Phil Schiller Claims Customers Aren't Asking for Built-In Blu-Ray Anymore

[Gizmotoy]

DRM on files and Codecs have nothing to do with one another. DRM is a function of the container.

True (and I even said as much in the text you quoted), but I was inferring some into his question based on our conversation over the past few pages regarding lack of support on Macs. This is to say, even if Blu Rays used an open codec like FLAC, the limitation in OS X would still exist because Apple's drivers don't provide access to the HDCP-protected HD audio channel on the graphics card's HDMI port.

It would probably be easier to decode FLAC into LPCM, which OS X does support, but I'm not sure it's easy enough to be done on the fly on modern hardware while handling high bitrate video, so it might not buy you much beyond what's currently possible with the propriety codecs in this context.

 

[janstett]

I just can't understand how anyone considering themselves a proponent of BR quality could possibly lay argue to the worthiness of such a inadequately sized screen for HD video viewing. I guess nothing more than arguing for the sake of argument.

I don't see how someone can not get it, conversely. You don't seem to be listening to the argument and thus it's arguing for the sake of it in your eyes. Look at the size of this thread, it's clearly much more than that.

Let me break it down for you, feel free to break in when I lose you.

1) Computer displays are higher quality than TVs, due to dot pitch, et al. Do you dispute this?

2) Thanks largely to Apple, computer displays are actually higher resolution that 1080p resolution (1920x1080). The retina MacBook Pro is 2880x1800. The Cinema Displays are 2560x1600. Do you dispute this?

2a) Why shouldn't the Mac, especially given the above envelope-pushing resolutions, be able to take advantage of it with the highest quality highest resolution movies on the market? Why are you somehow not allowed to watch movies on a computer all of a sudden?

2b) The size of a display does not determine its quality. This seems to be the fallacy that is holding you up. A bigger screen does not increase quality -- do you not have an iPad 3 or retina iPhone? In fact most sub-40 inch TVs are 720p and not even 1080, so even lower resolution. Further, it's the amount of your field of vision that the display takes up, NOT the size, that determines the appropriateness of display. When I'm sitting at my desk, my 30" Cinema Display (NOTE the name, coincidentally) takes up more of my field of vision, and offers more pixels in a higher quality presentation (dot pitch, et al) than either of my big screen TVs.

3) People watch videos on their computers. Do you dispute this? This seems to be where you go off the rails. If so please explain why Front Row is/was there, why there is/was a remote, why there is a DVD player app, why iTunes, Netflix, et al allow people to watch videos on a computer... Sometimes it's just one of many viewing options. Sometimes it's the only option (i.e. on the road or in a college dorm).

3a) People watch their videos everywhere -- from 4" phones to 10" tablets to 15" laptops to 30" desktop displays to 65" plasmas to 100"+ projector screens. People on MR especially should get this. Except now, all of a sudden, people are trying to exclude the computer from the equation. Why?

4) The Mac Mini would make a great HTPC if it supported Blu-Ray. In this case, the computer IS MATED TO the big screen. They are one and the same. Why shouldn't the Mac support Blu-Ray in this case?

I'm making a reasoned, distilled, logical series of questions for you to ponder... I'd like to hear your thoughts.

----------

Hey what's going on Janstett? It's been a while - since the infamous "Blu-ray thread."

*Waiting for all the other lovers of physical media in that thread to crawl out of the woodwork for a reunion. *

When we last communicated I mentioned I was going to buy the Star Wars BD set on Amazon, but I ended up canceling that order a few weeks before the release after l learned that George messed it up with his "tinkering." That was the closest I ever got to purchasing a Blu-ray disc. Having amassed a 400 plus DVD collection there was no way I was re-investing in a dead on arrival format. Looking forward to 4K/8K. 1080p BD's are like DVD quality now. Stay safe!

PS- Can't wait to watch The Amazing Spider Man tonight in HD. Looks like it won't be available on physical media until November 9.

http://comicbook.com/blog/2012/10/3...-goes-digital-first-with-early-release-today/

How you been?

Just to correct the record, I'm a fan of quality, not physical media.

Star Wars broke you on Blu-Ray; the Star Wars Blu-Ray broke me on Star Wars. I just can't take the half-assed arbitrary changes anymore. I think I'm done with it.

Let me know if Spidey is any good; were you a fan of the Raimi films?

 

[marzer]

I don't see how someone can not get it, conversely. You don't seem to be listening to the argument and thus it's arguing for the sake of it in your eyes. Look at the size of this thread, it's clearly much more than that.

Let me break it down for you, feel free to break in when I lose you.

1) Computer displays are higher quality than TVs, due to dot pitch, et al. Do you dispute this?

2) Thanks largely to Apple, computer displays are actually higher resolution that 1080p resolution (1920x1080). The retina MacBook Pro is 2880x1800. The Cinema Displays are 2560x1600. Do you dispute this?

2a) Why shouldn't the Mac, especially given the above envelope-pushing resolutions, be able to take advantage of it with the highest quality highest resolution movies on the market? Why are you somehow not allowed to watch movies on a computer all of a sudden?

2b) The size of a display does not determine its quality. This seems to be the fallacy that is holding you up. A bigger screen does not increase quality -- do you not have an iPad 3 or retina iPhone? In fact most sub-40 inch TVs are 720p and not even 1080, so even lower resolution. Further, it's the amount of your field of vision that the display takes up, NOT the size, that determines the appropriateness of display. When I'm sitting at my desk, my 30" Cinema Display (NOTE the name, coincidentally) takes up more of my field of vision, and offers more pixels in a higher quality presentation (dot pitch, et al) than either of my big screen TVs.

3) People watch videos on their computers. Do you dispute this? This seems to be where you go off the rails. If so please explain why Front Row is/was there, why there is/was a remote, why there is a DVD player app, why iTunes, Netflix, et al allow people to watch videos on a computer... Sometimes it's just one of many viewing options. Sometimes it's the only option (i.e. on the road or in a college dorm).

3a) People watch their videos everywhere -- from 4" phones to 10" tablets to 15" laptops to 30" desktop displays to 65" plasmas to 100"+ projector screens. People on MR especially should get this. Except now, all of a sudden, people are trying to exclude the computer from the equation. Why?

4) The Mac Mini would make a great HTPC if it supported Blu-Ray. In this case, the computer IS MATED TO the big screen. They are one and the same. Why shouldn't the Mac support Blu-Ray in this case?

I'm making a reasoned, distilled, logical series of questions for you to ponder... I'd like to hear your thoughts.

----------



How you been?

Just to correct the record, I'm a fan of quality, not physical media.

Star Wars broke you on Blu-Ray; the Star Wars Blu-Ray broke me on Star Wars. I just can't take the half-assed arbitrary changes anymore. I think I'm done with it.

Let me know if Spidey is any good; were you a fan of the Raimi films?

Yes. And someone could argue incessantly about the virtues of high performance automobiles for commuting to work in rush hour traffic. But unless they've got access to an Autobahn, they are kidding themselves.

 

[Auk]

Really cannot understand all the arguing between posters. It's simple for me. Apple is taking away choice using the excuse that it's because we don't need certain stuff anymore. What they are actually doing us pushing us towards their all new, singing and dancing iTunes store. Regardless of how often you use your optical drive its a lie to say it is now a thing of the past. It's a commercial driven decision.
I as an industrial designer of a certain age am a contemporary of Mr Ive. Come on man, we've been designing products like these for years. With your promotion can you please try to rescue Apple from its seemingly hellbent self destruction?
Its all going a bit Pete Tong Jony!

 

[agmaster]

No, you just don't get it.

Funny that you quote me as evidence of your misguided logic... Some of you just don't get it.

I have a very nice home theater setup. Two of them, in fact. A 60" 1080p 24hz LED and a 65" 24hz Plasma. Driven by HTPCs, 7.1 surround, et al. I would love it if those HTPCs could be Mac Minis, but they can't be since Apple doesn't support Blu-Ray -- remember this thread we are in?

I also have high end Apple computers that have displays greater than 1080p. A 30" Cinema Display 2560x1600 and a 15" rMBP. I spend a lot of time on them and, gasp, sometimes watch videos on them.

I'm not supposed to want high quality material when I am on my Macs?

Well, I have only used my MBP to watch a DVD ummm... once. I myself watch plenty of high quality material using my MBP by using PLEX. If you really want to watch your Blu-ray movies on your Mac you could always rip them with 3rd party software & hardware. If I were you with the nice and expensive equipment I would be playing games rather than watching a movie on your MBP and 30" display.

I would imagine people who have an HTPC would have downloaded an HD rip (from various internet sources) or ripped the blu-ray movies themselves and keep it on the PC itself rather than using a BD drive and having to swap out disks to watch a different movie. It works well for me cause I can stream it to the TV's in my house and I have a selection of around 260 1080p movies so far, plus several TV series. If you want a high quality rip of a 1080p movie with a high quality 5.1 or 7.1 track it will have to be AT LEAST 15-20GB. Having a Mac Mini as an HTPC is stupid because of limited space as it uses the 2.5" size HDD and has no expansion room. A proper HTPC would be something that you could easily expand your storage space to somewhere up to 4-5TB without using external storage.

The majority of people don't want to have to pay an extra $300 or $400 to have Apple include BD drives in our Macs. Plus since you have a nice home theater setup, sorry TWO nice setups, why don't you just carry your MBP and put it on your lap while you watch a BD on one of your huge HDTVs. That is why they are called Laptops. Then again, do you carry around your 30" Cinema Display when you are traveling? If you do I can understand your logic...sort of.

Another point - I am not a fan of downloading movies from iTunes.

 

[Gizmotoy]

I just can't understand how anyone considering themselves a proponent of BR quality could possibly lay argue to the worthiness of such a inadequately sized screen for HD video viewing. I guess nothing more than arguing for the sake of argument.

Yes. And someone could argue incessantly about the virtues of high performance automobiles for commuting to work in rush hour traffic. But unless they've got access to an Autobahn, they are kidding themselves.

Strawman or trolling?

HD is based on resolution, not size. In fact, it's usually argued that desktop monitors are better suited for HD content than large TVs, not less. If we assume a 2' viewing distance and a 27" monitor, you'll actually see benefit in moving up to 4K from HD (see chart). The argument that a computer monitor is not adequate for HD content is laughable. This kind of "bigger is always better" mentality is what causes companies to produce those giant, cheap LCDs that are limited to 720P.

Having a Mac Mini as an HTPC is stupid because of limited space as it uses the 2.5" size HDD and has no expansion room. A proper HTPC would be something that you could easily expand your storage space to somewhere up to 4-5TB without using external storage.

Actually, most people would argue that the HTPC itself is not the place to be storing your media, especially if you're storing high-rate videos like HD movies. You want a fast, low power, low capacity drive in your HTPC if at all possible. Given their typically small size and low noise requirements, HTPCs are not a good environment for disc drives, which are prone to failure at high temps. You hang your media off the network on a server or desktop where you can better manage their temperature and noise characteristics, streaming the content to the HTPCs.

 

[agmaster]

I don't see how someone can not get it, conversely. You don't seem to be listening to the argument and thus it's arguing for the sake of it in your eyes. Look at the size of this thread, it's clearly much more than that.

Let me break it down for you, feel free to break in when I lose you.

1) Computer displays are higher quality than TVs, due to dot pitch, et al. Do you dispute this?

2) Thanks largely to Apple, computer displays are actually higher resolution that 1080p resolution (1920x1080). The retina MacBook Pro is 2880x1800. The Cinema Displays are 2560x1600. Do you dispute this?

2a) Why shouldn't the Mac, especially given the above envelope-pushing resolutions, be able to take advantage of it with the highest quality highest resolution movies on the market? Why are you somehow not allowed to watch movies on a computer all of a sudden?

2b) The size of a display does not determine its quality. This seems to be the fallacy that is holding you up. A bigger screen does not increase quality -- do you not have an iPad 3 or retina iPhone? In fact most sub-40 inch TVs are 720p and not even 1080, so even lower resolution. Further, it's the amount of your field of vision that the display takes up, NOT the size, that determines the appropriateness of display. When I'm sitting at my desk, my 30" Cinema Display (NOTE the name, coincidentally) takes up more of my field of vision, and offers more pixels in a higher quality presentation (dot pitch, et al) than either of my big screen TVs.

4) The Mac Mini would make a great HTPC if it supported Blu-Ray.

----------

[/COLOR]

To answer some of those points of you made:
- If your screen resolution is higher than 1080p, but your video source has a max resolution of 1080p it will in fact look worse because of the need to further stretch it to the higher resolution. Having a screen with a higher resolution than 1920x1080 will only be useful when BD starts supporting 4k.

- If your 30" display covers your field of vision you must be only a foot or two from the screen and most people would find that uncomfortable when watching a movie.

- The Mac Mini is not such a great HTPC because of the limited internal storage space, not because it doesn't have a BD drive.

- Last, you seem to have plenty of money so why don't you just buy a digital copy of the movie you want to watch or just put a BD drive in your MBP yourself. Oh wait, the retina MBP is too small to fit any kind of disk drive in it...darn.

If you really want to watch high quality content on your devices there are plenty of HD rips available all over the internet and you don't even have to pay for them.

 

[agmaster]

Strawman or trolling?

HD is based on resolution, not size. In fact, it's usually argued that desktop monitors are better suited for HD content than large TVs, not less. If we assume a 2' viewing distance and a 27" monitor, you'll actually see benefit in moving up to 4K from HD (see chart). The argument that a computer monitor is not adequate for HD content is laughable.



Actually, most people would tell you that the HTPC itself is not the place to be storing your media, especially if you're storing high-rate videos like HD movies. You want a fast, low power, low capacity drive in your HTPC if at all possible. Given their typically small size and low noise requirements, HTPCs are not a good environment for disc drives, which are prone to failure at high temps. Then you hang your media off the network on a server or desktop where you can better manage their temperature and noise characteristics, streaming the content to the HTPCs.

1) 4k is not even available on disk yet.
2) There is no such thing as a fast and low power. The faster the HDD the more noise it makes and it uses more power.
3) A good HTPC is one with:
- Fast multicore CPU (Core i3's are great)
- Fast GPU with 3D support.
- Liquid cooling
- Multiple slow, high-capacity, low powered hard drives.
4) A setup like that will be very quite, stay cool, and can store all your media on it without needing to stream over a network (very important if you have multiple people using the same network).
5) Only bad thing about this is you will have to use Windows...

 

[Dmunjal]

NAS is a better solution if you have more than one HTPC!

 

[Gizmotoy]

1) 4k is not even available on disk yet.
2) There is no such thing as a fast and low power. The faster the HDD the more noise it makes and it uses more power.
3) A good HTPC is one with:
- Fast multicore CPU (Core i3's are great)
- Fast GPU with 3D support.
- Liquid cooling
- Multiple slow, high-capacity, low powered hard drives.
4) A setup like that will be very quite, stay cool, and can store all your media on it without needing to stream over a network (very important if you have multiple people using the same network).
5) Only bad thing about this is you will have to use Windows...

1) Exactly. Current monitors completely max out 1080p and are already able to make use of the next eventual standard. That was the point.

2) Yes there is. SSDs are faster than magnetic drives, lower in power, and completely silent. Perfect for HTPCs.

3) Yes, those are good characteristics in a HTPC, with possible exception to the drives.

4) Any decent wired network is going to be unaffected by even Blu Ray streaming. A typical Blu Ray is only 30-40Mbps all-in. Even a decade old 100Mbps network can easily handle that. So can wireless N. If you only have a few low rate movies or are stuck on slow wireless, I can see the benefit of having storage in the HTPC, though.

5) True. Windows is a surprisingly decent HTPC OS, though.

 

[AidenShaw]

- If your screen resolution is higher than 1080p, but your video source has a max resolution of 1080p it will in fact look worse because of the need to further stretch it to the higher resolution. Having a screen with a higher resolution than 1920x1080 will only be useful when BD starts supporting 4k.

Hasn't Apple been touting the ability of the scaling on the so-called "retina" displays to make existing content look better?

Does this mean that Apple isn't supporting BD playback because it would look like crap on their flagship systems?

Of course not. Apple is fighting BD because physical media competes with their compressed online crap.

 

[Xiroteus]

Of course not. Apple is fighting BD because physical media competes with their compressed online crap.

I really wish companies would be more direct about things like this, we ALL know the reasons yet they state ridiculous reasons as to the reason. Of course I am not sure how you word it.

We at Apple do not wish to support blu-ray because we are cheap and wish you to spend all your money on over priced digital downloads.

 

[AidenShaw]

I really wish companies would be more direct about things like this, we ALL know the reasons yet they state ridiculous reasons as to the reason. Of course I am not sure how you word it.

We at Apple do not wish to support blu-ray because we are cheap and wish you to spend all your money on over priced digital downloads.

I'd say "wish you to spend all your money on higher-priced lower-quality digital downloads"

 

[Xiroteus]

I'd say "wish you to spend all your money on higher-priced lower-quality digital downloads"

I cannot believe I forgot to note that this time, the entire time I have made a point to state, lower quality compressed overpriced downloads.

A lot of us may be able to take lower quality when done right. (Cheap)

Basically what they want for renting is what I would want to buy the download outright.

 

[linux2mac]

Is your implication here that iTunes' HD encodes are better than what's on a Blu Ray?

Vinyl sound quality trumps mp3 but you don't see me holding out from buying Macs until the folks in Cupertino start shipping Macs with builit in LP players so I can enjoy the best audio quality. Imagine what that Nano would look like?

This is like the BD Thread Part 2.

 

[KnightWRX]

True (and I even said as much in the text you quoted), but I was inferring some into his question based on our conversation over the past few pages regarding lack of support on Macs. This is to say, even if Blu Rays used an open codec like FLAC, the limitation in OS X would still exist because Apple's drivers don't provide access to the HDCP-protected HD audio channel on the graphics card's HDMI port.

Macs do support HDCP. It's AACS they lack.

 

[marzer]

The argument that a computer monitor is adequate for HD content is laughable. This kind of "bigger is always better" mentality is what causes companies to produce those giant, cheap LCDs that are limited to 720P.

Yes, i agree on the size point, but picture quality is more than just resolution. A high quality, well implemented 720p TV is much more enjoyable to watch than a cheap dept store 1080p.

 

[Gizmotoy]

Vinyl sound quality trumps mp3 but you don't see me holding out from buying Macs until the folks in Cupertino start shipping Macs with builit in LP players so I can enjoy the best audio quality. Imagine what that Nano would look like?

This is like the BD Thread Part 2.

An apt analogy, and yet there are audio formats that sound better than both mp3 and vinyl (you may think 'blesphemy' perhaps, but I'm not a vinyl fetishist) that are very nearly as accesible as mp3. Apple supports a few of them, but alas this isn't an mp3 vs lossless thread.

Macs do support HDCP. It's AACS they lack.

Not exactly true. While AACS isn't present on stock Macs, 3rd party software is available to provide it. It's HDCP that supports an HD Audio channel that they lack via driver support. Built-in AACS support would be nice, but that's extremely unlikely to occur any time soon.

Yes, i agree on the size point, but picture quality is more than just resolution. A high quality, well implemented 720p TV is much more enjoyable to watch than a cheap dept store 1080p.

Agreed. I was more pointing to the cheap knock-off displays that have large LCDs and tiny prices with 720p-only in the small print that are meant to prey on those who don't fully research what they're buying. It wasn't meant as indictment of all 720p displays.

 

[jfanning]

As far as MPAA having zero power outside the US, I think you underestimate the global alliances that they have formed to enforce their will on the world. Whether through laws, directives, treaties, or any other means, they generally get international cooperation and very similar, if not, identical legal rights around the world. Tell Kim Dotcom that the US has no power outside the US. Virginia issued an indictment based upon his routing of internet traffic through servers in the US, and New Zealand law enforcement dutifully served the warrant for copyright infringement , seized his property, and arrested him on US direction.

So judging by your comment they only reported his arrest in the US? If you have followed the case from then on you would have seen that this incident has not been handled dutifully at all by the New Zealand Law Enforcement

 

[7709876]

Having a Mac Mini as an HTPC is stupid because of limited space as it uses the 2.5" size HDD and has no expansion room. A proper HTPC would be something that you could easily expand your storage space to somewhere up to 4-5TB without using external storage.

I disagree. I have all my media on an HP Microserver in another room. It streams it to anywhere in the house.

What for me makes the Mac Mini so attractive as a HTPC is the noise it makes.

The current machine I have uses a low power AMD E-350 based setup that is passively cooled apart from the PSU. The fan on that drives me crazy during dialog scenes in films. If the Mac Mini had an optical drive I would buy one tomorrow.

----------

The majority of people don't want to have to pay an extra $300 or $400 to have Apple include BD drives in our Macs.

Hmm....the last Blu-Ray drive I purchased was about £40. Even the additional cost could be included as an option so people like you who don't want to pay for one don't have to.

 

[MacNewsFix]

Vinyl sound quality trumps mp3 but you don't see me holding out from buying Macs until the folks in Cupertino start shipping Macs with builit in LP players so I can enjoy the best audio quality. Imagine what that Nano would look like?

This is like the BD Thread Part 2.

LOL!

I was going to post you should create a thread called the "Linux2Mac Blu-Ray Thread Reunion Tour" seeing you were the #1 poster in the old BD thread. However, it looks like it is already underway here.

 

[janstett]

Yes. And someone could argue incessantly about the virtues of high performance automobiles for commuting to work in rush hour traffic. But unless they've got access to an Autobahn, they are kidding themselves.

Nice dodge.

I could go on about the joys of a good car even in boring commuting situations, but that's another thread for another place.

----------

Well, I have only used my MBP to watch a DVD ummm... once. I myself watch plenty of high quality material using my MBP by using PLEX. If you really want to watch your Blu-ray movies on your Mac you could always rip them with 3rd party software & hardware. If I were you with the nice and expensive equipment I would be playing games rather than watching a movie on your MBP and 30" display.

I would imagine people who have an HTPC would have downloaded an HD rip (from various internet sources) or ripped the blu-ray movies themselves and keep it on the PC itself rather than using a BD drive and having to swap out disks to watch a different movie. It works well for me cause I can stream it to the TV's in my house and I have a selection of around 260 1080p movies so far, plus several TV series. If you want a high quality rip of a 1080p movie with a high quality 5.1 or 7.1 track it will have to be AT LEAST 15-20GB. Having a Mac Mini as an HTPC is stupid because of limited space as it uses the 2.5" size HDD and has no expansion room. A proper HTPC would be something that you could easily expand your storage space to somewhere up to 4-5TB without using external storage.

The majority of people don't want to have to pay an extra $300 or $400 to have Apple include BD drives in our Macs. Plus since you have a nice home theater setup, sorry TWO nice setups, why don't you just carry your MBP and put it on your lap while you watch a BD on one of your huge HDTVs. That is why they are called Laptops. Then again, do you carry around your 30" Cinema Display when you are traveling? If you do I can understand your logic...sort of.

Another point - I am not a fan of downloading movies from iTunes.

I have ripped DVDs and Blu-Rays to ISOs on a NAS that is accessible to any machine in the house; internal storage is irrelevant. I want the discs exactly as they are on physical media, i.e. no loss of content or features. Then mount the ISO and play.

I would prefer not to have a 2nd copy for Mac/iTunes consumption but that may have to be the route I pursue. That's endless hours and terabytes of wasted/redundant storage, all because Apple refuses to play ball.

----------

To answer some of those points of you made:
- If your screen resolution is higher than 1080p, but your video source has a max resolution of 1080p it will in fact look worse because of the need to further stretch it to the higher resolution. Having a screen with a higher resolution than 1920x1080 will only be useful when BD starts supporting 4k.

Since there is no 4k content yet, what looks better -- stretching 1920x1080, or stretching 720x480?

- If your 30" display covers your field of vision you must be only a foot or two from the screen and most people would find that uncomfortable when watching a movie.

Well it is a desktop...

- The Mac Mini is not such a great HTPC because of the limited internal storage space, not because it doesn't have a BD drive.

NAS/Media Server

- Last, you seem to have plenty of money so why don't you just buy a digital copy of the movie you want to watch or just put a BD drive in your MBP yourself. Oh wait, the retina MBP is too small to fit any kind of disk drive in it...darn.

iTunes copies of the movie are inferior to the Blu-Ray. And OSX doesn't play the discs back if you DO put in a Blu-Ray drive. It just doesn't work. And the 3rd party software to play it back SUCKS.

If you really want to watch high quality content on your devices there are plenty of HD rips available all over the internet and you don't even have to pay for them.

I want the real, legitimate, thing that I already paid for.

 

[Tech198]

Please explain why you should know and why you clearly don't know.

lol.... ok...

I'm not talking about other countries.. i'm only talking what works for me (here in Australia), and whats legal, and whats not here..

Of course, that doesn't really mean anything, as people do what they want .... right ?

At least I do anyway ........ ENough said

 

[marzer]

Nice dodge.

I could go on about the joys of a good car even in boring commuting situations, but that's another thread for another place.

Sorry if the analogy was difficult to comprehend {zoom} but I stand by it. A 27" screen is not by any strtetch of the imagination acceptable HT gear (regardless of the resolution) by contemporary standards. Now back in 1991...

 

[7709876]

lol.... ok...

I'm not talking about other countries.. i'm only talking what works for me (here in Australia), and whats legal, and whats not here..

Of course, that doesn't really mean anything, as people do what they want .... right ?

At least I do anyway ........ ENough said

So when you said "other countries" you were not talking about other countries?

Gotcha.