TerryJ
Jul 14, 08:25 AM
As purely a data storage format, obviously Blu-ray has the potential to store more data than HD DVD.
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
Robot-Rock
May 2, 04:32 PM
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
63dot
Nov 25, 01:07 PM
They're just ****ing sunglasses...
That's what I thought, but I have seen some in the $300 to $400 dollar range, more with precious stones (actually, much much more).
These cool ones are $250 to $400 and quite nice, but so not me. I could never get enticed into high end, multi-purpose glasses unless they came bundled with OS X and I could navigate through it using just my mind. :)
That's what I thought, but I have seen some in the $300 to $400 dollar range, more with precious stones (actually, much much more).
These cool ones are $250 to $400 and quite nice, but so not me. I could never get enticed into high end, multi-purpose glasses unless they came bundled with OS X and I could navigate through it using just my mind. :)
mex4eric
Apr 19, 08:43 PM
Not expecting a huge update here other than Sandy Bridge, Thunderbolt, and 6XXX series AMD graphics.
Agree!
Agree!
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:28 PM
iOS style multitasking features (benefits) are indeed in Lion.
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
So you're saying we should go back to Mac OS Classic cooperative multi-tasking ?
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
So you're saying we should go back to Mac OS Classic cooperative multi-tasking ?
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
TerryJ
Jul 14, 11:13 AM
I went to my local MicroCenter a few days ago & saw BluRay movies (XXX, Underworld: Evolution, Hitch, and 1 or 2 more) so there ARE movies out for it. Each was worth $29.99 USD so they're gonna be expensive.
Yup... there are BD movies (about 10) and HD DVD movies (about 30) available now. The pricing is about $20-30 dollars each. (Not bad, in my opinion.)
The HD DVD group promo site (http://www.thelookandsoundofperfect.com/) has listed all the LOTR and all the Matrix movies as announced. I wouldn't mind picking up those (hopefully by the end of the year.) Hopefully it's not just marketing "carrot on a stick".
-Terry
Yup... there are BD movies (about 10) and HD DVD movies (about 30) available now. The pricing is about $20-30 dollars each. (Not bad, in my opinion.)
The HD DVD group promo site (http://www.thelookandsoundofperfect.com/) has listed all the LOTR and all the Matrix movies as announced. I wouldn't mind picking up those (hopefully by the end of the year.) Hopefully it's not just marketing "carrot on a stick".
-Terry
PBF
Apr 1, 10:22 AM
Were them two apps downloaded via the Mac App Store by any chance?
Bingo! Now how do I remove the others? :confused:
Bingo! Now how do I remove the others? :confused:
tktaylor1
Feb 5, 02:09 PM
2002 Audi A4. 18th birthday present
nvbrit
Mar 25, 04:24 PM
what's very cool about this, is this is not video mirroring, this is dual displays with different stuff happening on each display... something that was never mentioned as being possible in the keynote or anywhere on apple.com; so it's great to see that it IS possible!
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
Peterkro
Mar 21, 06:18 PM
Chinese naval vessel in the Med,to apparently to extract Chinese workers from Libya (I thought they got them all out before the western nations)?
macoldie
Nov 28, 02:39 PM
Zune is suffering from doing too much too soon. With Vista launch, Zune launch and its music server and its current track of forming partnerships just to cut vendors and customers off, the future looks bleak.
When Apple started, they paid attention to its customers offering iTunes first. As customer grew to like iTunes as a music library, Apple intorduced iPod. "You already have it on your system, now take it with you." Over the years, Apple grew its interest, and improved the software along withi its hardware.
I aggree with other posters in a vairety of forums that most will take a "wait and see" with Zune. Toom much coming at their customer base.
When Apple started, they paid attention to its customers offering iTunes first. As customer grew to like iTunes as a music library, Apple intorduced iPod. "You already have it on your system, now take it with you." Over the years, Apple grew its interest, and improved the software along withi its hardware.
I aggree with other posters in a vairety of forums that most will take a "wait and see" with Zune. Toom much coming at their customer base.
spencers
Nov 26, 07:11 PM
I just bought a mazda 3 to on Monday, I love it, its fun to drive to.
To where?
To where?
ThunderSkunk
Apr 3, 12:52 AM
Yeah great, it's very wonderful.
Now try to take some video on your mac and get it onto your magical thousand dollar iPad2 for use in iMovie. Try to work on a song you created in Garageband on your mac in Garageband on the iPad2.
What's that? A BIG OL CLUSTERBANG OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE WAY!!!
Now try to take some video on your mac and get it onto your magical thousand dollar iPad2 for use in iMovie. Try to work on a song you created in Garageband on your mac in Garageband on the iPad2.
What's that? A BIG OL CLUSTERBANG OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE WAY!!!
OdduWon
Oct 23, 09:44 AM
look there they are... oh no, wait those are irish books professionals
iSpoody 1243
Jun 22, 07:46 PM
ios4 apps on the dashboard would be cool
thats about it
thats about it
mfram
Feb 26, 02:31 PM
So when will automakers sell a compact pickup with a 2 liter diesel in the US? I want a diesel pick up. But I don't want a behemoth that requires a ladder to enter and hogs 2/3 of a 2 car garage.:p
I prefer diesel in a work truck for three reasons: torque, torque and torque.
Don't know about trucks, but Volkswagon has been selling 2.0L 4-cyl diesel engines for a while. You can get a Jetta Wagon TDI.... but that's not quite the same as a truck.
I personally own a Jetta TDI sedan. It's a nice engine.
I prefer diesel in a work truck for three reasons: torque, torque and torque.
Don't know about trucks, but Volkswagon has been selling 2.0L 4-cyl diesel engines for a while. You can get a Jetta Wagon TDI.... but that's not quite the same as a truck.
I personally own a Jetta TDI sedan. It's a nice engine.
stoid
Mar 18, 06:37 PM
Apple has had a small market share ever since Microsoft and IBM dominated the scene back in the early 90s. Apple cannot and should not try to compete on price. Instead, Apple should just continue to offer the superior computer using experience. Eventually, when people get around to buying their 2nd and 3rd computers, they will try to educate themselves and get something more than 'whatever works'. Then, they with find Apple and fall in love. Have you seen the videos about the Apple Retail Store openings? Name ANY other technology company that has support nearly that big from it's fan base. No, Apple is going to be around for awhile.
someone28624
Mar 22, 04:16 PM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
iPod plays videos and shows photos also.
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
iPod plays videos and shows photos also.
celo48
Apr 3, 07:56 AM
I like the ad. At least it does not end like this.
"If you don't have an iPad, then you don't have an iPad."
"If you don't have an iPad, then you don't have an iPad."
pocketrockets
Aug 25, 01:48 AM
Like the iPod rumors, macrumors is basically pulling this out their ass.
MattDell
Sep 6, 08:46 PM
It is already far to easy for me to get the $9.99 per month Netflix account and burn every disk that I get in the mail. Also, it is very easy for me to download HD quality movies from Bit Torrent any old time I please. I don't do it because I am honest but I don't think it is right for the movie industry to not offer a viable alternative for electronic downloads as well. (and no I don't think that "Movielink" is a viable alternative) The ability to pirate things from the iTMS is no greater than any other form of distribution IMO.
I agree with you that it's very easy to pirate movies from Netflix, but by already having the movie file on your computer makes it that much more likely that you will pirate it.
Rented movies in a digital form just take away some of the steps required to pirate a movie, it makes it that much easier, and will invite more people to do it. (this is from the view of the movie executives, of course)
I just do not see it happening.
-Matt
I agree with you that it's very easy to pirate movies from Netflix, but by already having the movie file on your computer makes it that much more likely that you will pirate it.
Rented movies in a digital form just take away some of the steps required to pirate a movie, it makes it that much easier, and will invite more people to do it. (this is from the view of the movie executives, of course)
I just do not see it happening.
-Matt
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 04:35 PM
True, but its a wait for the overzealot AMD CPU fan base. AMD is very well behind Intel right now in CPUs. Their 6-core offerings barely match the processing power of a i7-870; which is a 4-core, 1156 socket! They can't even match the 1366 socket yet... not to mention the monster of a CPU that is the i7-980X.
Shhh... don't tell him that. He insists that it will only be a "small performance edge". �AMD
Shhh... don't tell him that. He insists that it will only be a "small performance edge". �AMD
Multimedia
Oct 23, 11:32 PM
I've got a dual 2.33ghz Core 2 Duo in my mac mini and its FASTTTTT the new mbps will be nice BUY BUY BUYDid you photograph your installation process for us to learn by? How much did you pay for the 2.33GHz Merom?