Evangelion said:
I bet your uplink is still 512k and you could perhaps upgrade to 1M, but that's it. Not very fast compared to B-spec
I would value a symmetric 2M/2M line more than asymmetric 12M/1M, but maybe that's just me.
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.
Mac Pro And Bluray Speculation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I bet your uplink is still 512k and you could perhaps upgrade to 1M, but that's it. Not very fast compared to B-spec
I would value a symmetric 2M/2M line more than asymmetric 12M/1M, but maybe that's just me.JFreak said:I bet your uplink is still 512k and you could perhaps upgrade to 1M, but that's it. Not very fast compared to B-spec
my uplink is 1MB, and I could move to 3MB if I wanted to. But the point is/was that the speeds are going up fast, and there are other uses for WLAN than mere web-surfing.
Blu-Ray Is Too Expensive Now To Be Standard In Any Mac Yet
Meanwhile, anyone who wants it can buy an external burner or make one with a FW case. But I don't think even Toast 7 supports Blu-Ray yet. So even HOW we would burn Blu-Ray media is an open question at this point.
I agree. I would be surprised if Apple even offers it before next year. Blu-Ray DVRs are still about $1k and the blank media is also very expensive. Apple will have enough challenges keeping the Intel Quad under $4k without including Blu-Ray yet. But by this time next year, I would expect it to be a BTO option for the desktops at least.angelwatt said:
Meanwhile, anyone who wants it can buy an external burner or make one with a FW case. But I don't think even Toast 7 supports Blu-Ray yet. So even HOW we would burn Blu-Ray media is an open question at this point.
Multimedia said:
Currently, prices of Xeons seem to hover between $500 and $1000. And note: these are RETAIL PRICES for consumers! Apple's prices for those CPU's would be considerably less. So I don't see Apple having any problems offering quad-Woodcrest for under $4000. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if we saw quad-Woodcrest for under $3000!
Silentwave said:What i'm worried about is if this whole format war between HD-DVD and Blu-ray turns out to be really worthless and end up with neither format winning and instead having both supplanted by further formats. it would be like trying to put betamax up against laserdisc then having DVDs come to market
There are great things coming though- future discs, future mass storage too. HDs may be on their way out soon enough for speed reasons. one thing i'm keeping an eye on is ferroelectric memory, which might also make HD-DVD/Bluray etc. partly obsolete as a storage format- useful primarily for video media only.
I read recently (from an internet sent to me by the tube) that disc-based formats are on their way out.
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
Quad MacIntels For Under $3k Would Be A Miracle
Gee I hope you're right. Quad MacIntels For Under $3k Would Be A Miracle. Thanks for the heads up.Evangelion said:
DTphonehome said:
I don't want it either. does that stop you from wanting it? no. Would I buy a Mac with a BluRay burner as standard with a bumped up cost? no. would I buy a Mac if it had BluRay AND HD-DVD burner with no obvious price bump? yes.
I'm not being tied down to BluRay. I'm not prepared to spend a Mac Pro amount of money on a format that isn't the standard. It's not good business to force us into it like that, I'd rather have HD-DVD burner. What with their lower costs and all.
I don't care if it's only a BTO option but having this would be awsome.
Could be a great way to view your 1080p blu-ray movies especially on the cinema display. Or you could burn your 1080p trailers directly off apple.com/trailers and watch them on your hd-dvd player. And what about home movies
How many consumer HD video editors come with computers a blu-ray option would be a really cool adition to idvd.
Could be a great way to view your 1080p blu-ray movies especially on the cinema display. Or you could burn your 1080p trailers directly off apple.com/trailers and watch them on your hd-dvd player. And what about home movies
How many consumer HD video editors come with computers a blu-ray option would be a really cool adition to idvd.
TerryJ said:
Good post, sums up the current situation very nicely.
Given that dual layer 50GB blu-ray discs cant even be produced yet, i think the 200GB claim is complete vaporware.
I hope HD-DVD wins this war soon, as it is out of the gates first, and thus far a far superior format. If Blu-Ray were to give up now, i dont think many people would be sad. One format is better for everyone.
Slight Corrections
NO.
First of all, Blu-Ray discs are a completely new material and fabrication process, so highlighting the fact that they've only made 25GB discs (which were stable-ly created long before almost ANY HD-DVD's) and can't produce a disk which is far above the specs of the competition, is like saying screw the russians cuz they're space program hasn't sent a man to mars (nobody's done it yet, anyway). You can't blame Blu-Ray for not being able to deliver 50 GB yet, the meat of the war is just beginning anyway.
Secondly, what was said about the VC-1 codec is very wrong. Microsoft's VC-1 codec is far worse and more difficult to work with than MPEG 2 or MPEG 4 that sony will probably offer in later versions of Blu-Ray. All this malarky about artifacts doesn't really make sense when you consider that we've been USING MPEG2 IN DVD'S FOR YEARS NOW! There's no way that the algorithim could be to blame for the artifacts! Sure it's fatter, but it's a lighter compression, and as Sony has shown with their PCM Audio on Blu-Ray, sometimes light compression on a bigger disk is better than heavy compression on smaller disks. It will be a lot easier to change to a more efficient codec down the line (which is what we've done with computers time and time again, as well as professional video) so we can get Ultra HD on Blu Ray when it comes out as well.
I'm sorry, I understand people really want HD-DVD to win because it's easier and cheaper right now, but since when has the easiest option been the best? If Blu-Ray doesn't win this war we'll have another short life-span format, this version of HD will not be enough for the professional industry much longer, take it from a video guy. I've written a frickin' paper on this very subject.
IMHO I'd like to see a Blu-Ray with the Mac Pro's to help solidify the consumer base into purchasing a better product, because that's how you standardize something in the market...sales...But I don't know that it will happen. Although remember DVD-RAM? Apple seemed to like that for awhile...that died...
I also don't want microsoft handling my video codec, anybody remember the wonderous creation of WMV/WMA? The one that like none of us can use on macs? HD-DVD's codec is a derivation of the WMV-HD codec. Welcome to the Microsoft reality. They really like controlling proprietary codecs. Also...MPEG was created by a group of companies and people working together, Microsoft created WMV, so they've got almost complete say in how that plays out.
xterm said:
NO.
First of all, Blu-Ray discs are a completely new material and fabrication process, so highlighting the fact that they've only made 25GB discs (which were stable-ly created long before almost ANY HD-DVD's) and can't produce a disk which is far above the specs of the competition, is like saying screw the russians cuz they're space program hasn't sent a man to mars (nobody's done it yet, anyway). You can't blame Blu-Ray for not being able to deliver 50 GB yet, the meat of the war is just beginning anyway.
Secondly, what was said about the VC-1 codec is very wrong. Microsoft's VC-1 codec is far worse and more difficult to work with than MPEG 2 or MPEG 4 that sony will probably offer in later versions of Blu-Ray. All this malarky about artifacts doesn't really make sense when you consider that we've been USING MPEG2 IN DVD'S FOR YEARS NOW! There's no way that the algorithim could be to blame for the artifacts! Sure it's fatter, but it's a lighter compression, and as Sony has shown with their PCM Audio on Blu-Ray, sometimes light compression on a bigger disk is better than heavy compression on smaller disks. It will be a lot easier to change to a more efficient codec down the line (which is what we've done with computers time and time again, as well as professional video) so we can get Ultra HD on Blu Ray when it comes out as well.
I'm sorry, I understand people really want HD-DVD to win because it's easier and cheaper right now, but since when has the easiest option been the best? If Blu-Ray doesn't win this war we'll have another short life-span format, this version of HD will not be enough for the professional industry much longer, take it from a video guy. I've written a frickin' paper on this very subject.
IMHO I'd like to see a Blu-Ray with the Mac Pro's to help solidify the consumer base into purchasing a better product, because that's how you standardize something in the market...sales...But I don't know that it will happen. Although remember DVD-RAM? Apple seemed to like that for awhile...that died...
I also don't want microsoft handling my video codec, anybody remember the wonderous creation of WMV/WMA? The one that like none of us can use on macs? HD-DVD's codec is a derivation of the WMV-HD codec. Welcome to the Microsoft reality. They really like controlling proprietary codecs. Also...MPEG was created by a group of companies and people working together, Microsoft created WMV, so they've got almost complete say in how that plays out.
MS is using the ATI H.264 codec for HD content on the XBox 360 HD-DVD drive, so they're not using their own crazy codecs.whoooaaahhhh said:
I have a top spec Powerbook 12". It was my first mac and it will hold me over. I want a Intel Mac just for Parallels and stuff, so I'm not stuck in college going to the lab for that one application. Yet, I'm not about to put down $2,000 for a computer, whose only new technology is a Intel chip that is about to be replaced and a Gigabit ethernet (its nice but....). I mean it doesn't even ahve FW800 anymore.sam10685 said:
You see if I'm going to buy a very expensive laptop, I want it to last. When I bought this PB, it wasn't at the edge, I mean most of the technology had been around awhile, but I know there wasn't new coming out for years, not the case this time around. And I have the time to wait... I mean this computer is still under warranty, works fine, and does all my tasks at I speed I enjoy.
Evangelion said:
From what I recall, Philips began working on the compact disk project and Sony later on joined them in that venture.
Also, CDs were not easily accepted as a standard. It did take some time before everyone else adapted.
I must also point out that if you want to take the compact disk standard as an example of standardization, that CDs were the only format in its class. That is, there was no other competition for a standard format. Which brings us to today. Like the Betamax and VHS, we are seeing two formats of next generation's storage medium competing to become a standard.
Just keep in mind Sony's hit/miss ratio for standardization.
Personally the only thing the speed helps is within a network. You see I have a mac server (old G4 B&W) that holds all my music and photos to be broadcasted over the connection. If I want to transfer some songs or photos to e-mail, well it helps to have the extra speed. But your right thats really minimally helping...JFreak said:
the big help would be range. I mean G was supposed to make covering a whole house no problem, but guess what I reguarly spot out a floor below and to the left. I'm about to install two extenders, so I actually get service throughout the house
.... hopefully with n, I wouldn't have to wry about that.Faster processors, I'll take those of course. Blu-Ray? Hell no, I don't want that turd. Pretty much every format Sony has ever come up with is dead, just look at the UMD now, its a joke.
I'll pass on that MPAA sponsored DRM ladden expensive dog turd.
I'll pass on that MPAA sponsored DRM ladden expensive dog turd.
Bravo Terry
Another point to add is... Recently the Blue Ray eye has become in shortage as said on G4 Attack of the Show. All this talk about prices going down? How can price go down if their is a shortage... If I remember economics correctly shortages don't help decrease price...
_________________________________________________________________
I just dont trust Sony... I get realy nervous when I think about Sony crap...
Especially with the whole DRM CD they did last year...
TerryJ said:
Another point to add is... Recently the Blue Ray eye has become in shortage as said on G4 Attack of the Show. All this talk about prices going down? How can price go down if their is a shortage... If I remember economics correctly shortages don't help decrease price...
_________________________________________________________________
I just dont trust Sony... I get realy nervous when I think about Sony crap...
Especially with the whole DRM CD they did last year...
It is true that we don't know what will be delivered in the future. I am sure 50gb+ discs will be available at some point. How soon, however, is important, especially considering there is a format war. If Blu-ray can get those discs out fast with good yields, then obviously that changes things. But reports are they are not at this point, with no timetable on when they might. Add to this the fact that it is a new fabrication process... this can only mean that prices most likely will stay higher longer, as opposed to a cheaper/easier fab process for HD DVDs.whoooaaahhhh said:
Watch HD DVD content on a Toshiba HD DVD player vs. BD content on a Samsung BD player... HD DVD content (using VC-1) is consistantly better than BD content (using MPEG2). Not sure what is wrong with the BD stuff exactly, but something is going wrong. And if it's MPEG2 issues, then all those BD discs out now are just stuck being crap. They'd have to reencode and rerelease new versions of the same movies later. That does not help the BD cause.whoooaaahhhh said:
Remember, HD is over 4x the resolution compared to SD. MPEG-2 was good for SD DVDs. Not sure how good it is for HD if your disc is maxed at 25gb capacity.
If it's cheaper, looks better, sounds better, and has more available titles, then why shouldn't HD DVD win? If BD used a more efficient codec, or at least had 50gb dual layer discs now (so MPEG2 could have a high bit rate at least), and the all the backing studios pumped out more titles, I'd buy it. But that isn't what it's shaping up to be right now. If they can get their act together, this could be a fight... but they are behind.whoooaaahhhh said:
-Terry
Because current performance isn't prove of future trends, even if it is a indicator. If BD has a plan to release 50-200GB discs, while HD DVD can only make 70, then there is an advantage. If BD runs a better codec, I'm not sure but I think MPEG2/4 is a lot more flexible than VC-1 (knowning how windows is), unless its just H.2164? (forgot the number. Yet, personally I used to be a Blu-Ray fan, but now favor HD-DVD. The reason?TerryJ said:
Well, firstly, Blu-Ray is obviously going to have a lot more DRM control, which I HATE. I HATE THAT CRAP. I mean the whole rootkit CD thing, pissed of my friends, I mean I didn't care too much cause I could jsut burn it regularily on my mac.
! But, if a Blu-Ray player comes to mac, I'm sure DRM will come too. And man... that would suck. I really don't want my mac slowed down, so some Sony exec knows what I'm watching.And personally, I don't see any use for discs over 50GB. I mean I probably could fit my whole music collection on one 70GB HD-DVD to back up. Hell, I could probably fit my music and photo collection if I got rid of some music I have been meaning to get around too. But even if I had to use two discs... big whoop... plus one disc of 200GB.... I don't even have 200GB of HD space ebtween 4 computers. How the hell can I use it?
Plus, with current trends, it looks like HD-DVD will have a bigger foothole by the time Sony releases the PS3... itll be late b/c of shrotage in chip and blue ray drives... and then itll be really expensive. I think Xbox might have one this one... hopefully they dont botch it with the HD-DVD thing. And if they don't then that means for $400 you can get a HD-DVD player.... thats a steal when you consider everything it does also. I just dont see Sony winning this one, unless they drop DRM and massively subsidize all products (fat chance).
Heck, I have a Sony RP television. I love Sony TVs. And I'm no MS fan.poppe said:
But HD DVD just plain looks better than BD at this point, and for much less money. (And I can actually get some decent movies for it!)
-Terry
UMD wasn't supposed to be a new standard in anything. With the MD, they tried to create new audio players and even a new drive for hte computer, and it was a good format( unlike most sony formats) but since sony was the only one using it.... well.... it went the way of the dinosoars..zwilliams07 said:
but UMD was never like MD in that they tried pushing it on many fronts, just for PSP. And I think its fairly sucessful for only pertainging to PSP owners.
I thought that there were other benefits to BD, therefore I've been backing their effort. I read that the scratch resistance of a BD is amazing. I know that there's a size issue at this point, but 25G on one layer is nicer than 30 on 2. Yes, you're going to pay for it, but there's much more "potential" with BD. We justified the expense of our macs using a similar argument. Finally, I think that in the future, we'll be needing that extra space on the 2-6 layers of a BD for uncompressed or losslessly compressed Hi-Fi audio/video. And is BD limited to MEPG-2, or can't it do MPEG-4 h.264 ? But all this may be bunk. I'm waiting for the first HVD to come out, then I can just stour a few TB on each disc. I'll just burn a main and a backup and keep all my digital data on them.
Jephrey
Jephrey
jephrey said:
If we are gonna base the present of potential then logically you should be going for Holographic disc since they have potential to bring out a single layer 300 gb disc at the end of 2006...
Or is that what you meant by HVD?