Erasmus
Aug 4, 09:20 PM
It seems to me that the future of running Windows on our Macs is to not run Windows on our Macs.
There are now at least two programs that allow a user to run Windows software without having to fork out the cost of the Windows OS, having to install it, or having to use or even look at it.
After the issues of differences in speed between Windows OS and Mac OS, being some programs, especially games, run better in Windows using Boot Camp, there will be no point in using Parallels or Boot Camp, and Apple will hopefully create their own version of Crossover, etc. This would only happen if Apple were to gain a significant marketshare, and were willing to take on Microsoft, who would probably find any and all loopholes and reasons to sue Apple through the ground, out the other side, and half way across the known universe. After all, who would use Windows if you could run all your programs on superior hardware, in a superior operating system?
I remain hopeful that this will one day happen, especially if Apple could create a way of running Direct X in System, or make their own graphics drivers that are equal to or better than DX10.
First we had to reboot. Then we only needed Windows. Now we don't. All we need now, is for Apple to royally screw Microsoft, and take over as the leading provider of operating systems. The time has come for a long and bloody revolution! Viva La Applé! Judgement Day on Microsoft is nigh!
Crusade anyone? Free Torches and Pitchforks. The cost of all projectile weaponry must be supported by the wielder, and I take no responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
;)
There are now at least two programs that allow a user to run Windows software without having to fork out the cost of the Windows OS, having to install it, or having to use or even look at it.
After the issues of differences in speed between Windows OS and Mac OS, being some programs, especially games, run better in Windows using Boot Camp, there will be no point in using Parallels or Boot Camp, and Apple will hopefully create their own version of Crossover, etc. This would only happen if Apple were to gain a significant marketshare, and were willing to take on Microsoft, who would probably find any and all loopholes and reasons to sue Apple through the ground, out the other side, and half way across the known universe. After all, who would use Windows if you could run all your programs on superior hardware, in a superior operating system?
I remain hopeful that this will one day happen, especially if Apple could create a way of running Direct X in System, or make their own graphics drivers that are equal to or better than DX10.
First we had to reboot. Then we only needed Windows. Now we don't. All we need now, is for Apple to royally screw Microsoft, and take over as the leading provider of operating systems. The time has come for a long and bloody revolution! Viva La Applé! Judgement Day on Microsoft is nigh!
Crusade anyone? Free Torches and Pitchforks. The cost of all projectile weaponry must be supported by the wielder, and I take no responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
;)
arkitect
Mar 29, 02:15 PM
Hey Apple,
I don't want my iPhone 5 to be leaking radiation...
Too soon? :cool::rolleyes:
No, not really.
Just not funny at all.
I don't want my iPhone 5 to be leaking radiation...
Too soon? :cool::rolleyes:
No, not really.
Just not funny at all.
smulji
Mar 30, 10:58 PM
Very true but those Macs are portables, not iMacs and certainly not the overpriced and overpowered Xeon server driven Mac Pro's that replaced the affordable and (at the time) upgradeable G4's and G5's we all used for our work. What happened to the dedicated 20/23/30" LCD CCFL Apple Cinema Display line, or even the Apple Studio Display line before them? Replaced with ONE 27" LED LCD based off the 27" iMac (basically an iMac without a computer). Times change, I get it, but why do they have to leave us power users who supported them before the iPod and need Apple systems for work behind? It's costing us thousands to switch to Windows systems and applications such as Avid and Premiere Pro/Adobe Suites.
IDevices are amazing, but please, don't make the already dwindling prosumers systems become iOS systems for the average Joe. There are a lot of people on here that are new comers from Apple's iPod/iPhone influx that don't know/understand what this is doing to those who really need OS X and affordable mid-towers and top notch displays again� and once built in California, now "designed" in California. Man, sad times for us and the states on that change...
pretty much the vast majority of electronic products are designed in the westernized world and manufactured in some third world country. Fortunate or unfortunate that's the reality.
IDevices are amazing, but please, don't make the already dwindling prosumers systems become iOS systems for the average Joe. There are a lot of people on here that are new comers from Apple's iPod/iPhone influx that don't know/understand what this is doing to those who really need OS X and affordable mid-towers and top notch displays again� and once built in California, now "designed" in California. Man, sad times for us and the states on that change...
pretty much the vast majority of electronic products are designed in the westernized world and manufactured in some third world country. Fortunate or unfortunate that's the reality.
Steviejobz
Apr 25, 09:41 AM
Thankfully my AT&T coverage is so weak, there is no way Apple can track me.
So there!
So there!
danielbriggs
Aug 12, 01:43 PM
I wouldn't hold my breath, the Back to School iPod promo has always been a bait to help clear out old inventory. They won't make it available to buy, online or off, until after the promo ends.
As the promo in the UK ends on the 7th October, does that mean I won't see them filter through until then?
It's a shame if it is.
Why do some end in September and others in October?
http://www.apple.com/uk/backtoschool/?cid=WWW-EUUK-BTS20060801-8EBFY
"* Buy a qualifying Mac and an iPod from the online Apple Store or an Apple retail store � purchase must be made between August 1st and October 7th � and receive a mail-in rebate up to �100 (UK) / �160 (Ireland). Terms and Conditions apply. "
I need one so soon!
As the promo in the UK ends on the 7th October, does that mean I won't see them filter through until then?
It's a shame if it is.
Why do some end in September and others in October?
http://www.apple.com/uk/backtoschool/?cid=WWW-EUUK-BTS20060801-8EBFY
"* Buy a qualifying Mac and an iPod from the online Apple Store or an Apple retail store � purchase must be made between August 1st and October 7th � and receive a mail-in rebate up to �100 (UK) / �160 (Ireland). Terms and Conditions apply. "
I need one so soon!
snberk103
May 6, 11:27 AM
I can understand the intuitive justification of this argument, but I'd like to see something more rigorous before I accept it. My own intuitive sense is that learning measurement systems, while important to early child development, don't, in of themselves (i.e., imperial or metric), have a causal relationship with math and science success (or failure) in school. I think there are other much stronger factors to success in math and engineering. One example: "male malaise" in the UK and the USA (a general problem in elementary and secondary schools); also, public school math programs are not rigorous and set the bar relatively low.
Tell you what ..... you go and find 20 kids in grade 3 or 4. Teach 10 of them how to multiply 3 13/16" by 3, and then teach the other 10 how to multiply 96.8 by 3. Then see how many from each group decide to take up social work, or teaching history, becoming a ski instructor as a profession :D.
Tell you what ..... you go and find 20 kids in grade 3 or 4. Teach 10 of them how to multiply 3 13/16" by 3, and then teach the other 10 how to multiply 96.8 by 3. Then see how many from each group decide to take up social work, or teaching history, becoming a ski instructor as a profession :D.
cohibadad
Nov 5, 10:34 AM
Now Sophos can begin developing viruses against which their software can defend us.
Now that is cynical ;)
Now that is cynical ;)
guzhogi
Aug 4, 01:47 PM
Yes - both AMD 64 and Intel EM64T are 64 bit extensions to the 32 bit x86 processor.
From what I understand the registers are still 32 bit, but the chips have a 64 bit address space and more registers.
No-one has the need for a truly 64 bit machine at this point - just machines that can address more RAM. The 4GB RAM limit on 32 bit processors is beginning to be an issue for pro users.
I think the vector extensions (AltiVec and SSE) have very large registers - 128 bit? This is what's used when there is a need for a specific optimisation.
Just my layman's understanding. Ready to be corrected!
Thanks. Anyone know what the advantage of having a 64-bit processor vs. a 32-bit (other than bigger address bus)? I know the CPU has 2 basic kinds of buses: the address bus (where it can see 4 GB of RAM in 32-bit, 16 ?(i don't know the prefix)bytes in 64-bit) and an instruction bus that actually computes.
From what I understand the registers are still 32 bit, but the chips have a 64 bit address space and more registers.
No-one has the need for a truly 64 bit machine at this point - just machines that can address more RAM. The 4GB RAM limit on 32 bit processors is beginning to be an issue for pro users.
I think the vector extensions (AltiVec and SSE) have very large registers - 128 bit? This is what's used when there is a need for a specific optimisation.
Just my layman's understanding. Ready to be corrected!
Thanks. Anyone know what the advantage of having a 64-bit processor vs. a 32-bit (other than bigger address bus)? I know the CPU has 2 basic kinds of buses: the address bus (where it can see 4 GB of RAM in 32-bit, 16 ?(i don't know the prefix)bytes in 64-bit) and an instruction bus that actually computes.
skyline r34
Apr 21, 11:17 PM
i think the Mac Pro is going to remain the same just with upgraded CPU, GPU and thunder bolt but the Mac Pro server will have redesign case but who know until it comes out
0815
Apr 25, 10:06 AM
I still don't get the outrage of many people. From all the 'tracking issues' out there, this is the one to worry the least about since it is only on your device and is not send to anyone.
If you really worry about anyone knowing where you are or have been, there are better 'targets' to go after, some where information is really send and analyzed by people 'out of your control'.
If you really worry about anyone knowing where you are or have been, there are better 'targets' to go after, some where information is really send and analyzed by people 'out of your control'.
MovieCutter
Apr 7, 09:31 AM
Apple is probably one of the most strategically intelligent tech companies in the world right now. Not just forward-thinking in terms of disabling their competitors...but just wicked smart.
alent1234
Apr 7, 11:23 AM
apple was supposed to have bought up all the smartphone displays as well, yet it's easy to buy an Atrix, Inspire or any other android phone. manufacturers just use screen sizes that apple doesn't use
WildCowboy
Jul 21, 02:42 PM
I 3rd this.
Why not update them too? I understand that the MBP is PRO but still. What would the MB's be getting then as far as an update at some point?
If they continue to use Yonah, it differentiates the lines better and either allows Apple to reap a bigger profit as Yonah prices drop or they can pass that savings along to the consumer. (Or they can use the money saved on Yonah chips to up the standard RAM configuration to 1 GB...)
Why not update them too? I understand that the MBP is PRO but still. What would the MB's be getting then as far as an update at some point?
If they continue to use Yonah, it differentiates the lines better and either allows Apple to reap a bigger profit as Yonah prices drop or they can pass that savings along to the consumer. (Or they can use the money saved on Yonah chips to up the standard RAM configuration to 1 GB...)
thisisahughes
Mar 27, 07:46 AM
I think this rumor can be readily discredited.
Apple has been trying for a few years now to streamline product updates so that they happen like clockwork once per year.
The past few macbook pro updates have been in the spring/late winter, macbooks are seemingly being updated prior to the Back to School deal, iPods are updated in September towards the end of the student sale, iPhones have launched in June every year, iPad and iPad 2 both began selling in the spring, and while iMacs haven't had a clear pattern emerge yet, it appears to be coalescing around 1 year and I think it's safe to say that as time goes on, a yearly cycle will become dominant.
Despite the news of Lion being almost ready (or ready) for Golden Master, I think it's more probable that Lion is put on hold until iOS 5 is ready to launch as happened with Leopard and to a much lesser extent, Snow Leopard. Apple makes far more money and gets far more worldwide press from the iOS family than it does the OS X lineup. At this point, not launching an iPhone and a new OS for it in June would go against 4 years of pattern and practice, and would cause too much negative publicity, especially in the face of a constantly evolving market where a few months of lag time can cost a company vital market share and mindshare.
wow. perfect.
Apple has been trying for a few years now to streamline product updates so that they happen like clockwork once per year.
The past few macbook pro updates have been in the spring/late winter, macbooks are seemingly being updated prior to the Back to School deal, iPods are updated in September towards the end of the student sale, iPhones have launched in June every year, iPad and iPad 2 both began selling in the spring, and while iMacs haven't had a clear pattern emerge yet, it appears to be coalescing around 1 year and I think it's safe to say that as time goes on, a yearly cycle will become dominant.
Despite the news of Lion being almost ready (or ready) for Golden Master, I think it's more probable that Lion is put on hold until iOS 5 is ready to launch as happened with Leopard and to a much lesser extent, Snow Leopard. Apple makes far more money and gets far more worldwide press from the iOS family than it does the OS X lineup. At this point, not launching an iPhone and a new OS for it in June would go against 4 years of pattern and practice, and would cause too much negative publicity, especially in the face of a constantly evolving market where a few months of lag time can cost a company vital market share and mindshare.
wow. perfect.
ellsworth
Apr 5, 01:48 PM
"maintain their good relationship with Apple,"
Really?
Toyota sells cars not electronic/computer/idevices.
What'ever. Glad I bought a Subaru :)
(Yes, I know Toyota has a large stake in Subaru)
Really?
Toyota sells cars not electronic/computer/idevices.
What'ever. Glad I bought a Subaru :)
(Yes, I know Toyota has a large stake in Subaru)
rtharper
Sep 11, 09:19 AM
It won't be updated tomorrow. But it will probably be updated as soon as later this week. Boo freaking hoo already, is it really that big a deal to wait a few days. And here's the big question: IS DELL EVEN SHIPPING MEROM LAPTOPS YET?
No, but they're not playing games with my rather fragile heart =(
No, but they're not playing games with my rather fragile heart =(
Consultant
Apr 18, 03:35 PM
Yay go Apple. From the little guy everyone cheered for to the ... big guy that sues everyone and still has everyone cheering for.
So you think Apple's goal is to be free R&D for the rest of the industry? :rolleyes:
So you think Apple's goal is to be free R&D for the rest of the industry? :rolleyes:
snebes
Apr 20, 10:07 AM
If they do then the iPhone 4 will be my last iPhone. The iPhone 4 is big enough. Any larger and it won't fit as nicely in pockets.
I'm sure he just means the screen and it has been proven that a 4" screen will not increase the physical size of the phone.
Even if it went to 4.5" or 5" and made the phone slightly bigger, you probably wouldn't even notice (but this is more than extremely unlikely to happen)
I'm sure he just means the screen and it has been proven that a 4" screen will not increase the physical size of the phone.
Even if it went to 4.5" or 5" and made the phone slightly bigger, you probably wouldn't even notice (but this is more than extremely unlikely to happen)
Eraserhead
Apr 14, 03:30 PM
I want line items on every single thing spent.
You actually have to be sensible about these things. Doing that would require a giant bureaucracy to verify.
Its quite clear that the UK government has far too much paperwork to fill in. If they (say) spend 20% of their time doing paperwork, and they instead spent 20% of their time down the pub we wouldn't really be any worse off.
You actually have to be sensible about these things. Doing that would require a giant bureaucracy to verify.
Its quite clear that the UK government has far too much paperwork to fill in. If they (say) spend 20% of their time doing paperwork, and they instead spent 20% of their time down the pub we wouldn't really be any worse off.
canolapop
Jul 31, 03:20 AM
couldn't they just release it as an UNLOCKED phone, sell it on their site and allow us to use it with who ever?
gnasher729
Aug 12, 05:39 AM
If they made it a little taller it should be easy-peasy for Apple to fit the necessary cooling. Hey, if they're making it taller, they could add a 3.5" Hard Drive which is much cheaper than laptop hard drives and we could finally get a 500GB Mini.
When you look at all those manufacturers selling harddisks in a case that fits on top of a MacMini, making it twice as high, Apple might as well sell the whole thing in one case. Call it the "Mac SuperMini".
When you look at all those manufacturers selling harddisks in a case that fits on top of a MacMini, making it twice as high, Apple might as well sell the whole thing in one case. Call it the "Mac SuperMini".
ineedamac
Mar 26, 10:53 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Maybe I'm missing something. I don't get all of the comments that iOS 4.3 is so outdated and in need of a major overhaul. I like 4.3. It works for me.
I like the notification system. An applet pops up when I have a notification and I can choose to ignore it or go into the app for more information. What is wrong with that? I'm all for doing things better and maybe someone can show me a better way.
Maybe I'm missing something. I don't get all of the comments that iOS 4.3 is so outdated and in need of a major overhaul. I like 4.3. It works for me.
I like the notification system. An applet pops up when I have a notification and I can choose to ignore it or go into the app for more information. What is wrong with that? I'm all for doing things better and maybe someone can show me a better way.
derbothaus
Apr 28, 11:54 AM
Wow. You brought actual stats to the table. I stand corrected on the melting bit:o
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)