In brief, the Envy is indeed light system with plenty of power, but it never feels premium, nor does the battery life reach adequate levels.

Sure, it comes in a nice black box labeled "ENVY" with properly monolithic upscalism. And the computer itself is wrapped in a very, very soft black cloth.

But once removed, I can't distinguish this $1,800 laptop from any random PC on a table at Best Buy. HP's premium laptop, one that's been oooh'd and ahhh'd ad nauseam, could have been a $600 budget system.
The aluminum magnesium body, which works well enough in the 13-inch Envy, scales to become a big, synthetic-feeling disappointment. Yes, it's just an inch thick and 5.2lbs (about a pound lighter than peers), but the footprint is so large that, upon opening the packaging, I at first believed HP had sent me a 17-inch system (keep in mind, there's still no room for an internal optical drive).

It was a surprising thought, but at that moment, I realized something: HP is the new Dell. Disregarding their impressive TouchSmart desktops, HP has built the quintessential drab PC laptop and labeled it as "designer." Meanwhile, Dell, with their fashion-forward Adamo line, has left rivals like HP somewhere back in 1995.

Kudos, Dell.

I almost hate to continue describing the system, lest I beat a dead horse. The keyboard is adequate, but every impact reverberates through your finger, making the laptop feel more fragile than it probably is. The trackpad, despite multitouch promises, is dreadful to use. Two-finger scrolling is met with a perpetual half-second (or greater) delay, and clicking the buttonless pad (engineered much like a MacBook Pro pad) screams unfinished prototype.
There's simply nothing elegant about the mechanics, even though the 1920x1080 screen is indeed sharp, HDMI and eSATA connections are convenient and the Beats-branded speakers are very balanced and rich...for laptop speakers.

Performance

But my hate-fest for the Envy ends there. If you don't mind the aesthetics and feel—and at this price, you really should—the system won't disappoint. The 1.6GHz Core i7, coupled with 6GB of RAM, 500GB 7200RPM HDD, and ATI Mobility Radeon 4830 (with 1GB RAM) has gotten performance nods from around the web.

While the system can't best 20fps in the higher tiers of Crysis, it can reach 32fps if you scale the graphics down to 1024x768, according to Notebookcheck. Older and less insane titles perform even better.

PCMag's cross-laptop testing found that the Envy isn't the fastest laptop out there, but it keeps pace with other Core i7 systems to the point that such a distinction doesn't really matter. And it'll shame Core2Duo systems, like the aging MacBook Pro.

In real world use, the speed is a pleasure, and a welcome level of overkill for mediacentric web browsing in an era when Atoms are chugging to just get the job done.

Battery Life

But all this performance comes at a heavy, heavy price. You should only expect the Envy to get a measly 1 hour, 20 minutes of battery life*. Given this system's sizable footprint, it needs to last more than 2 hours under moderate use. Stick a bigger battery in there, HP. Something. Please.

(*nonstop web browsing, Wi-Fi on, screen at 3/4 brightness.)

Misguided Envy

Some of you will be fooled by the light body covered in laser-etched paisley—probably the same among you who can drink instant coffee, listen in 92kbps MP3s and think that SD broadcasts look identical to Blu-ray movies.
And that's fine. I can understand why someone might like the Envy, especially given the processing power and modest 5.2lb weight. It's just a shame that anyone would pay so much for it.

HP, Acer, Toshiba, etc, you think I like giving Apple all my money? There's a staggering amount of design talent in the world. Find it. Fund it. And give it a chance to wipe the smug grin off Cupertino. Offer us all something that we should really be envying.


Light

Fast

Respectable I/O

Feels cheap

Wretched battery life

The Price

$80 on pre-order now.

The Verdict

I like it both more and less than I expected to.

On one hand, AViiQ's portable laptop stand matches my MacBook while angling my keyboard at a truly perfect 12 degrees. And it folds, with relative ease, down to an absurdly thin, near-weightless strip of aluminum that can squeeze into any bag, I'm certain.
On the other, the stand feels cheaper than I'd expect for its $80 price. Sure, we're talking about aluminum, but more like flimsy, pop can aluminum than unibody Mac aluminum. And it folds through a plastic connective tissue that loosens over time but never feels 100% in terms of general structural integrity.

For $20, the investment would be a no-brainer. For $80...well, it's a bit more complicated. Do what you will depending on your particular socioeconomic status.

Super light

Crazy-thin

Excellent ergonomics

I can't help but worry about long-term durability

$80

UPDATE: This, from AViiQ:

"The product IS very light so it may seem less substantial, but in this case, it's a purposeful part of the design to make the product ultralight for easy travel. Alcan, the developer of Hylite, says that the hinges can be folded more than 5000 times without any wear. As for the price tag, like titanium or carbon fiber, lightweight often equals more expensive and Hylite certainly adheres to that truth. We tried making it out of a material that was lightweight and inexpensive, but feathers just don't have the structural strength we required (not to mention the sneezing it caused in the studio)."

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]

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

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.

CNET
"Windows 7 presents a stable platform that can compete comfortably with OS X, while reassuring the world that Microsoft can still turn out a strong, useful operating system."

PCWorld
"...the final shipping version I test-drove appears to be the worthy successor to Windows XP that Vista never was."

NYTimes
"[Microsoft's] three-year Windows Vista nightmare is over."

IT Pro
"Windows 7...is competent and functional due to internal improvements and the user interface is attractive and good for productivity."

bit-tech
"For want of a better way of describing it, Microsoft has essentially fixed Vista and the result is arguably Microsoft's best operating system to date."

Guardian
"Windows 7 is simply the best version of Windows you can get."

Slate
"Indeed, the new Windows is not only the best operating system that Microsoft has ever produced. It is arguably the fastest, most intuitive, and most useful consumer desktop OS on the market today."

Maximum PC
"...Windows 7 is unquestionably the best version of Windows that Microsoft has ever released, and is the true successor to Windows XP."

Tech Radar
"No version of Windows is ever perfect, but Windows 7 really is the best release of Windows yet."

PC Mag
"It's far and away the best OS we've ever seen from Microsoft."

Wall Street Journal
"I believe it is the best version of Windows Microsoft has produced."

ElectricPig
"With Windows 7, Microsoft wants us to believe that it's got its OS back on track and for the most part we feel they have."

Engadget
"Where Vista felt like a sprawling mess, Windows 7 has patched up the holes and feels like a tight, unified mechanism."

Telegraph
"Windows 7 is the operating system Vista should have been..."

Hexus
"This is the operating system that Windows Vista should have been."

Digital Trends
"...Microsoft has returned for redemption with Windows 7, otherwise known as "what Vista should have been."

AP
"Windows 7 [is] a slick, much improved operating system that should go a long way toward erasing the bad impression left by its previous effort, Vista."

V3
"...Windows 7 is a worthy successor to Windows XP..."

Federal Computer Week
"There is nothing wrong with Windows 7 - and we've always thought Vista was a better operating system than its reputation suggested - so if a new system happens to come with it, then you'll get a fine operating system."

PC Pro UK
"We like Windows 7 a lot - so much so, that the disappointment that was Windows Vista has already become a distant memory..."

Technodorm
"If you have the money to spend, there is no reason why you shouldn't upgrade."

Laptop Mag
"If Vista left you somewhat disillusioned with Windows, we suggest you upgrade to Windows 7."

Cult of Mac
"I need to go wash my eyes out with bleach."

The Inquirer
"Windows 7 is as pretty as Apple stuff, just as easy to use, and does not treat you like a moron."

Computer World
"...it's finally time to upgrade."

TechWorld
"Windows 7 feels like an anti-Vista..."

Gizmodo
"...if you're coming from Windows XP, Windows 7 will totally feel like a revelation from the glossy future. If you're coming from Vista, you'll definitely go "Hey, this is much better!" the first time you touch Aero Peek. If you're coming from a Mac, you'll—hahahahaha. But seriously, even the Mactards will have to tone down their nasal David Spadian snide, at least a little bit."

Technologizer excavated the reviews from every major publication of the time, and the early reactions are kind of amazing given how people felt about Vista just a few months after launch (the Walt Street Journal's Walt Mossberg called it "the best version of Windows that Microsoft has produced"). Only Forbes' Stephen Manes' ventured that Vista is "at best mildly annoying and at worst makes you want to rush to Redmond, Wash. and rip somebody's liver out."

Given the massive public beta for Windows 7 and all of the telemetry data Microsoft's been able to gather before launch (among a ton of other factors), I really doubt 7's gonna be Vista all over again, even if Steve Ballmer himself feels the need to leave Microsoft a little bit of room to maneuver. Still, Vista's a solid illustration of how different a product can be for a handful of isolated reviewers than it turns out to be for everybody else. [Technologizer]

Believe it or not, the PSP was a meaningful gift that brings earnest tears to my eyes just recollecting the scenario. It wasn't just that I'd been obsessing about the PSP since its announcement—what seemed like (and sort of was) the ultimate do-everything media gadget of its day. The PSP was a token of her tacit acceptance of who I was. She knew that while I'd grow old with her, I'd probably never surpass mental adolescence. And that was OK.

So for better or worse, I'll always feel attached to the PSP brand in this strangely emotional way. And realize that, as the PSPgo solidifies the Sony's growing embarrassment in the industry, it breaks my heart a lot more than yours.

Price

$250 on October 1.

Hardware

At 333MHz with 64MB of RAM, the Go isn't any faster or more powerful than the last PSP. But now it's loaded with 16GB of flash storage, has an Micro M2 slot for expansion and, without a UMD drive, manages to be 50% smaller and 40% lighter than the original PSP. The 3.8-inch screen is technically .5 inches smaller than the PSP classic, but it runs at the same 480x272 resolution.

After playing with the PSPgo for a week, I've adjusted to the small form. It slides open with a smooth but fulfilling snap, and it's very light and balanced in your hands.

Despite the chrome detailing, know that the edging and body are constructed of what's not the most sturdy-feeling plastic, but only time will tell how well the Go holds up to daily abuse. As Adam Frucci said, "it doesn't quite feel cheap, but it doesn't feel expensive either." If you could say one thing about the original PSP, it was that it felt expensive.

But it's more than just quality making this impression. When you hold a Zune HD, the thing seems to be carved from the future itself. When you hold the PSPgo, it feels like a free-with-contract tween's phone.
The Go's low profile buttons are strickly utilitarian—the springiness of the original PSP's buttons are undoubtedly more comfortable. LB and RB shoulders feel wretchedly soft, while the low-profile D-pad and circle, triangle, etc buttons are stiff and digital. Select and Start are a waste of space (a mocking waste of space, given that a second analog stick would fit perfectly there). Meanwhile, most of the buttons around the case's edges are throwbacks to classic PSP design, from the Wi-Fi toggle to the power switch.
The screen has vibrant color reproduction, and a perfect level of max brightness (until you take it in direct sunlight, where it becomes unusable). Its black levels ever so slightly best those of my aging iPhone 3G, but the resolution, 480x272 stretched .3 inches beyond the iPhone's 480x320, means that text often appears more pixelated than you're used to seeing it, and otherwise gorgeous movie playback is often flawed with jagged pixels.
But what I really don't understand is why this screen isn't touch-sensitive. Especially when the slider is closed, I want to flick and zoom through webpages, the PS store and the XMB. More than once I've attempted the feat, only to remember, what the shit, this huge screen isn't touch capable.

So closed, the PSPgo can't really be navigated. Scratch that. You can accidentally hit LB to restart your movie—a function you'll use frequently—if by accident.

It should be noted that Bluetooth also allows you to use a SIXAXIS/Dual Shock 3 controller with the Go. Syncing is easy and the system works perfectly, but consider the practical ergonomics for a moment. You end up balancing the Go on your lap in this really awkward way.

Looking at the design, a conspiracy theory pops in my head. The PSPgo was the template for the PSP2. Open, it had dual analogs. Closed, it had a touchscreen. Somewhere inside, it had a faster processor, more RAM and, hell, maybe even 3G or something. Maybe it was machined of metal and could be thrown like a ninja star. Regardless of this theory's truth, we're stuck with the Go as-is.
Note: PSP shots are of original (PSP-1000) model.

Software

Honestly, the hardware is only half of what holds the PSPgo back from being something better. It's the aging PSP software full of unfixed nagging points, like that Wi-Fi doesn't connect automatically upon startup, typing is still done through that horrible phone-dial-like interface and lack of support for background downloading from the PS Store.

Yes, while the PS3 allows you to download games and movies while performing other tasks, the PSPgo is stuck monotasking during downloads. Oh, and if your PSP dies before you've finished that 1.6GB movie download—which takes a while over the Go's slow 802.1b Wi-Fi—you get to start all over. (Also, while it's nice of Sony to keep compression levels low, SD quality movies on portables need smaller files sizes than this for people to watch movies on the go.)
The browser is absolutely archaic. Beyond tedious analog nub navigation, the Go ran out of RAM while loading Gizmodo just like it had before on the original PSP...just like is prone to occurring on the PS3. Sony has advertised a browser on multiple systems that doesn't really work, and that's just ridiculous.

PSP Minis, or tiny apps like you see on the iPhone (in some cases, exactly like you see on the iPhone), are on their way. But the limitations are strict, meaning that even the games ported from the iPhone could be missing functions like networking. And how big or wonderful will the catalog be if Sony can barely recruit studios to develop for the PSP as it is now? (Sony has catalog of 225 PSPgo games that will be downloadable over PC or Wi-fi at launch.)

Also, you may not have heard about one key software feature. When you close the PSPgo from the XMB, a clock appears on screen. Thank goodness, because I've been needing one of those!

Battery Life

In a mixture of movie playback, gaming and general interface navigation, the PSPgo ran for 4 hours and 47 minutes at max brightness with Wi-Fi on. That's about the same battery life of the last few PSPs. Unfortunately, those who liked to use an extended or extra battery with the PSP will find that more difficult on the Go as its battery is positioned inside the screw-off case. Plus, iFixit has confirmed that removing the battery actually voids your warranty.

PSPgoes Nowhere New

The PSPgo should have been the ZuneHD with games, a versatile media platformed with cutting edge hardware and eye-meltingly beautiful software. But instead, it's a slightly smaller PSP with a screen, storage capacity and software that's not all that competitive with other $250 devices today. If you see just the DSi as the PSP's competition, the Go's updates seem pretty substantial. But compared to the advancements in PMPs and smartphones as of late, it's just very difficult to sit in awe of the Go's inelegant hardware and clunky software.

Oh, and needless to say, there's still no second analog stick.

Four years later, my wife and I are closer than ever. But my beloved PSP sits on a shelf somewhere out of reach, a dusty artifact that I'll neither play nor throw away. The Go will not fare any better by being a little bit smaller or ditching pesky UMDs. PSP2, I'll be waiting for whenever you decide to show up and steal my heart again.

Your hands will get used to the new ergonomics

Squeezes into a jeans pocket

Buttons are usable, but less comfortable than regular PSP

Sony's software feels dated (browser, downloads, text entry)

Next to a Zune HD or iPod touch, the hardware is unimpressive

Transfer speeds hindered by dated 802.1b Wi-Fi standard

The Price:

$379

The Waterproofing and Toughness:

It's rated to 10 meters, or 33 feet, without a case, making it just as pressure resistant as the Powershot D10. And there's a 30 meter case, optional, for deeper excursions, too, which the Canon doesn't have. It is the only periscoping internal zoom lens with a mechanized metal cover. Like the Pentax W80 and Canon Powershot D10, it can operate at down to 14 degrees F, making it ideal for winter sports. It's shock rated to a drop of 6.6 feet and crushproof to 220 pounds. It's heavy and almost completely metal. The screen and lens are coated with a water resistant substance, keeping droplets from getting in the way of clean shots. It's a monster. All it needs is a damn turret and you could send it into a warzone.

The Pictures:

Now for the slightly sad part. Relative to other test shots by other waterproof cameras, the photos were, well, middling and grainy. I don't believe that picture quality is necessarily a main concern on waterproof cameras—water quality is a bigger determination here—but as an above water camera, there are better choices. I did find the multiple underwater modes for surf/snow on the ground (pumps exposure), the high speed and landscape under the sea, and video modes to be a nice touch. The camera is also dual stabilized using optical and high ISO to reduce shakes. The biggest problem I had was the focus lag which caused plenty of missed action shots. That was a negative thing for me in an otherwise great user experience. Oh, there's a beauty mode, which combines face detection with softening algorithms on camera—there's a cool animation with sparkles that it plays while it renders—that take wrinkles and shadows out of faces. Kind of works!

The Video-ooh No:

What the shit: The 640x480 pixel video looked kind of jittery at times and was washed out all the time and—the worst part—limited to 10 second clips. This, for me, is somewhat of a deal breaker. When you're outside, motion shots are a given. I need better video on this camera!

Quirks:

Yes, it uses XD cards, and a variation of ye old mini and micro USB, so I had to hunt for some gear to transfer shots.

The Bottom Line:

As tough as it gets, but photos are a little underwhelming and video fall way short. I'm definitely conflicted here.

The toughest point and shoot in the world.

Video sucks

Photos a bit soft


[Olympus, Gizmodo]

Summermodo is a chance for Giz to get outside and test our gear where it belongs.

Sure, the standard def video was serviceable, but when cheaper point and shoots do the same or HD video, a purpose built camcorder has no excuse for not blowing them out of the water for cheaper. And it's only waterproof to 6 feet. Miserable! Also, the camera liked to focus on the water droplets on its lens like a cross-eyed idiot. Unlike the very presentable Lumix DMC-TS1 from the same company, please avoid this piece of defunct technology. One nice thing: It comes with a floating strap. But, again, if you buy this, you are dumb. [Panasonic]

The fact that it exists.

Summermodo is a chance for Giz to get outside and test our gear where it belongs.

Price

$150

Waterproofness

Because it lives in its own magic bubble housing, its good for 15-feet. That's good, but not great. The Canon D10 is good for 30 feet, and most other waterproof cameras are good for this depth without a housing.

The Photos

I won't go too in depth here as the photos speak for themselves:

Barfy color, contrast and grain. It's really a video camera that can record at 1280x720 (or, 720p) at 30 frames per second in h.264. There's 4x zoom, and it starts fairly zoomed in, making me wish it had image stabilization. It has an LED for lighting videos, though. The stills were 5MP, for whatever that's worth.

The Designs

Inside of its case, you can't do much. You can't power it down and up, either, so I ended up getting a bit of moisture in the case. No biggie, since its no loss if this thing drowns. Oh, you know what else is terrible? The thing is, like many camcorder housings, permanently stuck in a flipped out screen position, so packing this thing is a chore.

720p video

Cheap, but only a few bucks less than the much nicer Fuji Waterproof. So...

External housing

Worst images of any underwater camera

Not very waterproof considering the bulky housing

[DXG]

Summermodo is a chance for Giz to get outside and test our gear where it belongs.

NYTimes
"...the haters online deride Snow Leopard as a "service pack" - nothing more than a bug-fix/security-patch update like the ones Microsoft periodically releases for Windows. That's a pretty uninformed wisecrack."

Chicago Sun-Times
"OpenCL and Grand Central Dispatch are features that will speed up every existing app to a certain degree, by virtue of the fact that apps rely on OS routines; naturally, Snow Leopard itself takes full advantage of both technologies. But expect to see more serious performance gains as developers begin to fine-tune their apps for 10.6."

Macworld
"System Preferences is also where you'll see the ugliest evidence of Apple's conversion to 64-bit applications throughout the system...if you click on a third-party preference pane that hasn't yet been upgraded to a 64-bit version, System Preferences will tell you that it has to quit and reopen itself in 32-bit mode in order to open that preference pane...it gets frustrating..."

Wall Street Journal
"Commonly used third-party programs, like the Mac versions of Microsoft Office, the Firefox browser, and Adobe Reader, all worked fine in my tests after the upgrade. But a few things didn't. Apple admitted I had found a few bugs..."

Engadget
We were promised 6GB of storage savings with 10.6, and Apple more than delivered — we got anywhere from 10GB to a whopping 20GB back after installation.

Wired
"The most significant refinement to built-in software occurs in QuickTime, now dubbed QuickTime Player X. The player interface gets a makeover - a gray-and-black gradient (see screenshot at right). Other than that, there are new tools including movie recording from your webcam, audio recording from your microphone, and screencasting."

PCMag
"Among dozens of improvements to Snow Leopard's interface, one major standout is the enhanced Exposé feature. Exposé...Snow Leopard shows them in a better-organized grid-style layout, and adds a feature that displays reduced images of the windows open in only a single application instead of across every open application."

CNET
"Preview now lets you preview almost any file, even if it was created with software you don't have on your hard drive. This means common file types from Microsoft Excel, PowerPoint, and even PDF files can all be previewed without owning the programs they were created in. As an added bonus, Preview in Snow Leopard provides accurate text selection to multicolumn PDF files using artificial intelligence to infer the layout of each page."

PCWorld
"...with the release of iPhone 2.0 and now Snow Leopard, my views on Exchange have taken a 180-degree turn. If our IT department wants to move us to Exchange, I now say bring it on."

Gizmodo
"...speed optimizations are deep, reminding me of when a master martial artist puts the entirety of his weight behind a strike (while a neophyte would flails his limbs like a henchman in a Bruce Lee movie). The little UI tweaks are no different than when a great sculptor's chisel works to remove everything non-essential during the final steps on a statue. Challenging 30 years of ever more bloated software tradition, the changes here are about becoming a more effective middleware between the media and the hardware, reducing friction while becoming more useful by, well, being lighter, less visible."

I only had it set up in my living room for a short while. A little HBO, some movies, not much gaming at all. But it would have been long enough to pick apart a TV by just watching it. And during that time Sony's picture defied any major complaints. Standard definition TV looked colorful, clear and without too many artifacts, reminiscent of how good it did on ye old standard def CRTs, before flat panels started hamfisting the upscaling. On the high end, High definition content from a Blu-ray disc felt like pricks from hypodermic needles, 1920 x 1080 of them, filled with a solution of video joy suspended in photons, as well as some unknown meds that made my chest tighten and my eyes unable to blink. It was by far the best LCD I'd ever seen, and as David Katzmeier from CNet said when he reviewed it, one of the best sets ever, although not as fine of a picture as the now extinct Pioneer Kuro plasma sets.

Sony's engineers went to remarkable lengths to create it, almost as if the ghost of Sony's founding fathers came down and rekindled the engineering pride of the company, telling them to spare no measure to create the TV. "Use LEDs! Use three or four of them for every one those bastards in Korea do!" What resulted was a unique set of discrete red, green and blue LEDs—two of the dimmer greens in every triad— repeating the set up into a backlighting array. Each of the different color LEDs would be calibrated in real time, adjusting for color and brightness output. And that's after they were matched for similar qualities. Apply localized dimming, for a set only an LED fanatic could dream of. And the result was fantastic but without implying anything about its reliability, it is curiously prototype-like in many ways.

The set's large number of discreet color LEDs makes it heavier, more power hungry and thicker than most LED LCD sets, fitting somewhere in physical profile between other LED LCD sets and plasmas. A year and change after its revolutionary release, the set finds itself in murkier waters that make it impossible to justify its extravagance—another hallmark of cutting edge prototype-like technology. And there's competition. Kind of!

Having said how wonderful it looks, this set is a strange creature, born right before the economic crash wiped out the chance that high end sets, like Mitsu's laser TV or Pioneer's Kuros, would sell well. Yet it exists at the same time as its cheaper and poorer performing successors like the Non-LED XBR9.

Markets equalize all. Right now, the XBR8 still has a wildly expensive, with an MSRP of almost $4000 for a 46-incher. Thankfully, because of the set's age, they're going for $2600 on Amazon, which is better, but still over the MSRP of some competing sets that look almost—almost—as good. The XBR9 is $2600 MSRP and can be had for under 2 grand. For about the same price as the XBR9, you can get the LG LH90 in a 47 inch size, backlit by white LEDs with localized dimming. David K. over at CNet says its almost as good, visually.

Somehow, I'm still drawn to the only shipping LCD that uses separate red, green, and blue LEDs. Maybe once the retailers forget how special it is, and the final units are put on clearance as last year's model, I'll pick one up at a steal. More than likely, that sub $2k price point will fill up with better and better sets using simpler and more production friendly technology that'll make me wonder what I was lusting about in the first place. Until then, I still love the XBR8. And without any benchmarks, you'll just have to take my word for it that this set is something special, if not also an unrealistic set to own.

Meanwhile, take a trip pretty much anywhere else in the world and things change:

Looking at an EU dishwasher label...The machine is rated not only on total energy and water consumption, but also on cleaning performance, drying performance, size and noise. At a glance, consumers get a sense of how this dishwasher stacks up against every other dishwasher on the market....The American EnergyGuide label lists the manufacturer-submitted annual kilowatt-hours consumption estimate, compares that to the other manufacturer-submitted estimates, then crunches those numbers with another set of assumptions to project how much money it might cost to operate the machine for a year. It's up to the shopper standing on the dishwasher aisle to figure out whether 100 or 1000 kilowatt-hours per year is a reasonable cost for clean plates.

Basically, the rest of the world gets a free issue of Consumer Reports on the label of every appliance they're about to buy. We're left needing a subscription. [Popular Mechanics]

The Verdicts: First, the Panasonic SL-850 turntable: This turntable uses the first version of quadraphonic sound, CD-4, which means the turntable outputs four distinct, individual channels directly to 4 separate speakers. Though it's a form of surround sound, in my test track, "Musicione" by The Guess Who, the differences between stereo and quadraphonic weren't quite as obvious as, say, between stereo and a 5.1 surround sound mix. There's very little of that gimmicky "moving sound" that flits between each channel that's sometimes emphasized in 5.1, but there's definitely a noticeable difference between quad and stereo.

In the chorus of the quad version of "Musicione," each background vocal track gets its own channel, which is reduced to a mere two-way split in the sad stereo mix. Also in quad, there's a treble/bass split between the front and rear, even going so far as to split the drum set components (high hat and snare in the front, floor tom and bass drum in the rear), while the left/right split is saved for the band's two main instruments (piano left, guitar right). It's pretty subtle, and no doubt some of the subtlety was exacerbated by the questionable quality of my speakers, but a stereo version of the same song definitely felt flat in comparison.

The turntable also features an automatic start and stop, a welcome addition, as well as the standard 33/45/78 RPM modes. It's the only automatic turntable I've ever used—instead of lifting the needle and placing it on the record (crazy! I'll go to the gym if I'm gonna work out, you know what I mean?), you just flip a switch and the Panasonic does it for you. My particular model is missing the center pin that holds the record in place—in the past, I've filed down a wood pencil as a replacement, though the drill bit I found amongst my dad's tools (pictured) works nicely as well.

The downsides to quadraphonic? The needle, technically called the "Shibata stylus," is a specialized type. When the time comes for replacement, you can bet it'll cost more and be harder to find than a standard needle. Plus, there are comparatively few quadraphonic records out there—my dad's copy of The Who's Quadrophenia was actually only in two channel. While the SL-850 plays stereo like a champ, you're not buying it for mere two-channel audio.

The GE 4-Channel Receiver is an even more interesting beast. Its most striking feature is the built-in 8-track cassette player, though to my deep, deep disappointment, it refused to play the only two 8-tracks in my possession, a Motown compilation and the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack. No amount of NES-style blowing into the cassettes or the player would yield any sound, so I suppose it must be busted.

But the receiver itself is a powerhouse—it's got both four-channel and simple stereo modes, a stylish AM/FM tuner, and a sweet balance joystick that lets you control which of the four channels (L/R front and back) gets the most emphasis. It was able to push my four speakers (a pair of giant Pioneer cabinets and a pair of slightly smaller Sonys, one of which was mysteriously and unsettlingly sticky) with a ton of power and pretty decent bass/treble control, thanks to a pair of sliders. Unfortunately, it's packing only a single audio input, so it might require an external A/V switcher if I wanted to line in more than just the turntable.

The GE unit is also a handsome-looking deck, with wood paneling all around accompanied by a chrome and black plastic front. The AM/FM tuner lights up in fluorescent green and has this great squiggly grid design, and it's very clear what every toggle and switch does. If it weren't for the busted 8-track deck, it'd be a winner.

Turntable:
Quadraphonic audio recordings sound great

Plays stereo and quad perfectly

Automatic start/stop is a welcome feature

Rare needle could be expensive and/or difficult to replace

Not the best-looking turntable we've ever seen

Receiver:
Powerful, customizable sound (joystick especially is great)

Stylish design

Single input necessitates external A/V switcher

8-track player doesn't work

Heavy as hell

Special thanks to my dad for hoarding all this ancient gear in our basement.

Gizmodo '79 is a week-long celebration of gadgets and geekdom 30 years ago, as the analog age gave way to the digital, and most of our favorite toys were just being born.

Even though it's been officially released with Tiger Woods 2010, the platform is simply too young to fairly adjudicate. Matt Buchanan performed quite a bit of testing at E3 if you'd like to read his impressions. But in reality, it's just not the time to make any sort of worthwhile verdict on the device because even Nintendo hasn't shipped their first Wii MotionPlus title yet. Still, have you picked it up yet?

One last effort. A slow, but firm, shove of the chips. All in. Palm's only hope to save a company once synonymous with smart handheld devices: the Pre. Their eyebrow raised, daring you to call. They flip. Full house. Respectable. Decent. Impressive even. But not the highest hand.

That's not to say that the phone isn't good, because it is. The software has quite a few interesting innovations that push the concepts of what people can do with smartphones, like Google Android when it debuted—only better. The market needs this. The industry needs this. We need this. But the hardware? Cheap. Flimsy. Dangerous even.

I've used the Pre as my main device for a week, forwarding my number through Google Voice so I could see what it was like living with it. I was able to pull my contacts from Facebook and Google into the phone quite easily, despite the Pre not supporting syncing to OS X Address Book, so it was a near-seamless transition. Sprint reception is unfortunately bad enough at my house to give me horrible voice quality, but not bad enough to drop calls. The device felt great in my pocket and in my hands, and the text and email notifications are informative without being intrusive. Other than trying to be discreet when I went to my usual exotic locales—the supermarket, Costco, restaurants and San Francisco—there wasn't anything incredible to note. In short, it's definitely a capable smartphone, one that I would have no problem using full time.

THE HARDWARE:
Screen
It's the best multitouch screen we've seen yet. Pre's screen is smaller than both the iPhone and the G2's, but has the same 320x480 resolution that equals both, which means the pixels are just more compact. Watching the Dark Knight on both phones showed that the Pre was just slightly crisper, and just slightly nicer than on the iPhone. Though, you probably wouldn't be able to tell unless you had each side by side. It's like the difference between a $2,500 TV and a $2,000 TV. Unless you had both in your living room or looked at them one after the other, you couldn't see a difference.

The black bezel also provides a great contrast to the screen, bordering it with an eye-soothing darkness that makes images pop that much more. At maximum brightness, it doesn't seem as bright as the iPhone, but is bright enough to be just fine under the sun. The glossy finish makes it slightly harder to see if you're worried about glare, however. In everyday indoor use, the screen is a tiny bit bluer in color temperature than the iPhone's—either not something you'd notice or a matter of preference.

But the multitouch! I can't tell if it's because there's a better CPU backing it up, or a better digitizer, or if it's just better software, but the touch is more accurate, more responsive and just plain better than the iPhone's. The invention of a ripple effect where you press the screen is genius, and goes partway to solving the chronic problem of passive feedback—whether or not the OS knows you've pressed the screen. I say partway, since the phone occasionally still doesn't register your clicks, even when the ripple appears.

Multitouch is glorious

Screen is bright, bezel provides great contrast and overall holds up nicely to the iPhone

Body and Build
The first thing you'll notice as you slide open the Pre is the absurdly sharp ridge digging against your palm. Nowhere—not on the iPhone, the G1, the G2 or any of HTC's other smartphones—has a phone been so threatening to the integrity of my skin. If you're pushing up screen from the bottom of the phone, as you'd instinctively want to do, prepare to get sliced. It's just that irresponsibly sharp.

To be fair, Palm instructs you to open the phone by placing your thumb on the screen itself and pushing up. Fantastic plan, except for the fact that it's a touchscreen and by placing your thumb on the screen you're actually moving stuff around. It's a kluge; a solution thought of after the fact to salvage a horrible hardware design decision. Even if you do things Palm's way, the top manages to catch occasionally while sliding open, especially if you're pushing slightly above or below the middle of the phone.

Maybe I'm being a perfectionist here, but this is the one biggest flaw in the hardware; one that's not a dealbreaker, but really detracts from the overall experience.

The rest of the body, thankfully, is not nearly as bad. But it's also not spectacular. The two halves of the device come together fairly tightly, but not tightly enough to prevent you from being able to twist the top and bottom like a plastic Oreo cookie. It's one of those small things that are inconsequential, but extremely annoying to people who own the phone—like the back battery cover requiring you to pry off three different points in order to get it off. Or the microUSB connector cover that takes fingernails and a blatant disregard for having a permanent hole in the side of your phone in order to remove it.

Despite these issues, while closed, the phone feels just right in your hand. It's thicker than the iPhone, but rounded like a polished stone and shorter than you'd expect. If Palm had just been able to make the Pre feel and look less plasticky, the closed-state exterior would be almost perfect.

Build quality is only so-so, and feels plasticky

Bottom edge of the phone is way too sharp

Keyboard
It's not good enough for a smartphone. Each of my thumbs take up the width of four keys, ensuring that only a fingernail approach would get me anywhere near accurate typing. It's a very Centro-like key layout, and each individual key feels slightly too rubbery and sticky to be pleasant. Each key offers lots of resistance and doesn't depress quite enough to get a good tactile feel while typing quickly.

After using the Pre for a week, I'm able to get a respectable word-per-minute rate on the keys, but the fact that there's no word prediction—the kind that saves your ass on the iPhone or Android G2—negates some speed you may have gained from using a hardware keyboard. The fact that each physical key is 30% or so smaller than a virtual key on the iPhone should illustrate to how difficult it is to hit the buttons accurately, and how much better typing on the Pre would have been if there were better auto-correction. What the Pre does do is make very very minor changes, like "teh" to "the" or "isnt" to "isn't", but that's only this side of nothing.

It's a hardware keyboard

Keys are too small, plasticky and don't give enough feedback

Battery Life
On most days, with heavier than usual usage, I was able to make the Pre last just about the entire day. Going from 8AM to 9PM with at least 20% battery left should be no problem. The only time I ran the battery down to zero prematurely was the one day where I was doing heavy testing and had AIM on, which currently has a buggy implementation that sucks more power than is necessary. It's at the very least on par with the iPhone 3G and G2 battery life, and is way better than the G1's.

Camera
It's a 3-megapixel camera, but when it comes to actually taking pictures, it isn't any better than the G2 or the iPhone. Like most cheap-o cameras, photos are fine with ample sunlight, but in low-light conditions pictures become grainy—even when using the "flash" on the back, it's only barely tolerable.

Camera doesn't suck

THE SOFTWARE

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Web OS
Here, if I may extend my card metaphor, is where Palm laid down four aces. The OS is really where the Pre shines, and manages to create a coherent internet-based platform that's even more "connected" than Google Android.

On the whole, the OS is quite pleasant looking—with slick icons, a 5-app launch bar and a three-screen menu system that houses all your applications. The bit of the phone under the screen is a gesture area, which you can use to go back a screen (swipe left) or launch apps from the launch tray (swipe up to the screen). The rest of the gestures are the same as the iPhone's, except the concept of swiping an app up, off the phone, to close it.

It's too bad the home screen is so much wasted space. There's just nothing there except for the five apps on the bottom. Palm's main idea is to keep that area free; free so you can swipe through the app "cards" of the things you have open, free so you can pull up a Universal Search just by typing, and free so you can open the phone by putting your fat thumb on the screen. But this just means you can only quick-launch five apps from the home screen, forcing you to either go into the launcher (+1 click) or start typing the name of the app you want and hope Universal Search brings it up (+ a bunch of clicks).

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.There are a few particularly commendable features. The little notification bars on the bottom of the phone for new emails, texts, system actions and song changes are wonderful, and can be dismissed with a swipe. The swipe is also slightly different than on the iPhone, allowing you to just delete list items without having to confirm them. The font they used for emails also seems fat and generous without being overly large, and allows the same five emails to be visible at once as on the iPhone.

A lot of time and care and great ideas were put into this OS

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Dialing is somewhere where Palm's reliance on Universal Search becomes an over reliance on Universal Search. To dial a contact, you either have to pull up the contacts app and manually scroll down to the person you want (there's no alphabet shortcut) or start typing. So, when you have hundreds of contacts, your only reasonable choice is to use the search. There isn't even a "favorites" screen of any kind; Palm just gives you a retro speed dial feature where you can map numbers to particular keys on the keyboard—a clumsy solution for speed dialing.

Speaking of Universal Search, it does actually work quite well. It's the same concept as on iPhone 3.0, searching your contacts, apps, Google, Google Maps, Wikipedia and Twitter for whatever you type. Searching is actually faster than the iPhone's search, but only because it doesn't also search emails, or calendar entries or your music. So that "Universal" in Universal Search isn't quite so Universal.

Universal Search for contacts works well

Dated speed dial implementation

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Syncing to Facebook and Google Contacts via Synergy works flawlessly, and merges contacts from both services together so you don't have duplicates of contacts floating around. A manual merge or a manual split can solve any quirks from this function quite easily. Synergy also combines your SMS and IM conversations into one window, so you can seamlessly text someone and then switch over to IM when he reaches his desk. Synergy's basically just an easy way to make sure services like Google have your data (Contacts and Calendar) pulled down into your phone automatically.

Facebook and Google sync keeps you connected, but may populate your phones with a bunch of people you don't actually know

A lot of fuss has been made of the Pre's ability to multitask, and for good reason. It works. Launching a new app is just a matter of hitting the Center button (the gray button on the front), and opening something from the launcher or the tray. The new app pops up as a new card, pushing your currently running programs to the side. Pressing the Center button again pops up all your cards, which you can then flip through to find the app you want. Sliding the card up, off the screen, closes it.

Opening multiple apps at once really does slow down the phone enough to be noticeable. In fact, if you're doing something particularly intensive, you'll actually notice your music stutter, which we've never experienced once on the iPhone. Ever. The problem with giving you the ability to open a lot of apps at once means you need to police yourself and close them when they're not in use. But it's damn well worth it. Being able to view a PDF, then flipping over to Messaging answer a text, then over to Music to change a song, then over to email to tap out a quickie—that's computing.

Multitasking works well, but it's up to you to figure out how many apps your phone can take

It's interesting that launching apps takes one extra click as you fire up the Launcher, and that the Launcher itself only has three pages of apps to use. It's better than the one long page that Android has, but not quite as generous as the iPhone's 9 pages. That one extra tap doesn't seem like much, but over the course of the two years that you own your phone, that's many seconds lost with extra taps.

Palm makes one of the first mistakes of UI design by not having text under the icons in the Quick Launch bar, making you guess at what each app is. The good news is that you can swap apps in and out from the launcher, so you probably know what those apps are, since you put them there.

Also, the actual act of launching the app is a little frustrating: When you tap an icon, the launcher disappears and all you see is the home screen, as if you did something wrong. You don't know whether or not your app has opened successfully until it has. Seeing a totally blank screen or some kind of splash screen come up first before the app is running (like the iPhone, once again) would be a better solution.

The Launcher only has three screens, and requires a lot of scrolling to find your app

The home screen's Quick Launch only holds five apps, but you can customize them

Music and videos, on the other hand, are handled well. The extra man-hours of getting the Pre to pretend that it's an iPod for iTunes to sync was well worth it. All the proper files, with their metadata, make it over just fine; playlists too. Videos appear in the Videos app, and your song files can be searched and sorted from inside the Music app. What doesn't seem to be supported are the ratings or play counts in iTunes. And although you can check the box in iTunes to initiate Calendar/Contact sync with the Pre, they don't actually make it over to the phone.

So it's not a perfect implementation. DRM tracks from iTunes aren't syncable, of course, and you have to leave the Music app open at all times, in the background, for your music to play. That concept seems more than obvious on your PC, but becomes somewhat of an oddity on your phone. You'll find yourself accidentally closing your Music app more than once.

As for video, it's essentially what you'd imagine a barebones video player to be, supporting MPEG4, H.263, H.264, MP4, M4V, 3GP, 3GPP, 3G2, and 3GP2—more video codecs than the iPhone (surprise, surprise), but not more than other phones in this class. It does the job, there's seeking and aspect ratio fitting, but it's nothing special.

If Palm continues to ensure iTunes syncing capability, it'll ease the transition for people with large iTunes libraries

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.App rundown:
• Google Maps is actually better on the Pre than it is on the iPhone, loading blocks and scrolling around being much smoother than we're used to
• Sprint Navigator (by TeleNav) is an excellent port of the same program you see in other phones—the GPS works smoothly, like in the Google Maps
• Doc View and PDF view are capable enough PDF and Word viewers
• There's an alarm clock, but no stopwatch or world clock; you can download a Weather app from the App Catalog
• The photo viewer works the same as the iPhone's, with swiping gestures, and can upload directly to your Facebook account
• The browser works off the latest WebKit build, and is fast and snappy; it should be about as good as iPhone 3.0's browser, since they both use WebKit
• Backup works much like Microsoft's My Phone, storing your contacts, calendar and tasks, as well as app and system settings on your Palm profile; it comes with the phone, and is useful if you ever have to wipe or replace a lost phone
• YouTube quality is just as good as any other phone, even if it does seem to take slightly longer to bring up videos on the Pre

First party apps are solid

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.The App Catalog is pretty bare at launch, with Pandora, Sudoku, Accuweather, AP/NYT, the Classic Palm OS emulator, Connect 4, Spaz (Twitter client), Tweed (another Twitter client), a Stocks app and some various other utilities. Their respective download screens have ample information, including links to the developer's home page and support pages, as well as ratings and reviews. Once downloaded, the apps behave like any other native apps on the Pre, and can be multitasked just fine.

All the apps in the catalog now are made by developers with a closer association with Palm, so they get access to the native libraries. Why haven't they opened up the SDK and allowed everyone to use native libraries instead of just web tech like HTML/Javascript? I don't know. When it comes down to apps, lack of open SDK is why the Pre is currently inferior to the iPhone or Android. Under this plan, we'll get a small percentage of good, solid apps, and a bunch of apps that aren't living up to their potential.

The App Catalog has a handful of decent apps already, but the fact that Palm is singling out only trusted developers to write software for the Pre isn't a great sign

Now for the miscellaneous complaints. The lack of a D-Pad on the phone forces you to always tap where you want, even when the list item is just one notch lower than the one currently selected. Copying and pasting only works in text fields where you can write, not when reading emails or SMS or web pages.

VERDICT

Think of it like this. The software is agile, smart and capable. The hardware, on the other hand, is a liability. If Palm can get someone else to design and build their hardware—someone who has hands and can feel what a phone is like when physically used, that phone might just be one of the best phones on the market.

I'm bored of the iPhone. The core functionality and design have remained the same for the last two years, and since 3.0 is just more of the same, and—barring some kind of June surprise—that's another year of the same old icons and swiping and pinching. It's time for something different. The Pre may have hardware that's worse than the G1/G2, but the whole package—the software and the hardware—isn't bad. It's good. It's different. That's something we can get behind. I can't wait to see what Palm gets dealt in their next hand.

Impressive start to an OS that should form the base of some quality phones in the future

Hardware quality is lacking, and feels flimsy and plasticky compared to the G1, G2 and the iPhone

Further viewing: our Palm Pre definitive guide and FAQ

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

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

OK, now for the bad stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extremely light and thin form

Runs Vista adequately

Short battery life

Weak for multimedia applications

Unreasonably poor build quality

[Additional research from Geekbench]