Finally, a 13-inch laptop that stunningly blends luxury, portability, and power. Move over Macbook (Air), Levono X300, Dell M1330, and even the new Voodoo Envy, because Sony has just released specs for their new Z-series notebooks.

Aside from the expected design aesthetics that make high-end VAIO’s some of the sexiest laptops we’ve ever seen, the Sony VGN-Z11 comes with a host of options that takes performance in this class to a whole new level.

For starters, you can upgrade the default LED-backlit 1366×768 display to an incredible eye-squinting 1600×900. This resolution is even beyond what most 15-inch laptops are capable of, although it’s probably safe to say that only those with telescopic vision will be able to keep their eyes on the mouse cursor! The unit also supports Core 2 Duo processors of up to 2.4 GHz, and memory configurations of up to 4 GB SDRAM. With the kind of performance that matches many larger-sized high-end laptops, the Sony VAIO VGN-Z11 is a potent mix of power and portability.

The Z-series also feature the new, and hopefully defect-free, nVidia 9300M GS, a HDD up to 320 GB, and both VGA and HDMI outputs. Thanks to Sony’s engineering magic, the package still weighs less than 1.5 kg (3.3 lbs). And although it’s not as thin as the some of its competitor’s offerings, the Sony VGNZ11 still slides in a bit under and a bit over an inch thick, depending on where measurements are taken. When you consider all the high-spec components crammed into its carbon fiber chassis, I’m pretty sure the Japanese engineers did their best slimming the unit to its physical limits.

One question that may be asked, is whether the Macbook Air is being challenged by the new VAIO Z-series? The answer is not so clear. With new offerings dropping size and weight without compromising features and performance, Apple can’t hope to keep up with PC makers without refreshing their lines more frequently. Fortunately for Apple, they don’t solely compete on hardware specs, and few Apple owners would consider crossing into PC territory based on performance or value alone. So as it stands, I would say the remarkably thin Macbook Air is still in a class of its own, but its appeal is not what it was considering the device’s many shortcomings and hardware issues.

The narrowing space between performance limiting netbooks and unfashionable full-sized laptops is getting quite crowded, but it’s devices like Sony’s VAIO Z-series that keep the 13-inch notebook market exciting and innovative.

The HP Mini-Note 2133 has arrived, exciting the UMPC world with its healthy mix of features and style. What the HP Mini manages to pull off is impressive, but not entirely surprising. With new UMPC’s entering the market at such a steady pace, it’s only a matter of time before manufacturers cover more price points, performance levels, and feature sets to better satisfy consumer needs. But how long will it take for UMPC’s to go mainstream? HP thinks that time is now. With their first UMPC attempt, HP has boldly gone all in, and judging by first reports, their gamble just might be the smartest thing they’ve done in ages.

If you’ve paid any attention to UMPC’s, you’ll know that choosing one is all about compromise. To get high portability like the Asus Eee, you’ll need to give up screen and keyboard real estate; to get many features like the Sony VAIO TZ, you’ll need to pay a lot higher price; and if you can’t live without OS X, there’s only the Macbook Air to choose from (although its large footprint makes its inclusion in the UMPC category debatable).

Most consumers are looking for a reasonable compromise. They want a device that takes the middle road, offering the greatest amount of acceptable features without any one spec being glaring deficient or missing. As such, the footprint versus screen size dilemma is an important tradeoff to examine.

It’s a given that every UMPC user is looking for a highly portable device, but at some point, shrinking the unit’s footprint, and thus, its potential screen size, can result in a product that is simply a pain to use. For me, the Asus Eee’s 7-inch display lies dangerously close to this threshold. I’ve tried the Eee, and as much as I love the sturdy pint-sized wonder, I could never see myself using it for more than just instant messaging and simple web browsing. In fact, even web browsing is difficult as the Eee’s 800 x 480 resolution is inadequate for many sites.

Fortunately, HP has found a slick 8.9-inch screen to put into its Mini-Note. Although smaller than the Macbook Air’s 13.3-inch display, it at least comes close in pixels (1280 x 768), providing plenty of resolution to surf the web and view standard documents without nasty horizontal scrolling or zooming. 

Furthermore, when you consider that the HP Mini comes with a spacious keyboard, aluminum chassis, and optional high performance parts - like room for a standard 2.5-inch HDD and up to 2GB of RAM - you have a UMPC that finally meets the needs of the mainstream. Wisely, HP has priced the Mini-Note specifically for this market.

Retailing between $500 and $749, the HP Mini is positioned slightly above the toy-like Eee, but well below the full-featured, but much more pricey Levono X300 and Sony Vaio TZ.

The Mini definitely has competition, but most of what’s out there has been pushed onto the market to quickly profit from the exploding UMPC gold rush. Every manufacturer wants to tap this new niche, but most have yet to deliver something truly practical and affordable like the HP Mini. However, with all the compliments that the Mini has been getting, one should still be cautious of lending it too much praise, as it’s unlikely that the device - or any other ultra portable released this year for that matter - will solve all the engineering issues currently faced by UMPC’s in general.

For instance, early reports suggest that the HP Mini suffers from loud fan noise. Having a virtual hairdryer sitting on your desk during a quiet lecture is a definite faux pas and could hurt the Mini’s chance of winning over students. Related to this, noisy fans would seem to indicate an issue with heat regulation. Also, HP’s choice to use side-mounted vertical mouse buttons could prove to be a serious design flaw if people find them too awkward to use.

Regardless of whatever issues the HP Mini might have - and I think it will inevitably show a few flaws - the HP Mini is already well ahead of the competition. But even so, potential buyers should keep in mind that HP’s rivals are hardly letting up on their aggressive roadmaps. Indeed, Asus’s ever expanding notebook line is set to launch an 8.9-inch version of their Eee, and Dell has already announced plans to release a UMPC this summer that may use Intel’s superior Atom CPU and Menlow platform.

The future of ultra-portables is certain: they will become commonplace in our lives, and perhaps even replace many full-sized laptops. Seen from this perspective, the HP Mini-Note is more than just an exciting new product, it is the fulfillment of the promise of powerful and affordable UMPC’s for the mainstream.

Tired of Youtube robbing your videos of their original image and sound quality? Here are some easy steps to get stereo sound and crisp video back into your Youtube uploads!

Youtube compresses all video to 320 x 240 resolution and mono audio. This produces the familiar blurry looking, tin can sounding videos that you’ve come to expect from the ever popular service. Youtube also converts all video to the Flash video format

At the time of this writing, Youtube still knocks all videos down to these poor quality settings, but they are allowing some videos to be viewed in ‘higher quality’. This HQ option however, still doesn’t allow for stereo sound, and still isn’t all that great.

To beat Youtube’s regular output quality, your videos must be compressed to the Flash video format before being uploaded to the site. As long as your chosen video specs are within Youtube’s parameters, the upload will float past Youtube’s filters untouched (not compressed any further).

At the moment, the highest possible settings for a Youtube video is 480 x 360 resolution with an average bit rate of 350kbps (audio bit rate included). Such settings can result in quality like this:

Furthermore, as I stated, 350kbps refers to the highest average bit rate that Youtube will allow. Parts of the video, such as scenes involving lots of action (movement) may surpass 350kbps, so long as other scenes dip below 350kbps to average it out, overall. Thankfully, the video compressor automatically handles this adjustment for us. This concept has lead to the phenomenon known as frame stuffing, where video creators insert blank or static frames (which are shown at very low bit rates) at the end of their videos - often for minutes at a time - to greatly skew the bit rate in favor of scenes that actually show interesting content.

Here’s an example of using high quality settings with the addition of frame stuffing:

So how do you get these results for yourself?

If you run Windows, you can get started right away with VMuTube, created by Frifox. Look for the download link on this page, near the top. In fact, all the instructions that I am about to divulge are available in Frifox’s community group on the same page. I implore you to check it out.

To use VMuTube, start by having your video already in AVI format. Rename your video to ‘original.avi’ and drop it into the VMTube folder. Run ‘vmutube.bat’ and follow the instructions. Good video settings are: 128kbps audio, 480×360 resolution, 30 frame rate, 150 keyframe interval. After inputting these settings, a bunch of stuff will happen with text running all over the screen. After a few minutes (or more, depending on the length of the video and the speed of your CPU), it will produce the file ‘final.flv’. This is the file that you will upload to Youtube. To preview it on your PC, use VLC player. What you see in VLC is exactly how it should appear on Youtube. To improve image quality further, you can lower the audio bit rate or the video frame rate. This will leave more bits available for the video image. Experiment and see what works. 

To get even higher quality, you will want to try frame stuffing. To learn how to do this efficiently, Frifox has made an easy to follow video tutorial here. It will require the use of a video editor, however.

Mac users on OSX can use ffmpegX to do what VMuTube basically does, but with a bit more work involved. In the program, select video codec to Flash video (FLV), set video bitrate to 240kbps and video size to 480 x 360. In the audio tab, set bitrate to 96kbps with the Mode as VBR. This will fit your video under the 350kbps limit with a bit of room for error - which unfortunately happens to some extent using this method. Also, in the Options tab, I suggest check boxing High Quality, 4 motions vectors, Two-pass encoding and Quarter pixel ME for best results. Preview your ouput .flv file with VLC for OSX. 

I hope you’ve found enough information here to get started with your own high quality video uploads. It can be a little tricky getting things to work at first, and it takes real patience to get the best results through trial and error tweaking. But one thing to be mindful of is Youtube’s 350kbps bit rate limit. If you have exceeded this, you will notice that the FLV video file will not look exactly (or sound exactly) like the version shown on Youtube. In this case, lower the audio or video bit rate. Chances are, your output went beyond Youtube’s limit even though your settings indicate otherwise. Also, if you videos end up looking too blocky, especially during scenes of high movement, try reverting back to the default 320 x 240 resolution. Sometimes it is better to have a less sharper image than one that is just too awful to watch! Finally, great looking video must come from a great looking source. Invest in new gadgets to shoot high quality movies. Stop using cellphones and $10 webcams!

Good luck, and don’t forget to leave a comment if you wish to post a link to your latest video.

The Korg Kaossilator, the hot new gadget that generates a symphony of sound with a few swipes of the finger, has generated a ton of interest, and not just among musicians, but of people with no prior music composing experience.

In the age of iPod’s, PSP’s and portable computing, the Kaossilator has a real chance of enticing the casual market. Its gadget-like appeal, ease of use, and well thought out features enables anyone to pick one up and explore their creative potential. Who says you need piano lessons and music theory? In just minutes, a novice beat-maker can have something that even Timbaland might try to steal from!

But what if you’re looking for something a bit deeper than what the Kaossilator offers? The relative brevity of the unit’s two-bar looper is a noticeable bottleneck. Some users, I imagine, will eventually wish for a tool that can sequence a full music track, rather than just a 5-second loop. Fortunately, Korg, among other manufacturers, make an exciting class of products known as grooveboxes that do just that.

The Korg Electribe line are a series of grooveboxes that have been used by electronic musicians for quite some time, and in many ways can be seen as the true parent of the Kaossilator. These all-in-one devices contain a library of synth and drum patches that can be arranged, recorded and played back live. This allows composers to produce music efficiently, but in a way that seems to amplify spontaneous creativity and enjoyment.

Grooveboxes, like the Korg Electribe MX-1 (EMX-1), Yamaha’s RS7000, or Roland MC-808, can play dozens of instruments and make use of an easy to grasp step-sequencer to layer and record these sounds. Novices, in particular, are a good match for step-sequencers, as they allow for more time spent creating music than worrying about all the technicalities of the process. Alternatively, and traditionally, composing music can also be done using real instruments or virtual instruments on a computer. But for many groovebox artists, the spontaneity and flow of creating music is diminished when the process becomes time consuming and complex.

Assuming that you’ve already watched a few Koassilator videos and know how the device generally functions, you can easily compare it to grooveboxes by watching a couple performances:

In the last video, the user operates an older Electribe model, but the process of building a loop (in this case consisting mainly of drum parts) is exactly the same for any model. Here, the step-sequencer ensures perfect timing, allowing multiple sounds to be layered and arranged without creating a train wreck of noise. The process works similar to the Koassilator’s internal sequencer, but the Electribe has the added benefit of possessing many knobs and buttons that can further manipulate the sound during playback. In comparison, the Kaossilator leaves all these features out for the sake of simplicity and portability, but in doing so loses the ability to modify patterns and sounds after they have been recorded. Additionally, the Electribe can play or mute any instrument part with a simple press of a button. Some of the newer models, like the EMX-1, even have sophisticated DJ-style effects, which can add a whole new dimension to recordings and live performances. Finally, the Electribe MX-1 has the capacity to loop 8-bar patterns and can store hundreds of these sequences for instant use.

Sadly, with all the additional control and features offered by the Electribes, they also come at a much higher price. Korg (like Apple) sets their prices nationally, so it’s difficult to find their latest unit, the EMX-1, for under $500 (unless you buy it used). Still, for budding electronic artists looking to launch their bedroom studios, a groovebox might be a great thing to own.

Here are some interesting groovebox performances to check out:

Incredibly, this guy uses 4 grooveboxes and a keyboard for a symphony of electronica!

High BPM with amazing complexity. The kid is on speed!

This composer also uses the EMX-1’s sister, the ESX-1, which is capable of sampling.

Peddling movies and TV shows on optical media is making less and less sense. Video discs are cumbersome, costly, inflexible, and fragile, to list just a few of their shortcomings. In consequence, physical formats have had their days numbered since the popularization of file-sharing. Despite great advances in file compression, content distribution and broadband Internet, consumers are being sold yet another optical disc format. Blu-ray may have won over HD-DVD, but consumers are the ones who ultimately lose by being fed this new spin on old technology.

So, why are studios so reluctant to ditch physical media in favor of online distribution? Making it harder for pirates to copy and distribute their products is one excuse; but clearly, if you browse any bittorrent site, ripping a disc has never discouraged file sharers. In fact, by snubbing online distribution they’ve denied consumers the easiest and most practical means to access what they want, leading to–you guessed it–illegal downloads!

Another reason, is that promoting a new media format fuels the sale for all sorts of accompanying hardware and new gadgets. I’m talking about entire product categories at Best Buy. The last thing consumer electronic makers want, is for you to settle with your laptop and headphones when watching a video, and yet, this is precisely the trend that is taking place.

Lastly, media companies fear that fast Internet and mass personal storage will forever bring an end to their sense of control over who sees what, when, and for how much. Don’t expect these entities to give into reason and compromise anytime soon. Stuck in last-century paradigms, they view control over consumers as their only means to earn a buck. Radiohead would disagree.

Indeed, control is what Blu-ray is all about. It allows Sony and their partners to milk an old business model one last time. It’ll be their last chance to sell standalone disc players, boxed copies of titles, and a royalty earning proprietary format. Without such items, there are no profits to be made in this decaying business structure.

Even though video discs are on their way out, realistically, it’s still impractical to download and store 1080p copies of feature length films. In addition, even if it were practical, mainstream consumers have yet to bridge the gap between their PC, TV and Internet (although the PS3 has the greatest potential to do this–go Sony!). Does this mean we should let Blu-ray off the hook? Not completely.

The problem for Blu-ray is that it’s off to a slow start, and it’ll likely take years for the public to embrace the new format. With a wide selection of legal movie downloads promised in the near future, it’s reasonable to assume that downloadable HD content is just around the corner.

With disc-less content destined to threaten Blu-ray’s viability, how and when will consumers be ready to handle downloaded HD content? By taking a peek at the file-sharing scene, we can glimpse the latest innovations at work, and what likely lies ahead for the rest of us.

Pirates and file-sharers have consistently met their own needs by creating remarkably advanced services in the absence of commercial ones. The community that harnessed compression technology to squeeze CD’s into mp3’s, and DVD’s into Xvid’s are already using superior codecs to shrink HD content into a more manageable size. In combination with Bit-torrent, or several promising successors that further improve distribution efficiency, all the tools are in place for swift video delivery, legally or otherwise.

Note: I know that videophiles are going to read the above statements and shake their fists! So I’ll clarify: I’m not suggesting that a standard x264/AAC rip is going to rival the 25GB source that it was taken from, just that compression technology is always advancing and will be of key importance to the future of HD content. I won’t be tossing my Blu-ray copy of BBC Planet Earth anytime soon!

With Internet and video compression technologies advancing at such a rapid pace, the comparatively stale Blu-ray format comes at an awkward time. The world is going HD, but also begging for disc-less media. As an HD enthusiast, I feel bitter about supporting Blu-ray, but, to be honest, I’m equally frustrated by the over-priced, under-performing ‘broadband’ Internet that make such physical formats a necessity. To have HD content streamed into our homes legally, effortlessly and at a fair price, it will take the cooperation of media producers, consumer electronic companies and telecoms. Unfortunately, theses entities collectively drag their feet (for a variety of sinister reasons that I’ll leave for another post).

Thankfully, change is coming. Recently, Apple announced plans to rent downloadable movies from their widly successful iTunes service. Even Sony is betting on disc-less media, announcing plans to sell DivX movies digitally to PS3 users.

In the war of video disc formats, mutual destruction of Blu-ray and HD-DVD would of been the best possible outcome. Such an event would of leapt the industry forward, helping to convince consumers that online distribution is ultimately the best and final solution for meeting their entertainment needs.

We don’t need another generation of plastic discs and specialized standalone players. Unfortunately, Blu-ray is here and has already won its first battle. So, let’s just hope that Blu-ray’s success is short lived, and we can move on, in a legitimate way, to what Internet users and file-sharers started a while back–the most revolutionary, efficient and convenient form of media delivery in modern history.

The Macbook Air is arguably the sleekest and sexiest laptop the world has ever seen, but already it has drawn a largely mixed - if not negative - reaction from Apple critics and loyalists alike. Many are stunned with Apple’s decision to nix various laptop essentials, like multiple USB ports and a removable battery. For comparison’s sake, few people complained (at least in such a damning tone) of the Asus Eee’s long list of shortcomings when it debuted last fall.

The Eee and Air are niche products, bound to filter out most prospective buyers with their unique mix of features and trade-offs; however, public reaction, even when just observing pre-launch hype, has been markedly different, as the Eee’s aggressive pricing brought it overwhelming approval, right from the start.

Priced more like a gadget than the surprisingly functional computer that it is, users have largely forgiven the Eee’s tiny screen and puny number crunching abilities. The Air, targeted towards a higher-end clientele, offers the pinnacle of notebook fashion and slimness, but at a cost that forbids all such forgiveness. Make no mistake - inadvertently or not - Apple has positioned the Air as a luxury item. Had it came with enough features to be considered a primary computer, this would not be the case.

Misguided market research and flawed product positioning has resulted in a notebook that will be hard for Apple to sell. Despite the company’s grand vision, I feel the Air will largely be shunned by students, road warriors and casual users. As such, the ultra-thin notebook, at least in its current form, will probably fail as a mainstream device. Also, I see it struggling to find a large enough niche market to justify its existence among Apple’s otherwise superb lineup of Macbook products.

I predict that the Macbook Air will attract few pre-orders, before receiving a small sales spike coinciding with its debut. I have no doubt that its striking visual presence will entice a few wealthy or adventurous shoppers. But to bring lasting success to the Air, Apple will need to hastily push out a refresh, or re-adjust its current pricing.

In the past, Apple has shown that they can release cutting-edge products and cool new gadgets while maintaining high profit margins. Assuming that this still is the case, the company likely has room to cut the Air’s price - perhaps down to $1399 - before its first scheduled refresh. Such a move would stimulate sales, and also curb the backlash currently building towards its latest notebook platform. Blogs, discussion forums and mainstream publications have all voiced concern over the Air’s lack of value and limited practicality.

At its best, the Macbook Air represents the future of Apple notebooks, and I expect the company to be characteristically proud and arrogant of their latest design marvel. Apple has put a lot of work into the Air and they are unlikely to show any weakness early on, even in the face of poor sales. However, if consumer enthusiasm does turns out to be as cold as what’s been (unofficially) surveyed online thus far, then I expect a response from Apple, sooner than later.

I believe that poor sales and hefty criticism will spur Apple to reposition the Air to a lower price point sometime in the next few months. This will allow Apple to market the Air as a viable alternative to the highly competent, but noticeably bulkier, 13.3-inch Macbook. Of course, Apple will still charge a premium for the Air, despite its simplistic nature and sheer lack of components, as R&D costs must be factored in. But by year’s end, the Macbook Air should fall in line, value wise, with the rest of Apple’s notebooks - pricey, but justifiable.

I just finished beating Halo 3 in legendary mode, and yes, I know, I am probably the last person on Earth to write about it! I found Halo 3 to be an enjoyable experience, but one suffering from simple and overly repetitive gameplay. The sequel just seemed a tad stale. As the game progressed, the lack of innovation put into the title became obvious. In the end, I couldn’t help but feel a little let down by all the stellar Halo 3 reviews I had read prior to playing it.

This got me a curious as to what professional game reviewers saw in Halo 3 that deserved it such a high rating. I began revisiting many of these reviews to investigate further. According to Metacritic, no less than 18 review sites gave the title a perfect 100% score, followed by 23 sites that gave it 95% or more. I cannot help but recall Dean Takahashi’’s now famous outing of the $800 Halo swag pack Microsoft had sent him. Even Dean called it a bride. Do game publishers have much influence over how the review scene rate their products?

We already know from Jeff Gertsmann’s firing that publisher influence is real and significant. Fallout out from the Gamespot scandal only served to reinforce the already widespread suspicion of brides, outside pressure, and plain old hype tainting brand name review sites. Putting aside suspicion and rumors however, there’s been little hard evidence to backup any claims.

Fortunately, the stats at Metacritic can give us an indirect look at the symptoms of this problem. Professional game reviews gave Halo 3, on average, an almost 20% higher score than the gaming public (94% vs 75%). Such a large discrepancy should raise eyebrows, as the sample size, or the amount of ratings submitted for Halo 3, is very large. The data reveals a statistically significant bias by these so-called ‘professional’ reviewers. Browsing a little more, I noticed some interesting quotes pulled from a couple reviews:

“Halo 3 isn’t perfect, but it’s so close it’s unnerving.” - Gamestyle: 100%

“Halo 3 still can’t quite escape the category of flawed masterpiece…” - EuroGamer: 100%

“Halo 3 may not be as innovative as its predecessors or have the best graphics on the Xbox 360, but it’s an outstanding game and a fitting end to what’s been a fantastic trilogy.” - Thunderbolt: 100%

The contradiction of awarding Halo 3 a perfect score and simultaneously stating that it is in someway less-than-pefect is obviously lost on these editors. Perhaps these inflated scores result from competition with other review sites, as perfect scores tend to generate more reader interest, and thus, higher visitor traffic. Or, perhaps such scores were a show of thanks for the $800 in swag and/or advertising deals that they might of received from the publisher. There’s just no way to know. The only thing that we’re sure of is that, on average, the professional review scene was 20% off from public opinion. Umm, so, who are they writing these reviews for again?

I’d like to add, I am aware of Halo’s excellent multiplayer experience, and there are other aspects that I like about Halo like the weapons and special ability gadgets, but I don’t think that one part of a game should somehow make up for another part that isn’t as good. Perhaps that would work in an absolute scoring system (thumbs up or thumbs down), but the disturbing trend to slap an ever-increasing list of titles with faultless 10/10 scores is nothing short of scandalous.

As long as review sites are supported financially by game-related advertisements, and functionally through maintaining close ties with developers and publishers to get exclusive, newsworthy access to unreleased products, I doubt we’ll see the end of this problem anytime soon. Gaming is a commercial industry. Developers, publishers and reviewers are all supported by the sale of games. The fact that many review sites have turned into mere marketing tools is disappointing, but should not come as a great surprise.

Dell has just released their much anticipated 15.4-inch XPS notebook, the M1530. After receiving stellar reviews for their 13.3-inch M1330, many have been waiting for an XPS laptop that would give the MacBook Pro 15.4-inch a run for its money.

Well, the day has come, and the M1530 is now for sale. But, gleaning specs from Dell’s website, it is obvious that this laptop will not please everyone.

Dell’s XPS M1530 comes in a stylish package reminiscent of its 13.3-inch brother. Its innards consist of the same optional components found in just about any laptop these days, with the notable exceptions of a standard HDMI port, slot-loading optical drive and 2-megapixel camera. Starting at $999, you can upgrade the M1530 to your heart’s content, even adding a 64GB solid state drive.

Unfortunately, there’s one component that can’t be changed, and will likely cause many folks to think twice about buying this notebook. Rather surprisingly, the M1530 has been outfitted with a non-upgradable 1280 x 800 display. Yes–you heard that right–Dell has slapped together their latest XPS with the lowest resolution screen in its class. In addition, the display is not LED-backlit, which is bound to upset those hoping for such an option.

I can forgive Dell trying to keep cost down, but removing the option for at least a 1440 x 900 display really begs the question as to whether the M1550 belongs in the XPS lineup. Should we not expect the stylish XPS design to be coupled with equally pleasing core components?

It looks as though Dell has created a budget-conscious laptop that is slightly ahead of the curve in features and design, but, aside from that, is definitely not the higher-end laptop most were anticipating. This is more of the plain and same coming from Dell–not one of their cool new tech gadgets to spike our interest. In addition to its disappointing display, the M1530 does not appear extraordinarily slim or light, and probably features the same run-of-the-mill build quality found in the M1330. The M1530 is a mix-bag of offerings that is priced to snare casual users that will not scrutinize its low resolution LCD. Power users wanting to upgrade the M1530 to its higher spec options are better off looking elsewhere.

I realize that most of these criticisms stem from the expectation that the M1530 would share the same delightful surprises as the M1330, mainly, a great LCD housed in a razor thin (and light) design. But at $999 it isn’t really fair to compare the M1530 to laptops costing twice as much, such as the MacBook Pro. Clearly, Dell isn’t going after the high-end market with the M1530. However, with standard nVidia graphics, HDMI output and a head-turning design, it is still an exciting option for around a thousand bucks.

Today, I’m focusing on nVidia’s practice of (mis)labeling their line of mobile graphics chips to make them seem more equivalent to their famed desktop products.

Earlier, I was reading Trusted Reviews’ excellent coverage of the first laptop to integrate a 8800m GTX. Having used many nVidia mobile and desktop graphics chips in the past, instinctively, the first thing that entered my mind was to what extent has nVidia limited this mobile chip’s performance compared to that of its desktop equivalent.

It seems that every time nVidia releases a new mobile chip, they lend it a title that closely matches a desktop product, which, if you ask me, implies that it also closely matches it in performance. As we all know, this is hardly the case. Over the years, lowered expectations for mobile graphics performance has been something we’ve all come to live with.

It’s obvious that nVidia is lending their new mobile flagship the ‘GTX’ title because it is the fastest laptop GPU that they’ve ever produced. But, when I read further and found that its specs line up almost exactly to the desktop 8800 GTS, I could not help but think that adding GTX to its title is just downright misleading.

Would it not make greater sense just to call it what it is–a GTS–allowing one to accurately gauge its performance from its name alone? Am I the only person who compares mobile hardware with desktop hardware for a point of reference, especially when it comes to graphics performance?

Of course it would make more sense to name things accurately; but, for shameless marketing reasons nVidia continues to ‘upgrade’ their mobile chips through mischievous labeling that infers 1:1 performance with their desktop products. And no, I don’t feel that adding an ‘m’ to the product’s name does much to change this fact.

Marketing in the computer industry has always preyed upon the public’s ignorance for all things technical, and nVidia is hardly the only culprit in Silicon Valley with this bad habit. To some extent, one has to realize that this is just the reality of consumer marketing; but when a product is released and you are forced to google up spec sheets just to uncover basic information that you know is not accurately reflected by the product’s name, it can become quite annoying!

At least with CPU’s you probably know how many cores you’re getting and the bus speed it uses, because these features are not changing every week, and are also more standardized across models. Even CPU clockspeed, which first became an issue after AMD excluded this spec from the model name of their Athlon chips, is not such a problem any more because vendors have routinely stated it on the product’s title. But graphics hardware, and the seemingly infinite variety churned out by chip and card makers, is a great source of misinformation and confusion for PC buyers. It is possibly one factor contributing to the death of PC gaming. Why can’t we just have our hardware and gadgets named appropriately?

Even though nVidia appears well ahead of its rivals in the performance segment of the graphics market, you can hardly expect them to ‘downgrade’ their mobile line anytime soon by adopting clear and honest labeling. I hope that vendors eventually come to the rescue, as they did for CPU’s, and begin to provide vital information, such as clockspeed and the amount of stream processors upfront in the product’s title–right where it belongs. In fact, any laptop or desktop card maker that decides to take this route will have my attention, and just maybe, my money.

How would you have your PC hardware labeled? Should all the important specs be included in the title, or is this too hardcore for the masses?

This sweet little unit will allow you to create catchy beats in no time. The Korg Kaossilator’s touch pad is wired to rattle off a hundred stored samples, including classical instruments and drums. The deceptively simple controls can layer multiple two-bar loops, of your own composition, in realtime. The pocket-sized synthesizer attempts to satisfy experienced musicians, yet also allows for your neighborhood no-talent-DJ to bust out some sick sounding beats, all without killing his (or her) high.

The device works its magic by setting tones to one of 31 preprogrammed scales. Meaning that even an errant hit on the touchpad will not mess up the flow. In fact, rap producers users with no musical ability will be able to produce something half-decent, with a little practice.

So is this the future of music? Or the beginning of its end? All I know is that I’d love to have this cool gadget on those boring bus rides through 8 Mile. Well, if it weren’t colored a silly sunshine yellow.

Would you give the same props to someone using a Kaossilator as you would if they were playing a classical instrument?