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.
Microsoft Releases Second 'Laptop Hunters' Commercial
- Thread starter fpbecker
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yikes, hold on...I wasn't saying "Vista needs 32 GB of RAM to run", I was just saying that where VMs are concerned, the more RAM and CPU speed, the better, the most of which is found in the Mac Pro as far as the Mac platform goes. Again, I'm just saying that if I were going to run several VMs at once, I'd prefer to do it on the Mac Pro so I'd still have more than enough RAM left over for OS X, rather than squeezing everything on, say, a slower Mac laptop with 4 GB.
And LOL @ Vista on 1 GB of RAM. It's almost universally known that Vista runs like ass on 1 GB, even for basic applications, it's slow. On 4, it's fine. But hey, I wouldn't want to run Leopard on an 867MHz processor with 512 MB memory, either. (<--- Minimum requirements for Leopard...lol.) 1 GB of RAM is 5 years ago. These are the days of 8, 16 and 32 GB.
I really wonder about the truth in your statement. how many folks have really embraced Blu-ray. how many would really want to play Blu-ray off a disk on the computer or burn Blu-ray so badly and yet would insist on an internal drive with built in OS support (ie an external and a copy of Toast would be totally unacceptable). compared to how many folks would rather have compression improve to the point that a 1080 file wouldn't be 3-4 times bigger than a 720, thus making it practical to buy the movie off a source like itunes and have a whole movie collection on an external drive the size of a couple of old VHS boxes or a mac mini or such.
It runs well on 2 GB. If you have 512 MB or 1 GB, you can speed up the system by using a flash drive for ReadyBoost, which acts like sort of an SSD for virtual memory, temp files etc. If you have 2 GB you don't benefit from ReadyBoost at all, which means that the system has all it needs with 2 GB. I have 2 GB RAM on my laptop with Vista Ultimate and it runs Photoshop CS4 just fine -- better than CS3 actually.
Vista itself doesn't need more than 512 MB -- it's the SuperFetch feature that makes it look like the system is eating up all the RAM, because it preloads your most commonly used applications into a RAM cache so that they'll start faster. But if you start another application, it will flush out the SuperFetch cache. If you look at RAM usage before and after loading an app, you'll often see that it's pretty much the same. MS found that machines with lots of RAM are often just sitting there with gigabytes of resources that are idle 90% of the time, so they figured hey, let's use it for something until the user has a specific mission for it. A lot of people don't understand how it works, they're just looking at some dumb RAM meter going "OMG!! Vista takes up 2 GB!!", so they buy more RAM, only to conclude "OMG!!!!!! Now Vista takes up 4 GB!!!"
Hold your horses... you're about 3 years early with that claim. A MacBook Pro 15" ships with 2 GB default (4 GB on the 17" and the high-end 15"), a Mac Pro quad with 3 GB. If Apple are selling computers with less RAM than Leopard needs, they're idiots.
After the pirated sector is factored in, MS's share currently holds ~67%.
Doesn't matter what YOU think. Doesn't even for a single second matter what Apple or even the almighty Steve Jobs thinks.
What will end up mattering in the long run, is consumer perception, and that little kid's voice echoing in people's ears when they go to buy.
Especially since what video content creators have been SCREAMING for for the last two years (because THEIR clients have been badgering them for it) hasn't mattered a damn to the first three geniuses listed.
Deathknell??? Thanks for the laugh.
Personally, I'm indifferent (not anti) to Blu-ray. I don't watch movies on my computer, my family doesn't watch movies on their computers, my friends don't watch movies on their computers. I think the "handful" here are those screaming for Blu-ray on their computers.
As far as the future of Blu-ray, I remember the Apple detractors talking about how iTunes was a dead end because compressed songs in AAC format would never compete against SACD. I wonder how that turned out???
I know you're on a crusade for Blu-ray, but let's face facts: audio and video on optical discs are a dying breed - Sony's last gasp effort at relevance in a world that has moved on without them. Downloadable media is the future. And Apple knows it.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
Slightly OT and I'm not even sure which laptop hunter ad this was in but in the one with the mom and the kid...
...She needs to buy that kid a haircut long before she ever thinks of buying him/her/(not sure what it is because of the haircut) a laptop.
...She needs to buy that kid a haircut long before she ever thinks of buying him/her/(not sure what it is because of the haircut) a laptop.
Doesn't matter what YOU think. Doesn't even for a single second matter what Apple or even the almighty Steve Jobs thinks.
What will end up mattering in the long run, is consumer perception, and that little kid's voice echoing in people's ears when they go to buy.
Especially since what video content creators have been SCREAMING for for the last two years (because THEIR clients have been badgering them for it) hasn't mattered a damn to the first three geniuses listed.
It doesn't really matter what you think, either. If the market for Apple with Blu Ray exceeds the Apple market without, and they continue to deny it, only then will Apple die. Simple supply and demand.
We're doing 1080p videos in FCP and running it directly off media drives for presentations. No need to author, burn, and play a disk. Actually, it works better this way.
Just one example of needs not requiring BD even with HD videos.
I'm with LagunaSol; not anti-BD, but basically indifferent. I realize a lot people want it, but I couldn't care less about it.
I don't think Blu-ray is Sony's "last gasp" as you put it. First of all, I don't know about you, but I don't have an internet connection that can download a 1080p movie in any reasonable amount of time. DVD's are unacceptable to any HT buff. Downloadable media is the future, but not yet for movies or next gen console games. They're too big atm. A song is an easy download. A few MB's. A Blu-ray is several GB's. I'd venture to say that Blu-ray will be the last consumer optical disk though. And as for Sony as a whole, they make a lot of popular high-end products. Along with Samsung, they make the best LCD's and will in all likely-hood make some of the best OLED's when they become less bleeding-edge (read, not $2500 for 11"). The only market I feel Sony has been left behind in is portable music, which Apple effectively has a monopoly on, so they aren't alone.
+1 Long hair is rock and roll. That kid's hair was very uneven though. It's like half the hair from one side of his head migrated to the other.
Since Mom was taking a handout, I'm inclined to doubt that she already has a Blu-Ray player and a 50" 1080p plasma screen back at home. As such, her oogling is of the market hype perceptional kind.
Now this isn't passing judgement on the merits of Blu-Ray. On that subject, I'm relatively agnostic: its just that BR simply is in the early stages of adoption and the mainstream consumer is aware of it, but still mostly only aspires to buy into it - - if they're buying BR media at all, its in the form of a BR/DVD bundle ... whcih is how Hollywood is pitching their movies right now: you use the DVD today and have the BR as 'future-proofing'.
*Ahem*
Its more like "Death Knell #53" ... although the author of the ADKC stopped bothering to count 3 years ago (May 1, 2006).
-hh
Several dozen GB is more common. Most movies are on double-layer BD discs, because the 25 GB single-layer discs are too small.
"Blu-ray" and "BD" are the official terms.
(below)
But his post won't appear in a search for "BD", will it? There are reasons beyond mere correctness for using the proper terms.
Several dozen GB is more common. Most movies are on double-layer BD discs, because the 25 GB single-layer discs are too small.
"Blu-ray" and "BD" are the official terms.
And yet everyone still knows what he is talking about.
And compression schemes will improve dramatically (see my earlier Engadget link about RED's work on this), bandwidth will increase, and by the time the typical consumer cares about 1080P video, optical discs will be but a quaint memory. Your Blu-ray disc collections will be about as relevant as your LaserDisc and 8-track tape collections.
80%+ of the computing market is still dominated by Windows. Obviously there is still no great consumer demand for quality.
Yep, that's why I add 4 GB as a CTO option (all I can afford anyway.) I like having as much as I can possibly squeeze in.
The absolute minimum requirements for running 10.5 (according to Apple) are an 867 MHz processor and 512 MB RAM, which although is well below the 2 GB standard on the MacBooks, the amount of multimedia I use makes 2 GB impractical.
IMHO, Apple should ship the MacBooks with 4 GB standard and the MacBook Pros with 8 GB standard. The Mac Pro should have at least 8 GB as well. I dunno about them being idiots, but somebody clearly isn't dealing with a full deck here.
And compression schemes will improve dramatically (see my earlier Engadget link about RED's work on this), bandwidth will increase, and by the time the typical consumer cares about 1080P video, optical discs will be but a quaint memory. Your Blu-ray disc collections will be about as relevant as your LaserDisc and 8-track tape collections.
80%+ of the computing market is still dominated by Windows. Obviously there is still no great consumer demand for quality.
Seeing as how I have a 1080p HDTV and am only 20, I'd say typical consumers already care about 1080p video. In fact most of my friends have HDTV's and PS3's. Seems if the tv's and players are monetarily within reach for me, they're in reach for others. They sell BD players and disks at Walmart. You don't get anymore typical than a Walmart shopper. Not to mention that BD's adoption rate is faster than DVD's was. All the movie studios already support Blu-ray. As far as I know, currently there is not even an outlet for downloadable 1080p movies. By the time one is made and has the support of all the studios, BD will have a very strong foothold. Compression still has a long way to go to get up to 50 GB's down to a reasonable size for download, as does download bandwidth.
No hard data - just merely a casual observance from a longstanding habit of reading the entire Sunday Newspaper (including the glossy color ads) every week. Within the past month or so, I noticed that DVD/Blu-Ray combo packs started appearing in the advertisements.
This had been a tactic that was being used by HD before it was killed off, and it makes business sense as a way to reduce perceived consumer risk of purchasing ... as I said, its "Future Proofing".
In searching the web, I found this report, which lists the studios currently doing it: Disney, 20th Century, MGM, Lionsgate. Apparently, some of these just came onboard this past February...and hence, the advertising I noticed.
The question mark is if it is making any difference in sales. No data, but I'd suspect that for the consumers, if given the choice between BR for $19 and BR+DVD for $20, they'll usually spend the extra buck to choose the latter.
Ultimately, it comes down to the question of the price of the bundle as to if the consumer will bite or not ... will have to go look at some ads or Amazon to see what the current asking price spread currently is; its probably more than just a buck.
-hh
If it was cash, sure ... but $1500 in the form of a bulky HP laptop?
I might take the HP, but it would never come home: its next stop would be a local charity that we've given to.
-hh
There's nothing wrong with "bulky" for a laptop used as a desktop replacement, nothing wrong whatsoever.
Why do so many people here fail to realize that bulk, weight and battery life are essentially irrelevant for a machine that spends most of its life on a desk, plugged into the wall?
It's fine to say "for me, I spend too much time in airports, I want a smaller, lighter system" - but don't assume that's what's important to one person is important to all.
If we were to believe some of the TCO arguments here - it would sound like you are trying to bankrupt your charity
!