Best battery backup generator battery powered backup generator battery power generator backup battery backup vs generator battery backup vs generator battery backup vs surge protector cyber power battery backup 850 va battery backup for computer

Battery Backup vs. Generator: Which Backup Power Source Is Best for You?

Battery Backup vs. Generator: Which Backup Power Source Is Best for You?

When you live somewhere with extreme weather or regular power outages, it's a good idea to have a backup power source for your home. There are various types of backup power systems on the market, but each serves the same primary purpose: keeping your lights and appliances on when the power goes out.

It might be a good year to look into backup power: Much of North America is at an elevated risk of blackout this summer thanks to an ongoing drought and expected higher than average temperatures, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation said Wednesday. Parts of the United States, from Michigan down to the Gulf Coast, are at a high risk making blackouts even more likely. 

The SaveOnEnergy marketplace helps you search, compare, sign up and save on the right energy fit for your home — all for free. If you're interested in solar, answer a few questions to get an exact price quote from our solar advisors.

In the past, fuel-powered standby generators (also known as whole house generators) have dominated the backup power supply market, but reports of risk of carbon monoxide poisoning have led many to search for alternatives. Battery backups have emerged as a more eco-friendly and potentially safer option to conventional generators. 

Despite performing the same function, battery backups and generators are different devices. Each one has a particular set of advantages and disadvantages, which we'll cover in the following comparison guide. Keep reading to find out about the main differences between battery backups and generators and decide which option is right for you.

Cynthia R Matonhodze/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Battery backups

Home battery backup systems, such as the Tesla Powerwall or the LG Chem RESU, store energy, which you can use to power your house during an outage. Battery backups run on electricity, either from your home solar system or the electrical grid. As a result, they're much better for the environment than fuel-powered generators. They're also better for your wallet.

Separately, if you have a time-of-use utility plan, you can use a battery backup system to save money on your energy bills. Instead of paying high electricity rates during peak usage hours, you can use energy from your battery backup to power your home. In off-peak hours, you can use your electricity as normal -- but at a cheaper rate.

LifestyleVisuals/Getty Images

Generators

On the other hand, standby generators connect to your home's electrical panel and kick on automatically when the power goes out. Generators run on fuel to keep your electricity on during an outage -- typically natural gas, liquid propane or diesel. Other generators have a "dual fuel" feature, meaning that they can run on either natural gas or liquid propane.

Certain natural gas and propane generators can connect to your home's gas line or propane tank, so there's no need to refill them manually. Diesel generators, however, will need to be topped up in order to keep running.

Battery backup vs. generator: How do they compare?

Pricing

In terms of cost, battery backups are the pricier option upfront. But generators need fuel to run, which means that you'll spend more over time to maintain a steady fuel supply. 

With battery backups, you'll need to pay for the backup battery system upfront, as well as installation costs (each of which are in the thousands). Exact pricing will vary based on which battery model you choose and how many of them you need to power your home. However, it's common for an average-sized home battery backup system to run between $10,000 and $20,000.

For generators, the upfront costs are slightly lower. On average, the price of purchasing and installing a standby generator can range from $7,000 to $15,000. However, remember that generators require fuel to run, which will increase your operating expenses. The specific costs will depend on a few factors, including the size of your generator, which type of fuel it uses and the amount of fuel used to run it.

Installation

Battery backups earn a slight edge in this category since they can be mounted to the wall or floor, whereas generator installations require a bit of additional work. Regardless, you'll need to hire a professional for either type of installation, both of which will require a full day of work and may cost several thousand dollars.

Aside from setting up the device itself, installing a generator also requires pouring a concrete slab, connecting the generator to a dedicated fuel source and installing a transfer switch.

Maintenance

Battery backups are the clear winner in this category. They're quiet, run independently, don't produce any emissions and don't require any ongoing maintenance.

On the other hand, generators can be quite noisy and disruptive when they're in use. They also emit exhaust or fumes, depending on which type of fuel they use to run -- which may irritate you or your neighbors.

Keeping your home powered

As far as how long they can keep your home powered, standby generators easily outperform battery backups. As long as you have enough fuel, generators can run continuously for up to three weeks at a time (if necessary).

That's simply not the case with battery backups. Let's use the Tesla Powerwall as an example. It has 13.5 kilowatt-hours of storage capacity, which can provide power for a few hours on its own. You can get extra power out of them if they're part of a solar panel system or if you use multiple batteries in a single system.

Expected lifespan and warranty

In most cases, battery backups come with longer warranties than standby generators. However, these warranties are measured in different ways.

Over time, battery backup systems lose the ability to hold a charge, much like phones and laptops. For that reason, battery backups include an end-of-warranty capacity rating, which measures how effective a battery will hold a charge by the end of its warranty period. In Tesla's case, the company guarantees that the Powerwall battery should retain 70% of its capacity by the end of its 10-year warranty.

Some backup battery manufacturers also offer a "throughput" warranty. This is the number of cycles, hours or energy output (known as "throughput") that a company guarantees on its battery.

With standby generators, it's easier to estimate lifespan. Good-quality generators can run for 3,000 hours, as long as they're well maintained. Therefore, if you run your generator for 150 hours per year, then it should last about 20 years.

Which one is right for you?

Across most categories, battery backup systems come out on top. In short, they're better for the environment, easier to install and cheaper to run long-term. Plus, they have longer warranties than standby generators.

With that said, traditional generators can be a good option in some cases. Unlike battery backups, you only need a single generator to restore power in an outage, which brings down the upfront costs. Plus, standby generators can last longer than battery backup systems in a single session. As a result, they'll be a safer bet if the power is out for days at a time.

Explore more home energy topics

---

Source

https://notableh.pops.my.id/

.

The latest update of your smartwatch has smartwatch vs normal watch the future of smartwatches should i get a smartwatch 2018 the latest update of your smartwatch how long smartwatch last should i get a smartwatch 2018 facebook plans monitor smartwatch next summer your next step you re next movie your next bus

Your Next Smartwatch May Have 90 Hours of Battery Life and Maybe a Camera Too

Your Next Smartwatch May Have 90 Hours of Battery Life and Maybe a Camera Too

People often gripe about smartwatch battery life, and for good reason, as even premium watches like the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4 last only two to three days before needing a recharge. But Qualcomm's upcoming W5 chips promise to extend battery life by up to 24 hours thanks to a slew of performance and efficiency advancements.

These new designs, officially called the Snapdragon W5 and W5 Plus, are the successors to the Snapdragon 4100 and 4100 Plus that powered the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4, TicWatch 3 Pro and other wearables that statistically few people actually bought. Qualcomm said its new silicon achieves better battery life by reducing the chip's size to 4nm. That's just a fraction of the 80,000 nanometer size of a human hair, and down from 12nm in the 4100 series.

Qualcomm's W5 Plus has all those benefits, plus an extra feature to eke out even more battery life of up to 24 hours longer than with the prior 4100 Plus chip. The W5 Plus pulls this off with what's called a co-processor, or effectively a separate computer chip designed to do basic tasks, like displaying notifications. 

In the W5 Plus, Qualcomm has also decreased how much of the chip's various parts "wake up" to do something, leaving the rest  dormant to save even more battery. For instance, when going for a run or listening to music, only the satellite GPS location service, Wi-Fi, and audio portions functions would be active. Qualcomm's senior director of Head and Wearables, Pankaj Kedia, compared it to only turning on a few lights to get to the kitchen at night instead of wastefully flipping on every light in the house. "The rest of the SoC is power collapsed so you get longer battery life," Kedia said.

Qualcomm's steady drumbeat of wearable advances are arriving as smartwatches are becoming more common. Smartwatches have already outsold the entire Swiss watch industry. The questions facing tech companies now are whether smartwartwatches will remain a relatively niche product among techies and fitness enthusiasts, or whether new functionality can make them essential to more customers' lives. 

Apple, which is by far the most popular smartwatch maker, is rumored to be making a ruggedized Apple Watch meant for extreme sports and could reveal it later this year. Meanwhile, Google is working on a new smartwatch called the Pixel Watch that's expected to launch in the fall alongside the upcoming Google Pixel 7 to compete with Apple and Samsung's premium watches, though there's no word on Pixel Watch pricing. 

It's also not clear what kind of chipset will power the Pixel Watch, so a lot of its capabilities are unknown -- except that it will run Wear OS 3, Google's wearable operating system that integrates parts of Samsung's Tizen OS. That gives it a similar advantage as the Apple Watch: using their own software for a better integration with hardware. 

"On the watch side, the problem is that the silicon needs to be tightly integrated with the end product," said Avi Greengart, president and lead analyst at research firm Techsponential. "While Qualcomm has had silicon products with the [Snapdragon] 3100 and 4100, it hasn't been able to tie those with software and hardware in a product consumers want to buy anywhere near what Apple has been able to do." 

Despite the competition, Qualcomm's W5 series has features that could pave the way for the next generation of wearables. 

Battery, battery, battery

One key feature of Qualcomm's W5 Plus chip is its battery life. The W5 promises longer wear times, but the W5 Plus, with its extra power-saving features, can get up to 24 hours more battery life than before. Given most Apple Watch models won't last longer than a day, and even the leading Wear OS watches last three days at most, getting more battery life is a big deal.

That focus on battery life is also likely why the Snapdragon W5 series doesn't support 5G. The newer cellular technology promises faster web surfing but is still a battery hog. So, for now, any cellular-connected watches will be able to connect only to older, slower 4G LTE networks for mobile service (but don't worry, your music will still stream just fine). Qualcomm declined to comment on when we'd see a wearable with 5G capabilities.

That 4G LTE ceiling also applies to other devices using the W5 too. Facebook's Ray-Ban Stories photo and video-sharing glasses, for example, used the older Snapdragon 4100 chipset, Qualcomm said. Future augmented reality glasses may use the W5, and though they won't have 5G, they would likely benefit from the rest of the chipset's battery efficiencies. That could help make the glasses easier to design with smaller batteries, which are critical for making them look as normal as possible. 

W5 Series: An actual Dick Tracy watch?

You may not know it, but Qualcomm chips have supported cameras since 2018. Back then, the company's chip powered the Samsung Galaxy Watch 3, which didn't come with a camera. Only a few smartwatches have come out with the ability to take photos and videos, and they've either launched in China or been designed for kids. Mainstream smartwatches haven't implemented cameras, but Qualcomm thinks that might change with the W5, because it has better battery life that would make taking photos less burdensome. 

This includes two-way video calling, a feature that gadget nerds have been dreaming about since the Dick Tracy days, as well as smoother video playback and Memoji-style 3D watch faces, all made possible with cameras on watches. 

Qualcomm said it's notched 25 products that are currently being developed with its W5. The first will be the next-generation Oppo Watch coming in August with the W5 chip. Qualcomm said an unnamed TicWatch will be the first to use its W5 Plus, though the chipmaker didn't have any details to share about it, including if it would have a camera. Qualcomm's Kedia also declined to say whether any of the remaining 23 devices were AR glasses.

"I wish I could share the 25 customers in the pipeline -- they bring a whole new meaning to the next-generation wearables," Kedia said.

---

Source

Apple macbook 12 inch 2016 macbook air 2015 12 inch apple 12 inch macbook apple macbook 12 inch 2016 macbook pro 2015 12 inch apple macbook 12 inch 2017 apple macbook 12 inch battery replacement apple macbook 12 inch accessories apple macbook 12 inch retina display apple macbook 12 gold apple macbook student discount apple macbook pro m1

Apple MacBook (12-inch, 2015) review: A minimalist MacBook that proves less can be more

Apple MacBook (12-inch, 2015) review: A minimalist MacBook that proves less can be more

Editors' note (June 27, 2017):  The12-inch MacBook, reviewed in full below, was updated in 2016 and then again in June 2017, at Apple's   Worldwide Developers Conference . The new  $1,299 12-inch MacBook and $999 13-inch MacBook Air now have faster, more powerful Intel  processors. The current crop of MacBook Pros --  the $1,299 13-inch, $1,799 13-inch with Touch Bar, and $2,399 15-inch with Touch Bar  -- have those new chips, too, along with upgraded graphics hardware. 

Otherwise, aside from a RAM bump here and a slight price drop there, the 2017 batch is very similar to the one from 2016, with the same enclosures, ports, trackpads and screens. But be forewarned: Buying a new MacBook Pro may require you to invest in a  variety of adapters  for your legacy devices. Also note that the  13-inch MacBook Pro from 2015  has been discontinued, though the $1,999  15-inch model  from that year remains available for those who want all the ports and fewer dongles.

The complaints started even before Apple's first new MacBook demo ended. During the March 2015 press event, observers fretted about the new, slimmer, lighter 12-inch MacBook. "It's underpowered," they said. "The battery life will be short. The new keyboard is too shallow. The no-click touchpad is a gimmick."

The outcry, which ranged from deriding the new, singular USB-C port to the overall price was reminiscent of the world's reaction to the original iPad in 2010. And like that groundbreaking tablet, the new 12-inch MacBook won't do everything and isn't for everyone. But its strictly enforced minimalism will make this laptop the model that industrial designers will strive to copy for the next several years.

Sarah Tew/CNET

The 12-inch MacBook is a system that ditches the Air and Pro monikers and returns to a simpler designation not seen since the classic black and white polycarbonate MacBooks of the mid-2000s (the ones you still occasionally see in coffee shops despite being their being discontinued in 2011).

Starting at $1,299, it includes a high-resolution Retina screen (much sharper than that on the Air), 8GB of RAM and 256GB of solid state storage. Unlike other laptops with removable drives or RAM, everything here is (permanently) packed into a tiny custom motherboard that leaves maximum room for a large battery. A second version, priced at $1,599, adds a 512GB hard drive and a tiny processor speed bump. In the UK and Australia, the prices start at £1,049 and AU$1,799 for the base model and hit £1,299 and AU$2,199 for the upgrade. More expensive build-to-order models are available, too. (The MacBook can be ordered online at 12:00 a.m. PT tonight, the same time as the Apple Watch, and should be available in store -- presumably in limited quantities -- on Friday, April 10.)

By way of comparison, the 13-inch MacBook Air starts at $999, but a similar 8GB/256GB configuration will cost the same $1,299. The 13-inch MacBook Pro starts at the same $1,299 as this new MacBook, but with only half the storage. Upgrading that Pro model to the same 8GB/256GB will cost $1,499. And on the Windows side, a Samsung Ativ Book 9 with the same 8GB RAM/256GB flash drive and the same processor -- will cost you $1,399 (all prices in US dollars). So, in the context of its main rivals, the MacBook is actually priced rather competitively.

Sarah Tew/CNET

Looking only at a spec sheet, it's easy to see why this new MacBook might be a tough sell. The MacBook uses Intel's new Core M processor, designed for slim, light laptops, hybrids and tablets with premium prices. It's efficient enough that full laptops can even run fanless, allowing for quiet, cool operation. But, the Core M has disappointed in the handful of Windows systems in which we've already tested it, turning in sluggish performance and mediocre battery life, the latter an unforgivable flaw for computers designed to be as light and portable as possible.

To spare you the suspense, I can say that the new MacBook performs much better than any other Core M system we've tested to date, hitting 11 hours in our video playback test. That's not nearly as much as you'd get from a MacBook Air or MacBook Pro -- and it puts this system at a disadvantage compared to the longest-lasting laptops -- but battery life is definitely not the deal-breaker it could have been.

Heavy online use will drain the battery even more quickly, and I found myself frequently glancing up at the upper right corner of the screen to see the battery life percentage tick down as I worked. I've found it can last for a full work day of moderate usage, but unlike a current-gen MacBook Pro or Air, it'll be hard to go a few days without plugging it in at all.

Sarah Tew/CNET

Beyond that, the limitations of having a single USB-C port for all your connection needs (with the exception of a standard audio jack that also made the cut) is even more of a challenge, unless you're prepared to arm yourself with a pocketful of dongles and adaptors.

Other changes are easier to adapt to. We've previously gone into some detail about the new click-free pad, which Apple calls the Force Touch trackpad, which is also available in the updated MacBook Pro. It's a clever bit of space-saving engineering that replaces the old trackpad, with a hinged design for physically clicking down, with a flat glass surface augmented by a force feedback engine. The keyboard is an even more radical change, swapping out the long-standing Mac standard of deep island-style keys for a set of much shallower keys, but with larger actual key faces.

Using the new MacBook means accepting its limitations, some of which are deliberately self-imposed. That's especially noticeable when you look at another new laptop, the Samsung Ativ Book 9. It weighs the same as the MacBook, has a similar 12-inch high-res screen, and an Intel Core M processor, but manages to fit in two full-size USB ports and a micro-HDMI output (although it also has a proprietary power connection and lacks USB-C, which is set to become the new standard).

The new MacBook and the similar Samsung Book 9.

Sarah Tew/CNET

If your need for longer battery life, more powerful performance, or more ports doesn't automatically preclude you, then the in-person experience of using the new MacBook will far outshine the on-paper shortcomings. For writing, Web surfing, video viewing and social media, it's a pleasure to use, and makes the still-slim 13-inch MacBook Air feel a bit like a lumbering dinosaur, to say nothing of other ultrabook-style laptops. It's a perfect coffee shop companion.

Some of the critical reactions to this laptop remind me of another new Apple design introduction I covered seven years ago, the original MacBook Air. That system was also criticized for dropping ports and connections, such as an Ethernet and VGA, that people were convinced they still needed. And, much like the new MacBook, it included just a single USB port.

Back in 2008, I was correct that the Air's new, stripped-down design had real legs, and would set the standard for years to come. But also true was that future refinements down the road would turn the MacBook Air from a speciality product into a mainstream one. When the next 12-inch MacBook update arrives, I suspect it will at the very least add a second USB-C port, and that's when it will become much easier to recommend to a broader audience.

Apple MacBook (12-inch, 2015)

Price as reviewed	$1,299, £1,049, AU$1,799
Display size/resolution	12-inch 2,304x1,440 screen
PC CPU	1.1GHz Intel Core M 5Y31
PC Memory	8GB DDR3 SDRAM 1,600MHz
Graphics	1,536MB Intel HD Graphics 5300
Storage	256 SSD
Optical drive	None
Networking	802.11ac wireless, Bluetooth 4.0
Operating system	Apple OSX 10.10.2 Yosemite

Design and features

This is the thinnest Mac that Apple has ever made: at its thickest point it's just 13.1mm (about half an inch), 24 percent thinner than the existing 11-inch MacBook Air. It's also the lightest MacBook, at 2.04 pounds (0.9 kg). Samsung's new Book 9 weighs 2.08 pounds, essentially the same, although it has a slightly larger footprint.

The overall shape and industrial design is familiar, based on the past seven-plus years of MacBook design, but with a few new twists, such as new colors. Besides the traditional silver, the new MacBook also comes in space grey or gold. Our test unit was gold, and like the iPhone color scheme it copies, the coloration is subtle, and gives off the impression that your laptop has a bronzed finish.

Sarah Tew/CNET

The keyboard, another big change, uses a new butterfly mechanism for keys that's thinner and more stable. The nearly edge-to-edge keyboard has larger key faces, yes, but the keys are also shallower, barely popping up above the keyboard tray and depressing into the chassis only slightly. It takes some getting used to, especially if you're accustomed to the deep, clicky physical feedback of the current MacBooks or the similar island-style keyboards of most other modern laptops.

The first time I tried the keyboard, I couldn't get through even a few sample sentences without several typos, because of the shallow keys and their lower level of tactile feedback. But when I tried again a couple of hours later, it was already much easier.

Sarah Tew/CNET

After using the new MacBook keyboard for the better part of a week, the shallowness of the keys, and a lack of a deeply satisfying click still bothers me. But, as someone who types very longform, the larger key faces and rock-solid stability make up for that, tipping the needle into the positive category. The keys are almost completely wobble-free, as opposed to the wiggle you can get under your fingers on a current MacBook keyboard.

The new trackpad, called the Force Touch, is even more of a change. Nearly the same size as the Air's, but squeezed into a smaller space, it dominates the lower half of the laptop and goes right up to the bottom edge. While previous trackpads had a hinge along the top in a kind of diving board design, the new pad works very differently. We took a deeper hands-on look at Force Touch when we tested it in the only other Apple product to support the new TrackPad right now, the 13-inch MacBook Pro.

Four sensors under the pad allow you to "click" anywhere on the surface, and the Force Click effect, which combines the sensors with haptic (or taptic) feedback, allows you to have two levels of perceived clicking within an app or task. That deep click feels to the finger and brain like the trackpad has a stepped physical mechanism, but in fact, the movement you feel is a small horizontal shift, which, even when fully explained, still feels like you're depressing the trackpad two levels.

Apple describes it like this: "With the Force Touch trackpad, force sensors detect your click anywhere on the surface and move the trackpad laterally toward you, although the feel is the same familiar downward motion you're accustomed to in a trackpad."

With that second, deeper click, you can access several types of contextual information, for example, highlighting a word and getting a Wikipedia pop-up, or seeing a map when deep-clicking on an address. Jumping into the preview view of a document or file works with the deep click, too, just as it does now by pressing the space bar in OS X. The most advanced use is probably fast-forwarding through a video clip in QuickTime, faster or slower, depending on how hard you press down on the trackpad.

I ended up using this trackpad just as I do almost every other one, Apple or otherwise, by tapping rather than clicking. It still bewilders me that Apple turns off tap-to-click by default, forcing you to hunt around the preferences menu to find it. Here's a tip: besides the tapping feature under the trackpad preferences menu, you may want to go to the accessibility menu and look under Preferences > Accessibility > Mouse & Trackpad > Trackpad options to turn on tap-to-drag.

Sarah Tew/CNET

The new MacBook has a 12-inch Retina display with a 2,304x1,440-pixel resolution. It, too, has a new design -- it's the thinnest ever built into a MacBook, at 0.88mm -- with a larger aperture for light and individual pixels in red, green and blue. The slightly unusual resolution is a combination of Apple's drive for a very high pixel-per-inch density, as well as an aspect ratio that sticks with 16:10, as opposed to nearly every other laptop available now, all of which use the same 16:9 aspect ratio as HDTV. (The 11-inch MacBook Air remains the only 16:9 MacBook.)

The screen looks clear and bright, and works from wide viewing angles. There's a glossy overlay, but I've seen much worse offenders when it comes to screen glare and light reflection. The screen bezel, that dead space between the actual display and the outer edge of the lid, is thinner here than on a MacBook Air, and the screen glass goes nearly edge to edge, giving the MacBook a seamless look much like the current Pro models. Thin bezels are definitely an important style note these days, although Dell does it much better with its current XPS 13 laptop, with an eye-catching barely there bezel.

The speaker grille above the keyboard is predictably thin-sounding -- this is a very small laptop after all, with little room for speaker cones to move air -- but it'll suffice for casual video viewing. With Beats Audio as part of the Apple family we may see a greater emphasis on audio in Macs in the future, just as Beats and HP had a successful partnership for several years.

Joe Kaminski/CNET

One spec that many feel was shortchanged in this new laptop is the built-in webcam. It's a simple 640x480 camera, and not as high-res as the 720p camera found in the Air or Pro laptops. The image above is taken from an iPhone 6, and shows my image, being transmitted from the 12-inch MacBook, via FaceTime. Note the softness of the image, which is an issue with viewing the 480p transmission on a much higher resolution screen.

Ports and connections

Video	USB 3.1 Type C
Audio	3.5mm audio jack
Data	USB 3.1 Type C
Networking	802.11ac wireless, Bluetooth 4.0
Optical	None

Connections, performance and battery

While testing the new MacBook, I found myself frequently plugging and unplugging accessories. Starting with the power cable connected to the single USB-C port, I pulled the power out to plug in a short USB-C to USB-A cable (sold by Apple for $19, £15 or AU$29), and connected the USB dongle for a wireless mouse. When I wanted to use a USB data key, I had to disconnect the mouse, and use the same adaptor cable to connect my key.

Shortly, you will be able to connect video the same way, using a USB-C to HDMI, DisplayPort or VGA adaptor. Apple has two connections blocks that include either HDMI or VGA for $79, £65 or AU$119, but neither was available at the time of this review.

Sarah Tew/CNET

The official pitch is that MacBook users will use wireless connections for just about everything. Bluetooth for a mouse, Wi-Fi for Internet access, AirDrop for file transfer, and so on. Most of these assumptions are correct, but there's something to be said for being able to use a full-size USB or HDMI port to connect to any USB key or HDTV with minimal hassle.

One potentially very useful benefit of USB-C is that, because it's used to power the laptop battery, it can also draw power from the portable backup battery packs that so many people have lying around in drawers and laptop bags. Take a USB-C to male USB cable (we tried a $10 one sent by Monoprice), and you can get some extra battery power on the go without having to bring the whole power brick or have access to a power outlet. It won't fully charge the laptop, but it could offer enough juice to get you out of a jam.

Sadly, MagSafe, truly one of the great developments in the history of laptops, is gone, and the new USB-C power plug has no magnetic connection at all. It simply slots in. The connector is fairly shallow, so it may very well just pop out if you yank the cable by accidentally stepping on it, but it certainly doesn't feel as accident-proof as the MagSafe version does.

The new 12-inch MacBook also breaks from the rest of Apple's computer line in that it does not use a processor from Intel's Core i series. Mostly Macs use Core i5 chips from either the current fifth generation of those chips, or the previous fourth generation (although the professional-level Mac Pro desktop uses an Intel Xeon processor).

Instead, this laptop uses the Core M, a new entry in Intel's laptop family. The pitch for Core M is that it enables laptops to be very thin and light, but still powerful and long-lasting. That's an appealing pitch, and Core M chips are so far only found in premium-priced systems (the least expensive being the $700 Asus T300 Chi).

Sarah Tew/CNET

But, in the first three computers we've tested with Core M chips, the results have not lived up to the hype. Lenovo's Yoga 3 Pro had sluggish performance and weak battery life. The Asus T300 Chi did a little better, but still ran for less than 6 hours in our battery test. The Samsung Ativ Book 9, a 12-inch laptop very similar to this one, did a bit better both on performance and battery life, coming close to 8 hours.

Getting the most out of Core M may require your hardware and software, including the operating system, to be properly tuned for it. And as Apple can control every aspect of its OS and exactly what hardware is paired with it, it's not surprising that the company is able to get some of the best results to date from the Core M. In our benchmark tests, no one will confuse this system with even the basic 13-inch MacBook Air, but it was faster in our multitasking test than the other Core M laptops we've reviewed. More importantly, in day to day use, it often felt just as responsive as a MacBook Air, with a few important caveats.

Sarah Tew/CNET

Basic Web surfing worked flawlessly, as did streaming even 4K video from YouTube or HD video from Netflix. Even basic gaming via Steam was doable, and I could play older or simpler games such as Portal 2 or Telltale's The Walking Dead series if I dialed the in-game resolution down to 1,440x900 and played with middle-ground graphics settings.

Using a browser other than Apple's Safari, which is very well optimized for the OS X/Core M combination, can lead to some slowdown, as can loading up multiple video streams at once. Pushing apps such as Photoshop with challenging filters and high-resolution files is likewise going to be slower than most Windows laptops with Core i5 CPUs.

But for many laptop users, especially those primarily interested in a laptop's size and weight, battery life is of the utmost importance. That is the one area where Apple's use of the Core M platform has caused the most angst-ridden speculation. Other Core M systems, all slim laptops or hybrids, have all turned in battery life scores that are on the low side, from about five and a half hours (for the Yoga 3 Pro and Asus T300 Chi) to seven and a half hours (for the Samsung Book 9) in our video playback battery drain test.

Meanwhile, Apple's own current MacBook Air runs for an amazing 18 hours (thanks to its recently upgraded Broadwell Core i5 CPU) and the 13-inch Pro ran for 15 hours in the same test. Two recent slim, premium laptops, the Dell XPS 13 and HP Spectre x360, both managed 12 hours.

Sarah Tew/CNET

The 12-inch MacBook doesn't last as long as those Core i5 laptops, but it does beat the other Core M systems by a large margin, running for 11 hours 3 minutes in our video playback battery drain test. Apple says it should give you at least 10 hours of video playback, so that's in line with the company's claims. Real-world scenarios, with more energy draining apps and frequent online use, will be shorter, and in a secondary test streaming online video non-stop over Wi-Fi, the system ran for 5 hours.

How did Apple manage to get better battery life from the notoriously fickle Core M? Part of it may be the optimization Apple can do as the creator of both the hardware and operating system. But a big part of it may be the large 39.7-watt-hour lithium-polymer battery crammed into the small MacBook's body. The actual motherboard and all the internal components have been shrunk down to be only fraction of the size of a typical laptop motherboard. Instead, the entire rest of the system interior is filled with a battery designed to fit into every nook and cranny of available space.

Conclusion

My initial impression of the original MacBook Air from 2008 feels timely and fitting here. Of that laptop, which was considered both groundbreaking and frustratingly limited, I said:

Sarah Tew/CNET

Likewise, this new MacBook will also be the right fit for a smaller segment of a public than the more universally useful 13-inch MacBook Air or Pro. But those who can work with the limitations -- primarily a lack of ports, shorter battery life, performance that's not suited for pro-level photo and video editing, and a shallow keyboard that takes some getting used to -- will love its sharp display, slim and light body, and responsive touchpad.

My primary caveat is this -- if history is any guide, you can count on a near-future generation of this laptop boosting its utility by doubling the number of USB-C ports to at least two. So like many new technology products, it may be worth waiting for the next version, even if having a 12-inch, two-pound gold MacBook right now will make you the coolest kid at the coffee shop.

Handbrake Multimedia Multitasking test

Apple MacBook Air (13-inch, 2015) 370 Dell XPS 13 (2015, non-touch) 428 Apple MacBook (12-inch, 2015) 465 Samsung Ativ Book 9 (2015) 563 Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 682

Note: Shorter bars indicate better performance (in seconds)

Adobe Photoshop CS5 image-processing test

Dell XPS 13 (2015, non-touch) 263 Apple MacBook Air (13-inch, 2015) 268 Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 294 Apple MacBook (12-inch, 2015) 307 Samsung Ativ Book 9 (2015) 311

Note: Shorter bars indicate better performance (in seconds)

Apple iTunes encoding test

Apple MacBook Air (13-inch, 2015) 107 Dell XPS 13 (2015, non-touch) 112 Apple MacBook (12-inch, 2015) 130 Samsung Ativ Book 9 (2015) 130 Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 142

Note: Shorter bars indicate better performance (in seconds)

Video playback battery drain test

Apple MacBook Air (13-inch, 2015) 1080 Apple MacBook (12-inch, 2015) 747 Dell XPS 13 (2015, non-touch) 726 Samsung Ativ Book 9 (2015) 457 Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 346

Note: Longer bars indicate better performance (in minutes)

System Configurations

Apple MacBook (12-inch, 2015)	OSX 10.10.2 Yosemite; 1.1GHz Intel Core M-5Y31; 8GB DDR3 SDRAM 1,600MHz; 1,536MB Intel HD Graphics 5300; 256GB SSD
Dell XPS 13 (2015, non-touch)	Windows 8.1 (64.bit); 2.2GHz Intel Core i5-5200U; 4GB DDR3 SDRAM 1,600MHz; 2,000MB (shared) Intel HD 5500 Graphics; 128GB SSD
Lenovo Yoga Pro 3	Windows 8.1 (64-bit); 1.1GHz Intel Core M-5Y60; 8GB DDR3 SDRAM 1,600MHz; 3,839MB (shared) Intel HD Graphics 5300; 256GB SSD
Apple MacBook Air (13-inch, 2015)	Yosimite OSX 10.10.2; 1.6GHz Intel Core i5-5250U; 4GB DDR3 SDRAM 1,600MHz; 1,536MB Intel HD Graphis 6000; 128GB SSD
Samsung Ativ Book 9 (2015)	Windows 8.1 (64.bit); 1.1GHz Intel Core M-5Y31; 4GB DDR3 SDRAM 1,600MHz; 2,005MB (shared) Intel HD 5300 Graphics; 128GB SSD

---

Source

Roku ultra 2022 review same streamer same price better voice vocal trainer roku ultra 2022 review same streamer same price better voicemail roku ultra 2022 review same streamer same price better voicemod roku ultra 2022 review samespeak roku ultra 2022 for sale roku ultra 2022 vs 2020 reviews youtube roku ultra best price

Roku Ultra (2022) Review: Same Streamer, Same Price, Better Voice Remote

Roku Ultra (2022) Review: Same Streamer, Same Price, Better Voice Remote

Roku has a new Ultra streaming device for 2022, but "new" is probably stretching things a bit far. It's really a very minor refresh of the 2020 Roku Ultra, basically a new bundle: The Roku Ultra now comes with the excellent Voice Remote Pro. The good news? The price is the same at $100.

The bad news? Unlike Apple, which last year updated the Apple TV 4K with fresher hardware and a faster processor alongside a new Siri Remote, Roku isn't actually changing anything about the Ultra streaming box itself. It's still the same box from 2020.

Like

• Improved Voice Remote Pro is a welcome addition
• Remote finder is awesome
• Speedy app launching

Don't Like

• Roku Streaming Stick 4K Plus is $30 cheaper with similar features
• Weaker voice assistant than Amazon and Google streamers
• No Bluetooth headphone or Wi-Fi 6 support
• No USB-C charging for Voice Remote Pro

That's not necessarily a bad thing. I very much enjoyed the Roku Ultra when I reviewed it in 2020 and the device still holds up two years later. But for $100, it remains a hard sell not just against the best streamers from Amazon, Apple and Google, but also compared with Roku's extensive line of more affordable sticks and players. 

Unless you really need a streaming device with built-in Ethernet, you're better off saving the money and getting Roku's other bundle, the $70 Roku Streaming Stick 4K Plus. The Streaming Stick 4K's processor isn't quite as beefy as the Ultra's but it can do nearly all the same tricks like Dolby Vision HDR, it includes a Voice Remote Pro and it costs $30 less than the 2022 Ultra.

Despite its new remote the Roku Ultra still doesn't do enough to push the capabilities of what a streaming player can do. I'm still waiting for sizable changes to Roku's platform that adjust to the latest trends in streaming, such as gaming and more robust voice support. This update crosses one item off my Roku Ultra wish list, but there are four more.

Our updated review, largely based on the original 2020 review, follows below. You can read our review of the Voice Remote Pro here. 

Read more: Roku Ultra vs. Apple TV 4K: Battle of the High-End Streaming Boxes

Small tweaks to a familiar design

The Ultra is the only Roku that can connect to wired Ethernet without an adapter.

Sarah Tew/CNET

Although it's much bigger than a streaming stick, the Roku Ultra box is still quite compact. It's made of tapered matte plastic and should be easy to fit in a cabinet or on a stand under your TV. 

The remote finder button is on the right side of the device and the back has a USB-A port, HDMI output and Ethernet port. The DC power port is still proprietary, which is also fine but it would've been nice to see USB-C in case you lose the adapter. 

The included Voice Remote Pro has the same plastic finish and rubber buttons as other Roku devices, with volume and mute controls on the right side. On the left is a switch to disable the always-on mic as well as a 3.5mm headphone jack for private listening. The included earbuds are basic, but they get the job done. 

I like that the remote is rechargeable, especially since Roku remotes tend to chew through batteries quickly, but unfortunately, it still uses Micro-USB to charge and lacks backlighting. The only difference between the remote bundled with the 2022 Ultra remote and the regular Voice Remote Pro I reviewed is that the bottom two buttons now are for Apple TV Plus and Paramount Plus as opposed to Hulu and Sling TV. 

There is Bluetooth on the Ultra, but this can only be used for streaming audio from a phone, tablet or computer and not for pairing Bluetooth headphones. I'm not sure how useful the feature is, given how Roku has apps for a number of music services, including Pandora, Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Music, not to mention the YouTube app. If you want to connect Bluetooth headphones you need to use the Roku app on a phone or tablet. 

The remote finder feature remains one of my favorite features about the Ultra and one that I wish every streaming device would incorporate. It gets better with the Voice Remote Pro because, while you can still tap the side button on the box, you can also instead now say, "Hey, Roku, find my remote" to make the controller start beeping. 

The remote also has two programmable shortcut buttons in addition to the Roku preloaded options for Netflix, Disney Plus, Apple TV Plus and Paramount Plus. As before, you can set to repeat whatever your last voice command was, such as opening an app like Peacock, YouTube TV or ESPN or doing a task like searching for a favorite movie or TV show. 

Impressive interface, weak voice assistant

The remote looks pretty much exactly like it did last year.

Sarah Tew/CNET

As you would expect, Roku's interface works great with the Ultra's quad-core processor. Apps, movies and shows opened quickly and playback looked good for 4K, 4K HDR and regular HD content on a 70-inch RCA TV as well as on a 65-inch LG C2 OLED TV. 

Although you can control the Roku with Google Assistant or Amazon Alexa, neither voice assistant is built directly into the device, something that becomes much more glaring when comparing it with Amazon and Google's latest devices. Google's Chromecast with Google TV shines in large part thanks to Assistant, and I really missed the ability to just say, "Play The Tonight Show" or, "Go to the Yankees game" and have the Roku automatically switch to the proper app. Google does this integration well with YouTube TV and Amazon does it with Sling TV.

The Roku interface has remained basically the same for years.

CNET staff

Roku's voice assistant is also dumb when it comes to knowing when events are happening and couldn't answer basic questions like what time the Warriors and Grizzlies game is. Asking, "What time is the Warriors game?" brought up results for movies like Wushu Warrior, Solarbabies and the TV show Monster Rancher. I'm not familiar with any of these titles but this is far from what I was expecting when trying to watch a basketball game. 

It also had a hard time understanding, "Play Moon Knight, Episode 1" and instead kept pulling up cartoons with "Midnight" in the title.

As Roku's streamer already works with both platforms, it would be great to see Roku add support for Alexa or Google Assistant directly to the software in the future. 

When it comes to playback, the Ultra is still fast when you ask for specific titles. Getting the Roku to play Avengers: Endgame from the home screen took roughly 35 seconds on my old Roku TV compared with just 18 seconds on the Ultra, which benefits from having faster Wi-Fi chips and a better processor than the 2017 TV I was comparing it with (though the Ultra still doesn't include support for the new Wi-Fi 6 standard).

Getting it to play The Boys on Amazon Prime video took about 26 seconds on the Ultra, compared with roughly 39 seconds on my older Roku TV.  

One thing that was slow on both the TV and the new Ultra, however, was asking the Roku assistant to do tasks beyond title searches -- from looking up a movie to switching apps. This takes a bit more time than using either Alexa or Google Assistant, with Roku having a default pop-up and 7-second countdown clock in case you want to stay in the app you are in. I still wish there were a way to remove or shorten this countdown but no such option exists in Settings.

Strong app support with Dolby Vision and Atmos 

Roku continues to impress with support for nearly all major streaming services. Support for Apple AirPlay remains a nice perk and at least allows Apple users to stream the app from iOS and Macs, while screen mirroring remains an option for most Android users. Roku still lacks built-in Chromecast support. 

Apps such as Disney Plus support Dolby Vision and Atmos (which makes sense as compatible Roku 4K TVs have had Dolby Vision support for a while), and both formats seemed to play fine on the LG C2 OLED TV. Netflix, HBO Max, Vudu and Apple TV Plus also have shows and movies available in Dolby Vision and Atmos.

As with other Dolby Vision devices, if your TV supports Dolby Vision, all menus and content are recognized by the TV as that standard regardless of whether the actual service, movie or show is in the premium viewing format. This wasn't a problem and non-4K HDR content (such as SportsCenter on YouTube TV or baseball games in the MLB app) still looked fine. 

While the Voice Remote Pro makes for a better experience, here's hoping the next Roku Ultra update is a little more substantial. 

§

Roku offers plenty of streaming devices, from the $50 Streaming Stick 4K to the $40 Express 4K Plus. The Roku Ultra box, however, is the most powerful. It has long been the streaming giant's showcase for its platform, offering advanced features, a beefier processor, a find-my-remote button and built-in Ethernet all for $100. Although, for many people, those extras aren't worth paying twice as much.

According to Cord Cutters News a new Roku Ultra may be coming soon. The site spotted a new model number among the list of Roku's supported hardware for its recent OS 11 release. The model number, 4802X, is one above the 4801X sported by the Roku Ultra LT and two above the otherwise current Roku Ultra (4800X) which last got a major hardware update in 2020. Roku has since removed the reference to the model, and when CNET reached out for comment about the report, a representative emailed back "nothing to share at this time."

So with the possibility of a new Roku Ultra in mind, here's a wish list of a few things I'd love to see Roku embrace for its next high-end player, whenever it might be released. 

Read More: Apple TV 2022 Wish List: What I Want to See in a Refresh This Year

Game streaming

Xbox Game Pass Ultimate includes Game Pass and Xbox Live Gold into one subscription. 

Screenshot by David Carnoy/CNET

Roku tried to make gaming on its players a thing years ago, a fact that most people probably don't remember. But in 2022 Roku doesn't need to court developers to make games specific to its platform; it just needs to allow for game streaming services to run their apps and stores on Roku players and TVs.

Game streaming has not only become more commonplace with the rise of Xbox Game Pass, Google Stadia, Amazon Luna and Nvidia GeForce Now -- and soon Sony's PlayStation Plus Premium -- but it is increasingly becoming a table-stakes feature for streaming video platforms. Google's Android TV and Google TV play well with its own Stadia service as well as GeForce Now, while Amazon's Fire TV software and devices can tap into Luna. 

Why not have an Xbox Game Pass channel on Roku? Microsoft gains a new avenue to boost its platform without requiring the costly purchase of a console, Roku gains a new partner and gamers pick up a new way to stream games onto their televisions -- or to be able to play on televisions outside their homes or on a second television without needing to move a console. Seems like it could be a win all around, and with a more powerful processor, the Ultra could probably run those services.

Game Pass is the most exciting to me, but it also makes sense for a more powerful Ultra to run Stadia or GeForce Now. Amazon might be reluctant to bolster Roku's features checklist by adding Luna, but it's probably technically possible, too.

Chromecast support

Yes, Rokus work great with Apple's AirPlay for casting content from an Apple device and with screen sharing available for streaming from some Android devices or Windows PCs. It would be great, however, if Roku got even more agnostic and embraced the ability to let people cast directly from their Android devices through Google's Chromecast protocol. This is not only easier than setting up screen sharing, but it would allow Rokus to work better with Chrome browsers and Chromebooks. 

Roku and Google settled their YouTube TV beef last year. It's time for the two of them to make this happen and put whatever possible hardware is needed into the next Ultra. 

Include the Voice Remote Pro

Sarah Tew/CNET

The Ultra is Roku's priciest streaming box, but the included remote is inferior to the Voice Remote Pro, a $30 upgrade. The Pro packs a built-in rechargeable battery and midfield microphone to allow you to bark "Hey Roku, find my remote" to locate the clicker when it's inevitably lost under the couch cushions. 

If Roku really wants to move Ultra boxes, including a Voice Remote Pro in the box would be a nice touch. The company already has experimented with bundling the product through its Streaming Stick 4K Plus offering, which combines a Streaming Stick 4K with a Voice Remote Pro. 

While we're at it, I'd love Roku to update the Voice Remote Pro with USB-C as opposed to Micro-USB. But that might be getting too greedy. 

Alexa and Google Assistant support 

Since we're talking voice support, why not have Roku's next box directly integrate other assistants like Amazon Alexa or Google Assistant? Roku's unnamed voice assistant is fine for basic tasks like searching for titles or actors, turning the TV on or adjusting the volume. On the other hand, it still lags far behind its rivals when you ask basic questions, such as "what is the weather?," tuning to a particular channel on a streaming service like Sling TV or YouTube TV or controlling smart home devices like lights. 

I understand this particular item could be more software "wishlist" than something for the next Ultra, but combined with the Voice Remote Pro or adding far-field mics like those on the Amazon Fire TV Cube could be really valuable. 

Roku already has integrations with Alexa, Google Assistant and Siri for controlling its platform via other devices, like phones or smart speakers. Why not add it into the next Ultra directly? Give users a choice and an option for a better voice assistant. 

TV calibration

Apple TV screen calibration using an iPhone.

Sarah Tew/CNET

Apple TV has a nifty feature for calibrating your TV through an iPhone, and a new Ultra could be the perfect place for Roku to debut a similar feature. Apple's feature requires holding an iPhone X or later up to your TV screen, though there is nothing to say Roku can't do something similar with iPhones or Android devices, like Samsung's Galaxy S line. It could also be something available via the Roku phone app, similar to the company's audio lip-sync calibration features added in OS 10.5 and OS 11.

The Ultra is designed to give people a premium experience. Adding TV video calibration capability could go a long way toward making sure they see that experience, even if they aren't comfortable fiddling with their TV picture settings. 

For the last few years Roku hasn't delivered any major features that differentiate the Ultra from its other devices. Adding any (or all!) of my wish list items could change that and make Roku's best player even more Ultra than ever.

---

Source