I took the same [480p Hulu] Office clip I'd been using for all of the other tests and ran it on my Mac Pro at full screen (2560 x 1600)….Going from roughly 450% down to 190% (or a bit over 10% of total CPU utilization across 16 threads) made full-screen Hulu playable on my machine. In the past I always had to run it in a smaller window, but thanks to Flash 10.1 I don't have to any longer.

Meanwhile, Nvidia Ion-accelerated video was deemed "almost perfect." Just take a look at the table. CPU-utilization of 70% generally makes video unwatchable, but updating to Flash 10.1 made full screen high-def (1920 by 1200) Hulu a smooth stream on the Ion test system.

ATI chips and integrated Intel graphics ran into a few problems, but they've been attributed to the Flash 10.1 player still being a beta. I recommend giving the full test info a read over at: [AnandTech | Flash 10.1 Download]

This is, to be clear, just the desktop version of Flash 10.1—the full-fledged Flash for Android, webOS, BlackBerry and Windows Mobile is still a ways down the pipe. It's worth getting excited over anyway, since I've watched an HP Mini 311 with an Ion graphics chip tear through an HD YouTube clip without breaking a sweat. For now, graphics acceleration is limited to Windows, unfortunately. But still, perfect timing, really, since YouTube's launching 1080p video this week (perhaps not so coincidentally).

The new version of AIR acts more like a native app, with full support for mass storage, multitouch gesture support, communication with actual native apps, and access to USB peripherals, p2p networking, and faster WebKit rendering, among other perks for developers. Maybe I'll stop hating it so much now.

They're both in beta, but god knows, they can't be any crashier or resource-whoring than anything else Adobe's foisted upon the internet. [Adobe via TechCrunch]

The design is a rough map of the city's neighborhood as distinguished by "air boundaries".
The data is collected from 27 air monitoring stations; every 15 minutes the map lights up in order of highest to lowest air quality. [Living Light via bldgblog]

Developed by Sandra O'Neill and Peter Chilvers (who co-developed Bloom), Air assembles vocal and piano samples into a constantly changing and evolving composition that you control.

Air features four "Conduct" modes, which let the user control the composition by tapping different areas on the display, and three "Listen" modes, which provide a choice of arrangement.

For those fortunate enough to have access to multiple iPhones and speakers, an option has been provided to spread the composition over several players. Recommended for headphones and external speakers.

It's $2, which is impulse purchase territory for this guy. [Air (iTunes Link) via Synthtopia]

In their review of June's upclocked, marked-down MacBook Air, MacWorld noticed some odd benchmark results. Compared to the Late 2008 MacBook Air, clocked at 1.86GHz, the new top-end model, clocked at 2.13GHz, couldn't quite keep up. This is odd, since the rest of the specs have remained basically static, and the only difference between the processors is clock speed.

Confirming their suspicions, they found the June 2009 1.83GHz Air to be markedly slower than the Late 2008 1.83GHz model, despite nearly identical specs. So, what the hell?

The obvious answer here would be some kind of firmware change, since it doesn't make sense from a hardware perspective. MacWorld speculates that the newer Airs could have more aggressive thermal management features, which throttle the processor when it gets too hot—a theory somewhat supported by the fact that high-stress benchmarks showed a proportionally greater performance decrease than easier ones.

Another possibility in the same vein: Underutilizing faster processors simply gives Apple better power consumption and heat results. Problem is, that doesn't explain why the matched processors perform differently. Also, Apple's whole pretense that the new Airs are faster than the old ones would have been a intentional, egregious lie.

Until these benchmarks are replicated and examined, we'll have to remain a little bit skeptical. But if they can be, then Apple's got some splainin' to do, I think. [MacWorld via MacRumors]

First, let's focus on what the X340 gets right. It's a 13-inch (16x9, 1366x768) laptop that weighs just 2.86 pounds with its 4-cell battery. It measures .78 inches at its thickest point and .24 inches at its thinnest. (The MacBook Air measures but .76 inches at its thickest point and .16 at its thinnest.) In real life application, the X340 seems a tad bulkier than specs might reveal because the tapering isn't as dramatic as the Air's. But it's still thin.

The 1.4GHz Core2 Solo processor is quite a bit faster than your average Atom, and its HDMI I/O port and draft n Wi-Fi are a welcome addition to such a tiny machine.

OK, now for the bad stuff.

The keyboard feels dreadful. Not only are the keys...mushy...the center of the keyboard literally bends while you type. It's frightening to watch and extremely disconcerting as you wonder if they next keypress will greet your fingertips with a charged circuit board.

As for the remainder of the machine, it doesn't feel much better. The only way to describe the plastic body is "cheap." Not only does the glossy black finish reveal a strange, flecked iridescence under light, tap on the palm wrests with your knuckle and something about the hollowness of the pitch assures you that it could easily crack under a moderate amount of pressure.
Molding the trackpad into the case...that was a bad idea. The surface simply doesn't feel lacquered as a working trackpad. Literally, it feels unfinished, like someone on the assembly line went on break instead of gluing on the proper touch sensitive rectangle.

When you hold the Air, it's an incredible sensation not just because of its size but because of how sturdy it feels at its size. The X340 misses the pleasure of this dichotomy and gives us what I'm willing to wager is the most fragile laptop I've ever put my hands on.

Performance
Believe it or not, while the X340 is burdened by Vista's heavy footprint, it's quite usable. General navigation seems infinitely faster than running Vista on a true netbook, like the Dell Mini 12. The benchmarks support the fairly fluid experience of the OS.
The X340 is clearly closer to a netbook than the MBA in performance, but that performance gap between netbook and X340 is definitely noticeable in your general day to day experience of loading apps.

The X340's graphics chip is the Intel GMA X4500MDH. All you really need to know is that this architecture is nowhere near as good as NVIDIA's 9 series stuff, like the 9400M. And it's not powerful enough for heavy gaming (the 9400M is already scraping the barrel pretty hard). You can see the two platforms side by side here:

Still, MSI claims that the system can handle smooth 1080P playback. Can it? In a word, no. Neither HD web content (like Vimeo) nor 1080P MPEG4 played back smoothly on the system. The Blu-ray quality MPEG4 probably never broke 15fps.

In reality, the X340 performs up to most of my expectations (since I never believed it could handle 1080P clips anyway). Just don't expect it to be some sort of dream multimedia machine. In that regard, the X340 is like a netbook on steroids—fine for general use, just not juiced up enough to handle the next tier of graphics-intensive operations.

The battery lasted 1 hour, 43 minutes - ouch*
You could probably stretch the life beyond two hours with a few tweaks, like gimping the processor or squinting at the screen, but if you're planning on watching a movie during your next flight, it'd better be from the 90-minute Pauly Shore Archives.
*MPEG 4 playback, Wi-Fi on, screen at full brightness, "balanced" performance. You can purchase an 8-cell battery that should hit 3 hours for a bit more weight

The Sad Conclusion
I should be thrilled with the X340. It's lighter than many netbooks that have smaller screens. While not as tailored as the MacBook Air, hey, it's damn close. It also runs Vista at a reasonable speed.

The problem is, I just can't look at this machine, as thin and light as it may be, and feel good about dropping nearly $1000 to make one mine. If the X340 were much cheaper (unlikely) or sturdier (quite feasible), there's a good chance I'd be thrilled in this review. I just can't imagine showing this machine off to a friend, or getting extreme satisfaction when pulling it out of a bag. And if I've lost those attributes, I might as well settle for a somewhat thin full-blown laptop for less money, or a very light netbook for even less money.

But if you're looking purely for the lightest way to fit a 13-inch screen into your bag that's waaayyyy cheaper than the Air, and you only want to use a computer for 1 hour and 34 minutes at a time, then I'm not stopping you.

Extremely light and thin form

Runs Vista adequately

Short battery life

Weak for multimedia applications

Unreasonably poor build quality

[Additional research from Geekbench]

The original Neuma was the world's first air-driven tattoo machine. Its design somehow promised a less painful tattoo (we're confused as to how since the needle is still a needle) and it was crafted from solid aluminum for easy medical-grade sterilization. The new Neuma Hybrid is lighter—a mere 3.7 ounces—and it operates both under air pressure and electricity...which is somewhat/almost/kinda/not really at all like your Prius.

On the spec sheet, it all sounds great. But do we have any tattoo artists in the audience who might care to elaborate? [RKS via Yanko Design]

The Mophie Juicepack Air is slated to be the sveltest iPhone battery boosting case yet. (Exactly how thin that means, we are honestly not sure.) Packed with a 1200 mAH lithium polymer battery, the Juicepack Air can function as a regular iPhone case, or it can be switched out of "standby" to add 4.5 hours of talk/surf time to the handset.

Priced at $80 and available this Spring, it might be alright, but now we're really craving a Capri Sun. That'll put the price up to $82.50 at least. [Mophie]

Yeah, it is a manila envelope. It was left for President Barack Obama by Former President George W. and God only knows what is inside. I like to believe is a MacBook Air with all the secret files from Area 51 and a secret alternative cut of the Zapruder film, showing three snipers killing JFK.

Or maybe it's just directions to W's secret stash of salty crackers written with crayon on the back of an old Dick Cheney's memo titled: "Yes George, there were no WMDs in Iraq." [Boston.com]

Through the glory of Google translate:

It is understood that Apple is producing more than the current MBA size MacBook Air (15-inch?).

Of course the idea is interesting to consider. While the system would lose some of its trademark portability, there would be much more room to work with for components—be they for video processing, battery life, 3G connectivity or just an optical media drive.

Then again, in a scenario without any extra performance, it's hard to tell exactly who would be interested in such a machine (that, in accordance to Apple pricing, would crush $2,000 with base options). Would you? [Apple.pro via AppleInsider]

To recap: the latest MacBook Air has the same display as before (one step up from the standard MacBook displays since the Air is somewhat of a "Pro" machine), the same form factor and the same exact feel as the one released in early 2008. On the inside, however, Apple increased both the solid state hard drive and the standard SATA hard drive storage to 128GB and 120GB, respectively. There's also a Mini DisplayPort port connection for the revamped 24-inch Cinema Display, a faster CPU and faster front side bus, plus that Nvidia 9400 graphics chipset that's in the MacBook and MacBook Pros. Here's how the machine stacks up.

Benchmark: The most important thing to measure in this incremental upgrade is the performance comparison vs. other MacBooks. I've updated the chart from the MacBook and MacBook Pro graphics deathmatch (performed with 3DMark 06 under Windows XP) to include the MacBook Air, and it performs about as well as you'd expect in most departments. Since the MacBook Air and the Macbook now have the same GeForce 9400M integrated graphics chip, it makes sense that they're fairly close in score, with the Air falling behind due to the wimpier processor. It is quite a surprise that the CPU test has the Air so far below the MacBook, scoring at only 56% of its cheaper, but fatter, brother. It's still the slowest MacBook you can currently buy.

Battery: In regular blogging use (Wi-Fi on, screen 3/4 brightness, music on, lots of web browsing and webapps), we got a respectable 2.5 hours with the Air. That's about what we got with the MacBook and MacBook Pro when they were playing back movies, something that's more taxing on the system. But on the other hand, when you compare this version to the original MBA when rendering movies, the updated 9400M GeForce graphics actually lowers CPU usage, which helps to extend battery a bit.

Screen: Since it has the same screen as the old MacBook Air, it's going to be just as good—which is to say, better than the MacBook's screen. You get clearer blacks and no color distortion with wider viewing angles off to the side. It's LED-backed and glossy, so those of you who work outside (a light laptop would mean more of you do) may have difficulty finding a good angle to sit at to not get an annoying glare.

Monitor: One very interesting use case with the MacBook Air is to drive the newly released 24-inch Cinema Display. Apple's 24-inch monitor is very much made with the Air in mind, with its USB, Mini DisplayPort and MacBook Air-style slim MagSafe adapter. The good news is that the Air drives this display very well in either mirror mode (lid closed is optional) or as a separate display, proving that the GeForce 9400M is more than enough to run 1920x1200 sans slowdowns. The bad news is that the the laptop's USB and Mini DisplayPort is on the right, but the power is on the left, meaning that the three built-in connectors from the monitor are able to connect, but you get a weird forking thing going on behind the display. Not as elegant as when you plug in the display to a MacBook or a MacBook Pro where all the ports are on one side. But, it's a minor quibble.

General Usage: It's essentially the same laptop but improved, so all of our caveats from our first review apply now. You still need to either use the external USB optical drive or "borrow" one from another machine. It's not a fast laptop when compared to its bigger brothers, but it's not a slug either. People who just want a thin, portable and light machine—mainstream folks—are the primary target. But, at $1799 and $2499 for the 1.6GHz and 1.86GHz versions, the Air still lands somewhere, in both price and features, between the pro user and the casual user, meaning that you should think twice and see if either the MacBook or the Pro would be better suited for you. [Apple]

He can use Exposé and Application Switcher just like the newer models, and suspects all later-model MacBooks could also work. Macrumors warns that this is absolutely not recommended for the casual user, and could have awful results you and I can't even guess at, but it's definitely an impressive trick. Makes you wonder why Apple couldn't have just updated all of the older machines via a firmware upgrade, doesn't it? [Macrumors]

AppleInsider says a pre-production MacBook Air running around looked exactly the same as the current model, but with a black carbon fiber bottom. According to the teardown geeks at iFixit, the heaviest structural component besides the unibody chassis—which supposedly will continue to be machined from a single block of aluminum—is the bottom cover. Replacing it with carbon fiber would bring the Air's weight down by 100 grams to 2.78 pounds, lighter than the Samsung X360, and that's without shaving slivers of weight off elsewhere in the Air's design.

AppleInsider reiterates that they're publishing the info on the carbon fiber redesign "strictly as a rumor," but adds that it's far enough along in the dev cycle to show up in a MacBook Air revision next year. It sounds plenty plausible to us, though maybe not with that mismatched black bottom. [AppleInsider]

One Mac Rumors forum member found that the new Air ran a full 10 degrees cooler playing back the same video, since it apparently dials back the CPU as the GPU picks up the video jujitsu. One wonders just how much it'll help (or hurt) battery life too, if at all. [Mac Rumors]

However, the new MacBook is a bit better than the old MacBook in terms of brightness, but the LED backlighting adds a bit of a blue tint to blacks. The Air doesn't have this problem, and neither does the MacBook Pro. Minor differences, but it should help the decision if you're trying to determine whether a MacBook is "good enough", or if you should go for a MacBook Pro.

As a reminder, here are the MacBook vs. MacBook Pro shots. It should be obvious which is which.