MacDailyNews is populated by some of the most rabid Apple fanboys on the planet.
It's definitely not one of the most balanced sites on the web. It's like MR's *LTD* on steroids.
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.
Steve Jobs Suggests Blu-ray Not Coming to Mac Anytime Soon
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
MacDailyNews is populated by some of the most rabid Apple fanboys on the planet.
It's definitely not one of the most balanced sites on the web. It's like MR's *LTD* on steroids.
You're really serious with this post??
So you go on a MAC centric site and post pro MAC comments and that is the be all end all. Not to mention there are pro blu-ray posts there too.
How bout I go back to my first post on endgagdet and post some of the 570+ comments from that article. Are you serious??
You would have been better off posting comments straight from this thread, it would make you look a lot less dense.
As many people in this thread pointed out, the quality of streamed HD movies is horrible compared to BR. Streaming might be a future but we live today and today BR is the only quality HD source. As stats show sales of BR are increasing and those who have them might want to use them during the flights and this is what this commercial is about.
MacDailyNews is populated by some of the most rabid Apple fanboys on the planet.
It's definitely not one of the most balanced sites on the web. It's like MR's *LTD* on steroids.
Let me clarify that I am not a fan boy. I go with what works the best and that happens to be Apple right now. Lets say a new company like Coconut Computer starts making the best products. Well then, I will say good bye to SJ and Co. and hello to Coconut!
BD is nice, but really, just get a PS3 and save some money.
Wow, this thread is still active?
Anyway, I own a PS3 and use it to play blu-rays I primarily get from Netflix, I do also purchase my kids' movies on blu-ray given the option to get a combo pack at the same price as a DVD.
But you know what I do? I take the DVD and rip it, or copy the file from the Digital Disc, and then 99% of the time we use the digital copy. They don't care if it's HD or not, and it's way more convenient to not swap discs or worry about them getting ruined.
Who spends a lot of time watching movies on their computer!?
Something tells me not a lot of people, and if they did, why would they care if it was HD? Sure it's nicer, but most people have screens ranging from 13" - 21", most of those laptops. The benefit of blu-ray doesn't really shine until you get past 27", imho.
So if you want the "best" experience why would you settle for a 15" screen with bad stereo speakers? So you must want to turn your Mac into a media center, but why? If you aren't ripping BD then you still have to swap discs, so you might as well get a PS3 and save yourself gobs of money.
I know there is a lot of arguing going on here, but none of it seems practically in favor of a BD-equipped Mac. It's extremely niche and most of the people that want it would likely rarely use it.
I mean really, BD so you don't have multi-DVD installers? You're really complaining about a single-run installation process? It's not like it's a massive box full of 20 floppy discs, it's a handful of flat DVDs, and a very small time sink for a single event.
If BD didn't make Macs more expensive, I'd want one so that I could rip the BDs I do have to a digital format, otherwise it would just sit unused 99% of the time, just like my existing DVD drive (I use thumbsticks and e-mail to transfer files, and most of my software is downloaded as well - including Flash CS4 Pro).
Wow, this thread is still active?
Anyway, I own a PS3 and use it to play blu-rays I primarily get from Netflix, I do also purchase my kids' movies on blu-ray given the option to get a combo pack at the same price as a DVD.
But you know what I do? I take the DVD and rip it, or copy the file from the Digital Disc, and then 99% of the time we use the digital copy. They don't care if it's HD or not, and it's way more convenient to not swap discs or worry about them getting ruined.
Who spends a lot of time watching movies on their computer!?
Something tells me not a lot of people, and if they did, why would they care if it was HD? Sure it's nicer, but most people have screens ranging from 13" - 21", most of those laptops. The benefit of blu-ray doesn't really shine until you get past 27", imho.
So if you want the "best" experience why would you settle for a 15" screen with bad stereo speakers? So you must want to turn your Mac into a media center, but why? If you aren't ripping BD then you still have to swap discs, so you might as well get a PS3 and save yourself gobs of money.
I know there is a lot of arguing going on here, but none of it seems practically in favor of a BD-equipped Mac. It's extremely niche and most of the people that want it would likely rarely use it.
I mean really, BD so you don't have multi-DVD installers? You're really complaining about a single-run installation process? It's not like it's a massive box full of 20 floppy discs, it's a handful of flat DVDs, and a very small time sink for a single event.
If BD didn't make Macs more expensive, I'd want one so that I could rip the BDs I do have to a digital format, otherwise it would just sit unused 99% of the time, just like my existing DVD drive (I use thumbsticks and e-mail to transfer files, and most of my software is downloaded as well - including Flash CS4 Pro).
That's an example of competing business models, not competing delivery formats. Netflix's DVD in the mail service is what beat down renting from a brick and mortar store. Redbox started to pile on the hurt a couple of years ago and streaming showed up just in time to add insult to injury. Streaming might be the last straw on the camel's back but it was not the most damaging one.
Anyway, before we crown internet delivery 'the king of all media' can we at least wait until legal music downloads surpass CD sales? I remember the writing on that wall starting in 99/00.
Lethal
lol, from the article: "Microsoft's promo notably omits the download option, which would negate some of the advantage."
er... yeah, but the Windows user has the choice. The mac user doesn't. Negate that.
I am hopefully getting a new mac soon, it annoys me I'll have to install Windows for proper Blu-ray playback. Of course I wanted a Blu-ray option when I bought my last Mac, in 2007, and somehow streaming/downloads haven't actually killed off physical formats yet like people said they would even then.
So why exactly couldn't I have had Blu-ray in my MacBook for the last 3 and a half years?
Meanwhile, Blu-ray adoption is still increasing. Pixar just sold approx. 9% more of Toy Story 3 on Blu-ray in the first week than they sold Up on blu-ray last year in its first week (33% vs 24%). 9% growth year on year isn't a format that is "dying" it is one that is thriving.
I'm willing to bet Blu-ray will still be around and doing fine in another 3 and a half years, or whenever I am getting the mac after this one. Actually with the iOS-ification of the mac, one wonders if OS X as we know it is under more threat than Blu-ray is...
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH. im sorry but i have to laugh at that video, they have lost ALL their credibility - due to the fact that THEY DEFRAGGED THE SSDS! ahahahah oh god.
anyway, yeh PCs will be faster then Macs configured properly. but yeh OT.
APPLE GIVE US BD DRIVES AND A WAY TO PLAY THEM!
The only ones with no credibility are the ones who say that you never need to defrag an SSD.
Each fragment forces the OS to do an extra physical IO, with the associated CPU overhead of an IO operation and the latency of a bus transaction with the device. The only place where a fragmented file on an SSD is better than a fragmented file on a spinning drive is that the rotational and head latency is nearly zero on the SSD.
I do not have my SSDs on a daily defrag schedule, but I do defrag every couple of months or so, or after major changes (like a service pack or a clean install).
Of course, since Apple OSX doesn't support TRIM, defragging could make the disk slower, not faster.
Is TRIM up on the overlord's "bag of hurt" list with BD?
But you miss something. It is all about view distance. At the distance a computer monitor is from your eyes (even a 13" one) it is inside the range were you can EASILY tell the difference between the HD and non HD quality.
Am I going to watch a lot of blu rays or DVD on my computer or laptop. No I am not. Some time I will have them play on my 2nd monitor while I am working on other threw my laptop because I can look up and watch it instead of having to turn around to see the TV behind me. Better for my work flow.
Or on a plane it another place. I do not want to have to buy 2 disk (one BluRay other DVD) just so I can watch the lesser quality one on the go.
I would rip my movies but getting around the DRM is sometimes a lot more trouble than it is worth.
What frustrates me about Apples obstinacy regarding Blu-Ray is that it feels as if they have forgotten what a lot of Macusers actually do with their computers, which is create AND consume content.
There are a lot of small firms around the world using HD cameras to record events of all kinds of nature, and they want/need to author to HD. Providing streaming HD video isn't an option for a lot of small businesses - on-line storage space and bandwidth issues for example, so they need to provide Blu-Ray discs.
Currently authoring a BR disc is done via Compressor of all applications,and it gives you incredibly few options! DVD Studio Pro is now totally redundant in the HD era... If BR support is not included soon Apple WILL be forcing us to move our video production over to Windows and Adobe Premiere.
And currently as if to rub salt into the wound, once you've made your BR disc burnt on your external player, you can't even play it back on the Mac to check it all works okay. Ludicrous.
With the rise of 3D in the cinema and the next generation of TV and BR players being 3D compatible, I don't see the format going away any time soon. More and more space is being given over to BR discs in stores - the retailers aren't stupid, they know what is selling.
There are a lot of small firms around the world using HD cameras to record events of all kinds of nature, and they want/need to author to HD. Providing streaming HD video isn't an option for a lot of small businesses - on-line storage space and bandwidth issues for example, so they need to provide Blu-Ray discs.
Currently authoring a BR disc is done via Compressor of all applications,and it gives you incredibly few options! DVD Studio Pro is now totally redundant in the HD era... If BR support is not included soon Apple WILL be forcing us to move our video production over to Windows and Adobe Premiere.
And currently as if to rub salt into the wound, once you've made your BR disc burnt on your external player, you can't even play it back on the Mac to check it all works okay. Ludicrous.
With the rise of 3D in the cinema and the next generation of TV and BR players being 3D compatible, I don't see the format going away any time soon. More and more space is being given over to BR discs in stores - the retailers aren't stupid, they know what is selling.
But The Steve doesn't want you to be able to do that.
So, you can't. The turtlenecked overlord controls all.
You seem to be assuming that the SSD controller always writes defragmented files in a sequential way which is not the case. Modern controllers keep track of empty flash cells and map 'disc sectors' as needed to empty cells. So an OS-level defrag will only make the disk faster if large regions of empty cells are available. The moment more than 50% of the drive has been written too, defrag will always have a negative effect as there won't be enough empty cells to write to.The only ones with no credibility are the ones who say that you never need to defrag an SSD.
Each fragment forces the OS to do an extra physical IO, with the associated CPU overhead of an IO operation and the latency of a bus transaction with the device. The only place where a fragmented file on an SSD is better than a fragmented file on a spinning drive is that the rotational and head latency is nearly zero on the SSD.
I do not have my SSDs on a daily defrag schedule, but I do defrag every couple of months or so, or after major changes (like a service pack or a clean install).
Of course, since Apple OSX doesn't support TRIM, defragging could make the disk slower, not faster.
Microsoft's ad mentioned above is pathetic. I do not want to watch Blu-Ray movies on a laptop screen or any computer screen. The only reason that Blu-Ray should be implemented into computers is so that they can be hooked up to a projector and displayed on projection screens.
I'll stick to my 40" Sony Bravia and Sony BD Player combo thanks, Microsoft.
It's "so cool".
Enjoy that flight.
I'll stick to my 40" Sony Bravia and Sony BD Player combo thanks, Microsoft.
It's "so cool".
Enjoy that flight.
Blu-Ray is amazing on a HDTV. It would be great on macs too. Especially on the 27" iMac. It would be fantastic for storage too. I do feel Sony really messed up the launch of it though. I was always in the HD-DVD camp as it had many of the features that Blu-Ray has lacked until later updates. I feel Sony rushed Blu ray so that it could be released close to the same time as HD-DVD. There were many early adopters who have players which cant be updated and even some of the ones released last year don't have the full feature set.
I would rather have had HD-DVD win the format war, but in-fact i would have preferred there was no war. Certainly didn't help consumers. Blu-ray is picking up after a very bad start. And i much prefer them but a trip to my local record/film store (HMV) shows that DVD still takes up the lions share of the store space there. Until prices drop on discs in brick and mortar stores then i don't see this changing much.
I would rather have had HD-DVD win the format war, but in-fact i would have preferred there was no war. Certainly didn't help consumers. Blu-ray is picking up after a very bad start. And i much prefer them but a trip to my local record/film store (HMV) shows that DVD still takes up the lions share of the store space there. Until prices drop on discs in brick and mortar stores then i don't see this changing much.
If you can keep your home movies around 20 min. or shorter, Toast Titanium 9 and 10 Pro (or the standard version with the additional $20 BD plug-in) might be the solution for your problem.
Toast Titanium can not only encode Bluray, it is even possible to burn short BD movies on ordinary dvd's with your stock superdrive!.
Of course their menu templates are not nearly as attractive as the ones found in iDVD, but the ability to distribute your shorts on cheap media is a great plus.
No guarantee this will work with any Bluray player though. At least with my Sony S550 this works like a breeze.
For projects longer than 20 min. you still would be needing an external BD burner (or internal drive if you have a Mac Pro).
I haven't tested this, but perhaps it might be even possible to burn movies twice as long (up to 40-50 min.) to a double layer dvd.
Still, the embarrassing problem of not being able to preview your encoded file on your Mac persists...
Last edited:
if i'm hellen keller then you're timothy leary:Why, oh why would you ever want less choice? Because you are insane!
i've never said we shouldn't have any choice.
[or that i "wanted less choice" or whatever.]
i just haven't been as bitter about it as some.
Steve Jobs has no time for creative folks, because, being your typical noncreative type fascist, he only steals, and what he can't steal, he ignores or whines at, actually belaboring under the delusion that he and his shill minions can make it go away, or at least wait out the decade until it really does go away. Even then, Blu-ray optical technology and beyond will still exist in video houses and recording studios the way DAT decks do today.
Just a few examples of Jobs' theft (I'm sure savvy Appleheads from way back can remember far more):
iPod - revamped 60's transistor radio, only free radio music became stolen downloads, and eventually big bucks for paid downloads from, where else, Apple, despite their empty promise to never enter the music business. Promises, schmomises.
iPad - how many companies came out with one first while he swore Apple would never do it; then he finally figured out how to steal it and had enough "walking around" money to promote it to children who promptly dropped it and demanded another. (Same "Buy it at least thrice" strategy for the MacBook Air... drop it once and it and your unbacked up data vanishes into thin Air; HAHA, Jobs little inside joke is on YOU, the sheeple customer.)
Jobs is a fascist; an authoritarian big business mogul thug who wants to control the Apple universe, and a great deal of the rest of it as well. Just ask people who work there off the record.
However, THIS time he's overreached.
No, but you're sure intent on getting the last word in... get extra pay for that?
Last edited:
So... what do you like about Apple?
Blu-Ray is just a minor frustration for me at this point (which becomes increasingly annoying as DVD gets older), but your posts seem to indicate huge emotional hurt from Apple I'm not even sure if you like anything it [Apple] does at all.
It makes the OS snappier, not the disk
No, I realize that sectors are assigned to pages within blocks in a random fashion.
My reason for occasional defragging of an SSD is to eliminate overhead at the OS level. If a frequently read file is in 1000 fragments (as seen by the filesystem), then the OS has to issue 1000 separate SATA reads (and wait for the SATA read latency 1000 times). Each IO requires a couple of context switches to kernel mode, and processing at different interrupt levels.
If the file is contiguous (in the LBA sense), only one round trip over the SATA bus is needed. I'm reducing the latency and CPU time by defragging, not improving the speed of the disk itself.
That's where TRIM and over-provisioning are helpful. There's no magic threshold (like 50%), for the drive to support fast writing - it needs to have a buffer of "free" (erased) cells.
TRIM is helpful, because it tells the SSD which pages are unnecessary, so the drive does not have to copy these pages when garbage collecting - as well as helping to identify which cells are free (and can simply be erased) and which have few active pages.
Over-provisioning is also helpful, since that means that you can never actually "fill" the drive. Most drives have about 7% over-provisioning - your 256 GB (256,000,000,000 bytes) really has 256 GiB of space (274,877,906,944 bytes). That 19 GB is always available for the drive controller to use.
Some drives leave additional space free - like my 60 GB OCZ, which really 64 GiB of flash chips.
In some circumstances, the "best practice" is to provide additional over-provisioning by leaving part of the drive unpartitioned. With TRIM support, any free space in the partition is also effectively the same as over-provisioned.
This article has a pretty good description of how data is stored on an SSD:
No, I realize that sectors are assigned to pages within blocks in a random fashion.
My reason for occasional defragging of an SSD is to eliminate overhead at the OS level. If a frequently read file is in 1000 fragments (as seen by the filesystem), then the OS has to issue 1000 separate SATA reads (and wait for the SATA read latency 1000 times). Each IO requires a couple of context switches to kernel mode, and processing at different interrupt levels.
If the file is contiguous (in the LBA sense), only one round trip over the SATA bus is needed. I'm reducing the latency and CPU time by defragging, not improving the speed of the disk itself.
That's where TRIM and over-provisioning are helpful. There's no magic threshold (like 50%), for the drive to support fast writing - it needs to have a buffer of "free" (erased) cells.
TRIM is helpful, because it tells the SSD which pages are unnecessary, so the drive does not have to copy these pages when garbage collecting - as well as helping to identify which cells are free (and can simply be erased) and which have few active pages.
Over-provisioning is also helpful, since that means that you can never actually "fill" the drive. Most drives have about 7% over-provisioning - your 256 GB (256,000,000,000 bytes) really has 256 GiB of space (274,877,906,944 bytes). That 19 GB is always available for the drive controller to use.
Some drives leave additional space free - like my 60 GB OCZ, which really 64 GiB of flash chips.
In some circumstances, the "best practice" is to provide additional over-provisioning by leaving part of the drive unpartitioned. With TRIM support, any free space in the partition is also effectively the same as over-provisioned.
This article has a pretty good description of how data is stored on an SSD:
Last edited:
Some data supporting defragging
Just to test this, I created two files on a 60GB OCZ Vertex 2 (OCZSSD2-2VTXE60G - 285MB/sec read, 250 MB/s sustained write) drive on a 2.93 GHz Core i7-940 on an OS with TRIM support.
Results:
To me that's pretty convincing evidence that an SSD can benefit from the occasional defrag.
And I noticed that when I deleted the files, File2 disappeared in an instant. File1 took about 30 seconds to delete (I assume due to the 239,978 separate TRIM commands that were required).
Just to test this, I created two files on a 60GB OCZ Vertex 2 (OCZSSD2-2VTXE60G - 285MB/sec read, 250 MB/s sustained write) drive on a 2.93 GHz Core i7-940 on an OS with TRIM support.
Results:
Code:
File1 - 1,075,494,438 bytes, 239,978 fragments
File2 - 1,075,494,438 bytes, 1 fragment (defragmented copy of File1)
Time to read CPU total User Kernel Ave IO Test
------------ --------- ---- ------- ------ --------------
File1 27 sec 5.5 sec 3.6 1.9 4 KiB findstr (grep)
File2 11 sec 4.4 sec 2.9 1.4 32 KiB
File1 21 sec 4.1 sec 3.5 0.5 4 KiB md5
File2 5.7 sec 3.6 sec 3.2 0.4 128 KiBTo me that's pretty convincing evidence that an SSD can benefit from the occasional defrag.
And I noticed that when I deleted the files, File2 disappeared in an instant. File1 took about 30 seconds to delete (I assume due to the 239,978 separate TRIM commands that were required).
Last edited:
It seems the "joke" is actually on you... because you sound extremely upset, and that's really quite amusing at this point in time (3000+ posts).
It's not about getting the last word. It's sometimes necessary to call out posters who repeat the same old lies, over and over and over again. If this BD cause is so just, then why is it necessary for some to resort to prevarication?
I can see your point, but playing it back on the Mac isn't going to tell you that "it all works okay." The platform where you create a product isn't necessarily the platform where it's used, and where it needs to be tested. An iPhone/iPad developer needs to test the final product on an iPhone/iPad (as opposed to a Simulator). A blu-ray will always need to be tested where customers are going to use the blu-ray...currently, certainly not a Mac.
This makes no sense. Once I have purchased a Blu Ray disc, I need a Blu Ray player to watch it--screen size or picture quality be damned. When I'm traveling, that means I need one in my laptop. It's about convenience. Very few BDs come with digital copy, and the digital copy is always (at least so far in my experience) SD.
- Status