Comparing the key differences of the top MacBook Pro 15-inch (with no modifications) over the previous four years, one can make a well-informed decision of whether or not there was any value added:

Looking back, the release of the 2011 MacBook Pros does appear to be the most significant annual update since the redesign was first introduced.  Don’t be so quick to discount the processor upgrade this time around, either.  Early results popping up on Primate Lab’s Geekbench are proving Apple’s claims at being twice as fast as last years model are true.  When compared to purchasing a used 2008 model online today, you’ll find that you can get twice the memory, three times the processing speed, Thunderbolt and an updated HD camera for only about $500 more.

Macs have historically retained their resale value really well compared to Windows PCs.  So I went online shopping for 15-inch MacBook Pros from late-2008, mid-2009, mid-2010 and 2011 at Apple’s Refurbished Store, Amazon and PowerMax.  For the most part, a 15-inch MacBook Pro used sells for about $1,500, and that includes the late 2008 model. Provided this used market holds up, you could, in theory, sell your current MacBook Pro and end up paying just $500 for a brand new machine. Anyone tempted to try it?

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• Who Will Profit From Broadband Innovation?
• Why Apple Hasn’t Sewn Up the Tablet Market — Yet
• Rogue Devices: The Consumer Influence on Enterprise Mobility, Part 1

Operating System and Software

The obvious drawback of the Galaxy Tab is that it runs Google’s Android OS. While this article isn’t a comparison of Android versus iOS, the fact still remains there are many more applications available on Apple’s operating system.

My typical repertoire of basic apps were available for the Tab: Facebook, Twitter, Angry Birds, Documents to Go, QuickOffice and a few others. However, more specialized niche apps are severely lacking on Android. Take Jewish-related applications for example. While I’ve already written two roundups of these types of apps for the iPhone (and could probably write many more), I could find very few for Android.  As Android grows more popular, gaps like that will probably be filled, but Google’s mobile OS just hasn’t caught up to iOS in the app arena yet.

Of course, the Galaxy Tab’s freedom from Apple’s ecosystem was also a huge asset. The device seamlessly connects with Gmail, making the need for MobileMe completely unnecessary, and you never have to connect it to a personal computer for the initial setup–it worked right out of the box. That might be a big draw for users who don’t want to have to check their device in with other machines on a regular basis.

Speaking of syncing, another problem with Android is its lack of a dedicated, native companion client on the Mac. While iTunes serves as a universal gateway for managing content and functions on the iPhone, the equivalent doesn’t exist for the Android platform. Workarounds, especially for the Mac, are clunky and inelegant in my opinion. If you love iTunes and use it often, you’ll hate managing your Galaxy Tab’s media. Although you can’t use iTunes to manage your tablet, moving multimedia content was very easy using the MicroSD card, but not as simple as syncing through iTunes would be.

Size and Hardware Design

Android is developed primarily for phones, and the apps don’t scale well. Take for example QuickOffice, one of my favorite productivity apps for the iPhone. Unlike the iPad version, the Android app simply doesn’t take advantage of having more real estate.

Physically, the device felt like a large phone rather than a true tablet. It’s in an ergonomic dead zone. Holding the Tab with just one hand didn’t feel right because I couldn’t fully grasp it, and was constantly afraid it would slip out of my hand, something not helped by the slick plastic backing on the device. The iPad’s aluminum shell feels grippy by comparison.  Holding the Tab with two hands didn’t feel right either, because my hands were simply too close together and the smaller screen bezel meant my fingers were always getting in the way.

While I could comfortably type on my iPad, almost as if it were a full keyboard (especially in landscape mode), the Galaxy Tab felt much more like a phone due to the smaller size of the virtual keys and their rectangular design. After a few minutes, my hands were tired and cramped. Hands with daintier fingers might not run into such a problem.

However, the Galaxy Tab’s smaller size often turned out to be a great asset, as well as a liability. Although I consider my iPad a highly portable device, I carry it more like a hard cover book than a paperback novel. Many people who commented on the Tab pointed out that it could fit in their purse. While I don’t have a purse, I shared the intended thought — I could imagine carrying this device everywhere. I started slipping it into a three-ring binder, a coat pocket, and even a gym bag. The Galaxy ended up tagging along with me more places than the iPad. I wasn’t using it as a true portable computer, though, in the way I did my iPad, due to typing problems and a lack of software, mentioned above.

Other Considerations

The Galaxy Tablet may not have the apps or the greatest keyboard, but it does has many functions that the iPad is lacking. The front- and rear-facing cameras were handy, though in reality, it’s a very awkward device when used as a camera. I was able to use its mobile connection to create a wireless hotspot, which isn’t possible with the iPad, and of course Flash worked just fine. Battery life was similar to the iPad, though using it as a wireless hotspot drained the battery after just a few hours.

As for multimedia, on the Tab the sound was tinny and the screen simply not as vibrant as the iPad, but still clearly a step above the average smartphone. Purchasing commercial video content on the Tab often depends on the carrier, and requires more steps than on an iPad. It isn’t nearly as simple as just opening up the iTunes app and browsing for content.

As an e-reader, the Galaxy was outstanding. The Android Amazon Kindle and Google Books apps rivaled the experience of using a physical Kindle or paperbook book. Of all the devices I’ve used, I preferred the Galaxy tablet when I wanted to get reading done. The iPad is too big and the iPhone too small; the Galaxy was just right.

Conclusion

As a portable computing device and laptop replacement, the Galaxy Tab simply doesn’t cut it when it comes to size and apps, and in particular, apps designed for the tablet form factor. The Galaxy Tab is simply a larger Android-based mobile phone, without the ability to direct dial.  The next version of Android, 3.0, is supposed to have more features designed specifically for tablets, and will likely greatly enhance the Galaxy Tab, however, in its current state, the Galaxy Tab OS shows its phone-based limitations too frequently.

The Galaxy’s real competitors are other smartphones, and in particular, Android-based devices. The Galaxy Tab provides a mobile computing experience on a much larger screen than the average smartphone while retaining nearly all the same portability and functionality. The iPad, by contrast, offers a considerably different experience than does the iPhone, and feels much more like a true laptop replacement. They genuinely feel like they occupy two distinct device categories, which is why I mentioned earlier that I’d consider owning both. If you have to pick one, though, the iPad gets my vote.

Check out the gallery below for some shots of the two devices, and a video comparison published earlier on GigaOM.

Disclosure: The Galaxy tab was provided for review by Verizon of Kansas and Missouri and was returned upon completion of this article. Actual carrying of the Galaxy Tab in a purse was not tested by the author.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• Why Apple Hasn’t Sewn Up the Tablet Market — Yet
• Transient Apps: The Consumer Influence on Enterprise Mobility, Part 2
• Rogue Devices: The Consumer Influence on Enterprise Mobility, Part 1

Apps

Why? Well it plays up Google TV’s advantages over Apple TV in a big way, and that can be summed up in one word: apps. It’s the second word of Google’s brief introduction that greets you when you first navigate to the site, and it’s also clearly a strong influence in the product’s logo design. Even though Google seems intent on foregrounding apps, it isn’t the only advantage its offering has.

Choice

Google TV isn’t going to discriminate when it comes to users’ mobile device choices. That means you’ll be able to use either Android or iOS devices as a remote. Choice doesn’t stop there; you’ll also be able to stream content from your phone using Fling. It doesn’t look like Fling features will be limited to Android-powered devices, while Apple’s AirPlay is clearly proprietary and not making its way to other smartphone platforms. If this works well, and it does indeed play nice with a wide range of devices, it alone could sink the Apple TV.

Not Reinventing the Wheel

The appeal of Google TV will also be much wider, owing to its ability to play nice with existing forms of content distribution, i.e. satellite and cable. Starting where people are comfortable, especially for the aging boomer population, should translate to a huge boost in consumer interest for Google. Apple TV is like learning a new language for people using it for the first time, and not everything from your native language even translates correctly (meaning you can’t get all the same content).

Combine traditional content sources with DVR capabilities, and Apple’s in trouble. DVR won’t come to this generation of Apple TV, even if apps do down the road. Plus, cable providers will be lining up to join hands with Google when Apple is actively working against them.

Not a Fair Fight

I honestly don’t even think it’s fair to count Apple TV as a competitor for Google TV at this point. Google has multiple hardware partners who are already industry leaders, the backing of many more content providers, an honest to goodness development platform already built-in, and a willingness to play nice with whatever users already have at home. That, and apps, too, right out of the box.

Apple was aware of at least some of this well before it released the new Apple TV, so you can bet that it made a conscious decision to avoid going toe-to-toe with Google in this market. Bringing the App Store to its device will help the Apple TV for the same reason it helps drive iOS device sales: Apple has a heck of a head start. But ultimately, I don’t think this is a battle Apple can hope to win, or even lose by a close margin, without major changes to its hardware and basic corporate philosophy.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• Got a Cable Subscription? There’ll Be an App for That
• Strategies for the Future of Digital Content Storage
• The Age of the Feed-Based User Interface

Since I know some of you are going to mention Firefox, I’ll tell you right now that I’ve ruled it out. It just doesn’t feel right to me. I’ll use Firefox on Windows, but on a Mac it’s just… weird. Feel free to disagree in the comments.

Interface

I suppose Chrome has an attractive interface, but I do think it looks better on Windows, partly because it feels designed for it rather than OS X (look at Chrome’s bookmarks manager and you’ll see what I mean). It just looks better with Aero.

Some aspects of Chrome’s tabs implementation annoy me. Mostly, I’m pretty happy with them, but there are two drawbacks. One being that, because the tabs take up the title bar, there’s less room to drag the window. This isn’t a problem for people who maximize their browser windows, but I like to keep my windows a certain size and I move them around a lot, since I’m always dragging images onto my desktop.

Another side effect of having the tabs in the title bar means that Chrome’s title bar doesn’t really function like one; you never actually see the full title of a web page unless it fits within the tab, which seems like a small complaint, but it’s still annoying.

Features

There were several features I missed from Safari when I switched to Chrome. Probably the one I missed most was Safari’s Reader view, which lets you reformat a long passage of text in an attractive drop-down that cuts out the clutter.

Fortunately, there’s an extension for Chrome that mimics Reader, and actually surpasses it in some ways. The extension’s called iReader and is available in the Chrome extensions gallery. When you hit the arrow keys to scroll through something in Reader for Safari, the cursor doesn’t disappear like it does in normal web pages, but it does in the iReader extension, which is less distracting for me.

Speaking of extensions, there aren’t any extensions I’ve come across for Chrome that aren’t available for Safari, or that I absolutely can’t live without. The opposite isn’t true. In fact, one of the unofficial Safari extensions that I love, ClickToFlash, isn’t available for Chrome, and it looks like that’ll be the case for some time.

Performance

It’s almost a crapshoot here. I can tell you that using Chrome feels faster than using Safari, but only a little. They both use the same rendering engine, WebKit, but they use different JavaScript engines, and from what I’ve learned about both Safari’s Nitro and Chrome’s V8, V8 is superior, but the difference in speed is also small.

On the interface performance side, I’ve noticed that when I have about six tabs open in Chrome, dragging the tabs around gets laggy. I don’t experience this lag with Safari, which I think has the best implementation of tab-dragging in any browser.

Bugs

I can generally say that I’ve experienced more bugs in Chrome than I have in Safari. For instance, in Chrome, almost every time I go back to a Google search result from, say, a Wikipedia page, the page doesn’t display and I’m left with the cute little dead tab face, then I have to re-enter the search in Google. It’s almost a deal-breaker for me.

There are other bugs, of course, but none that are as annoying or pervasive as the above.

Security

Chrome wins here, bar none. Safari is notorious for being a vector of vulnerability attacks, having famously been hacked in just 10 seconds at the annual Pwn2Own contest in 2009, while Chrome was the only browser that wasn’t hacked. However, security isn’t enough to make me switch to Chrome, as there’s very little chance I’d get a virus anyway, since there aren’t many viruses developed for the Mac and I’m a pretty safe surfer.

Will I stay with Chrome?

After using Chrome for a couple of weeks and getting accustomed to all its quirks on the Mac, I’ve decided to switch back to Safari. There just isn’t enough reason for me to stick with Chrome, and the Google search bug mentioned above is a huge annoyance, one that outweighs the poor performance of Safari on the one page that had me considering a switch to begin with.

Did I make the right choice? How’s your experience with Chrome been?

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):
HTML5′s a Game-Changer for Web Apps
The Real Impact of Facebook’s New Approach to Gaming
Report: Google’s Voice Possibilities

Engadget posted more details about the device late last week, including two lengthy HD interface videos. Microsoft isn’t yet officially saying anything about whether or not this will become a production device, but Engadget seems very confident in its sources, and I’d be inclined to believe them since it seems more than likely Redmond is taking a page out of Apple’s marketing playbook by keeping things somewhat hush-hush but using “leaks” to steal focus.

Microsoft gets a lot of flak for doing a tablet the wrong way, as demonstrated by the HP model it unveiled ahead of the iPad to grab some of the attention away from that spotlight hog. But the Courier doesn’t have the same shortcomings. For one, it’s not based on Windows 7, but on a version of Windows CE 6, which also provides the basis for the Zune HD’s interface and the upcoming Windows Mobile 7 OS. It also runs on the Tegra 2, an impressive mobile processor.

It also has some considerable advantages over its Apple rival, especially if the hype is actually representative of what a production version will look like. First, there’s the size. The clamshell design allows it to be smaller than the iPad, while providing more screen real estate. Closed, it’s said to measure five by seven inches, and still remain less than an inch thick. It should also weigh less than a pound. It should take up just a little less space than the Amazon Kindle, for reference, which goes a long way toward making it truly, conveniently portable.

The Courier’s big advantage over the iPad, for me, isn’t the dual-screen design (although that helps), but the combination of pen and touch input. If I had to choose one, I’d go with touch, as Apple’s done with the iPad, but the opportunity to have both is a major selling point. Viewing the UI videos emphasizes why, and if you’ve ever used a tablet with a computer, especially those with a built-in display, you’ll know why a pen is a much better option than trying to learn to write or draw with your clumsy finger.

Microsoft’s notebook tablet is also refreshing because of its emphasis on interactivity between components and hardware features of the device. The software seems designed from the start to work perfectly not only with the specific features of the device, but also with every other software component of the OS, and all through a brilliantly intuitive UI. Nor is it a closed system despite this sharp focus, since the sharing features appear to be rich and varied.

Apple, for its part, emphasizes the apps. Apps are great, and they provide some pretty useful functions and terrific distractions, but they don’t really seem to work as well or with the same degree of interconnection as the Courier’s software promises to. Even Apple’s own built-in apps don’t have anywhere near as much potential for communication between and across each other.

In my opinion, where Apple got lazy with the iPad, Microsoft is throwing its entire mobile future behind the Courier. Not only that, but these previews are emphasizing the Courier’s strengths over the iPad without addressing things like media playback. The impression I get isn’t that the Courier is bad at those things, just that they’re taken as given. Instead, Redmond’s project is all about what a tablet can do that a media player can’t, something I’ve yet to really see illustrated by Apple regarding the iPad.

Related Research from GigaOM Pro:

• Web Tablet Survey: Apple’s iPad Hits the Right Notes
• How AT&T Will Deal with iPad Data Traffic
• 5 Tips for Developers Targeting the iPad
• With the iPad, Apple Take Google to the Mat

WolframAlpha Web App

When it was first released, WolframAlpha generated a lot of buzz surrounding the impressive computational power the new search engine-type service offered. Specifically for mathematical and statistical queries, it goes quite beyond what Google is able to offer. But does all that power justify a $50 price tag on the site’s iPhone app treatment?

Wolfram Alpha LLC seems to think so, since it’s asking $49.99 for the just-released app, the first developed using Wolfram Alpha’s new API. Mashable also seems to agree, but I’m not so sure, and I’ll tell you why.

Mashable’s Christina Warren is quick to point out that the iPhone version “is much more than just a mobile version of the website,” a claim which I definitely agree would justify at least some kind of extra expenditure, but then I compared my results on the web-based version running in Safari to the ones she showed from the app itself. Guess what? The results are identical. In the app, things are slightly more readable and optimized for the iPhone’s screen, but the data is exactly the same, and the web interface is far from clunky itself.

Things like Source Information do seem to work a lot better in the app than in the web interface, because they weren’t specifically designed for mobile touchscreen platforms, but if you’re like me, you don’t go around dropping $50 to resolve every minor inconvenience that comes your way.

The Mashable piece also rolls in the value of the Wolfram app as a graphing calculator, which would be useful for students, it goes on to suggest. Putting aside the fact that you get the same graphs using the web app as you do with the app, students would never be able to use this app in a test situation, when cheating is an issue, and a device that requires network connectivity to work is involved. Professionals that might use it would benefit just as much from using the web app, so I don’t buy this argument either.

So is the price of WolframAlpha for iPhone an example of absurd hubris on the part of its developers? I don’t think so. I think they’ve just made a highly polished, non-browser based version of their awesome computational engine targeted at professionals and businessmen who look at a $50 application as a justifiable expense for something they use many times daily. Don’t, however, try to tell me that the price is justified by added features or functionality, or that anyone other than an elite class of niche users would find enough value to merit the cost. The price will come down if Wolfram decides it wants to sell the app, so my advice is to just be patient if you’re anxious to get your mobile stats analysis on.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How Speech Technologies Will Transform Mobile Use
• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview

In my quest to upgrade an aging dual-monitor setup (a 20” main screen with a 17” screen off to the side to house application palettes, iTunes, etc.), the only real decision to make was choosing between an Apple 30” Cinema Display and a Dell 30” UltraSharp Widescreen.

I decided to go large with a 30” LCD to give me as much screen real estate as possible, cut out the extra set of cables that litter the floor behind my desk with a dual-monitor setup, and banish forever the annoying gap between the two displays. After reading numerous reviews on tech sites, soliciting advice from fellow designers, and seeing both in action, I ended up choosing the Dell 3007WFP-HC over the Apple 30″ Cinema Display. The Dell simply offered enough bang-for-the-buck to satisfy me.

Rather than give a run-down of tech specs you can get on your own, I decided to give you a comparison from a user’s perspective. Keep in mind that I’m a designer by trade, and my use and requirements of an LCD monitor may be different than yours, so what I consider an “issue,” you may not. Below are my comparisons of a few key areas and my results of using both monitors after a month of owning the Dell as well as using the Cinema Display fairly regularly.

On the Desk

Believe it or not, a single 30” LCD actually takes up much less space than my previous 20”/17” dual setup.

The Apple Cinema Display uses a single curved stand to support the display, offering a hole in the stand to manage cables. The bezel around the screen is thin, but due to the brushed-metal finish, it is “in your face” at all times. You definitely know you’re using a Cinema Display. The only adjustments available to you is tilting the monitor slightly forward and back.

The Dell Ultrasharp uses a more standard single arm stand with two legs that jet out to the sides for added support. The stand is sufficiently heavy enough to support the large screen, and just felt more substantial (read: safe) than Apple’s display. The black bezel around the screen is thinner than Apple’s, and simply disappears into the background because it’s black — I don’t even notice it’s there. Where the Dell shines in comparison is the available adjustments. Not only does it match Apple with tilt, but you can swivel the monitor from side to side, and adjust the height of the screen as well. Making any of these three adjustments requires two fingers and a small amount of force. At no time does the base move on the desk.

Winner: Dell Dell 3007WFP-HC, no contest.

Getting Connected

I have a Mac Pro tower; I do no gaming; and I don’t hook up my TV to my Mac, so my requirements for connections were fairly simple. While many people criticize the Dell for its lack of VGA, HDMI and other connection methods, it simply wasn’t an issue for me. Both LCDs require a dual-link DVI graphics card capable of supporting the resolution of the display (2560×1600 in both cases).

The Apple Cinema Display uses DVI to connect to the Mac, and offers two Firewire 400 ports, and two USB 2.0 ports. This is more than adequate for most users. The ports are placed rather inconveniently on the lower back of the display, but that’s fairly typical. The main cable is hard-wired to the display, something I don’t like at all. If something goes wrong with the cable, you’re returning the entire monitor for repairs.

The Dell Ultrasharp also uses a single DVI connection, but the cable is not hard-wired to the display. A 9-in-2 media card reader is available on the side of the monitor, as are two USB 2.0 ports. I really like the placement of these. Having them on the side of the display means I can just swivel the monitor to use them. On the back of the UltraSharp are two more USB 2.0 downstream ports, and a single USB upstream port. No FireWire ports are available on the Dell 3007WFP-HC. The ports on the back of the display are rather difficult to get to because they face downward. However, these are really made for connections of a more permanent nature, so it’s not that big of a deal.

Winner: Dell 3007WFP-HC. The card-reader and two USB ports placed on the side of the display make it infinitely more useful in this respect. The extra 2 USB ports put it over the top.

Looks Are Everything

Both companies are known for offering displays that have a great picture, and my use confirms that. But there are differences. If you’re concerned about color accuracy, you really should have a hardware calibration device. Both monitors offer a 178-degree viewing angle for smooth and accurate picture from any reasonable sitting position.

The Apple Cinema Display is about as color accurate out of the box as you can get for a consumer monitor. And, of course, OS X ships with color profiles for the Cinema Display to make calibration as simple as possible. If I have any complaint about Apple’s 30” LCD, it’s that it’s not bright enough.

The Dell UltraSharp does not ship with any calibration profiles, and out of the box it’s not as color-accurate as Apple’s display. Colors appear much more saturated on the Dell, but even running a simple calibration in OS X’s Display Preferences can quickly bring it up to par. The display is much brighter than Apple’s as it ships, perhaps even too bright. Again, you can adjust this to your liking.

Winner: Apple Cinema Display. This was a close one. For my needs, I have to calibrate both displays anyway, so it was a wash. But the Dell requires adjustment even for the average consumer.

Purchase Options

Price isn’t always the main consideration, but it’s certainly a big one. I wanted a little more than a bargain on price.

The Apple Cinema Display costs $1,799 no matter where you buy it. The return policy is simple: You own it once you take it out of the box, and Apple doesn’t have much of a policy on dead pixels — you’ve got to have a cluster of dead pixels in one small area in order to get a replacement. The Cinema Displays do, of course, come with the standard one-year warranty, but that’s about all you get with it.

The Dell Ultrasharp currently sells for $1,049 direct from Dell, but you can get a better deal (see below). Dell offers a zero-dead-pixel guarantee, with a three-year advanced replacement warranty.

I didn’t want the hassle of dealing with a possible return, so I purchased the Dell from Costco, where you can get it for $999 (at time of publication), and have the comfort of knowing you can drive it to any Costco store and return it with no questions asked. Nice!

Winner: Dell UltraSharp. I’m willing to pay a little more for quality, but not nearly twice as much. The Dell offers a better warranty, more adjustments, and an $800 savings.

Satisfaction

Overall, I couldn’t be happier with the Dell UltraSharp. Once I got past the idea of buying a Dell product over Apple, it was easy. The display has performed superbly the last month or so, and I’m so glad I didn’t needlessly spend the extra money just to have an Apple logo on the front.

If you’re in the market for a 30” LCD, you can’t go wrong with the Dell Ultrasharp 3007WFP-HC. It offers a great picture, plenty of nice features, sturdy construction, and a price that simply can’t be beat.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• A 2011 Infrastructure Forecast
• Big Data 2011 Preview

A little while ago, QuickOffice ($19.99, iTunes link) brought Word document editing to the iPhone. This week, however, QuickOffice officially loses its corner on that market with the introduction of Documents to Go ($4.99, iTunes link) by Dataviz, a seasoned contender.

The iPhone may not be my device of choice when it comes to doing significant edits to text documents, but in times of duress, it might be the quickest, most convenient, or even the only option available, so I like to have the capability. Let’s see which of these two apps will earn a place of honor on my springboard.

User Interface

Full-featured word processing on an iPhone might not make for a very pretty experience no matter how you slice it, but there are definitely ways to make it more or less pleasurable, depending on your UI choices. It’s a challenging task, taking the ribbon and/or menu bar of a full-featured desktop app and trying to somehow incorporate the same features into a mobile app interface.

Both Documents to Go and QuickOffice try to tackle the problem in much the same way: Store features in a menu bar across the bottom using expandable icons that open up to reveal more functions. While both apps use this feature, they both do so in a very different way, and you will probably vastly prefer one over the other, depending on your personal taste.

Documents to Go editing interface

QuickOffice editing interface

As for me, I like the implementation found in Documents to Go. The main difference between the two is a multipage menu bar that you can scroll by swiping left or right. It means that more features are available to you in fewer steps. There are three pages worth of menu bar items for word editing, including document info, bulleting and numbering. QuickOffice offers far fewer functions from its own bottom menu bar, although both include a very necessary document search function.

Some might prefer QuickOffice’s full-text menu list items, but I like the icons used by Documents to Go. They may be a little harder to grasp at first, but the space they save is well worth the learning curve.

Features

In both cases, most of the features are spot on in terms of what you’d expect from a mobile word editor. You won’t get table editing/creation capabilities, but you will get font and paragraph formatting, list creation, and copy and paste. Interestingly, neither takes advantage of the newly built-in copy/paste functions of OS 3.0.

QuickOffice loses out to Documents to Go by not allowing you to create numbered lists, only bulleted. But it does offer some macro-level features that definitely trump Dataviz’s offering. For one, it has MobileMe iDisk integration baked in, so that all you have to do is enter your credentials and you’re off. Another incredibly useful feature is the ability to email documents you create to anyone from right within the app. Documents to Go doesn’t even have an export to mail function.

Documents to Go does have the ability to sync with a desktop client they offer for free, and to save directly to the desktop should you so desire, as long as you have a network connection. I tend to prefer not having to install any client software on my Mac, though.

Usability

In terms of actual editing mechanics for individual documents, Documents to Go beats QuickOffice on usability. The interface is nicer, you have more control at your finger tips, and the keyboard button is more conveniently located. It’s also just much more pleasant to look at, in my opinion, which can be a big plus if you’re stuck staring at a small screen for any length of time.

With overall usability, though, QuickOffice takes the cake. Being able to share docs so easily via email and iDisk is a huge bonus, and loads easier than using Documents to Go’s desktop client sync.

Verdict

I actually had a hard time picking a winner in this rumble. For the purposes of this comparison, I was only looking at document editing, so I didn’t take into consideration the fact that Documents to Go can’t yet handle Excel file editing. That’s supposed to be on its way in a future update, though.

What I did look at was price. There’s a big difference between the two apps in that regard. QuickOffice is $19.99, and even QuickWord is $12.99. Documents to Go, on the other hand, is only $4.99 ($9.99 for a version with exchange support), and will eventually include Excel editing for no extra charge. That’s a quarter of the price of QuickOffice.

Given that the primary reason I’d even want to have a Word document editor on my iPhone in the first place is for quick edits at the request of a client or employer, and that I don’t use Microsoft Exchange-based email, I decided that the ability to share via email trumps any advantage Documents to Go has with pricing and usability. If future updates introduce Mail integration, consider my verdict officially reversed, but for now, I have to give this one to QuickOffice.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories

Now I have some more ammunition, thanks to a test run by Crave UK. Apparently they have very little to do with their time, so they came up with ridiculous scenarios for tech performance tests. Their latest involved an Apple iPhone, an Asus Eee PC, and a Citroen C4 (which is a $1.47 million rally car, in case you were wondering). The task was to type “The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog,” that old stand-by sentence containing every letter in the English language that I used to type until my fingers were raw in Grade 9 high school business class. Not so hard, right? Right, when you’re sitting at a desk, not moving. Different story in a rally car running at top speed and taking turns.

CNET has the entire amusing video of how things went, but I’ll cut to the chase: iPhone wins handily. Reason? The auto-correct feature (although I suspect the iPhone’s being a true handheld device also has something to do with it). Good thing, too, because I can’t count how many times I’ve been in a rally car and thought to myself, “This would be a great time to type out my resumé.”

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories

First of all, the iPhone is thinner, lighter, has a bigger screen, and is sexier than the Pre. And it comes in two colors. These are all things we know, though. AT&T. Some people will still opt for the Pre because they think it’s “different.” There must be other, more tangible, functional differences between the two phones.

Actually, pretty much every point beyond superficial concerns does seem to make a strong case in the iPhone’s favor. It is true, after all, that the App Store has already proven its value, while Pre’s offerings have yet to be tested. And apparently the Pre’s interface, while multitouch, is not nearly as intuitive as the iPhone’s. While I’m taking AT&T’s word for that, it is true that I couldn’t imagine a more intuitive interface than the one the iPhone currently boasts. Also listed on the iPhone’s side in the UI category is “fast and responsive navigation,” which would seem to infer that the Pre is slow and sluggish by comparison, though again, this is unsubstantiated.

Another very crucial difference has to do with the limits the Pre suffers from by not being a GSM phone. Obviously, this means it can’t be used anywhere in the world as easily as the iPhone can, which is a huge point of contention for business travelers and other globe-trotting individuals. Also, the lack of GSM means that the Pre can’t take advantage of location and GPS functions in most locations around the world. Apparently the iPhone’s GPS is just better thanks to aGPS, too. I will say that it’s worked flawlessly since updating to the 3.0 Beta.

Some of the other differences are more ridiculous, and clearly skewed by AT&T’s not-so-secret preference. The iPhone, for example, is touted for featuring a built-in iPod. C’mon Pre, where’s your built-in iPod? I’m sure if you just asked Apple nicely, they’d totally let you do that. Also “Limited free Wi-Fi access” for the Pre as opposed to what, unlimited free Wi-Fi access for the iPhone? Last time I checked, I couldn’t get a Wi-Fi connection wherever I wanted whenever I wanted, which, technically, means it has “limits.”

Whether or not you believe AT&T’s propaganda, we’ll find out how they really stack up soon enough, since this document all but confirms that the Pre’s release is imminent.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories

When it comes to OS virtualization on a Mac, there are two major contenders for the title of virtualizer to end all virtualizers.

Likely Parallels and VMware Fusion need no introduction for TAB readers, but you might not be aware of what the latest incarnations that both programs bring to the table. VMware Fusion 2, released in September, and Parallels Desktop 4.0, just released today, have a few new tricks up their sleeves.

Setup

Setting up both machines on my aluminum iMac was incredibly easy. I used Windows XP Media Center Edition from a physical disc for both, although the programs also offer the choice of using an image instead. For both installations I used the default settings. In Parallels 4.0, this consists of a 32 GB hard drive with 512 MB of RAM and 128 MB of video RAM. VMware’s quickstart configurations sets you up with 40 GB of disk space, 512MB of RAM, and although it doesn’t have a video memory slider like Parallels, 3D acceleration is enabled.

Install times were almost exactly the same for Parallels and VMWare, at 24 and 25 minutes respectively. One nice option that Fusion provides, which isn’t available in the Parallels setup, is the ability to import settings from your Boot Camp installation of Windows.

OS X Integration

Yes, it is wrong to run Windows on your beautiful Leopard desktop. Which is why you may be inclined to hide it. You’re in luck, because both Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion offer the option to run guest OS applications in windowed mode, making it seem like they’re being run in the host system.

VMware’s Unity mode allows Windows applications to behave just like native OS X apps, in windows that can be minimized to and launched from the dock, even without booting the guest OS beforehand.

Parallels’ Coherence mode is similar, though it displays the Windows taskbar at the bottom of the screen, just above the dock.

Both integration modes are functional, and even maintain beveled application windows and shadow effects, but VMware wins out here, for two reasons. First, the taskbar seems out of place and clumsy above the dock with Parallels. Second, dragging and resizing application windows in VMware’s Unity mode is absolutely smooth, while there is some lag in Parallels’ Coherence mode.

Features and User Interface

Both UIs are clean, simple and great improvements over previous incarnations. The layout of the applications in Windowed mode are incredibly similar, as well. Major functions like Suspend, and Settings are in the upper left hand corner, and view mode toggle buttons are in the upper right. The bottom right area in both has a number of icons, which control drives, display drive access indicators, and control sound, sharing, printing, etc.

VMware shows all the devices connected to your Mac via USB, and allows you to click the icons to switch them into Windows. Parallels gains points here by allowing any storage media (USB, external HDs) to be connected to both Windows and Mac operating systems simultaneously. During initial setup, Parallels also prompted me to select which OS I wanted to mount my girlfriend’s Palm Treo in, which is a nice feature, especially for users new to virtualization.

Both programs offer the ability to take Snapshots, which is great if you’re a developer, reviewer, or IT professional, though VMware has a slight advantage here by having a button right in the application window. I also like Fusion’s ability to display the OS X menu bar when you move your cursor to the top of the screen in full mode. Parallels depends on key combinations to return to windowed mode, which offers more immersion, but feels clunky at times. In terms of pure design, I prefer Parallels, since it looks and feels more like a polished Mac application.

Performance

When it comes to general performance, both pieces of software ran Windows at a very usable pace. Applications opened quickly and were instantly responsive, and even running both Fusion and Parallels at once and doing things in OS X didn’t result in any significant slowdown. I should note here that my iMac has a 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 4 GB of RAM installed, so user experience may vary with different setups.

Both programs are boasting improved video performance, so I downloaded QuickTime to test HD playback. Conveniently, the Transporter 3 trailer was a recent addition to Apple’s hi-def content, so I used that in my test.

First, in 720p, video playback was smooth in Fusion, only showing some not very noticeable horizontal lines during fast action sequences. In Fusion, audio was slightly behind video on my first attempt, although video playback itself was mostly smooth, with no horizontal lines. Rewinding to the beginning and starting play again resolved the audio/visual syncing issue, and numerous attempts to recreate the problem failed, so it may have been an isolated event. Also, I was only using 128MB of video RAM, so assigning more may have made a difference. Oddly, Fusion would play only audio, no video, in fullscreen mode in Quicktime, while Parallels had no trouble switching from full to windowed playback.

At 1080p, playback was noticeably more laggy in Fusion, although there were never any syncing issues. Not, overall, very watchable though, and the Quicktime fullscreen bug persisted. Parallels was even more choppy at 1080p than VMWare. In both cases, I would definitely recommend sticking to 720p for HD playback.

Verdict

In the end, both applications are polished, effective ways of bringing Windows into OS X. There are no deal-breaking flaws in either software, and the choice of which to use will likely come down to what you intend to do with your virtual machine. For me, despite the problems mentioned above and features you gain, like simultaneous device mounting, VMWare Fusion wins out, due largely to its much better OS X integration. If I’m using virtualization software, there’s a good chance I want to be able to use Leopard as well, or else I’d just run Boot Camp. Fusion offers the least obtrusive way to bring Windows into your Mac sanctuary, and that’s exactly what I’m looking for.

Both Fusion and Parallels will set you back $79.99.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Big Data, ARM and Legal Troubles Transformed Infrastructure in Q4
• VMware’s Cloudy Ambitions: Can It Repeat Hypervisor Success?
• A 2011 Infrastructure Forecast

The first thing you need to do when preparing to purchase a new computer is determine how it will be used. That will go a long way in determining if it is worth it to buy the more expensive model. Besides the basic email and web surfing, I need a computer that can handle a large library of photos, music, and video. In addition, I will do a fair amount of video calling using Skype or iChat. I also use Delicious Library for managing all of my books and gadgets. I will do some video editing, but certainly not a lot.

Many of these needs are satisfied by any of Apple’s computers. I am not a photographer or videographer, and my livelihood does not depend on the speed and ability to handle 15 programs open at once. At the same time, however, I do a lot of presentations and I can’t have my computer freezing up because I have too much open.

When compared side-by-side, there is not much difference. Here are the things that are exactly the same:

• Processor: 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 3MB shared L2 cache
• 2GB (two SO-DIMMs) RAM standard expandable up to 4GB
• Hard Drive (they both can have 250 GB hard drives at 5400 rpm though the MacBook starts out at 160)
• 8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
• Built-in iSight camera
• Mini-DVI video out
• Built-in AirPort Extreme (802.11n)
• Built-in Bluetooth 2.0 (2.1 on MacBook Pro) + EDR
• 10/100/1000BASE-T (Gigabit) Ethernet
• Combined optical digital/audio out, combined optical digital/audio line in, microphone, speakers
• Two USB 2.0 ports, one FireWire 400 port
• Glossy screen

That is a lot of important stuff that is the same. What is better on the MacBook Pro?

• NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 256MB of GDDR3 SDRAM compared to an integrated graphics card on the MacBook
• Resolution 1440 x 900 pixels
• Full-size, illuminated keyboard with ambient light sensor; Multi-Touch trackpad
• One FireWire 800 port, one ExpressCard/34 slot
• One inch thick
• Up to 5 hours wireless productivity (vs 4.5 hours on MacBook)

I am sure this list of things that are better is debatable, but I think most would agree with most of the items.

What is better on a MacBook? (Again, these are probably debatable, especially the screen-size.)

• Smaller screen means I am not opening up a monster on my lap in a meeting
• Lighter weight (5.0 lbs compared to 5.4, not much lighter, but still) because of smaller screen
• Personally, I like the keyboard better

I will be purchasing iWork ’08 and a MobileMe subscription. When I priced these computers out, the price came to $2197 for the MacBook Pro and $1547 for the MacBook. The biggest thing that stands out as making the Pro better is the video card. However, I just don’t know if that video card is worth the $650 price difference. Multi-Touch would be nice, but again, not worth the price tag. Would I pay more for battery life? Maybe, but I don’t think the battery life is drastic enough for it to be a major player. In addition, even if I upgrade through Apple to 4GB RAM, the MacBook is still $450 less than the MacBook Pro. That may be a better place to spend my (employer’s) money.

So, unless there are some compelling reasons that you have, I don’t see how it is better to get the Pro for my needs. What do you say? Would you persuade me one way or the other? Also, are there any other killer features that I may have missed?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Will Automated Rights Management Take Down Fair Use?
• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce