[vandelay]

When can a HD DVD or a Blu-ray drive be expected in a MacBook Pro? The first HD DVD notebook from Toshiba should be released this month, so what about Apple?

I'm wondering, because this is a feature i would wait for, if it can be expected in the foreseeable future, otherwise i might just get the new 17'' now.

[mduell]

The first slim HD/BD drives will be tray loading; for the 17" MBP you have to wait for slot loading drives to come out (which historically have been later, slower, and more expensive), and for the 15" MBP you have to wait for even slimmer (9.5mm instead of 12.5mm like most notebooks) drives to come out.

My guess is the 17" will have HD/BD support this year and the 15" will have it next year. 13" could probably have it this year, but for stratification reasons I think Apple will delay it until at least next year, if not the followinng year.

[vandelay]

Originally Posted by mduell

The first slim HD/BD drives will be tray loading; for the 17" MBP you have to wait for slot loading drives to come out (which historically have been later, slower, and more expensive), and for the 15" MBP you have to wait for even slimmer (9.5mm instead of 12.5mm like most notebooks) drives to come out.

My guess is the 17" will have HD/BD support this year and the 15" will have it next year. 13" could probably have it this year, but for stratification reasons I think Apple will delay it until at least next year, if not the followinng year.

That seems like an educated guess. So what's going to be the next big feature for MacBooks?
Anything else on the horizon for the next revision?

[mduell]

The following are currently available or planned to be available in August:
Merom CPUs (20% performance improvement, same power consumption), official support for 4GB RAM, 160GB disk, new GPU, higher res screens (HD).

Which will Apple implement? Anyones guess.

[tobster]

Originally Posted by mduell

The following are currently available or planned to be available in August:
Merom CPUs (20% performance improvement, same power consumption), official support for 4GB RAM, 160GB disk, new GPU, higher res screens (HD).

Which will Apple implement? Anyones guess.

Is 4GB unofficially possible on current MBPs? If so, how?

Isn't MBP's current display high def? With the vertical resolution of 900 being higher than both 480 and 720 (although falling short on 1080). Please note that both questions are not to doubt your statements, but to educate me as I have little or no knowledge on the matters.

thx, tobbi

[mduell]

Originally Posted by tobster

Is 4GB unofficially possible on current MBPs? If so, how?

Isn't MBP's current display high def? With the vertical resolution of 900 being higher than both 480 and 720 (although falling short on 1080). Please note that both questions are not to doubt your statements, but to educate me as I have little or no knowledge on the matters.

Yes, Intel's chipset specs say 4GB is supported. There are some other discrepancies between Intel's specs and Apple's, and from users experiences, Intel's are correct.

The 1440x900 screen in the MBP is not "HD" by Apples or my standards. In my opinion, a screen that can't display an HD signal at full resolution isn't HD, but there are plenty of people in the television industry who disagree with me, pawning off 50" 1366x768 displays as HD and confusing consumers.

[EFFENDI]

I agree, the folks advertising these bigscreen flat panel plasmas and LCDs that are only a few pixels over 720p resolution are cheating consumers. This is especially the case with LCD manufacturers/distributors.

Not that it was implied, but cramming a full 1920x1080 into a 17" widescreen is simply not reasonable. There is no way the human eye could resolve that much detail in such a small display. 1440x900 is certainly a comfortable compromise.

[Heebs]

Originally Posted by EFFENDI

I agree, the folks advertising these bigscreen flat panel plasmas and LCDs that are only a few pixels over 720p resolution are cheating consumers. This is especially the case with LCD manufacturers/distributors.

Not that it was implied, but cramming a full 1920x1080 into a 17" widescreen is simply not reasonable. There is no way the human eye could resolve that much detail in such a small display. 1440x900 is certainly a comfortable compromise.

My roommate has a laptop with 1920x1080 resolution on his 15" widescreen and the text is somehow not smaller than on my 15" MBP. He was not using a feature to magnify the text either. Apparently, there is a way to have a HD screen on a laptop without shrinking the text to an unreadable size.

[slffl]

Unfortunately, UI buttons and graphics cannot be enlarged like text can (until OSX 10.5 hopefully)

[Hal06]

Originally Posted by mduell

In my opinion, a screen that can't display an HD signal at full resolution isn't HD, but there are plenty of people in the television industry who disagree with me, pawning off 50" 1366x768 displays as HD and confusing consumers.

I agree, that has to be dishonest. Anyway, why would a consumer need such huge screen?, bigger just for the sake of it… not cool -trying to make sense here-

[mduell]

Originally Posted by EFFENDI

Not that it was implied, but cramming a full 1920x1080 into a 17" widescreen is simply not reasonable. There is no way the human eye could resolve that much detail in such a small display. 1440x900 is certainly a comfortable compromise.

It's quite reasonable, in fact downright beautiful, to see 1920x1200 on a 15" display. If you're having trouble with text, make your font sizes bigger; they'll still look better, and thanks to the extra detail you will probably be able to read smaller text, so you can fit more on the screen.

[EFFENDI]

I have no doubt 1080p on a 15" widescreen looks very good.
Mduell, I personally don't have problems viewing text at high resolutions, so I don't know where you are going with that.

It really does not matter how excellent your vision is; in any normal circumstance of use, (ie you are more than a foot away from the display) it is just not physically possible to see every single bit of detail in 1080p program material in a form so small.

[EFFENDI]

Originally Posted by Inside Man

I agree, that has to be dishonest. Anyway, why would a consumer need such huge screen?, bigger just for the sake of it… not cool -trying to make sense here-

For one, the screens have to be large in order for the human eye to resolve so much detail, which is somewhat the argument I have been trying to make, but again, I still agree that in a 50" display, especially an LCD, 720p albeit still looking beautiful, is not a "full" (1080p) HD display.

There are many obstacles to achieving 1080p though.

Firstly, to drive a display with such a high resolution, you need the content. 1080p content is extremely difficult to produce due to costs; 1080p equipment is still in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Also current technological boudaries, mainly bandwidth, and distribution make the availability of 1080p content very limited. These issues put 1080p out of the reach of producers and distributors

The displays themselves are expensive, and somewhat difficult to produce. This puts 1080p out of the hands of consumers and many lower-end manufacturers. It limits the availability of displays, raising cost to the end-user. The whole problem is that consumers want HD now, and the general public is still not educated or savvy enough to not only see the difference, but to know the difference between the formats. For most manufacturers, this all comes down to the bottom line. They can sit around waiting for 1080p technology to mature, or they can sell an unwitting consumer the same size panel with a lower resolution for a quick buck. Big screen just for big screen sake. Definitely not cool, but that is unfortunately the state of the industry.