mrgreen4242
Aug 31, 07:47 AM
Yes I agree that is what you would expect as would I. But it doesn't work that way. They are more than likely to stay just where they are.
Look at how old some of that stuff is from 2005 - a few even from 2004 - there and how they are still priced as if they hadn't long ago been replaced by more powerful models. Makes no sense. But there it is to study and see. :confused: :eek:
They're still selling Quad G5's for $2799 which is rediculous.
Er... The quad G5 isn't available new anymore, so it costs what it costs (there's nothing in the regular store to compare it to - the Mac Pro is NOT a one for one replacement)... IF this rumor is true, then the current lineup is just getting shuffled down with a new top end added, then they would have to drop refurb prices or it wouldn't make any sense.
Now if they just shuffle the CPU down (so the base mini still has a Combo drive and 60gb HDD, but gets a 1.66 Core Duo) they will STILL have to drop the refurb price... A new regular price Solo with SD and 80gb HDD is currently $699, which is the current Core Duo refurb price.
If they completely revamp the lineup then they may keep the same pricing, but seems highly unlikey as noone would buy them and keeping uneeded inventory on hand is bad business.
Look at how old some of that stuff is from 2005 - a few even from 2004 - there and how they are still priced as if they hadn't long ago been replaced by more powerful models. Makes no sense. But there it is to study and see. :confused: :eek:
They're still selling Quad G5's for $2799 which is rediculous.
Er... The quad G5 isn't available new anymore, so it costs what it costs (there's nothing in the regular store to compare it to - the Mac Pro is NOT a one for one replacement)... IF this rumor is true, then the current lineup is just getting shuffled down with a new top end added, then they would have to drop refurb prices or it wouldn't make any sense.
Now if they just shuffle the CPU down (so the base mini still has a Combo drive and 60gb HDD, but gets a 1.66 Core Duo) they will STILL have to drop the refurb price... A new regular price Solo with SD and 80gb HDD is currently $699, which is the current Core Duo refurb price.
If they completely revamp the lineup then they may keep the same pricing, but seems highly unlikey as noone would buy them and keeping uneeded inventory on hand is bad business.
milo
Aug 16, 01:18 PM
Well, it sounds like the next iPod's going to be a rather large update if half the rumors are to be believed.
I'm not inclined to believe even half of the rumors. And the *next* ipod will probably just be a subtle tweak to the nano in the next six weeks. Video ipods or ones with wireless would be after that.
I don't think wireless will be practical for a while. It's a cool idea, but horrible for battery life.
How about an iPod where we actually increase the quality of audio instead of compromising how everything sounds for the "latest" features.
What's your complaint about sound quality in the iPod? I think it sounds pretty good, especially if you encode music at higher bitrates.
Oh great! more DRM....I don't think that's the way to go from a PR standpoint as far as Apple is concerned and in terms of what makes iTunes and the iPod sell so well ...
It wouldn't necessarily require ANY extra DRM, they'd just build it in to the update of the ipod and itunes software. Buy a song directly on the iPod, it only gets transferred to computers with your itunes shopping account. That's pretty much how it works already.
I'm not inclined to believe even half of the rumors. And the *next* ipod will probably just be a subtle tweak to the nano in the next six weeks. Video ipods or ones with wireless would be after that.
I don't think wireless will be practical for a while. It's a cool idea, but horrible for battery life.
How about an iPod where we actually increase the quality of audio instead of compromising how everything sounds for the "latest" features.
What's your complaint about sound quality in the iPod? I think it sounds pretty good, especially if you encode music at higher bitrates.
Oh great! more DRM....I don't think that's the way to go from a PR standpoint as far as Apple is concerned and in terms of what makes iTunes and the iPod sell so well ...
It wouldn't necessarily require ANY extra DRM, they'd just build it in to the update of the ipod and itunes software. Buy a song directly on the iPod, it only gets transferred to computers with your itunes shopping account. That's pretty much how it works already.
lilcosco08
Mar 25, 09:57 PM
Good luck performing multi-touch and gestures with buttons and joysticks. :rolleyes:
/facepalm
/facepalm
DoFoT9
Mar 6, 01:25 AM
Is there an error code or something in the log?
post what's going on. just make a new thread, so if anyone else encounters the same issue it may help them
this is the error i get. if you guys cant help at all ill make a new thread :)
post what's going on. just make a new thread, so if anyone else encounters the same issue it may help them
this is the error i get. if you guys cant help at all ill make a new thread :)
macquariumguy
Mar 18, 09:03 AM
Oh boy, another war. :(
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.
jonharris200
Sep 1, 04:00 PM
"Thin is in". I like that slogan.
jettredmont
Aug 16, 02:00 PM
We need flat data rates on mobiles in the UK. It will happen (esp. if they want people to embrace 3g that they spent all the money on), it's just when.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
QCassidy352
Apr 2, 07:52 PM
great ad. Totally unnecessary, since it's impossible to buy one in most places, but great ad nonetheless.
Earendil
Nov 27, 06:02 PM
Congratulations on starting your point with not one but two violent images... clearly, you must be a real PRO.
They are figures of speech that are quite common where I live. My apologies if they were taken the wrong way by you.
And since when did I say I was a Pro?
This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.
Go Apple if they want to make a consumer monitor to compete with Dell. I'm all for it, as consumer monitors are all I have ever bought. I've already said that though, and I am not at all against Apple doing so, if you think I was, please go re-read my posts, as you might have missed my real point.
My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can..
See, that is what my counter point was to. Yes, the thread is about Apple's possible entry into Consumer level LCDs. However by claiming that only "egotists" with a hankering for "supposed" statistics are the ones that buy Apple displays is just insulting. And when your comparison is with a Dell monitor, it just shows ignorance of what the Apple monitors provide.
You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor :cool:
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in backlighting and change incolor based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benafits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level montior for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.
I think your conclusion is correct, but I think it is for different reasons. Those that buy Apple monitors either have the money to burn, or actually do want what the monitor provides over Dell. I think the reason they may not is the same reason they don't make cheap computers. Apple afaik has had quality certified monitors for a long time running. It might be confusing if they offer both, as anyone that knows that Apple only sells quality monitors may buy the new less expensive monitor and find out it doesn't do what they think it should.
However I think that it would be worth it in sales. And worth it for me :D
Selena Gomez, Miley Cyrus
All offmiley cyrus from the
Selena Gomez, Miley Cyrus
Selena Gomez, Miley Cyrus
selena-kca.jpg
miley cyrus and selena gomez
start Selena
Miley and Selena will be
the sayfree Looks i love at the Miley+cyrus+kca+2011 Tweet mileyapr , views apr Orangemiley cyrus goes floral at youtube videos freecheck out this photo
They are figures of speech that are quite common where I live. My apologies if they were taken the wrong way by you.
And since when did I say I was a Pro?
This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.
Go Apple if they want to make a consumer monitor to compete with Dell. I'm all for it, as consumer monitors are all I have ever bought. I've already said that though, and I am not at all against Apple doing so, if you think I was, please go re-read my posts, as you might have missed my real point.
My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can..
See, that is what my counter point was to. Yes, the thread is about Apple's possible entry into Consumer level LCDs. However by claiming that only "egotists" with a hankering for "supposed" statistics are the ones that buy Apple displays is just insulting. And when your comparison is with a Dell monitor, it just shows ignorance of what the Apple monitors provide.
You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor :cool:
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in backlighting and change incolor based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benafits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level montior for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.
I think your conclusion is correct, but I think it is for different reasons. Those that buy Apple monitors either have the money to burn, or actually do want what the monitor provides over Dell. I think the reason they may not is the same reason they don't make cheap computers. Apple afaik has had quality certified monitors for a long time running. It might be confusing if they offer both, as anyone that knows that Apple only sells quality monitors may buy the new less expensive monitor and find out it doesn't do what they think it should.
However I think that it would be worth it in sales. And worth it for me :D
PBF
Apr 3, 06:52 PM
Not that I'm aware of currently, but you know that will be an extension as soon as it is released.
But why would Apple not do it my way by default??? Google did. Smart and logical of them.
But why would Apple not do it my way by default??? Google did. Smart and logical of them.
AFPoster
Mar 22, 01:43 PM
Under god was added to the pledge in the 50s because we were scared of the Russians. Nevermind the fact that the Pledge was written in 1892, long after the Founding Fathers died.
What else you got?
You're right, I apologize for being incorrect on the pledge.
I have some shoe strings, a piece of gum and a ball of lint.
Maybe we're just confused how someone who claims to be a director of IT (and presumably takes some college to become) can fail so hard at basic history.[/QUOTE]
I'm not here to remember everything I learned, especially in a class I could have cared less about. If you asked me about "pythagorean theorem" I couldn't even answer that. Just because you are wrong on a piece of history doesn't mean your wrong on all other subjects (aside from math which I have stated that).
What else you got?
You're right, I apologize for being incorrect on the pledge.
I have some shoe strings, a piece of gum and a ball of lint.
Maybe we're just confused how someone who claims to be a director of IT (and presumably takes some college to become) can fail so hard at basic history.[/QUOTE]
I'm not here to remember everything I learned, especially in a class I could have cared less about. If you asked me about "pythagorean theorem" I couldn't even answer that. Just because you are wrong on a piece of history doesn't mean your wrong on all other subjects (aside from math which I have stated that).
nmrrjw66
Apr 8, 05:00 PM
Not just Obama's attack....yes, signed on, but there was a request for rebels. I don't have as issue with the West using their military power for support, but there should be an internal force that wants the change and us strong enough to at least use some force without the West.
So why not Mexico? Mexico is experiencing way more violence than most of these Middle East countries yet their request for U.N. aid in 2009 was denied. They are on our doorstep and we are ignoring it for the most part even though we are partly to blame for the violence. The U.N. actually told Mexico just the other day to withdraw their own Military forces from the fight against the cartels.
So why not Mexico? Mexico is experiencing way more violence than most of these Middle East countries yet their request for U.N. aid in 2009 was denied. They are on our doorstep and we are ignoring it for the most part even though we are partly to blame for the violence. The U.N. actually told Mexico just the other day to withdraw their own Military forces from the fight against the cartels.
RaceTripper
Jan 10, 03:53 PM
Well traded the Subaru today time to get something a bit more sensible so i got a 2007 Ford Focus ST-2.
Done all the paper work today and pick her up tomorrow afternoon, cant wait.
MattNow if I were in England and I was getting a Ford Focus, I think it would have to be a RS. :D
We don't get to play with those on our side of the pond. :(
Done all the paper work today and pick her up tomorrow afternoon, cant wait.
MattNow if I were in England and I was getting a Ford Focus, I think it would have to be a RS. :D
We don't get to play with those on our side of the pond. :(
mdntcallr
Oct 23, 10:31 AM
Tuesday Release!!!!
lets hope!! apple usually does them around tues.
lets hope!! apple usually does them around tues.
ezekielrage_99
Nov 28, 08:59 PM
zune people don't seem to agree what it is bad. they just deny the true. here what they are ridiculous.
http://www.zunescene.com/forums/index.php?topic=3784.0
I have to admitt that was great to read, there are so many PC bashing thugs out there who know nothing about anything outside the realm of Microsoft bliss.
I like to think of myself as a fairly balanced PC and Apple person but the comments in that Zune site were just plain idiotic from the "Windows" people, their arguments wouldn't hold water.
The BIG Zune over iPod sales pitch I am hearing more and more is the "but Zune has a radio and wireless and it works with Windows".
Newsflash morons the iPod works with BOTH Windows and Mac OSX, a radio who really cares the reason I bought an iPod was so that I didn't have to listen to the stupid radio, and wireless I guess that would be nice..... wait you still need to plug the dam thing in the charge it.
Personally I am glad people aren't buying the Zune becuase it means that there aren't nearly as many brain dead people out there as I originally thought.
The reality of the effort with the Zune is that it is too little too late and a poor interpretation of an iPod...... Zune it's fugly
http://www.zunescene.com/forums/index.php?topic=3784.0
I have to admitt that was great to read, there are so many PC bashing thugs out there who know nothing about anything outside the realm of Microsoft bliss.
I like to think of myself as a fairly balanced PC and Apple person but the comments in that Zune site were just plain idiotic from the "Windows" people, their arguments wouldn't hold water.
The BIG Zune over iPod sales pitch I am hearing more and more is the "but Zune has a radio and wireless and it works with Windows".
Newsflash morons the iPod works with BOTH Windows and Mac OSX, a radio who really cares the reason I bought an iPod was so that I didn't have to listen to the stupid radio, and wireless I guess that would be nice..... wait you still need to plug the dam thing in the charge it.
Personally I am glad people aren't buying the Zune becuase it means that there aren't nearly as many brain dead people out there as I originally thought.
The reality of the effort with the Zune is that it is too little too late and a poor interpretation of an iPod...... Zune it's fugly
Xero910
Mar 31, 10:11 AM
Regarding the launchpad... I can't remove applications anymore...
When I click "option" the icons get to "shake" but there is not X sign to click to delete the app... they just wiggle and can't be deleted.
Any of you the same?
Also very difficult to move them around...
In my experience launchpad was working better on preview 1!
Ideas?
Yea it's a little buggy right now. You can delete apps the same as as before with some added frustration.
1. Press and hold, CMD+OPT+CTRL (so they all wiggle)
2. Next press and hold one app until they stop wiggling.
3. Now click the apps you want once to delete them.
4. Make sure you hold those 3 keys throughout all steps.
The only thing I haven't figured out yet is adding apps manually. When I drag them to the LaunchPad icon, nothing happens.
When I click "option" the icons get to "shake" but there is not X sign to click to delete the app... they just wiggle and can't be deleted.
Any of you the same?
Also very difficult to move them around...
In my experience launchpad was working better on preview 1!
Ideas?
Yea it's a little buggy right now. You can delete apps the same as as before with some added frustration.
1. Press and hold, CMD+OPT+CTRL (so they all wiggle)
2. Next press and hold one app until they stop wiggling.
3. Now click the apps you want once to delete them.
4. Make sure you hold those 3 keys throughout all steps.
The only thing I haven't figured out yet is adding apps manually. When I drag them to the LaunchPad icon, nothing happens.
LostPacket
Nov 29, 03:42 PM
They previewed the remote control when they previewed the iTV. I assume that they'll stick with that elegant and simple control. 5 buttons instead of 100+ buttons for the M$ Media Center nightmare.
I agree about the 100+ buttons, but I think the Front Row remote is just a little too simple for the power user. Searching and slow-mo within a video clip is a little too clumsy for me. Adding scroll-type functionality that the click-wheel offers would really stream line the interface. For example, while paused you could move forward and back frame-by-frame at any speed using a click-wheel. It would also help for scrolling through long song/movie/trailer lists.
The only reason why I suggested a full-size remote is because a click-wheel won't fit on the current one. Unless they can add touch-sensitivity to the four circular buttons of the Front Row remote.
I agree about the 100+ buttons, but I think the Front Row remote is just a little too simple for the power user. Searching and slow-mo within a video clip is a little too clumsy for me. Adding scroll-type functionality that the click-wheel offers would really stream line the interface. For example, while paused you could move forward and back frame-by-frame at any speed using a click-wheel. It would also help for scrolling through long song/movie/trailer lists.
The only reason why I suggested a full-size remote is because a click-wheel won't fit on the current one. Unless they can add touch-sensitivity to the four circular buttons of the Front Row remote.
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
Sean7512
Aug 24, 05:42 PM
I hope it happens soon......that new iMac is sounding nice!!! I think it is obviously coming "VERY SOON." What happened to September 5th? Is that the tuesday after labor day, I think it is....
peeInMyPantz
Aug 7, 12:51 AM
10am PST is 1am here. So it's really like christmas. So should I keep myself awake and take a peep at santa? or just wait for the good news tomorrow. Or bad news.
garybUK
Feb 23, 05:20 AM
It's funny because neither GM nor Ford in Europe use their own Diesel engines, instead GM use Fiat engines and Ford use a Peugeot-Citroen engine.
Wonder if this will be the case in this? Chevy in Europe is a very cheap and nasty brand of car, much like Kia (they are re-branded Daewoo's).
I also wonder if Auto's v's Manual gears make a difference seeing as 90% of cars in Europe are manual v's the opposite in USA.
Adanvtages of diesel here are: Better mileage, longer range on a tank, lower tax due to lower CO2 emissions, higher resale value, longer life.
IMO European manufacturers have had much longer to perfect the technology (i.e. Common Rail Injected Diesel) so GM are up against it here.
I wonder how it will fare against the likes of the VW Golf's Blumotion that gets 74mpg! Much more than the crappy Japanese cars.
Wonder if this will be the case in this? Chevy in Europe is a very cheap and nasty brand of car, much like Kia (they are re-branded Daewoo's).
I also wonder if Auto's v's Manual gears make a difference seeing as 90% of cars in Europe are manual v's the opposite in USA.
Adanvtages of diesel here are: Better mileage, longer range on a tank, lower tax due to lower CO2 emissions, higher resale value, longer life.
IMO European manufacturers have had much longer to perfect the technology (i.e. Common Rail Injected Diesel) so GM are up against it here.
I wonder how it will fare against the likes of the VW Golf's Blumotion that gets 74mpg! Much more than the crappy Japanese cars.
jxyama
Apr 6, 11:22 AM
actually, nevermind. i don't care anymore. you are clearly not reading what i've been posting anyway.
Apple OC
Mar 21, 07:21 PM
The gist of the statements currently coming from UN-mandated coalition members seems to be that once that "all necessary measures" have been taken to protect Libyans under attack by Gaddafi loyalists, the coalition military will simply seek to maintain that protection. Any political progess from that point on will have to be negotiated between Gaddafi, the Arab League, and the UN.
It will be important to get the Arab League onboard, but just now they are pretty distracted with internal instability and rarely agree on anything anyways. They neither want to keep Gaddafi around nor show him the door.
I agree ... interesting progress this UN decision has become, the Arab partners seem to now be on the fence.
Getting Gaddafi to step down seems like a logical solution ... however that may not happen if he tries to all of a sudden play ball a bit.
It will be important to get the Arab League onboard, but just now they are pretty distracted with internal instability and rarely agree on anything anyways. They neither want to keep Gaddafi around nor show him the door.
I agree ... interesting progress this UN decision has become, the Arab partners seem to now be on the fence.
Getting Gaddafi to step down seems like a logical solution ... however that may not happen if he tries to all of a sudden play ball a bit.