I quickly fell for the golden, brushed-aluminum body and the matching widely spaced keys. (Not feeling flashy enough for the limited-edition gold version, like the one we received? The X Series also comes in black.) Measuring 10.95 by 7.29 by 0.55 inches and weighing 1.6 pounds, the X Series out-smalls the MacBook Air and gives the upcoming Dell Adamo XPS a run for its money.

The X Series boasts an 11.1-inch screen that measures merely 0.125 inch thick. The laptop comes with two interchangeable batteries: a standard (3.5-hour) battery and a larger, heavier, battery-and-stand combo that supposedly lasts for up to 14 hours, according to Sony spokespeople. They were wrong. It lasts just a few minutes under 15 hours — that′s easily the longest running laptop we′ve tested to date. International jet-setter, we′ve found your PC. The additional battery brings the weight of the X Series to approximately 2.2 pounds. (For reference, the popular MacBook Air weighs about 3 pounds.)

Though the laptop may look like a Jaguar, it runs like a Ford Taurus. Don′t forget, that while this looks sweet and costs a fortune, it is still a netbook at heart. The X features a 128GB solid-state drive, 2GB of RAM, and a 2GHz Intel Atom Z550 processor. In PC WorldBench 6 tests, it earned a 39–hardly smoking fast, but better than the average netbook score of 36. In my subjective tests, the X Series ran Windows 7 Home Premium Edition smoothly enough, though I did find the machine slowing down when I tried to get more than three programs running at the same time.

The X Series features a 1366-by-768-pixel, 11.1-inch LCD screen–theoretically, you could get 720p video to run on this machine. Streaming HD (480p) video from Hulu was fantastic: Image quality was crisp and clear, and colors looked fully saturated. Since the machine supports 720p resolutions, we had to throw our higher-quality test video (of a shuttle launch) at it; the result was a herky-jerky viewing experience, however. Your HD-video mileage will vary.

The LED-backlit screen looks good both indoors and out. At the highest brightness setting, it was still readable in sunlight (using the highest brightness setting, however, will cut the battery life to 2.5 hours on the standard battery and 12 hours on the extra-life battery).The only problem: The higher resolution hurts the VAIO X Series. I, admittedly, have bad eyes, but looking at the tiny screen started to give me a headache after about half an hour. Fortunately, I did have the option of zooming (stutteringly) in.

Also featured on the X Series are a multigesture touchpad and a built-in Webcam. The touchpad supports gestures such as the iPhone “pinch” for zooming in/out, and a two-finger horizontal “swipe” for flicking through photos. Most of the gestures work, though not as smoothly as they do on Mac touchpads.

The keyboard offers widely spaced and separate buttons, commonly associated with a MacBook (though, in all fairness, Sony implemented them first). It isn′t the worst small keyboard I′ve ever used, but sacrificing some prettiness for usefulness might have made sense on Sony′s part. While the spaced keys are attractive, they′re unnaturally small. My fingers (and I have small hands, and seriously delicate fingers) slipped off of the keys so often that typing this review on the X Series was a hassle. I also found that the Shift key and the spacebar were somewhat unresponsive on our test unit, but Sony spokespeople assured us that this is a one-off issue unique to our machine. If we discover otherwise, we′ll let you know when we update the final review.

The touchpad also seemed ridiculously small, considering all the space (clearly for aesthetic concerns) surrounding it. The mousing surface measures about 2 by 1.5 inches, and the buttons are 1 by 0.5 inches. And they don′t appear to be well made. The touchpad is flimsy, and the buttons seem like they′ll be quick to break–it′s almost as if Sony is really trying to push its matching wireless mouse.

Elsewhere, the X Series makes room for a Memory Stick Pro slot and an SD Card slot (both located right under the touchpad), a headphone jack, two USB 2.0 ports, a VGA-out, and an ethernet port that conveniently folds out (to keep the machine ultrathin). Don′t go looking for an optical drive, though–that′s extra.

The included software was pretty basic: Microsoft Works SE 9.0, a 60-day trial of Microsoft Office Home and Student 2007, a 30-day trial of Norton Internet Security, and some of the standard bloatware. (A 90-day trial of AOL? Last time I checked, it wasn′t 1998 anymore.) Sony also tosses in a bundle of multimedia tools, such as the VAIO Video & Photo Suite and the Sony Picture Utility.

Overall, the Sony VAIO X Series exudes sex appeal. However, if you plan on actually using it, the netbook becomes less attractive. The keyboard leaves something to be desired; after about 4 hours of typing, I am starting to get used to it, but I′m also starting to understand what carpal tunnel syndrome feels like. So if you′ve got small hands and need something to last for an entire intercontinental flight, you′re in luck. But it′ll cost you.

In traditional malware blocking tests, F-Secure Anti-Virus ranked in sixth place overall. Its 99.8 percent performance at blocking known spyware, worms, and other malware from AV-Test.org′s massive baddie collection was respectable, but three other programs performed even better. The same goes for F-Secure′s 99.3 percent adware block rate.

Its middling performance continued in heuristic tests, which use two-week-old databases and newer malware samples to simulate how well a program can detect malware that doesn′t yet have a signature. It scored a 66.7 percent detection rate, behind three other apps. And it finished its fourth-in-four performance in behavioral detection tests, a form of defense that attempts to identify brand-new malware based on how it acts on your PC. It put up warnings of one kind or another about 5 out of the 15 samples, and blocked 3. By comparison, G Data Antivirus offered warnings about 13 samples and blocked 12.

F-Secure Anti-Virus did rise above the pack when it came to removing existing infections. It successfully identified and neutered all 10 test infections, and it also tied for first (with Norton Antivirus) at getting rid of less important malware files and system changes. But it dropped just below the average with a scan speed of 8.1MBps (megabytes per second) for automatic scans–these occur when you save or copy a file, for example. That performance earned seventh place in the rankings.

The Finnish-made program includes an Internet-based layer of protection that asks F-Secure′s servers about new, unknown files on your PC. This “cloud computing” approach is meant to identify apps that the company knows are safe, and allows the program to focus scanning resources on potential threats.

F-Secure′s app can also scan Web traffic for potential threats before they land on your hard drive, but the feature is turned off by default. If you turn it on (a good idea), be aware that the program displayed a bug with some Firefox downloads. After a few test downloads, it stopped warning about a file that should have triggered a warning every time. This issue didn′t affect Internet Explorer in my testing.

The company says that this is a known issue, as is another bug that prevents the app from displaying the file name or other details for threats discovered after scans you run. A final bug left a bunch of files on a test PC after we uninstalled the program. Again, F-Secure says the problem is a known issue that′s being worked out.

F-Secure′s program held its own at stopping malware, and, despite a few bugs, was relatively smooth and easy to use. But it just couldn′t keep up with the top antivirus apps in our tests.

Besides its big high-def screen, the goodies include a 2.6GHz Intel dual-core processor that delivered an impressive score of 101 in our WorldBench 6 benchmark suite. This score compares extremely well with those of the $2000 Sony Vaio L117FX/B (a 24-inch multitouch) and the aforementioned Gateway One ZX6810-01, which both earned 105 in WorldBench 6. Those results were beaten only by the new Core i7- and Core i5-based 27-inch Apple iMacs, the category-leading speedsters. Tested using 64-bit Windows 7 and Boot Camp, the $2200 Apple iMac (27-inch / Core i7) scored 128 to the $2000 iMac (27-inch / Core i5)′s result of 123. Blazing.

The Z5610 was trumped by all those PCs in our gaming tests, but its 512MB ATI Radeon HD 4570 graphics chip does deliver playable frame rates that go neck-and-neck with HP′s $1460 TouchSmart 600xt. The Acer managed 40 fps in Unreal Tournament 3 (1024 by-768 resolution, high quality), though that halved to 24 fps at 1680 by 1050 (same settings).

So here′s one way Acer kept the Z5160′s price so low: While other big screen all-in-one PCs (over 20 inches) boast anywhere from 600GB to 1TB of storage, the Z5160 goes only as high as 320GB of storage. It′s a fair amount, if not average for most systems below the Z5160′s price. Still, a jump up to 500GB would seem fitting. On the upside, 802.11n Wi-Fi and gigabit LAN connectivity ensures that you′ll always have access to the fastest performance available no matter what your personal networking preference is.

The system′s 23-inch touchscreen panel is well-utilized by the preinstalled plethora of Acer software, including a backup manager, a social networking application, a media hub, and a giant portal for launching (and dragging around) all sorts of individual applications. This bundle easily rivals HP′s bevy of awesome applications for a touch-sensitive device. As for the screen′s picture quality, the display is as bright as it is crisp. It delivers excellent saturation that really makes movies and graphics pop with life, and the powerful contrasts–hampered slightly by the strong glare of the system′s glossy panel–do an equally excellent job displaying both the blacks and whites of a scene. The system′s included speakers are of the usual all-in-one desktop quality: not great, but not worse than an average laptop′s.

An average load-out of six USB ports, split across the system′s side and rear, is sweetened by the unique inclusion of a single eSATA port. Although a nod to a more conventional (and widely used) display connector would have been a better choice, one can′t really fault the Z5160 in its attempt to appeal to users of high-performance external storage devices. A single multiformat card reader sits on the system′s side, as does a DVD writer. No Blu-ray love at this price.

The gray keyboard and mouse included with the Z5610 are each as ugly as the other. The former comes with additional function keys for launching applications and controlling media playback, but a giant volume wheel built into the keyboard′s upper-right corner looks downright weird. The system′s boxy mouse is a generic two-button model with wireless capabilities–that means it should still get a signal when you toss it in the trash in favor of a device that′s a bit friendlier on the eyes and fingers. These are truly hideous devices to look at.

With no mention in the manual of any way to replace or upgrade the components, you should assume that you′re stuck with what you′re getting. That′s a shame, considering that its versions of the most easily replaceable parts in a conventional PC are the only real drawbacks to the Z5610′s stellar performance and quality. Up the storage a little bit, swap out the optical drive for a Blu-ray device, and you′d have an unstoppable machine on your hands.

As it stands, the Z5160 delivers a killer combination of reasonable price, powerful performance, and beautiful graphics. The preceding suggestions would only be the icing on the cake of a fantastic all-in-one desktop.

–David Murphy

Are you an IT administrator and planning to upgrade your clients with latest Windows operating system? Checking the system requirements and performance related issues, you conclude that there is a serious requirement for upgrading memory for your entire client PC’s.

Branded PC’s from hardware giants like Dell, HP uses a particular brand, size and level of RAM module for a reason. Arranging all for your old PC’s could be a big problem, you also know upgrading with commonly available retail RAM modules could lead to various other unknown issues ranging from incompatibility, regular hanging of PC’s, and continuous crashing. Later returning the purchased items and managing the all unwanted hardware could lead new set of problems.

Imagine if you are able to find an online service that guarantees all memory modules purchased are an exact match of those originally installed at the factory. Memory Deal is such a service, which should be like music to the ears of any IT manager stung by an expensive and problematic memory upgrade.

www.memorydeal.net offers 2gb Memory Upgrade for users looking to upgrade from 512MB or 1GB RAM modules. They also offer server memory upgrades right from dell power edge to HP servers, including Apple Memory & MAC RAM. Individuals looking for PC3200 DDR400 SDRAM Upgrade can also visit the website for latest deals.

This new online memory product provider has a single unique focus – to provide customers the exact same RAM modules computer OEMs install at the factory.

Technorati: apple memory • best memory • deals • mac ram • memory deal • RAM modules • system recovery

HP makes things easy from the get-go. The installation wizard includes a library of animated instructions for setup and basic operation. The control panel features a 2.3-inch color LCD, surrounded by touch-sensitive LED buttons that light only when needed. Menu items include how-to animations, as well as troubleshooting instructions for clearing paper jams, replacing cartridges, and other everyday tasks.

The Photosmart Plus printed quickly and well in our tests, generating 8.9 pages per minute for plain text and 4 ppm for graphics. On plain paper, text looked crisp; even photos looked sharp and smooth, improving even more when we printed on HP′s own glossy paper. The unit′s scanning speeds were slower than average, but images were realistic and detailed. Although a text scan was slightly fuzzy, the Photosmart Plus rendered fine lines better than any inkjet MFP we′ve seen to date.

While the performance is impressive, the feature set is pretty basic. Wi-Fi connectivity is a bonus, as is the second, 20-sheet photo-paper tray. The 125-sheet input tray is more pedestrian, but adequate; its lid serves as the 50-sheet output area (and houses the photo tray). The output tray′s extension arm is sturdy, and you′ll need it: My printed pages slid off the edge otherwise. This model has no automatic duplexing; check out the Canon Pixma MP560 if you want that feature (and cheaper ink). Two media slots accommodate Memory Stick, SD Card, and XD-Picture Card media, and the machine has a PictBridge port. HP sells a Bluetooth adapter for $20.

The ink costs are better than you′d expect for a low-cost MFP. A 250-page black cartridge and 300-page cyan, magenta, and yellow cartridges ship in the box. The standard-size ink cartridges have nicely midrange pricing, but the high-yield versions are the best deal. An 800-page black cartridge costs $35 (4.4 cents per page for black text), and each 750-page color cartridge costs $18 (2.4 cents per color, per page). A four-color page would cost a very affordable 11.6 cents–a darn sight better than the pricey inks for the Epson Stylus NX515 can manage. Replacing cartridges is nearly idiot-proof, as an illustrated label guides you through the process, or you can view an animation on the touchscreen.

The HP Photosmart Plus packs a lot of performance into a low-cost MFP package, with well-priced inks to boot. Other models in this price range can′t boast quite as much.

The biggest deal about the tx2: It′s a fully-functional touch-screen tablet. The screen recognizes multitouch gestures (zooming in and out) within some basic Windows areas. It′s not a perfect implementation–and it doesn′t work across everything in Windows–but it works as advertised with or without the stylus. (I was able to resize desktop icons and zoom in on Web pages with pinching motions on-screen.)

Second, the 1280-by-800-pixel display is sufficiently bright. Its glossy coating makes it fairly easy to see both indoors and out, despite a little glare; this stands in contrast to most other tablet PCs I′ve seen, which have some sort of no-nonsense matte coating. Of course, there is one issue to using a glossy multitouch screen: smudge city. If the CSI team dusts the screen, I′d be busted. To make matters a little worse, the display is a tad grainy compared with standard notebooks that you′ll likely see next to the tx2 on store shelves.

The tx2 starts at $1000; our test machine had a 2.4-GHz AMD Turion X2 Ultra Dual-Core Mobile Processor ZM-86, 4GB of RAM, and a relatively meager 64MB ATI Radeon HD 3200 GPU, a configuration that sells for about $1383. That combination of parts resulted in a score of 64 on our WorldBench 6 tests–but also presents a bit of a bind for the tx2. While the 12.1-inch screen makes the tx2 a perfect candidate for ultraportable status, the total package also packs on the weight. Tipping the scales at 4.7 pounds, it′s a bit too bulky and falls in with all-purpose laptops. A score of 64, while not great, is slightly below average among ultraportable machines. In the all-purpose category, though, that′s bottom-of-the barrel performance.On the bright side, it does last a hair under five hours.

So how does this model do otherwise? Fairly well, in my hands-on evaluation. The keyboard′s buttons have just the right amount of spacing, as well as give for when you start typing away. And I really dig the settings shortcut button next to the screen: It is probably the handiest button on the laptop, besides the power toggle. A quick tap and every major setting you′d likely fiddle with on your PC is in one handy window.

However, the size of the notebook means a small keyboard where sacrifices must be made. Notably, the function keys get short shrift. Shrunken down to pygmy size, these little buttons also host second functions. Every notebook does that to some degree, so it′s not a huge shocker, but there are so many functions crammed along the top, it takes some doing to find and relearn the commands you want. One thing that′s easy to locate, however, is the recessed mousepad: Little dips lead your hand to the controls, and it is plenty responsive.

I found the touch screen laser-accurate when pressing the stylus to the screen, but it gets a little more finicky when you use your fingers. If, like me, you have goon-sized digits, you′ll have to stick with the pen, change the screen settings to allow for larger icons and whatnot, or just be extremely careful with where you point your finger. But the important thing is that you′re getting a screen of reasonable size that recognizes your multitouch throughout its windows. By using the familiar pinching motions you′ve learned to use on iPhones, you can quickly resize desktop icons or zoom into images. There′s even a full digitizer–just eject the well-weighted digital pen and you′re ready to write.

Tablet design is a very tricky thing to get straight. Take the swing hinge that allows the screen to rotate into a tablet form. It holds firm and keeps the screen in place, but it won′t work well on a bus or plane (any bump and, if you′re trying to use the tx2 like a normal notebook, the screen will go bouncing around). Also, since this is a slightly beefy tablet, this kind of machine isn′t exactly ideal for one-handed use. But the layout of the tablet is definitely helpful: The settings button–just above the multimedia shortcut and screen rotation keys–works very well, and a fingerprint scanner lies near the touch screen.

As for the rest of the layout, it′s a little underwhelming, but to be expected: three USB 2.0 ports, and slots–one each–for VGA-out, PC Express/34, and a 5-in-one flash-card, as well as modem and ethernet jacks. The eight-cell battery that came with our test unit bulges out beneath the tx2 and props up the machine for a better typing tilt. You also get an integrated Webcam and mic (as well as two headphone and one mic jack jutting out from below the mousepad). And you get both wireless 802.11 a/b/g/n and Bluetooth connectivity. Craftsmanship seems solid enough, although the machine did make the occasional creak. Guess I′m a little too heavy-handed.

Two tiny grilles sit below the monitor promising Altec Lansing SRS Premium Sound. However, I found the audio far from premium: Without any semblance of a good bottom end, you get reproduction that′s decent but a little tinny. Not terrible, but other all-purpose notebooks fare much better in tests.

It′s interesting how HP incorporates its TouchSmart media software into a laptop. It duplicates just about everything that Media Center already does in Vista, but adds on a reasonably finger-friendly interface. Music, for example, gets an Apple iTunes-like Cover Flow-ish treatment fanned out across your screen. Pick an album and drag it into your queue. I only wish it were possible to take as much advantage of this multitouch display in other applications. But I know that′s a pipe dream for now.

Other useful software touches: The HP Advisor unobtrusively keeps an eye out for trouble and breaks it down with a easy-to-digest interface. MS Works comes preinstalled; following closely on its heels: bloatware. Wild Tangent games sit on your system as do Flash ads for Slingbox. Really? I have to delete ads from my new notebook now? I know that sometimes trial software and shareware piggyback on new PCs, but straight-up video ads are a bit much.

As far as Tablet PCs go, the HP TouchSmart tx2 gets enough right to warrant a look. This media-friendly tablet tries to take the TouchSmart desktop experience on the road, but at this point the size of the device and the software′s limitations mean its touch capabilities are more a gimmick than a useful addition.

–Darren Gladstone

PC graphics hardware manufacturers nVidia and ATI have been locked in a graphics card cold war for ages.

The latest salvo gets delivered in the form of a 480-core, 1.79-teraflop bombshell: the nVidia GTX 295 graphics platform. For this platform, nVidia has released its reference board, upon which graphics card manufacturers will design new cards; it is basically two GTX 290 boards sandwiched together, but it has the potential to provide a ludicrous degree of power, especially if you span two of these cards together into SLI mode.

And that′s saying nothing of recent developments with incorporating PhysX calculations onto the GPU and CUDA (nongaming) applications built to run off the GPU. Obviously, this monstrosity is targeted at hard-core enthusiasts, but is it worth its $500 asking price?

The Specs

Created using a 55nm fabrication process, the GTX 295 boasts a 576-MHz core clock , 1.79GB of memory, and a PCI-E 2.0 interface. (Need more specs? Try here.) Translation: You′ll have plenty of horsepower pumping under the hood. But this card is big and power-hungry. While it technically requires only a single PCI Express slot, it is still two cards in a double-decker, 10.5-inch-long sandwich, which effectively takes up two slots, anyway. Also bear in mind that it′ll require a good deal of juice (680 watts) from an eight-pin and six-pin supplementary power connector.

Cold, Hard Facts

What the final numbers show in PC WorldBench 6 tests is that the GTX 295 scores incrementally better than ATI′s current high-end product, the Radeon HD 4780 X2. One example: The GTX 295 managed to run Crysis at 42 frames per second on High settings with 4xAA at 1920 by 1200 resolution, which is pretty impressive considering how demanding that game can be. For comparison′s sake, the Diamond Multimedia ATI 4870 X2 that we have in-house managed an equally respectable 32 fps at the same settings.

Here′s where it starts getting weird: Older graphics cards ran faster at different resolutions. When ratcheting the resolution to 2560 by 1600, the new GTX 295 sputtered out. It scored just 15 fps on our Crysis tests; heck, our GTX 280 reference board ran 2 fps faster while the ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 kept a steady pace at 29. It was the same story in Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, with the GTX 295 falling below what we′d expect. Our best guess is that these problems reflect early driver issues that can hopefully be ironed out.

In everything else (games ranging from FarCry 2 to Supreme Commander), the GTX 295 was faster across the board–sometimes by a few frames, and other times by as much as 10 percent, depending on the settings used. Also, a peek at the numbers shows that the 295 is faster than the card that preceded it, the GTX 280; but again, the difference is marginal.

Still, it′s pretty obvious that the GTX 295 is one of the most powerful cards you can get right now–even if some driver hiccups hold it back at the moment. Just bear in mind that the gulf between it and its closest competitors isn′t that great. It did prove itself to be blisteringly fast, though, and it will pretty much run every game that′s available right now at most resolutions and settings, especially if you can afford to run two in SLI mode; it′s also fairly future-proof, as it′ll be good to go for the next crop of must-have PC games.

Final Verdict

So, is the GTX 295 the video card for you? Well, because of the driver issues we encountered in our tests, the answer appears a little murky right now. But the short answer seems to be “yes,” if any of the following is true: You are a hard-core PC gamer looking for the latest and greatest video card; you have a system with high-end components that can handle the GTX 295; you′re going to build a new high-end system from scratch; or you have 500 bucks just itching to lay claim to the latest and greatest. If you′re a gamer who′s trying to live a just littleleaner, the GTX 285 is available, and while not quite as beefy, it costs $100 less.

But if none of those statements apply to you, then you′re probably better off going for a midrange card (or you can go crazy and get two low-end cards, and strap them together in an SLI configuration for a more cost-effective power boost). Sure, you won′t be able to run every game at ultra-high resolutions–but you also won′t have a hole in your bank account the size of Montana.

If you are still considering this card, here′s one bonus: It′s compatible with the nVidia 3D Vision Goggles. Assuming you′re made of money, grab the card, the goggles, and a compatible 120-Hz LCD monitor, and then pat yourself on the back–because you′d literally own the ultimate PC gaming setup.

–Tae Kim, GamePro

That seemingly perfect match hasn′t turned out to be so, however: In my hands-on with a shipping unit, I found the camera′s design and image quality sorely lacking. Unfortunately, the reborn, digital Polaroid camera is reminiscent of the clunky, poor-quality devices of yesteryear that nonetheless made Polaroid a household name. That this camera falls short is a shame, too: In concept, at least, the device is innovative. But poor imaging and kludgy design not unlike that of 1.1-megapixel cameras of a dozen years ago make the PoGo Instant Digital Camera an unnecessary drain on your pocket.

In size, shape, and weight, the boxy Instant Digital Camera closely matches the PoGo instant printer, only with an optical element on one side and the necessary buttons and LCD screen on the other. While the PoGo works well enough as a pocket-size printer, that same design fails miserably as a camera. It′s very heavy compared with other point-and-shoot cameras, and it has poor ergonomics (no grip to hold onto, no logic to the placement or organization of the keys).

The basic spec disappoints even more than the unit′s physical design. This camera offers 5 megapixels, a count that′s completely out of line with today′s 10-megapixel norm for point-and-shoots. So from the start this digital camera is at a disadvantage, as it can′t substitute for your regular one if you want to continue capturing high-quality images.

And the images I got from this camera underwhelmed, even when compared with 4-megapixel images from an old Canon point-and-shoot. Viewed on a computer, the Instant Digital Camera′s photos lacked sufficient sharpness, color accuracy, and detail. The camera has a variety of scene modes–fireworks, snow, and portrait among them–but given its image quality, I can′t see why anyone who would go to the trouble of selecting scene modes (presumably, to capture a good picture) would want to use this camera. Curiously, the menus offer shooting tips under the different scene modes (for night shots, the tip suggests that you hold the camera steady).

The printed output was a mixed bag. The built-in printer couldn′t work miracles and do anything to improve the images taken by the camera itself; what I photographed as red ended up looking more like a washed-out pink, and a brilliant blue sky became a muddied and mottled gray.

This camera′s one saving grace, however, is that potentially it can recognize images taken by other cameras stored on an SD Card, and print those images, too. (I say “potentially” because in my tests it recognized other cameras′ JPEG photos inconsistently–the ability is not a given, so you shouldn′t purchase the camera just for that function.) A print of a stored 10-megapixel image showed more detail and far better color reproduction than prints of the Instant Digital Camera′s own images. That alone leads me to lay the blame for the Instant Digital Camera′s mediocrity on its imager, not on its printer.

The printer here functions similarly to the earlier PoGo. You pop open the LCD back of the camera and slide in a ten-pack of special printer paper ($5 per pack). The printer uses Zink, the zero-ink technology Polaroid pioneered (Polaroid′s parent company has since spun off Zink). The thermal printhead activates the 100 billion dye crystals embedded in Polaroid′s proprietary, glossy photo paper (peel away the back, and your photo becomes a sticker). Sheets of the 2-by-3-inch media are thinner than old Polaroid print paper and contain three layers of primary colors suspended within.

Ultimately, if you covet the instant and fun prints that Zink technology enables, I′d recommend the Polaroid PoGo printer–which is now $100, a full $50 less than it was when it debuted last year–over the $199 Polaroid Instant Digital Camera.

The new 2GHz model is identical to its predecessor externally, with the same number of peripheral connections (a pair of USB 2.0 ports and a single FireWire 400 port) and the same mini-DVI port as before. Similarly it retains the same glossy, 1280-by-800-pixel display and the same 120GB Serial ATA hard drive. Like the previous version, it weighs in at 5 pounds.

Under the hood, however, the new model provides a few significant improvements. Most notable is the nVidia GeForce 9400M graphics subsystem, a major upgrade over the Intel GMA X3100 used previously. Like the X3100, the 9400M is an integrated graphics chip that shares its memory with main memory; but the 9400M uses 256MB of memory, versus the X3100′s 144MB. The second big change is a doubling of system RAM: The entry-level MacBook now ships with 2GB of 667MHz DDR2 RAM. The latest white MacBook has a much faster front-side bus, too, at 1066MHz instead of the old 800MHz. Bucking the general trend, though, the new processor runs at 2GHz, whereas the previous version′s processor came in at 2.1GHz.

In overall performance, the differences between the new MacBook and its predecessor were subtle, as you′d expect: The new white MacBook earned a score nearly 4 percent higher than the previous white MacBook on Macworld′s system performance benchmark, Speedmark 5. On most of the benchmark′s processor-intensive tests, the new white MacBook is slightly slower than its predecessor, reflecting the switch in processors from 2.1GHz to 2GHz.

But the new white MacBook showed improvement in 3D games benchmarks, turning in a frame rate in Quake that was nearly four times than its predecessor′s–even though the older white MacBook was configured with 2GB of RAM instead of its standard 1GB in order to meet the required spec for Speedmark 5 benchmarking. The new white MacBook′s Quake frame rate was also 21 percent better than that of the high-end, 1.86GHz MacBook Air but 22 percent below that of the 2GHz aluminum MacBook (which packs 1066MHz DDR3 RAM).

The new white MacBook was about 5 percent slower on our Speedmark 5 tests than the 2GHz aluminum MacBook, but the results were very close on many of the tests, and the white MacBook slightly outperformed its aluminum sibling on a few measures. Against the high-end 1.86GHz MacBook Air, the white MacBook proved faster on most tests, though the Air′s speedy solid-state drive gave it the edge in hard disk-intensive tasks.

We don′t yet have final results from our battery drain tests. Apple asserts that the new MacBook′s battery life is about 4.5 hours on a charge, but in Macworld′s worse-case scenario testing–which involves watching a movie from the hard drive at full screen size and at full brightness–the battery conked out after 2 hours, 42 minutes. That′s about 10 minutes better than the battery on the previous-generation white MacBook did, and about 6 minutes better than the battery on the 2GHz aluminum MacBook.

So is this sub-$1000 machine worth the money? Though its slightly slower processor didn′t help its performance, this new white MacBook is a solid entry-level product. And if you need a Mac portable with FireWire, it′s your most affordable choice, since the cheapest MacBook Pro costs twice as much.

As with most network-attached storage devices, you can configure the unit via a Web browser. In this case, though, the interface is a sterling rendering that strikes the right combination of being easy on the eye and being easy to use. Two simple steps get you through the media server setup; exposing folders with media content to the DLNA (UPnP) and/or iTunes server (this is done on the Folders page via two buttons next to each folder), and choosing who has rights to access specific folders.

This model disappointed us with its performance, though: In the PC World Test Center, it posted one of the weakest file copy times, requiring 408 seconds to copy 3GB of files and folders. It was more competitive on its file search performance; here, the Home Media Network Hard Drive required 321 seconds to search 12GB of data.

The embedded EMC LifeLine Home software incorporates the TwonkyMedia server; the media server performed flawlessly with both the D-Link DMS-520 digital media adapter and our iTunes, delivering music, photo, and video streams smoothly and without interruption. The unit also includes EMC Retrospect Express Backup and Disaster Recovery software, for handling less glamorous data chores. One complaint: We found this NAS had a bad habit of taking its time before showing up on our Windows Vista system.

–Jon L. Jacobi and Melissa J. Perenson