Assassin's Creed

With the enormous success Assassin's Creed enjoyed on the Xbox360 and PS3 last year, it’s only logical that the game would make its way to the PC soon. Well, it’s finally here, but the question on everyone’s mind is: has Ubisoft developed a well-made port, or is it just another poor transition that one could live without? To be quite honest – after spending hours at stretch with the game, it seems like Ubisoft wants PC gamers to bend over so that they can shove another one of their half-assed ports where the sun don’t shine.

[Before going any further, let me point out that we won’t be reviewing the game all over again. We’ve already reviewed the Xbox360 version, and since the gameplay or storyline hasn’t really changed, we won’t be covering those parts again

I’m not saying that the game plays out terribly on the PC; it just isn’t nearly as good as it was on consoles. In fact, the DirectX9 version of the game looks so terrible that you’d gouge your eyes out and eat them up. This is totally unacceptable, considering that the minimum requirements of the game are REALLY steep, and the fact that the game ran using DX9 on the Xbox360/PS3 and looked a lot better there. Although the DirectX10 version looks much better than DX9, it still falls glaringly short of the game’s glory on its console counterpart.


Although the game supports all widely used 16:10 resolutions (most widescreen monitors use that aspect ratio) the game has black bands on the top and bottom of the screen when played in these resolutions. This means the game’s actually rendered in the 16:9 aspect ratio, and the black bands fill in the empty spaces. Ubisoft’s way of spitting the face of PC gamers who use widescreen monitors!

Fortunately the control scheme isn’t all that bad. On the Xbox360/PS3 the controls come quite naturally to you once you get the hang of the game; but while it’s a little more complicated with a mouse + keyboard (since the keys are kind of spread out), it isn’t too hard to get used to it. I tried playing the game via an Xbox360 controller after that, but I decided that it's easier to play using the previous control scheme, and reverted to it. My colleague Avinash, on the other hand, preferred the Xbox360 controller, so I guess it’s just a matter of preference. The bottomline is that although it isn’t as intuitive as the Xbox360/PS3, the control scheme isn’t too bad on the PC.

What I’m saying here is that, if you have the kind of system requirements (which includes a 2.8 GHz dual-core processor) needed to play it, this isn’t such a bad game to buy. Bear in mind that the substandard visuals in the DX9 version suck; the game's only playable in DX10. So if you don't have Windows Vista (which is needed for DX10), don't bother with this game.

If you own an Xbox360 or PS3 and can get your hands on the console version of the game at retail price, you’d rather do that since the game’s a whole lot better there. Unfortunately, the game's not available for those platforms in India, so even if you get your hands on them they'd be priced exorbitantly. This makes the Rs 999 price tag of the PC version a lot more appealing.

Army of Two

A year and a half ago, while EA was busy promoting Army of Two, Alain Tascan, General Manager for EA Montreal, had said that he wasn’t too impressed with Gears of War since it wasn’t innovative enough, nor did it bring anything new to the table. Now when you make such a powerful statement you better make sure your game delivers or you’re going to end up looking extremely foolish.

Looking back at that news article I can’t help but feel bad in a way for Alain (who I’m sure is hiding under a rock right now) since Army of Two is nowhere as awesome as Gears of War; in fact it’s as generic as it gets. To make matters worse, it’s shipped with virtually half the features that were announced during earlier previews. Enter one mediocre shooter.

Besides the whole co-op element, the only other "trick" this game has going for itself is the concept of AGGRO. For the uninitiated, AGGRO basically boils down to either you or your teammate firing at the enemy to draw their attention so that the other person can flank them and kill them. Now this works well while playing with a human partner but things can get pretty disastrous in the single player campaign. It’s not that controlling your partner is an elaborate process or anything; in fact, guiding him around the place is a very simple process; you can order him to follow you (passively or aggressively) or stay put to cover you (once again passively or aggressively) while you flank the enemy.

The reason this simple process becomes such a chore is because the game’s PAI (Partner Artificial Intelligence) suffers from extreme mental retardation. As and when you do require him to draw AGGRO, he finds it funny to just sit there and stare at the wall while mocking you with dialogues like "I got your back soldier"… when he clearly doesn’t. As expected you end up drawing all the AGGRO and he just sits put not even bothering to flank them. And then there are times when your partner will actually expose himself and attract thousands of bullets… even after you’ve ordered him to stay put. Hurray for stupidity!

As and when your partner starts taking a whole lot of damage he’ll get pretty vocal about the whole deal and if you still ignore his pleas he’ll go down like a sack of potatoes. Now it’s up to you drag him to safety and revive him by keeping the A button pressed for a couple of seconds (its Game Over if he dies). When it’s your time to get revived he manages to get the job done but there were times when he actually dragged me from cover into the line of fire only to get us both killed in a matter of seconds.


Once you get past the toolish AI, the game can actually get a bit enjoyable in bits and pieces since it does have the makings of a solid shooter. As in most action games today, it also boasts of a cover system that may not be as awesome as the one from Gears or Vegas but it’s a whole lot better than the one from Kane and Lynch (that one still gives me nightmares). Run up to a solid surface and you can manually stick behind it after which you can either pop out to shoot people or blind-fire as in the above mentioned titles. Running from cover to cover has also been simplified using a sliding mechanic, (just like in GRAW) and it works well. The same button designated for sliding also helps your character roll and climb over obstacles but for some reason there’s no sprinting in this game.

Besides all the running you’ll also indulge in a whole lot of gunning and in Army of Two you have a wide arsenal of weapons that allows you to do just that. Initially you’ll only have access to stock weapons, but the more money you make, the better you can customize them – by increasing the size of the barrel/cartridge, attaching silencers, grenade launchers, shotguns and shields, or just pimping them out with severe amounts of bling; it’s all possible in this game. As and when you do get bored of your weapon you can exchange it with your partner, but for some absurd reason you cannot pick up the weapons dead foes leave behind... WTF?

Once you’re done playing the single player campaign by yourself, you can head over to Xbox Live to play that very same campaign with a friend (although I seriously suggest you do so in the first place). Props to EA for making the co-op component absolutely lag-free even while playing with people from different countries (and I mean PAL countries only, since this game’s MP is region-locked). Besides co-op you have a bunch of mediocre PvP (player vs player) modes like Versus, Warzone, Extraction and Bounties that are nothing to shout about and you’ll find yourself heading back to CoD 4/TF2 ASAP.

Visually the game’s not bad-looking – but it’s nothing to drool over either. Certain levels (e.g. Miami) look pretty awesome while others like Somalia and Afghanistan are as generic as they come. One thing I do appreciate is the fact that frame rates are rock solid throughout the game, and both the lead characters (Rios and Salem) are extremely well-detailed.

As far as voice acting goes you have two "frat bros" constantly dropping the F bomb every few minutes while indulging in tons of juvenile jokes. While some of their banter was a bit funny, some was just plain annoying and seemed solely geared towards pleasing testosterone-charged fifteen-year-olds. But then again, this game is supposed to be a brainless shooter so it's no use expecting BioShock-esque writing in the first place, eh?

At the end of the day Army of Two is a game with tons of wasted potential. What irritates me further is that even though EA delayed this title significantly, it’s shipped with tons of problems, broken AI, and only half of the stuff we were promised initially, as a result of which it dives head-first into mediocrity. It could have rewritten the whole co-op tactical shooter genre as we know it but EA decided to rush out a dumbed-down shooter that’s painful to play alone thanks to stupid AI. Play it with a friend offline or online and you’ll enjoy the single player campaign to an extent. But after that’s over, there’s absolutely no reason to revisit the game!

Sanyo Xacti CG65

Holding a Sanyo Xacti CG65 is a pleasant experience that comes from a pistol-grip form factor; unique but functional. When everything is shrinking in size, Sanyo has made it a point to make the Xacti series a no-bull business, getting rid of hard drives or miniDVs to store information. And if you thought the trade-off meant reduction in quality, think again. But let me show you!

The digicam is light and compact enough to be easily shoved in your pocket with only a small bulge. The screen swivels and can be drawn out at various angles to keep you from straining your hands unnecessarily. It’s a 2.5-inch LCD display with 110,000 pixels. All the important buttons are placed within easy reach of your thumb.

The on/off button is hidden underneath the screen when shut, while the battery compartment at the bottom houses the memory card as well. That’s pretty much all that went into designing this baby, so let’s now look at its features.



Features
Offering a 6MP image sensor with 5x optical zoom, the CG65 features the all new high-precision large-scale integration engine III. All this is fine, but what you should know is that the digicam uses SD or SHDC cards to store information, allowing it to shed some weight. It uses the MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 format to save videos, while the sound is compressed in 16-bit AAC format.

Obviously, you can also shoot still images. It has a 6MP CCD (1/2.5-inch) sensor. However, the camera uses a pixel-interpolation filter to convert images from 6MP to a recorded equivalent of 10MP. Yet, saturation in pictures weren’t that evident. Of course, you would pick this one up for video recording, so it hardly matters.

Video recording is fun, especially because of its form factor. This makes it very easy to carry around; I had it in my pocket at all times. You may also find comfort in the fact that shooting with the CG65 means less strain on your wrist.


The quality of the video is decent; not extraordinary, but not bad at all. The videos I shot had a lot of mosaic compression, but the colors were good (mind you, I didn’t say vibrant). The camera can shoot at a maximum resolution of 640x480 pixels. The lens takes some time to focus; only a fraction of a second, but it's noticeable.

Performance

Shooting in the night translates into grainy videos, especially in night mode. But then the camera has a lamp mode. In this mode, I think the camera drops the frame rate to get long exposure, making everything around you more exposed. Yet I wouldn’t recommend night shooting unless you have adequate lighting.

The camera won't disappoint you in ample light. So if you are going to shoot birthday parties and suchlike, then you will love the sharpness – but only in good lighting conditions. What I don’t like is that where there details it can’t capture, the camera will end up smoothening it.

The camera is fast – startup takes about a second, and shooting starts instantly. The camera uses one rechargeable Lithium battery that for some reason isn’t power hungry. I shot comfortably for more than two hours, and the battery still didn't die on me. About 3 minutes of video will consume roughly about 71MB, so with a 2GB card you should be able to get about 43 minutes.

The device costs Rs 23,990, which I think is the right price considering the form factor and its features. You could consider this, now that you know what it can do – and if fits the bill.

Shure SE210 In-ear phones

The last time we reviewed a Shure was in our in-ear showdown, where it scored high. This time we have for review a higher-end model from the SE series itself, the SE210. It's marketed as 'noise isolation' and not noise cancellation, which is astute from a marketing angle. It comes with a hefty price tag, so let's put it under a thorough scan...

Design
We received a white model; I believe black is available too. The box pack contains the earphones, a flattish oval shaped zipper carry case, with a black matte exterior. This case has a small pouch containing numerous extra sleeves (7 pairs) of a couple of different sizes, made of rubber and foam.

One white sleeve caught my eye; something that was absent in previously reviewed lower end stuff. It was a triple-flanged sleeve; simply put, it had three concentric ‘mushroom heads’ rather than one. It can go pretty deep into the ears. A thin black cleaning device is also included, which is useful for power users.

The SE210 in-ear phones are just what you’d expect from a pro audio company, at least in terms of design and aesthetics. Simplicity and effectiveness are the hallmarks. One point to note is that the earphone tends to slip off if you put it straight on from the front. Putting it over the ear pinna creates a firmer grip. Though some amount of adjusting allow them to stay firm from the front also.

The nozzle and enclosure are white, with a grey body feeding out to similar colored grey wires. These terminate in an EP (3.5mm) jack all too soon, though a modular extension is provided. Factory fitted, the piece comes with foam sleeves, which I personally don’t like. I prefer the rubber, though this is a truly subjective point as the material of the sleeves doesn’t really create audible differences. Note the use of the word 'audible'.

Technically Speaking
Like most modern canal phones, these come with a balance armature micro-speaker, with a thin protruding tube over which you attach the sleeves. The sensitivity is 114 dB SPL/1 mW, while the impedance is 26 ohm. The 26 ohm rating is lower than 32 ohm rating seen in most models, so we can expect a little ‘loudness’ due to efficiency. The frequency range is 25 Hz – 18.5 KHz, which is sufficient.

Performance


We first ran the piece through a some software tests, consisting of audio tones and sweeps, to check the caliber of sound produced. I generally don’t do this for consumer level in-ear phones, but these are from Shure, and they deserve a respectable run through.

The bass response below 30 Hz rolls off very sharply, while at around 2-4 KHz I had to reduce the volume somewhat to bring back comfortable listening levels, hinting at a bump around that area. That's it though, we’ll keep it to the subjective tests – it's the quality of sound that matters in the end.

So we moved on to music, consisting of some .flacs and CDs first, then we tried some MP3s at 128 kbps upwards. The sound was definitely loud, and also had a well-segregated dynamic range, which exposed subtler nuances that are easily discernible in uncompressed music. The body of the sound was thick and whole; this coupled with brilliant noise isolation results in a very intimate and clear response.

As for criticism (that’s what we’re paid for!) I didn't find the bass all that spectacular, considering the price. The mids were a tad forward for my taste, though not harsh at all, just a wee bit up. Highs were clear and airy, and the overall response might appeal to many listeners. The sound is much better than in some cheaper pieces, with more depth and decent punch, but again, that ‘thumping’ tightness is not there.

Conclusion
The Rs 7500 price tag is not overly high, but I must say I'm a little disappointed. For this price I'd expect more. The clarity on the high frequency side is good, and I’m sure stuff like this doesn’t get 'spoiled', so it’s a one time investment – provided you don’t chew the wires. The previous Shure SE110 we reviewed was way better. For this one, if possible, I'd recommend an audition before purchase.

Sony Ericsson W910i

The recently concluded World Mobile Congress elected it as the Mobile of the Year. Tech2.0 previewed a prototype late last year and it did fairly well. So does the W910i deserve all the hype? We got to review it properly this time, so perhaps we can shed some light...

Form Factor
The W910 is one of the sleekest sliders I’ve reviewed till date. The slider is really smooth. The 2.4 inch display is large enough to watch a video without straining your eyes. It seems the W910 and the N81 have a something in common: they both have buttons above the display that can be used for gaming. The dedicated camera key is definitely a boon to have (as with most phones that do).

What's decidedly annoying is Sony’s insistence on its proprietary plugs for charging, USB connectivity and headphones!

I'd mentioned earlier that the keypad is a bit quirky. They keys are flat and could easily have been spaced out better or made a bit larger. But you can get by. I’ve always liked Sony’s shortcut key and, together with the nav-pad, it’s easy to maneuver through the menus.

There’s a 2 megapixel camera (sadly no flash) located at the back and a secondary VGA camera in the front. The Walkman ‘Shake It’ key is located on the top. On the whole the design is neat.


Features and Performance
Connectivity-wise, the W910i is a well-equipped 3G-enabled handset, so it also has high-speed net support in the form of HSDPA. Since 3G in this country still seems to be a topic discussed in whispers, the W910 is thankfully equipped to handle GPRS/EDGE.

Of course, there's also USB and Bluetooth with A2DP. Opera Mini is preinstalled (not that its own browser is not adequate) along with Google Maps. The New Plus application (similar to Nokia catalogs) provides content for your device.

From the media perspective the W910 is more than just decent. Its large 2.4 inch display is perfect for viewing images and videos. For some odd reason, Sony’s bundled software would allow me to install the media manager application only if I downgraded my QuickTime player! Like the K850i, the W910 has an auto-rotate feature for the gallery. Pity it doesn’t work with other sections.

The FM radio with RDS had decent reception while commuting, so that’s definitely a plus point. It’s also very quick while searching for channels. The auto scanning and saving feature take nothing more than a couple of seconds to save the presets.

The W910 is loaded with fun features like 3D games and applications such as VideoDJ for editing videos and PhotoDj for images. There’s also the MusicDJ application that comes with most SE handsets. A MusicMate application allows you to make music using the phone's inbuilt motion sensor. Simply hold down the Walkman key on the top and shake the phone in the direction you want the music to change.

The music player is loud and clear, and with EQ presets and manual options it’s really good. It has options for creating Playlists, viewing album art or visualizations, and best of all it has a converter for 3.5mm earphones. I found the bundled in-ear earphones a bit uncomfortable. Sony’s TrackID feature is also available in the phone, as well as the 'Play Now' application (which isn’t active yet).


The W910i is equipped with a 2 megapixel camera that has limited features. White Balance can be adjusted and other options include Burst Mode, color options, night mode, and some funny frames that are hopefully good for a few laughs.

The camera is just adequate. On close inspection pictures may appear a bit smudgy, but they’re quite decent otherwise. Colors appear a bit saturated, but not too bad on the whole.

My main gripe is with the battery. According to the specs sheet, the phone is supposed to give at least 9 hours of talktime. Ha – some hope! The maximum I was able to get was not more than 4.5 hours. On a real-time basis, I got a day and half, with a little music, camera, video, calls and messages.

The Bottomline
So did the W910i deserve this year’s GSMA award of Best Mobile of the Year? In my opinion – no. It’s an adequate mobile, with decent enough features. It looks good, has a smooth slider, an okay camera, and a passable music player. The battery, as I observed, is disappointing. But why does it sport such a high price tag? I have no idea.

The red handset costs Rs 15,500 and the gray/black version costs Rs 16,400. There are other handsets with similar features (or more) that cost a lot less. To sum up, while this phone did have potential, I feel it didn’t live up to expectations.



SpecsSony Ericsson W910i
Network GSM 850/900/1800/1900, EDGE, HSDPA
Physical 99 x 50 x 12.5 mm, 86g
Display 240 x 320, 256k colors, TFT, 2.4 inch
Memory 40MB internal, M2 for external
Media MP3, AAC, Stereo FM with RDS, 3GP, Voice Recording
Camera 2 megapixels, secondary video call camera
Connectivity USB v2.0, Bluetooth v2.0 with A2DP
Battery 400 hrs standby, 4.5 hrs talktime
Street Price Rs 15,500 (red); Rs 16,400 (gray/black)

Logitech G51 5.1 Speaker System

Any product that comes into the Tech2.0 lab in bubble wrap gets a bonus point! Actually I wish it were that simple. If it's a familiar brand like Logitech we kinda know what we’re in for, especially when it comes to multimedia speaker systems.

We were aware that Logitech had released its G51 5.1 speaker system, which is specially targeted at gamers and PC users. Naturally, it was only a matter of time (a few days) since its release before we got our greedy paws on it...

Design and Features
Logitech's speaker aesthetics are in step with the times and, more importantly, so is their functionality. The system comprises five metallic-finish satellite speakers with slight bulges housing the lower driver. The exterior is black with a faint metallic luster, and with a chrome-colored plate on the bulge. The face bears the Logitech logo.

On opening the black cloth grilles, the satellite drivers are exposed – looking rather like alien eyes, straight out of some new-age RPG. These are dual 2-inch drivers, which Logitech refers to as ‘laser tuned’. The sub is all-black, with a downward firing 5.25 inch woofer. I like downward firing subs because of the increased ‘kickbutt’ factor.

The main part of the system is a control pod, typically available with all Logitech systems, though this one looks different; it's a bit like video game controller, again in black-and-chrome. It has a mute buttons, I/O for mics and phones, plus a largish round dial in the center to switch modes and control volume etc.

A 'Matrix' switch does the task of converting stereo to 5.1 surround, though if you want authentic surround-sound your soundcard must support 6 channel out, and of course the game should have surround-sound tracks.

The subwoofer has all the needed inputs/outputs, in a vertical array lined up on the left side of the back panel. The power rating of the system is 155 watts.

Performance
If you look at the inputs (which comprise a single front, centre and surround input, plus an aux-in) it becomes evident that the system is mainly designed for PCs. We like to be different, so we used the aux-in and hooked the system to the PS3, and a Sony Bravia TV that happened to be in our labs. Talk about overkill!


To makes things more exciting we inserted the Burnout Paradise CD (a game we'd reviewed a while ago), and our resident gamers sat down to do their thang. What followed was chugging rock music, crashing sound effects, shattering high frequency swishes, and even crazier audio, all backed by the insane visuals. It was a real test for the speakers, and they did the job decently.

Critically speaking, the surround mode created this typically phased-out spatial image, with the rear speakers suddenly coming to life once we switched surround mode on. An audio purist might not like this sound.

The sub needed to be on full blast to be effective, though we were in a room larger than the average gamer’s den. Still, the thump was not too impressive, especially in matrix mode, where I’m afraid lots of bass got phased out in compensation for the surround sound. In fact, the speakers sounded much better in normal 2.1 mode.

The good parts were the mids and highs, which were quite chunky and clear respectively, and the separation of stereo tracks into 5.1 wasn't bad either. I also found the sound open enough for games and movies, though not so much for pure audio listening. The latter is not something this system is suited for.

Overall volume was loud enough for most rooms. There was faint, almost inaudible, signs of distortion at the highest levels, but I doubt you could hear the system itself at such levels.

Conclusion
These speakers come with an MRP of Rs 12,995, which is reasonable (okay, perhaps not). Some might argue that a remote control is indispensable for a system like this. It's good for games, and the surround-sound does work, even if the bass and thump are not the best in the business.

Apple Macbook Air

Ever since news about the Macbook Air broke (and in typical Apple style left the world open-mouthed) we at Tech2.0 had been waiting eagerly to get our hands on it. Well, the wait is now over, so without further ado or pontification let’s head straight to the heart of the matter – does the slim-and-sexy Macbook Air deliver?

Despite seeing images and videos of the Macbook Air, nothing could have prepared me for the “OMG THAT IS SLIM!!!” reaction I had when I first beheld the laptop. It is that thin. Measuring an incredible 14.2 x 10.5 x 1.9, this is truly the world’s slimmest laptop and will remain so till the competition gets its act together.

Considering how thin it is, quite a few users might have concerns about its sturdiness. Well these doubts can be easily laid to rest. The Macbook Air is constructed on a strong aluminum shell, which has a sober light silver finish. This is a revolutionary clean design and breaks new ground for high performance slim laptops.

However, the slimness has its drawbacks. The usual arrays of ports and the standard optical drive that are ubiquitous on normal laptops are completely absent here. Instead there's just a single USB slot – for any external connectivity one will have to use a variety of external connections that increase the number of items one has to carry. We'll cover this in greater detail later in the article.

Moving on to its features, the LCD panel on the Macbook Air is a 13.3 inch TFT LED panel with a native resolution of 1280 x 800. This glossy screen offers excellent levels of brightness and color/contrast. Thanks to the excellent anti-aliasing available on OSX, text and graphics were very crisp and rich. Watching movies was a real delight. The only hitch was the viewing angle – even a little tilt away from center led to a dramatic loss in clarity. The gloss of the screen did not pose a problem.

The keyboard of the Air seemed a bit off compared to other laptops. It was a little more angled to the left, which at first led to a lot of mis-typing. Once I got used to it, however, it was quite comfortable. The keys are quite slim but offer excellent feedback. They are evenly recessed and well spaced.


The touchpad is huge and occupies a fair bit of area. This is due to the addition of the 'Multi-touch' option first seen in the iPhone. While being able to manipulate images and text in a manner similar to the iPhone sounds good, the actual experience was not that great. At best it was was slow and not very responsive. Barring resizing images or manipulating basic text, I couldn’t find too much use for it.

The large size of the touchpad may cause some problems while typing, as it could inadvertently register as a click/movement and scramble the cursor causing mistypes. This can however be disabled from 'Options', so it's no big deal.

As we observed, the Macbook Air is stingy with port/ODD/connectivity offerings. To compensate, Apple's offered a series of external connectivity options such as an Ethernet port / Micro-DVI connector and a Super Drive. Additionally, a new program called 'Remote Drive' allows you to treat a DVD-ROM drive from another PC/Mac as a local drive, and allow you to install/modify applications natively on the Air. This program supports booting over the network and thus can be used to reinstall the OS if necessary.

The Macbook Air sports an Intel C2D processor running at 1.6 GHz, an 80 GB 4200 RPM drive, 2GB of PC5300 DDR2 RAM, and a 13.3 inch LCD Panel. The CPU is unique as it’s custom-made for Apple and is just about 60 percent size/TDP of a normal mobile CPU. Another unique fact is that instead of the 80GB HDD, one can squeeze in a 64GB SSD as the primary storage.

Keeping in mind the Spartan nature of the laptop, we decided to skip our normal Windows Vista installation and 3D/PCmark benchmark routine. We chose to instead focus on the usability factor of the Air within its native OSX. Performance-wise, the Macbook Air was pretty sluggish. Programs took some time loading and despite the 2GB of RAM it wasn’t a pleasant experience in some places. This can directly be attributed to the slow nature of both the RAM and very slow HDD. I suspect this would improve dramatically with the SSD.

Battery life proved to be top-notch. The laptop claims a battery life of five hours and I found this to be largely accurate. Even with mid-to-heavy use, I was easily averaging these figures.

The Macbook Air is an interesting product. It’s clearly aimed at the well-heeled user and positions itself between the entry-level Macbook and the high-end Macbook Pro range. This is indicated by its price of Rs 96,000 (and upward). While it certainly sets new standards in industrial laptop design, the negatives – such as the absence of USB ports, non user-changeable battery, sluggish system performance – can be overwhelming. Things improve if you put a SSD on this laptop… but then the cost of the machine goes up exponentially.

The tradeoff between system performance and funky design is a tad high, so at the end of the day we'd not recommend this product in its current form. Only someone who is really enamored by Apple will buy this. I suggest you give this generation of the Macbook Air a miss, and wait for a refreshed model that will undoubtedly be out before long.