Review: TP-Link Archer D9

<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><div xmlns='http://bit.ly/16Db7GR'><img alt="Review: TP-Link Archer D9" src="http://bit.ly/1FArAFC"/><br/><br /><h3>Introduction and performance</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>The CEOs of other networking brands may well be losing sleep over TP-Link. In just a few years, this Chinese firm has come from nowhere to carve itself a slice of the market, not just by undercutting its rivals, but also by making consistently high quality products with good design value.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>Most of the TP-Link 802.11ac routers I've tested have been affordable without seriously compromising on quality or performance in any way. Although the Archer D7 was a bit disappointing, the <a href="http://bit.ly/1Hiem55">Archer C7</a> outperformed 802.11ac routers that cost considerably more.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>So the pressure is now on the firm to continue this tradition with the new Archer D9 802.11ac router. The letter in the name denotes whether a DSL modem is built in – the C-series are only for cable connections, while the D-series can be used with cable or DSL internet.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="TP-Link Archer D9 front" src="http://bit.ly/1Hiem56" title="This model is pricier than previous TP-Link efforts" width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p>Adding a DSL modem means the price goes up, so at around £150 ($182 in the US, which is around AU$237) the D9 isn't particularly more affordable than the competition, eliminating one of the main advantages of its predecessor.</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>Design</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>In nearly all other respects though, it's excellent. The glossy white plastic external design of the router is certainly both attractive and inoffensive, with an attached silver plastic stand that really complements the look.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="TP-Link Archer D9 ports" src="http://bit.ly/1Hieodg" title="The usual four gigabit Ethernet ports are present" width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p>The three detachable antennas are as tall as the router itself. The rear is home to the usual four gigabit Ethernet ports, a USB 3.0 port, DSL port, WPS button and master switches for the Wi-Fi and router itself. There's a second USB 2.0 port on the right-hand side too. On the front, eight status icons glow light blue when the Archer D9 is powered on, and again, it looks good.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>And inside the router's software it's mostly the same story. Sure, the layout is as typical as it gets for networking kit, with a big long list of all the various router functions on the left-hand side (wireless, security, firewall and so on) but TP-Link has made sure it's as readable and comprehensive as possible. I much prefer it to the software used on some other router models.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="TP-Link Archer D9 rear" src="http://bit.ly/1FAryxG" title="There are no status LEDs for the Ethernet ports" width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p>There are a few minor design niggles. There's no one-click web-based firmware updating, you'll need to manually download the correct firmware from TP-Link's site and upload it, which may confuse networking novices.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>The Ethernet ports lack any LEDs above them to show the status of each, to the point where you can't be sure power is coming to the router without looking at the front. And for the router to work with a cable connection, you'll need to manually set this up in the software, otherwise it simply won't connect, when this could have been done automatically.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="TP-Link Archer D9 antennas" src="http://bit.ly/1Hieodh" title="The detachable antennas are the same size as the router itself" width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><h3>Performance</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>The real star quality that sets the Archer D9 apart is its impressive performance. Although it's not the very fastest 802.11ac router you can buy, in some tests, especially at range, I recorded speeds that seriously outperformed rivals, while the 802.11n results on 5GHz were really spectacular, again maintaining solid speed at range.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="TP-Link Archer D9 angle" src="http://bit.ly/1FArAFF" title="Performance turned out to be very impressive" width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p>As usual I used the Mac application Wi-Fi Perf to measure speeds from a locally connected iMac to a 3x3 laptop, and tested both client-to-server and server-to-client performance (the latter of which is usually faster) at distances of one metre, five metres and ten metres, with clear line of sight. Here are the results.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><strong>TP-Link Archer D9 802.11n 2.4GHz Wireless Performance (client to server)</strong> </p><br /><br/><br /><ul><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>1 metre – 151 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>5 metres – 108 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>10 metres – 98 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /></ul><br /><br/><br /><p><strong>TP-Link Archer D9 802.11n 2.4GHz Wireless Performance (server to client)</strong> </p><br /><br/><br /><ul><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>1 metre – 136 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>5 metres – 102 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>10 metres – 102 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /></ul><br /><br/><br /><p><strong>TP-Link Archer D9 802.11n 5GHz Wireless Performance (client to server)</strong> </p><br /><br/><br /><ul><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>1 metre – 346 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>5 metres – 178 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>10 metres – 116 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /></ul><br /><br/><br /><p><strong>TP-Link Archer D9 802.11n 5GHz Wireless Performance (server to client)</strong> </p><br /><br/><br /><ul><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>1 metre – 342 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>5 metres – 301 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>10 metres – 229 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /></ul><br /><br/><br /><p><strong>TP-Link Archer D9 802.11ac Wireless Performance (client to server)</strong> </p><br /><br/><br /><ul><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>1 metre – 646 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>5 metres – 347 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>10 metres – 220 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /></ul><br /><br/><br /><p><strong>TP-Link Archer D9 802.11ac Wireless Performance (server to client)</strong> </p><br /><br/><br /><ul><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>1 metre – 629 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>5 metres – 517 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /><li>10 metres – 459 Mbit/sec</li><br /><li style='list-style: none'><br/> </li><br /></ul><br /><br/><br /><h3>Verdict</h3><br /><br/><br /><h3>We liked</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>The Archer D9 combines both an ADSL2+ and VDSL modem together, and works fine with cable connections, something not offered on all 802.11ac routers. It also boasts excellent performance on both 802.11n and 802.11ac frequencies, and the software is impressive, providing a largely comprehensive set of features.</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>We disliked</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>There are minor things that niggled us such as the lack of status LEDs to show activity on the Ethernet ports, and the D9 is not always that user friendly – for example, you need to manually set the device up to work with a cable connection. It's also not as cheap a proposition as previous TP-Link models, such as the Archer C7.</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>Final verdict</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>Although competition is fierce between networking firms, TP-Link holds its own against rivals with the Archer D9, offering great performance and a good range of features at a reasonable price – but it's no longer one of the most affordable routers around, as its predecessor was.</p><br /><br/><br /><img border="0" height="1" src="http://bit.ly/1FArAFG" width="1"/><br clear='all'/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><a href="http://bit.ly/1Hieodi" rel="nofollow"><img border="0" src="http://bit.ly/1Hieodj"/> </a><br/><br /><br/><br /><a href="http://bit.ly/1Hiem57" rel="nofollow"><img border="0" src="http://bit.ly/1FAryxJ"/> </a><br/><br /><br/><br /><a href="http://bit.ly/1Hieodk" rel="nofollow"><img border="0" src="http://bit.ly/1FArAFH"/> </a><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><a href="http://bit.ly/1FArAFI"><img border="0" src="http://bit.ly/1FAryNW"/> </a> <img border="0" height="1" src="http://bit.ly/1FAryNX" width="1"/><img alt="" height="1" src="http://bit.ly/1Hieodl" width="1"/><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/> </div><br /><br/><br /><br/><br />from http://bit.ly/1FAryNY<br/></div>

Review: TP-Link Archer D9

Introduction and performance The CEOs of other networking brands may well be losing sleep over TP-Link. In just a few years, this Chinese fi...

Read more »

Half-Life 3 release date, news and rumours

<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><div xmlns='http://bit.ly/16Db7GR'><img alt="Half-Life 3 release date, news and rumours" src="http://bit.ly/1FArxK6"/><br/><br /><p>It's fair to say that the hype around Half-Life 3 has moved past ridiculous, jumped on a longhaul flight to "the great beyond", looked back over its shoulder to see ridiculous as a tiny speck in the distance - then kept going. It's one of the biggest running jokes of the internet, and it's gone on for far too long.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>Yet here we are, still mulling over the possibility that we'll one day see Valve return to its most-loved franchise for one more outing, despite the fact Half-Life 2: Episode 2 was released all the way back in 2007 and we have heard very little about the franchise since.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>It's impressive that Valve has managed to so elegantly tread the line between confirmation and denial through numerous interviews and years of being pestered about the possibility of a third game. It's this refusal to flat-out deny the existence of Half-Life 3 that has propelled speculation for almost a decade.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>So, as we write this in 2015, what's the likelihood that Half-Life 3 might happen? We break it down to three major topics that could indicate what's going on here.</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>It's in the source</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>On March 3 at GDC 2015, Valve officially announced Source 2, which, given that Counter Strike-Source and Half-Life 2 helped introduce the original Source engine, has put speculation engine back into overdrive. Perhaps Valve has been holding out for Source 2 this entire time.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>So far, Valve has only revealed that the engine will be free to developers; we have no word on price or any games that will be running it. But something is surely coming, and Half-Life 3 could be that something.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>Furthermore, the announcement of the <a href="http://bit.ly/1wU6A9q">HTC Vive</a>, the first virtual reality headset that will be running on Valve's VR technology, has stirred the pot. As has the re-announcement of Valve's <a href="http://bit.ly/1LCWeBB">Steam Machines</a>.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>The Machines will touch down with SteamOS and the Vive headset at the end of 2015, and it would make a lot of sense for Valve to use all this new technology to showcase one of its own in-house titles. There's been much speculation that Left 4 Dead 3 could be first on the cards - fans of Valve's zombie franchise are also hungry for a third instalment.</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>And possibly the concept art</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>In June 2012, a bunch of concept art, at the time assumed to be from Half-Life 2: Episode 3, was leaked onto the web. What's odd is that Valve still hasn't commented on the validity of these, leading many of us to suspect that they are indeed legitimate - and may actually end up as part of Half-Life 3.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="HL3" src="http://bit.ly/1Hieod7" width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="HL3" src="http://bit.ly/1FAryxw" width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="HL3" src="http://bit.ly/1Hieoda" width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p>Furthermore, last year <a href="http://bit.ly/1EoQ3Re">we reported</a> that the Counter Strike co-creator Minh Lee openly admitted to seeing some concept art himself. "I don't think I can talk about that, to be honest," he said. "I think it's kind of public knowledge that people know that it is being worked on. And so if I were to say that, yeah, I've seen some images, like some concept art of it, that wouldn't be big news to be honest. I guess I could say that I did see something that looked kinda like in the Half-Life universe."</p><br /><br/><br /><p>"And I mean it wouldn't surprise anyone if I said they're doing it, they're working on it, yeah. So to go out on a limb I'd say I did some concept art for Half-Life 3."</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>Culture war</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>Newell himself has hinted at why we haven't seen Half-Life 3 yet, and indeed why we might never see it at all. The answer? Social gaming.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>"So, is somebody becomes the group manager of X, they're going to really resist it when X is not what you want to do in the next round of games," said Newell in an interview with <a href="http://wapo.st/1Hieodb">The Washington Post</a> in 2004. "You don't want them to sort of burrow into that - you want them to recognize that being really good at Half-Life level design is not as nearly as valued as thinking of how to design social multiplayer experiences. You've had them feel like they have an organisation and title ties up to something when the key is to just continue to follow where the customers are leading."</p><br /><br/><br /><p>Herein may lie the harsh truth: Valve has shifted to focus on bigger social experiences such as its successful Dota 2, which is almost the antithesis of Half-Life.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>But, still, Newell refuses to rule anything out. In a separate interview in March 2015, Newell responded to a question about the possibility of a third game: "The only reason we'd go back and do like a super classic kind of product is if a whole bunch of people just internally at Valve said they wanted to do it and had a reasonable explanation for why [they did]."</p><br /><br/><br /><p>Thanks Gabe, that clears up absolutely nothing.</p><br /><br/><br /><img border="0" height="1" src="http://bit.ly/1FArxKb" width="1"/><br clear='all'/><br /><br/><br /><img alt="" height="1" src="http://bit.ly/1Hiem52" width="1"/><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/> </div><br /><br/><br /><br/><br />from http://bit.ly/1FAryxz<br/></div>

Half-Life 3 release date, news and rumours

It's fair to say that the hype around Half-Life 3 has moved past ridiculous, jumped on a longhaul flight to "the great beyond"...

Read more »

Review: Apple Photos

<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><div xmlns='http://bit.ly/16Db7GR'><img alt="Review: Apple Photos" src="http://ift.tt/1HUKaLs"/><br/><br /><h3>iPhoto, Aperture and Photos</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>27 June 2014 is the date when everything changed. This is when Apple announced it was pulling the plug on its two photo-editing applications, iPhoto and Aperture and replacing them with a single new Photos app.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>To be fair, iPhoto was starting to show its age, so no-one was very worried about that. A new photo editing application was hardly likely to be dumbed down any further and a redesign and integration with Apple's new iCloud Photos could be just the thing to reinvigorate the Mac's default photo organizing application.</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>Aperture RIP</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>The death of Aperture was another thing entirely. To be fair, Aperture never really got the credit it deserved. Too many folk were focused on the editing tools, which were always a step behind those in Adobe Lightroom. But editing tools in a photo organizer aren't there to replace Photoshop, plug-ins or any other dedicated image-editing tools. Some photos would just need the handful of tweaks that Aperture could provide, while others would need to be sent on to a dedicated software app for the full treatment. That's true even for Lightroom, Aperture's deadly rival.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="Aperture 3.3" src="http://ift.tt/1EaZdS4" title="This is Aperture, and if you were hoping Photos would in some way replace it, you're going to be disappointed." width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p>What nobody 'got' about Aperture was its inspired photo management tools. If you've got a big image library that's getting bigger all the time, you need a simple, flexible, versatile and fast way to keep track of your images. Aperture made (and still makes) Lightroom look clumsy.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>Aperture had three special tricks. It let you store Albums alongside Projects (the equivalent of folders), where Lightroom, infuriatingly, splits them up. Aperture 'stacked' related images globally, so that they stayed stacked whatever Album or Project they appeared in. Lightroom doesn't – in Lightroom, 'stacks' only exist within the Folder or Album they were created in, and don't exist at all in Smart Albums. Lastly, the Aperture interface was clean, fast and bright. By contrast, the Lightroom interface is complex and oppressive.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>So a lot of Aperture fans were understandably worried about what this new Photos app might retain of the Aperture DNA and, specifically, its organizing tools. Apple took the unusual step of showing users how to migrate their Aperture catalogs to Lightroom (hardly a good sign), but a lot of folk still hung on to see whether the new app could replace Aperture.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>Well, we might as well get this out of the way. No it does not. Sorry. Aperture has gone, and everything that was great about it has gone with it.</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>So what is Photos really?</h3><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="Apple Photos" src="http://ift.tt/1HUK8mL" title="Photos picks up where iPhoto left off, using iCloud to make all your photos available everywhere in a unified interface for iOS, OS X and web." width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p>In reality, Photos is at exactly the same level as iPhoto. It's clean, modern and integrates neatly with the Photos iOS app and the iCloud Photos website – all you have to do is log into your iCloud account in your browser and click the Photos button. You might also have to do a little waiting if this is the first time you're hooking up Photos with your existing iOS devices and your iCloud account.</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>Photo organizing and iOS integration</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>The Mac OS X 10.10.3 update has finally integrated photo management across the Mac itself (with Yosemite's new Photos app), iOS devices and the iCloud browser tools. On all three platforms you should see the same photos organized in the same way – though there are slight differences – and photos added to one device should automatically appear on all the others. Eventually.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>This is where you're dependent on the speed of your own Internet or cellular connection, the number of photos you shoot and whether you shoot regular JPEG images or raw files.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>If you take most of your pictures with your iPhone or iPad things should be quicker because these will be relatively small JPEG files.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>But if you shoot with a DSLR or compact system camera, and especially if you shoot (much larger) raw files, you're going to need some patience – you can import a batch of 300 raw images into the desktop Photos app easily enough, but how long it will take for these to work their way up on to the iCloud servers is another matter.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="Apple Photos" src="http://ift.tt/1EaZdS6" title="Get used to it. Apple's free storage is miserly, so it won't be long before you're asked to pay for more." width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p>It's not just a speed issue. iCloud's storage plans don't favour heavy usage, and the basic free account gives you just 5Gb. There are price plans in between, but if you want 1Tb of storage for a big photo library it will cost you $US19.99/£14.99/AU$24.99 per month. You get that free on Flickr, or you could spend your money on a subscription service like Smugmug and get unlimited storage thrown in.</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>Getting organized</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>Photos uses the same basic organization structure on all three platforms, though with some differences between them.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>It automatically organizes your pictures using the date and location information embedded in the images – that's fine if you shoot using an iOS device, but shots taken with your camera will only have date and time info (unless it has GPS or you add location data manually).</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="Apple Photos" src="http://ift.tt/1DMrEXQ" title="Photos' top organizational tier is 'Years', and it uses the date information embedded in your photos to group them automatically." width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="Apple Photos" src="http://ift.tt/1EaZdS8" title="Within this, images are grouped into Collections based on date ranges and locations." width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="Apple Photos" src="http://ift.tt/1EaZdS8" title="Inside Collections you'll find Moments, where pictures are organised by date and, where available, location data." width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p>At the top level, Photos sorts your images into 'Years'. When you click on a Year, you see Collections for that year. Photos groups your pictures into Collections based on date ranges and location and it does a pretty good job of grouping them in an intuitive way – though if your photos don't have location data only dates, it's less effective.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>When you click on a Collection, you see your pictures grouped into 'Moments'. Here, you can expect to see your shots grouped by the day they were shot and, if the location changes, by the location too. At this point you can double-click on a photo to view it at full size or press Enter to edit it.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>On the top toolbar are what look like 'Back' and 'Forward' buttons on the toolbar but aren't. They don't show you the last thing you were looking at – instead, they move you up and down this simple four-tier hierarchy.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="Apple Photos" src="http://ift.tt/1EaZcxv" title="You can look at your photos on iCloud in a browser, but you only see Moments, not Years or Collections, and any editing will have to be done on your desktop or iOS device." width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p>There is an exception. The browser view of your iCloud photos does not display Years and Collections, only Moments, so you could face a good deal of vertical scrolling if you want to browse your pictures in a web browser</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>Albums</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>Apple's automatic grouping tools might be fine for ad-hoc iPhone photography, but if you want to get more organised with your photo library (and non-iPhone images), you can use Albums instead. These work in the same way as iPhoto's used to – you can create regular Albums which you add pictures to manually, or you can create Smart Albums which use simple search criteria to filter out photos based on shooting (EXIF) data, filenames, descriptions, titles and more. There are no Ratings in Photos – pictures are 'Favorites' or they're not.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="Apple Photos" src="http://ift.tt/1HUKaLy" title="You can create your own system of Folders and Albums, and there's even an option to display an iPhoto style sidebar." width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p>Using Albums is more structured and organised than relying on Years, Collections and Moments, and it's a relief that this system is still included.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>When you create an Album you'll also see options for creating Books, Calendars, Cards, Slideshows and Prints. These then appear in the Projects tab and you order the finished product direct from Apple.</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>Editing your pictures</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>There was talk in the lead-up to the official Photos release that it would incorporate some Aperture-style editing tools. That's probably going a little too far, but Photos is certain a major step forward compared to the rather crude and clunky options in iPhoto.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>Images open in a clean black window (this works even better in full-screen mode) with a set of discreet icons down the right hand side: Enhance, Rotate, Crop, Filters, Adjust and Retouch. They look simple, but some of these options have hidden depths.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="Apple Photos" src="http://ift.tt/1EaZcxx" title="The Photos editing tools initially look basic, but they reveal hidden depths – particularly the Adjust panels." width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><h3>Simple fixes</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>The Enhance button is the simplest. You just click it to automatically fix the picture's contrast and color, and if you don't like the result, hit Command-Z or the 'Revert to Original' button in the top right corner.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>The Rotate button is equally straightforward. One click rotates your picture 90 degrees anti-clockwise, so you just keep clicking until your picture is the right way round. This is useful if your vertical-format photos are being displayed on their side. It's not designed for straightening up skewed buildings or horizons, though, and for this you need the Crop tool directly below.</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>Hidden depths</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>This is where you start to see some of those hidden depths. The Crop tool gives you a rectangular marquee for cropping in on the areas of the picture you want to keep, but there's also a big dial at the side, calibrated in degrees, which you use to straighten pictures taken on a slant.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>If you're printing photos or you want them to display full-screen on specific monitor sizes, you'll need to click the Aspect button – this pops up a list of common aspect ratios such as Square, 16:9 or 3:2 (for a standard 6 x 4-inch print, say). When you select one of these ratios, the crop marquee is constrained to those proportions.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="Apple Photos" src="http://ift.tt/1HUKaLA" title="It's possible to combine different adjustments, starting off with a color-black and white conversion, for example..." width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="Apple Photos" src="http://ift.tt/1EaZcxB" title="...and then adding one of the preset Effects." width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p>The next button down, 'Effects' doesn't offer any hidden depths as such, but it does show some of the neat thinking behind the integration of Photos across devices. Each effect is a single-click fix with no parameters, but they're the same Effects you get in the iOS version and the same ones you can choose when you take pictures with your iOS device.</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>Adjustments: now we're getting serious</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>The first time you open the Adjustments panel you might think there's not much to see, which just a handful of basic-looking controls for 'Light', 'Color', 'Sharpen', say. But there are two things you need to do…</p><br /><br/><br /><p>First, look for the 'Add' button at the top of the Adjustments panel. This displays a list of all the adjustments available, and it's a lot more than you see at first. They're separated into 'Basic', 'Details' and 'Advanced', and if you select them all you're then using the Photos editing tools at full power.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="Apple Photos" src="http://ift.tt/1HUKb1P" title="At first sight the Adjustments might look quite basic – but you need to click the Add button at the top of the panel to show the full range of tools available." width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p>The other thing you need to do is click the unobtrusive disclosure arrow to the right of the adjustment title – it only appears when you hover the mouse pointer over this areas. This expands the tool panel to display some smart-looking sliders for making adjustments in detail – or you could just click the 'Auto' button at the top to see what happens.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>Lastly, there's a 'Retouch' button which lets you blot out imperfections or unwanted objects in your pictures in one of two ways. You can either click and drag to 'heal' areas automatically using surrounding image data, or option-click to choose a source area and clone out defects in the normal way.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>There's no rocket science here, and Photos certainly doesn't match the content-aware technology in Photoshop, or dedicated tools like Macphun SnapHeal, but it's fine for sensor spots, say, and other simple fixes.</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>Verdict</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>Many will have hoped that Photos would somehow bridge the gap between iPhoto and Aperture and maybe make an acceptable substitute for the latter. It doesn't. Aperture users hanging on to see what Photos would be like will have to heave a heavy sigh and migrate to Lightroom after all.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>Instead, you should think of Photos as the 'new' iPhoto, and it does this rather well. You can see what Apple has done with the iOS and iCloud integration and Photos does give a uniform experience across all these platforms, and the use of date and location info to group images is clever – though it does rather lock out regular digital camera images.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="Apple Photos" src="http://ift.tt/1EaZcxF" title="The way Photos groups images by date and location is clever – but it relies on devices that can record GPS data. If you shoot with an iPhone that's fine, but most regular cameras don't have GPS." width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p>The 5Gb free storage is nowhere near enough, however. It means that just at the point where you're starting to think this could be useful, Apple asks you for some money to upgrade your storage. That's bad salesmanship.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>The project/gift item tools look very much like those in iPhoto or Aperture and, again, you're locked in to Apple's own gift and printing service. If you want to use a third-party service you'll need to export your images to the Finder and take it from there.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>The new editing tools are very good, however. They work on both JPEG and raw images, so even more advanced photographers won't be left out – though, irritatingly, if you try to import JPEG/raw pairs, which many photographers shoot, Photos displays them as a single item with the JPEG version displayed. It's not clear how you're supposed to get to the raw file without deleting them all and re-importing the files choosing the raw versions only.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="Apple Photos" src="http://ift.tt/1HUK8mT" title="You can share your shots via email, messages, Twitter, Facebook and Flickr." width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p>The adjustments in Photos are non-destructive, so you can go back and undo any changes you've made at any point in the future – or, if you like to see side-by-side comparisons, you can make a copy of the picture first and then edit that.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>Like iPhoto (and Aperture), Photos will import your photos into its internal library by default, but you can also 'reference' them in their existing location to keep down the size of your library.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="Apple Photos" src="http://ift.tt/1EaZe8w" title="The split view is handy, showing you all the other photos in the current Album on the left side of the screen." width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p>But even though the editing tools are good, Photos still offers only the most basic of image-editing tools. In fact, you should think of it as a 'photo enhancer' rather than an image-editor. Worryingly, there seems to be no provision for external editors like Elements or Photoshop – in iPhoto you could nominate an external editor for more advanced adjustments.</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>We like</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>Photos' automatic grouping using location data (if your pictures have it) and dates works very well, so that if you're not really into digital imaging and you just want a tool to help you organise and find your shots simply, it's really effective.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>And while there are some minor differences across platforms, Photos really does provide a unified photo browsing and editing experience whatever device you're using.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>The editing tools are a big step up from those in iPhoto, too, and while they won't replace those in a proper image-editor, they're fine for enhancing less-than-perfect pictures, which, for most casual snappers, is all you really want.</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>We dislike</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>Apple has pitched Photos at a much lower level than many would have been hoping for. It's great for casual photographers who simply use a camera to record their lives, but for people whose hobby is photography, it's too limiting.</p><br /><br/><br /><p><img alt="Apple Photos" src="http://ift.tt/1HUK8mX" title="You may reach the point where all your high-res photos have to live in iCloud because there's not enough room on your Mac." width="420"/> </p><br /><br/><br /><p>Worse than that, the thing at the very heart of this new system – iCloud – feels like the weakest link. Upload speeds will always depend on the speed of your connection, of course, and while all your pictures everywhere instantly might be the dream, the reality involves a good deal more patience. It's measly free storage limit that really grates, though. Apple users pay plenty for the hardware, so they might expect Apple to cut them some slack with online storage.</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>Verdict</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>Photos is slick, efficient and in many respects unexpectedly powerful. It's free, it runs on all your Apple devices and delivers the same experience – and the same photos – on all of them. But perhaps the best way to sum it up is to say that it's designed for people who take photographs; it's not designed for photographers.</p><br /><br/><br /><img border="0" height="1" src="http://ift.tt/1H7rudf" width="1"/><br clear='all'/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><a href="http://ift.tt/1OdDrQu" rel="nofollow"><img border="0" src="http://ift.tt/1H7rudh"/> </a><br/><br /><br/><br /><a href="http://ift.tt/1OdDtIj" rel="nofollow"><img border="0" src="http://ift.tt/1H7rtGj"/> </a><br/><br /><br/><br /><a href="http://ift.tt/1OdDtYA" rel="nofollow"><img border="0" src="http://ift.tt/1H7rwBH"/> </a><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><a href="http://ift.tt/1OdDrQw"><img border="0" src="http://ift.tt/1H7rwBJ"/> </a> <img border="0" height="1" src="http://ift.tt/1OdDtYI" width="1"/><img alt="" height="1" src="http://ift.tt/1H7rwBL" width="1"/><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/> </div><br /><br/><br /><br/><br />from http://bit.ly/1GsI8Vu<br/></div>

Review: Apple Photos

iPhoto, Aperture and Photos 27 June 2014 is the date when everything changed. This is when Apple announced it was pulling the plug on its tw...

Read more »

Google wants to put an end to international roaming charges

<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><div xmlns='http://bit.ly/16Db7GR'><img alt="Google wants to put an end to international roaming charges" src="http://ift.tt/1ov0z3G"/><br/><br /><p>Earlier in the year <a href="http://ift.tt/1vY2gLn">we got word</a> that Google was planning to set itself up as a mobile operator, albeit on a limited basis to begin with. Now we have news of a killer feature that it wants to introduce with its own network: no extra data charges when you use your phone abroad.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>While data roaming costs <a href="http://ift.tt/1rbOPmY">have been reduced</a> in recent years, it's still a pain to have to switch off Facebook, Snapchat, Gmail and all those other lovely apps as soon as you cross the border. It's usually either the hotel Wi-Fi or nothing if you take your smartphone on holiday.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>According to <a href="http://ift.tt/1MS43cz">the Telegraph</a>, Google wants to put an end to all that and give its users the same data deal as they have at home. Google is apparently in talks with Hutchison Whampoa, <a href="http://ift.tt/1HWBXWF">the new owner of Three</a> in the UK, for a package deal for its customers.</p><br /><br/><br /><h3>Limited offer</h3><br /><br/><br /><p>Before you start booking your flights and packing your sandals, a word of caution: the network is only going to be available to users in the United States for now. It may even be restricted to the small group of people who've managed to <a href="http://ift.tt/1HSxC7D">pick up a Nexus 6</a>.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>Thanks to Google's small-scale plans and the complex regulatory landscape in Europe it's likely to be a long time before anyone outside of the US benefits from this deal - nevertheless, it's good to know it could be in the works. Any move that Google made would have repercussions elsewhere across the world.</p><br /><br/><br /><p>Anonymous inside sources have shed some light on the deal, though both Google and Hutchison Whampoa have refused to make any official comment at this stage. Let's hope sky-high bills for using phones abroad soon become a thing of the past.</p><br /><br/><br /><img border="0" height="1" src="http://ift.tt/1F5N9TC" width="1"/><br clear='all'/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><a href="http://ift.tt/1F5N9TE" rel="nofollow"><img border="0" src="http://ift.tt/1Jf3Nib"/> </a><br/><br /><br/><br /><a href="http://ift.tt/1F5N6Y7" rel="nofollow"><img border="0" src="http://ift.tt/1F5N7el"/> </a><br/><br /><br/><br /><a href="http://ift.tt/1Jf3Nid" rel="nofollow"><img border="0" src="http://ift.tt/1Jf3Nif"/> </a><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/><br /><a href="http://ift.tt/1F5N9TL"><img border="0" src="http://ift.tt/1Jf3QdS"/> </a> <img border="0" height="1" src="http://ift.tt/1Jf3Nij" width="1"/><img alt="" height="1" src="//feeds.feedburner.com/~r/techradar/allnews/~4/wk9NElfZyDA" width="1"/><br/><br /><br/><br /><br/> </div><br /><br/><br /><br/><br />from http://bit.ly/1NXjPQs<br/></div>

Google wants to put an end to international roaming charges

Earlier in the year we got word that Google was planning to set itself up as a mobile operator, albeit on a limited basis to begin with. No...

Read more »