New Technology Reviews!.: which

Updated: Best Android phone - which should you buy?

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//Review%20images/TechRadar/Gadgets/Mobile%20phones/HTC%20Legend/Download_06-200-200.jpg"> Our verdict on the best Android phones - constantly updated There's one key way in which Android is massively different from its Apple-branded smartphone competition - the number of phones out there running Google's hot mobile OS. Samsung makes loads of them. Sony Ericsson makes a few. Then you've got Android-powered phones from Acer, LG, Huawei and many others, while HTC releases more in a month than all the rest added together manage in a year. The many variations in screen size, processor power, software features and design makes finding the best Android phone for you extremely tough. Do you physically and emotionally need a QWERTY keyboard? Are you the sort of oddball who prefers the rough pressing needed to make resistive touchscreens work? Do you actually like Orange widgets? Note: At any point of time if you need to see the review of any of the products here then use the search in the top right corner of the page or go to bottom of the page and see the related post gadget. To help find the best Android phone for you, we've rounded up the ten best Android handsets out there today, rating the phones on hardware performance, OS upgrade potential and, of course, how shiny and nice they are to have and boast about to work colleagues. So here they are - the ten best Android phones money can buy today. For many, many different reasons. 10. Samsung Galaxy Apollo i5800 <img alt="Samsung galaxy apollo i5800" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//Review%20images/TechRadar/Mobile%20phones/Samsung/Samsung%20Galaxy%20Apollo/pr/Samsung%20Apollo%20Black%20Front-Orange-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> A solid mid-range Android 2.1 performer. The main selling point of this <a href="">cheaper Samsung Galaxy</A> is its superbly responsive touchscreen - you can almost type on it by shaking out flakes of dandruff onto the screen it's that sensitive to the touch. Samsung's always generous with its video codec support, meaning the Apollo plays most ripped internet AVIs with ease, plus the Samsung-developed Lock screen music player control is a godsend for music fans. Sadly there's only a 3.2 megapixel camera inside which isn't ideal - but there is a welcome macro mode. So you can take nice photos of moths and bees and send them in to John Craven. Our quick verdict: A capable processor, good screen, relatively new version of Android - and it's out there for under £20 a month on contracts. 9. Motorola Milestone 2 <img alt="Motorola milestone 2" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/classifications/Mobile%20phones/hands%20on%20pictures/motorola/motorola%20milestone%202/motorola_milestone_01.jpg-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> The Milestone was a so-so phone in some people's eyes, but a few hardware tweaks and the addition of Android 2.2 has recharged it for the sequel. The Motoblur interface might be a bit bloated for some, but the processor is able and speedy and the media experience is top end for a phone of this calibre. Fans of a QWERTY will like the responsive keys, but the larger-fingered among us might struggle a bit. Our quick verdict: One of the best QWERTY devices out there, the Milestone 2 combines a top end Android experience in a surprisingly svelte package. 8. HTC Legend <img alt="HTC legend" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//Review%20images/TechRadar/Gadgets/Mobile%20phones/HTC%20Legend/Download_06-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> The <a href="">HTC Legend</A> has a slightly underpowered by today's standards 600MHz processor and its users are still very impatiently waiting for HTC to upgrade the thing to Android 2.2 - but if you want a phone that's more stylish than the crowd this is the one. HTC's Sense user interface is on here and as slick and professional as ever, plus there's a decent 5 megapixel camera along with your usual 3G 7.2Mbps max download speeds and GPS. But it's all about the beautiful, aluminium body. If you want an Android phone you can proudly put on the pub table next to your friends' flashy iPhones, this is it. Our quick verdict: Starting to show its age internally, but remains HTC's finest design moment on the outside. If HTC gets Android 2.2 on this soon, the Legend will still be worth proudly owning in 2011. 7. Sony Ericsson X10 Mini Pro <img alt="Sony ericsson x10 mini pro" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com/classifications/gadgets/phones/mobile-phones/Sony%20Ericsson/Sony_Ericsson_X10_mini_and-pro-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> We have to put at least one QWERTY phone in here, and as the HTC Desire Z isn't out at time of writing it'll have to be the charming little <a href="">Mini Pro</A>. At first fiddle the Mini Pro seems like it'll be way too small to function as your everyday smartphone. The 2.5" screen puts it right at the bottom of the Android tech spec comparison tables - but the QWERTY keyboard means you tend to use the phone in landscape mode, making everything appear more roomy. Plus half the screen isn't taken up by a software keyboard when typing. The processor handles this tiny display perfectly, resulting in a minuscule phone that's perfectly usable and surprisingly fast in operation – and Sony Ericsson's Android customisations are the model of usability. Our quick verdict: Not for those of you with dirty great sausage fingers, but a great little smartphone for dainty-fingered phone fans who long for the ease of typing on a QWERTY. Currently only on Android 1.6 - but is scheduled to get 2.1 before the end of the year. 6. HTC Desire Z <img alt="HTC desire z" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com/classifications/Mobile%20Phones/HTC/Desire%20Z_Open.jpg-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> The <a href="">HTC Desire Z</A> brings the screen size of the Desire, drops the processor and whacks in a QWERTY keyboard, and roars in at number six on our list. The solid build quality (hinge aside) and the next generation Sense UI make it a real fan favourite already, and the contract prices aren't too bad either for a top-end phone. Our quick verdict: If you're into a QWERTY, then this could be your favourite phone, with customisable buttons and speedy operation. 5. Orange San Francisco <img alt="Orange san francisco" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/Mobile%20Phones/Android/orange_SanFrancisco-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> This one defies all logic. You can currently pick up the <a href="">Orange San Francisco</A> for £99 on a SIM-free basis, which means it costs around one quarter the price of most of today's top-spec Android phones like the HTC Desire. But what you get here is no cost-cutting budget phone. The San Fran has a high-res 3.5" capacitive touchscreen, features Android 2.1, does a relatively good job of copying the high-end sleek designs of HTC and quite simply works way, way better than anything else at this entry level price point. Our quick verdict: Get one as a spare, or just to use at home on Wi-Fi. A stunning amount of kit for an impulse-level purchase price. 4. Samsung Galaxy S <img alt="Samsung galaxy s" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com/classifications/Mobile%20Phones/Samsung/samsung-galaxy-S-i90001-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> A bit like owning a fancy imported sports car, this. The screen on the <a href="">Galaxy S</A> is the finest out there today, high-res and dazzlingly sharp and bright. The problems come from Samsung's fiddlings with Android itself. While many of the TouchWiz user interface tweaks on the Galaxy S are welcome, they come at a price - the phone can be a little glitchy in operation, with quite a few annoying bugs and mini lock-ups. Plus Samsung is still endlessly pushing back the deployment of Android 2.2 which, for a high-end flagship phone in this day and age, is only making its owners angrier by the day. Our quick verdict: A lot of phone for the money, but the lack of camera flash, a few OS glitches and Samsung's notoriously relaxed attitude to pushing out software updates just stop this from being the perfect handset. 3. Google Nexus S <img alt="Google nexus s" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//Review%20images/TechRadar/Mobile%20phones/Google/Google%20Nexus%20S%20review/PR%20shots/Google-Nexus-S-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> The first Android 2.3 phone is also one of the first with NFC capabilities and a curved Super AMOLED screen from Samsung. The build quality might feel a little suspect at first, but is robust enough and sits in the hand well, and that screen is just superb for the internet and media. Our quick verdict: A 'no frills' handset that delivers on the specs - a quick price drop makes this very affordable and practical for the developer and early adopter alike. 2. HTC Desire HD <img alt="HTC desire hd" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/Mobile%20Phones/HTC/HTC-Desire-HD_new-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> We haven't been as excited about a new phone in a while as we have with the <a href="">HTC Desire HD</A> - the original Desire was so close to perfection in our eyes when it came out that we couldn't wait to see its successor. It's got a superb interface, super-fast operation and the new widgets and interaction HTC has unveiled with the new version of its Sense UI is fantastic. However, battery life is a little suspect and video playback has a few bugs - also, that massive screen really polarised opinion when we showed it off to other people. Our quick verdict: The HTC Desire HD is a cracking device that ticks nearly every category; however the battery issue is arguably worse than on the original Desire. Coupled with a couple of other niggles, it's enough to keep it from the top spot. 1. HTC Desire <img alt="HTC desire" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/gadgets/phones/mobile-phones/HTC/HTC-Desire2-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> The <a href="">HTC Desire</A> has been on sale for over six months now, and remains the most impressive and technically adept phone on the market. This is for two reasons - HTC released a superb piece of hardware that obliterated the competition at the time, and has also managed to get Android 2.2 onto nearly every version of the phone out there. While users of other, newer phones fuss about with internet petitions in order to get their OSs upgraded to 2.2, the older Desire is already cutting-edge. A great screen, flawless in operation and powerful enough to stay relevant until the end of even the longest mobile phone contract. Our quick verdict: The forthcoming Desire HD may offer a bigger screen and the Desire Z a physical keyboard, but the standard old Desire is still a stunning performer today. You won't be ashamed to own one of these even at the end of your next 24 month contract. On the next two pages, we look at the best Android phones for specific uses – best for media, best for productivity, best for battery life, and more. Best Android phone for portability: Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 Mini Pro The X10 Mini was a great, tiny phone - then came the <a href="">X10 Mini Pro</A>. Equally small, but with a QWERTY keyboard sliding out from underneath. The core Android experience may be the slightly ageing Android 1.6 meaning a few apps won't work here, but Sony Ericsson's user interface makes great use of the tiny 2.5" screen - and an Android 2.1 update is on the way soon. <img alt="Z10 mini pro" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com/classifications/gadgets/phones/mobile-phones/Sony%20Ericsson/Sony_Ericsson_X10_mini_and-pro-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Best Android phone for nerds: Google Nexus One If you're seriously into Android, you simply have to own Google's own-brand <a href="">Nexus One</A>. The hardware is much the same as that of the HTC Desire, plus an extra noise-cancelling mic to help improve audio quality. But it's not about that - you need the Nexus One as it offers the unbranded vanilla Android experience. The first phone to bring its users Android 2.2, Nexus One owners will always be one step ahead of the masses. <img alt="Nexus one" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com/classifications/gadgets/phones/mobile-phones/Android%20-%20Google/Google%20Nexus%20One/Google-Nexus-One-Android-Official-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Best Android phone for media and photography: Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 The mammoth <a href="">Xperia X10</A> Android phone has had a few problems with software glitches, poor battery life and is still powered by Android 1.6 - but there's no better Android phone out there today for photo use. The 8 megapixel camera with LED flash and autofocus takes great shots, with video emerging equally sharp and smooth. If you have a bag or pocket big enough to house it, the X10's a great media phone. <img alt="Xperia x10" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com/classifications/gadgets/phones/mobile-phones/Sony%20Ericsson/XperiaTM_X10Orange_2-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Best pay as you go Android phone: T-Mobile Pulse The <a href="">T-Mobile Pulse</A> has been around since 2009, and for good reason. The Huawei-made handset features a capacitive touchscreen, which is unheard of at this super-budget end of the market, plus T-Mobile has recently upgraded the phone's OS to Android 2.1. And you can currently get this from T-Mobile for £99. An ideal spare/replacement for the accident prone smartphone fan. <img alt="Tmobile pulse" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//Review%20images/TechRadar/Gadgets/T-Mobile%20Pulse%20images/T-Mobile%20Pulse%20cut-out%20front,%20high%20res-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Best Android phone for productivity: Motorola Milestone There's not much in the way of serious business phones in the Android sector right now, so if you're planning on doing a lot of typing and pretending you're working, the slab-like <a href="">Motorola Milestone</A> is the only option for QWERTY fans. Motorola's updated the thing to Android 2.1, plus 2.2 is on the cards for later in 2010. Until HTC's QWERTY-packing <a href="">HTC Desire Z</A> arrives, this is the best thing for text-heavy work. <img alt="Motorola milestone" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/gadgets/phones/mobile-phones/Motorola/verizon-motorola-droid-press_1-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Best Android phone overall: HTC Desire It's nearly six months old, which is about a million in mobile phone years - yet the <a href="">HTC Desire</A> remains the best Android phone of all. All UK networks are in the process of <a href="">upgrading it to Android 2.2</A>, so even launch original models are right on the cutting-edge. HTC had to swap the Desire's original 3.7" AMOLED screen for a Super LCD model due to manufacturing shortages, but it's still a dazzling phone - and Android 2.2 adds the ability to shoot video in 720p HD. It's actually getting better with age. <img alt="HTC desire" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/gadgets/phones/mobile-phones/HTC/HTC-Desire2-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Best Android phone for looks: HTC Legend An extremely subjective area, this. Some find HTC's style a little on the bland side, with its numerous variations on the curved black slab theme starting to look a little predictable. Which is why the <a href="">HTC Legend</A> stands out. Formed from a carved chunk of shiny aluminium, the internal spec of the phone is nothing special by 2010 standards - but it looks superb. <img alt="HTC legend" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//Review%20images/TechRadar/Gadgets/Mobile%20phones/HTC%20Legend/Download_06-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Best Android phone for battery life: Sony Ericsson X10 Mini The small 2.5" screen and Sony Ericsson's ultra-minimal custom user interface make the <a href="">X10 Mini</A> a winner - and when you're still using it after two full days without a charge it earns yet more respect. Switch off the wasteful nonsenses like GPS and Bluetooth and you'll have an Android phone that manages to not let you down when you actually need to send a text. <img alt="X10 mini" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/Mobile%20Phones/Sony%20Ericsson/sony-xperia-x10mini_1-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Best Android phone for for price: Orange San Francisco The <a href="">Orange San Francisco</A> looks like redefining the Android budget phone. Not only does it run Android 2.1, the San Francisco also features an 800x480 resolution screen - and it's capacitive, so ought to be super responsive. Orange is selling this for £99 on a PAYG package, which means you get a big list of specs for the money. <img alt="Orange san francisco" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/Mobile%20Phones/Android/orange_SanFrancisco-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Best Android phone for music: Acer Stream The <a href="">Acer Stream</A> is a bit of a weird one, with Acer lumbering an otherwise decent handset with the most awful custom Android user interface we've seen. However, thanks to the great lock screen music player widget and the phone's three physical music player buttons - for play/pause, skip forward and back - it's a surprisingly decent pocket-based MP3 player. It's a mystery why more phone makers haven't stuck on specific music controls. <img alt="Acer stream" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//Review%20images/TechRadar/Mobile%20phones/Acer/Acer%20Stream/PR%20images/front%20and%20rear-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Best Android phone for internet: Motorola Milestone XT720 The web looks great on the 480x854 resolution 3.7" screen of the <a href="">Motorola Milestone XT720</A>, with the Android 2.1 browser enhancements making page, history and bookmark navigation super simple. Plus pinch-to-zoom multitouch support lets you whizz in and out of pages easily. There's no Flash Player in Android 2.1, mind, so it's best for those not obsessed with iPlayer. <img alt="XT720" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//Review%20images/TechRadar/Mobile%20phones/Motorola/Motorola%20Milestone%20XT720/PR/XT720_dyn_R_horiz_CAMCAP%20copy-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Best Android phone for upgrades: HTC Desire The <a href="">HTC Desire</A> wins this through sheer numerical superiority. There are so many Desires out there that HTC simply has to keep its OS up to date, or face the wrath of its army of fans. The networks are getting it together with regards Android 2.2, with the newest OS now sitting on most Desires in the UK. Nothing's been confirmed for the next version of Android, but we suspect the Desire will be one of the first phones to get it. <img alt="HTC desire" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/gadgets/phones/mobile-phones/HTC/HTC-Desire2-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Best Android phone for social networking: HTC Wildfire The <a href="">HTC Wildfire</A> isn't unusual in featuring HTC's FriendStream social networking aggregator or the weird app sharing feature HTC's given us to annoy people with requests to try out Seesmic, but it squeezes it into a cute little package that's cheap enough to be handed out to kids. The great capacitive touchscreen gives this full-size power in a tiny form. <img alt="HTC wildfire" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com/classifications/gadgets/phones/mobile-phones/HTC/HTC%20Wildfire/HTC%20Wildfire_3Vs_Format_BROWN20100512-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Best Android phone for GPS: Dell Streak Is it a phone? Is it a tablet? Whatever category it belongs in, the <a href="">Dell Streak</A> is an undeniably strong performer as a standalone satnav replacement. Obviously Google's stunning Maps Navigation tool is the software behind it, but it's the 5" screen that makes this the best choice for serious GPS users. You'll be able to see it without swerving into oncoming traffic. <img alt="Dell streak" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/TechRadar/Mobile%20phones/Dell/Dell%20Streak/Press%20images/dell-streak-entertainment-hi-res-420-100.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Best Android phone for email: Samsung Galaxy S Exchange support and Android's simple auto-detection setup system makes the <a href="">Samsung Galaxy S</A> a winner for syncing various email accounts. Plus the Android phone comes pre-loaded with Swype - the fantastic gesture-based alternate keyboard that makes typing on a touchscreen easier and quicker than ever. Having a 4" screen give you room to work with, too, plus it's incredibly responsive to touch for extra-precise word entry. <img alt="Samsung galaxy s" src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com/classifications/Mobile%20Phones/Samsung/samsung-galaxy-S-i90001-420-100.jpg" width="420"> </IMG>.

Updated: Best Android phone - which should you buy?

Our verdict on the best Android phones - constantly updated There's one key way in which Android is massively different from its Apple-...

Which connected TV box are you?

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXiEKHjaPoxpV34SvWJM22Gn8_gY_FLaiIpOECxwq2OV63w5fI52ma6QKFFkuLznji3n49mhWftmylaGn5NtnnF5cvg3Vxgson7MOfkQ6GP7GqhKY9cs9zxGMU0xjFpSroGocANR46DlI/s1600/2010-09-21xdsp-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXiEKHjaPoxpV34SvWJM22Gn8_gY_FLaiIpOECxwq2OV63w5fI52ma6QKFFkuLznji3n49mhWftmylaGn5NtnnF5cvg3Vxgson7MOfkQ6GP7GqhKY9cs9zxGMU0xjFpSroGocANR46DlI/s320/2010-09-21xdsp-2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div> 
 
<iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=latesttecompu-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B000AOUDYE&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>Switched On presents a short quiz to determine your content-delivery personality. 
 
It's most important that my on-demand entertainment:  
 
a) is easy and accessible 
b) is not blocked 
c) is available at the optimum bitrate 
d) offers a new navigation paradigm 
e) advances the species 
 
The place I usually find entertainment is: 
a) the cloud 
b) my PC 
c) the NAS connected to my TV 
d) the long tail of the Web 
e) Madagascar

Which connected TV box are you?

Switched On presents a short quiz to determine your content-delivery personality. It's most important that my on-demand entertainmen...

Buying Guide: Mac mini vs iMac: which is the best value?

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//Review%20images/MacFormat/MAC%20228/MAC228.news_feat.mini_opener2_1-200-200.jpg"> The price difference between the cheapest and most expensive Macs Apple is huge. The cost mini Mac £ 649, but if you have a lot to spend and set the Mac of your choice at the online store of Apple, you could spend tens of thousands. It is not that crazy here. For this technological take on David versus Goliath, we're pitching the <a href="">Mac mini</A> against the <a href="">iMac</A>, the top-of-the- range 27-inch model with a 256GB solid-state drive alongside its off-the-shelf 1TB hard drive. It's an intriguing battle. Both machines are consumer-oriented, unlike the Mac Pro which is more of a business computer. And although the iMac is obviously far more powerful, at £2,249, it's also a lot more expensive. If money was no object it would demolish the far cheaper Mac mini, but as it stands, it must work really hard to justify the £1,600 price difference. So which Mac offers better value for money? The mini Mac, with a (relatively) low price and a performance that is ok for day to day computing, or the powerful iMac top-of-the-range, offering incredible strength, a gorgeous screen and a solid state drive ? invented a series of tests to put them through their paces. full range of Apple iMac has now moved to the new series of chips Intel Core-i. One test has been around for a very powerful quad-core 2.8GHz Core i5 processors with some important performance enhancing features. Turbo Boost, which is lacking on the chip Core i3 used by the rest of the range iMac, closes inactive cells and enhances the power of acting on increased clock speed. Also, an integrated memory controller that reduces the time the CPU spends waiting for data to arrive. Unfortunately for the Mac mini, a legal dispute prevents Nvidia graphics chipsets from being integrated into Core-i processors, and the mini's small form factor makes it impossible to include discrete graphics. As a Core i3 processor without a discrete GPU would be a backwards step in graphics power, Apple was forced to stick with the older Core 2 Duo processor in the Mac mini, opting for a 2.4GHz version with the mid-2010 release. For our first test, we used the popular benchmarking utility Xbench to see how the processors compared. Xbench can test a wide range of Mac ecosystems such as hard drives, memory, threads and OpenGL, but here we restricted it to benchmarking the processor. Taking the average of three tests, the iMac scored 225.36, with the Mac mini coming in at 170.9. A convincing win for the iMac, but considering the price difference, the mini was far from disgraced. <img alt="Handbrake" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/MacFormat/MAC%20228/MAC228.news_feat.handbrake1-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Raw benchmarks can be a little nebulous, so we next tried a real-world test. After downloading the popular – and extremely processor-intensive – video conversion utility Handbrake, we encoded a five-minute test video using its Apple TV output settings. The iMac managed it in 175.5 seconds, whereas the Mac mini took 520 seconds, almost three times as long. But given the iMac costs almost three and a half times as much as the mini, Apple's small form factor Mac once again held its own. Glorious graphics <DIV class=almost_half_cell id=gt-res-content> <DIV dir=ltr>On paper, graphic capabilities of the iMac is the mini round spank the MAC. The ATI Radeon 5750 with 1GB GDDR5 SDRAM onboard memory is an important step, the HD 4850 with 512MB used by the previous generation of top-of-the-range iMac. Since the mini has no room in table logic for discrete graphics card, which uses an integrated Nvidia GeForce 320M chipset. This is not so weak selection. The 320M is today the fastest integrated graphics solution available, and it is up to twice as fast as the Nvidia GeForce 9400M used in the past. We tested with Cinebench 11,5, a tool that gives similar ratings for 3D rendering. Again the best of three trials to focus on the graphics card OpenGL recorded the score and not on the CPU we use for our charts Mac comments. This test makes it a complex 3D scene with nearly one million polygons and a set of advanced visual effects. </DIV></DIV> The Mac mini achieved an average running speed of 11.57 frames per second, which is pretty good considering the complexity of the scene being rendered. The iMac, however, scored a smooth 32.07FPS – almost three times the rate offered by the mini. <img alt="Doom 3" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/MacFormat/MAC%20228/MAC228.news_feat.doom3-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> It's a similar story with our test game, Doom 3. After setting the screen resolution to 1024x768 pixels and cranking graphical effects to Ultra Quality, the Mac mini ran it at an average of 54.2FPS, which is far from shabby. But the iMac managed a scorching 185.3FPS, almost three and a half times as quick as the mini. This figure is on a par with their comparative costs, but hard-core gamers will appreciate the super-speedy frame rates offered by the iMac. Everything feels snappier and more responsive. So the Mac mini is no slouch in the graphics department, but for high-intensity tasks such as gaming and rendering, you likely want an iMac. A study in storage The Mac mini has a standard 320GB hard drive, with the iMac offering a 1TB hard drive and an extra 256GB solid-state drive used as the boot volume. This SSD is the main reason our test iMac costs so much, adding £600 to the price of the off-the-shelf, 2.8GHz Core i5 machine. Clearly it's not cheap, but is it worth it? We fired up a copy of QuickBench to test the speeds of the two Mac's boot volumes – in other words, the Mac mini's 320GB, 5400rpm hard drive, and the iMac's 256GB solid-state drive. Unsurprisingly, the iMac's SSD proved faster, but the degree by which it outpaced its rival was aggravated by the Mac mini's relatively slow hard drive. At 5400rpm, it's substantially slower than the secondary 1TB 7200rpm HDD used in the iMac. <img alt="QuickBench" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/MacFormat/MAC%20228/MAC228.news_feat.quickbench-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> The iMac's solid-state drive outpaced the Mac mini's hard drive by over 250% in the sequential read and write tests. In the random read/write tests, which are more relevant to the real world, it was 830% and 628% faster respectively. Naturally, applications launched a lot faster on the iMac, with the iWork apps bouncing only once in the Dock before opening. On the mini, they took between two bounces (Pages) and 10 (Numbers). To test the iMac further, we tried opening iPhoto, iCal, Address Book, Safari and all three iWorks apps simultaneously. They opened just as quickly. Watching seven icons bounce once as the screen fills with windows is surreal. You see a lot less of the dreaded beach ball when using the iMac, especially if you regularly have lots of applications open at the same time. On display When comparing monitors, you might expect a clear win for the iMac, as the mini doesn't have one. But could this be an advantage? The 27-inch iMac's screen is a gorgeous IPS display, with excellent viewing angles and a 16:9 aspect ratio. Its pixel resolution of 2560x1440 is beyond HD, and its LED backlighting brings it to full brightness as soon as you switch it on. But the mini has a HDMI port, and is supplied with an adapter so you can connect it through DVI instead if you wish. This means it can be connected to pretty much any modern display. It can be any size – as cheap or as expensive as you like – and if you don't like glossy screens, you can opt for a matte display. The iMac is only supplied with a glossy screen; there isn't even a custom option for matte, which is especially galling considering every MacBook Pro except the 13-inch model has an anti-glare option. There's nothing wrong with the iMac's screen; quite the opposite, in fact. But if it isn't to your personal tastes, or if you already have a monitor going unused, the Mac mini's lack of a supplied display could work in its favour. Wired for sound? Both of our machines have built-in audio, but they're both pretty bad. Using iTunes on the iMac, our test music sounded tinny and lacking in bass and depth. There was no great stereo separation, and it did nothing to shape the sound. It was the same story on the Mac mini, just with no stereo separation at all. Naturally, if you're only going to use your computer for web surfing, email and basic computing tasks, the internal audio might be sufficient for your needs. But if you plan to put your machine to any sort of multimedia use such as music or video, you should invest in external speakers. A host of extras? The iMac offers everything you need to get your computer up and running, but the mini only gives you a base Mac – you must add any required peripherals yourself. And some of them are definitely required. You won't get far without a keyboard and mouse, and unlike the iMac, the mini has no built-in iSight webcam. Yet what we said about monitors also applies here, perhaps even more so. You might well have a spare mouse or keyboard lying around unused, and even if you do need to go out and buy something, with the Mac mini, you get to choose what you use. Apple keyboards and the Magic Mouse are, of course, available from your local Apple store, but you don't have to go down the Apple route – not everyone likes the Magic Mouse. If you'd prefer a more traditional design with two buttons and a scroll wheel, chances are you can find one for less than half the price of the mouse that's bundled with the iMac. You could even forego the mouse altogether and opt for an alternative navigation device, such as a trackball, Magic Trackpad, or even a graphics tablet and stylus! <img alt="Mac mini" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/MacFormat/MAC%20228/MAC228.news_feat.macmini02-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> So is a Mac mini better value than an iMac? Ultimately, yes. As our tests showed, on a price-to- performance ratio, Apple's small form-factor machine certainly holds its own against a high-end iMac with a costly solid-state drive. It's very capable for its size, and more than powerful enough for day-to-day computing tasks such as email, web surfing and word processing. The mini enjoys a couple of key advantages over the iMac too. It has a HDMI-out port, making it ideal as a living-room media centre Mac, and its size means it's extremely portable, especially now the power supply is built into the casing. If you really wanted you could set up a monitor and keyboard at home and at work, and carry the mini between them with ease. You certainly wouldn't want to do this with a 27-inch iMac! Yet if you crave that all-in-one experience, or you really want to play the latest 3D games then the iMac is clearly the machine of choice - the mini just can't complete as a games machine. Whether you buy a Mac mini or a top-of-the-range iMac or something in between is entirely up to you. We hope we've gone some way towards making up your mind. Don't discount the mini just because it's small. And don't forget the MacBook range, too! All Macs have their strengths and weaknesses, and their own role to play in Apple's Mac line-up.

Buying Guide: Mac mini vs iMac: which is the best value?

The price difference between the cheapest and most expensive Macs Apple is huge. The cost mini Mac £ 649, but if you have a lot to spend an...

Buying Guide: PC or Mac: which should you buy next?

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/computing/software/operating-systems/images/pc_or_mac/maclaptops-200-200.jpg"> Ever thought about switching from PC to Mac, or from Mac to PC? If you're considering a new or additional computer there are plenty of things to consider before deciding which platform to pledge allegiance to. Does the Mac's lower cost of ownership make it a better long-term bet? What's the best platform for modding, tinkering and tweaking? Can you really compare a PC or Mac laptop on price alone? Let's find out. PC or Mac: price If PCs were made to the same standard, from the same materials, with the same profit margins as Macs then they'd be just as expensive as Apple kit. Most of them aren't, however, and as a result most of them are much cheaper than similarly specified Macs (it's a completely different story in tablets, phones and MP3 players, but that's another article). <img alt="Mac prices" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/classifications/computing/software/operating-systems/images/pc_or_mac/macprice-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> NOT CHEAP: Macs are many things, but they aren't cheap: the most affordable Mac starts at £599 PC vs Mac: reliability and total cost of ownership The standard response to "Macs are expensive" is that Macs offer lower total cost of ownership (TCO). That's true, but that's more relevant to businesses where reliability and security dictate the amount a company spends on IT support. Macs are more secure than PCs - they don't get viruses and malware is almost unheard of - but Microsoft has been closing the gap for years, and a savvy PC owner's Windows 7 box is very secure, too. Security is just part of the equation, however. Windows 7 is pretty solid, but we still find it crashes more frequently than Snow Leopard does. There are two reasons for that. The first is that OS X Snow Leopard is based on BSD, a flavour of Unix that's been around for decades and which is famously reliable. The second is that where OS X only needs to support a very small group of computers - Apple ones - Windows has to support so many possible PC manufacturers, models and configurations that it's a miracle it works at all. In our experience misbehaving drivers, mysterious freezes and other irritants are much less common on the Mac. As a result, for demanding tasks where time is money and hardware gets hammered such as when you're using a PC or Mac for graphic design or a PC or Mac for video editing, we'd choose a Mac over a similarly specified PC. <img alt="Windows defender" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/classifications/computing/software/operating-systems/images/pc_or_mac/macreliability-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> SAFE: It doesn't take much effort to make Windows perfectly secure. Windows 7 is the safest Windows yet PC or Mac: ease of use Windows 7 is the friendliest Windows yet, but given the choice between otherwise identical machines running Windows 7 or Snow Leopard we'd go for Snow Leopard. The difference in ease of use is particularly apparent when you use additional apps such as Apple's iLife (free with new Macs) and Windows Live Essentials (free from live.com): the Apple apps are more welcoming and considerably more polished. Windows vs Mac OS is like the difference between, say, a Ford Mondeo and a top-end BMW: the Ford does the job perfectly well, but the BMW's nicer to sit in. <img alt="Mac ease of use" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/classifications/computing/software/operating-systems/images/pc_or_mac/maceasy-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> EASY: We think Macs are easier to use than PCs, especially when you compare applications such as iLife with Windows Live Essentials PC vs Mac: desktops Mac desktops bear little relation to PC desktops: they're more like laptops, cramming entire computers into impossibly small sizes. PC desktops, on the other hand, are usually based on standard form factors, standard components and standard cases. That keeps their prices down - for the "how much?" £599 Apple wants for a basic Mac Mini you could get a very decent desktop, while the £999 Apple wants for an entry-level iMac would pay for a PC so fast it travels through time - and it means PCs are usually much easier and cheaper to upgrade. Apple does do an easily upgradeable desktop, the Mac Pro, but that starts at £1,999. Once you start getting happy with the options list you can easily crack the ten grand barrier. <img alt="Hp pavilion" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/classifications/computing/software/operating-systems/images/pc_or_mac/macdesktop-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> BIG BOX: £599 gets you a Mac Mini - or the uglier, faster HP Pavilion P6655 with more storage, more RAM and better graphics PC or Mac: netbooks The closest thing to a netbook Apple does is the MacBook Air, which is approximately £600 more than a typical PC netbook - so if you need a netbook and price is key, then it's a PC for you. However, netbooks are compromise devices, designed to be as cheap as they are portable, and they're not designed for demanding tasks; the Air is a proper Mac, designed for proper work and priced accordingly. <img alt="MacBook air" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/classifications/computing/software/operating-systems/images/pc_or_mac/macnetbooks-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> NOT A NETBOOK: The MacBook Air is small enough to be a netbook, but there's a proper computer inside that ultra-slim case PC vs Mac: laptops Should you buy a Windows or Mac OS laptop? MacBooks and MacBook Pros are beautifully engineered devices with impressive battery life, but if sheer horsepower is more important than build quality or battery life Windows laptops often offer better specifications for less cash than Mac OS ones - so for example the <a href="http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/laptops-portable-pcs/laptops-and-netbooks/samsung-r780-680618/review">Samsung R780</A> offers a better specification than Apple's fastest, biggest MacBook Pro. Is as pretty, as well screwed together or as solid? Nope, but at the time of writing it's £600 cheaper. <img alt="R780" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/classifications/computing/software/operating-systems/images/pc_or_mac/maclaptops-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> BETTER PRICE: Is this as pretty as a MacBook Pro? Nope. Is it six hundred quid cheaper? Yes PC or Mac: software Big-name software packages - Office, Pro Tools, Lightroom, Ableton, AutoCAD, Photoshop, InDesign - are available for both platforms, but the Mac also benefits from some OS X exclusives: Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio, Aperture, iLife and so on. If you're a creative type, Apple has an edge here. Price wise, Apple and PC software tend to be priced similarly - Office Home & Student is around £70 at the moment, compared to £71 for Apple's rival iWork - while free software such as Google Docs, OpenOffice.org, Picasa and so on are available for both platforms. One of the most interesting software developments is the forthcoming Mac App Store. Its iPhone and iPad equivalents are packed with programs, and if it works on the desktop it could herald a new age of interesting Mac apps. Apps are what differentiate iOS devices from their rivals, and a bustling Mac App Store could make Apple's platform more attractive when you're considering whether to go with Windows or Mac OS. <img alt="Pro tools" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/classifications/computing/software/operating-systems/images/pc_or_mac/macsoftware-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> MULTI-PLATFORM: Most big-name packages are available on both platforms, so for example Pro Tools is available for both Mac and Windows PC vs Mac: games The arrival of Valve's Steam has given Mac gaming a welcome kick into the 21st Century, demonstrating that there's more to Mac gaming than The Bloody Sims, and the Mac App Store may bring a catalogue of new and interesting titles. http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/apple/steam-for-mac-now-open-for-business-688953 For now, though, the PC is still miles ahead. Call of Duty: Black Ops? PC. Fallout: New Vegas? PC. Medal of Honor? PC. Farming Simulator 2011? OK, maybe that one isn't such a big deal. True, you can run these games on a Mac via Boot Camp, but that means buying Windows. <img alt="Pc vs mac gaming" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/classifications/computing/software/operating-systems/images/pc_or_mac/macgaming-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> PC FIRST: Blockbuster games such as Call of Duty: Black Ops turn up on PC long before they make it to the Mac PC or Mac: customising and modding PCs are much more customisable than Macs, even at the operating system level: if you're mad enough to want Comic Sans as your system font, Windows will let you have it. OS X lets you change the background picture and that's pretty much your lot; even its Dashboard widgets are hidden away until you ask to see them. It's a similar story with the hardware, although that's for practical rather than aesthetic reasons: the Mac Mini and iMac are unique designs, so customising or modding them is considerably more complicated than it is for PCs with their industry standard motherboards and cases. That doesn't mean it can't be done, of course. It just takes a bit more effort [http://mashable.com/2010/03/23/imac-steampunk-mod/] - and with the laptops you can always go to town with a laser engraving machine [http://cutlasercut.com/engraveyourtech.html/]. <img alt="PC case" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/classifications/computing/software/operating-systems/images/pc_or_mac/macmodding-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> MOD-READY: Questions of taste aside, PCs' standard form factors make them easy to modify and upgrade PC vs Mac: upgrades and repairs Unless you buy something unusual, upgrading or replacing a component in a desktop PC couldn't be easier: unscrew the case, pop the old bit out, stick the new bit in. Macs are more fiddly: on a 2010 iMac, for example, the only bit you're encouraged to upgrade yourself is the RAM [http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3918]. Replacing other components, such as hard disks, isn't for the faint-hearted [http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=4130605]. <img alt="Mac upgrades" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/classifications/computing/software/operating-systems/images/pc_or_mac/macupgrades-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> NEW PARTS: Upgrading Mac memory: easy. Upgrading Mac anything else: not so easy PC or Mac: and finally There's one other key factor to consider in the PC vs Mac debate, and that's your current set-up: if you've invested in expensive software packages, the cost of replacing them - assuming they can be replaced - and the hassle of converting files could be the decider. It's less of an issue on the Mac than the PC, because you can boot into Windows via Boot Camp or run Windows inside OS X with Parallels Desktop. Both options cost money, though: you'll need a Windows license for either and an additional £65 if you want to buy Parallels. <img alt="Office for mac" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/classifications/computing/software/operating-systems/images/pc_or_mac/macandfinally-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> EXTRA COSTS: Don't forget to factor in the cost of replacing software if you're planning to switch - or seek out free open source alternatives

Buying Guide: PC or Mac: which should you buy next?

Ever thought about switching from PC to Mac, or from Mac to PC? If you're considering a new or additional computer there are plenty of t...

Blu-ray quality put to test by consumer charity Which?

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//images/blu-ray-disc-200-200.jpg"> Consumer rights bastions Which? have taken a look at some of the most popular movies out on Blu-ray and compared their picture quality with that of DVD. In the test, Which? looked at 17 Blu-rays, all of which were of retro movies, and decided that <a href="http://conversation.which.co.uk/technology/many-blu-rays-no-better-than-upscaled-dvds/">eight of these discs</A> had a transfer akin to DVD – even though they had been labelled Full HD. It's no secret that the quality of retro movies on Blu-rays differs depending on how well the studio has remastered the movie but it seems that the folks at Which? were shocked with the actual gulf in quality between discs in their tests. Although the site explains that all the discs are better in quality than DVD, the do highlight some discs which didn't impress at all. These included Ghostbusters, The Graduate and Gangs of New York. Picture perfect? The test <a href="http://www.which.co.uk/technology/tv-and-dvd/guides/blu-ray-disc-quality/blu-ray-viewing-results/">was conducted</A> on two identical Sony TVs and two identical Blu-ray players (with the DVD and Blu-ray version running side by side) by two experts who rated the picture quality of the movies accordingly. Interestingly, North By Northwest was also in the lowest-quality group – something which <a href="http://hcc.techradar.com/blogs/team-hcc/dvd-vs-blu-ray-does-which-know-which-which-17-11-10">Home Cinema Choice</A> disagrees with. They note that the Hitchcock classic was given an 8k resolution restoration for its release on Blu-ray, so it was very doubtful that no picture improvements were seen by the testers. While we think <a href="http://www.which.co.uk/technology/tv-and-dvd/guides/blu-ray-disc-quality/blu-ray-versus-dvd-/">17 discs</A> is rather low, it is interesting to see a trusted body like Which? challenging the notion that Blu-ray automatically offers picture enhancements to older movies.

Blu-ray quality put to test by consumer charity Which?

Consumer rights bastions Which? have taken a look at some of the most popular movies out on Blu-ray and compared their picture quality with ...

How to Download Free PSP Games and Movies - Three Methods But Which Is Best?

Sony's PSP or Playstation portable is a fantastic piece of technology-as well as being a top flight games machine it can view all kinds of media and also be used for web applications etc. In short it's a great piece of hardware-however the one thing that puts many people off is the price of the games. Wouldn't that be different if you knew how to download free PSP games and movies?It's long been known that the internet is a place where you can download free games and movies for many systems, but few people know that with a PSP you have a few different options on how and where to do it-the best thing is that they are all 100% legal!There are hundreds, if not thousand of different places where you can download free PSP games and movies, but they mostly fall into the three following categories:1- A totally free of charge service-There are sites that let you download games and stuff totally free of charge, but I personally wouldn't recommend them. Firstly, I always question the legality of stuff like this, and secondly, their games are always out of date and often download in an unworkable format, and thirdly in most cases you are going to get hit by a barrage of ads/popups etc, not to mention any viruses/spyware they may introduce to your computer. If these guys are willing to break the law and give away free games, who says they are not going to hack your computer? I stay away from this stuff.2- A "free" membership site that once you are signed up to you can then download as many games etc as you want from. Technically it's free because the membership is free, but then the minute you try and download something they'll ask you for a fee. Not too cool really. I also stay away from these because A, I don't like surprise fees, and B, again I'm unsure how legal this can be, although they do claim to be legal.3- These types of sites are the ones I can heartily recommend. I found a few reliable ones and I haven't looked back. I honestly haven't paid for a PSP game or movie in over a year, and I have some great titles! Sites like these charge a small one off fee, and then you have access to hundreds and thousands of different games and movies, all at high download speeds with no extra cost. This really is the best way to download free PSP games and movies because the one off fee is usually about the same cost of a new game, so basically for the cost of your next full price game you could be playing every PSP game ever released-if you have that much time on your hands that is! The actual downloads themselves can be tricky, but if you stick with reputable websites they will often give you the necessary software as part of the package.So there you have it, those are your options if you are looking to download free PSP games and movies. Personally I would recommend option 3, as some of these companies are excellent and you won't believe the sheer choice of different games and movies available to you. Happy hunting!	 	 		 			 				 					 						<a href="http://www.psptipsntricks.com/pspreviews.html" target="_new">Click HERE to find out exactly how to download FREE PSP Games and Movies, including EXACTLY where to download them from</a>!Billy Torecki is webmaster at <a href="http://www.psptipsntricks.com" target="_new">http://www.psptipsntricks.com</a><a href="http://ezinearticles.com/?Download-Free-PSP-Games-The-Easy-Way&id=603247" target="_new">Download Free PSP Games</a>

How to Download Free PSP Games and Movies - Three Methods But Which Is Best?

Sony's PSP or Playstation portable is a fantastic piece of technology-as well as being a top flight games machine it can view all kin...

In Depth: Ubuntu vs Fedora: which is best?

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.10-200-200.jpg"> Linux is always in a state of flux. On any given day, millions of lines of new code are being written, tested, double-checked, merged, packaged and downloaded from software repositories delivering another dose of opensource goodness. Unlike most desktop operating systems, release schedules are based on months rather than years (well, for most flavours of Linux) and so the experience of using Linux is one of trickled iterative change. One of the very greatest things about running Linux is that the future doesn't have to be that far away: what is new and exciting today can be running on your Linux box tomorrow. Unless you're prepared to download and compile development versions and nightly builds, the best way to try this new software is via the latest version of a modern distro. And with the releases of Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10 just around the corner, we thought we'd compare how the big two compare when it comes to giving you the best of the future. What you should also learn from this is that trying out the cutting-edge versions of your favourite distro doesn't need to be hard or scary. You don't even need a spare machine to test things on – thanks to advances in CPUs and virtualisation technology, you can play with tomorrow's technology today… The first hurdle – do the installers make it easy for us? In the good old days before <a href="http://www.linuxformat.com/">Linux Format</A> existed, installing Linux was a bit of a chore. You needed to know exactly what hardware you were using, because was little device probing available, and on many occasions you would probably have to stop the installation process to find out some chip numbers or interface ID numbers. Things have improved a lot, to the point where it is arguably easier to install Linux than any other OS. Of course, it's still rare to find an off-the-shelf system, so necessity is the mother of better installer routines. Streamlined and simple The Ubuntu team, for example, have radically altered their installer for this release to make everything simpler, easier and more efficient. One of the new tricks is to have the installer collect user input (such as usernames and passwords) while the system install is taking place. Well, we say it is a new trick, but actually several installers of days gone by used to do similar tricks, most notably Caldera Linux circa 2000. Ubuntu just manages to pull this trick off – the responsiveness of entering data is noticeably impeded at times when the installer is busy unpacking things, but unless you are planning to manually install a whole office full of desktops it shouldn't be too annoying. <img alt="Fedora installer" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.fed1-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Shortly after starting the install, you will be given the option of including the Fluendo MP3 codec. This is free to use, but not strictly free software. Most newcomers to Linux aren't aware of the difference, and while it may offend the purists, but it does deliver a better user experience. It also bears mentioning that there is a new partitioning tool, which makes installation a little friendlier. This is one area in which Fedora differs wildly. Although you can opt for the simple "install it over anything" option, there are other options and more finely grained control of how the disk is to be partitioned, or indeed, which disk to use. <img alt="Fedora installer 2" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.fed2-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> With support for iSCSI, FCoE and mulitipath filesystems, Fedora may go over the top for a desktop install, but you can be pretty sure it will take care of any sensible install target. Step by step: the Ubuntu installer 1. Restricted codecs <img alt="step 1" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.install1-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> You can now install non-free stuff such as important codecs as part of the install process – definitely a good thing for Linux newbies. 2. Graphical partitioning <img alt="Step 2" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.install2-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Ubuntu now has a more graphical way to set up disks and partitions. With another OS installed, you could drag a slider to resize partitions. 3. Enter user data <img alt="step 3" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.install3-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Enter your user data and system info while the installer is writing packages to the disk, to save a little bit of time. The boot system that was in universal use until a few years ago was SystemV. This harked back to the early days of Unix, and while it was an acceptable system at the time, priorities change. We no longer use a gang of men in white coats to bring a computer online. The way computers work has changed too. Ten years ago, you had a hard disk, which existed on a known controller and that was pretty much it. Now there are many more ways to connect storage to a computer and networked filesystems are more common. <img alt="Bootchart" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.chart-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Upstart was a project designed to save time and resources in the system startup. Using an event system, the idea was that certain processes get run on demand and aren't just started willy nilly when the computer starts up – for example, there's no point running your printer daemon if there is no printer attached. Retaining compatibility with old init scripts, it makes extensive use of D-BUS messaging to manage processes and a rule-based system for service activation. Originally released for Ubuntu 6.10 and also adopted by Fedora 9, the Upstart system has managed to bring some sense to the startup procedure and cut precious seconds off the start time too, where parallelisations have been made (spawning more than one task at a time). Borrowing heavily from the concepts used in Apple's launchd service, which takes care of the init process for Mac OS X, the new SystemD init system does some seemingly crazy things. The idea here is that if you are not using the maximum CPU and disk resource, you aren't doing enough work. SystemD aims to parallelise as much as possible, essentially starting all the tasks simultaneously, more or less. SystemD Usually this doesn't happen, because many services or daemons rely on others to be already running. But, crucially, that doesn't mean they are going to immediately use them. For example, some daemons may rely on the logging daemon being started, in case they want to write log messages. It doesn't mean that they actually need to write a log message then and there, just that they need to be able to if required. The SystemD solution to this sort of activity is to pretend to the daemon that the other service is actually already running, allowing it to start up as well. In cases where, for example, the daemon did try to write to the log, the kernel buffers would hold the information until the logging daemon had finished starting up. That's just one of the concepts behind this fascinating approach to the startup process. You can find out more on Lennart Poettering's blog at <a href="http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html">http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html</A>. A big change like this is bound to be controversial, and there are no end of people arguing about SystemD right now, but the startup scripts are probably one of the most ancient things in a modern Linux distro. These won't go away overnight though – if ever. Upstart promised (and delivered) a new way of doing things, but few distros apart from Ubuntu have actually implemented many native rulesystems. Checking your boot speed with bootchart 1. Get bootchart <img alt="step 1" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.boot1-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> On Fedora and some other distros, you'll find the bootchart package in the repositories. It's also a fairly simple build from scratch. 2. Reboot with Bootchart <img alt="step 2" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.boot2-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Assuming you have installed it OK, all you need to do is reboot and choose the Bootchart option (or the option you modified earlier. 3. Makechart <img alt="step 3" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.boot3-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> When the system has booted up, just open a terminal and type bootchart. This builds a chart out of the log data you collected. Libraries might not be the most exciting pieces of software on your computer, but they can make the other software that you do care about go faster or add more features. Fedora 14 will be the first distro to incorporate a new JPEG library – libjpeg-turbo. A fork from the original library, it originally came about through the desire to get faster rendering for VNC software. Mainly it does this by using processor enhancements not found in the original library, which promises to deliver a real speed boost. You don't need to wait for Fedora 14 though: you can grab the source and packages for various distros here: <a href="http://sourceforge.net/projects/libjpeg-turbo/files/">http://sourceforge.net/projects/libjpeg-turbo/files</A>. Slightly less sexy than libraries for most folks are filesystems. But a filesystem is a key component of the performance of your desktop as a whole – practically every application known to man makes use of the hard drive (yes, even web browsers – where do you think the cache goes?), so a good filesystem is something to be excited about. <img alt="Btrfs" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.btrfs-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> The biggest arrival on the scene since ext4 came out is Btrfs. Apart from sparking lively debate about how to say it out loud ("butter-ef-es", "better-ef-es", "be-tree-ef-es"?), it is also being hailed as the next step towards Nirvana for your drives, earning the ringing endorsement of several prominent filesystem developers. Stable and scalable Not everything is about speed. Btrfs is a database-like filesystem that boasts some performance enhancers, but it's more about creating reliable, fault-tolerant storage that scales – datacentres for example. There is a lot of development work going on at the moment, but Btrfs has already made its debut as a highlight in OpenSUSE 11.3, and is available in the current version of Fedora. It was scheduled for Ubuntu's Meerkat release, but has since been put off until 11.04. Although the system is now considered stable, there are few tools available to deal with the filesystem, so it isn't considered production ready by many. You can find the latest updates and more info on the Btrfs wiki at the kernel website (<a href="https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page">https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page</A>). Loosely connected to the subject of filesystems is the system's bootloader. Ubuntu has been using the almost completely rewritten Grub 2 since 9.10. Amongst other things, this has helped shave a few vital seconds off the boot time, because if Ubuntu is the only OS installed, no menu gets loaded. Also, some of the early stages of the Grub boot process have been eliminated entirely. <img alt="Ubuntu" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.10-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Minor changes to Grub include the sensible renumbering of drives and partitions (which now start at 1 instead of 0) and auto-generation of the boot menu – it simply scans the available kernels in the /boot partition. Fedora still uses the legacy Grub as the default bootloader, missing out on the nice splash screens and such. The packages for Grub 2 do exist, but as the legacy Grub version for Fedora was heavily tweaked, your mileage may vary. It may seem a little surprising, but Fedora and Ubuntu are not exactly poles apart when it comes to desktop software. As they both use Gnome as the default desktop, there are a fair smattering of Gnome applications included as defaults – Evolution and Empathy, for example. There are certainly more similarities than differences in terms of the software used – OpenOffice.org, Totem, Firefox, Shotwell… The last is an interesting case. Ubuntu trialled Shotwell on the Unity netbook environment, and the response was so positive that F-Spot has been dropped altogether from the minimal install (though obviously it is still a supported package). This gives a slight inkling about what is going on the the desktop space – Ubuntu is more and more focused on the user experience and, if we might be excused for saying it, is taking an Apple-like approach to things by preferring the simple over the complex and the well-integrated over standalone apps. <img alt="Shotwell" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.shotwell-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> By contrast, if you ever read the developer lists on Fedora, you will quickly pick up the sense that, while they like things to be nice and neat, there is no general intention to second-guess what users might ultimately want – the goal is to deliver the best and newest software and let the user control the environment it is used in. "Freedom, friends, features, first" is the Fedora mantra. That first one is possibly still the strongest element of the four, as Fedora is fanatical about omitting software not under an OSI-approved licence (like many codecs, drivers and other useful bits). The right stuff The result for the user is that things don't necessarily work as expected. In a fresh installation, Fedora lacks the ability to play MP3 files for example, or many types of video codec. Their way around this is to use PackageKit to suggest non-free software to fill the gap (providing you have configured the necessary repositories). Ubuntu does exactly the same, except that there is no need to add repositories for GStreamer, for example, as it already exists in the 'unsupported' Ubuntu repository. Similarly, the 'restricted' area contains binary graphics drivers that are non-free software (not available to Fedora users unless you add unofficial repositories). <img alt="Twitter" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.gwibber-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Why does this difference matter? Ubuntu goes out of the way to make things easier for the user, who often couldn't care less if they are 'tainting' their system, whereas Fedora goes out of its way to do the right thing. In the case of video drivers for example, they have been extremely pro-active in getting the open source Nouveau driver for Nvidia devices out and tested. Even so, Ubuntu obviously gives the desktop more love, and perhaps has more of an idea about what the users want – it is rather popular after all, despite the constant criticism it comes in for. An invisible touch One new area of the populist touch is the integration of social media functionality, by which we mostly mean that Gwibber forms part of the default install and you can use it to let your Facebook or Twitter contacts know what you are up to. More than that though, Gwibber author Ryan Paul and the development team have worked in conjunction with the Ubuntu desktop team to find ways of exposing the interface at a more fundamental level. This has resulted in the creation of libgwibber, which acts as an API for applications wishing to access microblogging functionality, used to some effect so far by the Ubuntu Software Centre for one. Although you might question the necessity of letting your Twitter contacts know what you have installed, this is just a taste of what's to come. Code has been released to easily integrate the Gwibber library with any desktop code, so you can expect those little buttons you currently see on blogs to start popping up all over your desktop apps too – maybe. Apart from just bothering your friends with the fact that you just installed the latest kernel, the Ubuntu Software Centre now has an improved search facility, a history function and a new software store. The integration of a software purchasing scheme is interesting, but what's even more so is what we might see there. At the moment there's just a dummy app there to demonstrate the functionality, but the idea is that you will be able to buy software and install it through the interface. What software though? Well, that remains to be seen – it would be nice if were along the lines of independent gaming titles rather than corporate anti-virus stuff. Virtualisation – the ability to run one OS as a guest inside another – has been around a long time. In the 60s, IBM researchers built a mainframe that could simulate the hardware of their commercial computer systems, to aid in research and future designs. Today, virtualisation is everywhere – it has been a key technology for server farms and data centres for most of the current century, as the efficiency gains and ease of use make it a no-brainer for provisioning servers. Recent advances in processor technology, combined with additions to the Linux kernel, make it easier and more efficient to run hypervisors (the software that controls the virtual machine's access to system resources) which makes it practical to run a virtual machine even on a standard desktop. Using it Both Fedora and Ubuntu have packages for VirtualBox, once an independent software project, then bought by Sun, then sold to Oracle. VirtualBox Open Source Edition is a neat and simple way to get stuff running easily on the desktop. <img alt="KVM" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.manager-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Since Fedora Core 6, the Red Hat guys have been pushing Virt-manager, a system to handle virtualisation with native Xen or Qemu/KVM hypervisors. Virt-manager was included in Fedora before it was really ready, but Red Hat has often used the Fedora project as a testing stage for technology really destined for the RHEL commercial distro. In this case it has definitely paid off. Virt-manager is open source and available on Ubuntu too, but it has matured well in the Fedora distro. Red Hat is keenly involved in virtualisation. In 2008 it bought Qumranet, the company that originally created the KVM code, and continues to maintain and develop it. More recently, they also opened up some of Qumranet's other code, Spice. On the other hand, Ubuntu has been pretty good at putting a user-friendly face on the technology. TestDrive is a project that helps non-technical users get testing versions of Ubuntu up and running without having to mess around with the virtualisation components themselves. Step by step: virtualise Ubuntu with TestDrive 1. Install TestDrive <img alt="test 1" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.test1-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> TestDrive will only work on CPUs with hardware virtualisation tech included. You will also need a few unsupported packages, and Qemu. 2. Choose your flavour <img alt="test 2" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.test2-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> Choose the version of Ubuntu you want, then click on the Sync button and the latest version will be fetched via rsync and stored locally. 3. No faffing around <img alt="test 3" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/Linux%20Format/LXF%20137/LXF138.nextgen.test3-420-90.jpg" width="420"></IMG> The ISO image is connected to Qemu automatically, so clicking on Run spawns a Qemu session to run the required machine. We have a winner – at least, until next time… There are lots of exciting new technologies coming to the Linux desktop, and some neat refinements of features and software we already had. Both Fedora and Ubuntu, and a whole host of other distros, have a lot to recommend them. The truth is that there is a distro for everyone. If you want some of the latest technologies, especially in terms of underlying system code, virtual machines and other of-themoment tech, Fedora is a good bet. If you want to have a friendlier desktop experience where your every whim is catered for, Ubuntu would be better for your needs. And, while we're on the subject, if you want to run KDE, you are probably better off with OpenSUSE. There are certainly more than enough Linuxes to go around. Giving back to the community Recently there has been some friction in the Linux community about who contributes to the success of Linux as a whole. This stemmed partly from the publishing of a survey of Gnome developers, which revealed that Red Hat was the largest corporate contributor of commits to the codebase (nearly 17%) followed by Novell (10%), with Canonical/Ubuntu contributing just 1%. Read the details yourself at <a href="http://www.neary-consulting.com/index.php/2010/07/28/gnome-census-report-available/">www.neary-consulting.com/index.php/2010/07/28/gnome-census-report-available</A>. In a blog post, Canonical's Mark Shuttleworth espoused the view that Ubuntu was giving something back to the community, in its own way: "I didn't found Ubuntu as a vehicle for getting lots of code written, that didn't seem to me to be what the world needed. It needed a vehicle for getting it out there, that cares about delivering the code we already have in a state of high quality and reliability." So, who is right? Maybe they both are. It's completely understandable that, for example, some Debian contributor feels that Ubuntu is in some way getting credit for their work. It is also true that, before Ubuntu, Linux was perceived as difficult to use and unsuitable for anyone but the most hardened geek. Ultimately, all the open source projects and people that work in or around them make contributions to Linux, and because all the Linux distros are part of a shared community, they all contribute too. Which one you choose is really down to what you want to use Linux for. What is certain is that there is a lot to discover in virtually every different flavour of Linux, so be adventurous – don't just install one and stick with it. With virtual machine technology and a huge range of live distributions, it's easier than ever to take a new version of Linux for a spin.

In Depth: Ubuntu vs Fedora: which is best?

Linux is always in a state of flux. On any given day, millions of lines of new code are being written, tested, double-checked, merged, packa...