Apple Advertising Snafu in Australia and New Zealand Leads to Confusion Over Possible Price Increases

[Digital Skunk]

The registry is still there, so the slowdown is inevitable. And with malware bypassing UAC 7 times out of ten, even using an antivirus infection will be hard to avoid for an "Average Jill" who gets easily tricked into getting infected.

True about the registry, and true about the inevitability, but I don't think too many people are getting tricked into infections. That is unless you mean limewire users.

I don't think the virus issue is going to be a huge problem for most users with Windows 7 and future Windows updates. Microsoft knows that the issue will forever be a stab at their OS and will (hopefully anyway) continue to prevent it from being a major issue. That along with users being a little smarter and email clients filtering on the server level, etc.

On a side note I think the bigger issue for Windows users is going to be it's openness and QC for 3rd party software makers and Microsoft. Running Avid on a PC was always an issue for me because of that very reason. Many of the "viruses" we had in our shop were caused by the mixing of 3rd party software, Avid, Boris FX, Microsoft, and HP.

With Apple, it's just Apple, Adobe, and . . . that's about it.

 

[IntelliUser]

True about the registry, and true about the inevitability, but I don't think too many people are getting tricked into infections. That is unless you mean limewire users.

I don't think the virus issue is going to be a huge problem for most users with Windows 7 and future Windows updates. Microsoft knows that the issue will forever be a stab at their OS and will (hopefully anyway) continue to prevent it from being a major issue. That along with users being a little smarter and email clients filtering on the server level, etc.

Well, while it's true that the "download every single email attachment" habit is kind of forgotten now, we've got rogue anti malware software, but especially social network malware infecting millions of users every day (Facebook is now more visited than Google in the US, hooray).
Thankfully people are indeed getting smarter, but at the same time is malware, taking advantage of the popularity of social networks and piracy it can look quite enticing in the eyes of the average users.
Besides, Microsoft has to work a little harder if 2 years after the initial NT 4.0 release malware can still quite easily bypass its built-in protections. They don't even include their own antivirus in the system, damn it.

On a side note I think the bigger issue for Windows users is going to be it's openness and QC for 3rd party software makers and Microsoft. Running Avid on a PC was always an issue for me because of that very reason. Many of the "viruses" we had in our shop were caused by the mixing of 3rd party software, Avid, Boris FX, Microsoft, and HP.

Yes, that is quite an issue too in fact. I can remember quite a lot of BSODS caused by the incomplete uninstallation of software.
Funny how its openness is often its doom.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Yes, that is quite an issue too in fact. I can remember quite a lot of BSODS caused by the incomplete uninstallation of software.
Funny how its openness is often its doom.

Very funny. It's been a long standing fact that the openness of the Windows OS is what draws many to it, including the bad guys. While the Mac closed system does the opposite.

 

[Reedie]

Yes, except that every 1-2 months Jill will have to get her computer repaired because of malware, or plain registry-caused sluggishness.

Yeah, all the PC owners I know get their laptops repaired 6 times a year

 

[Repo]

The point is that a DVD image is roughly 300 Kpixels. Even the 13"
MB/MBP/MBA have 1024 Kpixels.

Which do you think will look better on your "50 inch"* laptop screen -
300 Kpixels stretched to 1 Mpixel, or a 2 Mpixel 1080p image shrunk
to 1 Mpixel?

It's not about being perfect for 1080p, it's about being much
better than 480i.

* I say '50" laptop" because that 13" screen at your fingertips
is visually the size of a much larger screen at normal television
viewing distances.

The number of pixels on a DVD image doesn't matter. What we're discussing is a Blu-ray image and whether or not a laptop screen will even be able to display it's entirety, and most of them can't.

Of course your laptop screen will look much better (up close) than your TV because it's DPI is so much higher. If you have a 15, 16, or 17" laptop, with a 1920x1080 resolution, and a 40 to 50" TV with a 1920x1080 resolution, then their DPIs will be very different; when you view the TV from a distance, and view the laptop screen up close, they appear the same.

Still, that's no matter, you first need a screen that can fully display your video's resolution.

 

[xbjllb]

Where do I sign up?

Wow, all that money and the thing can't even play a Blu-ray.

I'll take 2. I need more doorstops.

 

[Humber]

I don't see what this have to do with the Macbook Pro?

 

[iMacmatician]

The number of pixels on a DVD image doesn't matter. What we're discussing is a Blu-ray image and whether or not a laptop screen will even be able to display it's entirety, and most of them can't.

Of course your laptop screen will look much better (up close) than your TV because it's DPI is so much higher. If you have a 15, 16, or 17" laptop, with a 1920x1080 resolution, and a 40 to 50" TV with a 1920x1080 resolution, then their DPIs will be very different; when you view the TV from a distance, and view the laptop screen up close, they appear the same.

Still, that's no matter, you first need a screen that can fully display your video's resolution.

It doesn't need to display its entirety. Just more than the alternative.

1920x1080 scaled down to 1600x900, 1366x768, or another resolution between 640x480 and 1920x1080, will look better than 640x480 upscaled to that resolution. True, the difference won't be as big with a resolution close to 640x480 rather than 1920x1080, but most notebook displays have resolutions that are closer to 1920x1080 than 640x480.

You asked "what's the point of watching High-Def on a tiny laptop screen?" The answer is: "because it looks better (displays a higher resolution) than the standard definition alternative."

 

[AidenShaw]

The number of pixels on a DVD image doesn't matter. What we're discussing is a Blu-ray image and whether or not a laptop screen will even be able to display it's entirety, and most of them can't.

If you're not watching a BD, what are you watching? I assume a DVD,
and the fact that the DVD image has less than a third as many pixels
as your laptop screen is crucial.

Still, that's no matter, you first need a screen that can fully display your video's resolution.

No, you don't.

You need video player software that can scale the video to the
resolution of your screen.

My point is that downscaling a 2 Mpixel image to your 1 Mpixel screen
will almost certainly be preferable to upscaling a 300 Kpixel image
to 1 Mpixel.

Your DVD doesn't play in a 640x480 square in the center of your screen,
the player stretches it to fit your monitor. Likewise, a 1080p BD image
would be shrunk to fit the monitor.

 

[MattInOz]

Crikey Mate!?!?
How did a flaming discussion of an advertising snafu down under and our cousins across the ditch get turned into a flaming flame wars on both Windows vs. Mac and Blue ray vs everyotherwayofdistributingmedia?

Blue ray how can you call a media format blue anything and not allow it to be used for porn is beyond me. No wonder it's struggling.

Peace Bro.

 

[IntelliUser]

Crikey Mate!?!?
How did a flaming discussion of an advertising snafu down under and our cousins across the ditch get turned into a flaming flame wars on both Windows vs. Mac and Blue ray vs everyotherwayofdistributingmedia?

Blue ray how can you call a media format blue anything and not allow it to be used for porn is beyond me. No wonder it's struggling.

Peace Bro.

We all love HD porn. really.

 

[Repo]

1920x1080 scaled down to 1600x900, 1366x768, or another resolution between 640x480 and 1920x1080, will look better than 640x480 upscaled to that resolution. True, the difference won't be as big with a resolution close to 640x480 rather than 1920x1080, but most notebook displays have resolutions that are closer to 1920x1080 than 640x480.

You asked "what's the point of watching High-Def on a tiny laptop screen?" The answer is: "because it looks better (displays a higher resolution) than the standard definition alternative."

No, you don't.

You need video player software that can scale the video to the
resolution of your screen.

My point is that downscaling a 2 Mpixel image to your 1 Mpixel screen
will almost certainly be preferable to upscaling a 300 Kpixel image
to 1 Mpixel.

Your DVD doesn't play in a 640x480 square in the center of your screen,
the player stretches it to fit your monitor. Likewise, a 1080p BD image
would be shrunk to fit the monitor.

You first need a screen that can fully display your video's resolution if you want to see your video for it's true quality. Yes, a bigger image scaled down will look better than a smaller image scaled up. Most people who invest in Blu-ray usually aren't looking for just "better image quality," but want the best they can get, and that requires (on a laptop) a screen with enough resolution, which, as I've said, most laptops don't have. If you want to watch Blu-ray scaled down on a 1600x900, 1366x768, or smaller resolution, you can, but most consumers will want the "full picture."

 

[AidenShaw]

You first need a screen that can fully display your video's resolution if you want to see your video for it's true quality.

The question isn't about "true quality" - it's about seeing the BD
movies that I already own, and seeing them in better than 480i quality.

Yes, a bigger image scaled down will look better than a smaller image scaled up

Then we agree, and you accept that there's value in putting a BD
player in a system that's less than TrueHD (1080p). Thank you.

 

[SmellyTofu]

In good news, they seem to have fixed the web site with the correct pricing

 

[Repo]

Then we agree, and you accept that there's value in putting a BD
player in a system that's less than TrueHD (1080p). Thank you.

While we do agree on the scaling issue, what's important is what the consumer knows and wants. If the consumer knows they aren't seeing the full resolution and wants to be able to, then they will need a laptop with a screen that physically can. It's not about being better; it's about being the best.

 

[xbjllb]

While we do agree on the scaling issue, what's important is what the consumer knows and wants. If the consumer knows they aren't seeing the full resolution and wants to be able to, then they will need a laptop with a screen that physically can. It's not about being better; it's about being the best.

Steve Jobs and Apple have NOT been about being the best for several years now, since the success of the iPod and the iToy thrust. Rather, Apple is about making the cheapest overpriced fad gadgets imaginable and selling them to the most number of people for the greatest premium possible, based purely on momentum from past success as a cutting edge computer maker. Apple panders to the least common denominator while their computer business continues thanks to the idiocy of fanbois and the (apparently futile) hopes of high end customers that Apple will return to their past as a cutting edge computer company. And along the way is a callous but not unethical highly calculated strategy of relying on hype to oversell a limited crippled version of each new product first and then to sell the same thing twice or even three times once consumers discover the limitations of the first offerings, all offered in the guise of "progress" when they clearly could have given consumers the ultimate product they needed in the first place. The same callousness that uses early adopters in their established base as free beta testers for OS "upgrades".

 

[ezekielrage_99]

Youre prices are even more butt raped than NZs prices when youconvert to US. It was at the end of last year anyway.

I ended up saving $200 on an iPod touch when I bought it in the states at Christmas... Seriously with the exchange rate so darn good at the moment I can't understand why the product are 20% + compared to the US besides the obvious of propping up the bottom lines