TangoCharlie
Jul 28, 05:16 AM
Can I swop the Merom with the Yonah in my MB?
No. Not unless you're extremely handy with a soldering iron!
No. Not unless you're extremely handy with a soldering iron!
JoshH
Aug 7, 02:06 PM
Looks like a good time to let my PM D1.25Ghz G4 retire... The new MP must be at least 10 times faster. :eek:
Apple store up again. The old PM G5 seem to be gone.
Me too. I've tortured my poor PM dual 867 long enough. Retirement would be good.
... in a nice place where she'd be treated well, of course.
Apple store up again. The old PM G5 seem to be gone.
Me too. I've tortured my poor PM dual 867 long enough. Retirement would be good.
... in a nice place where she'd be treated well, of course.
kavika411
Mar 24, 01:00 PM
I believe a lot of the anti-Obama crap spewed by the Tea Party and Republicans is based more on his race than his party.
Oh. So when a person criticizes Obama for keeping us in Afghanistan, Iraq, and/or Libya, just level an accusation of racism.
Got it.
Oh. So when a person criticizes Obama for keeping us in Afghanistan, Iraq, and/or Libya, just level an accusation of racism.
Got it.
georgi0
Sep 19, 01:22 AM
Several other companies have 2 lb laptops. Where is my Mac 2 lb laptop?
i think this will imply a huge expansion for apple (to cover on all markets of laptops) resulting in problems with the assebly lines too many models to support and etc.
ithink just a few models for now will gurantee better support and clear problem solving when something happensto them.
i think this will imply a huge expansion for apple (to cover on all markets of laptops) resulting in problems with the assebly lines too many models to support and etc.
ithink just a few models for now will gurantee better support and clear problem solving when something happensto them.
lyzardking
Apr 6, 11:56 AM
I have something better than a MacBook Air. It's called an iPad 2.
Let me know when it can run CS5 (in a pinch) and I'm in
Until then, I'm waiting for a back-lit key board and a faster processor (yah, I know learn how to type, yada-yada. I've been at this long enough that if you could type you became a "typesetter")
Let me know when it can run CS5 (in a pinch) and I'm in
Until then, I'm waiting for a back-lit key board and a faster processor (yah, I know learn how to type, yada-yada. I've been at this long enough that if you could type you became a "typesetter")
BLUELION
Apr 7, 11:30 PM
This is a rumor site??? Really?? No way!
You people don't know the facts and are jumping to conclusions. You need to realize that this is a RUMOR site....
You people don't know the facts and are jumping to conclusions. You need to realize that this is a RUMOR site....
bryanc
Aug 11, 10:52 AM
I'm stuck in a contract for another year, so I'll be watching to see how this pans out. Hopefully, I'll be able to jump on a Rev B without reservations.
Given Apple's patent on the click-wheel interface, what do you think the likelihood of a virtual rotary phone interface? There are plenty of people who are now adults who've never 'dialled' a phone. It would be really slick if Apple could find a way for all of us old-farts to re-activiate our kinaesthetic memories and dial up and old friend using the click wheel on our new iPhones.
Cheers
Given Apple's patent on the click-wheel interface, what do you think the likelihood of a virtual rotary phone interface? There are plenty of people who are now adults who've never 'dialled' a phone. It would be really slick if Apple could find a way for all of us old-farts to re-activiate our kinaesthetic memories and dial up and old friend using the click wheel on our new iPhones.
Cheers
.jpg "Haircuts For Fat Faces Men.")
gnasher729
Aug 18, 03:31 PM
Thats showing that the quad core Mac Pro is essentially the same speed as dual core Mac Pro. To translate it to normal mac scenario: If apple releases a 2.66GHz Conroe iMac/Mac/whathaveyou it will be able to crunch through FCP/Photoshop/etc faster than a Mac Pro because it can use regular DDR2 and won't suffer from horrendous memory latency.
It only shows that one company can expect to get massive complaints from its customers soon about its crappy software. An H.264 encoder can easily use two dozen cores if they are there (apart from the fact that it might be limited by the speed of the DVD drive if you encode straight from DVD); there is no reason at all why this software shouldn't be twice as fast on a Quad core and four times as fast on an eight core machine.
It only shows that one company can expect to get massive complaints from its customers soon about its crappy software. An H.264 encoder can easily use two dozen cores if they are there (apart from the fact that it might be limited by the speed of the DVD drive if you encode straight from DVD); there is no reason at all why this software shouldn't be twice as fast on a Quad core and four times as fast on an eight core machine.
robogobo
Apr 8, 05:01 AM
Maybe they ate too much magical unicorn dust and it clouded their judgement. :rolleyes:
Omg unicorn dust that is so funny! Where do you get this awesome material? Hilarious!
Omg unicorn dust that is so funny! Where do you get this awesome material? Hilarious!
mwswami
Jul 23, 04:28 PM
Well Swami I am going to have to call your bluff. Makes no sense to skip Conroe Dual Cores on the Mac Pro yet. This Winter 2007 with Clovertowns, perhaps post MacWorld SF. But not yet. And maybe not ever.
...
You fill in the specs. I can't remember what speeds are being offered. This is all just a wild guestimate for discussion purposes. Please don't flame me.
Don't worry I won't flame you. You may turn out to be right. Only two weeks to go ...
...
You fill in the specs. I can't remember what speeds are being offered. This is all just a wild guestimate for discussion purposes. Please don't flame me.
Don't worry I won't flame you. You may turn out to be right. Only two weeks to go ...
aswitcher
Aug 27, 05:17 AM
What would be competitive:
SNIP
iMac 2.4-2.66Ghz Conroe, X1800 and LCD res upgrade
Mac Mini: 1.83Ghz Allendale (going to be much cheaper than Merom, so if they can they will put one in) Integrated graphics
Mac Pro: Dual 2.0-3.0Ghz Xeons
I agree, it would be really good if Apple did what they did with the Mac Pro, and made sure the next updates used the best appropriate tech available.
Alternatively, they should release a grunty half sized Mac Pro for those who need more power and customisation, but dont need a full on work station.
SNIP
iMac 2.4-2.66Ghz Conroe, X1800 and LCD res upgrade
Mac Mini: 1.83Ghz Allendale (going to be much cheaper than Merom, so if they can they will put one in) Integrated graphics
Mac Pro: Dual 2.0-3.0Ghz Xeons
I agree, it would be really good if Apple did what they did with the Mac Pro, and made sure the next updates used the best appropriate tech available.
Alternatively, they should release a grunty half sized Mac Pro for those who need more power and customisation, but dont need a full on work station.
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
toddybody
Mar 22, 02:57 PM
wait, theres other tablets out there? :rolleyes:
Josias
Sep 19, 10:20 AM
I think any rumorsite reporting new MBP's after September 1st, should be taken down:p
What I really want for Apple to announce in the MBP is:
68 Wh battery on all (4.5 hrs sucks compared to MacBooks 6 hours)
FW800 on all (really should be there on a pro)
Magnetic latch (so cool!:D)
Merom (of course)
DL SuperDrive (I'm not using it, but I think it is required for a pro machine)
Many people say the X1600 is too slow to take advantage of 256 MB? WTF?:p
So my friends 128 MB Radeon 9000 could just as well be 32 MB?
I think Apple should consider putting 256 MB on all models, X1600 Pro in low end, and X1800 in hi-end.
I'm not saying I need this stuff, but this is what I'd like for Apple to release.
What I really want for Apple to announce in the MBP is:
68 Wh battery on all (4.5 hrs sucks compared to MacBooks 6 hours)
FW800 on all (really should be there on a pro)
Magnetic latch (so cool!:D)
Merom (of course)
DL SuperDrive (I'm not using it, but I think it is required for a pro machine)
Many people say the X1600 is too slow to take advantage of 256 MB? WTF?:p
So my friends 128 MB Radeon 9000 could just as well be 32 MB?
I think Apple should consider putting 256 MB on all models, X1600 Pro in low end, and X1800 in hi-end.
I'm not saying I need this stuff, but this is what I'd like for Apple to release.
milo
Jul 27, 03:29 PM
Actually, the merom in not completely compatible with the yonah chips. There will have to be some redesign on Apple's part that is supposed to delay the new MBPs. This article somewhat explains it:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=249
I don't know that I buy that, especially considering they have no source, and people have already done merom swaps on shipping machines. If there is an issue, I'd guess it's only an issue in the soldered version.
As far as the 2nd optical slot goes, don't you think it's a pain to have only a single drive?
And especially when a second one probably adds less than $50-$75 to the system cost to the customer? (And extra profit potential for Apple?)
Not really. My last machine had two, and I rarely used both. I think most people in the market for two optical drives are probably going to want the full pro tower anyway, and there's not that much profit from the second slot since most people will add the drive themselves instead of from Apple.
MS will announce that they are dropping Mac development
But didn't MS sign a multiyear contract with apple committing to support?
I'm not sure why you're saying this price is way too low. The specs, so far as I can see, are quite similar to the current bottom-end iMac, which has an integrated screen, and it's price is only $300 more. It seems to me that this price is actually about right.
Also, I think that the name 'Mac' is a distinct possibility. Not saying I like it (or that I don't), or that it isn't simplistic, but I think that it's not unreasonable. FWIW, 'Mac Express' is nice, too, but I don't see Apple jumping on a name like that as quickly.
Maybe not way too low, but a bit low, especially when you compare specs to the $799 mini. The problem with MAC by itself as a name is that people will ask "what kind of mac" and the response is "Mac". It's a bad slapstick routine. It's like Ford selling a car called the Ford.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=249
I don't know that I buy that, especially considering they have no source, and people have already done merom swaps on shipping machines. If there is an issue, I'd guess it's only an issue in the soldered version.
As far as the 2nd optical slot goes, don't you think it's a pain to have only a single drive?
And especially when a second one probably adds less than $50-$75 to the system cost to the customer? (And extra profit potential for Apple?)
Not really. My last machine had two, and I rarely used both. I think most people in the market for two optical drives are probably going to want the full pro tower anyway, and there's not that much profit from the second slot since most people will add the drive themselves instead of from Apple.
MS will announce that they are dropping Mac development
But didn't MS sign a multiyear contract with apple committing to support?
I'm not sure why you're saying this price is way too low. The specs, so far as I can see, are quite similar to the current bottom-end iMac, which has an integrated screen, and it's price is only $300 more. It seems to me that this price is actually about right.
Also, I think that the name 'Mac' is a distinct possibility. Not saying I like it (or that I don't), or that it isn't simplistic, but I think that it's not unreasonable. FWIW, 'Mac Express' is nice, too, but I don't see Apple jumping on a name like that as quickly.
Maybe not way too low, but a bit low, especially when you compare specs to the $799 mini. The problem with MAC by itself as a name is that people will ask "what kind of mac" and the response is "Mac". It's a bad slapstick routine. It's like Ford selling a car called the Ford.
vincenz
Apr 28, 01:30 PM
Trump is the ultimate troll. Worst of all, he's just getting tons of free publicity every time the subject is brought up.
lars steenhoff
Apr 6, 05:01 PM
For the time being, the new ati macbook pro's won't work as fast with premiere pro, as they could have when premiere would use openCL, instead of Cuda.
Probably in the next version I guess, as openCL was not quite there yet when premiere CS5 was developed
Probably in the next version I guess, as openCL was not quite there yet when premiere CS5 was developed
VanNess
Aug 5, 05:59 PM
Im glad we will be getting a bit of closure on monday, while I love the rumors its been getting a bit to much, im actively avoiding all mac related sites... I dont want to be the boy that spoilt his own Xmas! :D
Here, let me show you the art and science of rumoring (http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/), Apple-style.
Here, let me show you the art and science of rumoring (http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/), Apple-style.
whatever
Nov 29, 12:42 PM
I'm certainly not on the record label's side on this, and I'm someone who almost never downloads anything online (not even free, MP3 of the week type tracks), but I think two important things we're glossing over are:
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
For starters, it's not illegal to download music freely. There are quite a few artists that allow free downloads of their music, so the first part of your statement "it's illegal to download music freely" is not correct. The second half of your statement ".... people are doing it....", assumes that everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Which is wrong.
I've been re-thinking my stance here. And if Apple decides to give a portion of their future iPod revenue to the music industry, then let them. I personally would never do it, but again, we're only talking a couple of dollars per iPod. Would Apple raise their prices on current models, most likely not. I would rather have Apple pay the iPod tax, instead of changing the iTunes Music Store's pricing model.
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
For starters, it's not illegal to download music freely. There are quite a few artists that allow free downloads of their music, so the first part of your statement "it's illegal to download music freely" is not correct. The second half of your statement ".... people are doing it....", assumes that everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Which is wrong.
I've been re-thinking my stance here. And if Apple decides to give a portion of their future iPod revenue to the music industry, then let them. I personally would never do it, but again, we're only talking a couple of dollars per iPod. Would Apple raise their prices on current models, most likely not. I would rather have Apple pay the iPod tax, instead of changing the iTunes Music Store's pricing model.
noire anqa
Mar 26, 07:35 AM
Thank you for your constructive reply but I have a feeling it will all fall on deaf ears given that most have never actually gone on Google and researched what has been added/changed/enhanced to Mac OS X Lion. For example SAMBA has been removed and completely replaced with a ground up clean room implementation of SMB2 which will translate into better support for Windows Vista and 7 clients as well as the latest versions of Windows. Why hasn't that been mentioned by the nay sayers here?
OpenGL 3.2 has been added and funny enough not a single thing has been said about the fact that it lays the foundation for future updates that will be more prompt.
Then there is Webkit2 based web browser whose knock on effects go well beyond Safari and into applications wishing to utilise web based technologies with framework that provides said functionality but handles all the mundane security/process isolation/etc behind the scenes.
The merging of AV Foundation that serves as the foundation for future development for media products that will span iOS and Mac OS X; that you can have the same media core on iOS and Mac OS X then build upon it to differentiate between the desktop and tablet version by having a different interface, more features on the desktop version etc.
Sandboxing is being enhanced further and more system components are being put into it as to reduce the security exposure when a bug is found.
I'm sure others can note even more enhancements but it is frustrating when I hear the same nauseating ignorance over and over again from the cheap seats screaming there are no new features and yet they've done zero in the way of researching and reading on the matter.
You can't hear me .. but i'm cheering for you.
OpenGL 3.2 has been added and funny enough not a single thing has been said about the fact that it lays the foundation for future updates that will be more prompt.
Then there is Webkit2 based web browser whose knock on effects go well beyond Safari and into applications wishing to utilise web based technologies with framework that provides said functionality but handles all the mundane security/process isolation/etc behind the scenes.
The merging of AV Foundation that serves as the foundation for future development for media products that will span iOS and Mac OS X; that you can have the same media core on iOS and Mac OS X then build upon it to differentiate between the desktop and tablet version by having a different interface, more features on the desktop version etc.
Sandboxing is being enhanced further and more system components are being put into it as to reduce the security exposure when a bug is found.
I'm sure others can note even more enhancements but it is frustrating when I hear the same nauseating ignorance over and over again from the cheap seats screaming there are no new features and yet they've done zero in the way of researching and reading on the matter.
You can't hear me .. but i'm cheering for you.
CyberPrey
Aug 15, 12:19 PM
Show.. me.. the.. games...
LOL, us gamers all sound kinda like broken records :)
LOL, us gamers all sound kinda like broken records :)
rjohnstone
Apr 25, 03:06 PM
You obviously missed the point that they do not track anything. It's just a log file on your iphone, it stays with your iphone. I GOT even more news!! I FOUND a file on the iphone that stores text messages. YES PEOPLE text messages. I can read your text messages from this file if I have your phone!! Oh ya, I know you can launch the SMS app, but WHY WOULD APPLE NEED TO STORE TEXT MESSAGES ON MY DEVICE?!?! I'm suing!!
Just like web caching, storing text messages is part of the function of the messaging app. It serves a purpose of giving YOU a history.
And guess what... you can clear it. ;)
Just like web caching, storing text messages is part of the function of the messaging app. It serves a purpose of giving YOU a history.
And guess what... you can clear it. ;)
cmaier
Apr 19, 04:27 PM
Samsung, circa 2006:
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_at_cebit_2006-news-177.php
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_at_cebit_2006-news-177.php
Astro7x
Apr 6, 11:29 AM
FCP supporting Bluray is irrelevant if Apple does not start putting Bluray drives into its Macs. The nice thing about the Superdrive is that I know if I have a Mac, I can do anything related to DVDs. I can play them, I can burn them, I can do Dual Layer. It's just as simple as "You have a Mac? You can play this disc!". Does anybody remember the days before DVD Drives became standard in computers? I remember giving DVDs to people that wouldn't play, and then having to have them crouch down next to their PC and read off the faintly printed logos on the drive and tell me if it said CD-ROM.
All the haters that are against Bluray, you have to admit that if it was a Bluray drive in every single Mac made that the requests for Bluray would be much higher.
I've dealt with clients that when our Client's Client needs to sign off on a final video, we have to mail them a DVD. Because they are so stupid that they either don't know how to download a file, can't play a file because their computers are so locked down they can't install quicktime (think bigger corporate environments where you need permission to install anything), or are just idiots to the point where all they can understand is "Put this disc in this slot". I remember having a end client one time where the DVD Video Logo on the disc wasn't enough, and I had to spell out on the disc label. "This disc will only play on a DVD Player". And then apparently that wording was too confusing and I had to reword it to "This disc will only play IN a DVD Player". Then they put the DVD in the computer and it wouldn't play. Sent their IT department to the owners office and find out that they downloaded DVD Playing software earlier that was on a trial, the trial ran out, then since it became their default DVD player they were incapable of playing DVDs.
I've also had stupid clients request DVDs (because files is too difficult...), fire it up on their 27 inch Cinema Display, then complain that the video is blurry because they don't understand the concepts of resolutions and that if a Standard Definition DVD plays full screen you're blowing it up 3 times it's normal size probably.
It's pretty ignorant to say Apple shouldn't support Bluray because you personally don't use it. I haven't put a spot to tape in forever, should the next Final Cut Pro not include export to tape options because it's a dying format?
All the haters that are against Bluray, you have to admit that if it was a Bluray drive in every single Mac made that the requests for Bluray would be much higher.
I've dealt with clients that when our Client's Client needs to sign off on a final video, we have to mail them a DVD. Because they are so stupid that they either don't know how to download a file, can't play a file because their computers are so locked down they can't install quicktime (think bigger corporate environments where you need permission to install anything), or are just idiots to the point where all they can understand is "Put this disc in this slot". I remember having a end client one time where the DVD Video Logo on the disc wasn't enough, and I had to spell out on the disc label. "This disc will only play on a DVD Player". And then apparently that wording was too confusing and I had to reword it to "This disc will only play IN a DVD Player". Then they put the DVD in the computer and it wouldn't play. Sent their IT department to the owners office and find out that they downloaded DVD Playing software earlier that was on a trial, the trial ran out, then since it became their default DVD player they were incapable of playing DVDs.
I've also had stupid clients request DVDs (because files is too difficult...), fire it up on their 27 inch Cinema Display, then complain that the video is blurry because they don't understand the concepts of resolutions and that if a Standard Definition DVD plays full screen you're blowing it up 3 times it's normal size probably.
It's pretty ignorant to say Apple shouldn't support Bluray because you personally don't use it. I haven't put a spot to tape in forever, should the next Final Cut Pro not include export to tape options because it's a dying format?
No comments:
Post a Comment