Singapore Expats Forum

Sony Blu-ray DVD Laptop. Buy in USA or wait and buy

Discuss about computers & Internet. Including mobile phones, home appliances & other gadgets. Read about Windows security risks or virus updates.
Teema
Member
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon, 09 Jul 2007

Postby Teema » Fri, 10 Aug 2007 8:47 pm

Splatted wrote:
Teema wrote:We would need around 6 (50x6=300) dual layer Blu-ray discs to match the capacity.
If blank Blu-ray can match $10 or less, it beats the hard drive. That price point should be very easily reachable once the format reaches mass-adoption.


Agreed, however the same argument was put forward for DVD9 format and at the time HD's were still cheaper.

Yes, DVD's got much much cheaper, but so did HD technology.

You will find by the time Blu-ray get down to $10 a disk, you will be purchasing HD's with TB's capacities for the prices paid today for 320gb capacity.

Hard disks will still be cheaper in the long run, I believe.


As of right now, cost per gigabyte of DVD is much lower than cost per gig for HD; and that will likely stay true for a while.

When Blu-ray becomes main-stream, I don't see why it can't offer the same cost-per-gig advantage similar to DVD of today?


However, the point is moot. Optical discs (CD, DVD, Blu-ray) focus on the things hard drive can't provide. Would you image movies, software, games being provided on a hard drive that you must plug into your machine?

I for one impatiently wait for the outcome of this stupid format war.

User avatar
Splatted
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun, 11 Jul 2004

Postby Splatted » Sat, 11 Aug 2007 8:18 am

Teema wrote:As of right now, cost per gigabyte of DVD is much lower than cost per gig for HD; and that will likely stay true for a while.

When Blu-ray becomes main-stream, I don't see why it can't offer the same cost-per-gig advantage similar to DVD of today?


However, the point is moot. Optical discs (CD, DVD, Blu-ray) focus on the things hard drive can't provide. Would you image movies, software, games being provided on a hard drive that you must plug into your machine?

I for one impatiently wait for the outcome of this stupid format war.


Realllyyy???? How much do you buy your DVD9's for these days? Why hasn't it become widely accepted as DVD5 format considering movies come on DVD9 format? Mass-adoption hasn't happened here.

Point also isn't moot if you manage to keep track of the fact we were talking about personal data storage:

Teema wrote:The capacity advantage IS significant, especially on a computer: 30gb for a dual layer HD-DVD, 50gb for a dual layer Blu-ray. Possibility of backing up my entire photo album on a disc is neat.


For delivering movies to the consumer, cost is neglibible on their part. That's always a given.

Teema
Member
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon, 09 Jul 2007

Postby Teema » Mon, 20 Aug 2007 5:27 pm

Splatted wrote:
Teema wrote:As of right now, cost per gigabyte of DVD is much lower than cost per gig for HD; and that will likely stay true for a while.

When Blu-ray becomes main-stream, I don't see why it can't offer the same cost-per-gig advantage similar to DVD of today?


However, the point is moot. Optical discs (CD, DVD, Blu-ray) focus on the things hard drive can't provide. Would you image movies, software, games being provided on a hard drive that you must plug into your machine?

I for one impatiently wait for the outcome of this stupid format war.


Realllyyy???? How much do you buy your DVD9's for these days? Why hasn't it become widely accepted as DVD5 format considering movies come on DVD9 format? Mass-adoption hasn't happened here.

Point also isn't moot if you manage to keep track of the fact we were talking about personal data storage:

Teema wrote:The capacity advantage IS significant, especially on a computer: 30gb for a dual layer HD-DVD, 50gb for a dual layer Blu-ray. Possibility of backing up my entire photo album on a disc is neat.


For delivering movies to the consumer, cost is neglibible on their part. That's always a given.

What is the cost per gig for DVD5 vs hard disc?

As for DVD9, I would label it more as a "failed" format (requiring a new generation of DVD writer/reader). A lot of the older DVD readers can't read DVD9, and it's a good reason why there are many converter that transforms DVD9 movies into DVD5.

Myself I do use DVD9 even though the cost is much higher. I find that carrying around a shock-resistant and thin DVD is much more safe and convinient than a hard drive. But maybe I'm weird? ;)

User avatar
Splatted
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun, 11 Jul 2004

Postby Splatted » Mon, 20 Aug 2007 8:41 pm

Teema wrote:What is the cost per gig for DVD5 vs hard disc?


Do the math.

I backup my 320gb hard-disk monthly.

What would it cost for a years worth of single-use DVD5's? vs the cost of a secondary HD?

DVD5's are mainly used by people for burning shrunken movies, otherwise they're not very verstaile for data backup.

Now you also have the re-writable ones, but the cost then multiplies several fold.

Personally, I still stick with my secondary HD, purely for the amount of inconvenience avoided. There's the time factor, plus also the number of disk swappings you don't have to go through!

I should also add, that DVD's are more likely to have errors than backing up files on HD - especially when you bulk-buy the el-cheapo brands. I still buy DVD5's for copying friends movies - almost always you get a few "coasters" in amongst the good disks when you buy the cheap and nasty brands.

Teema wrote:As for DVD9, I would label it more as a "failed" format (requiring a new generation of DVD writer/reader).


The same will happen with blank blue-rays/hd disks. It wont pick up for many years, particularly if the masterminds behind HD dvd/blueray get their way and prevent people backing up their own movies. There wont be any incentive for people to buy this format.

blank disks only drop in price when piracy is rampant

Teema
Member
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon, 09 Jul 2007

Postby Teema » Tue, 21 Aug 2007 3:43 pm

Splatted wrote:Do the math.

I backup my 320gb hard-disk monthly.

What would it cost for a years worth of single-use DVD5's? vs the cost of a secondary HD?

DVD5's are mainly used by people for burning shrunken movies, otherwise they're not very verstaile for data backup.

Now you also have the re-writable ones, but the cost then multiplies several fold.

Personally, I still stick with my secondary HD, purely for the amount of inconvenience avoided. There's the time factor, plus also the number of disk swappings you don't have to go through!

I should also add, that DVD's are more likely to have errors than backing up files on HD - especially when you bulk-buy the el-cheapo brands. I still buy DVD5's for copying friends movies - almost always you get a few "coasters" in amongst the good disks when you buy the cheap and nasty brands.


The price I calculated is based on brand-name DVDs. Cheap DVDs are significantly cheaper than hard disc.
Did you actually do the math?

When I travel, I backup my data on a HD, and double-copy all the important stuff on a few DVD9.
Out of the 2 options, what do you think would likely to survive the travel?


In my experience hard drives failed more than I would like, and I have yet to encountered a DVD error. But again I don't use the "cheapo" disc.


If optical discs are so useless to you, maybe you should go back to the CDs :) Thanksfully the world doesn't agree.

User avatar
Splatted
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun, 11 Jul 2004

Postby Splatted » Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:05 pm

Teema wrote:The price I calculated is based on brand-name DVDs. Cheap DVDs are significantly cheaper than hard disc.
Did you actually do the math?


I'll ask you the same question. Did you actually do the math?

Lets say a DVD5 gives a conservative 5gb of space (it's actually less, but for simplicity we'll say it's 5GB)

Backing up a 320GB hard drive with single use DVD5's requires about 64 disks.

The cheapest disks about are 50 disks for $18. We will say that 64 disks will cost about $20. It's actually more, but just to demonstrate this argument, we'll round it down.

I back up my work monthly. 12 months x $20 = $240. Which is much more than a second hard drive over the span of a year. (A 320gb Seagate hard drive (internal) costs about $160. Naturally you can find it for even less than this, but for argument sake we'll say it's $160.)

If you use 'brand name' disks, as you suggested you do, then the cost can be 2 or 3 times the el-cheapo disk price.

Re-writable dvd5's actually lowers the price over the span a year, to about the same as what a hard drive cost - but who would want the inconvenience of ghosting a hard disk to so many dvd's?


Teema wrote:When I travel, I backup my data on a HD, and double-copy all the important stuff on a few DVD9.
Out of the 2 options, what do you think would likely to survive the travel?

In my experience hard drives failed more than I would like, and I have yet to encountered a DVD error. But again I don't use the "cheapo" disc.


Perhaps it's because you use cheapo hard drives?

I carry my hard disk regularly when travelling overseas. It's more compact than carrying 70+ disks and I have never, had any issues. The newer models are designed to cope a certain amount of g-force, and in the appropriate external usb drive casing, and padded travel bag they are further protected.

But anyway, as I stated, single-use DVD5's (or even DVD9's) are mostly only good for burning movies. If you have data that requires constant editing, as I do, you're basically flushing money down the toilet using such disks. What has been saved can't be further edited.

Teema
Member
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon, 09 Jul 2007

Postby Teema » Wed, 22 Aug 2007 5:29 pm

Splatted wrote:
Teema wrote:The price I calculated is based on brand-name DVDs. Cheap DVDs are significantly cheaper than hard disc.
Did you actually do the math?


I'll ask you the same question. Did you actually do the math?

Lets say a DVD5 gives a conservative 5gb of space (it's actually less, but for simplicity we'll say it's 5GB)

Backing up a 320GB hard drive with single use DVD5's requires about 64 disks.

The cheapest disks about are 50 disks for $18. We will say that 64 disks will cost about $20. It's actually more, but just to demonstrate this argument, we'll round it down.

I back up my work monthly. 12 months x $20 = $240. Which is much more than a second hard drive over the span of a year. (A 320gb Seagate hard drive (internal) costs about $160. Naturally you can find it for even less than this, but for argument sake we'll say it's $160.)

If you use 'brand name' disks, as you suggested you do, then the cost can be 2 or 3 times the el-cheapo disk price.

Re-writable dvd5's actually lowers the price over the span a year, to about the same as what a hard drive cost - but who would want the inconvenience of ghosting a hard disk to so many dvd's?


Teema wrote:When I travel, I backup my data on a HD, and double-copy all the important stuff on a few DVD9.
Out of the 2 options, what do you think would likely to survive the travel?

In my experience hard drives failed more than I would like, and I have yet to encountered a DVD error. But again I don't use the "cheapo" disc.


Perhaps it's because you use cheapo hard drives?

I carry my hard disk regularly when travelling overseas. It's more compact than carrying 70+ disks and I have never, had any issues. The newer models are designed to cope a certain amount of g-force, and in the appropriate external usb drive casing, and padded travel bag they are further protected.

But anyway, as I stated, single-use DVD5's (or even DVD9's) are mostly only good for burning movies. If you have data that requires constant editing, as I do, you're basically flushing money down the toilet using such disks. What has been saved can't be further edited.

In your calculation, a YEAR worth of backup (eg 12 times the capacity of the same hard drive) is just slightly less than the cost of the hard drive?

Now I would call that a great cost advantage!


Now, imagine double-layer blu-ray disc as a commodity at, say, $10 each.
For MANY of us, the need of carrying around a bunky portable hard drive with its power source would be eliminated.

The technology is here, available right now. It just needs mass-adoption for the price to drop. I hope it does soon.

If you have data that requires constant editing, as I do, you're basically flushing money down the toilet using such disks.

Obvious! There is a different use for each technology. Optical disc is not meant to replace hard drive. You're citing the wrong usage scenario.

Teema
Member
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon, 09 Jul 2007

Postby Teema » Wed, 22 Aug 2007 5:37 pm

Perhaps it's because you use cheapo hard drives?

And how do you define cheapo hard drives?

I use a few Matrox, mostly Seagate and Western Digital. I'm not aware of any "cheapo" hard drive available actually.


I had an old 80GB hard drive that didn't get used in a year lost all of it data.
I had a dead 160GB hard drive in a vertical USB case when it fell sideway during operation (I actually stugged the USB cable).
Another one just died. BIOS cannot detect the drive.

I stand by my belief that hard drive is not reliable. I don't trust the data I store on hard drive unless I have at least 2 copies on different drives.

User avatar
Splatted
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun, 11 Jul 2004

Postby Splatted » Wed, 22 Aug 2007 7:07 pm

Teema wrote:In your calculation, a YEAR worth of backup (eg 12 times the capacity of the same hard drive) is just slightly less than the cost of the hard drive?

Now I would call that a great cost advantage!


What are you smoking?

$240 for throw-away disks, is not a cost advantage over $160 for a second hard drive, that can be used for longer than a year and is under warranty for 5 years.

Teema wrote:Now, imagine double-layer blu-ray disc as a commodity at, say, $10 each.
For MANY of us, the need of carrying around a bunky portable hard drive with its power source would be eliminated.

The technology is here, available right now. It just needs mass-adoption for the price to drop. I hope it does soon.


LOL, keep hoping there. Just what scenario are you expecting "mass-adoption" of 50GB blu-ray disks? It will never happen for a long long time, unless piracy in this format becomes rampant. Think about that thought for a moment. (and blue-ray have yet to roll-out their full specs of their anti-piracy protection).

People have settled on DVD5 format for copying their movies and it's what has driven the price down. It's also the only reason why dvd9's never took off (not the need for 'special' drive like you claimed. PC's come with the duellayerd drives these days, and they're not expensive even if they don't. I picked up mine for $70 two years ago. A basic one can be picked up between $30 and $50 these days).

For every other purpose, such as backing up photos, resume, or whatever, people will stick to their DVD5's (and CD's to a large extent!). You are not going to get millions of people suddenly upgrading to blue-ray just to archive their photos.


Teema wrote:Obvious! There is a different use for each technology. Optical disc is not meant to replace hard drive. You're citing the wrong usage scenario.


Or perhaps you're just not listening. I've covered both bases of single use data storage as well as re-writable media. Here I'll say it again in point form for you:

* People use DVD5's mostly for copying MOVIES / tv series

* Single-use dvd5's are not versatile for backing up other personal files that require editing (unless it's to be archived for reference which is another matter). re-writables are more appropriate for this and the cost per gb is not cheaper than keeping a second HD.

* Blank blu-ray disks will not drop in price for a long long time, definately not as cheap as $10, unless movie piracy becomes rampant in this format.

In conclusion, just because new technology comes out doen't mean everyone will jump on it. Case in point DVD9's. Lets not even mention 100mb & 250mb zip drives. Single use DVD9's cost about $5 each. Re-writable ones cost much more.

When you arrive here in Singapore you will quickly discover (assuming you haven't lived here) that VCD's are alive and well and that DVD movies cost $30 to $40. I've also compared prices of box set dvd's. Those that I bought for $60 overseas (star trek voyager) are selling for $300 at HMV here. Did DVD technology come later to Singapore? or is the ease of copying rented vcd's driving the slowness to convert?

I certainly don't consider Singapore a technological backwater. There are some realities you just have to accept. Price of this new media will only drop if people have a reason for mass-buying it- history has already proven this with the duel layered DVD9's.

User avatar
Splatted
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun, 11 Jul 2004

Postby Splatted » Wed, 22 Aug 2007 7:32 pm

Teema wrote:
Perhaps it's because you use cheapo hard drives?

And how do you define cheapo hard drives?

I use a few Matrox, mostly Seagate and Western Digital. I'm not aware of any "cheapo" hard drive available actually.


I had an old 80GB hard drive that didn't get used in a year lost all of it data.
I had a dead 160GB hard drive in a vertical USB case when it fell sideway during operation (I actually stugged the USB cable).
Another one just died. BIOS cannot detect the drive.


Well there's hard drives, and then there's hard drives. The barracuda9 (seagate) drive I have is supposedly designed to withstand the vibration of 350G during non-usage according to the manufacturer. Or 63G during usage.

Barracuda10's are claimed by manufacturer to withstand operating shock of 68G.

I haven't used Western Digital in a long time, but the fact they only offer 12 month warranties on their product instead of 5 year ones speaks volumes.
edit: Ok, I take it back. It looks like WD have updated their warranties to 5 years. It wasn't the case 2 years ago.

I haven't heard of Matrox. I presume you mean maxtor? Before they were bought out by seagate, I had at one stage bought and returned 3 of their drives in the span of 2 days. Later the sales person (after a bit of prodding and questioning) admitted they had frequent returns of this brand.

Teema wrote:I stand by my belief that hard drive is not reliable. I don't trust the data I store on hard drive unless I have at least 2 copies on different drives.


Well that's certainly your prerogative. If I had as bad a string of bad luck as you seem to have with this technology, I would do exactly the same.

Teema
Member
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon, 09 Jul 2007

Postby Teema » Wed, 22 Aug 2007 8:40 pm

When DVD first started, writers were incredibly expensive (much more than the prices of blu-ray and HD DVD recorders today).

It wasn't "pirating movies" that drove the adoption of DVDs. It was that the DVDs proved to be a much better film distribution media. If it was only to copy movies, the DVD would never have taken off the ground (VHS tapes were much much easier to copy).


Pirates actually store their collection on hard drives...

User avatar
Splatted
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun, 11 Jul 2004

Postby Splatted » Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:51 pm

Teema wrote:When DVD first started, writers were incredibly expensive (much more than the prices of blu-ray and HD DVD recorders today).

It wasn't "pirating movies" that drove the adoption of DVDs. It was that the DVDs proved to be a much better film distribution media. If it was only to copy movies, the DVD would never have taken off the ground (VHS tapes were much much easier to copy).


Pirates actually store their collection on hard drives...


What you're saying makes no sense. DVD Movies, as far back as I've been buying them have all been on DVD9 as are all the DVD players on the market over the last 4 or 5 years. By your reasoning, blank DVD 9's should be cheaper than DVD5's. [-X (some Chinese movies I've come across have been the exception)

And, pirated movies didn't drive adoption of DVD - I never stated anything as such. I stated that piracy has driven down the price of blank disks, in the same way as it did with CD's and music copying that is happening in the community.

Yes, people can copy VHS, but piracy in digital media dominates because you can burn movies relatively quickly (rather than 'real-time' as in the case of tape), and the picture quality is higher. It's this ease and affordability that is the reason why VCD is entrenched here.

But look, you hold on to your viewpoint. I'll certainly still be here next year and the year after, and we can compare notes on just how much prices really have dropped for blank Blue-rays.

Teema
Member
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon, 09 Jul 2007

Postby Teema » Thu, 23 Aug 2007 4:05 pm

Splatted wrote:But look, you hold on to your viewpoint. I'll certainly still be here next year and the year after, and we can compare notes on just how much prices really have dropped for blank Blue-rays.

The main problem right now is the "format war" :(

They generate headlines for both Blu-ray and HD-DVD, but at the same time is holding back adoption. I for one would go all Blu-ray immediately if the format is "determined".

How about we compare prices one year after a clear format has been adopted?

User avatar
Splatted
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun, 11 Jul 2004

Postby Splatted » Fri, 24 Aug 2007 5:04 pm

Teema wrote:
Splatted wrote:But look, you hold on to your viewpoint. I'll certainly still be here next year and the year after, and we can compare notes on just how much prices really have dropped for blank Blue-rays.

The main problem right now is the "format war" :(

They generate headlines for both Blu-ray and HD-DVD, but at the same time is holding back adoption. I for one would go all Blu-ray immediately if the format is "determined".

How about we compare prices one year after a clear format has been adopted?


Yes, though this format war wont have any clear-cut winner as happened with the VHS/Beta war.

The standard that will be eventually adopted will be hybrid drives, that can read-write both HD DVD and Blu-ray. These already exist. That sort of thing couldn't have happened with VHS/Beta as there was that distinct tape size difference. (As an aside, the 'better' technology lost in the tape format war).

It will eventualy get to the point that the hybrid players are no more expensive than dvd's players are today, and that includes the drive version for pc's/laptops.

writable media, however will go a different direction.

If you look now on the market, most of what is being sold are the single layered Blue-Ray disks which can store no more than 25GB .

There's a danger of history repeating itself once again in the similar way as DVD5 vs DVD9 format, and that even though movies will come out on the 50GB sized disks, any widespread adoption of writable media will be of the lower sized 25GB disk. As it stands, the price of 50GB disks cost more than 2x the price of 25gb disks.

But here's the real kicker...

Blue-ray as a technology is not that new. They had fully functional (single layered) players back in 1993.

Yet, they waited till dvd industry hasn't fully matured before they rolled out this new standard.

Guess what? There are now the possibility to store 500GB on a single DVD, and others claiming it will be possible to store 5TB on a single disk. (see links for bit of light reading).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/06 ... gular_dvd/
http://www.tfot.info/articles/56/Mempil ... -a-CD.html

You will find that once the protection is fully broke on copying movies in this technology (and we're yet to see what Blu-ray is to roll out with BD+ protection), the record and movie industry will insist on upgrading the standard, which will include a completely different level of protection against copying.

I suspect, that just as prices are becoming 'reasonable' (as they are now with DVD in most parts of the word. You can pick up DVD players for under $50 now), is when the newer format will be rolled out.

But this current mass-adoption of blu-ray/hddvd wont happen in most parts of the world for at least 3+ more years. What will drive the conversion suddenly, surprisingly will be the TV industry. In the next few years quite a few parts of the world including Singapore, and Australia will be abandoning the analogue tv transmission system and switching to Digital only.

People will then have a choice between upgrading their TV's or alternatively buying a digital set-top box. I believe most will buy new tv's as the cost for LCD's and plasma's has dropped considerably over the last 2 years and will be even more cheaper by that time.

People will notice the picture difference between their old DVD's and HD transmission, and it will be this that will be the impetus for the majority to upgrade DVD to a hybrid HDDVD/bluray player.

User avatar
Dobski
Regular
Regular
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat, 16 Jun 2007
Location: Singapore

Postby Dobski » Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:32 am

Excellent point on TV broadcasts as a driver for HD media adoption.
Once people get used to HD quality, they wont want to settle for DVD's.

I mean who'd want to watch "My Sassy Neighbour" in glorious HD, and then pay for Spiderman 3 in standard DVD !?!?!?!? :lol:


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Computer, Internet, Phone & Electronics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest