The Old Champs

If you remember the HD media player battlemodo, I awarded WDTV Live and Seagate FreeAgent Theater+ the two top spots. The WD is still best for people who want a smooth interface and a hopefully increasing number of online services for streamed media. (YouTube and Pandora now, who knows what else?) It's actually the Seagate that gets KO'd by Asus.

The New Buttkicker

More functional than frilly, both the O!Play and the Theater+ handle every video file I could throw their way, they both read Mac- and PC-formatted drives, they both browse the local network well, they both read DVD menus from ripped ISO files, they both have superb video output—and they both suffer from having stupid punctuation characters in their name. But one costs $30 less than the other, according to Amazon's current prices. Not only is the O!Play cheaper, but its second USB jack is also an eSATA port which might come in handy when you start getting 1080p rips of all your favorite movies, and it has a file-copy function that lets you dump stuff from one drive to another, or to drives on the network.

I had only one major complaint with the Asus: Every time I watched a video ripped from DVD, it showed chapter numbers in a big white font for an extended period, about 15 seconds. Not only did pushing every single button I could think of not help this, but I couldn't even advance from one chapter to another by using the skip-forward button, so why do I need to know what chapter it is in the first place? A shame, but probably a bug that can be fixed really easily.

The Final Score

As I said in the battlemodo:

• If you want a full-on pirate kit, with torrent client built-in and everything, go with the Popcorn Hour (or the cheaper, quirky Patriot Box Office).
• If you want something with a nice interface and Pandora streaming music, go with WDTV.
• If you're choosing something to work with your iTunes collection of music and video, or something for your parents, probably still better to pick Apple TV—and tell them to buy or rent all their videos.

But if you want something that can play a ton of home-ripped video, or stuff you've acquired in some other high-bandwidth way, Asus is a better deal than Seagate—just as tough to stump in my battery of file format tests, with a few extra nice features. That's my best and final recommendation for HD video file playback—at least until Roku figures out what the USB jack on the HD-XR is really for. [Asus]

Great price for a high-def HDMI video player

Plays every video file I could throw at it, including DivX 7 MKVs, high-def H.264, even obscure home movies from out-of-date cameras

A bit larger than some products out there, but not by much

No streaming internet services

Annoying bug that shows chapter numbers in a large white font as you watch movies ripped from DVD

Last updated Nov 25th, 2009 but we'll update this list as the new stuff replaces the old and crusty. We read and write reviews so you don't have to!

Smartphones

• The Best Smartphones: We like the iPhone, the Motorola Droid because it runs Android 2.0 operating system, and the Palm Pre for people who have stuck with Sprint. We do not like anything Symbian or Windows Mobile 6.5, for the time being. (But are excited for Windows Mobile 7.)

• Cheapest Android Phones: Droid Eris and HTC Hero.

• The Best Smartphones, By Carrier: We sorted out theses answers on Nov 24th, but this category moves quickly so stay sharp when researching.

• Best Windows Mobile Phone We Wish Didn't Run Windows Mobile 6.5: The HTC HD2

• Best BlackBerry: If you're into phones with exceedingly reliable push email, the Bold 9700 is your phone. (We don't like Blackberry's touchscreen interfaces, so the Storms are no good.)

• Non-Smartphones: You mean dumbphones? No thank you.

Computers

• Netbook: If you must get one of these small, cheap and utterly slow machines, the HP Mini 311 with ion graphics is a good one.

• Netbook for Hackintoshing: Dell Mini 10v (and it must be the v) is the top choice. Here's our guide to making it run OS X.

• Laptop: Our bias for OS X and Windows 7 becomes apparent in our choice of hardware that can run both without hacking. Macbook Pros. (Plus, we like unibody construction.)

• Best Non-Apple Laptops: Dell's Adamo XPS may not be fast but it is "insane," raising the bar on design and quality outside of Cupertino. We also like Thinkpads in general, like the X series and the new multitouch t400s. (It's probably also worth noting that Asus and Toshiba recently came out on top in reliability.)

• Gaming Laptops and Desktops: Our friend Will Smith at Maximum PC likes these two laptops and two desktops. I personally like Xbox.

• All in One: We like the iMac, the HP Touchsmart and although we haven't used it yet, the Sony Vaio L because it can double as a TV even when the PC is off. The PCs here have infrared touchscreens, so they do multitouch, but in a really shoddy way.

• MIDs: We hate MIDs. Always have, always will. Intel said they had the tech to make them; but the world never had the need. It either fits in a backpack and lets you do real work on a real screen and keyboard, or it fits in your pocket. There's no real need for anything inbetween.

• Operating Systems: Windows 7 or Snow Leopard

• Network attached storage: We like the HP Mediasmart series with upnp, iTunes and Time Machine servers among other things. But the Iomega NAS is only a little less fancy and costs half the price.

Audio

• The Best receiver under $1000: We haven't tested one in awhile, but we're going to go out on a limb and say we like Onkyo, Denon, Yamaha and Pioneer gear. While some of our own testing is in progress, we'll go with what our friends at Sound and Vision like: The Onkyo TX-SR706 7.1 receiver with 4HDMI ports and THX certification for $900.

• The Best High-End Portable Media Players: Zune HD and the iPod Touch. We Like the Zune pass system a lot, which allows you to keep 10 songs a month out of your unlimited downloads, even after you stop subscribing. But the iPod Touch's large app library makes it a powerful little computer.

• Best high-capacity media player: iPod classic is pretty much the only one left, since Zune has been discontinued and Archos is a mess.

• Flash Media Drives: We've always loved the screenless shuffle's utility, but there are other drives to be had with more functionality for cheaper. Especially now that the buttonless iPod shuffle is sort of annoying to use. We like the Sandisk Sansa Clip+.

• Surround Soundbar: There's only one series of soundbars that uses cold war submarine tech to bounce soundwaves off your walls for surround, and they're made by Yamaha. I tested the YSP-4000.

• iPod Speaker Dock: JBL OnStage 400p (A winner from last year — I'm almost certain we should be retesting this category)

Video

• Best HDTV under $1000: Panasonic's X1 series plasmas, and four more here.

• Best HDTVs, period: Here.

• 1080p Projectors Under $1000: The Vivitek H1080FD is one we like, although we have not tested many.

• Best Monitors: If your'e a Mac user, the 24-inch Cinema Display has a built in magsafe adapter. The Asus 23-inch VH236H is good deal at about $230, but Samsung and Dell are our solid choices for monitor brands, as well.

• The Best Pocket Projectors: There is no such thing, friend. Wait a generation or 3.

• Blu-ray player: The LG BD390 with WiFi with Netflix and DivX playback is awesome, but we'll never leave out the PS3!

• Media Streamers for People Who Hate iTunes or Love Piracy: The WDTV Live is a good one for people who like it easy, but hackers will probably choose Popcorn Hour, both which did well in our battlemodo. (Stay tuned, cuz that $99 Asus O!Play may soon be the champ.)

Cameras

• Best Entry-Level Video-Capable DSLR: Canon T1i

• Best Midrange DSLR: The Nikon D90 has the same sensor as the D300 at a better price.

• Best Prosumer DSLRs: The Canon 7D is great at shooting video and has great low light performance for an 18MP camera.

• Best Flash Camcorder: The Flip Ultra HD.

• Best Quality Point and Shoot: We like the Canon G11 (which is pretty big, but pretty wonderful.)

• A Camcorder We Like: We haven't tested any in awhile, but we tend to like DSLRs that shoot video or cheap flash camcorders. If you must have a camcorder, our friends at CamcorderInfo liked the Panasonic HDC-TM300 for ~$1000.

• Best Point and Shoot: We like the Canon S90, even though we're sure there are slimmer cameras. This uses the same sensor as the G11 and a faster lens, so it takes great shots for a slim.

• Best Rugged Cameras: The Pentax W80 is the best all around camera because of it's depth and temperature ratings and size. The Lumix has the best picture quality but is a bit of a wimp with low thresholds for dives and temperatures. Canon's the best for water only because of its huge nose. And the outstandingly rugged Olympus has a fatal flaw, which is its terrible video.

• Best Helmet Camera: We love the GoPro Hero HD Wide because it mounts anywhere, is really waterproof and lives in a protected case. Plus, 1080p for $250 bucks.

• Best Slow Motion Pocket Camera: Casio EX FC100

Random Stuff

• The Best iPhone Apps: Here's our monthly list of iPhone Apps, as well as our weekly roundups of the best new releases.

• The Best iPhone GPS Apps: Motion X GPS is our favorite value GPS app, but ALK's CoPilot is another cheap champ. Navigon is still the classiest, but it costs a lot. (We're hoping for free Google Maps with Navigation to come to iPhone.)

• The Best Android Apps: There aren't as many Android apps out, but here are the ones we think are worth checking out.

• Ebook reader: Until we review a Nook, the Kindle 2 is still king.

• USB drive: The Patriot Xporter is fast, but if you have cash to spare, the Corsair Voyager GT is slightly faster and has 128GB of space.

• The Best Video Game Console: Xbox 360

• The Best Video Service: Anything, really, combined with Hulu and Netflix (for free old stuff).

• Best mid-tier office chairs: Herrman Miller Setu and Steelcase Cobi.

• Vacuums: We will always be loyal to Sir James Dyson because he tried to sell bagless vacuum tech to big vacuum corporations and they shut him down motivated by the profitability of bag sales. Then he started his own company. His machines are loud, but you can't argue with their industrial design. Here's his latest handheld and ball vacuum.

• Routers: D-Link Dir685. I know it has a digital picture frame built into it, but it also has a HDD and a bittorrent client. And Jason says it's been more reliable than the top line Linksys he tested it against. I also like the Time Capsule, but haven't yet tested the one with 2x the wireless performance.

• The Best Headphones: For in ear buds, we like the Shure SE110/SE115, Ultimate Ears Metro.fi and Etymotics hf5 won our tests. (The Last updated August 2008, so look for updates to winners.) We like the Klipsch Image S4i earbuds for people who want to use the iPhone's voice control or iPod shuffle's Voiceover function. For Bluetooth stereo headsets, we like the Motorola s305.

• Rechargeable Batteries: Duracell destroyed Energizer, and kept up with the legendary Sanyo Enerloops.

• Mice: For gaming, the Microsoft Sidewinder X8. The Logictech MX1100 for regular mousing. And the Magic Mouse is not amazing, but it's pretty good if you have a Mac—the best mouse Apple has ever made.

• Keyboard: We like the Logitech DiNovo.

Suggestions? Requests for review? Leave em in the comments or email us!

The Price

$180 (technically $200, but Amazon sells 'em cheaper)

The History

Read our X4 review if you've never heard of these products before. This article will make a lot more sense.

The Improvements

• 2.4GHz RF instead of IR audio transmission
• USB powered instead of wall jack
• Dolby 7.1 Surround Sound instead of Dolby 5.1

I was skeptical that the Ear Force X41 would be any better than the Ear Force X4. But after using the headset for a week, I'm remiss to return to the X4s I bought last year.

Quite simply, the audio is more consistently clear with the new RF transmission, now that line-of-site and ambient light has become a non-factor. And I think that overall audio quality, while the speaker components themselves remain unchanged, has seen a bump because of this cleaner signal. (For those concerned, I was able to use the headset without interfering with my Xbox's Wi-Fi adapter or my home network—the primary potential hiccup with using RF instead of IR. Results may vary, I'm sure.)

As for the jump from Dolby 5.1 to 7.1 support, you probably won't ever notice. Playing Modern Warfare 2, missiles fly by your head with impressive panning, but the sound localization is no better than it was in the X4s...though to be fair, that's not necessarily a knock, even if the audio lacks the shining moments you'll enjoy in the best surround sound headphones offered by companies like Sony.
Oh, and the headset still requires AAAs as opposed to bundling a rechargeable lithium ion. I will say, however, that the batteries I tested with have broken the 10-hour barrier by a decent margin, and they're still operational.

As a wireless, surround sound headset for the Xbox 360, the X41 is at the top of its class (at least partially because it's still the only product in its class). If you're willing to go wired, you can save about $100+ on a cheaper version of the Ear Force, or you can take a look at the even more expensive but lauded Astro A40s.

In fact, if you guys are interested, let me know in the comments. I may try to call in a pair of those Astros in to hear for myself. [Turtle Beach]

Comfortable

Superb chat quality

RF offers smooth audio transmission

Highly specialized but useful product

Overall audio quality is OK, not stellar

AAA batteries? C'mon!

Pocket camcorders (AKA mini cams or budget cams, or sometimes Flip cams after the pioneer of the category) are simple gadgets. They've got one job to do: Shoot watchable video, often for uploading to streaming video sites. They're also very close to the end of their lifespan, with perhaps only a year or so left before smartphones make them obsolete, but right now they're the easiest and cheapest way to take quick and dirty video. I tested seven of these diminutive camcorders, or more accurately six camcorders and one capable PMP, in five categories: Outdoor, indoor, low light, macro, and sound.

The criteria for judging fell mostly to smoothness of video during motion, image sharpness, noise, and color reproduction. Specs like storage capacity, screen size and battery life are mostly the same across the board, although overall, compared to last year, this crop of mini cams are faster and stronger, with beefed up memory and HD sensors. All save the iPod Nano take 720p video (or better) and add HDMI ports and more memory to accommodate the higher-quality footage. Yet I wasn't really all that thrilled with any of the camcorders—the bar for these cams is so low you could trip over it, and several of them actually did. Battery life was disappointing across the board, as none could break two hours of filming. Anyway, on to the results!

Results

Choosing between the Kodak Zi8, Flip Mino HD and Flip Ultra HD is tricky. The Zi8 is unreliable, but when it's good it's unbelievably good; the Mino HD is diminutive, solid and stylish, but overpriced and with lousy touch controls; and the Ultra HD is a reliably good shooter with a low price and the best controls of all, but physically unappealing (read: fat as hell). In my opinion, you should never judge a book by its obese cover, so the champion is...the Flip Ultra HD!

Flip Ultra HD: First Place

Flip's Ultra HD is the best overall choice. It's one of the cheapest cams around (at $150, it's $70 less than it's younger brother, the Mino HD), but it tied for the highest score in our lineup, and it features nice tactile controls that I much prefer to the sleeker Mino HD's touch-sensitive exercise in frustration. Unfortunately, the Dom DeLuise HD is upsettingly fat—about twice as thick as the Mino HD, but even that doesn't really get across how truly large it feels in the hand. It's not particularly heavy, but it is by a long shot the thickest pocket cam here. On the plus side, that girth hides a useful battery—Flip includes a rechargeable pack, but the John Candy HD can also use two AA batteries, which is great since pocket cams have generally abysmal battery life (usually about an hour, though of course they're often rated for double or triple that). Replaceable, cheap batteries are really nice, but some will have to decide whether the William Howard Taft HD's girth is worth that feature. Given its price, I think it is.

Video quality is just fine, above average if not particularly impressive on every test, and it, like the Mino HD, is extremely user-friendly. Although that simplicity yields less flexibility and a barebones feature set compared to the Kodak Zi8, it's a good distillation of the aims of pocket camcorders, and its 100% tactile controls are a welcome change from the Mino HD. If you're not superficial, it's a very smart buy.

Flip Mino HD: Second Place

Flip's Mino HD is the best-looking and best-feeling camcorder I tried. Its aluminum body feels solid and expensive, which might be because it is—at $230, it's the priciest camcorder I tested. But I wouldn't be surprised if it sells the best, even though it's not the greatest deal, because it looks (and is) simple, cute, and functional. I won't rehash my review, except to say that I hate those goddamn touch buttons more and more every time I use the Mino HD. They're incredibly sensitive and I guarantee that you will accidentally trigger the playback function more times than you can count.

Besides that, it's totally serviceable: It did well on all of my tests, it's thoughtfully designed and stupid-easy to use. But it's definitely overpriced, and I have a hard time recommending it over its physically awkward yet substantially cheaper older brother, the Ultra HD, just for its looks.

Kodak Zi8: Third Place

Wider and taller than the Flip Ultra HD, though not nearly as fat, the Zi8 packs a 1080p sensor and the largest and best screen of the bunch. The controls are easy and tactile and aside from flimsy-feeling plastic covers over the ports (one of mine already fell off), the hardware is high-quality. The Zi8 snagged the bronze medal, because while its highs were higher than either of the Flips, its lows were lower—and given how focused and simple this type of gadget is, reliability is worth more than flashing moments of greatness.

The Zi8 absolutely rocked in two of my tests, outdoor and macro, with perfect color reproduction and excellent clarity, and it even takes pretty decent still photos (think point-and-shoot circa 2006 quality). But the conditions need to be just right to get the most out of this guy—I first tried it in 1080p mode (neither of the Flips can break 720p) and while picture quality was amazing, scenes with lots of motion were pretty jerky to the point of being distracting. But even in 720p, it was still head-and-shoulders above the competition—but only in outdoor and macro testing. In the indoor test it proved to have difficulty focusing on objects closer than 10 feet but farther than 2 feet away, and low light shooting was distinctly tinted red and a bit dark. It wasn't unusable in any test (unlike the similarly uneven Creative Vado HD) and at $180 it's fairly priced, so I'd still recommend it—but you and I are likely to be more forgiving of the Zi8's flaws than, say, your mom, who just wants a camera that works pretty well all the time. For her, go for a Flip.

The Rest

The Creative Vado HD scored pretty high, only a point lower than the bronze medalist Kodak Zi8, but while its design is fairly middle-of-the-road (albeit nice and teeny), its abilities were all over the place. It was one of the worst in standard daytime shooting (it has a hard time with sunlight, a serious problem for a pocket cam) and macro, but was the best at indoor, and while its low light video was a little dark, it was the clearest and smoothest of the lot. It also, likely due to Creative's background in stellar-sounding PMPs and sound cards, boasts excellent sound quality. At $150, it's very fairly priced, but I can't recommend a camcorder that mangles sunlight the way the Vado does.

Apple's iPod Nano is the only "camcorder" in this roundup to peak at VGA resolution, and aside from a surprisingly strong macro performance, it shows. It turned vibrant colors dull and lifeless, washed out detail and made everything seem darker than it was. It can't compete with the Zi8s and Flips of the world, but it's still usable and incredibly priced at $150/$180 for 8GB/16GB—if you've got a Nano already, you probably won't need a dedicated cam. Convergence killed the video star, I guess.

The JVC Picsio GC-FM1 sucked. It's spectacularly ugly (think Ed Hardy-inspired) and cheap-feeling, with a confusing button layout (unforgivable in a pocket cam) and a high price ($200, or $178 at Amazon). Besides all that, it scored poorly in every one of our tests. Avoid.

And finally, the worst—Aiptek's PenCam HD. I wanted to like it, I really did—it's got a tongue-depressor-like design and came with a sweet tripod that attaches to a bicycle's handlebars—but it bombed in almost every one of my tests. The 1.1-inch screen is nearly unusable and battery life barely topped 40 minutes, so it's definitely the loser here.

Here's a giant gallery of all 28 videos I took.

Don Nguyen assisted with this Battlemodo.

Eris is Verizon's other Droid phone. It really is a remodeled Hero, running Android 1.5 and HTC's vaunted Sense candy coating—documented CSI style here—a $200 phone stuffed inside a thinner $100 body, like a Corvette engine shoved inside a Saturn. It's admittedly less exciting than the titular Droid, an industrial beast running Android 2.0. But I have the feeling Verizon is gonna sell a lot more of these things, because, again, it's $100.

Designing for the Middle of the Road

The Eris is rubbery blob, a narrow oval that's as subdued as a phone could possibly be, but there is admittedly something comforting about the Eris's utter lack of personality—it's completely non-threatening, like a middle manager. It's so generic it's almost artful, actually, a design that is nearly perfect for a cheap phone.

The four main Android buttons are touch sensitive, bleeding into the black bezel, hovering over the dead-center trackball and hard chrome buttons for phone and end. I'd like a dedicated camera button, but a volume rocker is all we get. The camera lens stares out the back, disturbingly more reminiscent of an eye than most cameras sticking out the backs of phones, probably because of how stark the rest of the phone is.

Hardware and Camera

The actual guts and screen are the same as past Hero phones—which is to say, nearly the same as all of HTC's other Android phones so far. The 480x320 screen's still nice, even if it feels dated now that the Droid's massive screen, beckoning the next generation, looms large over it. Oh yeah, HTC? Can you get rid of your stupid, pointlessly different version of the mini USB port? Let's go to micro USB now, yeah?

The still camera's better than the Droid though, and about the same as the Sprint version of the Hero, performing pretty decently in low-light situations. Video, not so much:

Software and the Endgame

I've already covered HTC's Sense UI in depth, and it is the exact same on the Eris. It runs just as fast as the Sprint Hero, if not a teeny bit quicker. I will say that after using Android 2.0, it does feel like a step backward in some ways, mostly because of the single Google account limitation. But HTC's confirmed Android 2.0 is coming, so it won't be an issue for every long.

And really, the fact that Android 2.0—half the reason the Droid is excellent—is coming to the Droid Eris is why, in the end, it's such a steal. It's running on Verizon, it's going to have Android 2.0, and it's $100. It's a great phone now, and will be better still soon, making it kind of a perfect storm for people on Verizon looking to ditch their dumbphones—but not Verizon—for something more capable, but who are put off by the Droid, whether it's the steroids or the higher sticker price.

It's last month's darling. But it'll run this month's software. For cheap. And that's pretty spiffy, actually.

You're getting last month's killer Android phone for half price

We'll say it again: This is the best Android deal around

Android 1.5 feels a little dated

Video recording's not exactly amazing

What's New and Dandy

What makes it my favorite Canon so far is actually everything that's completely new to Canon—DP Review has a nice summary here, in pictures. But in short, while this might sound weird, it shoots more like a Nikon than any Canon DSLR I've used. This is primarily because of the new 19-point autofocus system and the color metering system that goes with it. You're able to select AF zones—clusters of AF points—while in the past with Canon you've been limited to a full AF blast or picking out a single point. The system is also more customizable, so it can be locked with different default focus points depending on whether you're holding the camera horizontally and vertically orientations. Against Nikon's D300s, Canon's new AF system mostly kept up, and definitely performs better than autofocus on the 5D Mark II.

The new viewfinder now provides 100 percent coverage, unlike previous Canons in this range, and it uses a new polymer LCD network for the graphical overlay to display AF points, grids and other displays, so it's more flexible and feels more fluid. (It also just looks swankier, and again, more Nikon-like.) Your other viewfinder (when you're shooting video, anyway), the LCD screen, is a 3-inch, 920k dot display like the 5D Mark II and it's still excellent, with a wide viewing angle, nice color and the right amount of crispness.

Sensor and Image Quality

Truthfully, I've been mildly surprised at the quality of photos that've come out of the 7D, which uses an absolutely stuffed 18-megapixel, APS-C sized sensor. (So, there is a 1.6x crop factor.) For comparison, the D300s has a 12MP sensor that's the same physical size (Update: For nitpickers, yes, Nikon's DX format is marginally larger than Canon's APS-C sensor, with the D300s's sensor coming in at 23.6 x 15.8 mm to the 7D's 22.3 x 14.9 mm.) The the D3 only goes for 12 megapixels on its bigger full-frame (35mm-equivalent) sensor. The 5D Mark II has a 21MP full-frame sensor. And typically, the more pixels you try to cram on a sensor of a given size, the more the image quality degrades, especially when it comes to low light, high ISO shots.

I was expecting a noisefest, or at best, seriously noticeable noise reduction employed by the camera's software. It is clear that Canon's using incredibly sophisticated noise reduction algorithms with the dual Digic IV processors onboard, though the effects are less drastic than I expected. It's most apparent, actually, when you directly compare photos taken with the D300s. Looking at photos taken with the 7D and D300s at 100 percent crops, the D300s's images are noisier, but they also preserve more detail. For web-sized images, the 7D's images look better, with less noise and more smoothness.

I've got two sample galleries—an array of sample shots, and then another directly comparing the 7D with the D300s in low light situations, using identical settings for photos. 100 percent zooms follow photos in both galleries. Or you can download full size photos from Flickr here and here.

Video

You can get sense of Canon and Nikon's philosophical differences with the difference in their buttons for video: Canon makes a distinction between Live View and video mode, while Nikon is ready to start shooting video as soon you tap the live view button on the D300s. Creating video is a separate, dedicated event for Canon, in other words, and there is a semi-serious video camera that happens to be built into a DSLR. Nikon's D300s, on the other hand, is a DSLR that happens to shoot video.

With video, the 7D simply has the upper hand—video is very much a legitimized use of this camera, not a secondary one like the D300s. (As expected from a company with an entire wing dedicated to camcorders for pros and consumers.) Not only does it have full manual controls, I find that it's slightly easier to use that the D300s while shooting video—not to mention the whole shooting in a real video codec at 1080p, yadda yadda. Three clips here: A melange of video above, and then by two videos, one from the 7D, one of the D300s, that mirror each other. Both were shot at ISO 6400, and you should be able to catch them at full res if you click over to Vimeo.

Build and Controls

The 7D is heavy, heavier than the 5D, but it's also slightly sturdier, with a build quality and weatherproofing that that's slightly in between the 5D and Canon's definitely pro 1D. It feels about the same in your hand, though. And it's roughly comparable to the D300s.

Controls aren't radically different from other Canon DSLRs of this caliber—that is, it's what you'd mostly expect from a DSLR that sits in between the lower end 50D and the higher end 5DMkII, though it's a bit closer to the latter. While the menu system feels completely unchanged—leaving more advanced features, like the orientation autofocus a bit inscrutable—a few things are new on the outside: The power switch is up on the top left, under the mode dial; there's a dedicated button for switching to RAW/JPEG; a quick action button; and a new toggle switch for Live View and video, which you engage by pressing a start button in the center.

You Already Know If You're Going to Buy This

The real question for Canon users who want something more than the lower end 50D is whether they go for the 7D, at $1700, or full bore to full-frame with the $2700 5D Mark II. The 7D has a 1.6x crop factor which is useful for sports, a better autofocusing system, shoots faster, is slightly more rugged, and is $1000 cheaper. The 5D is full frame—which I suspect is the real consideration for folks—and takes slightly better photos at higher resolutions.

Obviously, if you're locked into Nikon, with thousands of dollars in lenses, you're not going to jump to Canon, or vice versa. But Canon's dedication to DSLR video is proving formidable in carving out a new kind of market that Nikon might have some trouble competing in, since they're a dedicated still camera company, not a video company, too, like Canon. Really, both the D300s and 7D deliver for the money, though I think the 7D delivers more, since it's packed full of newer technology and for the people who want it, the video component is truly killer. Either way, it's proof that competition is good—it clearly wouldn't exist without the D300, and the D400 will be that much better because of it.

New 19-point autofocus and metering systems plus the new viewfinder rock

Excellent 1080p video with full manual controls

Not full-frame, which might put off some people

I'd like a secondary SD card slot, like the D300s

Noise reduction can get pretty aggressive at higher ISO speeds, obscuring detail

BTW, here are some Giz posts shot w/ the 7D:
• Motorola Droid Impressions
• Motorola Droid Review
• Blood Energy Potion Review
• BlackBerry Storm 2 Review
• S90 Review

The goal here is simple: Play all the videos that I have ripped from DVD, downloaded from the web, shot with my own cameras or obtained in some other manner, no matter what the format. It sounds simple, but Apple TV can't do it. Neither can the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3. Video codecs and containers are a nightmare to keep track of, and even more of a nightmare to convert.

This isn't about photos and music. Apple TV is better at both of those than any of this stuff. It's also not about renting movies or buying movies, or even streaming movies from Netflix. Roku has a nice cheap box for that, and Apple TV is suitable if you just want to live inside Steve Jobs' media store. This is about playing non-DRM movies, pure and simple.

The names might be familiar to you: The Popcorn Hour C-200 by Syabas is quickly gaining cult status (and has its own hacker wiki), while the other four smaller boxes come from brands you probably have experience with, including WD, Seagate, Netgear and Patriot. None have built-in wireless, but they all have Ethernet ports.

My two main tests were simple—I loaded PC and Mac formatted external hard drives with a variety of files ranging from H.264 MP4s to WMVs of several vintages, from raw AVCHD files in MTS wrappers to the hot new DivX 7 MKV. Then I browsed through my local network to a NAS that had a cache of similar files. Could I see them? Could I play them? These shouldn't be issues, but they're big issues.

Here's a rundown of each machine, and how they fared in testing:

As you can see, there were clear leaders given my criteria above, but what struck me was how each one differed. Truth is, depending on who you are, any one of these might be the best fit. Here's what really separates them:

WD TV Live - $150

I would have given this thing the solo spot at the top if it weren't for a few dings that might very well be fixed in a firmware update: It won't show you DVD menus on ripped DVD images, and when you play files with the suffix .m4v, it won't fast forward or rewind. Weird bug, and can be fixed if you just change .m4v to .mp4, but since that's the default file naming for Handbrake's "Apple TV" profile, it could be a problem for people, like me, who spent months ripping their entire DVD collection that way.

WD's strengths include a friendly user interface with handy video previews, some promising early online services (including Pandora), and the most reasonable photo and music handling I've seen in this cluster of gadgets.

Seagate FreeAgent Theater+ - $150

I loved this when I tested it a few weeks ago, despite its fugly interface, and it holds up under testing. It does better with ripped .ISO files than WD, doing both DVD menus and chapters (and it doesn't have that weird .m4v bug either). Video was better, especially when running 1080p content. And when it came to browsing my Linksys NAS in search of movies, it could reach more and read more than the WD.

The tradeoff is that the interface is bad, and there's almost nothing in the way of online services. It gets points for making an attempt at sorting music, and displaying photos, but if that's a priority, WD is the better call.

Popcorn Hour C-200 - $300

Hardcore AV nerds love this thing, and I understand why. There are more ways to get at video content than in any other set-top box I've ever seen, and if you really know how to hack, there's really not much it can't do.

It's a big ole thing—they call it a "network tank," and despite remind me of the far cooler ones in Tron, I get it. It has an internal BitTorrent client and you can plug in a Blu-ray drive, for God's sake. I found very few video formats that it wouldn't support (FLV was one) but I had to take major points off because for being so big, it has a lame interface, and it comes with an RF remote that only worked when I stood within 3 feet. They even mention that there might be problems with interference, and that if people experience that, they can buy the IR remote. Great, thanks.

My only question—and, commenters, it's not rhetorical—is why spend $300 on this (plus extra for the optional internal HDD and the IR remote) when you can just buy a home-theater PC?

Patriot Box Office - $130

This was the dark horse of the group, being a late entry by a company known only for computer memory. I was surprised at how well it held up. It actually could decode more tested formats than any other device in this lineup—it did Flash video (FLV), which the three above can't render. Only the WD and the Patriot show you video previews, too. As small as it is, there's a space for a 2.5" SATA drive in there, and even a BitTorrent client. You can copy files to and from different drives and the network, and it's the cheapest of the lot, at $130.

So why did it come in a distant 3rd? Unlike the three above, it can't read Mac formatted hard drives, and its video quality was noticeably the worst of the batch. That said, if you are a hacker sort and want something to play with that doesn't cost as much as Popcorn, set your sights on this.

Netgear Digital Entertainer Live

As you can probably tell by now, Netgear had the most disappointing box of the lineup, despite its Apple TV ripoff of a look and feel. Lack of Mac media support and the inability to read key file formats, like DivX 7 and AVCHD, meant it couldn't pass muster with real video fanatics. Its biggest point of woe was the fact that it didn't support any file over 720p in resolution—whether that's a software thing or a hardware thing, it's sure not future-proof, and probably best to stay away.

I also didn't like the fact that its interface is laid out entirely for retail, like an Apple TV without the panache, or a Roku box that costs more and doesn't do Netflix. Local files were not a priority, and despite the friendly interface, it doesn't even make an attempt to differentiate photos and music. I did give it a gold star for online services, but only because it had the most in this group—if online services are what you love, buy a Roku, or a TiVo, or an Xbox, or a friggin' Apple TV.

Still not sure what you're looking for, check the spec comparisons here:

The Price

$35, available now. Package includes charger and two compatible batteries.

The Verdict

As we said in the lead, the Charge Base IC (which stands for "inductive charging") is the best solution for charging Wiimotes we've seen to date, if you can stand its 2-controller limit.
Yes, the stand is a cacophony of various plastics and LED, but you'll quickly disregard aesthetics the first time you hold the Wiimote up to the cradle and it just sticks. Attached through magnetism, it will be charged without the need for plugs or ports, without the need of pulling out the little stopper from the Wii MotionPlus adapter, and without even the need of removing the silicone case. (Should you be a non-case user such as myself, you'll find the ridged rubber backs on the batteries quite comfortable.)

The stand even includes a USB charging port, should you need it, and the AC adapter has an outlet plug on the back, meaning you won't waste a power outlet to recharge your Wiimotes.

There's room for improvement—an indicator that signaled the level of charge would be very handy. I'm not really sure how long it takes to charge the batteries to full because, at the moment, the charger always just glows blue (UPDATE: It wasn't in the manual, but the charger does go green when it's done—the initial charge took so many hours that I just assumed it had to be full already). The magnet could feel stronger through the silicone sleeve. And obviously, you can buy a basic 4-Wiimote charger for the price of this 2-Wiimote charger. Though I have a feeling that Nyko will announced a 4-controller unit if this first model is successful.

But for the ultra-lazy among us, the Charge Base IC is pretty great.

Contact charging is easy and practical

Works with real Wiimotes and generics

There's simply not a better design we've seen

Through sleeve, magnet still works, but could feel stickier

Charging indicator doesn't indicate much

Kinda Like the Old One

The GoPro Hero HD is squarely based off the old model. It has the same mounting system, case, physical shape and user interface. It is so similar, I suggest you read the original short review I did and then come back here for the low down on what makes this one better. Here's the link. Or you could just take these basic points as a foundation.
• Awesome mounts for everything.
• Meant to be semi cheap so you don't sweat it, yet capable.
• It has a 170 degree field of vision and the case makes it waterproof to 100 feet. Very rugged.
• Two buttons for controlling the basic UI. Shoot, toggle modes. The UI is so rudimentary you'll often forget how to use it, but all you need to do is turn it on and shoot.
• There's no native LCD for viewing replays.
• It's not tiny.

The Video is Now HD

Instead of the paltry 512x384, the $270 camera with surf mount has several modes, most HD. On the silky smooth 60 frame per second mode there are standard definition resolutions of 848x480 or HD at 720p/1280x720. Both are 16:9 ratio, which is recommended only for motorsports or other activites where you're not trying to catch yourself in frame standing up. The 60 frames per second modes are noticeably smoother in normal playback but they're meant to also look better if you slow down the frame rate playback for slow motion in your favorite video editor. The grain was noticeably worse when using 60FPS indoors, but not a deal breaker.

In 30 frame per seconds, there are modes for 720p again, but also a 1280x960 which is 4:3 high def. That's the default and I used that for surfing which is (usually, if you do it right) something you do while standing. The 1080p mode is 16:9, and 30 frames per second but limits the field of vision from 170 to 127 degrees. Again, the 16:9 modes are used less than you'd expect in sports shots. There's also a center weighted mode for exposing the road when shooting from inside a car, and leaving the dashboard underexposed properly.

The bottom line is that this new camera is in HD. That's the big improvement

Quality

This is a still of the movie at full res, not the actual 5MP stills.
First, watch the movies the guys at the company produced here. Then watch my shitty one filled with shitty surfing. Colors were a little washy/green but the ocean and the sky together, with the lens collecting droplets, well, that isn't an idea situation. Watch it for yourself and form your own conclusions, but note the reflections off the water which will inform you of pretty decent autoexposure and sharpness. It's a vast improvement over other sports cams and the standard def version. Oh a little thing held over from the last generation that isn't a ding or a plus: the 170-degree angle is great for reducing apparent vibration and for making sure what you want in shot is in the frame, but has the unfortunate side effect of making things like waves and jumps and other otherwise impressive looking things seem smaller.

Storage Capacity

Average recording times:
1080p: 12 min/GB
960p: 14 min/GB
720p: 16min/GB @30fps; 11 min/GB @ 60fps

GoPro recommended you use fast SDHC cards to save battery life. And that on a 32GB card you can get almost 6 hours of recordings, although you'd be constrained by battery life. Oh one annoyance — every time you clear the card, the files are named from 001, 002, again. So if you copy them over to the same location, they'll ask you if you want to overwrite. I wish the camera kept its file name numbers in series.

Battery Life

The other big change is that instead of being powered by a pair of AAAs, GoPro jammed a 1100Mah 3.7 volt battery in the case. I did not do a full run down test, but shooting 51 minutes of video didn't reduce the charge one notch; GoPro estimates you can get 2.5 hours of battery life from the camera in normal climates, regardless of the definition of video you're shooting. The old model died quickly in the cold if you weren't using rechargeables but this camera's housing retains a bit more heat making it better for the winter. You charge it by USB. Unfortunately you can't charge it while doing a USB transfer, yet. They hope to fix this by firmware later.

Sound

Stills

I didn't test this mode, but GoPro claims the 5MP shots are better due to better processing. There are several still modes, as before: Single shot, triple shot that takes three shots over 2 seconds and a time lapse mode that can be set to record a shot every 2, 5, 10, 30 or 60 seconds. And a 10 second delay timer. For me, this is not why you get a sports camera.

The Surf Mount, in Particular

Oh it's 3M double sticky and it seems to hold up just fine. You clean your board of wax and then use a bit of rubbing alcohol to apply it. Let it settle overnight. To get it off (permanently) you use a hair dryer, which sounds a bit scary when it comes to something nice and fiberglass, but what do I know? (That's why I put this one on a pop out longboard.

The Future

Another big but so far not useful thing on the new camera is the expansion port. they plan on offering a bigger back door for the case, so you can fit in an external LCD screen for replays or an extra battery pack. I like the idea. I'm thinking they could probably go ahead and work on making the camera smaller even if it costs a bit more, in the next generation, though. I like GoPro enough to use it, even though gadgets on the mountain or in the surf piss me off by way of distraction. Now that they've got mounts, higher resolutions and battery endurance covered, I think making it even smaller is the next step to making it more enjoyable.

High def modes

Best mounting options in the business

Rugged, yet affordable case good for bumps and waterproof to 100 feet

Wide angle lens captures 170 degrees of motion so you fit in the shot and vibration is dampened.

Smooth 60 frames per second great for action shots

Relatively cheap for what you get

Case kind of biggish
[GoPro]

I have to admit, I didn't have high hopes for these two machines. The first "budget" products in any category always seem to fall short, but in this case I was pleasantly surprised. Both the Vivitek H1080FD and the Optoma HD20, which use DLP technology, offered exceptional performance for the price, but one definitely stood out.

The Results...

The Vivitek takes gold almost every category.
Stack those results up (by weighting each gold medal with 3 points and each silver with 2), and you can see how it all adds up.

Winner: Vivitek H1080FD

While the Optoma HD20 and the Vivitek H1080FD are alike in many respects, the bottom line is that Vivitek pushed the envelope a bit more with picture quality, and provided more of those features that you might find in a pricier projector.

It's a shade bigger than the Optoma, and a little more than a pound heavier at 7.8 lbs, but it is still an extremely portable device (they even go so far as to throw in a carrying case). Both the Vivitek and the Optoma lack lens shift capability, so I had to set them up on this ghetto cardboard box on top of a card table configuration in order to deliver a straight, unobstructed picture to the wall. However, once things were set up and calibrated properly, the Vivitek offered up slightly richer colors and better overall contrast (5000:1) than the Optoma—although black levels and overall quality of the 1080p picture appear similar between the two devices. I also give the Vivitek an edge in the brightness department—especially when comparing the brightest modes. Still, after running through several 1080p video clips on both machines, I was really wowed by the overall image quality on these entry-level projectors.

As I mentioned earlier, the Vivitek brought a few features to the table that you usually find in pricier models. For one thing, it's extremely quiet—especially when compared to the Optoma. It also features more inputs/outputs than the Optoma, including S-Video, RS-232c connector and audio jacks (although it would be a crime to use S-Video). It even features a small 5W onboard speaker which aids in portability and ease of use for those who are looking for a simple, all-in-one solution. The speaker is basic, but I found it helpful in my temporary setup when I just wanted to plug and play.

There isn't much to complain about with regard to the Vivitek H1080FD, but I did notice that menus in the UI don't collapse, so you have to exit in order to get a full picture of your changes. However, the most troubling negative has to do with the $400 cost of a replacement lamp. The overall lamp life of the Vivitek and the Optoma are the same, but there is a $150 difference in the price of the replacement. Given the fact that there isn't a vast difference in performance between the two models, this expense could be a real dealbreaker for people who are looking to use their projector on a more regular basis.

Runner-Up: Optoma HD20

Sure, the runner-up in a contest of two is the "loser," but there's a lot to like about the Optoma. Right off the bat, you have to marvel at how small this thing is. At 12.76" x 3.82" x 9.21" and 6.4 pounds, users don't need to use the HD20 in a permanent setup. It can be easily stored and transported—but, again, the lack of lens shift means you might struggle to get an optimum viewing angle.

Granted, the HD20 isn't going to blow away enthusiasts who will settle for nothing less than the blackest blacks and whitest whites, but most of us will be more than satisfied with the clarity, color and contrast (4000:1). Overall lumen output wasn't quite up to snuff when compared to the Vivitek, but it was still considerably better than you would expect in a budget model in both bright and theater modes—easily allowing for a screen just under 100" in my living room to be comfortably viewable with ambient light.

Of course, the HD20 is not without it's flaws. First of all, excessive fan noise makes it sound more like what you might expect from buying a cheaply priced DLP. It's noticeable in Standard mode, but I was definitely distracted by it in Bright (users might also find the light emanating from the front vent to be distracting). I also found the UI to be well organized but fairly annoying to navigate, mostly because the remote isn't very responsive. I felt like I had to mash the button down to get a response.

Feature Comparison

But What If You Spend More?

OK, so what if you're willing to spend a bit more than $1000?

Epson's HC 8100 represents a price point in the entry-level market for consumers willing to pay extra for better 1080p performance. At $1600, the LCD-based 8100 is a big step up from the Vivitek and the Optoma. In my opinion, it is worth the added expense.

Simply put, it easily outstrips both of its cheaper competitors in just about every performance category. It also has some advantages that the others lack, many of which derive from the advantages 3LCD has over DLP. Brightness and color accuracy are better, no color wheel means no rainbow effect (for the people who suffer from that—you know who you are) and it has a high degree of vertical and horizontal lens shift, meaning you can put this thing just about anywhere and throw a clean image. However, it is literally twice as big and heavy as the Vivitek, which could make it unsuitable for some setups.

If you are concerned with the long term cost of ownership, the Epson is competitive in that area with a $300 lamp replacement cost (4000 hour lamp life in Normal and Eco modes) and a two-year limited warranty. So, in that sense, it could be cheaper to own in the long term than both the Vivitek and the Optoma, depending on your usage.

Verdict

If you have your heart set on 1080p, the good news is that you will probably be satisfied no matter which one of these projectors you choose—definitely an encouraging sign at these price points. That having been said, I think it is worth spending an an extra $600 for the improved performance of the Epson HC 8100.

However, if the HC 8100 isn't in your budget, there is no shame in going with the Vivitek—it will deliver a lot of bang for your buck. On the other hand, if you plan on using your projector frequently and the long term cost of ownership is a concern, the Optoma HD20 will be less expensive in the long run—and the choice might be further justified since there isn't a vast difference in performance. Perhaps the best news is that, within the next year, more 1080p projectors from the likes of Sony and Panasonic will be competing at these lower prices, too. If you are patient, it might be worth it to wait and see how the market develops. [Epson and Vivitek and Optoma]

Sex and Brains

It's got the same spacious image sensor as the G11—1/1.7" as opposed to 1/2.5" like most point-and-shoots. But instead of being built into a Panzer tank, it's in the body of a hot German model. It's an actual point-and-shoot: It fits in the pocket of your skinny jeans, but delivers, for the most part, the same wow image quality.

I wish it was slightly more square with sharper angles for an even more classic aesthetic, but it's still pretty classy looking. The texture, which makes for half of the appeal, makes it a little slippery. The control ring around the lens is like the perfect scarf that ties it altogether. And despite being a bantam-weight shooter, it feels more solid than most cameras its size.

Lord of the Ring

What makes the camera really work is that control ring wrapped around the lens. By default, when you turn it, it adjusts the main setting for each mode—aperture in aperture priority, shutter speed in shutter priority, you get the idea. Using the ring function button on top of the camera, you can set the ring to adjust almost whatever parameter you want though, like white balance, ISO, exposure, even specific zoom intervals.

Truthfully, using the dial never feels completely seamless, because of way you're forced to hold the camera. As a result of its pint size, there's no completely natural hand or finger posture for spinning the ring. But, the control it manages to put at your fingertips is remarkable: In manual mode, I had aperture mapped to the main ring, exposure set to the control ring on the back (which, like the G11, is a little too small to have a settings dpad stuffed in the center of it) and ISO speed mapped to the shortcut button. The only real issue with that setup is that the ISO setting interface lags behind your input occasionally, so you sometimes overshoot the ISO speed you wanted.

Just a Little More Hardware Talk

There's no viewfinder, so you're stuck using the screen exclusively. The LCD is a little bigger than the G11's, at 3 inches, though it uses the same number of pixels and obviously doesn't swivel out. It too is easily viewable in sunlight, though I found a more of a difference, exposure-wise, between what I thought I shot according to the display and what I later saw on my computer, than I noticed with the G11. Also, there's no flash hot shoe, like you get with the G11.

The battery's small, obviously, so your picture taking is capped at a little over 200 shots, according to Canon. My days of shooting didn't contradict that, for better or for worse—I'd get to half battery after around 100 shots and a couple video clips.

Finally, the Photos (and Video)

Since it's the same 10-megapixel image sensor as the G11, yes, you do get just about the same fantastic image quality, solid low-light performance (noise doesn't start really kicking in til ISO 800, and even that's totally usable for most stuff) and ability to shoot in RAW. The main difference is in the lens. The S90 has a faster lens that'll shoot at F/2 wide open, meaning you rely less on that high ISO—up to 3200—to compensate for the lack of light. The oh-so-small price for this incredibly fast lens is that you lose a bit of zoom, since it goes out to 105mm, vs. the G11's 140mm, but who cares? I can't reiterate how big of a deal a lens like this is on this kind of point-and-shoot. That said, I seemed to get photos that were a touch less sharp than what I got on the G11.

Here's a gallery of some stuff I shot, which you can compare to G11 sample photos and ISO tests (spoiler, they look great):

The video's still 640x480, and still quite good too:

Buy If You Need a Tiny-But-Great Camera

I know, it's $430, way more than most point-and-shoots cost in this day and age. But the amount of picture power this literally slips into your pocket is almost unbelievable: Outstanding low-light performance for a camera this size; a speedy lens; full control rings, plural; and yep, RAW. It's the soul of what makes the $500 behemoth G11 great, packaged in a true point-and-shoot. You lose some power and some pro tools, like the swivel screen, a (shitty) viewfinder, faster burst shooting, hot shoe, some zoom and a custom mode or two, but you're also shedding a ton of bulk, meaning you'll actually take it everywhere. And the best camera's always the one you have with you—for me, that's this camera, which just happens to be an excellent one all by itself.

G11's awesome image sensor plus a fastfastfast lens means awesome photos

Looks like a serious little camera (it is)

Did I mention I love this camera?

Control ring can feel awkward

More battery life and 720p video would be nice

[Canon]

Speed

I've been happy with a 16GB Patriot Xporter, which Ars mentioned in their 2009 test as one of the fastest. This Corsair is faster. On an informal test transferring 2.7 GB of MP3 files, the Corsair Flash Voyager 128GB was twice as fast in writes and a touch faster in reads.



Note: Since this measures megabytes per second, longer bars = better

I was very casual about this test. I did not shut down all my other apps during it, but I did run multiple trials. And I did not test random access or exceptionally large file sizes. Why didn't I take testing more seriously? Because I just don't think you'll really buy this thing when you can get multiple 32GB drives for $50 or so. This thing is impressive, but all freaks of nature are impressive.

It's Big

On top of its price and performance, it's bigger. No, not only in capacity. See?

Yeah, well, it still fits in my pocket. Like a giant pet beetle. The kind that crawled out of skulls and pyramid labyrinth walls in The Mummy Part 5 or whatever.

I'd recommend it only if you have so much money that if you lose one, you'll merely say "oops" and not cry over it like I would.

128GB is a lot of space

It's fast

Kind of big for a USB drive, but still doable

Expensive

The Price:

1TB for $270, 2TB for $370 and 4TB for $700

The Verdict:

It does a lot, and it does it pretty well, for not a lot of cash.

Here's a list of the exciting bits on the Ix2-200's feature list:

• Automated backup and restore: Full Time Machine support for Macs as well as Retrospect, a different backup scheme, for PCs and Macs.
• Automated copy jobs, which can automatically and incrementally copy (either with Windows file sharing or rsync) files off of network shares and dump it onto its own storage, or the other way around. Perfect for backing up other network shares for double data security
• RAID1
• DLNA, iTunes Servers
• Quiet running
• SMB features like email notifications, event logs, iSCSI, automated video surveillance (provided you have a compatible camera) and USB printer support
• A load of networking support, like Apple File Sharing, Bluetooth, FTP, NFS, Rsync, SNMP and standard Windows File Sharing (CIFS)
• Torrent downloading
• Remote access

Instead of building a Windows Home Server, like so many others have done, Iomega decided to build their own system from their own technology, and came out pretty feature-rich because of it.

The setup process is slightly finicky—you install the Iomega Solutions CD and wait while it searches your network for the server. This can actually take a few hours (we thought the Mac version was malfunctioning until it completed its setup and discovery process), but once you're up, you're up.

You control the server with a web interface, which works with a local app to provide integration into your file system. It's pretty simple to use, and there aren't too many tabs or options to confuse users with.

Backup and file storage

Time Machine works as well as if you were just shoving in a USB hard drive, and there's little difference compared to running your backups over the network as if it were a Time Capsule. Iomega tells us that they've learned from HP's first Windows Home Servers, the ones who weren't able to run a complete Time Machine restore in the event of a total drive failure, so Mac users shouldn't need to worry.

Retrospect, another backup software, can also configure backup plans on a schedule and automatically execute them without any input from you. Just choose which drives and folders you want to back up—it even backs up your network folders—and pick your schedule. If you don't have a Windows Home Server on your network to handle your Windows backups, this is a pretty good substitute. And of course you can use Retrospect to restore your backups to your machine, in case of data failure.

Automated copy jobs is another feature that's especially sweet for me, since I have a lot of network storage and I always worry about what would happen if one fails. This way, the Ix2-200 can maintain up-to-date copies of whatever's sitting on other network drives, and act as the schoolmarm for all your data.

Networking and other features

Some of the other features are pretty much evaluated on a yes/no basis in terms of whether or not they work. The fan is very quiet even when transferring a mass load of files—although the hard drive is not, so that's kind of moot—but is virtually silent otherwise. RAID1 works, and comes set up by default. The DLNA and iTunes streaming works in their respective clients, and Xbox 360/PS3 has no problem streaming files off of the server.

BitTorrent download works, but the server gets confused if you give it a URL to download a .torrent file from, so to play it safe you should just go ahead and download the .torrent yourself and feed that instead. Download speeds are decent, and you can configure what the maximum upload/download speeds are so as to not saturate your internet connection. You should also change your default port as well, since ISPS throttle that 6881 port hard.

All the networking stuff works as expected, as do the email notifications and event logs. The rest of the higher end stuff, like video surveillance integration and iSCSI we didn't test, so we can't say if there are any issues with them or not. It's more than likely that they do work, but we don't know if there are any quirks you should watch out for.

It's a pretty good deal

Iomega's aiming this at both the prosumer and the SMB market, which means that for most people, it's going to have a lot of features that they don't need. But that doesn't matter! The Ix2-200 is so packed with stuff that it should satisfy the needs of just about any user who's hurting for a network storage solution. And at a starting price of only $270 for the 1TB version, it's a cheaper alternative than Windows Home Servers, and can do just about all the same things. Plus with its user-replaceable drives and three USB ports, you can easily upgrade the storage yourself and expand your storage after the fact. [Iomega]

Great backup options including Time Machine and Retrospect

Small, quiet and fast

Feature loaded

Fairly cheap for what you get

Setup process isn't as easy as it could be

But First, Simplicity

This 1998 ad has Jeff Goldblum narrating that there are two physical steps to setting up an iMac. ("There's no step three!") Truthfully, they skipped the mouse and keyboard cable, though, which would bring it to 4 steps. Today, an iMac is set up using just one power cable, depending on wireless networking and bluetooth peripherals to get the rest done. So it's even simpler than it was 10 years ago. And as I said, the screen is becoming more prominent than ever.

The LCD

The 27-inch iMac's screen is the thing to focus on in this revision. It is practically as bright (and more contrasty) than any of the previous iMacs—even Cinema Displays—and it looks astounding. It's LED-driven so it comes to full luminescence immediately and takes up less power. It also has better side-to-side viewing angle as an IPS tech monitor; like the iMac 24 before it, it goes 178 degrees without much change in color accuracy or brightness. And here's the kicker: Although it has 19% more area of LCD than the old 24-incher, it has 60% more pixels. That makes it more pixel dense than any of the Cinema Displays at 109ppi. And with a 2560x1440 resolution it has 90% of the dot count of a 30-inch cinema display. All these stats are great. They sound great, and they make for a powerful picture. But the actual view of the screen leaves me with a positive—but slightly imperfect—impression.

The default brightness is a bit much, but of course you can turn it down. And the contrast is welcome; even my new 13-inch MacBook Pro looks yellowed and washed out next to it. But at this pixel density, which is sharper than my notebook, it's almost too sharp, requiring me to sit closer than I would ordinarily do with a 27 inch display. I like the feeling of crispness — 16% crisper than the last generation. But my eyes feel like the pictures are being delivered by a land shark holding a laser pointer straight into my corneas, and I can feel the strain within minutes. I would have to jack up as many font sizes as possible or sit as close as I do to my MacBook to make it work for long long periods of time. Maybe I'm just a wimp of a geek, but I've never been sensitive to these sorts of things on any sort of machinery before.

This is the iMac next to a 13-inch MBP and a Dell 2407 24-inch monitor. The iMac's screen puts both to shame in brightness and clarity.

Apple is making a big deal of the fact this screen is 16:9. I think it looks better in this wider iteration, but it's not an epic jump since the last gen was 16:10. You're losing vertical pixel count here, on both the 21.5 and 27-inch models, despite added diagonal inches. Also, the glass cover is now edge to edge, without the thin silver rim around it, on the top and sides. It's still glossy and very very reflective, despite being covered in anti-reflective coating.

I will feel guilty for mentioning this, because it's ever so slight, but I'll feel more guilty if I don't mentioning it to you: The screen, when it's white, has the tiniest bit of blotchiness to it. The backlighting is slightly uneven in my model. It had no impact on viewing quality once the screen was filled with an image other than one of pure white, so don't sweat it.

My previous comparison to the 30-inch Cinema Display wasn't for academic purposes, either. One of the most interesting features on the new iMac is that it can use its Mini DisplayPort (normally an output) as an input; that is, it can become a secondary display for notebooks or other devices. Factor in the near-identical specs to the 30-inch Cinema Display, most notably its updated LED screen, and you have absolutely no reason to buy a 30-inch Cinema Display when you can have this—but not just yet.

That's what two full sized 1080p trailers look like on this screen.

Eager to test this shit and be the first to the internet with an image of an Xbox linked into an iMac ("Worlds collide!" would be the headline, I decided), I ordered a monoprice Mini-DisplayPort-to-HDMI adapter. Unfortunately, I discovered that the inputs would not work with a PS3 or Xbox at any res, HD or otherwise. The current adapters on the market are unidirectional, I was told, and so they won't work to take HDMI sources and pipe them into the iMac. I'm sure someone is making a cable as we speak for this very abominable purpose of piping in Microsoft gaming to a desktop Mac—but it's not here yet. (New cables, by the way, will include audio, which the iMac is capable of taking through its connector and the iMac is able to display video sources up to its native resolution.) The issue is, this could take months. That's a long time, so don't buy an iMac planning to use it with a gaming console or Blu-ray player right away.

Using it with a laptop was an interesting situation. Odd, for sure, but a welcome bonus and an obvious use. Here's how it works. You plug in a Mini-DisplayPort-to-Mini-DisplayPort cable to the iMac, which must be turned on (unlike Sony's all-in-one, which works while off.) The iMac flickers for a second and the laptop's picture replaces the iMac's. Here's where it gets sort of weird. When the iMac is acting as a monitor, the keyboard and mouse are all blocked from working, except a few keys: The pause/play, FF, RR, volume controls and brightness keys all work. They won't display the typical volume/brightness/FF/whatever iconography, because you're actually still looking at your MacBook. You can actually then use your iMac as a display for one computer while listening to music on another—but why would you want to? And if you were playing a game with an Xbox, you'd be listening to the game. To toggle between the iMac and the external source, you hit Command+F2.

(*The 21.5-inch iMac is not as sharp or impressive as the 27, but a fine evolution nonetheless; see chart)

Oh, one more thing: The LED display is also thinner than the traditional panel. Even so, when combined with the extra width and height, Apple's designers are given adequate room to play with the layout and thermal properties of the iMac. Which brings us to the chassis and internals.

The Chassis

The iMac's chassis went from all plastic to aluminum and glass in 2007. The first aluminum models were stamped out in car factories because no computer factories could work with aluminum pieces that big. Now, the iMac has even more aluminum in them with bigger cases and a seamless wraparound back made of metal instead of the black plastic cap. Despite the loss of the slimming effect of a black plastic back, the computer's dimensions work in its favor; it's about 1mm thinner and obviously wider, so it still feels undoubtedly skinny.

Oh, and the stand is tapered by 1.1mm on its front (as is Apple's wont), to further hide volume.

Aside from the more flattering aspect ratios, the chin—one of the only giveaways that this is not just a screen but a computer—has shrunk by 22%. It looks much better, in my opinion. The case's bigger size affects its internal layout, too. Apple and iFixit brought several of these details to my attention.

The most important changes are that the GPU and CPU are placed at nearly opposite ends of the case, with their own heatsinks to throw off copious heat with three very quiet fans. (The iMac's sound profile at idle, for a stock build, is still just a whisper, less than 20db.)

Ports: The back of the case has a Mini DisplayPort, 4 USB 2.0 ports, power plug (the machine's only wire), Firewire 800, minijack/optical input and output, and Gigabit Ethernet. There's Bluetooth 2.1 EDR wireless with which the mouse and keyboard interface, and 802.11 N Wi-Fi. Although the entire case is aluminum, the antenna has been cleverly hidden in a plastic Apple logo top center on the back. Reception is a touch stronger than on my notebook.

The iChat camera and microphone (the latter of which is made up of about a dozen closely-grouped pinprick holes, like on the MacBook Pro) are situated on the top of the iMac. And despite the new model's height they sound fine (if not a touch more distant because of the height) when compared to previous models. The top mount for the microphone keeps the sound from the new, more powerful two-way speakers from interfering with it; measured using a song and SPL meter, my notebook came in at 70db and the iMac at 76db at sitting distance. Louder, richer and noticeably so than a laptop, though I didn't have an iMac 24 on hand to compare with.

The larger case allows the iMac to use four sticks of user-serviceable RAM, accessible from the bottom. (That's useful futureproofing now that OS X Snow Leopard is shipping, and programs and the OS in 64-bit can address more than 4GB at a time.)

How About Performance?

The iMac I'm testing is a 3.06GHz Core2Duo processor with 4GB of RAM and an ATI Radeon 4670 graphics. Those are decent parts but not the highest-end quad-core i5/i7 chips or ATI Radeon 4850 GPU that will ship in iMacs in November. More importantly, the machine I have here that is shipping now is about on par with higher-end, custom-order machines from the last generation. The system benchmarks I ran earlier this week indicate that everything performs practically the same. And since we don't have a Core i5/i7 machine to work with, I've included Apple's approximations of how much boost the iMac will get from those parts — obviously, many grains of salt are necessary when reading, especially when measuring value of extra CPU cores as literal multipliers when most software still can't leverage those channels efficiently.

As for 3D, Maclife has some framerate scores from Doom 3 and Call of Duty that are not by any means exact but somewhat representative of the machine I'm using today. But again, the bottom line is that this machine that I have, shipping today, is not faster than machines equipped similarly from the last generation—they're just cheaper for any given performance point.

But again, even if you wait for the higher end machines, there's no guarantee you'll be able to access most of that extra power. Snow Leopard hasn't seen many apps, besides the ones that ship with it that can take advantage of its multicore CPU and GPU technologies. Programs will come, but immediate speed gains aren't guaranteed here if you buy the quad-core machines.

Here's an exception: Those Core i5/i7 chips are also clocked slower than the Core 2 Duo chips on the lower-end machines, but have the ability to run single core applications at a greater clock speed. Since all four cores won't be burning, the chip uses the spare electricity and the extra thermal overhead to dynamically and automatically overclock the core that is working: The i5 chip goes from 2.66GHz to 3.2GHz and the 2.8GHz i7 chip goes to 3.46GHz (with 4 cores that run hyperthreaded for up to 8 virtual cores.)

Sounds fast, but we'll dive into deeper tests in November. For now, you should be aware that if your desktop is less than 18 months old, you'd be somewhat silly to upgrade before the highest end chips from this generation of iMac are out.

What Else You Got?

The iMac replaces its old mouse with the new Magic Mouse, with a multitouch surface and 360 degree scrolling and swiping, almost like the gestures you find on a Macbook trackpad. I've said it before: I primarily use Laptops because I love trackpads. The gestures, fingertip precision and proximity to the keyboard make it a must have, and this mouse fixes some of those issues. (*Jason Chen reviewed the mouse and liked it but it was not without flaws. Read that if you're considering buying an iMac, because it's the only option Apple offers.)

The one detail I found problematic specifically with the Magic Mouse as it pertains to the 27-inch iMac is that even when the pointer sensitivity is set to the highest level, a swipe of the wrist at a moderately fast speed goes only 2/3 across the giant pixel landscape. Only by whipping my hand across my mouse pad can I trigger enough mouse acceleration to get across the screen. They should turn up the sensitivity, frankly. Software update please!

The keyboard is also changed, going from the old wired keyboard, which was stamped out of the screen cutout of the chassis, with a wireless Bluetooth model. Apple states that the keyboard's narrow profile makes it a better fit next to the mouse. I think it also makes sense as a remote control for the computer from afar when watching media, since this is the biggest iMac ever that doubles as a monitor. But it looks a little small and out of proportion with the machine itself, since the Mac got wider and the keyboard got shorter. (Correction: The keypad-less change happened last revision. I just miss that numeric pad keyboard's width from the first generation of Aluminum iMacs. It seemed to fit perfectly.)

Oh, the white plastic remote that used to ship with all the laptops, AppleTV and iMacs has been replaced by an elliptical, aluminum remote with black rubber buttons. It's longer, and shaped like an iPod nano but no longer comes with the iMac. It costs $19. I think when you buy a computer that is this expensive, they should THROW IN THE DAMN REMOTE.

Competitive Check

There are other all-in-ones from PC makers, but at the moment, none as large or high-res as the iMac 27. The ones from Sony (like the L) and HP have various extras like IR touchscreens, glowing monitor bodies, TV tuners and Blu-ray drives. Some are pretty decent, like the Touchsmart we just reviewed. If these things matter to you and you are not married to the Mac platform, you might consider them. But that touchscreen functionality is still half-baked, so don't do it for the groping potential.

Value

The sweet spot is the $1200 21.5-inch config. But don't upgrade that model beyond base without seriously considering the big bad 27-incher for $1700. And don't upgrade that one at all without considering the quad-core models; both look very promising at $2000 or $2200. Basically, the custom builds are not a great value until you get to the quads. Go cheapest, 27, or quad. But cautious folks will wait on the quads 'til we test them.

There's another angle here, too. Again, comparing the 27-inch iMac to the old as hell 30-inch Cinema Display makes those standalone monitors look like a pretty bad value when it costs only $100 more for just 10% more pixels—and, hey, it's also not a computer.

Nerds, Sheathe Thy Wallet If You Can

Although the quad core benchmarks aren't here yet, I think you've got enough information here to make an adult decision on whether to go cheap or double your price for something faster and bigger. It's not like those new chips will be slower. But waiting a month on a new internal layout, design and screen is a great way to let Apple shake out whatever inevitable hiccups are there at the start of a new run. Plus, if Snow-Leopard-specific apps make their way to market (hello, <Handbrake!) and some performance scores come out in the meantime, hey, cool.

Big beautiful screen is super high res and bright.

Chassis design evolving to new heights of beauty; less chin.

Faster parts not out yet; current components available in previous generation.

No Blu-ray player, touchscreen or other things that aren't important to me, but may be important to you. Maybe.

It's Basically a White Macbook Pro

To illustrate just how good the internals are on the MacBook, just compare them to the current base 13-inch MacBook Pro. Both have a 2.26GHz Core 2 Duo with a 3MB L2 cache, a 1066 MHz frontside bus and a 2GB default RAM. They also have a really similar LED backlit display, which eliminates the problem of narrowed viewing angles that we docked the first generation unibody MacBooks for, and both now have the same contrast ratio. The only difference is that the Pro has a 60% greater color gamut.

The new body

The rounded edges and a reduced number of seams make the new MacBook appear to be a flattened marshmallow. A glossy, rubber-bottomed marshmallow. It's an immediately more appealing shape than the previous generation of white MacBooks, marking the end of the transition of Apple laptops to unibody construction. That rubber bottom is also pretty satisfying, both in the fact that it grips surfaces better to not slide around, and because it's a more thigh-friendly material when the machine heats up. The whole body is more solid, thanks to an aluminum sheet and some more structural supports found in the teardown.
Otherwise, there are many other small design changes you'll appreciate. The trackpad is now the standard glass multitouch type found on the Pros, the screen has a more prominent bezel and the iSight is circular instead of square. Keyboard layout is the same, but on-key shortcuts have been updated to the latest standards. It also comes with Apple's new 60W power adapter, which has a tip that looks more like the MacBook Air than any of the previous chargers.
In general, the build quality is more solid and more "Pro" than ever before, despite the material being polycarbonate instead of aluminum. It's like trading up from a Toyota Yaris to a Camry—not luxury, but it's a noticeable difference.

Benchmarks and Battery Life

Comparing the 13-inch aluminum unibody MacBook of 2008 to the 13-inch aluminum unibody MacBook Pro to the 13-inch MacBook now shows that there really isn't a big difference between the three models. The small discrepancies fall inside the margin of error, and some change can probably be attributed to the fact that the first two machines were running Leopard, whereas the machine we have now is running Snow Leopard.

Point is, this MacBook isn't really that much faster or slower than the one last year.
Just as the transition to non-replaceable batteries increased MacBook Pro runtime, so too has the transition benefited the Macbook. Except for the fact that there's no external battery display on this unit for some reason, and that there's no infrared port for Apple Remotes.

The new MacBook ran 4 hours and 12 minutes, longer than the two most recent MacBook Pros, using the same metrics as we did before: Wi-Fi on, keyboard backlight on low, non-stop H.264 movie playback. In real-world circumstances, that battery life can only get better. Our testing is processor-intensive.

What's also interesting, according to the teardown, is that the battery is only 60 watt-hours vs. 55 on the old one, yet it gets a lot more battery life. This is probably due to internal optimizations that Apple made, not just because there's a fatter battery.

Some new problems

• A consequence of having an improved, unibody construction is that you can no longer replace the battery yourself. It also means that native battery life will be longer, as demonstrated in the testing above. In fact, unlike Pro machines where people really do want to swap batteries for extended field use, an improved internal battery will serve regular users much better.

• For some reason, Apple decided to make the entire area surrounding the keyboard as glossy as the outer shell, meaning that your wrists have a more sticky feel when you're typing. It's not a huge deal, but it is less usable when compared to previous generations or the MacBook Pro line.

• Again, like the Magic Mouse, the white polycarbonate (plastic) will get scratched easily, and will show scratches if you look at it from a certain angle. It doesn't diminish performance, but it is annoying if you're anal about your stuff.

Where does that leave us?

Right now is the brief window in time when MacBooks just got bumped up in specs to match the low-end MacBook Pros, in order for the MacBook Pros to have room to grow without leaving the entry-level machines too far behind. If you're in the market for a MacBook, this could be the best time for you to buy and feel good about your purchase, knowing that you'll get the same performance as a machine that costs $200 more.

But keep in mind, this development basically implies that the MacBook Pros will be getting the Core i5 and i7 processors some time in the next year.

The unibody construction was an inevitable upgrade to the MacBook line, and one that brings many more benefits than it does faults. There shouldn't be a drastic change in the MacBook design any time soon, so now is probably the furthest away from the next generation as you're going to get. [Apple]

Polycarbonate unibody construction looks, feels great

Has just about the same specs as the 13-inch MacBook Pro, so you're getting a good deal

Finally get Pro stuff like the multitouch glass trackpad

Glossy wrist area is slightly too sticky

Can't swap out batteries, but you do get longer life in return

Firewire port is gone

Whether you're taken with the S5 largely depends on how you feel about Sonos in the first place. If you've been itching for an elegant way to play music and internet radio over your home network, and you have an iPhone or iPod Touch, you'll probably love the S5. It's not very different from Sonos's other products, really: Instead of plugging in your own stereo, the S5 simply supplies its own. Navigation, playback and music discovery are unchanged from previous Sonos products, so I'm going to focus on the hardware, mostly sound quality.

The receiver/speaker all-in-one is smaller than you'd expect, no bigger than a mid-sized iPod dock, and conservatively styled in white metal with a grey grille. I tested it alongside the winner of our iPod dock Battlemodo, the JBL OnStage 400p, for purely sound-specific purposes, since the actual products have a different feature set. Hardware-wise, the Sonos S5 lacks the JBL's iPod dock (as it doesn't really have a need for one) but does have Wi-Fi, ethernet and audio-in and -out.

It's super easy to set up; the iPhone app discovers any Sonos hardware, which you name and then have access to from the main menu. You choose music, either from a location on the network (like a computer, or in my case an Apple Time Capsule) or from streaming services like Pandora, Napster and Last.FM. Streaming was very quick, with only a split-second lag before the song started, and streaming music (both from a saved location and from the internet) played back so smoothly you can't tell that it's streaming. The Sonos iPhone app is excellent, as always—check out our review for more on that. Suffice to say that it's extremely fast and easy to use, whether you're searching through Last.FM for an artist or just streaming your own tunes from a computer.

Sound quality was actually very slightly disappointing, in that it didn't totally blow me away. It sounds quite good, don't get me wrong, and played far louder (without audible distortion even at its highest setting) than the JBL OnStage 400p, but on the whole I preferred the JBL. Though the Sonos is packing two tweeters, two mids and a subwoofer, bass wasn't nearly as full and rich as on the JBL. EQ can be tweaked via the remote (iPhone/iPod Touch or Sonos controller), but its stock setting was a little jarring on the highs and slightly thin-sounding compared to the JBL. At low volumes, the difference wouldn't be noticeable, but blasting Discovery's "Orange Crush" showed a distinct difference between the two.

I don't want to imply that the S5's sound quality is lousy in any way: It's definitely above-average for an all-in-one system, and I was impressed with the lack of distortion and clarity. But I kind of expected to be wowed, and I wasn't. That doesn't mean it's not an interesting and worthwhile product, but it could be better.

The S5 worked flawlessly with other S5s, able to play different songs simultaneously—but if you want one to stop playing its song and join in with another S5 to play in tandem, it can do that too, and sync perfectly. It's pretty cool and worked well, but I'm not sure why you'd need two all-in-one units to play the same song at the same time in different rooms.

I really like the Sonos S5 as a speaker for a room where you don't want a full stereo—like the kitchen, say, or the back porch. It's great to be free from wires yet still have access to all of your music, and services like Pandora. If you already own an iPhone or iPod Touch, it's actually a solid deal, provided you're sold on Sonos: The ZonePlayer 80 costs $300, but for $100 more you can get a portable (and pretty decent) speaker with the S5.

But the question I was left with: Is it worth the $160 premium over the JBL OnStage 400p? I'm not sure, really. The S5 is a more elegant solution, certainly, but a lot of users just want a quick-and-dirty playback device, and the S5 is too refined for that. If you're already a Sonos devotee, the S5 is an interesting and affordable addition to the lineup, but if you aren't sold on the whole concept, I don't think the S5 will change your mind. [Sonos]

The Motorola Cliq is the Android OS on Motorola hardware. Like Palm before it, Motorola decided that Windows Mobile 6.5/7 would be too little, too late to combat the iPhone menace. But instead of going in house and creating something from scratch, Motorola decided to take an already stable OS and build social networking features directly into the interface. So yes, it's basically an Android phone; but it's an Android phone++.

Motorola's Cliq delivers on its social networking promise quite admirably, even if there are a few design quirks that prevent the experience from being perfect. And although it's a little sluggish on the hardware side—as sluggish as any of the other Android phones out there now, that is—the fact that it has a good physical keyboard and solid Motorola hardware behind it makes the Cliq a very interesting contender in the Android world.

The Hardware is solid, except when it's not

Moto is no stranger to building its own phones, so you'd expect some smart hardware know-how to go into Cliq's design. That's only kinda true. Everything on the phone is where you'd expect it to be and buttons are more-or-less in acceptable locations, but there's a looseness in the slide-out keyboard that's more irritating the more I play with it. I can't tell if it's because the slider doesn't quite lock into place like it should—there's a little give in both the open and closed positions—but the "Oreo-ing" is really distracting. It's not as if the screen portion will pop off, it's just an annoying looseness in the phone that makes you feel like they didn't quite solve the puzzle of fitting everything in place.

A hardware keyboard is always a welcome thing to have, and the Cliq's behaves well. There's enough spacing in each of the keys that it's easy to type, but not too much that it's occupying a lot of space. There could have been some better arrangement of symbol keys (the underscore is buried under a symbols menu), but that's just being nitpicky. Overall, it's a solid keyboard that's quick to enter data with.

Other build quirks

The wobbliness of the slider means that you need to grip only the bottom (keyboard) part of the phone when you're taking a photo, or else the screen will slide open and you'll probably drop your phone. Also, Motorola decided to make the power switch flush with the right side of the phone so even Daredevil would have a hard time finding it by touch. Since the power button also lets you toggle Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, airplane mode and GPS, that's a bad design.

You have to open up the battery cover to shove an up-to 32GB microSD card in there, but since you'll rarely replace that (use a microUSB to transfer files), it's not a huge deal. I do like the fact that there's no cover on the microSD slot, as well as the presence of the now-obligatory vibrate toggle on the left side of the phone. Its 3.5mm headphone jack being located directly on the top of the phone kinda screws up the lines a bit, but I'd rather a slightly uglier phone than not having a 3.5mm jack.

Power and battery

Because the Cliq runs the same processor as the current Android phones now—like the Hero and the MyTouch 3G—there's not a whole lot of performance difference between the devices. They're all kinda slow. Not unusably slow, but transitions and animations don't pop immediately. And this sluggishness might be part of the reason why interacting with the touchscreen isn't as fluid a process as it could be, and why sometimes when you're swiping between emails or tweets, the page will pop back into place and you have to swipe a second time.

As for the battery life, you can pretty much imagine how much use you'll get out of an always-connected device that gets pushed emails, tweets and Facebook updates all day. Even if you don't make a lot of calls, you'll have to charge the device every night. And if you do do a lot of texting and emailing and calling and tweeting, you'd better get an external charger.

The main drain seems to be both the push and the fact that you're using the phone a lot to keep up with everything that's happening on your social networks. Motorola built a double-edged sword on that one; people want to use it a lot for checking status updates, but in turn the 1420 mAh battery runs out in less than a day.

Hardware features we like

There are a couple nice touches that we're appreciative of, such as the blinking light on the front for notifications, which has been on BlackBerries for a while. Great if you don't get a lot of emails or if you don't follow a lot of people. You can also wake up the phone using the facebuttons, not just the power toggle, so two quick menu button presses will get you to the home screen immediately.

Having a D pad is going to be useful in the future when Android developers start making games that take advantage of it, but you can use it now in NES/SNES emulators. And the camera is a beefy 5-megapixel autofocus, which produces decent photos compared to other Android phones. Plus, call quality is pretty good, something Motorola has managed to do well even when their software has faltered.

Software

Seeing as Android has been available for more than a while, and everyone should be familiar with what it does, I'm going to focus on the Cliq-specific sections. Suffice it to say that it can do everything other Android phones can, including downloading OTA Amazon MP3s and accessing all the apps in the Marketplace. The most important of Motorola's additions are the home screen widgets, so we'll start there.

The home screen widgets

The four widgets of note are the status widget, the messaging widget, the happenings widget and the news/RSS widget. The news widget is self-explanatory, and really cool that a phone would have a built-in RSS reader right on the home screen, but the others are a little bit trickier. The status widget lets you update your "status" to any of your social networking sites, like Facebook or Twitter. The messages widget consolidates ALL your 1:1 messaging, like emails, SMS, DMs on Twitter or private messages on Facebook. The happenings is a feed of other people's status updates on your social networks.

Messaging Widget
I don't know why, but it's very satisfying to be able to swipe through your emails directly from the home screen, quickly deleting or replying with just one tap. The problem comes from the way it's implemented and the lack of screen space, because you can't see the recipients list to see if you're the only person address to in an email, nor can you do a reply all if there are multiple people. And it doesn't tell you if you have an attachment.

Basically it's just a small window to your email, and you'll have to actually open up the traditional email app to do any communication beyond the basics. And there's also a full-blown Messaging APP, which consolidates all your accounts like the widget does.

Happenings Widget
This is where your all your social networks are rolled into one big feed. Again, it's a time saver to have all these updates in one place and being able to swipe through them, though sometimes you get way too many updates to realistically do so. What we would like is if there was an option to customize which networks displayed in the widget, so we could, say, have only Twitter and leave out Facebook. Right now it's an all or nothing affair, and you have to go into the Happenings app to see everything in list form and to be able to view only one network at a time.

The widget does allow you to directly interact and respond to people's updates, so you can comment on people's walls or do an @reply to someone's tweet. All you have to do is start typing in a particular section and some menu option will pop up, prompting you with context-specific actions you can do.

News Widget
The RSS widget behaves pretty much the same way as the previous two, allowing you to swipe through news items like you would in a standard RSS reader. Motorola was kind enough to bundle a few types of RSS feeds together, and Gizmodo is part of the Technology one. Good choice dudes.

Nice touches

By avoiding the creation of an entire operation system from scratch, the Motorola engineers had time on their hands to really think about the user experience, and it definitely shows in all these small touches and shortcuts they put in.

• There are some slick transition animations when you open up widgets and apps, which are quick enough to not be distracting, but slow enough to distract you for a second while your program is loading
• Faces are fetched and attached to your contacts automatically, and you can choose whether you want to grab the images from Google or Facebook. This way you can always have some kind of picture for a person when they call you for easy recognition
• The MotoBlur account you have to create on setup backs up some of your settings so that you can re-load it in the event of phone theft
• Speaking of phone stealing, there's a free service online that's similar to MobileMe that you can use to locate your phone from the web
• There's a five panel home screen. Eh? Ehh??
• The call button got moved to a soft button, eliminating the need for two hard buttons on the outside of the phone. You also get a contacts button instead of a end call button, since you don't need to hang up if you're not in a call.
• There's visual voicemail
• People's faces everywhere, and you can see their latest status updates when a call is initiated
• You can manually link contacts together, like on Palm's webOS, in case the phone doesn't automatically recognize that Frucci is the same Adam Frucci you have in your Gmail
• A self help widget is there when you get the phone, walking you through a few features you might not see
• There are shortcuts everywhere, which would usually be a bad thing since you have to poke around to find them, but they're implemented in such a way that it actually makes sense
• You can type on the home screen to find a contact. This makes sense in the Moto Cliq world since the Cliq is a person-centric device, whereas on other phones it would make more sense to bring up a Google search instead
• And typing in the applications tray searches through your apps

Gripes

The software's not flawless, however, and you will run into some minor annoyances even with all the niceties.
• Yahoo Mail only works over 3G, not Wi-Fi. This most likely has to do with some deal or legal restriction, but it doesn't make the decision less annoying. If we had to choose between Yahoo only on 3G and no Yahoo, we'd pick the 3G
• There isn't really desktop syncing for your contacts or calendar. You can send movies and music and photos over the microUSB connection, but Motorola really wants you to put your contacts on either Gmail or a social network and pull them down that way

You don't get a lot of fine-grained control over accounts. (Yes, I made you wait this long for a pun on the top photo.) For example, you can't tell your phone to only pull down contacts from Gmail and not Facebook, or choose to display only your Twitter and MySpace contacts at once. It's basically all or just one. More account customizability would be the number one software target we'd ask Motorola's team to aim for, and something we're eager to see in Blur version 1.5.

The Whole Experience

Like we said in the hardware section, the major thing holding back the Cliq from being a fantastic phone is the processor. The animations are smooth, the UI touches are smart and the social networking stuff is useful; we just wish we could have a bit more account customization, do all of that on faster hardware. Once Motorola gets the Blur platform onto a more powerful phone and works through some of the software quirks we noticed, they're going to have a really good Android phone on their hands.

Is this the phone that Motorola needs to bring it back into the smartphone race? It could be. They were smart enough to know that just doing another Android phone wasn't enough in itself, so they pulled together and created all this social networking glue to bind the experience together. It's cohesive enough to call the Cliq a different experience from other, similar devices like the Sprint HTC Hero, and is a pretty damn good first step in a possible Motorola comeback. [Motorola]

Social networking features are quite good

Lots of little touches that improve on the base Android platform

Hardware keyboard

Decent hardware except for the Oreo-like keyboard action

It's an Android phone at heart, which means you'll either like it or dislike it, based on how you feel about the platform

A slow-ish CPU makes the experience weaker than it could be

Price

The Air Multiplier runs $299 for the 10-inch version and $329 for the 12-inch version. I tested the 10.

How a Blade-Less Fan Works

So how does a fan without blades, a hula hoop on a stick, essentially, work? The bottom grills are for the air intake, powered by what I'm assuming is an internal fan. (Oh, this fan has a fan, you just don't see it.)
Still, you just barely feel the Multiplier breathing in. As this air is transported up through the device, it makes its way through the "loop amplifier" (that big loopy part), accelerating the air 15-fold as it's squeezed through a 1.3mm aperture around the ring. Sticking your hand through the loop, you'll feel air only in front of the ring because that's where you'll find the aperture. It's a mind-bending sensation to say the least.

The Experience

I'll admit it though, even knowing how the fan works now, all I could think was that it looked like a giant magnifying glass when I first opened the box.

I tentatively plugged the all-plastic device in, hit a button I could only assume was for power, and the device roared to life like a very wussy hairdryer. My face was greeted with the same quality of air: a relentless, even stream that felt a tad more industrial than residential.
The focused breeze was surprising but not quite hurricane-worthy. (Later I found the air output to measure 119 gallons per second. That output is about on par with at least one 10-inch commercial-grade fan shy of the $200 mark, and a $30, 8-inch duct fan produced about half that. Most consumer-grade fans don't disclose air power.)

And, exploring the device more, I realized that while it didn't look like any fan I'd used before, it worked almost exactly like every fan I'd used before.

For instance, one button toggled oscillation. Another twisted to rev the air speed (a smoother gradient of the traditional low, medium and high controls). And the base could be pushed forward or back, tilting the entire device in a manner more elegant but not entirely different from my $10 job in the next room.
Indeed, the Air Multiplier was the most beautiful fan I'd ever used, but it was still, at its plebeian heart, a window fan.

The Shame

Truthfully, I'm almost embarrassed for liking the Air Multiplier. There's no doubt that any Dyson vacuum demands a price premium for its fashion-forward design. But ultimately, this premium is relatively small. All good vacuums cost a few hundred bucks, so the Dyson upsell is somewhat reasonable—tempting even.
$300 for a fan is far, far from an upsell when I can get 95% of the experience for $10 at Walmart. Even as a good fan...even as a beautiful fan...even as a clever fan that blocks less window light...even as a safe fan that your toddler or pet can examine without injury...I'm downright humiliated for liking it, especially in this economy.

But like it, I do. [Dyson]

Completely unique design

Safe (no external moving parts)

No doubt, it's great at fanning

Probably easier to knock-off than a vacuum

Not loud, but far from silent

Costs about a bajillion times more than any fan I've ever bought

It's the most polished Twitter app yet, oozing slickness with every swipe. Yet, it's exploding with new features, and still really fast. It manages to cram in every possible feature you could possibly want in a Twitter app—offline reading!—without feeling too complicated or bloated. Truthfully, it's a brand new, totally different app from the original, down to the core. If you already own Tweetie and don't buy Tweetie 2 because you feel like you shouldn't have to spend another $3, Alyssa Milano, it's your loss.

Form, Oh Shiny Form

The main Tweetie 2 interface feels just like the original—awesome—with two big differences: The chat bubbles are dead, replaced by a solid stream of tweets, and glowing notification orbs tell you when new tweets, mentions or direct messages are waiting for you. That's a huge functional leap over the original Tweetie, where you had to click over to each section to see if you had new messages. Plus, the orbs just look cool, like they're cut off by the bottom of the screen. The one flaw here is that sometimes it doesn't register you've read a message, so you'll wind up clearing the orb for the same message twice.

How do you refresh? When you hit the top of a timeline and keep pulling down, an arrow pops into sight that tells you to pull down, and as you down, it smoothly spins upward, telling you to release to refresh. It's simple, but slick. There's also a search bar up there, so you can look through all the tweets you have pulled up for something that caught your eye.

So Much Function

The greatest new feature in Tweetie 2 is its offline powers. They're great. Not only does it cache tweets to read offline, but you have other Twitter capabilities, like adding favorites, which are synced up the next time you go back online. A basic drafts manager lets you store and edit tweets to send later.

You can set up virtual push notifications so you can see whenever somebody you follow drops a Tweet bomb, like RealTracyMorgan. (They show up as a text message from 40404, i.e., Twitter.) Sadly, this doesn't extend to @replies, but it's for following a particular person (or persons, if you want a lot of messages about tweets). Other new functional awesomeness includes auto-complete for @replying and direct messaging people who have confusing-ass usernames you can't remember (though you have to go to the user, and then compose a message to them), the ability to link people with address cards, a very pretty nearby tweet search, and integration with multiple services like Instapaper and Tweet Blocker.

Buy It Now

If you've never paid for a Twitter app or even if you have, Tweetie 2 is well worth the measly three bucks it costs. It's fast, it's got full offline powers and it's so polished your iPhone will slip out of your hand while you're using it. It's not perfect, but it's the closest yet.

Super smooth UI, gushing with polish and animations

Exceptionally good offline powers

Feature-packed without feeling bloated

No real syncing with desktop app

No real push notifications

[iTunes, Atebits]

I am not going to tell you this is the best turn-by-turn road navigation app in the world. The designers made some funny UI choices, there's no multi-destination or point-on-map routing, it doesn't have text-to-speech, and it only runs in portrait mode, taking up awkward space on my dashboard. Still, there's almost no reason not to get it.

I still think Navigon is the slickest, and ALK's CoPilot is impressively full featured for costing just $35. But the commitment required for MotionX GPS Drive beats them all: It's $3 to download, and you get a month of turn-by-turn directions included in that. Then, if you want, you pay either $25 for a year of full turn-by-turn, or $3 for a month—and the charges are non-recurring. You can pay the $3 only when you actually need it.

Compared to What?

Because it's a connected product, its closest comparisons are AT&T Navigator by TeleNav ($10/month) and Gokivo by Networks In Motion (recently reduced to $5/month). It doesn't come with 1.5GB in onboard maps like TomTom, Navigon, ALK and Sygic—instead it downloads them over the air—so you have to be in a service area when you are setting out on your destination. Still, if your phone has less memory to spare, it could be better.

Connected Services

Not only does it download Navteq maps on the fly, but it uses online search instead of stored points of interest. In theory this is better, because it means fewer wrong addresses of business who closed or moved. That's not always the case, but I did find MotionX to have a decent online search—the first in this class that I've seen powered by Microsoft's Bing.

Again, because it's online, it has access to traffic data. At the moment, though, the app only uses traffic information in its routing, says the developers. There's no way to check a traffic report like on other apps. However, the developers appear to be toying with a Dash-like concept too: A future version of the app may be used to gather and share its own live traffic data. There's nothing like that now, and Fullpower won't share details, but it sounds like fun. I also asked about live gas prices, which others offer: None now, but that will change.

Some Superficial Complaints

I did have a few cosmetic issues with the app. For starters, it doesn't have a landscape mode, so the phone is always upright. I want landscape mode because it fits way better when it's horizontal in the dashboard mount (which, like with all other GPS apps, will run you an extra $10-$100). That's a fact, though Fullpower goes out of their way to say they didn't add landscape because nobody's asked for it yet. Until now.

Oddly enough, Fullpower is proud of their in-app compass, which I find extraneous on two levels. For one, if I'm looking at a map, no matter whether north is up or the heading is up, I know which direction I'm pointing. Additionally, that compass only works with 3GS (I believe), and the 3GS already has a compass. When do you ever pull over to the side of the road and say "if I only knew where north was!"? Maybe in the days before GPS that was an issue, but now it doesn't matter so much. (Until the sky falls, at least.)

I would also love to customize the things I see on the main screen. At the moment, next to the upcoming turn information, it flips through assorted trip data: ETA, compass heading, distance remaining and time remaining. I really only care about ETA, so I'd like to freeze that up top, and may be get a speed indicator with speed limit warnings as well.

My final issue is more of a quirk than anything else: To view the list of upcoming turns, you have to tap the iPod button at the bottom of the screen. It's nice to have rich iPod access in the app (all apps have a rudimentary iPod access—as long as a song is already playing, you double-tap the home button—but this does more). Still it's weird for that all-important list of turns to be hidden under a button called "iPod."

How Is The Price So Low?

A guy like me could bitch about this app more, trust me, but the fact is, I've driven with it for almost a week, and it gets you where you want to go, quickly and simply. But it's going to sell like mad because the price of entry is the lowest around, and its two-year cost of ownership—$53 if you use it regularly—is competitive, especially when you consider that's the initial download plus two completely optional $25 increments. By allowing you so many options to walk away, MotionX actually has you by the balls.

I have asked Fullpower and its competitors how pricing could get this crazy, with $100 apps competing with $3 apps. Fullpower's best answer is that they're not in any other GPS turn-by-turn business, so they don't have to protect the price of earlier products the way TeleNav or TomTom might have to. ("If they offer a better value on the iPhone than to their existing customers, they may have challenges.") When I asked TeleNav, makers of the $10/month AT&T Navigator and Sprint Navigator, they said, "Honestly, at a $3-per-month price point, it is unclear how a company could possibly innovate, build out features and work on the quality of the app without losing money."

What they didn't say, but what you're already thinking, is that for $3 a month, it doesn't hurt to find out. [iTunes Link]

Amazing price, and lowest possible barrier to entry

Fully functional spoken turn-by-turn navigation app

Connected to Navteq maps and Bing live local search

No landscape view (which some, like me, prefer)

Navigation screen could show more relevant data, or be more customizable

No multi-destination routing or routing to point on map, as found in other apps

For more on iPhone GPS app, check out our iPhone Navigation Battlemodo Part 1 and Part 2.