FastMac reveals slimline 2x Blu-ray burner for Mac laptops

For those who look at their PowerBook, iBook or MacBook Pro and long for a Blu-ray optical drive, FastMac's got you covered. Of course, some Macs were already on its list of compatible machines, but the firm is now announcing that the trio of aforementioned systems have joined the fray alongside the iMac and Mac mini. The slimline drive writes to BD-RE at 2x, DVD±RW at 8x and CD-R/W at 8x, and provides up to 50GB of storage on a single disc. The unit is slated to ship within 30 days and is available for pre-order as we speak for a stiff $999.99.

[Joe @ Oct 6th 2007 1:40AM]

This 16x Blu-ray burner for a desktop ain't that bad:

http://www.amazon.com/Lite-16X-DVDrw-Superallwrite-Sata/dp/B000LR3FGS/ref=sr_1_1/105-1972632-9719635?tag=freeplefav-20

It's more than HALF the price of that laptop version. Do you really need a blu-ray burner in a laptop???

[Michael La Framboise @ Oct 6th 2007 1:48AM]

Well Joe, you gotta remember that some people use laptops as a desktop replacement - I for one have a 17" MacBook Pro, and just when I get home I connect an external display/keyboard/mouse etc- and use it as a desktop- its powerful enough for everything that I do. and having one machine just saves the pain in the ass of syncing constantly...

But anyways, while I see why some people would want this, I'd rather just wait a few more years until the prices drop; and meanwhile for the 1000 bucks I can just buy like 5tb of hard disk space ;) - THAT boys and girls is ALOT of porn.

[LiqwidZero @ Oct 6th 2007 1:57AM]

Try and read the rest of the page: The DVD+R burning is 16x(they have it mislabeled as 12x) and the BD-R speed is 2x

[Mark @ Oct 6th 2007 1:44AM]

$999 for a Blu-Ray burner....not even interested. Let me know when a Blu-Ray/HD-DVD burner becomes available.

[LegendZ28 @ Oct 6th 2007 2:14AM]

That would be a tragedy. I'd rather one of these stupid companies just gives up. I don't want two damn formats.

[Mak @ Oct 6th 2007 9:13AM]

HD DVD is dying, nobody will be silly enough to invest in a dual format burner.

[Dae @ Oct 6th 2007 4:22PM]

In reference to Blue Ray & HDDVD -i would think that having two Disk readable format drive would be really difficult to create due to how different the two disk formats are. We are not simply talking about a "+" & "-" difference here but two entirely different entities. Well...i guess you can have two heads in the drive. i guess that would work.

But i could be wrong. so correct me at will.

[Jeff @ Oct 6th 2007 1:46AM]

Please remember there is a $450 Mac tax.

[Michael La Framboise @ Oct 6th 2007 1:50AM]

Well first of all, all this shit is generic- so it can be used in just about any laptop

Second of all, please do show me any other slot-loading blu-ray or hd-dvd burner (for laptops - we all know desktop ons are 2x cheaper)

[Dae @ Oct 6th 2007 4:26PM]

I dont think Apple is selling this product. I prefer they not anyway.

[Bloobie @ Oct 7th 2007 12:24AM]

Yes, just like this Panasonic.

http://www.slidirect.com/product24-106.html

[cswallow01 @ Oct 6th 2007 3:08AM]

I need not remind anyone that they most likely will not EVER be able to playback Blu-Ray movies on their Mac, pending processer speed and the DRM (HDCP)
requirements, which I assume are going to be in Leopard. (Well unless someone cracks HDCP!)

But atleast ya get data storage and access...

I wonder when Apple will actively take part in the format war. In my opinion, I wouldn't expect to actually see Blu-Ray in an iMac alteast till next year, though they could always offer it as a build-to-order option, I guess.

I wonder if Apple is waiting on Leopard (and it's DRM capabilities) to ship, before it offers Blu-Ray, or if Apple is waiting to see which side will ultimately win the format war. I know they've said Blu-Ray, but they've been seemly quiet on that front. Maybe they'll ship it when people actually care about the format...

I guess the thing about HD in PC's right now, is that no one's demanding it. There's no actual point to include it in any computers for the momment, because unless you've got your PC hooked up via HDMI to your 40"+ Bravia, there's no point. Most lower-end and middle-end laptops utilize the max resolution of 1280x800, which looks just fine for regular DVD's, on top of the fact that DVD burners are cheap(er).

Most people don't consider 720p true HD. They start at 1080p. The only 1080p content I ever view, on my computer anyway are movie trailers from Apple.com, so I have a good idea of what 1920x1080p content looks like on my 1280x800 VAIO. GOOD, but not worth $300-$400-$500$ extra.

I'm hoping movies go hybrid. Standard DVD on one-side and HD on the other. If both formats survive, then they can just package the SD version of the disc behind the hybrid, like a 2 disc DVD set.

[Ignacio @ Oct 6th 2007 3:07PM]

"Most people don't consider 720p true HD. They start at 1080p. The only 1080p content I ever view, on my computer anyway are movie trailers from Apple.com, so I have a good idea of what 1920x1080p content looks like on my 1280x800 VAIO. GOOD, but not worth $300-$400-$500$ extra."

You do realize that by watching it on your 1280x800 VAIO, 1080p would look exaclty like 720p, right?
(720p = 1280x720, 1080p = 1920x1080)

[hikeskool @ Oct 6th 2007 3:17AM]

Fast...mac?

Isn't that kind of a contradiction?

[JP @ Oct 6th 2007 3:22AM]

Have you at least tried using a Mac since 1998?

[B @ Oct 6th 2007 4:41AM]

Being a person that very much dislikes anything Apple, even I have to say that any applicable complaints about Macs have nothing to do with their quality or performance.

[hikeskool @ Oct 6th 2007 12:59PM]

Yes, I have tried them, and it still very much surprises me that people still say macs are "better for audio and visual" and that they are "faster" with those applications.

Considering almost all relevant A/V programs are cross-platform (and no, final cut is not relevant), it's not at all a stretch to say that the best and newest hardware will always hit the PC first and for a cheaper price.

I won't even talk about gaming.

[Dae @ Oct 6th 2007 4:30PM]

So when did you get "puter"?

[hikeskool @ Oct 6th 2007 7:16PM]

I have no idea what that means.

[nkt @ Oct 8th 2007 1:05PM]

Now that Mac's use the latest intel chipsets AND they are not weighed down with a bloated OS (like windows) they are actually very fast.

[hikeskool @ Oct 8th 2007 1:42PM]

Yeah, they are faster, sure.

But, again, all the hardware hits the platform later than on the PC, and for a higher price.

And Windows is as "fast" you want it to be. Sure, if you put it front of a housewife and her 2.5 kids, it's gonna suffer. Still, I think it beats having to wait an eternity for a mac to boot.

Put in the proper hands, a Win XP or 2000 install is very capable.

Did you ever stop to think why Windows is "bloated"? It's because it has to work with a much, much larger amount of hardware and software combinations than any mac platform will ever even think about approaching.

Still, the PC supports more hardware and faster hardware for a cheaper price.

[Dave @ Oct 6th 2007 6:32AM]

Go Blu! :)

[Mike @ Oct 6th 2007 8:21AM]

Am I the only one concerned with the exessive radiation leakage from this thing, look at the picture. I don't want a drive that could blind me, however cheap it is!

;)

[Joe & Ammie Bradley @ Oct 6th 2007 9:42AM]

Spock, no human could survive the radiation in that Blu-ray drive...

[Dae @ Oct 6th 2007 4:37PM]

No actually Thats how haw fast the disk shoots out towards you. lol

Has anyone ever seen that 80's alien invasion movie where Flying CD's were their instrument of Death? The alien kept quoting "We come in peace". Was it called "We come in peace"?

yes it was a "B" flick.

[Eriksson @ Oct 6th 2007 9:46AM]

2x.. won't that take insanly long time if you're burning a Blue-Ray disk? You reaally should be stationary doing it :p

[ryan @ Oct 6th 2007 11:30AM]

It all depends upon how fast 1x actually is. It's like how 1x for a DVD burner is worlds faster than 1x for a CD burner. So... maybe.

[clarkcox3 @ Oct 6th 2007 1:05PM]

With some quick back-of-napkin math, it should take between 1 and 1.5 hours for a full 50GB disk

[TKWarrior @ Oct 6th 2007 12:41PM]

At 2X, it takes about 45 min to burn a full 25GB disc. Not bad when comparing the same 25GB backup on multiple DVDs. Most desktop drives state they are compatible with 4X via a firmware update when available, but not sure of this drive. When the desktop drives hit around $250 then I might consider taking the plunge. Still too expensive right now IMO.

[bob @ Oct 6th 2007 1:26PM]

I'm in no hurry. I can wait for a 8X or 16X.