may I suggest you BUILD your own external drive. Be warned that there's a huge difference in speed and quality. The fastest USB interface is about 35MB/sec; they all just quote the 60MB/sec USB interface. Some are only 15MB/sec. You need to dig deep.

I really like the "BlacX" by Thermaltake. It's only "issue" is it's not designed for portability.

Definitely get a USB and SATA interface.

SPEED OF ADOPTION:
People are constantly saying how quickly something will be adopted, or how quickly it will demise. However, we need to look at the needs of the average consumer. HDTV's are a huge expense. Not only that, regular "Direct-View" CRT's still have the advantage of Contrast Ratio, "real" viewing angle and brightness.

It' ridiculous to say BluRay has "only 5 years left" before HDTV's have a larger installation base. Have you been to a Futureshop or Wal-Mart? Regular DVD's are still cheaper and outnumber BluRay discs.

As mentioned, there is a huge backlash against DRM, partially because people don't like the idea that a product they paid for can become unusable. The creator of Spore has a class-action suit against it.

I consider myself pretty technically advanced. I bought a Sony HDTV four years ago, yet I still don't have any BluRay discs. Why? Well, first the Format War of course. Then I'm waiting for BluRay hardware to mature. But a main issue is price and availability. I really, really want to buy TV shows on BluRay.

I am NOT going to invest in Digital Downloads. I want to be able to loan discs to my parents and sister.

I plan on building a Home Theater PC or using a Sony PS4 if it does the job then put ALL my DVD's, BluRay discs and other files on hard drives. I will NOT be getting digital downloads that cost me the same amount as the discs.

"Format C:\" (shudder)

BluRay isn't dead. It's just starting. I expect 5 years from now will see BluRay at its PEAK, not on its death bed.

Larrabee in next XBOX? Good chance it's YES.

As an Electronics Technician, computer/gaming nerd and amateur physicist when I first heard about Larrabee I was extremely skeptical, but mostly because of misinformation of the Larrabee GPU being mode of entire CPU cores.

After reading all of the current relevent information I did a 180 in my opinion and now think it has incredible potential.

Untested? Yes and No. It isn't out there yet but the technology it's based on is well understood and games have already been modded to run on it. They have a pretty good idea of how it will scale.

Scalable? Yes. Very.

How is coding?
Writing code for this is easy. In fact, it's the biggest draw. This is very important as it not only brings down game development cost but it can decrease the time to market.

I was recently thinking, how would Intel bring Larrabee to market? It's supposed to be fully compatible with games but has to be specifically coded to for full optimization. Coming out on the XBox would be a perfect way to transition onto the desktop and servers.

In my humble opinion, Intel has the clout to get Larrabee working. The ease of coding will greatly assist its adoption and the ONLY cause concern is power efficiency.

I really like the fact that features that normally are done in hardware can be done on the Larrabee in software. This might seem like a step backwards but if it can be done efficiently it isn't. Physics encoding? Yes. Transcoding? Yes.

SLI and Crossfire.
Adding a 2nd card in SLI or Crossfire mode for more gaming power can be hit and miss. The game has to be specifically coded for it as well as having driver support. Larrabee on the other hand isn't quite the same. We can get 2X the performance with two cards. There's plenty of room for discussion here but the bottom line is games need to get away from SLI type coding and code so that GPGPU's like Larrabee's design can scale almost perfectly by adding more cores.

If Intel can get Larrabee on the XBox I think it has a strong chance of dominating the PC GPU market.

(Just to be clear, and it was mentioned before, Larrabee is a GPU. A traditional CPU will be in a console or desktop.)

16:9 !
16:9 !
16:9 :

PC screens are transitioning to 16:9. Personally, I would never purchase a high-end laptop just to sit at my desk. And no matter which laptop I had I would buy a 22" quality screen and use a regular wireless keyboard and mouse. However, you aren't me though more details would have been nice. Based on what you said I'd either start with the laptop or start with the desktop and wait to see if I needed the other.

Still, here's my recommendation. Note the screen is 1600:900 which is the same ratio as HDTV's and the one that ALL screens are transitioning too:

SONY VAIO VGN-FW180D

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=31789&vpn=VGNFW180D&manufacture=SONY

*This Sony laptop is beautiful. They keys are nice. The ATI HD3470 is very efficient and includes hardware video decoders. The device can play BluRay via USB or by swapping the internal disc player when prices drop. The CPU is efficient and powerful for a laptop.

Basically, the only thing it isn't is a gaming rig. However, if I was building a desktop gaming rig on a reasonable budget I'd start with the HD4870 graphics card, Intel core 2 duo E8500, 3GB of DDR2, Vista Premium 32-bit and a quality motherboard. (Also, consider Vista 64-bit and 4GB of RAM).

**for $3000 you are much, much better off buying a suitable laptop for portability (based on need) and build a desktop system based on need (games?). The most expensive laptop on the market isn't even close to the gaming performance of a home-built $800 PC (sans monitor). Yes, do yourself a big favor and get a 22" widescreen desktop monitor (quality) space permitting.

Still want a single laptop only? At the very least, also get something that tilts and supports the laptop and get a wireless USB mouse.

Zargon,
While I essentially agree with your comment I thought I'd reply to it.

I have a Sony Bravia HDTV and agree that the video processing is very important, so in this case "digital is digital" is not true as you've said.

However, in terms of a sending unit such as a BluRay/DVD player I'm only interested in:
a) power consumption
b) reliability
c) full BluRay compatibility
d) other added functionality

I don't require my BluRay or DVD player to have any video processing. I just want the raw digital signal to be sent to my HDTV and have it processed there.

I agree too, that not all cables are the same but generally a $15 HDMI cable will meet the minimum specs and be 100% identical to a $200 cable. In fact, I was disappointed that my expensive Component Cables that I bought for $200 a while back weren't significantly better than the ones that came in the box with an $80 DVD player.

It is confusing, and anyone building a nice Home Theater system needs to be a lot more informed than they have in the past. For example, how many people understand that if you use your PC with your HDTV you really want an HDMI-PC input and not just the HDMI input. On top of this, most computers if they even have an HDMI output only have one that passes through digital sound from movies and NONE of the sound that passes through the sound card.

Yep, confusing.

Who should buy this?

Arguably... not many (see end for who). First we need to understand that not every BluRay player has all the functionality that BluRay can/will offers; in fact many don't even have Internet.

The reason that the Sony PS3 is so highly recommended is because it's essentially a computer and with the right software can do anything within its processing power. There's nothing in the BluRay specs that can't be upgraded by updating the box over the Internet. Also, the PS3 is Sony's prominent BluRay player so expect it to get the updates other boxes might not (even if they had the hardware).

back to the Pioneer model:
The main reason that this box is expensive is the audio. There are a lot of people willing to pay for extra audio quality and I'm one of them. However, I believe in getting a standalone receiver. Not only can a standalone receiver work with multiple devices but it also avoids the "all your eggs in one basket" problem. You might be surprised at just how much receivers cost; they're expensive, however I think you'd be best with a separate BluRay player and receiver.

If this box was $800 and got glowing reviews I'd say "Audiophiles go for it." Personally, I'm holding off for another year at least. The PS4, a Home Theater PC or a standalone BluRay device (with a hardrive and/or streaming support) are options I'm considering.

What would I buy right now?
The PS3, or possibly the PS3.

So, who do I think should get this?
Basically, I'd only recommend this unit to someone with limited space, who has checked out the BluRay specs thoroughly and knows this suits his present and future needs.

PS4 vs PS3 for BluRay:
First of all, the core graphics specs for a gaming console can't change. Game developers work off of these.

Secondly, I thought I'd comment on the PS3 and PS4 as BluRay and DVD players. Even with the latest power savings it's my understanding that the machine uses over 100Watts to play a BluRay movie. I'm not sure how it compares just playing regular DVD's but there's no way it's anywhere near the roughly 9 to 14 Watts of standalone DVD players. First generation standalone BluRay players weren't nearly as efficient but some I believe are now below 40 Watts and dropping.

It's likely that the PS4 will use the same basic core design but simply add more memory, cores and increase the frequencies. I doubt Sony has the final specs and they will be influenced by the XBox as well. It's almost certain, however that the machines will use over 100Watts and the same basic design for decoding movies.

Here's the problem then:
Unless Sony adds in some dedicated chips they'll have to use the same basic way of decoding movies (essentially software decoding) which isn't that efficient. The chips would add extra cost so I doubt they'll do it so their only other choice would be advanced power savings features.

By the time the PS4 comes out we might see a 10 Watt standalone BluRay/DVD player. With power costs increasing non-gamers might shy away from the (at least the informed ones). I think we'll also see efficient Home Theater PC's and laptops compete for the Home Theater market. I'm very, very interested in the PS4 as a Home Theater but I have a checklist of features and power requirements for me to make the switch.

Anyway, I really hope that Sony can find a way to have the PS4 play BluRay, DVD, compressed video and music with reasonable power efficiency. Raising public awareness of the overall cost of running such machines would help.

Desired Mac-Book Air:
I'm willing to spend the money if they change a few things.

First, I agree with others and doubt that the CPU power will increase much, if any. The 45nm die is more efficient so for the same power draw we'll see more performance.

However, CPU performance is fine and there are other things I would change. Namely:

1) Hard Drive (a faster 2.5" SATA, not a 1.8" PATA)
2) HDMI or Displayport output (capable of playing a BluRay movie via USB)
3) eSATA
4) SDHC input (camera card or storage for video, music etc.)
5) Video hardware decoding/transcoding such as UVD (specs like an NVidia 8600M GS)
6) Stereo speakers
7) 2x USB connections
8) Ethernet connection
9) Digital audio output
10) removable, upgradeable RAM
11) removable battery (easy spare swapping)

Other:
1) HDMI audio is NOT just for movies, but covers ALL sound
2) internal SDHC for backups (SDHC cards are very small and dropping in price)

Is this asking too much? No, I don't think so. Most of these issues could easily be solved with minimal cost and space impact. Many people could get by with the MacAir the way it is but this is what I'd pay that much money for.

The BOTTOM LINE:

This issue can be compared to MP3 or DivX players. The difference is that this computer is advertised as being a Mac Clone. Since Apple clearly spells out in the EULA (End User License Agreement) for OSX that it is only legal to have it installed on Apple computers it is ILLEGAL. So advertising a product specifically for a use which is illegal is not going to fly with the court. Apple won't settle and this company will lose.

FURTHERMORE...

Apple's price point for its operating system also takes into account the sale of their hardware. Yes, the hardware is slightly more expensive but the fact that the software can be optimized for a small range of hardware is a big part of what makes it more reliable. How much is your time worth anyway?

OSX on a PC?
Nope, never.. at least not legally. Though I believe this battle is all over but the crying I think Apple will have difficulty as the price of hardware continues to drop and Linux (and maybe Windows) continues to improve.

No. No. No.

This format offers absolutely nothing that BluRay isn't already accomplishing.

The only seeming advantage is the cheap price of DVD-R's, but would anyone spend $200 for a new type of recorder just to save money on discs. Don't forget that DVD-R media used to be really expensive. BluRay media will drop when/if demand increases.

It's interesting to note that DVD media is cheaper than CD media and not just on a Price per Gigabyte comparison. Hey, I know, let's increase the density of CD media and... uh.. oh.