devinci99
Mar 22, 05:07 PM
I'm not sure how they would add iOS though without changing the look, unless iOS was purely for the background features. Or perhaps a click wheel AND touch screen would still be a "classic".
exactly. ios4 base, but made look the same UI.
Come to think about it, longer lasting battery stamina, better screen, internal additions. All without really changing the physical appearance of the classic.
It can therefore still be 'classic' with up-to-date tweaks.
exactly. ios4 base, but made look the same UI.
Come to think about it, longer lasting battery stamina, better screen, internal additions. All without really changing the physical appearance of the classic.
It can therefore still be 'classic' with up-to-date tweaks.
Saharaha
Feb 17, 06:15 PM
First few posts to the forum! Long time reader though, so I've seen some pretty amazing set ups that put mine to shame.
College dorm room set up:
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h150/Sahara_03/desk.jpg
College dorm room set up:
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h150/Sahara_03/desk.jpg
Peterkro
Mar 21, 06:09 PM
Run! Run for the collines!
Grim but accurate.
Grim but accurate.
Torrijos
Apr 19, 01:03 PM
Sure iMacs have replaced desktop in a lot of creatives offices, but this might change with the adoption of Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL by developers. Finally allowing the full use of a Mac Pro by those who need it (like with the next Final Cut X).
What could be cool though would be that Apple allows a little bit of modularity in the iMac...
Besides allowing for the user to upgrade the RAM, SSDs slot(s) could be available in the same opening so the user could add SDD themselves (with the same form factor as MBA's SSD).
That alone would be an amazing upgrade for the iMac, allowing the clients to push back such an expensive upgrade without too much pressure, hell another trap door to give access to the hard drive.
What could be cool though would be that Apple allows a little bit of modularity in the iMac...
Besides allowing for the user to upgrade the RAM, SSDs slot(s) could be available in the same opening so the user could add SDD themselves (with the same form factor as MBA's SSD).
That alone would be an amazing upgrade for the iMac, allowing the clients to push back such an expensive upgrade without too much pressure, hell another trap door to give access to the hard drive.
DrWeevil
Apr 12, 09:06 PM
Any chance the data center is going to play a role in the video capabilities of today's to-be-announced updates?
There's gotta be some use for all that real estate they've paid for!
There's gotta be some use for all that real estate they've paid for!
GeeYouEye
Jan 2, 06:15 PM
Guaranteed, or almost guaranteed:
iWork 07
iLife 07
iTV
Very likely:
A new feature or two in Leopard, possibly with a release month
A new Jam Pack or 2
More iPod games
Likely:
Speed bump to one or more Mac lines
Demo of Photoshop CS 3
Update to some pro software app (but not all)
Less likely:
Discontinuation of Appleworks (only if iWork '07 includes a spreadsheet)
release date for Leopard
Major upgrade to Mac mini (video card upgrade) or MacBook Pro
New Displays
iPhone
Touch-screen video iPod
Unlikely:
New iMac form factor
Major upgrade to any line other than mini or MBP
New consumer software other than a spreadsheet addition to iWork
Upgrade to Logic, Filemaker, Shake, or Aperture
Immediate release of Leopard
New iPod form factor (iPod Micro, for example)
802.11n
"Yeah, no.":
New Pro App
New iPod Hi-Fi
xMac or any other new Mac line
Any new Apple peripherals (ie printer, scanner, camera, speakers.)
PCI(e) slots in anything but the Mac Pro :(
Apple switches back to PPC.
New kernel in Leopard
There, did I miss anything?
iWork 07
iLife 07
iTV
Very likely:
A new feature or two in Leopard, possibly with a release month
A new Jam Pack or 2
More iPod games
Likely:
Speed bump to one or more Mac lines
Demo of Photoshop CS 3
Update to some pro software app (but not all)
Less likely:
Discontinuation of Appleworks (only if iWork '07 includes a spreadsheet)
release date for Leopard
Major upgrade to Mac mini (video card upgrade) or MacBook Pro
New Displays
iPhone
Touch-screen video iPod
Unlikely:
New iMac form factor
Major upgrade to any line other than mini or MBP
New consumer software other than a spreadsheet addition to iWork
Upgrade to Logic, Filemaker, Shake, or Aperture
Immediate release of Leopard
New iPod form factor (iPod Micro, for example)
802.11n
"Yeah, no.":
New Pro App
New iPod Hi-Fi
xMac or any other new Mac line
Any new Apple peripherals (ie printer, scanner, camera, speakers.)
PCI(e) slots in anything but the Mac Pro :(
Apple switches back to PPC.
New kernel in Leopard
There, did I miss anything?
2 Replies
Sep 14, 04:49 PM
They are just doing it for publicity I bet...
... O_o ...
The're a magazine.
....
Publicity DEFINES their business model.
</@laynemoseley>
That said, I still agree with their decision to not recommend it, and the timing of this restating of their stance is fine since Apple's offer is nearly up.
Apple has acknowledged the phone does have a unique issue (that is NOT just the same as the issue of covering up the antenna that most mobile devices have ... otherwise adding an extra bumper wouldn't fix it.).
No self-respecting consumer product review org would recommend a product with known flaws that the manufacturer refuses to adequately fix in the long term.
... O_o ...
The're a magazine.
....
Publicity DEFINES their business model.
</@laynemoseley>
That said, I still agree with their decision to not recommend it, and the timing of this restating of their stance is fine since Apple's offer is nearly up.
Apple has acknowledged the phone does have a unique issue (that is NOT just the same as the issue of covering up the antenna that most mobile devices have ... otherwise adding an extra bumper wouldn't fix it.).
No self-respecting consumer product review org would recommend a product with known flaws that the manufacturer refuses to adequately fix in the long term.
razzmatazz
Aug 6, 09:53 PM
My cup runneth over with excitement.
Too bad I'll be in class all day tomorrow and won't get the minute by minute MR coverage...unless I bring my macbook to class with me. :D
haha! Yea I'm going to be glued to my Macbook watching the updates and jumping with excitement when something is announced :D
Then when the online video comes up on the apple website ill be watching it start to finish and nobody will be able to bother me lol :p
Too bad I'll be in class all day tomorrow and won't get the minute by minute MR coverage...unless I bring my macbook to class with me. :D
haha! Yea I'm going to be glued to my Macbook watching the updates and jumping with excitement when something is announced :D
Then when the online video comes up on the apple website ill be watching it start to finish and nobody will be able to bother me lol :p
EagerDragon
Nov 28, 11:37 AM
Assuming for a second that this is true, I do not see Apple in this space. 17" LCD monitors have been around for years and they are inexpensive now. Why would Apple enter this market when it is unlikely to get the ussual return on investment?
Jonasgold
Mar 23, 12:44 AM
As long as my iPhone doesn't have better storage & battery life, I'll have use for a classic to take my entire music library with me.
Whether or not they discontinue will solely depend on the nr. Of classics sold.
Since it'sthat old, it no longer has to make up for R&D,design, marketing,... So the profits per sold unit must be rather high. But since it's renamed to classic and (apart from a bigger hard drive) had no updates in 3 years, I wouldn't expect they 'll invest in it any further.
Whether or not they discontinue will solely depend on the nr. Of classics sold.
Since it'sthat old, it no longer has to make up for R&D,design, marketing,... So the profits per sold unit must be rather high. But since it's renamed to classic and (apart from a bigger hard drive) had no updates in 3 years, I wouldn't expect they 'll invest in it any further.
gugy
Nov 27, 02:37 PM
Because a 30" cinema display is too small? Because you want to consolidate your TV and computer displays? :confused:
bring the 40" plus size.
I'll buy one.
For a designer large screens are great. The 30" now seems small!:eek:
bring the 40" plus size.
I'll buy one.
For a designer large screens are great. The 30" now seems small!:eek:
mc68k
Dec 12, 12:51 AM
thanks! the points are coming faster these days. i guess they have to to keep up with you guys!
adroit
Nov 15, 11:25 AM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
This is true, but there are still many many ways to optimize the multi-core processor that's not currently being use.
For example, I am waiting for a program to compile right now. Although I have a dual core on my computer, the compiler only compile one file at a time and usually takes about 10 min to do a full compile . If I have an 8 core computer with a multi-threaded compiler then I can cut the total time to jsut over a min + couple of seconds for linking time.
I think the main problem with muti-threading program is that it is difficult to implement, especially for coders who only knows high-level languages. Muti-threading in low-level program such as C is not easy but at least it is straight-forward. But trying to muti-thread high-level language such as VB or C# can get you into a big headace since everything is abstracted from the programmer. To do that, you need to get into unsafe code and call a bunch of DLLs, and it's easy to get memory leaks. Basically it can start to get very complicated, very quickly.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
This is true, but there are still many many ways to optimize the multi-core processor that's not currently being use.
For example, I am waiting for a program to compile right now. Although I have a dual core on my computer, the compiler only compile one file at a time and usually takes about 10 min to do a full compile . If I have an 8 core computer with a multi-threaded compiler then I can cut the total time to jsut over a min + couple of seconds for linking time.
I think the main problem with muti-threading program is that it is difficult to implement, especially for coders who only knows high-level languages. Muti-threading in low-level program such as C is not easy but at least it is straight-forward. But trying to muti-thread high-level language such as VB or C# can get you into a big headace since everything is abstracted from the programmer. To do that, you need to get into unsafe code and call a bunch of DLLs, and it's easy to get memory leaks. Basically it can start to get very complicated, very quickly.
Yankee617
Apr 21, 12:41 PM
If someone breaks into my home and hacks into my Mac (using the OS X DVD to do a password reset), I have a lot more worries than whether they know how to find out what neighborhoods� cell towers I�ve used! Luckily, encrypting your iPhone backup is simple, automatic, and unbreakable; and has the added benefit that then your iPhone�s keychain gets included in the backup. (Otherwise it doesn�t, with good reason.)
If, on the other hand, they steal my phone, they�re unlikely to stop me from remotely shredding it so fast their head spins :)
That said, dumping the old cached data is good practice, and Apple really needs to do so. I�d be surprised if they didn�t patch it to do just that. So: good catch! (Of course, this was noticed months ago.)
So somebody sues you for (insert nefarious activity of your choice) and you deny it saying you were nowhere near Location-X at the time. Then, under rules of disclosure, they subpeona your iPhone/iPad/MBP/TC to obtain your data. The data shows you were at least in the vicinity of Location-X and so had the opportunity to perform (aforesaid nefarious activity). They win their case and you are required to pay $250K in damages, not to mention the $50K you already spent in legal fees. Did you do it? Maybe not... but it doesn't matter, they won and you lost.
I agree that the location data should be dumped... every few hours... so the files contain minimal information. Backups should exclude all this location data. I cannot imagine why any application needs to know my location from more than a few hours ago.
BTW> Is this location data collected on "Wi-Fi Only" iPads? I understand that such iPads do have/use location services, only its not as accurate.
If, on the other hand, they steal my phone, they�re unlikely to stop me from remotely shredding it so fast their head spins :)
That said, dumping the old cached data is good practice, and Apple really needs to do so. I�d be surprised if they didn�t patch it to do just that. So: good catch! (Of course, this was noticed months ago.)
So somebody sues you for (insert nefarious activity of your choice) and you deny it saying you were nowhere near Location-X at the time. Then, under rules of disclosure, they subpeona your iPhone/iPad/MBP/TC to obtain your data. The data shows you were at least in the vicinity of Location-X and so had the opportunity to perform (aforesaid nefarious activity). They win their case and you are required to pay $250K in damages, not to mention the $50K you already spent in legal fees. Did you do it? Maybe not... but it doesn't matter, they won and you lost.
I agree that the location data should be dumped... every few hours... so the files contain minimal information. Backups should exclude all this location data. I cannot imagine why any application needs to know my location from more than a few hours ago.
BTW> Is this location data collected on "Wi-Fi Only" iPads? I understand that such iPads do have/use location services, only its not as accurate.
three
Feb 6, 03:57 PM
It has been fairly nice lately so perfect time to get her clean again. Nothing much has changed since the last time I posted, installed a Fujita F5 CAI not too long ago though. I plan on getting BC coils, and new (non fake) wheels fairly soon.
http://www.imgur.com/OmeHh.jpg
http://www.imgur.com/OmeHh.jpg
crashnburn
Mar 26, 03:51 PM
Awesome news, I recomend the ATI 5870. It can be found for only $200 and it more than holds it's own against the latest and greatest from Nvidia and ATI. It's only 6 percent slower than a 6950. The 6950 on the other hand can be flashed to a 6970 quite easily but it costs abot $260.
Where can I see a comparative of all cards? Or do a comparison of select cards?
Um, I believe credit for this should actually go to netkas:
http://netkas.org/?p=679
He (with rominator) reported over a week ago that the 10.6.6 build with the ThunderBook Pro's can drive PC Radeon 6xxx cards as is.
Is this confirmed or still ...?
this is AWESOME news for all the hackintosh people out there.
Although, my Radeon HD5570 isn't on this 'supported' list, I still got it to work... all resolutions including quartz extreme enabled. :D:D:D
Nice :) What version of OS are you using?
Where I see ThunderBolt being useful is in scenarios where you want to use it at your desk and have all the advantages of a desktop machine. So you put your MBP on your desk and connect via ThunderBolt:
* A drive array with several 3.5" drives, possibly in RAID configuration
* An external video card that is driving a 30" 2560x1600 display with two 1200 x 1920 displays (rotated) on each side of the 30"
You wouldn't bother to use the laptop display for this configuration (I wouldn't at least).
Though, ThunderBolt supposedly allows for daisy-chaining at least 2 monitors, in which case you could run off the laptop's internal video card, but then you need compatible monitors that allow daisy-chaining.
Personally I'd love to see external video cards compatible with ThunderBolt (I use my laptop mostly at my desk), or possibly an enclosure you can put a regular desktop video card in.
I'd like external video cards as well :)
Macrumors needs to seriously consider using this tonymacx86 as a reliable source. As I stated before he gets info from other sources, and this is often highlighted by others
See this quote ex Netkas...
6950 AND 6970 DO NOT WORK IN ANY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE VERSION OF OSX FOR MACS OR HACKS !!!!
THE NEWS STORIES THAT WERE LIFTED FROM HERE ARE INCORRECT !!!!!
DON'T BUY A 69XX CARD UNLESS YOU CAN AFFORD TO WAIT A FEW WEEKS (OR MONTHS) TO USE IT IN OSX !!!!!
OK, done my part. And if you still think they work, go ask your buddy "Tony" how to make them work.
Sad but macrumors - please take more care.
Hmm.. Interesting conflict of information.
Where can I see a comparative of all cards? Or do a comparison of select cards?
Um, I believe credit for this should actually go to netkas:
http://netkas.org/?p=679
He (with rominator) reported over a week ago that the 10.6.6 build with the ThunderBook Pro's can drive PC Radeon 6xxx cards as is.
Is this confirmed or still ...?
this is AWESOME news for all the hackintosh people out there.
Although, my Radeon HD5570 isn't on this 'supported' list, I still got it to work... all resolutions including quartz extreme enabled. :D:D:D
Nice :) What version of OS are you using?
Where I see ThunderBolt being useful is in scenarios where you want to use it at your desk and have all the advantages of a desktop machine. So you put your MBP on your desk and connect via ThunderBolt:
* A drive array with several 3.5" drives, possibly in RAID configuration
* An external video card that is driving a 30" 2560x1600 display with two 1200 x 1920 displays (rotated) on each side of the 30"
You wouldn't bother to use the laptop display for this configuration (I wouldn't at least).
Though, ThunderBolt supposedly allows for daisy-chaining at least 2 monitors, in which case you could run off the laptop's internal video card, but then you need compatible monitors that allow daisy-chaining.
Personally I'd love to see external video cards compatible with ThunderBolt (I use my laptop mostly at my desk), or possibly an enclosure you can put a regular desktop video card in.
I'd like external video cards as well :)
Macrumors needs to seriously consider using this tonymacx86 as a reliable source. As I stated before he gets info from other sources, and this is often highlighted by others
See this quote ex Netkas...
6950 AND 6970 DO NOT WORK IN ANY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE VERSION OF OSX FOR MACS OR HACKS !!!!
THE NEWS STORIES THAT WERE LIFTED FROM HERE ARE INCORRECT !!!!!
DON'T BUY A 69XX CARD UNLESS YOU CAN AFFORD TO WAIT A FEW WEEKS (OR MONTHS) TO USE IT IN OSX !!!!!
OK, done my part. And if you still think they work, go ask your buddy "Tony" how to make them work.
Sad but macrumors - please take more care.
Hmm.. Interesting conflict of information.
VeganBryan
Sep 1, 12:47 PM
if this turns out to be true, here's my prediction on the pricing:
17" is stripped down and relegated to "emac" status and sells at a $999 price point
20" sells for $1299 or $1399
23" sells for $1699 or MAYBE $1799 at the most
17" is stripped down and relegated to "emac" status and sells at a $999 price point
20" sells for $1299 or $1399
23" sells for $1699 or MAYBE $1799 at the most
ljcarr
Jan 4, 05:21 AM
My pride and joy.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3038/3118434529_012ae33259.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30820359@N08/3118434529/)
Side (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30820359@N08/3118434529/) by ljcarrD300 (http://www.flickr.com/people/30820359@N08/), on Flickr
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3315/3179882976_ba29866369.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30820359@N08/3179882976/)
Front side 1 (1) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30820359@N08/3179882976/) by ljcarrD300 (http://www.flickr.com/people/30820359@N08/), on Flickr
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3038/3118434529_012ae33259.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30820359@N08/3118434529/)
Side (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30820359@N08/3118434529/) by ljcarrD300 (http://www.flickr.com/people/30820359@N08/), on Flickr
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3315/3179882976_ba29866369.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30820359@N08/3179882976/)
Front side 1 (1) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30820359@N08/3179882976/) by ljcarrD300 (http://www.flickr.com/people/30820359@N08/), on Flickr
garybUK
Feb 24, 03:13 AM
Hold it right there! The Kia models sold in Europe actually nowadays borrow from the current Hyundai Motor Company parts bin, and as such are way more civilized cars. Anyone who's driven the Kia Cee'd hatchback in Europe know it's a way better car than people think.
Your using Hyundai to make Kia/Chevy seem a good car?! hah, the ONLY good Hyundai is the Coupe, all the others are pretty nasty.
Most of the dealerships here lump Proton, Hyundai and Kia... why? they are cheap cars for mums and old people that goto the supermarket, they are no where near upto the quality of the big german cars. Even most jap cars are pretty rubbish to be honest, even Honda dealers are shutting down left, right and centre, GM (Opel/Vauxhall's) new Astra's and the other bigger horrible thing, seem to have just styled them on the Japanese cars... yuk! World cars do not work, different markets want different things.
Your using Hyundai to make Kia/Chevy seem a good car?! hah, the ONLY good Hyundai is the Coupe, all the others are pretty nasty.
Most of the dealerships here lump Proton, Hyundai and Kia... why? they are cheap cars for mums and old people that goto the supermarket, they are no where near upto the quality of the big german cars. Even most jap cars are pretty rubbish to be honest, even Honda dealers are shutting down left, right and centre, GM (Opel/Vauxhall's) new Astra's and the other bigger horrible thing, seem to have just styled them on the Japanese cars... yuk! World cars do not work, different markets want different things.
MUBiomed
Feb 20, 09:43 PM
Current setup... my sig.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/SilverS3/Photo-0214.jpg
It is time to drink the intel Kool-aid my friend
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/SilverS3/Photo-0214.jpg
It is time to drink the intel Kool-aid my friend
mwayne85
Apr 19, 11:00 AM
Not expecting a huge update here other than Sandy Bridge, Thunderbolt, and 6XXX series AMD graphics.
Chundles
Nov 15, 08:08 AM
They say that the changes in speed aren't going to effect most people because the programs aren't written for multiple cores. Do you think that we are going to see more consumer apps optimized for multiple processors, or do you think that it just isn't needed?
P-Worm
They're going to have to go multi-thread capable, demands on consumer software is only going to increase as we take what is cutting edge today and integrate it into everyday life.
They're going to need every ounce of grunt they can find. Especially when HD video content becomes the norm - encoding that takes some serious brawn and consumers aren't willing to wait for their results, they don't understand the processes behind it like Pros do, consumers want it all done right now so the quicker we get software over to multi-thread aware the better.
How long before it ends up in the MacBook Pro?
(joking)
Next Tuesday...
P-Worm
They're going to have to go multi-thread capable, demands on consumer software is only going to increase as we take what is cutting edge today and integrate it into everyday life.
They're going to need every ounce of grunt they can find. Especially when HD video content becomes the norm - encoding that takes some serious brawn and consumers aren't willing to wait for their results, they don't understand the processes behind it like Pros do, consumers want it all done right now so the quicker we get software over to multi-thread aware the better.
How long before it ends up in the MacBook Pro?
(joking)
Next Tuesday...
AvSRoCkCO1067
Jul 13, 11:33 PM
Will I be able to get a reasonably priced apple laptop with merom, 802.11n, blueray burner, possibly HD, and leopard (or whatever 10.6 is called) in late 2007 or early 2008?
Well you know you'll get merom and leopard by that timeframe. Personally, I believe you'll get 802.11n and a blueray option as well - and with a blueray option should come HD as well.
Well you know you'll get merom and leopard by that timeframe. Personally, I believe you'll get 802.11n and a blueray option as well - and with a blueray option should come HD as well.
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
