After testing Canon's newest professional SLR, professional sports photographer Brad Mangin offers praise for the camera's autofocus system that's as lavish as the scorn he heaped upon the model's predecessor.
Mangin tested the Canon EOS-1D Mark IV at a football game, and his overall assessment published on his blog doubtless was music to the ears of designers at the Japanese camera maker: "This camera performed flawlessly...Canon should be able to keep long-time (and heavily invested) users like me happy with the new Mark IV."
The Canon EOS-1D Mark IV
Perhaps not so pleasant to hear was his excoriation of the earlier model. "To be brutally honest, I found the Canon EOS-1D Mark III to be a complete disaster. I consider it to be the biggest lemon professional 35mm camera in modern photographic history. I have a considerable investment in Canon cameras and lenses, and was reluctant to jump ship to Nikon," said Mangin, whose customers include Sports Illustrated. "With the Mark IV, it was do or die for Canon."
He shot with Canon's 400mm f2.8 lens, sometimes with a 1.4x teleconverter, in bright sunlight. "Using a Canon Mark III with a 400mm lens and a 1.4x converter in this exact same situation was not an option. The results were embarrassing and upsetting. However, the new Mark IV seemed to like working with the 400mm lens and 1.4x combination and delivered some very nice, tack-sharp images," Mangin said.
His assessment of the 1D Mark III jibes with that of Rob Galbraith, a photographer who extensively chronicled his gripes with the SLR's autofocus system in 2007. Mangin said two others photographing the game using the earlier EOS-1D Mark IIN were relieved that the Mark IV performed well.
Another photographer to get an early model of the 1D Mark IV to test is Jens Dresling, a Danish photojournalist. He also praised the autofocus, judging by a translation of his views that indicates the camera focused well both with wide-angle and telephoto lenses.
The $5,000 EOS-1D Mark IV is Canon's first full-on professional SLR that can shoot video, but it also shoots 10 still frames per second for conventional photography. The 16.1-megapixel sensor can shoot up to ISO 12,800 at a regular setting and up to 102,400 in its extended range setting.
Its sensor is an unusual intermediate "APS-H" size that measures 27.9 by 18.6mm. That's about halfway between the full-frame sensors of most high-end SLRs and the APS-C sensors on Canon's mainstream SLRs. Larger sensors are more expensive but enable better low-light performance and a wider dynamic range.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Apple misses its mark on Windows 7 Boot Camp support
The release of Windows 7 has had a number of Boot Camp users wondering about official support from Apple. Installing Windows 7 over Vista will give numerous advantages, even if for nothing more than to increase the stability of the operating system; however, because Apple has not officially supported Windows, our recommendation so far has been to hold off on using it under Boot Camp, and run it in a virtual machine instead.
While a number of people have been successfully using both the beta and official Windows 7 releases on their Macs in the Boot Camp environment, the lack of official support from Apple may result in odd and unexpected behavior. Most people who've noticed problems have found the multi-touch mouse drivers to not behave properly, but others have found the system to boot and run slowly, and in some cases refuse to boot back to OS X (1, 2). In October, Apple released a knowledgebase document claiming that Windows 7 would supported in Mac OS X Snow Leopard before the end of 2009; however, to date there has been no mention of an update from Apple (though to be fair, from the time of this posting they have about 16 hours left).
According to AppleInsider, the official Windows 7 support updates are still undergoing tests at Apple, and will be released next year. Clearly, Windows 7 support on Apple hardware is not a priority of Apple's, but given Apple's initial claim of an update before the end of this year, it is likely they are finishing up the drivers and will have them out sooner rather than later.
While Boot Camp is a great option for maximizing performance when running Windows, it may not necessarily be the best. The main drawbacks for it are:
*
You cannot run your Mac applications simultaneously
*
You cannot safely resize the Mac or Windows partitions
*
You cannot easily transfer files between the two partitions (without third-party support)
These problems can easily be overcome by running a virtualization program such as VMWare Fusion, Parallels Desktop, or the free VirtualBox from Sun. These programs allow you to easily integrate Windows into your Mac environment, manage the Windows disk size by creating dynamically expanding hard disks, and use your same documents in both Windows and OS X (or at least easily copy them between the two environments).
While a number of people have been successfully using both the beta and official Windows 7 releases on their Macs in the Boot Camp environment, the lack of official support from Apple may result in odd and unexpected behavior. Most people who've noticed problems have found the multi-touch mouse drivers to not behave properly, but others have found the system to boot and run slowly, and in some cases refuse to boot back to OS X (1, 2). In October, Apple released a knowledgebase document claiming that Windows 7 would supported in Mac OS X Snow Leopard before the end of 2009; however, to date there has been no mention of an update from Apple (though to be fair, from the time of this posting they have about 16 hours left).
According to AppleInsider, the official Windows 7 support updates are still undergoing tests at Apple, and will be released next year. Clearly, Windows 7 support on Apple hardware is not a priority of Apple's, but given Apple's initial claim of an update before the end of this year, it is likely they are finishing up the drivers and will have them out sooner rather than later.
While Boot Camp is a great option for maximizing performance when running Windows, it may not necessarily be the best. The main drawbacks for it are:
*
You cannot run your Mac applications simultaneously
*
You cannot safely resize the Mac or Windows partitions
*
You cannot easily transfer files between the two partitions (without third-party support)
These problems can easily be overcome by running a virtualization program such as VMWare Fusion, Parallels Desktop, or the free VirtualBox from Sun. These programs allow you to easily integrate Windows into your Mac environment, manage the Windows disk size by creating dynamically expanding hard disks, and use your same documents in both Windows and OS X (or at least easily copy them between the two environments).
Rank your favorite songs with Rank'em
Everybody likes contributing an opinion, especially in subjects on which we consider ourselves experts. Rank'em (located at gorankem.com), now in beta testing, uses this human urge as the basis for a crowdsourced song recommendation engine.
This obviously wouldn't work without some structure--asking users to pick their 10 favorite songs at random, for instance, would be too scattershot and yield useless results. So Rank'em has users select particular artists, then asks them to choose between 5 and 20 songs and rank them in order. Users must also rate their level of enthusiasm--or "fanstanding" as the site calls it--for each artist. These self-ratings are limited by the number of songs picked. If you only know a handful of Modest Mouse songs, Rank'em will assume you can't be a very big fan, and will only let you rate yourself on a scale of one to five. If you pick 20 songs, they'll let you give yourself up to 10 points.
Rank'em urges me to pick the original version of any song I select as a favorite, but how am I supposed to know which version of "Boris the Spider" is the original? They're all exactly the same, but released at different times on different albums.
When other users search for that artist's name, they'll see aggregate rankings of the songs, weighted by each voter's fanstanding, along with links to buy them on iTunes, Amazon, and eMusic (assuming they're available through these sources). Although the site is still in beta, so far it looks pretty promising: for example, the results for Jimi Hendrix place well-deserved fan favorites like "Spanish Castle Magic" and "Voodoo Child (Slight Return)" above overplayed radio hits like "Purple Haze" and "Foxy Lady."
You can try it yourself: enter the code "CNET" when you register (you'll also need a valid e-mail address) and you can start ranking songs and reading aggregate rankings in a few minutes.
Unfortunately, Rank'em is only as good as the song data it offers, and that data's flawed right now. The site draws song data from the user-maintained MusicBrainz database, but MusicBrainz is obsessively complete, listing multiple releases for the same album. This completeness is a drawback when you're just trying to find a song and rank it. For instance, the Who--notorious for repackaging songs and albums--has some songs show up five times. This can really mess up the rankings, as votes are split among multiple versions of the same song.
There are other data-related problems as well: albums often have the wrong years associated with them and some albums are listed twice with two different years. Rank'em has neglected to import data from some singles and soundtrack albums, which means several of my favorite songs--"Hey Jude," "Hey Bulldog," and "It's All Too Much" by The Beatles, "Positively Fourth Street" by Dylan--are completely missing from the site. And many artists operate with different bands--Neil Young solo, Neil Young & Crazy Horse, and Neil Young & the Shocking Pinks, for instance. Rank'em lists these as separate artists, but casual fans just want to know which Neil Young songs are the best.
For the time being, rating songs on Rank'em is a fun diversion, and the site could be a useful starting point if you're just discovering a new artist. But the company will have to do some pretty heavy manual data scrubbing--or find a more appropriate data source--before it can become a truly great recommendation engine.
This obviously wouldn't work without some structure--asking users to pick their 10 favorite songs at random, for instance, would be too scattershot and yield useless results. So Rank'em has users select particular artists, then asks them to choose between 5 and 20 songs and rank them in order. Users must also rate their level of enthusiasm--or "fanstanding" as the site calls it--for each artist. These self-ratings are limited by the number of songs picked. If you only know a handful of Modest Mouse songs, Rank'em will assume you can't be a very big fan, and will only let you rate yourself on a scale of one to five. If you pick 20 songs, they'll let you give yourself up to 10 points.
Rank'em urges me to pick the original version of any song I select as a favorite, but how am I supposed to know which version of "Boris the Spider" is the original? They're all exactly the same, but released at different times on different albums.
When other users search for that artist's name, they'll see aggregate rankings of the songs, weighted by each voter's fanstanding, along with links to buy them on iTunes, Amazon, and eMusic (assuming they're available through these sources). Although the site is still in beta, so far it looks pretty promising: for example, the results for Jimi Hendrix place well-deserved fan favorites like "Spanish Castle Magic" and "Voodoo Child (Slight Return)" above overplayed radio hits like "Purple Haze" and "Foxy Lady."
You can try it yourself: enter the code "CNET" when you register (you'll also need a valid e-mail address) and you can start ranking songs and reading aggregate rankings in a few minutes.
Unfortunately, Rank'em is only as good as the song data it offers, and that data's flawed right now. The site draws song data from the user-maintained MusicBrainz database, but MusicBrainz is obsessively complete, listing multiple releases for the same album. This completeness is a drawback when you're just trying to find a song and rank it. For instance, the Who--notorious for repackaging songs and albums--has some songs show up five times. This can really mess up the rankings, as votes are split among multiple versions of the same song.
There are other data-related problems as well: albums often have the wrong years associated with them and some albums are listed twice with two different years. Rank'em has neglected to import data from some singles and soundtrack albums, which means several of my favorite songs--"Hey Jude," "Hey Bulldog," and "It's All Too Much" by The Beatles, "Positively Fourth Street" by Dylan--are completely missing from the site. And many artists operate with different bands--Neil Young solo, Neil Young & Crazy Horse, and Neil Young & the Shocking Pinks, for instance. Rank'em lists these as separate artists, but casual fans just want to know which Neil Young songs are the best.
For the time being, rating songs on Rank'em is a fun diversion, and the site could be a useful starting point if you're just discovering a new artist. But the company will have to do some pretty heavy manual data scrubbing--or find a more appropriate data source--before it can become a truly great recommendation engine.
Video games outsell movies in U.K.
In the last year, consumers spent more money on video games in Britain than on films, including both trips to movie theaters and films on DVD, new figures compiled for U.K.'s Daily Telegraph indicate.
In the 12 months leading up to the end of September, 1.73 billion British pounds (about $2.8 billion) were spent on video games, according to data-monitoring company GFK Chart-Track. The U.K. Film Council said 1 billion British pounds ($1.6 billion) were spent at the British box office during the same period, with an additional 198 million British pounds ($320 million) spent on films released on DVD and Blu-ray.
* U.K. video games: 1.73 billion pounds ($2.8 billion)
* U.K. film: 1.198 billion pounds ($1.93 billion)
This means that approximately 532 million pounds ($860 million) more was spent on video games in 2009, roughly 30 percent more than on films. And while 1.73 billion pounds is impressive, it's still well shy of the $20 billion predicted for U.S. game sales in 2009. In fact, the U.S. spent $2.7 billion on games in November 2009 alone.
Video games, by no means a niche in the U.K, or most other parts of the world, are obviously big business and these statistics clearly show that the growth in new forms of digital entertainment specifically available via a computer or game console is having a major impact on more traditional forms of entertainment.
Contributing to the success of gaming in the U.K. were price cuts to jump-start sales, as well as tie-ins to supermarkets, greatly expanding the potential number of buyers and targeting gamers at the check-out stand, according to The Daily Telegraph. Further, Amazon.co.uk reported that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was the No. 1 seller for 2009, beating out DVDs of "Harry Potter" and "Twilight."
The industry data compiled by GFK Chart-Track also shows that the number of games consoles being used in Britain nearly doubled in 2009 to 25 million which means there are enough consoles for nine out of every ten households in the country to have one.
According to the report, only television--including DVDs of television shows, along with the cost of the license and satellite subscriptions--and music are bigger forms of entertainment.
In the 12 months leading up to the end of September, 1.73 billion British pounds (about $2.8 billion) were spent on video games, according to data-monitoring company GFK Chart-Track. The U.K. Film Council said 1 billion British pounds ($1.6 billion) were spent at the British box office during the same period, with an additional 198 million British pounds ($320 million) spent on films released on DVD and Blu-ray.
* U.K. video games: 1.73 billion pounds ($2.8 billion)
* U.K. film: 1.198 billion pounds ($1.93 billion)
This means that approximately 532 million pounds ($860 million) more was spent on video games in 2009, roughly 30 percent more than on films. And while 1.73 billion pounds is impressive, it's still well shy of the $20 billion predicted for U.S. game sales in 2009. In fact, the U.S. spent $2.7 billion on games in November 2009 alone.
Video games, by no means a niche in the U.K, or most other parts of the world, are obviously big business and these statistics clearly show that the growth in new forms of digital entertainment specifically available via a computer or game console is having a major impact on more traditional forms of entertainment.
Contributing to the success of gaming in the U.K. were price cuts to jump-start sales, as well as tie-ins to supermarkets, greatly expanding the potential number of buyers and targeting gamers at the check-out stand, according to The Daily Telegraph. Further, Amazon.co.uk reported that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was the No. 1 seller for 2009, beating out DVDs of "Harry Potter" and "Twilight."
The industry data compiled by GFK Chart-Track also shows that the number of games consoles being used in Britain nearly doubled in 2009 to 25 million which means there are enough consoles for nine out of every ten households in the country to have one.
According to the report, only television--including DVDs of television shows, along with the cost of the license and satellite subscriptions--and music are bigger forms of entertainment.
U.S. trade agency eyes Samsung-Sharp spat
A U.S. trade court has agreed to look into Samsung's claims that Japanese rival Sharp had infringed its patents relating to LCD (liquid crystal display) technology.
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) said in a statement on its Web site this week that it has "voted to institute an investigation" into Samsung's complaint of patent infringement by Sharp, filed Dec. 1.
The Korean company's allegations, according to the statement, are made against Sharp Corp. of Japan and two of its American subsidiaries.
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) said in a statement on its Web site this week that it has "voted to institute an investigation" into Samsung's complaint of patent infringement by Sharp, filed Dec. 1.
The Korean company's allegations, according to the statement, are made against Sharp Corp. of Japan and two of its American subsidiaries.
Facebook, Twitter: How we chose to live in public
Some people celebrated the coming of 2010 with crystal glasses of fizzy yellow liquid. Others used the opportunity to stare into their crystal glasses and see what we have and will become.
Perhaps the most pulsating and sad suggestion is that we no longer have any privacy. You burp in Bellingham and someone quickly hears about it in Sydney. You decide you dislike your wife, so you tweet about it, tell your Facebook friends and then get around to telling her. If you can remember to do that.
Even more bilious is the early-in-2009 suggestion of Laurent Haug, CEO of the Lift Conference, that if we want privacy we have to create it. You know, make your public self the publicly palatable version and keep the insidious pervert you for your special friends.
Where the depressed and dissatisfied used to tell their shrinks that they were miserable because they felt like there was a camera on them all the time, now they seem to rejoice in being the stars of their own Truman Show. "Clarissa is having coffee, a croissant and second thoughts." Wow, you go there, Clarissa. Let us know what happens next.
Strangely, some people seem rather keen to blame technology for their own increasingly public behavior. There are those who, when confronted with their own public proclamations of their everyday lives, say it was the technology that made them do it. It was there, everyone was doing it, and, no, no, they had no idea that everyone would see it.
Though it's entirely believable that Facebook and Twitter are full of touchingly heartless engineers who would dearly love for everyone to live as publicly as possible so that they can sell their information to as many advertisers as possible, there might be a little more to it than that.
Haven't Facebook and Twitter merely lucked into people's overwhelming desire for, well, fame? Once broadcast media-- you know the old-fashioned stuff like radio and TV-- proved that fame was a powerful, far-reaching and tangentially tangible currency, we all thought it might be nice to taste a piece of it.
How many of your Facebook friends seem to want their updates to be more interesting, more involving and more amusing those of anyone else in their group? How many of your Twitter community want to prove that they are reading something more important, more current, more intellectual than anyone else?
It's easy, and partly true, to declare that those creepily bright engineers have found ways to follow our every move and to tabulate our every preference. It's tempting to say they offer us tools that appear to help us communicate, but actually encourage us to expose more of ourselves than we might realize.
But somehow we asked for it. We wanted it, even if couldn't quite articulate what it was we wanted. And we didn't pay enough heed to Confucius or Eminem or whoever it was that warned us to be careful what we wished for.
We've got it now. The question for 2010 is: What are we really going to do with it? Perhaps you could ask your Facebook friends.
May I take this cheery opportunity to wish everyone a very happy New Year and thank everyone for their amusing, confusing and occasionally even touchingly insulting notes and comments in that Old Year that is happily behind us.
Perhaps the most pulsating and sad suggestion is that we no longer have any privacy. You burp in Bellingham and someone quickly hears about it in Sydney. You decide you dislike your wife, so you tweet about it, tell your Facebook friends and then get around to telling her. If you can remember to do that.
Even more bilious is the early-in-2009 suggestion of Laurent Haug, CEO of the Lift Conference, that if we want privacy we have to create it. You know, make your public self the publicly palatable version and keep the insidious pervert you for your special friends.
Where the depressed and dissatisfied used to tell their shrinks that they were miserable because they felt like there was a camera on them all the time, now they seem to rejoice in being the stars of their own Truman Show. "Clarissa is having coffee, a croissant and second thoughts." Wow, you go there, Clarissa. Let us know what happens next.
Strangely, some people seem rather keen to blame technology for their own increasingly public behavior. There are those who, when confronted with their own public proclamations of their everyday lives, say it was the technology that made them do it. It was there, everyone was doing it, and, no, no, they had no idea that everyone would see it.
Though it's entirely believable that Facebook and Twitter are full of touchingly heartless engineers who would dearly love for everyone to live as publicly as possible so that they can sell their information to as many advertisers as possible, there might be a little more to it than that.
Haven't Facebook and Twitter merely lucked into people's overwhelming desire for, well, fame? Once broadcast media-- you know the old-fashioned stuff like radio and TV-- proved that fame was a powerful, far-reaching and tangentially tangible currency, we all thought it might be nice to taste a piece of it.
How many of your Facebook friends seem to want their updates to be more interesting, more involving and more amusing those of anyone else in their group? How many of your Twitter community want to prove that they are reading something more important, more current, more intellectual than anyone else?
It's easy, and partly true, to declare that those creepily bright engineers have found ways to follow our every move and to tabulate our every preference. It's tempting to say they offer us tools that appear to help us communicate, but actually encourage us to expose more of ourselves than we might realize.
But somehow we asked for it. We wanted it, even if couldn't quite articulate what it was we wanted. And we didn't pay enough heed to Confucius or Eminem or whoever it was that warned us to be careful what we wished for.
We've got it now. The question for 2010 is: What are we really going to do with it? Perhaps you could ask your Facebook friends.
May I take this cheery opportunity to wish everyone a very happy New Year and thank everyone for their amusing, confusing and occasionally even touchingly insulting notes and comments in that Old Year that is happily behind us.
Leaked HP, Gateway 'Core i3' laptops are low-cost
Thought that the newest laptop technology is always priced at a premium? Think again. Due in the next few weeks from Hewlett-Packard, Gateway, Toshiba, and a host of other PC makers, some of the first laptops using Intel's new Core i3 processor will be priced as low as $700.
At the Consumer Electronics Show, which starts January 7, PC makers will debut laptops using Intel's freshly minted Core i3 processor, as was previously reported. Core i series processors are based on Intel's Nehalem microarchitecture. In 2010, the chipmaker will move most of its processor lines from the current Core 2 technology to the Core i design.
Core i3-based laptops are, in a word, cheap. Cheap in the context that these are systems using a brand new processor based on a new Intel microarchitecture--in the past, this kind of technology has commanded a steep premium. A system from HP now posted on online retailer eCost is priced at $865. And a Gateway laptop listed on Canadian retailer Future Shop is priced at $730 Canadian dollars or about $694 U.S. dollars.
And add a Toshiba system to the mix (priced at $799 Canadian dollars or about $763 U.S. dollars). The Toshiba Satellite (PSLS6C-00F005) packs the same Core i3 processor but uses a 16-inch screen, according to a posting on Future Shop.
HP Core i3-based Pavilion laptop (WA786UA#ABA) as listed by eCost:
* Processor: 2.13GHz Intel Core i3-330m
* Display: 15.6" LED
* Memory: 4096MB DDR3
* Hard disk drive: 320GB 7200rpm
* Optical drive: DVDRW
* Operating system: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
* Video card: Intel Integrated Graphics Media Accelerator HD
* Price listed by eCost: $864.99
The $694 Gateway system has the same screen size (listed with a 1600 x 900 native resolution) and memory configuration as the HP laptop ups the ante with a 500GB hard disk drive and, most interestingly, uses an as-yet-unannounced ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470 graphics chip instead of Intel's graphics silicon.
Gateway Core i3-based laptop is below $700
Product specifications aside, one of the most anticipated laptop technologies at CES this year is Arrandale, the codename for Intel Core i series mobile processors targeted at the mainstream laptop market. The Arrandale-based Core i3 is the first mainstream Intel laptop processor to combine two processor cores and a graphics function together in one chip package (previously, the graphics chip was in a separate chipset), resulting in better overall power efficiency.
And the new built-in graphics technology will offer better graphics performance than current technology, according to Intel. The chipmaker will try in earnest to prove this at CES with plenty of demos showing off Arrandale's graphics prowess. (Though not all PC makers are convinced that Intel's new graphics technology is the way to go, as evidenced by Gateway's decision to use a discrete ATI graphics processor from Advanced Micro Devices).
One thing worth noting is that the Core i3 won't have Turbo Boost technology, which speeds up and slows down individual cores to meet processing and power-efficiency needs, respectively. This will only be offered in higher-end Core i5 and i7 processors--including Arrandale i5 models. However, the Core i3 will have Hyper-Threading, which can double the number of tasks--or threads--a processor can execute. This is not offered in current Core 2 chips.
What you get (pros) and don't get (cons) with the Intel Core i3 mobile processor:
* Pro: graphics built directly into the CPU, which means better overall power efficiency
* Pro: improved graphics performance over current Intel 4500MHD graphics silicon
* Pro: Hyper-Threading
* Pro: Intel's newest 32-nanometer chip technology
* Con: no Intel Turbo Boost
* Con: not four cores, only two
* Con: relatively small cache memory size
At the Consumer Electronics Show, which starts January 7, PC makers will debut laptops using Intel's freshly minted Core i3 processor, as was previously reported. Core i series processors are based on Intel's Nehalem microarchitecture. In 2010, the chipmaker will move most of its processor lines from the current Core 2 technology to the Core i design.
Core i3-based laptops are, in a word, cheap. Cheap in the context that these are systems using a brand new processor based on a new Intel microarchitecture--in the past, this kind of technology has commanded a steep premium. A system from HP now posted on online retailer eCost is priced at $865. And a Gateway laptop listed on Canadian retailer Future Shop is priced at $730 Canadian dollars or about $694 U.S. dollars.
And add a Toshiba system to the mix (priced at $799 Canadian dollars or about $763 U.S. dollars). The Toshiba Satellite (PSLS6C-00F005) packs the same Core i3 processor but uses a 16-inch screen, according to a posting on Future Shop.
HP Core i3-based Pavilion laptop (WA786UA#ABA) as listed by eCost:
* Processor: 2.13GHz Intel Core i3-330m
* Display: 15.6" LED
* Memory: 4096MB DDR3
* Hard disk drive: 320GB 7200rpm
* Optical drive: DVDRW
* Operating system: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
* Video card: Intel Integrated Graphics Media Accelerator HD
* Price listed by eCost: $864.99
The $694 Gateway system has the same screen size (listed with a 1600 x 900 native resolution) and memory configuration as the HP laptop ups the ante with a 500GB hard disk drive and, most interestingly, uses an as-yet-unannounced ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470 graphics chip instead of Intel's graphics silicon.
Gateway Core i3-based laptop is below $700
Product specifications aside, one of the most anticipated laptop technologies at CES this year is Arrandale, the codename for Intel Core i series mobile processors targeted at the mainstream laptop market. The Arrandale-based Core i3 is the first mainstream Intel laptop processor to combine two processor cores and a graphics function together in one chip package (previously, the graphics chip was in a separate chipset), resulting in better overall power efficiency.
And the new built-in graphics technology will offer better graphics performance than current technology, according to Intel. The chipmaker will try in earnest to prove this at CES with plenty of demos showing off Arrandale's graphics prowess. (Though not all PC makers are convinced that Intel's new graphics technology is the way to go, as evidenced by Gateway's decision to use a discrete ATI graphics processor from Advanced Micro Devices).
One thing worth noting is that the Core i3 won't have Turbo Boost technology, which speeds up and slows down individual cores to meet processing and power-efficiency needs, respectively. This will only be offered in higher-end Core i5 and i7 processors--including Arrandale i5 models. However, the Core i3 will have Hyper-Threading, which can double the number of tasks--or threads--a processor can execute. This is not offered in current Core 2 chips.
What you get (pros) and don't get (cons) with the Intel Core i3 mobile processor:
* Pro: graphics built directly into the CPU, which means better overall power efficiency
* Pro: improved graphics performance over current Intel 4500MHD graphics silicon
* Pro: Hyper-Threading
* Pro: Intel's newest 32-nanometer chip technology
* Con: no Intel Turbo Boost
* Con: not four cores, only two
* Con: relatively small cache memory size
NASA's next frontier: Venus, the moon, or an asteroid
NASA has chosen three options it will consider as its next target for future scientific space exploration--Venus, the moon, or an asteroid.
The three areas of focus are finalists in a competition designed to help the space agency determine where it should spend its time and money to get the most scientific value out of research about our solar system. It's part of NASA's New Frontiers Program, which already has two missions under way. The first is the New Horizons mission, a spacecraft that's currently on its way to Pluto and has already sent back images from a quick flyby of Jupiter. The second is called Juno, a large-scale survey of Jupiter that's planned for launch in 2011. This competition will determine the focus of New Frontiers' third mission.
The three final proposals being considered are:
* Venus: The Surface and Atmosphere Geochemical Explorer, or SAGE, mission designed by Larry Esposito of the University of Colorado at Boulder would send a probe to Venus. The probe's instruments would collect data as it descends through the planet's atmosphere, then collect and analyze geological and minerological content after landing on Venus' surface.
* An asteroid: The Origins Spectral Interpretation Resource Identification Security Regolith Explorer spacecraft, called Osiris-Rex and designed by Michael Drake of the University of Arizona at Tucson, would instead set its sights on a nearby asteroid. Osiris-Rex would collect material from the surface of an asteroid and return the samples to Earth for NASA to analyze.
* Moon: The Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return Mission, devised by Bradley Jolliff of Washington University in St. Louis, would entail dropping a lander near the south pole of the moon. The lander would collect material from the lunar surface, believed to have come from the moon's mantle, and return it to Earth for further study.
NASA will give $3.3 million to each of the three teams so they can conduct year-long studies to devise their mission's feasibility, cost, and management and technical plans. A final selection will be made in 2011 after those studies are complete.
The future of U.S. involvement in space exploration was the subject of much debate in 2009 and remains up in the air. NASA's current shuttle program is due to be retired this year, and a replacement program is not likely to be put in place for at least another seven years, according to a presidential panel that recently analyzed several possible strategies for manned spaceflight. And NASA currently has no money in its projected budget to operate the International Space Station beyond 2015.
The three areas of focus are finalists in a competition designed to help the space agency determine where it should spend its time and money to get the most scientific value out of research about our solar system. It's part of NASA's New Frontiers Program, which already has two missions under way. The first is the New Horizons mission, a spacecraft that's currently on its way to Pluto and has already sent back images from a quick flyby of Jupiter. The second is called Juno, a large-scale survey of Jupiter that's planned for launch in 2011. This competition will determine the focus of New Frontiers' third mission.
The three final proposals being considered are:
* Venus: The Surface and Atmosphere Geochemical Explorer, or SAGE, mission designed by Larry Esposito of the University of Colorado at Boulder would send a probe to Venus. The probe's instruments would collect data as it descends through the planet's atmosphere, then collect and analyze geological and minerological content after landing on Venus' surface.
* An asteroid: The Origins Spectral Interpretation Resource Identification Security Regolith Explorer spacecraft, called Osiris-Rex and designed by Michael Drake of the University of Arizona at Tucson, would instead set its sights on a nearby asteroid. Osiris-Rex would collect material from the surface of an asteroid and return the samples to Earth for NASA to analyze.
* Moon: The Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return Mission, devised by Bradley Jolliff of Washington University in St. Louis, would entail dropping a lander near the south pole of the moon. The lander would collect material from the lunar surface, believed to have come from the moon's mantle, and return it to Earth for further study.
NASA will give $3.3 million to each of the three teams so they can conduct year-long studies to devise their mission's feasibility, cost, and management and technical plans. A final selection will be made in 2011 after those studies are complete.
The future of U.S. involvement in space exploration was the subject of much debate in 2009 and remains up in the air. NASA's current shuttle program is due to be retired this year, and a replacement program is not likely to be put in place for at least another seven years, according to a presidential panel that recently analyzed several possible strategies for manned spaceflight. And NASA currently has no money in its projected budget to operate the International Space Station beyond 2015.
Just how free will the Nexus One be?
As we now know, the Consumer Electronics Show will not be the only thing going on in the gadget world next week. Google is getting a jump on CES with a January 5, 2010, press conference where the company should unveil its Nexus One phone. Details on the HTC-made device remain sketchy--though we have seen some leaked specs--but most signs point toward T-Mobile as the carrier for the newest Google Android phone.
According to leaked T-Mobile documents obtained by Gizmodo, the Nexus One will be available unlocked for $530 without a contract and $180 with a two-year service agreement. Also, while Android chief Andy Rubin said in October that Google wasn't interested in competing with customers, it now appears that Google will sell the device on its own. So what makes the Nexus One special?
Except for the unlocked part, that's not too different from how the iPhone is sold to customers, but a couple of important questions remain. Though we appreciate the opportunity to buy the handset unlocked and without a contract (even at the $530 price tag), we'll be curious to see what kind of billing options are available. Yes, you would be able to leave T-Mobile at any point, but data pricing still needs to be fair and affordable. Unlocked buyers shouldn't have to join subsidized buyers in choosing just one type of service plan.
Unlocked buyers could face an additional limitation. If it's true that the Nexus One will support only T-Mobile's 3G network, anyone hoping to use the device on AT&T will be stuck on EDGE (the two carriers use incompatible 3G technology). They will be able to make calls, but data speeds will be slower.
Since the first rumors of the "Google phone" first popped up earlier this year, we've heard that it will be free of traditional carrier restrictions and that it would be the best Android phone yet. The second promise may very well turn out to be true, but the Nexus One may not be as free as we were hoping.
According to leaked T-Mobile documents obtained by Gizmodo, the Nexus One will be available unlocked for $530 without a contract and $180 with a two-year service agreement. Also, while Android chief Andy Rubin said in October that Google wasn't interested in competing with customers, it now appears that Google will sell the device on its own. So what makes the Nexus One special?
Except for the unlocked part, that's not too different from how the iPhone is sold to customers, but a couple of important questions remain. Though we appreciate the opportunity to buy the handset unlocked and without a contract (even at the $530 price tag), we'll be curious to see what kind of billing options are available. Yes, you would be able to leave T-Mobile at any point, but data pricing still needs to be fair and affordable. Unlocked buyers shouldn't have to join subsidized buyers in choosing just one type of service plan.
Unlocked buyers could face an additional limitation. If it's true that the Nexus One will support only T-Mobile's 3G network, anyone hoping to use the device on AT&T will be stuck on EDGE (the two carriers use incompatible 3G technology). They will be able to make calls, but data speeds will be slower.
Since the first rumors of the "Google phone" first popped up earlier this year, we've heard that it will be free of traditional carrier restrictions and that it would be the best Android phone yet. The second promise may very well turn out to be true, but the Nexus One may not be as free as we were hoping.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
