Month: April 2015

There are newer designs and generations of the iPod Touch than the 2g and 3g models. And even with the introduction of newer technology and the multitude of options available for consumers, the two gen’s are a favorite of users to this day. The second and third generation of iPod from Apple showed leaps in the foundation of the tech at the time.

The iPod Touch 2g came in 8, 16, and 32gb of storage. The 3g came in 32 or the versions. The 3g (or generation) touch added voice control navigation and voice over screen reader, features the 2g did not offer. That was the first ever offered “gesture based screen reader” in the world. The gen Touch is about twice as fast as the 2g with of RAM. It’s predecessor only carries with it of RAM. There is quite a significant difference in speed and memory between the single generation the two are separated by.

How Do They Different Models Compare?

Though, both models provide six hours of video playback, the older model actually has a longer battery life than it’s younger version. The 2g boasts 36 hours of music playback. That’s 6 hours more listening time than the newer apparatus. The generation iPod Touch supports IOS 4 and IOS 5 (mobile operating systems developed by Apple). The 2g does not support 4, 5, or any of the subsequent IOS systems. The graphics are also better on the newer model, however slightly.

Any Extra Perks?

There is a greater song storage capacity on the upgraded version as well. A larger amount of photos can be stored too. The younger unit has been boasted as the iPhone without the phone and claimed the same faster moniker the iPhone generation used in ad campaigns. The microprocessor of the 3g operates with a capability of 800MHz. In comparison, the second generation of Touch has a processor of 533MHz.

The iPod Touch 3g, being able to support IOS 4 and 5, allowed the multitasking abilities that the 2g did not have available. IOS 5 also gave the 3g iCloud capabilities, a new offering from Apple at the time. Application features changed as well, giving the 3g user more control over personalizing and accomplishing tasks on the device. Notifications were revamped in the IOS 5, having them pop up as banners, rather than interrupting the actions being performed on the system.

Mostly, the variances between the 2g and 3g reside internally. As far as the external casing and configurations, they are by and large the same. The processing capabilities and software offered on the newer platform provided a faster, more and streamline format. The gen model was also integrated with Twitter, something the previous version lacked in its full capacity.

Even after the release of the newest 3D hand held that Nintendo created, the original DSI and the rest of the DSI line are still going strong among gamers. Some have stuck with the small DSI original, while others stand firmly behind the larger as being the better choice. Whichever one you like more, they are very different. Each has its own benefits and each its own inherent downfalls. With one, you get a longer run-time, the other, has more portability. They both deliver excellent play.

The Standard DSI Version

The DSI has a 3.25” screen, nearly an inch smaller than the XL, which has a 4.2” screen. That extra inch makes a big difference in image quality and detail. It makes game play and viewing much easier than on the smaller version. The XL has body dimensions of 161.0 × 91.4 × 21.2mm, the DSI’s body is 137.0 × 74.9 × 18.9mm. The stylus of the larger is 129.3mm long, while the smaller one comes in at 92mm. To some, the larger stylus makes no difference at all but others find it more comfortable. The larger system also comes with the standard size stylus that is contained in the body of the unit.

The weight is 314g of ferocity in the heavyweight contender XL, versus the medium weight of the 214g DSI. The heavier is notably so, over the original DSI. Some users claim they have a hard time adjusting from the original. The larger version also has a much longer battery life, with 13 to 17 hours of battery life compared to the DSI’s 9 to 14 hours. Though, the charge time of the battery is longer on the larger one as well. It’s a longer for full charge at 3 hours.

Is XL Bigger and Better?

The XL screen is brighter. It appears clearer, with more brilliant colors, as well. They are both portable, however the smaller version is much easier to store and tote around. The XL does feel larger in hand, and if you are not used to it, may seem awkward at first. But it doesn’t take long to adjust to it. If you have very tiny hands, you may have some comfort issues with the larger one, but average size and bigger hands will soon find this hand-held feeling just fine.

There are unique color choices for each, however, the XL’s color choices are rather unusual in comparison to what Nintendo generally offers. The smaller of the two, comes in the options of red, white, blue, black and pink. While the XL’s choices consist of and bronze. Both of which, have a shine to them that some may not prefer. Overall, the larger of the pair does feel more durable and has features that the original design doesn’t offer.

For starters, Core 2 Duo is a specific brand name belonging to a series of processors created by Intel technologies. The Core 2 is generally accepted as the highest of Intel’s range of dual core processors. Dual Core refers to another Intel brand which operates by way of Pentium. It operated on either a 32bit or 64bit core that was design specifically for desktops or laptops. In comparison, the Duo was a series of models ranging across its own 64 bit platform.

What’s The Difference Between Processors?

As far as two core processors go, Intel has three basic classifying standards. The first, Core products are at the highest of the spectrum. Secondly, Pentium crosses the “highest quality” and “value” paradigms into a middle of the road choice. The lower end of the playing field is filled with the Celeron processors. Therefore, I have illustrated the difference in the fundamental design of each machine. Core 2 Duo would then be considered a level above the Dual Core agency.

What Does The Dual Core Bring To The Table?

If you take into account the price points of each series, the Dual Core is generally more cost efficient. On the other hand, the Core 2 delivered such technical efficiency, the value may be in investing in the better tech. The Dual Core was by no means a bad choice for a two core processor. However, consumer’s had noted a large degree in variances between the lines. Many complaints during initial stages of the Dual Core, led to an increase in compatibility, as well as function/feature upgrades.

Comparison to Core 2 Duo

The Core 2 Duo faced its own resistance upon its release. It didn’t fail or suffer loss in any way by early consumer dissatisfaction (primarily with price points). In the end, though both have their life spans, neither has received much negative feedback. If you want a fast and reliable machine that can stay on top of the necessary tasks of everyday use, covering the range of home to work duties easily, then you would want to consider the Core 2 Duo. If, on the other hand you are looking for something to check your email, occasionally surf the web and do school related tasks on, the Dual Core may serve your needs just fine, with less out of pocket.

There are several reasons why a person or family might want to choose one of these options over the other, but at this point, in most cases, they are both a viable option. The microprocessors were developed by Intel and many of the attributes and characteristics are similar. At least, generally speaking. The higher end processor allows for business related applications to run more easily and with greater speed, keeping the system from becoming bogged down by information overload.

Microsoft has reached a new level of understanding and meeting customer’s needs through WCF. The traditional platform, provided by web services, is limited by the scope of the application it’s being used for. It is not able to function in many circumstances, specifically where the action is service oriented, in which case it is required to use WCF. Generally speaking, WCF can serve most every function that web services can provide, in a more efficient way.

What Are Web Services?

Web services were designed in segments and as needed, rather than being able to account for changes from the beginning. WCF, on the other hand, has been systematically designed, from the ground up to serve the varying and ever changing applications of Microsoft operating systems. Where web services are stifled, particularly held back, is in the transport of emerging data.

The Windows Communication Foundation

Windows Communication Foundation, or WCF, can cross communicate, if you will, with endpoints that are not synchronized with the data origin. Meaning web services can only communicate between points of origin and endpoints by matching those points in a linear and direct translation. In contrast, WCF can translate information, or more specifically, data, from one point of connection to another without having prior synchronicity. An end point can vary from its origin without the data being insecure or being lost in translation.

How Do They Compare?

Web services are basically a simpler vehicle for which to transport data. It’s very much like driving a small, fuel efficient car to work (but the car is seriously lacking in features and might not have child safety locks), versus taking a top of the line SUV to the office every day. Oh, yeah, and the SUV is guarded by the secret service. While web service users are not restricted by the bounds of additional information and specification, they are also limited by what they can use their service for.

For most businesses, it is absolutely a necessity to operate using WCF. Web services can only work within the parameters of SOAP messages (namely HTTP to deliver data and XML to recognize it). Windows Communication Foundation allows for the transport of these simple language elements, as well as complex data in layered streams. This makes the coded information being sent to be read and delivered across a multitude of systems. That means, that it can be used for dedicated functions, linking to diverse fields (as an example: banking and web browsing), without the loss of data or limiting access to communication.

WCF is quickly becoming the new format by which everyday tasks are carried out. Web services does not have the lateral variances and abilities that makes using WCF so appealing. While there are still many using web services, as more people include the web in their daily lives, it will become apparent that the capabilities of WCF will be inherently more needed.

As the world of first person, point of view videoing becomes wider and more popular, Go Pro has continually set the standards. The evolution of the personal camera has been propelled exponentially since the days of the cumbersome hand-held recorders sports enthusiasts started out with. And with each tier of modern leaps, Go Pro has found a way to meet the needs of active videographers. The Hero series is no exception. The fantastic features and crystal clear quality of these little champions not only keeps Go Pro’s products relevant, but once again leads the way in the industry with consumer concerns identified and addressed.

Getting Familiar with the Hero 3

The 3 is a major upgrade, in nearly every sense. The new and revitalized version of the Hero is 30 percent smaller and only three quarters of the weight of its predecessor. While the 2 can take 11MP stills, the 3 adds detail by raising the Mega Pixel count to 12 for photo taking. In addition, they raised the amount of photos per second rate, from a mere 10 to an amazing 30, making it even easier to get the most ideal, action shots. But where the biggest difference comes in is in video, High Definition quality.

The Hero 3 can film in 1080p format at 60 frames per second, the older model can only catch 30 fps. The 2 can’t even record in 1440p, which the 3 does at 48fps. For these reasons alone, it is evident why so many users are upgrading to the superior model. But, here are a few more that are convincing closing arguments, showing why there is no question that the 3 is a more professional and practical choice.

How Do They Measure Up?

Both models have consumer grade low light capabilities. But the 3 shows better at night footage on screen. And even though there is a noted complaint about the newer version of the Hero not having a dedicated mic port, the audio quality and effect is far better with the 3. It’s consistently been praised as a worthwhile added cost for the value that comes with the lighter, more versatile model. The wide array of beneficial enhancements they endowed unto the sleek design of the 3 makes it by and large a transformation in style and scope from previous action cameras.

Consumers and advanced action sport recorders alike will find the newer edition in the line to be easier to adapt to their work and more efficient and than the earlier explication of the product. The accessories are a challenge if you are used to the older renditions in the Go Pro series. The Hero 1 and 2 components are not interchangeable with the 3’s smaller frame and adapter design. This is true of the reverse as well, components from the 3 will not fit the platform of the bulkier models.

Canon has one upped itself with the 70-200IS II. The original lens, or the IS, was introduced in 2001 as a magnificent leader in its class. As a professional use model, it followed the Canon tradition of setting the standard for brilliant photographs. Even since the appearance of the new lens, the forefather has been highly regarded by pros internationally. And while it may be hard to believe that the brand favorite could be made even better’s exactly what Canon did when they introduced the ISII.

The Coming Age of the IS

In 2010, the original IS was retired. However the platform itself was not discarded. Improving on the original design, Canon developed some unique changes, altering the initial format in only calculated ways that would leave the lens’ trademark origins intact. The primary differences between the old lens and new, reside in the lens’ optics. While the parent lens had 23 elements in 18 groups, the ISII places 23 elements in each of 19 groups. They both use UD elements, however, the younger version includes 5, while the old uses only 4. Both use USM technology. USM stands for UltraSonic Motor. The ISII is noted as being quieter, though.

The weight difference in the pair will most certainly be noticed. 200 grams separates them with the newer model also being the heavier. They share the same amount of F stops, but overall focus is considered better in the upgraded edition. The close focus is shorter by half a foot in the ISII.

Key Differences

The price point is a matter of significant variance between the lens models as well. An average of 700 to a thousand dollars separates the new in box model of the ISII and the original IS, which can only be found for sale as used, since it’s retirement. While, the sharpness of the older model was considered to be very good by professionals, the ISII has been given the rating of “extremely good” within similar reviews. The distortion variant on the newer model has also been improved. The dark-out and shading issues that the predecessor had (which were very minimal), have been resolved, creating a crisper final image.

Finally, and to some, most importantly, is the improvement on the IS (image stabilization) itself. The image stabilization ability of the original lens was wonderful and considered the best available in its class by many pros. Canon wanted to make it even better on the updated model. Reports by the second generation IS users indicate that this feature has been upgraded as much as 20 percent.

The Ultrabook is a trademarked brand by the magnificent minds of Intel. It’s based on a similar design as its predecessor. Both the Notebook and Ultrabook designs are considered a categorization or class of computer. The spec differences between them are also what divides their categories. The lighter and more mobile Ultrabook has been described as a sub-notebook.

The Rise of the Ultrabook

The slimmer, sleeker appeal of the Intel design is only the beginning of the points that separate the Ultrabook from its heavier forefathers. While different brands of notebooks use a wide variety of processors, the Intel brand uses the Core processor, making it unique in form and function. Whereas any standard can be set for an individual brand of notebook, the Ultrabook has only one standard. And Intel has set the bar high. The quality, dependability and ultra portability of the new design is fast making it a preferred choice by business professionals on the go.

The Ultrabook is really the next step in the evolutionary process of personal computers. It cuts the weight and bulk of the traditional notebook without sacrificing function, battery strength and life, or compatibility with necessary daily tasks. It would seem that the Ultrabook has shown up with its gloves on, ready to push out the old format in many ways.

What About a Standard Notebook?

But it isn’t for everybody, not yet. In many ways, it can do everything a standard notebook can do, better. But there are those particular arenas that would still prefer the classic. Mainly, this can be found specifically in screen size, oriented debates. However, for the vast majority of individuals with a thousand things in their schedule and less time in a day than is necessary, the Ultrabook seems like a wise investment. Things are going to move in the direction that Intel has taken with this incredible advance in industry standard. They have led the way once again into a new era of tech.

The Ultrabook has come into its own, with a multitude of choices that the traditional notebook or laptop just doesn’t offer. The hybrid capability of some Ultrabooks is a powerful force to reckon with. Being able to manipulate the setup of the hardware, or choose a touch screen option makes what you can do worlds apart from the old, faithful, clam shell design. And while the system of the slimmer machines may heat up more with prolonged use. Students will find the features of the smaller platform to be amazingly useful.

Ultrabooks are currently quite a bit more expensive than notebook competitors with the same specs. But given everything taken into account and the future applications for the Ultrabook, it seems that the investment into a new dawn of daily use technology may prove fruitful. The notebook is not being challenged by the onset of the Ultrabook, instead it is being replaced by it.

Intel Pentium and Core Processing systems are both widely used and have many faithful fans on both sides of the coin. But in the end, the two were not created equal. The evidence is ripe throughout the trial of these two contenders points to one outweighing the other, in design and function. The processor has come a long way since the days of the Pentium’s first appearance in 1993. But being the senior system, with all of its technology upgrades does not necessarily mean it has an advantage.

The Pentium Design and Platform

The Pentium’s design has proven smart and reliable and has become increasingly affordable within stages of its transformation. However, the Core’s standard design has provided a faster and more efficient platform. In 2006, the Core came on the scene, replacing a line of Pentiums. Since that time, it has become exponentially more popular than upon its initial release. The presence of the Core processor generally constitutes more power than that of its Pentium counterpart.

There is also no argument that the diversity of uses of the Core technology is far more prominent than the Pentium system. Intel’s Core can be found within both Apple and Windows based operating systems, while the Pentium is solely a windows based charge. Though the basic systems seem very similar in design, they are vastly different in features and device capability. There are additional software applications that the Core offers quite improve on the standard format operating in the system. The Pentium lacks the versatility of the younger line. This created a down turn in overall consumer purchases of the system, in contrast to the upswing of sales reports in the Core’s line, since its inception.

The Power of Intel

Intel has created both processors to meet a quality and standard that they felt satisfied with. The Core allows for a more hospitable compatibility when using it’s platform in alternative devices. That being said, the younger platform does have some of its own unique challenges. In some cases, the crossover capabilities of the Core line are difficult to negotiate, when compared between a smaller and larger version of that model.

Finally, though we don’t want to base choices on specs and stats entirely, it is important to look at the abilities and advantages of the specific system model and its equal contender. In this way, it’s easier to understand the form and function characteristics, which play a primary role in the application of the system you choose. If the traits of the less expensive version match the needs of the buyer, than there is no need to pay more based on a name. Either way, Intel technology sets the standard for integrating quality components into a modifiable package with abundant upgrades in their ever developing medium.

The very first thing that divides these two systems is the component parts. The Mac Pro is only the processing unit. While the iMac is a complete system, with monitor, key board and general accessories. With the more expensive machine, you will need to purchase (or already have), the other components, further adding to the overall cost. Also, it is important to note that most Mac Pro users have not traditionally used the Pro for general work needs and it has served as more of a specialty component with specific attributes necessary to the facilitation of certain design employments.

Mac Pro Facts

The Mac Pro is more expensive, but with it’s capabilities and the fact that they generally hold their value for much longer than the iMac, the price is far more than fair. While both have fantastic features, the iMac seems to have the most applicable uses. The Mac Pro would be a better fit for professional 3D operation or advanced editing applications. The iMac is less out of pocket and yields phenomenal performance for the money.

The iMac uses a newer, upgraded core and is as much as 25 percent faster in single-threaded applications. As a matter of worthy note, it has, arguably one of the best processors on the market. The Mac Pro has the advantage of being more expandable than the iMac. It allows for more monitors, with six Thunderbolt ports. It also supports twice the RAM the iMac does with . That aside, the main ability and function in this category shows negligible divergence. The 5K display is far superior to the 4K having only 8.3 megapixels and the 5K display being comprised of 14.7 megapixels. The iMac’s fan is louder under heavy load than the Mac Pro, which cools almost silently. According to user comments, the iMac heats up faster than the Mac Pro.

The iMac Comparison

The Mac Pro is a more professional, workstation class tool. The consumer grade apparatus of the iMac has less strict tolerances than its counterpart. The cheaper may seem like it operates a little wonky in comparison. Unless you are using it strictly for vocational pursuits and your job is in high end graphic design and 3D modeling, the iMac will suit even the most stringent of business tasks and every day uses. Gaming seems wonderful on the iMac, the Mac Pro not being able to compete in that department.

If you use Open CL apps very frequently or are a professional video editor, then Mac Pro may be what you are looking for. Or if you use a vast amount of Thunderbolt devices, or several monitors, simultaneously, you may want to consider it. Otherwise, the iMac is a strong competitor, winning over users on a regular basis, for its price and compatibility. However, the Pro Mac will function better than the iMac in the recording arena, specifically when absolute quiet is needed.

The Pro is available in 4 and 6 core processors, while the iMac is standard with a 4 core Intel processor. The iMac is heavier but it does not feel or look clunky in any way.