April 06, 2006, 6:01 PM PDT
MacBook Pro XP vs. the PC competition
Posted by: Justin Jaffe

The reader response to Apple's new Boot Camp utility, which lets you install Windows XP on a MacBook Pro or an iMac Core Duo, has been mixed so far.

Me, though? Man, I'm psyched. This makes my job a lot easier. As a laptop reviewer, I've always been frustrated by the apples to oranges (insert Bronx cheer) comparisons I've been forced to make when pitting PowerBooks and iBooks against the PC competition. Boot Camp finally provides a baseline for a true head-to-head contest of Apple hardware vs. PC hardware, without operating systems or Rosetta or anything else qualifying the results.

We went out and bought a 2.0GHz MacBook Pro last night (shout out to the Stonestown Mall Apple Store). Then we dug up some good PC competitors, one of which has almost identical specs. This morning, we started testing. Here's what we found.

Well, first, a disclosure of the specs. For the most part, they match up perfectly. We were using a MacBook Pro running Windows XP Pro and equipped with a 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo (T2500) processor; 2GB of DDR2 SDRAM (666MHz); an ATI Mobility Radeon x1600 graphics card; and a 100GB hard drive spinning at 5,400rpm.

The Acer TravelMate 8200 was also running Windows XP Pro and was equipped with a 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo (T2500) processor; 2GB of slightly slower DDR2 SDRAM (533MHz); an ATI Mobility Radeon x1600 graphics card; and a slightly larger 120GB hard drive spinning at 5,400rpm.

For additional context, we've also included the HP Pavilion dv1000t, another solid laptop running the same Intel Core Duo T2500 processor, as well as the original MacBook Pro we tested back in February, which was running the Mac OS on a 1.83GHz Intel Core Duo T2400 processor; take note that this MacBook Pro was running Mac versions of all software.

And now, without further delay, the results.

In our Photoshop test, the original MacBook Pro struggled, forced to process the application through its Rosetta translation program, which resulted in performance that was about five times slower than the PC competition--slower than on even the lowest-end iBook. Because a native version of Photoshop for OS X isn't expected until sometime next year, the ability to run Photoshop smoothly on a MacBook Pro running Windows XP is a crucial step forward.

In our iTunes conversion test, the original MacBook came at the top of the heap, slightly ahead of the HP, the Acer, and the MacBook Pro running Windows XP. We'll chalk this up to the fact that Apple's applications will always run best on Apple hardware. Still, the difference is nominal.

Perhaps the best news is that Boot Camp shows the potential for gaming on a Mac. Where the MacBook Pro running OS X Tiger turned in only 13.8 frames per second (fps) in our standard Doom 3 benchmark, the MacBook Pro running Windows XP notched 21.6fps. Yes, this is likely partially due to the difference in the processor speed, but more so due to the fact that Doom 3 was built to run on Windows XP. There's no question: You're going to have a noticeably better gaming experience on a Mac running Windows XP than Mac OS X.

The remainder of our tests, Sorenson Squeeze, Dr. Divx, and Cinebench, all test encoding performance. The charts speak volumes. The MacBook Pro running Windows XP delivers performance power that's identical to the PC competition.

We'll be running some more benchmarks, including MobileMark and SysMark, during the next few days. But Talk back to me now: What do these results mean to you? Are you ready to buy a MacBook Pro?

Permalink | 157 comments

• Read also: Desktops, Notebooks, Apple, Windows
• Email to a friend | Print this post

April 06, 2006, 5:30 PM PDT
2006 Mini Cooper S
Posted by: Wayne Cunningham

I've just started a review of the 2006 Mini Cooper S, and here are my initial impressions. The Mini body style looks great and has held its appeal well, now that the novelty has worn off. And it has decent power, with the S version's 168-horsepower, 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine. Its supercharger gives it notable acceleration even from 70mph, although I imagine it would be a different story with all seats full. I particularly like the six-speed transmission, with power bands that seem well laid out. Gears two and three are pretty wide, giving a lot of latitude in city or windy mountain-road driving. Four through six offer the attentive driver valuable choice at higher speeds. With previous manual transmissions, freeway driving usually means fifth gear, and that's it. Being able to drop down from sixth to fifth, or even down to fourth if needed, lets drivers adjust for all sorts of high-speed driving situations.

But this is about where my praise ends. Although the Mini Cooper S interior looks as good as the outside, it's kind of weak in its tech offerings. Mini does offer a navigation option, but it wasn't in our test car, and I've never seen it equipped in any other Mini I've come across. It could be the least-popular option for Minis. Most other options that would be of interest, such as iPod connectivity and Bluetooth, are dealer installs, so they wouldn't be included on a press loan from the manufacturer. I do give it credit for having these options, but I sure would like to try them out. That leaves us with the stereo, which in this case is the premium Harman Kardon option. This stereo sounds excellent, especially blasting the Junkie XL remix of Elvis Presley's "A Little Less Conversation" while cruising down the freeway at 80mph. The CD player reads MP3 CDs, but it doesn't display ID3 tag information, such as the song title. It also doesn't offer any other navigation besides next track or previous track on an MP3 CD. Strangely enough, buttons on the steering wheel include controls for a telephone, yet the dealer Bluetooth option doesn't seem like it would take advantage of them. They are probably for a factory Bluetooth option offered only in Europe.

Beyond electronics, our Mini Cooper S came with the dual-pane panoramic-sunroof option as part of the $1,400 premium package. In my opinion, this is a waste. Having a sunroof over the front seats is great, but the second pane sits over the rear seats. In every coupe I've had, the rear seats get used maybe once a year. You'll find 20-year-old coupes in the junkyard with rear seats in perfect shape, because they generally get used only for groceries. Your groceries don't need a sunroof. This Mini also has the really horrible center stack-mounted cup holder, which is truly atrocious. It looks bad, and it gets in the way of the stereo and glove compartment. My first instinct on seeing it is to try to pull it out, although Mini has it too well attached to come off without damage. The base price for the 2006 Mini Cooper S is $20,600, entirely reasonable for such a fun-looking little car, but options, which didn't include navigation but did include a $1,700 leather interior and a $450 paint job, brought it up to $27,950.

Permalink | 6 comments

• See product information for 2006 MINI Cooper S 2dr Hatchback (1.6L 4cyl S/C 6M)
• Read also: Car Tech
• Email to a friend | Print this post

April 06, 2006, 4:34 PM PDT
Another Cowon iAudio U3 price drop
Posted by: James Kim

Thanks to lower flash-memory prices, Cowon has again dropped the price of its iAudio U3--the mini-PVP--to $140 for the 1GB white version and $190 for the black 2GB version. Just less than two months ago, Cowon lowered the price of the 1GB version from $190 to $170 and the 2GB version from $270 to $220. Once prohibitively expensive, the players are now bona fide deals.

Permalink | Post a comment

• See product information for Cowon iAudio U3 (2GB, black)
• Read also: mp3, portable audio
• Email to a friend | Print this post

April 06, 2006, 4:16 PM PDT
Plug and pay
Posted by: Elsa Wenzel

Before you leave the house, you probably flip off the lights and make sure you didn't leave on the toaster. But do you also make the rounds of rooms to unplug your television, DVD player, camera charger, computer, and every other energy-sipping item? If not, then you might fritter away 10 percent or more of your energy bill on electronics that aren't even turned on.

TVs, set-top boxes, and printers are notorious household energy hogs, according to studies at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. As the Economist recently pointed out, by keeping sleeping gadgets plugged in, Americans waste energy equivalent to what 18 power stations produce each year. Who knew that a microwave uses more power over time on its clock than it does to heat your TV dinners?

While you wince at those lingering utilities costs from the past winter, you can take simple steps to shrink your future bills. To start, check out our TV power consumption guide to see how your flat screen rates. And consider one of these smart power strips to help reduce the energy eaten by all those other devices around your digital home or office:

Plug a gadget into the Kill-a-Watt or Watts Up, which plug into the wall. These tools spell out how much energy you're using, and they ring up how much it's costing you.

You should flick off power strips whenever connected electronics lie dormant. But who wants to add all that bending over to the household chores? An infrared motion detector on the surge-protecting WattStopper can tell when you're in the area and will respond by turning electricity on or off to six of its outlets.

Plug your PC and peripherals into the Mini Power Minder, which senses when you shut down the computer. It then cuts the power to the devices connected to your PC.

The similar Smart Strip Power Strip comes with more outlets and flexibility. You can use it to cut power to peripherals when a PC turns off, to shut down a cable box and DVD player when the TV turns off, and so on.

Permalink | 1 comment

• Read also: environment and energy, power, green, eco
• Email to a friend | Print this post

April 06, 2006, 3:50 PM PDT
Sony PS3 PricingWatch: update No. 442
Posted by: Molly Wood

After reports ran around the Web indicating that a Sony exec had let PlayStation 3 prices slip (to the tune of 600 euros, or more than $700 U.S.), Sony is now rushing to undo the damage from the terrifying numbers. But they're not doing so by offering more reassuring numbers. They're just saying that the exec didn't indicate a price range for the PS3, and that they're not going to either. Oh, OK, it's all clear to us now. So, still expensive, then?

Permalink | 91 comments

• Read also: Buzz
• Email to a friend | Print this post

April 06, 2006, 3:46 PM PDT
TV to DVR to...Razr?
Posted by: Molly Wood

Motorola is hopping on the TV-on-your-cell-phone bandwagon, announcing this week at CTIA that it'll offer a DVR-to-Mobile service sometime in 2007. You'll be able to access your DVR and program it remotely. Despite the DVR-to-Mobile name, though, you can access content from your DVR only by docking your phone in a cradle at your actual house. Beyond that immediate bit of letdown, Motorola spokesman Paul Alfieri says that "rights management issues are still being worked out" with the whole shebang. Go right ahead and translate that as "you'll see this around the same time as never."

Permalink | 3 comments

• Read also: Buzz
• Email to a friend | Print this post

April 06, 2006, 2:43 PM PDT
Nielsen: 99 percent of DVRs users skip ads
Posted by: David Katzmaier

As a longtime DVR owner who, by this point, can't even watch live TV because of all the ads, I'm not exactly stunned by this article from advertising trade pub MediaDailyNews. It analyzes Nielsen's new minute-by-minute ratings system to conclude that people with DVRs such as TiVo almost always skip ads. One example in the piece says that in February, fewer than 1 percent of Desperate Housewives and American Idol viewers who watched the shows time-shifted (as opposed to live) actually saw the ads. I sure hope advertisers don't use these numbers as ammunition to pursue more invasive schemes that target DVR users, such as prominent in-show pop-up promos, product placement, and special ads that appear when you fast-forward. Oh, wait...

Source: Lost Remote

Permalink | Post a comment

• Read also: televisions
• Email to a friend | Print this post