MakeMKV does not abide by Blu-ray licensing terms. If it did, then there'd be code in the OS X kernel for its support. This is Apple's objection to Blu-ray disc support.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If the next MBP doesnt have i5, Blu Ray & ATI say goodbye to highend consumers Apple!
- Thread starter wikoogle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
MakeMKV does not abide by Blu-ray licensing terms. If it did, then there'd be code in the OS X kernel for its support. This is Apple's objection to Blu-ray disc support.
Of course not. Resolution independence means that the UI elements, everything from toolbars to icons to text can be freely scaled so they are not tied to a specific pixel size as they are in OSX now. Leopard had a broken implementation, don't know if it's any better in Snow Leopard but I guess not because Apple doesn't allow you to turn it on without using Terminal. Maybe it'll be available in 10.7...
OSX font sizes are pretty much the same as they are on Windows. The rendering is simply different. OSX would really benefit from resolution independence because its fonts are more booklike so the more pixels they're made of the more accurate they look. Thus a 13" 1920x1200 display would be highly useful, but only if the UI can be scaled back to a readable size and that doesn't happen without resolution independence.
wikoogle, even at a reasonable distance from a big TV it can be hard to discern between moving 720p and 1080p images. 480p or less is obviously noticeable. I was not arguing against having BluRay and watching in 720p but against a 1080p display because the OS is not ready for it and it would not provide a significant difference to the viewer at laptop screen sizes.
I've been looking at the benchmarks of the ATI 5830 and that thing is a monster GPU.
Even without the GDDR5 ram that the 5850 offers, the performance of the 5830 is leaps and bounds above anything Nvidea offers.
Here's hoping that's what ends up in the new MBPs.
Even without the GDDR5 ram that the 5850 offers, the performance of the 5830 is leaps and bounds above anything Nvidea offers.
Here's hoping that's what ends up in the new MBPs.
If you're talking about this in terms of Blu-ray support, it's really unnecessary. Even the current low-end MacBook Air cpu can handle that. The biggest problem is the HD audio of Blu-ray. It's really engineered for passthrough, but none of the current Macs can do HD audio passthrough because of hardware limitations. That means the Mac has to be able to extract the AC3 or DTS cores from the HD audio and passthrough (by optical) or decode (to analog) during playback. This kills the low-end Macs because they simply don't have the cpu horsepower to deal with it on the fly. Of course, if Apple provided a Blu-ray Disc Player that off-loaded the video to the gpu for hardware decoding (the 9400 is more than adequate), then that would free up cpu cycles to handle the audio. I suspect even the MacBook Air could handle that right now.
But we're still left with the BD licensing terms (code in the kernel, requirement for HDMI, etc., etc., etc.). I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
As a highend consumer who needs a lot of mobile perf, I just want to say that the title of the thread needs upgrading.
It has to be an i7 for me with genuine quad core, and I would like an Nvidia 285M option so I can actually program it in CUDA. i5 is irrelevant to me, though I realize many might like ATI graphics.
I'd bet we won't see Blu-Ray as Jobs seems so absurdly hostile to it. I wish someone close to him in Apple would point out that most of the world does not have the internet speed that he has in Cupertino and are much more likely to buy a BD than download to an Apple TV (which I do not have). Still, he/Apple are making so much cash he probably won't and does not need to listen.
It has to be an i7 for me with genuine quad core, and I would like an Nvidia 285M option so I can actually program it in CUDA. i5 is irrelevant to me, though I realize many might like ATI graphics.
I'd bet we won't see Blu-Ray as Jobs seems so absurdly hostile to it. I wish someone close to him in Apple would point out that most of the world does not have the internet speed that he has in Cupertino and are much more likely to buy a BD than download to an Apple TV (which I do not have). Still, he/Apple are making so much cash he probably won't and does not need to listen.
not interested in a blu-ray drive. blu-ray is high def, high def is for high def tvs. i have a high def tv. i would be retarded to watch blu-ray on my laptop.
also, i have no use for that kind of media for backups.. have two external drives that cost me less in the long run.
also, why the hell would anyone care about ati?
also, i have no use for that kind of media for backups.. have two external drives that cost me less in the long run.
also, why the hell would anyone care about ati?
HD is dependent upon viewing distance. Even my MacBook Air looks great with HD video compared to DVDs.
Have you ever watched an HD movie on your laptop?
And hard disk drives have a higher failure rate.
I would like an i7 too but based on what I read, it seems like the quad core processor eats up too much power and produces too much heat.
Maybe I'm wrong, I do think they'll offer an i7 in the 17 inch but I doubt it'll be the quad core version.
Same with Nvidia, it seems like all Nvidia's cards offer less performance and eat up more power than 58XX series ATI recently unveiled.
But I hope I'm wrong on the subject as I just want to see the best GPU that can convievably go into the MBP go in, I don't care who makes it.
They should still give us the option of going with a Clarksfield quad-core; I'll gladly take the hit to battery life, since I use my MBP as a desktop replacement anyway and almost never take it with me.
BTW, runeasgar, you are an egotistic snob. Congratulations on your awesome HDTV, but I would love to see Blu-Ray on the MBP. Are my requirements less valuable than yours? Oh, and everyone should care about ATI, seeing as their mobile GPUs are lightyears ahead of nVidia's.
BTW, runeasgar, you are an egotistic snob. Congratulations on your awesome HDTV, but I would love to see Blu-Ray on the MBP. Are my requirements less valuable than yours? Oh, and everyone should care about ATI, seeing as their mobile GPUs are lightyears ahead of nVidia's.
I think it's pretty clear that a lot of us hinge on the i5/i7 and the better GPU, but desire for BlueRay is NOT universal. I for one, would be far more appeased by the option of NO optical drive, but a second HD instead (without having to do this aftermarket).
I have a desktop... For gaming.
Well, the MBP is simply quieter, more compact, uses less power, looks better, and I can take it with me if necessary - whether to watch movies on my bed or to give a presentation at university. I'd consider an iMac + iPad combo if I hadn't gotten so used to the convenience of owning a laptop and if the iPad weren't so underwhelming.
Snuggles, as much as I crave Blu-ray, I'd like to see that option too (e. g. a small boot-SSD - a good one from intel, not some crappy samsung - instead of the optical drive), apple should just spare us the "super"drive.
Actually I believe Moel was referring to Hard Drive speeds. The thread he was commenting on said HDD and he only said HD when referring to it. In a thread where we are talking about High Definition & Hard Drives the distinction should be made or these accidental confusions will happen. I am only on the first page, so I do not know if this was addressed already, if so disregard.
BluRay Read rates
8× @ 288 Mbit/s (36 MByte/s)
12× @ 432 Mbit/s (54 MByte/s)
HDD Read Rates
SATA 1.5Gbit/s (192 MBytes/s)
In that sense you can see he was correct. Even though mechanical HDDs haven't filled the 1.5Gbit(1.2Gbit ~150MBytes after encodeing) throughput, at about 131 MBytes/s they are still close to 2.5x faster than the (12x) read rate on Blu Ray.
Oh, that's very fascinating to me. I read(burn) a lot myself. Some people think I'm too intellectual but I think it's a fabulous way to spend your spare time. I also play raquetball. Do you have any hobbies?
I sit there in my flying car calling you an idiot the whole way.
And I'm saying it doesn't matter what it is, or how large the file is. The blazing kind of broadband infrastructure you keep talking about, is simply not widely available to the mass public. How else can you shove digital downloads down people's throats when the infrastructure isn't even there
I agree, I just read an article about the FCC wanting to mandate that the majority of America has 100Mbit broadband by 2020 with universal 2Mbit to rural areas. Now forgive me if I am wrong....but isn't 2020 a decade away? A Decade is 10 years right? So while in the heart of NYC you may be able to touch 100Mbits, the rest of us in a city without a population density of 27,440/sq mi wont be seeing it tomorrow let alone before the end of the year.
Pretty sure he said it doubles every 2-3 years, not that its 2-3 times faster. I guess he would mean 2x but not 2-3.
Either way, I think he was talking about the Max speeds, not the commonly available speeds. Right now its possible for Cable modems with Docsis 3.0 to reach a comfortable 100Mbit/s But do we really have it?
According to this article, of the 9 million Time Warner (3rd largest Broadband ISP) broadband subscribers, only in portions of NYC do people have access, and only 2,000 have 50Mbit/s. That is what, 0.00022% of the 3rd largest BB ISP in the USA has =>50Mbit/s
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/...hird-Largest-Broadband-ISP-106926?nocomment=1
Looking at it in the light that BB companies were talking about DOCSIS 3.0 & 100Mbit speeds back in 2007/2008 this does not look promising for the majority of BB subscribers to see speed doubling every 2-3 years.
I personally would like to see what Google has in store with this 500K person 100Mbit internet test study, but that is beside the point.
HA I do tend to go for the less fuel efficient vehicles, but the V8-Capacitor in my flying car just has so much muscle
Oh my ... this is an ape-ass comparison. If you are comparing the population of the WORLD percentages to modern technology adoption, you need to re-think your logic.
Then
Hi Joey, welcome to the forums. Please use multiquote (the square button with the + in it) when responding to multiple posts. It kind of looks like your talking to yourself.
As for the topic of yet another wikoogle techgasm wish-list thread.... keep dreaming the dream!
apple don't make computers that customers want or damnad. apple make computers *they* want you to buy.
why on earth else would they charge prices that are nothing short of sheer insanity form their macbook pro range when the same amount of $$$$$'s buys a LOT more laptop power from other brands?
Yea, a decade away, and by then we'll be enjoying 4K 3D blu-ray with full support for 7.1 high def audio. Does anyone here honestly think broadband is going to push that kind of technology through to people's homes in masses?
It's truly a joke.
Likewise, I think it's quite foolish to label something retarded for something you have never tried, or lack of knowledge of.
It's almost like speaking to mindless drones sometimes.
NTSC lasted for over 50 years and the HD standard (1080p) will last around the same. It's truly a joke if you think we'll be watching anything more than 1080p in our homes in THREE decades much less ONE decade.
Also, compression technology is getting better, not worse. Fifteen years ago, they never could've gotten 1080p film onto a 25GB BluRay. An uncompressed 1080p film is around 3 terabytes. In ten years, they'll probably get Blu-Ray quality films down to 5Gb.
It absolutely astounds me how so many here refuse to acknowledge the point that people don't want to buy and pay for the same movie twice.
Tons of us have HDTV setups with 5.1 or 7.1 sound, blu ray players and blu ray movies to boot.
And we don't want to have rebuy those exact same movies that we already own, on iTunes in inferior quality (heavily compressed, 720p, stereo sound only and lossy audio), just to be able to watch those movies when we're out of the house or traveling.
Yeah Drjsway, you pretty much lost your credibility on this topic when you made a thread ridiculously falsely claiming that...
Here's a tip for next time. If you're going to start a thread just to state what you believe is a factual claim, especially when there's already multiple threads discussing that same topic, take the 15 seconds it takes to look it up on wikipedia to make sure you know what you're talking about.
Tons of us have HDTV setups with 5.1 or 7.1 sound, blu ray players and blu ray movies to boot.
And we don't want to have rebuy those exact same movies that we already own, on iTunes in inferior quality (heavily compressed, 720p, stereo sound only and lossy audio), just to be able to watch those movies when we're out of the house or traveling.
Yeah Drjsway, you pretty much lost your credibility on this topic when you made a thread ridiculously falsely claiming that...
Here's a tip for next time. If you're going to start a thread just to state what you believe is a factual claim, especially when there's already multiple threads discussing that same topic, take the 15 seconds it takes to look it up on wikipedia to make sure you know what you're talking about.
Well Mr. Pot, don't be too hard on Mr. Kettle....
Here's a tip for next time. If you're going to start a thread just to state what you believe is a factual claim, especially when there's already multiple threads discussing that same topic, don't.
Are you seriously comparing what was clearly a joke thread, to a real one?
And PS: the internet agrees, naming it the iPad was a ridiciulously bad idea, and not just because of all the confusion it's going to lead to in boston.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsjU0K8QPhs
And PS: the internet agrees, naming it the iPad was a ridiciulously bad idea, and not just because of all the confusion it's going to lead to in boston.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsjU0K8QPhs
I read the thread, it didn't sound like you were joking. Actually there are similarities to this thread too. Therefore I feel I'm being led to conclude this one a joke too.Are you seriously comparing what was clearly a joke thread, to a real one?
Well, we might, or we might not. Current Blu-ray technology is already pushing the limits of what human vision can discern. Going to 2k and 3D might still make sense, but after that, we've pretty much exhausted the need for increased resolution. That's not to say that there won't be something else coming up that'll eat bandwith like there's no tomorrow...