@samuel

I didn't realise a mobile phone counted as competition for a desktop operating system ;)

Want me to reel off the list of "features" Apple has borrowed of the years? (and let's not forget that OSX is actually Unix based. Highly innovative of Apple there!)

Anyway, touch has been in development for decades, long before Apple ever thought about it (or Microsoft for that matter).

Besides, what does Apple do with their "innovations"? They use them as more eye candy gloss with no substance. What's of interest here is what MS can do with touch that's actually of any use.

I've no idea if it's any use or just a gimmick. If it's the latter you can be sure customers will lose interest and it will be a feature MS will quickly stop selling Windows on, but meanwhile Apple will adopt it as a prime feature to sell their expensive hardware because it's a "cool" feature (even if their customers have no idea what to do with it).

p.s. where's that tablet touch netbook from Apple? ;)

It's S40

Begs the question then...

Is there really any benefit to HD audio formats like Dolby Digital+, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA over DD5.1 and DTS?

Frankly I've been struggling to tell the difference, and I've been wondering if it's my set up that's the problem.

As for CD vs SACD/DVD-A, I've only experienced 96/24 DTS and 96/24 2-channel PCM from DVD-A, but it does sound very nice. However, how much of that is just down to discrete sound surround on DTS, and just a better master for the PCM vs the old CD?

What I will say though is I do generally find on my AV system, that Flacs at CD quality sound better than MP3s, and more so Flacs in 96/24 (ripped from DVD-A). And that's against archive quality MP3s ripped with EAC and encoded with LAME. That's running through a Squeezebox. The Flacs just seem to have more detail to them. I tried as much as possible to do it as a blind test and I went into it sceptical. Not that the MP3s sound rubbish when encoded right though. They can sound amazing, just there's a slight edge with lossless and better 96/24.

On my MP3 player however, I can't really tell the difference, and that's with fairly decent Shure in-ear headphones (fitted right to get the bass perfect). It was in fact the Shure headphones that first started me getting obsessed about ripping and encoding properly as a huge amount of MP3s I had, I discovered were awful encodings. Can't hear it with the standard crap headphones you get with MP3 players, but decent headphones reveals the classic "watery" sound of poor encodings. It's no surprise though that so many people put up with shoddy downloads.

I know this along with every other poll here is Warner/Engadget's way of pushing the Blu agenda, but I'll bite...

Why should HD DVD throw in the towel when they have been forced into this position through unfair and possibly illegal anti-competitive actions (actions that Microsoft would never be able to get away with for a start)?

Does no one here even realise that the amount of money the BDA has paid out to "buy" studios is way in excess of the profits made from HD DVD and Blu-Ray sales combined? !!!

How can it even make financial sense to back Blu-Ray when it's already at a massive loss? The only reason for studios to back it is because of the pay outs, but once those pay outs dry up they may as well now just dump Blu as well and stick to DVD which will likely retain a 98% market share for a good 5 years yet. Better to wait for a decent HD format or downloads.

The "let's just have a winner" calls fail to consider that with a winner achieved in this way, with only the PS3 as a valid player that really counts, and a still incomplete format (leading to consumer confusion, the very thing they argue a "winner" will prevent), Blu-Ray is under real risk of dwindling away to nothing. It'll be SACD all over again.

HD DVD and Blu-Ray could continue side by side happy enough with everyone purple and all studios exclusive to one format, especially with combo players. As HD in this form is never going to be mass market, there's really no reason why not and the studios, manufacturers and consumers all benefit from a competitive market.

If HD DVD throws in the towel, Blu-Ray is not going anywhere. A niche product for playing HD movies on PS3s, much like UMD is for the PSP, but nothing else. Standalones don't stand a chance what with still being outdated, expensive, and fault ridden.

Besides, over in Europe we need to buy 3 PS3s just to ensure we get the best choice of movies from all regions!

HD DVD isn't going to "win", but it doesn't have to be a loser either. But Sony, the BDA and propoganda sites like Engadget are damn determined to throw enough money and voice to get their way. It's just a question of how much money Sony execs will let you spend before they give up. By the time you've finished, what state will HD be in? You may well have "won", but at what cost?

The real annoyance is the consumer never really had a choice in the first place.

The argument Warner gave for their choice was that the consumer had chosen, but they hadn't. They had bought what was stocked more based on huge payoffs to studios and clout from Sony. Then when studios go exclusive, choice is removed!

None of this is what the consumer wanted. It was what they were told to buy.

"Can they please switch already? I am dying to get the bourne series in blu ray!!!"

You'll have to enjoy them without the in-movie interactive features then. Even with profile 1.1 on the PS3 now they're struggling to bring out discs using the feature and almost all standalones can't even play them! We've yet to really see how well the PS3's *software* dual video stream decoding copes in the real world anyway.

And I have to say they are quite good on the Bourne series. Not like the boring audio commentaries at all. This is fun and adds an extra dimension.

I'll stick with the HD DVD versions for now as I can't see a Blu version carrying the extras for a long time and I'm not double dipping.

Here's a solution...

Combo players for everyone (and free/cheap upgrades for those with existing single-format players).

Result is those shelves in the stores will just become purple and no one has to care which format their favourite movie is on. The studios can continue to be exclusive to one or the other for their own reasons and we all move on happy.

You do realise that those returned HD DVD probably have more and better extras than the Blu-Ray counterparts. It will be a very long time before you get profile 1.1/2.0 replacements on Blu.

Rubbish. I don't know where people get the idea Europe is Blu at all. Certainly doesn't seem the case in the UK.

Though to be fair hardly anyone gives a rats about HD here anyway.

"What ? No 7.1 analog audio outs ? Wow... that's a deal breaker for me..."

Same here. One of the reasons I got the Tosh EP-35 HD DVD player was the analogue outputs for HD audio. Although only 5.1 but that's fine for now as I don't have the extra speakers. My not that old amp is not getting replaced just to get HDMI for HD audio, unless the player does full HD audio over HDMI and all HD audio formats for both HD DVD and Blu-Ray (something the PS3 can't even do!).

And for me to go Blu I need profiles 1.1/2.0 guaranteed (not just, "oh well it has an Ethernet port") also and no chance of any further spec changes in the next 5 years at least.

Hence I'll stick with HD DVD even if it's a dying format, until such time Blu-Ray is mature, then I'll be looking for a combo player probably as I doubt the current HD DVD discs with better features will be replaced any time soon on Blu-Ray with equivalent profile 1.1/2.0 features added.

Living outside the US I need a multi-region player also (though I would argue that US residents should too, as I know from DVD experience that it's not always the US who get the best releases).