Nov 19

What Google Needs for the Chrome OS To Succeed

Posted in: Chrome, chrome os, feature, Google, Linux, Software, Today's Chili, top

Google made an announcement! It was an OS, in case you haven’t heard. But it was also something else: a long-term, high-risk bet about the future of the internet. Here’s what Google needs to happen for Chrome to make it.

Just to be clear, I’m not talking about Chrome OS 1.0. You can build that now and (maybe) install it on your netbook, and should be able to buy on hardware next year. All that stuff is, to borrow a word that Google loves to misuse, is a beta. A test. A trial. A first step toward a larger vision, which Google has been hinting at since they branched out from search: In the future, we will live on the internet. We’ll be able to do all the things we do on computers now, and probably more, while connected to the cloud. And it’ll be great.

Chrome OS is an explicit step towards making this happen, but the version we saw today is just an early, broad step. Google even said so! Despite early talk about how Chrome OS could be a full replacement OS one day, suitable for regular ol’ laptops and desktops, today’s preannouncement of a version strictly for netbooks included an admission that it would only be intended as a secondary OS. So, what does Google need to see this thing through, and make Chrome as capable as the OSes we’re used to using now? Lots:

The Internet Needs to Get Way, Way Faster

And I’m not just talking about higher bandwidth. Broadband connections are pretty quick nowadays, but compared to reading—and especially writing—data to a hard drive, sending bits over the internet is excruciatingly slow. And Chrome OS isn’t even really a true web OS: it’ll slurp the guts of larger web applications like Gmail and Gcal and effectively make them local, meaning that the kinds of tasks that require low latency and fast load times will run tolerably.

That kind of local storage, along with Javascript technologies like AJAX, is a salve. We need them because communicating with a server for every event in an application would take forever, and make using them miserable. Remember how webmail used to be, before it got all AJAXy? Awful. And it still would be, if not for recent Javascript advances and local storage.

There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with making web apps local, and Chrome OS will keep doing that forever: it’s the only way Chrome OS can work offline. But that doesn’t cover everything. What about high-bandwidth tasks like photo and video editing? To do it the way they suggest would require constant syncing between local memory and a remote server. These are basic tasks for a computer. Basic tasks that’ll be impossible on Chrome until super-low-latency, 100mbps+ broadband is commonplace, and not only commonplace, but wireless and effectively ubiquitous. That’s quite a few years away, even by generous estimates.

Web Apps Will Need To Get Much Better

I’m sure Gmail, Google Reader and Google Calendar will be totally swell in Chrome OS. They’re some of the most feature-complete web apps in the world, and they’re good enough to replace desktop apps for most people. But what about VoIP apps? Torrent clients? Media players? Image editors? Video editors? There are web apps for almost all of these things, but collectively, they amount to a big bag of dick. Trimming videos with YouTube’s tools is nothing like editing them in Final Cut, or even iMovie. Cropping a few images in an online photo editor and playing with their contrast is fine, but what about my bloated Sony RAW files? There are still some massive gaps in the web app world, hence Google’s repeated, vague pleas for developers to do better, alright?

Web Standards Will Have To Evolve, Fast

Google wants to replace regular apps with web apps by making web apps more like native apps, in concept and execution. Eventually, the hope is that they could use the new features of HTML5, like local storage, drag and drop, canvas drawing, native animation and location awareness, to have all the powers of a native app. Thing is, HTML5 is just a stepping stone; it’ll take more than a few new HTML tags to pave the way for honestly native-seeming applications.

Google’s obviously got a lot of leverage over standards bodies like the WHATWG and W3C, so they could help move new HTML capabilities along in theory. But even HTML5 is brand new, and very few people are using that. It’ll be at least another generation before developers will be able to code native-equivalent apps in web languages, and that’s assuming that standards development keeps heading in that direction. Which it might not.

Someone’s Going to Have To Solve the UI Problem

Talking about Chrome OS’s interface almost seems like a waste of breath, since your real UI is the internet, which is the very definition of inconsistent. Part of the reason email apps, Twitter apps IM clients, and the like are still so popular is because they offer services that people want in an interface that’s consistent with the rest of their system. Web apps offer no such thing.

Sure, if all you use are Google products, you’re fine: Your life is blue, white, boxy and clean. But what about when you want to jump over to Meebo? Or Aviary? This kind of inconsistency wouldn’t be acceptable in another OS, so it would feel like a compromise here. I suppose you could use tools like Greasemonkey to reformat pages on the client side, but this is hacky and, well, lots of work. We’d need some kind of framework for skins, or something, to make the experience more uniform.

People Will Have To Give Up On Owning Media, an Get Comfortable With Subscription Services

People need their music and videos, and now, most people have collections. That’s sooooooo 2009, am I right? For Chrome OS to work, people are going to have warm up to subscription services and streaming media.

Before you get mad at me, forget about Rhapsody and Napster, and think more about your cable company, your wireless company, or your beloved Netflix. Those work, and these kinds of arrangements are going to have to be extended to all media. Which is possible, but also fraught, since you really won’t own your media.

The Rest of the (Browser) World Has To Be Onboard

During the announcement, Google made the point that the Chrome browser in Chrome OS won’t have any special talents that Chrome elsewhere won’t, and that at present it’s no more able—in terms of what kinds of web apps it can run—than, say, Firefox. Nobody’s going to want to write web apps just for Chrome (that would make them Chrome apps, right?), so it’s vital that other browsers support the same new HTML standards that Chrome needs to succeed. Google can go all out supporting the latest, greatest web standards, but unless everyone else does too, nobody—not even Google—is going to write for them.

None of these things are impossible; in fact, most of them sort of feel inevitable, given that they’re all just extrapolations of obvious trends from the last few years. They’re just optimistic, and sit well in the future. Chrome OS can carry out Google’s LET’S ALL LIVE ON THE INTERNET vision when the conditions are right, eventually. But these are long-term bets, measured in years.

That might make sense to a room full of Google engineers. To the rest of us, though? It’s abstract. It’s strange. It seems gimped. It’s largely irrelevant, and it’s not all that exciting. Yet.

No Comments | Tags: ,
Nov 19

Giz Explains: The Difference Between a $600 TV and a $6000 TV

Posted in: feature, hdtv, LCD, plasma, Today's Chili, top, TV

You can buy an HDTV, a nice big one, for six hundred bucks. Or you can pay six thousand. It’s presumably somehow better. You’re probably wondering, “What the hell makes it better?” Here’s the breakdown:

To be clear, we’re only looking sets that are at least 46 inches—go big or go home. And though there are some nice 720p plasmas out there for amazing prices, the majority of TVs we’re concerned with are 1080p—it’s the standard now, even in cheap HDTVs, and probably the only resolution you’ll see next year.

We focus on LCDs quite a bit here, not because we prefer them, but because there are key enhancements that can be put in LCD technology to make them look better. With plasma, the problems—energy consumption, weight, thickness—are more of an evolutionary, year-to-year thing. A cheaper plasma often is one that’s just using older technology.

Also, we’re using Amazon as our pricing base line, since it’s on average a good standard for low but legitimate street prices, and we use Samsung examples a lot because they have a ton of different models on the market, so it was easier to isolate individual features, and to gauge subtle differences in pricing.

Size Matters

The first, and most obvious thing that’ll cost you is more screen real estate. There’s not an absolute inches to dollars ratio, but generally speaking, the first step up is the cheapest, and somewhere in the middle, there’s a sweet spot, after which you basically lose money by upgrading. The funny thing is, each maker seems to have a different idea of where the sweet spot is, which you could play to your advantage:

Take for instance, Panasonic’s plasma G10 series. It’s $200 to go from the 42-inch model to 50, and then $400 to go up to 54. So the sweet spot is at 50 inches. Similar thing happening with Vizio’s XVT line: Going from 42 to 47 inches is just $250, though going up to 55 from 47 costs about a a grand. Hence 47 inches makes the most dollar-per-inch sense if you like that TV.

With Sony and Samsung, though, it pays to keep going up. In Sony’s top-of-the-line Bravia XBR9 series, the hop from 40 to 46 is $360, but going from 46 to 52 is just $250. Samsung’s LED-backlit TV costs $350 to go from 40 to 46, and just $500 to go from there to 55 inches. (There’s a limit, of course, Samsung’s 65-inch LN65B650 doesn’t have many of the frills discussed below, but still lists for $6000.)

The real lesson here: Don’t think of size as a foregone conclusion. When you’ve narrowed down your options using all the criteria, go back and check the sizes and relative prices. There may be a surprise, hopefully good but possibly bad.

Vroom, Vroom

Everything after size you can roughly sweep everything you’d pay more for into the category of performance. The grand trick of buying TVs though, according to our friend Gary Merson of HD Guru, is that “the TV industry is setup like the car industry.” Just like buying a Corvette to battle your mid-life crisis because it vrooms real good, when you pay extra money for extra horsepower, you’re also going to get leather bucket seats and the in-dash GPS. It’s hard to buy a stripped-down car that just delivers better performance, and the same goes when you’re trying to scrimp on a TV without compromising picture. In the case of TVs, a higher performer might come with a million HDMI jacks or integrated Wi-Fi and video on demand, and you never know exactly what you’re paying for.

Fortunately, we can break performance into a two major categories so it’s slightly easier to interpret those price differentials: Backlight (for LCDs) and panel quality.

Fancy Backlighting

The single most expensive upgrade for LCD TVs right now is LED backlighting. As we explain here, there are a bunch of advantages to LED over conventional CCFL backlighting for LCD TVs. Which particular advantages you pick up depends on the kind of LED backlighting in the set. While both offer instant on and power savings, edge-lit models mainly deliver serious thinness, while backlit sets can offer local dimming, which delivers noticeably better black levels and contrast.

How much will it cost you? Well, comparing two Samsung sets with fairly equivalent panels, the price difference is about $500. The CCFL-backlit LN46B650 is $1360, while the UN46B6000 is $1850. Because it’s got LED edge lighting, the B6000 is only 1.2 inches thick, compared to the B650’s 3.1 inches. When you step up and compare Samsung’s edge-lit to back-lit, the difference isn’t as great: A 46-inch 8000 series edge-lit model goes for $2300, while the 8500 series with local-dimming is $2600. (If you’re already paying for LED technology, you definitely want to step up.)

So yes, backlit LED sets with local dimming tend to cost more. Sony’s year-old Bravia XBR8 uses tri-color LEDs to improve color accuracy over the most LED sets, which use white ones. Though its production is discontinued, it’s still nearly $2200 at 46 inches. However, Toshiba consistently delivers cheaper sets than most of its fellow “name” brands, and their 46-inch LED backlit set with local dimming is just $1700.

Panels and Oh, It Hertz

The panel is the other major thing that determines how good an HDTV actually is, and it applies to both LCDs and plasmas. Typically, as you move up in price, you get a better panel. Cheaper sets generally use older panels with previous-generation tech that Merson says have a poorer viewing angle, so there’s a smaller area you can actually stare at on your TV to get a good picture. The problem is that no TV manufacturer actually declares its panel attributes on the box, so you’re often on your own to figure it out. The best way is to go to the store and check out the viewing angles.

Hertz, for the uninitiated, is simply the number of times per second that LCD TVs refresh their picture. (Plasma isn’t part of this discussion because phosphor pixels work differently than liquid crystal ones, and plasma’s “refresh rate” would be way higher—to the point of irrelevance.) A 60Hz LCD refreshes the picture 60 times a second, 120Hz is 120 times a second, and so on, up to 240Hz in the top-priced LCD sets. A higher refresh rate is supposed to increase the ability to see fast-moving video at its highest intended resolution, and works well in theory, though there are issues with 240Hz execution. At this point, a minimum of 120Hz is a given on all premium LCDs, says Merson. There isn’t one LED-backlit set that doesn’t have it.

Here’s how the refresh-rate step-ups look: The 46-inch Samsung B550 is a standard 1080p CCFL-backlit set for $1020. Moving up to the same size B650 for $1360—$300 more—gets you 120Hz (plus a higher contrast ratio). Going up again, to the B750 for $1630, another $300, you get 240Hz, and again even better contrast ratio. That’s about the top of Samsung’s CCFL-backlit line.

You can see the same thing with their LED sets: The 46-inch B6000 is a 120Hz LED edge-lit set for $1850. The 46-inch LED edgel-lit B8000 goes to 240Hz, and it costs $2300, about $450 more.

What About Plasma?

As we mentioned, plasmas are a little less complicated, since there’s nothing like refresh rates to deal with. On the other hand, the situation may be more obtuse, since you don’t always know what the real differences are. Merson says there are a few basic levels of plasma performance. On Black Friday, Walmart is selling a 50-inch plasma for $598 if you don’t mind the fact that it’s 720p (and branded Sanyo, which is probably Panasonic-based but who knows?). Stepping up to the 50″ 1080p plasmas will generally cost $300 to $400 more.

There are more issues, however. Panasonic has a new panel called NeoPDP that’s more energy efficient, but it’s sometimes hard to tell which models have it and which don’t. (Hint: Look for the Energy Star sticker.) Finally, you have THX-certified panels that offer nearly perfect calibration right out of the box. Beyond that, contrast ratios do tend to get better over time, but it’s relative: At the low end of the HDTV price spectrum, plasma sets have generally delivered better picture than LCD anyway.

Frills and Other Stuff

The funny thing about TVs nowadays is that there’s more to them than the screen. Like inputs. Until recently, one thing you got more of by paying more money were more holes to stick things into. That’s not really the case once you get up into 46-inch sets—you’re gonna get 4 HDMI slots in a set that big no matter what. But, there are other things nowadays. Like video services that come in through other holes, or maybe without wires at all.

An example, to use our old friends at Samsung: The B6000 looks a lot like the B7000, but with the B7000, for $180 more, you get online video services via Yahoo’s widget engine, like YouTube.

Or, let’s look at the upcoming crop of LED TVs that aren’t even out yet, or are in limited distribution for now. LG’s 55LHX and Sony’s Bravia XBR10 both have wireless HDMI and 240Hz, but with Bravia Internet Widgets and Slacker radio, the Bravia is $5000, $200 more than 55LHX. Wireless HDMI itself is a pretty pricey feature. Same Sony, compared to Samsung’s 8500. The 8500 has built-in video services, but no wireless HDMI, and it’s $500 cheaper, at $4500. Oh, and did I mention that the Sony is even 3 inches smaller than the Samsung and LG?

Wireless is still in the gimmick phase, but next year, we assume we’ll be able to track its price premium as well as we can track size, refresh rate, backlighting and other factors today, $300 to $400 at a time. How do you get from $600 to a $6000? You just add, add some more, and then keep adding.

Still something you wanna know? Send questions about addition, subtraction, hertz, aches, pains and LEDs here, with “Giz Explains” in the subject line.

No Comments
Nov 19

Everything You Need To Know About Chrome OS

Posted in: chrome os, feature, Google, Today's Chili, top

Until today, Google’s Chrome OS has been little more than a wordy concept. Now, finally, we truly know what it is, what it looks like, and how it works. Here’s the breakdown:

Google went to great pains to emphasize that today’s event wasn’t a launch—that’ll come a year from now, apparently, with a public beta still well over the horizon. This is all about a seeing the OS for the first time; understanding in real terms how it’s different from what’s out there; figuring out why you might actually want to use it; etc. So! Here’s what we knew going in:

Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks” and “most of the user experience takes place on the web.” That is, it’s “Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel” with the web as the platform. It runs on x86 processors (like your standard Core 2 Duo) and ARM processors (like inside every mobile smartphone). Underneath lies security architecture that’s completely redesigned to be virus-resistant and easy to update.

Like I said, there were plenty of questions. Onwards:

What It Is


• It’s basically just a browser: meaning that it’ll be based around preexisting web services like Gmail, Google Docs, and so on. There are going to be no conventional applications, just web applications—nothing gets installed, updated, or whatever. Seriously.

• It only runs web apps: It’s going to integrate web apps into the operating system deeper than we’ve ever seen before, meaning that a) they’ll seem more like native apps than web apps and b) they’ll be able to tap into local resources more than a typical web app in Firefox, for example. They’re web apps in name, but they’ll have native powers.

• How, exactly?: With HTML 5. This is the next version of HTML, which gives the browser more access to local resources like location info, offline storage—the kinds of things you’d normally associate with native apps. More on that here.

• Chrome is Chrome: The user’s experience with Chrome OS will basically be synonymous with their experience on Chrome Browser. Technically speaking, Chrome OS is a Linux-based OS, but you won’t be installing Linux binaries like you might on Ubuntu or some other Linux distribution. Any “apps” you have will be used within the browser. Chrome OS is effectively a new version of Chrome, that you can’t leave. There are a few reasons Google’s pushing this, which we’ll get to in a bit.

• And as you’ve probably guessed, it’s super-light. It starts up in a matter of seconds, and boot straight into the browser. Likewise, the Chrome browser is apparently very, very optimized for Chrome OS, so it should be faster than we’ve ever seen it.

• It won’t support hard drives, just solid state storage. I mean, hard drives are dying, sure, but this is pretty bold. Hardware support sounds like it’ll be pretty slim, because:

• You’ll have to buy a Chrome OS device: You might be able to hack this thing onto your current machine, but you won’t just be able to install it to replace Windows, or opt for it on your next laptop, for example. You’ll have to buy hardware that Google approved, either component by component, or in a whole package. They’re already working on reference designs.

• For now, it’s for netbooks. It’s not intended for desktops, to the point that Google is saying that the first generation of Chrome hardware will be secondary machines.

How It Looks


• It looks like Chrome browser—specifically, like the leaked shots we saw before. As in a browser, you have tabs—these have to serve as a taskbar as well. To the left of the tabs, you have a sort of start menu, which opens up a panel full of shortcuts. These are your favorites. These are your apps. (Get used to this weird feeling, btw. That Google whole point here.

• You can peg smaller windows, like chat windows or music players, to sit above your tabs at all times. This feature looks a lot like the Gchat feature in Gmail, which is to say, it’s a box in the corner.

• Along with tabs, it’s got its own version of virtual desktops. This means you can have multiple “windows” of Chrome OS to switch between, each of which is a different set of tabs. Think one desktop for work, one for play, on for porn, etc etc etc. It’s a bit like using Spaces on Mac, except only with the browser.

When, and How, It’s Coming

Google’s staying specifics on the exact release date—it’ll be sometime next year—but the source code for the project is published now. That doesn’t mean it’s ready, really, but rather that they’re just planning on developing it in the open from here on out. Expect builds to start showing up online, which’ll probably work wonderfully in a virtual machine app like VirtualBox.

The code is available as part of the Chromium OS (the Chromium/Chrome distinction should be familiar to anyone who’s wrestled with the open source Mac version of Chrome) project, posted here.

Why It Matters

With Chrome OS, Google is taking (or in a way, forcing) the operating system to go totally online. As Google’s freshly designated evangelists are eager to tell you, the browser is already the center of most people’s computing experience. The idea here is to make the browser powerful enough to render the rest of the operating system, and its native apps, moot.

It’s more pure than a lot of people expected: When Google said that Chrome OS would be centered around the web, I think most people just assumed it would be a lightweight Linux distribution with deep integration for Google web services. It’s not that. It’s a browser.

But it’s a browser that runs different processes for each tab, that will have access to local OS resources, will to some extent work offline. In other words, it’s not really a browser in the sense that we use the word, and the web apps that we’ll be using won’t be like the ones we’re used to now, either. The idea, here, it seems, is to replicate most, if not all, of the functionality in a native OS, while keeping the lightweight, ultra-secure framework of a thin client. In other words, Google’s not asking much of its users in terms of changing how they do stuff; they’re trying to change the way the operating system lets you do those things, transparently.

Think of it this way: now, the buttons in your taskbar or dock are now tabs; your email client now runs within your browser, but stores stuff offline just like Mail or Outlook; your documents will still open with a few clicks, but they’ll be stored remotely (and locally only if you choose). It’s all the same stuff, given to you in a different way.
Update: you can download it here. [Chrome on Giz]

No Comments | Tags:
Nov 19

Fanatec Porsche 911 Turbo Wheel for Xbox 360 review

Posted in: feature, Features, PC, ps3, review, Today's Chili, xbox 360, Xbox360

To celebrate the release of Forza Motorsport 2, Microsoft made a big deal about its Wireless Racing Wheel, a cable-free force-feedback controller for racers that was only really wireless if you didn’t want force-feedback. It was a reasonable compromise and a reasonably good wheel, but it just didn’t compare to the high-end stuff supported by that other great console racing series: Gran Turismo. In GT5 you can hit the track while gripping things like Logitech’s G25 or G27, either of which make Microsoft’s offering look like a toy. With the release of Forza 3 there’s a new contender available, the Porsche Turbo S from Fanatec. It’s a much more serious offering with more capable feedback, proper shifters with a clutch, and a rather more impressive design. But it also has a rather more impressive price tag: $249 to start and, like a real Porsche, going way up from there with options. Is it worth the entrance price or are you better off putting your money toward race tires? Read on to find out.

Gallery: Fanatec Porsche Turbo S wheel

Continue reading Fanatec Porsche 911 Turbo Wheel for Xbox 360 review

Filed under:

Fanatec Porsche 911 Turbo Wheel for Xbox 360 review originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:02:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |   | Email this | Comments

No Comments | Tags:
Nov 17

56 of the Most Hilarious and Amazing Modern Warfare 2 Easter Eggs You Will Ever See

Posted in: feature, gaming, photoshop, Today's Chili, top

Is it possible to love the results of a Photoshop Contest too much? Because oh man, these had me rolling on the floor. Seriously, you’re going to want to check this gallery out.

First Place—Jim Chitwood

Second Place—Andreas Kokkinos

Third Place—Sergio Hikawa

No Comments | Tags:
Nov 17

Ultimate Pocket Camcorder Comparison

Posted in: feature, iPod Nano, Today's Chili, top

Pocket camcorders are a hot holiday gift, but due to their nearly identical feature sets, it can be tough to tell which is best—so I tested seven of these humble unitaskers to make your decision easier. You’re welcome.

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.

No Comments | Tags: ,
Nov 17

RealView’s V-Screen for PSP review

Posted in: feature, Features, psp, review, Today's Chili

The PSP may be a lot of things to a lot of people, but it’s not capable of pumping out images in 3D — cross your eyes all you want but nothing’s going to leap off of that LCD. We’ll have to wait for at least another iteration of portables before we can start expecting any miracles in that department, but until then there’s the V-Screen! It’s a big, silly-looking attachment that pledges to add depth to your PSP games despite the system’s distinctly two-dimensional screen. Is it magic? Is it sorcery? Is it complete bull? You might be surprised.

Gallery: RealView’s V-Screen

Continue reading RealView’s V-Screen for PSP review

Filed under:

RealView’s V-Screen for PSP review originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:04:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

No Comments | Tags:
Nov 16

GoPro HD Hero review and helmet cam face-off

Posted in: 1080p, feature, Features, hero, review, Today's Chili
What’s this, another tiny, high-definition camera to strap onto your person before doing something wild and crazy? Yes, it’s the latest pixel-pushing contender for high-def helmetcam supremacy, the GoPro HD Hero; a little gray box in a waterproof case that can record 1080p at 30fps, 720p at 60, and comes with a selection of mounts that will enable the thing to hang on to just about whatever you want to sling it from — but at $299 you might not feel particularly inclined to put it in harm’s way. Worth the risk, and how does it compare to the competition and its predecessors? Read on for the full analysis, and of course plenty of gratuitous high definition footage.

Gallery: GoPro Hero HD unboxing and comparison

Continue reading GoPro HD Hero review and helmet cam face-off

Filed under:

GoPro HD Hero review and helmet cam face-off originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

No Comments | Tags: ,
Nov 14

How To: Make Windows 7 Play Nice With All Your Gadgets

Posted in: feature, Microsoft, Today's Chili, top, Windows

Generally speaking, upgrading to Windows 7 is a no-brainer. “But what about my gadgets?” you might ask, eyes watering slightly, “will they be OK?” Yes, yes they will. Here’s how to make Windows 7 play nice with all your favorite toys.

Your Phone

Windows Mobile: To sync with your Windows Mobile phone in Windows 7, you’re going to need Windows Mobile Device Center 6.1. Just like in Vista! Except this time around, Windows is savvy enough to autoinstall the suite, which saves a little time and potentially a lot of Googling. (Just give it a minute after you plug in your device via USB—if nothing happens, go here.

This will take care of calendar, contact and media syncing for the most part, though a lot of newer Windows Mobile phones depend on microSD storage for music and movies. For this, you simply mount the disk as a folder, and drag and drop.

iPhone: As always, this is a job for iTunes. However, Windows 7 is compatible with doubleTwist, an alternative media manager that doesn’t just sync with your iPhone—it works with almost anything else, too.

Speaking of which, Android: Android generally isn’t a “syncing” kind of OS, intended instead to be kept up to date by tapping into Google’s services over the internet. That said, doubleTwist will work for music syncing with most Android phones, and HTC Sync will keep their phones, like the G1, MyTouch and Hero, in sync with your Outlook Address book, contacts and calendar.

BlackBerry: BlackBerry Desktop Manager and Media Sync still reign supreme, for contacts, apps, media and software upgrades.

Palm Pre/Pixi: doubleTwist, again, at least until Palm fully withdraws from their silly slapfight with Apple over iTunes and makes their own client.

Your Zune, iPod, or other PMP

Zune: Zune’s software plays nice with Windows 7, but it’s you only choice. And even moreso than Apple products, the Zune HD is locked to its client software, meaning there aren’t any alternative for the time being. Luckily, Zune 4.x is fantastic software—it’s just a shame it’s not optional, and that it doesn’t work with other devices.

iPod: As with the iPhone, you’re more or less stuck with iTunes or an app like doubleTwist for music and movie syncing, but that’s not so bad: iTunes in Windows 7 comes with some nice enhancements, including jump list shortcuts that can quickly take you to the iTunes Store, and hoverable controls, which give you quick access to skip, play and pause functions. In some ways, iTunes is actually better on Windows 7 than it is on OS X. [via]

Other PMPs: PMPs that rely on raw mass storage never took an advanced degree to use, so it’s interesting to see that they’ve gotten a little simpler in Windows 7. The “Devices and Printers” system in Windows 7 can claim a few advantages over its predecessors, with much better icons—you generally get an reasonable approximation of whatever you’ve plugged in on the devices screen—customized Device Stage interfaces, seen left, and something called Device Containers, which group components of the same device into one icon. Like, if your 3rd-party PMP has internal and expandable storage, Windows won’t just act as if there are two different devices attached; it’ll group them together. Just click them to expand.

And if you third-party PMP does have a syncing app, be wary. Many of them, especially for older players, won’t have been update for Windows 7. Install them in a compatibility mode for XP or Vista—whichever they’re most compatible with—to avoid any potential problems. [pic via]

Your Camera: Camera support is pretty great in Windows 7 so you’ll often be able to just plug your camera in and go. As with PMPs, printers and the like, cameras with multiple storage devices will be lumped into the same icon in Device Stage, which will also (hopefully) display other device info, like remaining battery, photo import options and alternative sync apps.
Windows also puts quick shortcuts in the taskbar for supported cameras.
Unfortunately, Windows 7 doesn’t add anything in the way of RAW support, so you’re going to have to go 3rd-party for that. FastPicture’s codec pack supports most of the popular RAW formats used in DSLRs from Nikon, Canon, Sony and the like, and it’s perfectly compatible with Windows 7. And free!

Your Displays

Adding a second monitor to Windows has never been particularly complicated, but the methods have never been all that apparent, either. Along with a refreshed multi-monitor displays settings interface, Windows 7 adds a fantastic shortcut: Windows+P will bring up a monitor management widget, which lets you set your monitor to either off, display duplicate or display extend.

The shortcut also works for enabling a projector. Laptop manufacturers have been adding functionality like this with their own software for years, so it’s good to see Microsoft taking their ideas onboard in 7—it’s easier for everyone that way.

Windows 7 also ships with a monitor calibration tool—again, something that had to be previously furnished by third-party software or monitor manufacturers. It helps you adjust brightness, contrast, gamma and color settings with a simple wizard, accessible by navigating to the Display panel in Appearance and Personalization in the Control Panel

Your Other Computers

These are the gadgets your Windows 7 PC has to play nicely with—your other computers. Windows 7 file sharing has gain some new features, but just as many quirks.

Windows 7 PCs: Since most people just want to share some files and get networking setup over with, Windows 7 includes a feature called Homegroups, which lets you share files and media between Windows 7 PCs with almost not setup at all. Think of it as the old network setup wizard from XP and Vista, except much, much simpler. To create a Homegroup, you need to have a version of Windows 7 that’s better, or, er, more expensive than Starter or Home Basic—those two can connect to Homegroups, but they can’t initiate one.

To create one, just navigate to “Network and Internet” in the Control Panel, or search “Homegroups” in the Control Panel search bar. At the “Share with other computers running Windows 7 page, select “Create a Homegroup,” and designate the types of media you’d like to share. Joining a Homegroup in Windows 7 from Windows 7 should be easy: as soon as you connect to a network with available Homegroups, Windows will prompt you to join. Just enter the passkey generated during the Homegroup creation process.

Windows XP and Vista: Homegroups are nice and new and WOW and all, and they don’t work directly, as Homegroups, with Windows XP and Vista. Thing is, under all the fresh trappings, Homegroups are the same old Windows networking protocols. Accordingly, XP and Vista can still access Windows 7 PCs, just not under the official “Homegroups” guise. So, first: Set up a user account for your client PCs to log in to:

Click the Start button, type “user accounts” in the search box, and then click User Accounts and Family Safety.
Click Add or remove user accounts, and then click Create a new account.

Type a name for the new account, such as “share.”

Click Standard user, and then click Create Account.

Click the tile for the user account you just created, and then click Create a password.

Log on as the user you created (for example, share), and then log off. (This is required so that the user account is created with the correct credentials.)

Now that you’ve got the account set up, connecting should be easy: On Vista, just click Start, then Network, then open the computer you want to access—it should be listed by default. Enter the user name and password you’ve just created, and you’re there. For XP, the process is similar: Just go to My Network Places, the click View Workgroup Computers, open the computer you want to access and enter your credentials.

From a Mac, the process isn’t necessarily so straightforward. If you’re lucky, your Windows 7 share will just show up in your Finder sidebar, where you can click on it and enter login info when prompted. (Windows 7 still uses basic SMB shares, which OS X is more than equipped to access.) If it doesn’t show up, the process is a little more complicated. Deferring again to MS:

In [Finder] the toolbar, click Go, and then click Connect to Server (or use keyboard shortcut Command +K).
In OS X 10.3.x and later, click Browse, select the computer running Windows 7, and then click Connect. (Or follow the common instructions below.)

If that doesn’t work, click Connect to Server again, and manually enter smb://username@computername/users as the network address, where username is your newly created user account, computername is your Windows 7 machines network name, and users is literally the word users—don’t change that. Alternately, you can use the smb://username@ipaddress/users syntax, where ipaddress is your Windows 7 computers local IP. (as in 10.0.0.2, or 192.168.1.102)

Your Streaming Devices and Consoles

Play to: Play To was one of the most touted features in Windows 7, and yeah, it’s pretty cool. Here’s a breakdown:

One of the most potentially groundbreaking features of Windows 7 is “Play To,” the ability to send music, video and photos to any compatible devices on the network, without running any kind of proprietary software, and without any initial setup. Sending a song to a Sonos or a video to an Xbox is-theoretically-just a right-click away.

The important thing to remember here is that “compatible devices” include—or rather, will include—anything that adheres to the DLNA 1.5 standard, from connected TVs to your Xbox 360 to other Windows 7 PCs with Windows Media Player 12. Play To devices show up automatically once they’re connected to your network, it’s just just a matter of enabling the functionality in Windows:

Before using Play To, you will first need to turn on Streaming. To do this, with media player open, click Stream and then click Turn on media streaming. You will then be given some options for sharing media and which devices you wish to allow.

You can right-click the item that you wish to play and move your cursor to the Play To option and select the device you want to receive that media file.

That’s it! To allows a Windows 7 PC to receive Play To streaming, just enable Play To in the receiving computers’ Media Streaming options, located in the Network and Sharing Center in the control panel.

Consoles: As I said before, Play To will stream to the Xbox 360 if it’s in Media Extender mode (that is, connected to a Windows Media Center PC). Chances are, though, you’re going to just want to stream media from your Windows 7 PC to your Xbox 360, controlled from your Xbox 360. Good news: the same old methods work fine here, so shared files with certain codecs, or anything in your Windows Media Center library, are all fair game, and should work straight away. Likewise, the PS3 will play a limited number of video and audio formats streamed from your PC with virtually no configuration, but the utility is limited—especially if you do a lot of downloading, or archive video in a rare codec or container. For both, the solution is the same: Get TVersity, because it’s awesome. Setup isn’t super-easy, but the results are worth it: Pretty much any video you can come up with can be transcoded on the fly to stream on your console. Full instructions are here.

So that’s about it! I’ve only scratched the surface here—this is like Windows 7 Gadget Mediation 101, or maybe 102—so add you favorite tips and trick in the comments, since your feedback is a huge benefit to our Saturday guides. And if you’re still curious about Windows 7 in general, look no further than our Complete Windows 7 Guide. Have a nice weekend!

No Comments | Tags:
Nov 11

ASUS UL80Vt review: thin and light on a budget

Posted in: ASUS, feature, Features, impressions, laptop, Laptops, review, Reviews, Today's Chili

With the release of Windows 7 has come a serious onslaught on new laptops. Great news for us, since we love choices — but we don’t really get a chance to take them all for a spin. ASUS’s UL80Vt caught our eye for a few reasons. The company’s increasingly attractive designs coupled with a really eye-catching price made it likely that this laptop (which is caught somewhere between a full-sizer and a netbook) could be on a lot of people’s radars this holiday season. The 14-inch, CULV laptop boasts an Intel Core 2 Duo SU7300 CPU and, interestingly, switchable graphics. So, we decided to give this bad boy a try for ourselves — so read on for our full impressions.

Gallery: ASUS UL80Vt hands-on

Continue reading ASUS UL80Vt review: thin and light on a budget

Filed under:

ASUS UL80Vt review: thin and light on a budget originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:15:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

No Comments | Tags: ,