An Android tablet PC from Google and a two-screen slate from Microsoft may join devices from Acer, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and Lenovo to vie with Apple’s iPad.
ByAntone Gonsalves InformationWeek April 13, 2010 08:35 AM
Google and Microsoft are reportedly working on their own slate computers that would challenge Apple’s iPad.
Google chief executive Eric Schmidt told friends about the company’s new device at a recent Los Angeles party, and the company is talking to publishers about delivering books, magazines and other content to the device, The New York Times reported Sunday. The gadget would run exclusively on Google’s Android operating system.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has built a prototype of a slate. The device, called the Courier, is about the size of an average paperback and unfolds to reveal two screens, a Microsoft employee claiming to have seen the device told the Times. Users would be able to write on the screens using a stylus and would be able to drag content between the two screens.
While Microsoft engineers have talked about having the device ready for release by early 2011, no official announcement has been made on whether to sell the computer.
Man, if only books were like CDs, and we could just slide them into our computers and have them perfectly ripped into e-books within minutes. Not since the CD was launched have we been faced with buying all our content over again, just to use it on a new device.
For those willing to put in a little effort, though, a book-ripper can be made for pennies. At Instructables you can learn how to make a “portable, paperless, digital copy machine” from a few metal strips and rods and an old digital camera. The principle is simple: To scan properly, you need to have a clear picture, and the pages need to be flat. This method uses a rectangular frame to press the open book flat without putting glossy, reflective glass over the top. The corners are connected by rods to the camera, keeping it parallel to the paper-plane, and making sure you get sharp, shake-free images.
You don’t need a dedicated camera: The project details a wooden platform onto which any camera can be screwed. If you have a spare old digicam, though, you can make a permanent scanning station, which means you’re more likely to use it.
After that, you can either keep the JPEGs or run them through some OCR (optical character recognition) software to turn the images into proper, searchable, resizable text. Mac users might try out an application called Prizmo ($40), which cleans, straightens and OCRs images all in one package. PC users have a far better selection, some of which are detailed on the Instructables page.
Get to it! Clear some shelf space, and give yourself a fun weekend project, too.
Good stuff, and a very friendly author as well ! Merci, Adrien . . .
* @author Adrien Gibrat <adrien.gibrat@gmail.com>
* @copyleft 2010 – Just use it!
* @license http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html GNU General Public License version 3
* @version Release: 1.0
2:00 AM – March 10, 2010 by Patrick Schmid and Achim Roos
1 – To Compress And Serve: File Archiving And Compression Utilities Compared
2 – Features For Archiving
3 – 7-Zip 9.1 Beta And FreeArc 0.60
4 – WinRAR 3.92 Beta 1 And WinZip 14
5 – Test Setup And Software Settings
6 – Proprietary Formats: Compression Rate, Size, And Duration
7 – ZIP Format: Compression Rate And Size
8 – Results Summary
9 – Conclusion
Data compression is a subject that most of us typically take for granted. But in fact, it surrounds us: every installation package for a new piece of software and many file formats, such as JPEG for photos and various video and audio formats, depend on heavy compression to conserve storage space or transmission time and cost.
Users touch file compression first-hand when they need to work under certain restrictions when handling files. For example, having only one file to work with instead of many is often important for instance messenger- and FTP-based transfers. And getting a high compression ratio to fit data onto a fixed medium can be a critical factor as well.
But don’t forget that compression and decompression also take time, and the processing muscle required to make these processes worth waiting on can be substantial, especially when you start factoring in encryption as well. We’ve received a lot of feedback from our readers in response to the compression tools tested in our processor and platform benchmarks. So, today we’re looking at four different compression utilities: 7-Zip, FreeArc, WinRAR, and WinZip, comparing compression ratios and processing time. Which utility turns out to be the best?
There are plenty of software options available for storing, compressing, and archiving data in different ways. These tools no longer simply reduce file size and merge your input files into a single, manageable archive. They also support automatic downsizing of images, virus-checking, content-checking to avoid unnecessary compression of files that already are compressed, splitting, encrypting, and more.
Regardless of the value-added functionality your favorite tool includes, a comparison of compression programs typically comes down to performance and effectiveness (at least, when you ask enthusiasts). It’s important to realize a high compression ratio, ideally across as many file types as possible, and quick processing time is desirable, too. Most tools are capable of handling at least the popular ZIP format, and sometimes also RAR and/or LZH. Some tools claim to be more efficient or offer more flexibility. However, which format offers the best overall value when considering compression and processing time? Do all tools provide similar performance on common containers, such as ZIP?
We can’t possibly test all available compression tools, so we decided to focus on some of the most popular ones, based on your feedback in past stories. WinRAR and WinZip dominate the field, almost without question. 7-Zip and FreeArc were our additional choices. Let’s have a look at what these can do for you.
Core i7-980X: Do You Want Six Cores Or 12 Threads?
2:00 AM – March 22, 2010 by Patrick Schmid and Achim Roos
Intel first used Hyper-Threading when it introduced the Pentium 4 “Northwood” processor at 3.06 GHz and the Xeon MP “Foster” series in 2002. The proprietary technology’s main purpose is to improve processor utilization through increased parallelization. With the latest Core i7-980X and its six physical cores, Hyper-Threading yields 12 logical cores on desktop PCs.
This raises the question: how much of the software that you run truly takes advantage of eight or more threads? Is Hyper-Threading good or bad for power efficiency? And wouldn’t it make more sense to stay with six physical cores, rather than risking performance hits caused by less-heavily-threaded applications unnecessarily distributing workloads to logical units?
Intel’s Gulftown implements Hyper-Threading to provide 12 virtual processing cores. Serious performance benefits can only be found in a few, specific applications.
Hyper-Threading History
Hyper-Threading was introduced almost out of necessity. Because the Pentium 4 processor employed a rather long instruction pipeline, it was imperative to ramp up operating clocks as quickly as possible and keep the pipeline busy. Therefore, Intel duplicated the units that store the architectural state, allowing a Hyper-Threaded core to appear as two logical processors to the operating system. The scheduler could dispatch two threads or processes simultaneously, and if Intel’s branch prediction worked well, it would ensure that instructions got loaded and executed efficiently.
The benefits for the Pentium 4 were mainly increased system responsiveness on single-core systems and small performance gains on applications. However, this applied to the desktop space. In servers, where parallel processing is key, Hyper-Threading showed more impact. Naturally, this was a reflection on the software industry at the time. Applications written for desktop users weren’t threaded yet, since the hardware enabling this usage wasn’t around. Initially, Hyper-Threading got a bad rap because it failed to improve performance in those titles that ran in a single thread.
The situation is much different today than when Hyper-Threading made its first rounds. For starters, software developers are much more in tune with the hardware ecosystem, so it’s uncommon to find a popular title that can benefit from parallelism and isn’t threaded. Beyond that, AMD currently can’t apply pressure to Intel in the performance segment, and Hyper-Threading has turned into a value-added feature and series differentiator, rather than a must-have innovation. With six physical cores, does Hyper-Threading really make sense?
We decided to look at the quad-core Core i7-975 Extreme Edition (Bloomfield) alongside the new six-core Core i7-980X (Gulftown) and compare performance, as well as power efficiency, using our updated platform benchmark suite.
Getting Started – Download the SugarSync Android Application
To download the SugarSync application for Android visit the Android Market on your phone and search for “SugarSync”. Click on Install and then log in or sign up for a free 2 GB account.
Note: If you cannot access the Android Market from your device, you can download the application.
SugarSync for Android features:
Remote file access and browsing: Retrieve and view files from any computer in your SugarSync account.
Local file management: You can browse and upload files stored directly on the phone. Allows you to copy and paste files to other folders, create new folders, rename files and folders, etc.
On demand synchronization: Edit files directly on your phone (requires separate document editor application); SugarSync will detect file changes and prompt you to upload revisions back to the cloud and other computers.
Shared folders: Send files and folders (small or large) to anyone and collaborate on projects through Shared Folders.
Powerful Photo features: Browse photos stored on your computers in large or small format and directly upload photos taken with your Android camera phone.
