you'll find the change from Core 2 Duo to i5 or i7 most remarkable, beyond just the change from 2 to 4 processor cores. The i3 is only slightly faster, in some cases, than a C2D, but is an upgrade never-the-less and should also draw less power.
These are very good chips.
It's a switch from notebook-class to desktop-class chips too, right?
I refuse to believe Apple thinks people who get the 21.5" model have no use for a quad-core processor.
What is the TDP of Quad-cores in comparison to the Dual-cores?
It's a switch from notebook-class to desktop-class chips too, right?
What is the TDP of Quad-cores in comparison to the Dual-cores?
No the last round of iMacs used desktop processors as well.
Here is the TDP of all the processors being used in the new iMacs
2.93GHz i7-875k TDP: 95w 27" top BTO option (Quad)
2.8GHz i5-760 TDP: 95w 27" top (Quad)
3.06GHz i3-540 TDP: 73w 21.5" entry (Dual)
3.2GHz i3-550 TDP: 73w 21.5" top / 27" entry (Dual)
3.6GHz i5-680 TDP: 73w 21.5" top / 27" entry BTO option (Dual)
The iMac uses desktop CPUs, not laptop CPUs. Are these mobile graphics? Looking at desktop parts, the 4850 had a total bandwidth of 63.55 GB/s. The 5750 in the iMac has 73.6 GB/s. Not to mention a lot less electricity used. If these are laptop graphics being used then it's 54.4 vs 51.2, which would be a very small bandwidth decrease.
Although the iMacs transitioned to desktop CPUs last year, their form factor requires MXM mobile graphics (GPUs make more heat than CPUs do nowadays).
So the graphics that we see are mobile GPUs which cannot be directly correlated to their desktop counterparts.
The 5770 in the 27-inch quad core is no match for the 4850 it replaces, which had a 256-bit memory interface and 800 shaders compared to the 128-bit interface and 400 shaders of the mobile 5770.
No USB 3, no eSATA, no Blu-Ray...
Wow, that's absolutely laughable, especially at the price. Well at least I don't to find the money for a new PC for another 6 months at least, or I'll just go back to Dell.
A Dell???You can't possibly be serious...just do what i did and at least build yourself a top of the line machine to run OSX on, like what's on my signature.
Well iMac is a solid computer but no longer the one that used to have best of technologies to justify its price.
When did it ever?
There is no mention in the tech specs on the Apple site of shader count. There is a 5750 desktop variant. How do we know it is a mobile graphics chip?
Unless the GPU looks like this: http://www.ixbt.com/video3/images/ju...5770-front.jpg
it is a MXM module.
We know it is an MXM module because that is what the previous iMacs used (thanks iFixit) and we know how many shaders it has because we have the specs for the 5750 MXM module.
I am not trying to be critical, but as a hackintosh builder, I often find it frustrating the lack of knowledge of PC parts during these discussions. The lack of knowledge is completely understandable, though, because Macs are black boxes for the most part, with specifications disclosed only to understand where different models slot. A Mac user only needs to understand a 5770 is better than a 4670. As a system builder, I have to know better.
The Mobile 5750 is no match for for the Mobile 4850 in games when it comes to framerate, though it ought to run most games fluently.
If I were to buy an iMac today, however, I would get the new one because I don't play games and I would appreciate the larger framebuffer (1GB vs 512MB) for Adobe Creative Suite and for Final Cut Studio 3.
However, I am going to wait to replace my hackintosh (more headache than they are worth, really) with an Intel Sandy Bridge equipped unit next year. It should have USB 3.0, quad core will be in the low-end models (Sandy Bridge starts at quad core) and we should have another generation of ATI and Nvidia cards.
Still, these are great units and the only reason I don't want to upgrade is because they would still only represent an incremental improvement over my hackintosh pro.
A Dell???You can't possibly be serious...just do what i did and at least build yourself a top of the line machine to run OSX on, like what's on my signature.
I've done that before and Dell is always far cheaper, but I don't go for the all in one Dell as I have no need of such a design. All I want is a desktop PC, I'm not so short of space that I can't fit a PC case off to one side. As Apple's only non all in one desktops either cost as much as a small planet, or are little toy PCs with no power/expandability.... then the iMac is the only option.
I wouldn't object to Apple's crazy pricing as much (I'm in the UK by the way, where we pay special Apple prices (ie. about 50% higher than in the US) if at least they adopted the latest tech. Blu-Ray and USB 3.0 should have been absolutely top of their list.
I bought a blu ray player without the wi fi antenna so when it boots up, I get a spinning gear for ten seconds and it's on with the show.
I've thought about disconnecting it from the network, but that would be a hassle. When you load a disc, there's no knowing in advance if it's going to want to connect, for how long, or for what purpose. It's just like going to a movie theater, except you don't have the option of simply showing up twenty minutes late.
The problem for me is that the Blu-Ray standard permits its playback hardware to take control away from the user. I would find that unacceptable in a computer. I don't want to be forced to disconnect my computer from the network or go through all sorts of other conniptions just to watch a movie. Given Apple's attention to detail - not to mention its desire for complete end-to-end control regarding the user experience - perhaps they're simply not willing to cede that much control to a standard over which they have absolutely no control.
Who knows what caused Apple to decide against Blu-Ray support, but using a computer and watching movies are two separate goals for me - especially when it comes to Blu-Ray and the amazing theater-quality experience it offers. You simply can't deliver that experience in a computer. The option would be nice, but it's not a deal-breaker. Not even close.
BD-Live movies don't MAKE you view the downloadable content and force you into a non-theater experience. I think the key is the user has to actually read the items being selected before pressing ENTER on the remote.
Blu-Ray movies are all different from one another. It's apparently a very flexible media standard, so what you have to sit through depends how the disc is mastered. They simply disable whatever remote buttons they want. If there is a way to bypass all the nonsense, I don't know what it is. I've tried.
How's that Apple tax working for ya, Microsoft trolls?
Feature for feature, there is no price difference. It's just that Dull and HP offer low, "teaser" prices for their PCs. When you add everything a Mac comes with out of the box, the price is the same. Always has been. Apple isn't stupid about pricing - they simply don't sell low-end gear.
Even if the PC makers were to give away their cheap junk hardware for free, you'd still have to pay Microsoft about $50 for Windows. I don't believe it's even possible to buy a PC without paying the license fee. That is a "tax".
It has only been 4/5 years since Blu-ray has been out
But barely two years since it emerged as the dominant standard over HD-DVD. It will prove to be a transitional technology as well.
Consider the widespread adoption of MPEG-3. Not a particularly good audio standard, pretty poor in fact. Yet it's been universally embraced as "good enough". Lossless audio will always be preferable to the audiophile, just like 1080p (or better) video will be preferable to the videophile, but streaming 720p video is probably going to enjoy widespread acceptance for a long time. Analogous to MP3s, it will be "good enough" for most.
For others, a high-end home theater will be preferable. Playing Blu-Ray movies on a computer will never be "good enough" for them.
DVD is on it's (sic) way out, blu-ray is it's (sic) replacement. Avatar sold 40% of it's (sic) units on BD, so this is hardly a niche format with no future. No other format delivers 45mbit 1080p video with lossless 7.1 audio.
Pardon me kotatsu from the UK, but "it's" means "it is", even here in the colonies. I take it the King's English is not your native language?
iTunes downloads, loaded with toxic DRM and at a whopping 5mbit 720p are clearly not comparable.
It's hard to imagine DRM implemented more completely than it has been with Blu-Ray.
If I were you, I'd take this refusal to properly update the PC line as a clear sign that Apple is beginning it's exit front he PC market altogether.
Fortunately you're not me.
As for me, I'm laughing. At you.
Funnily enough, Dell, HP etc have had BD drives in their PCs for a very, very long time now, perhaps because they actually give a damn about consumer choice and new technology.
Now I'm really laughing.
According to Apple the 3.2GHz Core i3 supports TurboBoost
According to Intel the 3.2GHz Core i3 does NOT support TurboBoost
One of them isn't telling the truth.
This is confusing. If the core i3 supported TurboBoost then it would be a low-end (dual core) i5 as I thought the only difference between the dual core i3 and i5 is the turbo functionality.
Seriously Apple, WTF? I'm not in the market for a $2000 mirror. Anti-glare glass IS available, and as Steve would say it'd be "not that hard" to offer a BTO option.
I wonder if this update is a f-you to those of us who NEED matte, or if this is just "more of the same" as Apple focuses on handhelds....
What movie do you have that forces you to watch previews?
The Green Zone. Drove me nuts.
There have been others equally annoying, that was just the latest.
I don't think you own a Blu-ray player.
So, what will be the performance difference between the old C2D of yesterday's iMac vs the Core i3 of today's iMac?
Can't say, but I did a comparison of the C2D and an iMac with an i5. It was noticeable - enough of a performance difference for me not to want the C2D. I'm glad to see them move on.
I would spend the extra $200 for the i5.
The Green Zone. Drove me nuts.
I'll go rent that in the weekend and try it. As I have said, I own around 200 Blu-rays, and all the previews are skipable.
I have never experienced any of those issues you mention on either of my blu-ray players. What brand of blu-ray player do you own?
Take it back to your local Apple Store. Today. This afternoon, if possible. And be nice about it. No, be exceedingly nice. The store manager has the power to help you out, so do everything in your power to make that as easy as possible.
If that doesn't work, call Apple instead.
Let us know how it worked out.
I'm a previous purchaser - in fact I have bought around half a dozen Macs over the years - but I didn't ever try to upgrade in the way that was suggested. While I suppose it might work, I don't see why Apple should even consider it. There was nothing wrong with the computer the poster bought, and this industry has a four-decade long history of quick updates.
Based on what? That they aren't designing their systems the way you and the supergeeks that make up perhaps 5% of the customer base want them to be designed??
++
That other 95% is likely comparing this iMac to a much older version with far inferior specs, or thinking about it as their first Mac. The jump in performance, for them, will be significant.
It's hard to imagine DRM implemented more completely than it has been with Blu-ray.
I'd say the kind of DRM that makes you play the content on an Apple device. I like to buy my content once, not different times for what and where I want to view it.
* shrug * to each his own.
As for the Blu requiring you to download content, I think your just seeing the just terribly slow load times. Oppo 83 and the PS3 are smokin fast. I prefer the Oppo cause it's cool, quiet, the SE model has sick DACs analog outs and base management and aftermarket mods for better power supplies and clocks and does SACD.
I do have issues with all those previews some studios stick in front. Universal is good about them while Lionsgate and Disney make me want to discharge a firearm. Warner is getting worse. Some discs allow you to hit Top Menu to skip to the movie menu while others force you to keep hitting next track to finally arrive.
-Chris
It seems to me that the overwhelming discussion here about blu ray support
is about watching movies on computers.
This is not the issue really, Mac folks are in large part content creators.
The real need for BR is for back-up of large amounts of data ( on optical not motorized)
and the biggest issue is really this,
- a quote from previous poster-
"hi def video, what exactly are you supposed to do with your masterpiece? Break it up into little pieces and put it in DVD's? Share it with the Mobile Me web gallery?"
and this
"No other format delivers 45mbit 1080p video with lossless 7.1 audio."
Without ways to author a master Hi Def audiophile product on the Mac for the
1st time in Apple history Macs cannot author the content it creates!
what? have to buy windows to do this??..
take your project to someone with a PC..
unthinkable...
We need BRD to author and securely store large volumes of content.
Without this option Mac content creators are at a huge disadvantage..
Come on Steve... at least a BTO burner and a little support...
How tough can it be...