Step into a world where the focus is keenly set on you'll never know meaning. Within the confines of this article, a tapestry of references to you'll never know meaning awaits your exploration. If your pursuit involves unraveling the depths of you'll never know meaning, you've arrived at the perfect destination.
Our narrative unfolds with a wealth of insights surrounding you'll never know meaning. This is not just a standard article; it's a curated journey into the facets and intricacies of you'll never know meaning. Whether you're thirsting for comprehensive knowledge or just a glimpse into the universe of you'll never know meaning, this promises to be an enriching experience.
The spotlight is firmly on you'll never know meaning, and as you navigate through the text on these digital pages, you'll discover an extensive array of information centered around you'll never know meaning. This is more than mere information; it's an invitation to immerse yourself in the enthralling world of you'll never know meaning.
So, if you're eager to satisfy your curiosity about you'll never know meaning, your journey commences here. Let's embark together on a captivating odyssey through the myriad dimensions of you'll never know meaning.
If you're serious about your coffee, then you know just how difficult it can be when you have to skip your morning pick-me-up. If you're in a hurry, you can always take your morning cuppa on the go with you, but you'll want to make sure it stays piping hot until you have a chance to actually enjoy it. Fortunately, there's a huge market for reusable, portable and environmentally friendly travel mugs out there, so regular coffee drinkers can partake without sacrificing any of the function or pleasure. Plus, lots of coffee shops will give you a discount for bringing in your own cup, so you can earn a little cash back along the way.
Like a lot of people, you've probably already made the switch to a reusable water bottle, so a reusable coffee mug for your hot coffee or hot tea is the next logical step. But are you in the market for a stainless steel mug? For a ceramic travel mug with a flip lid? There are many travel cups to choose from.
That's why we've tested out all the leading brands to determine the best travel coffee mug for you. Whether you're looking for something that fits into a standard cup holder or an accessory with modern flair, these stylish travel mugs will keep your tea and coffee hot for hours, and a cold beverage chilled for just as long.
Read more: This $25 Device Makes Iced Coffee in a Minute
Amazon
Coffee drinkers rejoice! Imagine the amazing insulated power of a Yeti cooler -- they're the standard for fishermen and people who like the outdoors -- but as an insulated coffee mug in the palm of your hand. This double-wall vacuum insulation stainless tumbler has great insulation. It keeps your morning coffee piping hot and safe well into the afternoon and the genius magnet sliding lid comes apart when it's time to throw it all in the dishwasher to clean (yes, this baby is dishwasher safe), should that be an option. This vacuum insulated coffee mug is also the perfect size for most car cup holders when you're driving through the great outdoors -- or just, um, to the office. Yeti Rambler tumbler is a stainless steel travel mug and is also available in a standard mug size with handle.
Amazon
If you're picky about your coffee, you probably have opinions on reusable coffee mugs, too. This durable super-chic to-go mug comes in neutral shades and has a stainless steel insulated cup that keeps coffee or tea safe at the same temp for up to six hours. Yasssss. The lid spins off to reveal an opening that you can sip from at any angle and the sleek design on this coffee travel mug is totally museum-worthy.
Amazon
No shame if you're the coffee drinker who gets more coffee on your clothes than in your mouth whenever you're carrying a cup on the go. Thankfully, this one has a spill proof lid. (Maybe you've heard of Contigo's Autoseal technology? It's good. Real good.) This reusable coffee canteen, which holds 16 ounces of your favorite brew, will keep your coffee safe and leak proof. It's also slim enough to fit in a car cup holder, which means even the bumpiest of rides won't threaten the heat of your morning joe. You can practically take this cup of coffee with you anywhere.
Amazon
This attractive 18-ounce insulated tumbler comes in a ton of amazing shades and designs, but it's not just a pretty face: This insulated travel mug is made from durable stainless steel and is triple-walled with insulation so that you'll never get condensation on your hands. But also, did we mention that it's p-r-e-e-e-e-e-t-t-y? Use this gorgeous and reusable coffee cup around the house to drink hot or cold beverages and find one that matches your decor (yes, that's a thing). Heads up, you have to purchase the lid separately if you want to take this one on the go.
Amazon
This is the travel mug for when your work bag is already loaded with notebooks, an iPad, your laptop and a million random receipts from heaven knows where. Made out of super-light, leak-proof BPA-free silicone, this travel coffee cup collapses to just 2.5 inches thick, meaning you can tote it practically anywhere without adding bulk to your bag. Plus, when your beverage needs a heat, it's microwave-safe. Hot tip: This Stojo collapsible cup also comes with a straw for when the iced coffee season hits and you want to swap a piping hot drink like hot java to a cold drink like cold brew, cold coffee, or iced tea. The collapsible travel cup is simply convenient. This reusable cup and the silicone lid last a lifetime.
Amazon
This stylish sipper holds 12 ounces of your beverage of choice and is made in the USA from soda-lime glass, which means it's easily recyclable when you're done with it eventually. It's safe to microwave, in case you want your beverage piping hot and even though it's glass, it's lightweight enough to carry with you on your morning coffee run. Thankfully, the cork band keeps your hands safe from burning and the BPA-free leak-proof lid and plug are dishwasher-safe.
Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up
Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up
I'd love to say that when I first put on the Apple Watch, I'd never seen anything like it before. But of course, that's not true. By late 2014 I'd been surrounded by smartwatches for a few years. So when Apple announced it was making its own watch, my thought (as so often with Apple) was: finally.
The first smartwatch I reviewed at CNET was the Martian Passport, an analog watch that could make phone calls. It sounds so primitive now, but it was cool in early 2013. The Pebble Watch followed, and the Steel version became my favorite: It was like a Casio watch turned into a useful little pager-assistant. It was simple and had long battery life, and it was great.
There were others, too: Samsung's first smartwatches were ambitious (a camera?). Google's first Android Wear watches arrived in 2014. Meanwhile, there were Fitbits and Jawbone trackers galore.
I say this to lay the groundwork for the Apple Watch and what its impact was. Like the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, the Apple Watch wasn't the first smartwatch... but it made the biggest footprint. It was another step validating that a world of wearables was here to stay.
I was able to wear the Apple Watch a month before it went on sale. I spent a ton of time with it, getting used to both how it handled phone calls, and the activity tracking rings. I looked at my heart rate measurements. I accidentally ordered an Xbox One with an early Amazon app.
The Watch was, much like the first iPhone, sometimes feature-limited. But it also had some features that already stood out.
My original review was updated a year later, which you can read here. Some parts have changed, clearly, and Apple has updated the OS. But I'll comment on what I wrote then, and how I felt, and how that's evolved. Quotes from the original review are in italics.
The gold Apple Watch, way back when.
James Martin/CNET
An excellent design, with luxury overtones
Apple wants you to think of the Apple Watch as fine jewelry. Maybe that's a stretch, but in terms of craftsmanship, there isn't a more elegantly made piece of wearable tech. Look at the Apple Watch from a distance, and it might appear unremarkable in its rectangular simplicity compared with bolder, circular Android Wear watches. It's clearly a revamped sort of iPod Nano. But get closer, and you can see the seamless, excellent construction.
The first Apple Watch came in aluminum, steel and ramped all the way up to a gold model costing more than $10,000. Compared to other smartwatches, it screamed luxury.
Certain touches felt luxurious, too: the fine-feeling Digital Crown, which spun ever so smoothly like a real watch part, for instance. The OLED display, which was a first for an Apple product, looked crisp and bright.
The most amazing part, maybe, were the watch bands. Apple created a really nice series of specially designed straps, from a steel link to a clever magnetic Milanese mesh that were extremely expensive and impressively engineered.
Its watch face designs were great, too, and they integrated some information from the iPhone that aimed to add at-a-glance ease of use. There was a Mickey Mouse watch face that danced! The Solar face showing sunrise and sunset, and the astronomy face that showed planetary alignments and moon phases, felt like magic. I wanted more, but Apple's assortment of watch faces was limited, and it didn't allow for third-party watch face design. That's still the case now.
A lot of the Apple Watch reminded me of the strides Apple began with the iPod Nano, which also had watch mode... and a Mickey Mouse watch face.
Sarah Tew
New technologies at first: fantastic haptics, a force-sensitive display
All Apple Watches have a new S1 processor made by Apple, that "taptic" haptic engine and a force-sensitive and very bright OLED display, which is differently sized on the 38mm and 42mm models. The watch has its own accelerometer, gyrometer and heart-rate monitor, but no onboard GPS. It uses Bluetooth 4.0 and 802.11b/g/n 2.4GHz Wi-Fi to connect to your phone or your home network. There's a built-in speaker and microphone, but no headphone jack.
As I wore the watch on the first day, I felt a rippling buzz and a metallic ping: one of my credit card payments showed up as a message. Apple's "Taptic Engine" and a built-in speaker convey both a range of advanced taps and vibrations, plus sounds. Unlike the buzz in a phone or most wearables, these haptics feel sharper: a single tap, or a ripple of them, or thumps.
Sometimes the feelings are too subtle: I don't know if I felt them or imagined them. My wrists might be numbed from too many smart devices. I set my alerts to "prominent" and got sharper nudges on my wrist.
The first watch introduced some ideas that eventually made their way to other iPhones. A "taptic engine" delivered on some amazingly refined vibration effects, ranging from a purr to a ping to a gentle tap. These were way ahead of what anybody else was doing -- and they weren't just a gimmick. The notification types associated with unique vibrations felt distinct. Sometimes, the vibrating taps on the first Watch weren't as powerful as I wanted. But with later updates, the haptics made parts of the interface seem real: virtual wheels, clicking as if moving with invisible gears.
The more advanced haptics made their way to the iPhone next, making us used to them now. Other phones, game consoles like the Nintendo Switch, and VR accessories, have evolved haptics since, but the Apple Watch was the first mainstream device that upped the haptics game.
Force Touch was another wild idea: Apple made its watch display force-sensitive, meaning a deeper press could work like pushing a button. Though this idea was refined further into 3D Touch on the iPhone 6S, 3D Touch was a technology that never became as necessary as expected, and current iPhone models have dropped the pressure-sensitive display tech completely.
The Apple Watch still has Force Touch, though, and I think it always will.
Digital Touch: I never used it much after that.
Sarah Tew
Lots of features. Too many features?
As you can see, this is a lot of stuff. Did I have fun using the watch? Yes, mostly, but there are so many features that I felt a little lost at times. There are so many ways to interact: swiping, touching, pressing harder into the display, a button and a clickable digital crown-wheel. Plus, there's Siri. Do I swipe, or click, or force touch or speak? Sometimes I didn't know where an app menu was. Or, I'd find getting back to an app I just had open would require an annoying series of crown clicks, swiping through apps, then opening the app again.
There's a reason I used the word "complicated" to describe my feelings using that first Apple Watch. Setting up bits of information, called complications, was slow and not always intuitive. Apps took a while to load, and were sometimes so slow that it was easier to check my phone instead. Quick glances and notifications, and phone calls, were fine. Apple Pay on the watch was clever, but would I use it? I wished the watch had more battery life.
I didn't like the overcomplicated feel. The design of the OS, and the card-like swappable mini-view apps that used to be on the Watch like a dock, changed over time. It's gotten better since.
Storing music on the watch, while it took a while to sync, was easier than attempts on Samsung Gear or Android Wear. Of course, I had to hunt for a good pair of Bluetooth headphones to connect with the watch.
Today I still forget to dive into and make the most of the apps on the watch. I just dusted off Walkie Talkie: it's cool. There's noise monitoring. One app lets me remote control my iPhone camera, which has been a huge help for my stay-at-home self-shot videos. The Remote app helps me when I lose the Apple TV remote every other day.
Third-party apps, and the grid of options? It turns out I don't use them much at all. I don't dig down deep into the layers of functions. I prefer what's on the surface: watch faces, and their readouts. But I've come to appreciate the watch's surprising number of options and settings. It's better than not having them at all.
The rings were the beginning.
Sarah Tew/CNET
Fitness: The ring idea was just the beginning
The Apple Watch doesn't work any fitness miracles that the rest of the wearable world hasn't already invented, and it doesn't ship with any new magical sensors that change the game. But the Apple-made integrated fitness apps, Activity and Workout, are far and away the best fitness apps on any existing smartwatch that isn't a dedicated "fitness watch" (Samsung Gear, Android Wear, Pebble and the like). A clever three-ring method of tracking daily activity, which simultaneously measures and rewards daily calorie burn, active exercise and standing up, feels like a fusion of rewards and metrics seen on the Nike FuelBand, Jawbone Up, Fitbit and others.
I appreciated Apple's complete-the-ring motivational activity tracker, which felt inspired by wearables like the Nike FuelBand (not surprising, since Apple's head of fitness, Jay Blahnik, arrived from Nike). For the red ring's daily goals, it's great. It felt too easy to complete the blue Stand ring, and it still does.
There are tons of fitness advancements Apple has made on the Watch in the last five years: GPS, resting heart rate, workout controls, social sharing, third-party app integration, swimming, modes for accessibility, activity trends -- and I haven't even discussed Apple's massive health aspirations like adding ECG, checking for falls, monitoring elevated or irregular heart rate or women's health tracking. There is some form of coaching and motivation, too. But I'd still love to see more of that. I hit a wall when trying to be fit, and there's only so much watches seem to help.
The first Apple Watch was more of a Fitbit. Now, it's more of a health companion. Those two worlds still feel like they need to dovetail and grow. There are missing features, too, like sleep tracking, which feels like the inevitable next step.
You still need an iPhone, just like in 2015.
Sarah Tew
It was, and still is, an iPhone accessory
Much like most other smartwatches, the Apple Watch isn't a standalone device -- it's a phone accessory. Android Wear, Samsung Gear, Pebble and others work the same way. But here, you must own an iPhone 5 or later to use the Watch. A few Apple Watch functions work away from the phone, but the watch primarily works alongside the phone as an extension, a second screen and basically another part of your iOS experience. It's a symbiote.
One thing I noted back then was that you needed an iPhone to use the Apple Watch. Unlike other wearables that can pair with Android or iOS, or even sync with a computer, the Apple Watch was always designed to live symbiotically with the iPhone.
That's still the case now. Even with independent cellular options, and an on-watch App Store, you can't use the Watch without pairing to an iPhone. And it still won't work with Android. It's a shame, because a fully standalone watch could be a really helpful tool for many people who don't have iPhones, and it could even be a phone alternative (for kids, maybe).
Apple's AirPods created a gadget trinity where the Watch, the iPhone and AirPods can all work seamlessly together. But that trinity is an expensive one. The entry price of the Apple Watch has dropped, at least. But it feels like an extension of the iPhone more than its own device, even now.
The Apple Watch Series 5: much better, with a few similarities.
Sarah Tew/CNET
Today: the best watch in a war of attrition
You don't need an Apple Watch. In many ways, it's a toy: an amazing little do-it-all, a clever invention, a possibly time-saving companion, a wrist-worn assistant. It's also mostly a phone accessory for now. In the months and years to come, that may change: with Apple's assortment of iPads, Macs, Apple TV and who knows what else to come, the watch could end up being a remote and accessory to many things. Maybe it'll be the key to unlock a world of smart appliances, cars and connected places. In that type of world, a smartwatch could end up feeling utterly essential.
I think back to what the Apple Watch was competing against back then: Jawbone, Pebble, Fitbit, Google's Android Wear, Samsung's watches, the Microsoft Band. A lot of competitors are gone now. Fitbit was acquired by Google. Samsung still has watches. Garmin makes lots of dedicated fitness watches. There are still plenty of more affordable relative newcomers, too.
The original Apple Watch, with the Pebble Steel, Moto 360 and the original iPod Nano with wristband (clockwise from top left).
Sarah Tew
In a field of fewer alternatives, the Apple Watch's consistent addition of new features and ongoing performance improvements has made it the best option. It's Apple's commitment to gradual improvements that has made it a stand-out watch now, especially compared to the struggles of Google's Wear OS.
The Apple Watch is still an iPhone accessory. And it's still not an essential product. But it's become a really fluid and useful device, one with lots of key upgrades that work, and one that's a lot easier to use.
What's the best smartwatch now? The Apple Watch. That doesn't mean I don't want to see improvements: battery life, sleep tracking, a watch face store and most importantly, Android support and true standalone function. If the last five years are any indication, Apple will tackle these problems on its own... time.
Dell XPS 12 review: A unique take on the convertible laptop/tablet
Dell XPS 12 review: A unique take on the convertible laptop/tablet
If you're one of the few who remember the original Dell Inspiron Duo from 2010, pat yourself on the back. Like that Duo, the new XPS 12 has a screen that swivels at the middle of the lid's sides, so it can rotate 180 degrees along its horizontal axis and end up facing out from the back of the lid's frame. This allows you to display the screen in what some call a "stand" mode, or else fold the clamshell shut to form a slate-style tablet.
While inventive, the original Duo was hobbled by a low-power Intel Atom processor and never lived up to its potential. Dell walked away from the Duo, which seemed doomed to be another too-early hardware leap, much like Dell's long-lost proto-ultrabook Adamo laptops.
Imagine my surprise when Dell announced that the Duo was back, originally showing us the system behind closed doors this summer. The new version, now part of the high-end XPS line, has gotten a massive physical upgrade. Now it's ultrabook-thin, with a slim metal frame around its screen, and a button-free clickpad. The new version trades up to current-gen Intel Core i5 and Core i7 processors, along with solid-state-drive (SSD) storage, meaning that in terms of hardware it can stand toe-to-toe any mainstream ultrathin laptop.
Between our preview this summer and now, the biggest change has been in the name. Dell has decided to drop the "Duo" branding altogether (perhaps it still has negative connotations) and simply call this the XPS 12. That's certainly apt for a laptop with 12-inch display, but I do miss the descriptive nature of the Duo moniker -- now there's nothing in the name to indicate this laptop's special physical features.
The XPS 12 starts at $1,199 for a Core i5 CPU and 128GB SSD, and goes up to $1,699 for the hardware we tested, with a Core i7 CPU and a 256GB SSD.
This is one of the first laptops with Windows 8, the new touch- and tablet-friendly OS, and it's meant to be used as both a traditional laptop and a tablet. But when evaluating new hardware and new software at the same time, the question is: how much of the user experience in the XPS 12 comes from Dell, and how much from Microsoft? In an Apple laptop, it's fair to consider software and hardware together, as a single company is responsible for both. For Windows-based systems, it's sometimes hard to tell on which side of the fence the faults lie.
And, there are faults. Even though the XPS 12 is a slim, well-built, and frankly ambitious convertible, it works better as a laptop than as a tablet. In the closed, slate mode, it's obvious that the Windows 8 operating system still doesn't always know what to do with your apps and fingers. The not-Metro interface (my own shorthand name for the Windows 8 tile-based UI) works fine, but jumping into apps, even Windows 8-specific ones such as Internet Explorer 10, can yield unpredictable results.
For example, at this point, nearly everyone in the universe uses some form of Web-based e-mail, but Gmail navigation on the small screen in IE10 is tough. Shift the screen just a bit and the orientation changes, with just enough lag to be annoying. Tapping on a text field sometimes brings up the Windows 8 onscreen keyboard, sometimes not (and it takes several steps to call it up otherwise).
That onscreen keyboard is miles ahead of previous Windows ones, but the layout of some keys is counterintuitive, and I ran into just enough lag to make using the Shift and Caps Lock keys especially troublesome.
But, these are the same problems I've found on other Windows 8 systems, so is it fair to lay them at Dell's feet? On the excellent Acer Aspire S7, the touch screen was a secondary experience, mainly used for finger-swiping and scrolling. On the XPS 12, you're expected to use touch much more. And as a touch-screen laptop, the XPS 12 works well. Folded up as a slate, it's still not an entirely satisfying tablet experience.
Price as reviewed / Starting price
$1,699 / $1,199
Processor
1.9GHz Intel Core i7-3517U
Memory
4GB, 1,333MHz DDR3
Hard drive
256GB SSD
Chipset
Intel QS77
Graphics
Intel HD 4000
Operating system
Windows 8
Dimensions (WD)
8.5x12.5 inches
Height
0.6-0.8 inches
Screen size (diagonal)
12.5 inches
System weight / Weight with AC adapter
3.4 pounds / 4 pounds
Category
Ultraportable
Design and features Aside from the swiveling lid, the XPS 12 shares an overall design with Dell's other recent high-end laptops, such as the XPS 14 and XPS 15. All are thin, with full or partial metal construction and dark accents. When closed, the XPS 12 looks like any small ultrabook, although at nearly 3.5 pounds, it feels dense and sturdy.
The interior is minimalist, with only the keyboard and touch pad. A power button, in the uncommon form of a slider switch, is located along the left edge, and most other functions, from the Wi-Fi antenna switch to volume control, are mapped to the row of Function keys. The wrist rest, keyboard, and keys are all matte black, with a powdery finish that resists fingerprints and nicely offsets the metal trim along the outer edge.
The XPS 12's island-style keyboard is similar to the ones found on most current laptops. In Dell's version, the keys have more-rounded corners than most, and the top row of Function keys is half-height. Typing was comfortable and accurate, and the keyboard is backlit.
The buttonless clickpad is only used when the system is set up as a traditional clamshell laptop. It's a good size, considering this is a small laptop, and works well for general pointing and navigation. But, again, Windows 8 sometimes seems to not know what to do with touch-pad gestures. With some apps and Web pages, two-finger scrolling works well, other times it's too fast and jumpy, and still other times, it's very slow. Trying to execute Windows 8 moves such as displaying the Charms bar or calling up the Taskbar is a pain on a touch pad, and I usually found myself performing these tasks via the touch screen.
The biggest feature here, as previously described, is the rotating screen. Unlike other convertible laptops with rotating screens that swivel along the vertical axis via a central hinge, the XPS 12 rotates along the horizontal axis, flipping end over end. This is possible because the screen is placed inside a thin metal all-around frame, hinged in the center of the left and right sides.
The screen mechanism feels well-designed, and it stays in the traditional laptop position without slipping. Dell says the mechanism has been tested to 20,000 cycles, and it certainly feels sturdy enough.
When you want to flip the screen, a gentle push pops it out of the frame, and it rotates freely, locking in again at 180 degrees; this leaves the screen pointing out from the back of the lid, making it easy to show your screen to someone sitting opposite you (the motion sensor automatically flips the screen image over, so everything appears right-side-up). From there, you can push the lid all the way closed, so the keyboard and touch pad are inside the clamshell but the display is pointing up, making this a slate-style tablet.
When the XPS 12 is folded down as a tablet, you can access the onscreen keyboard built into Windows 8. As I mentioned above, it's thankfully better than the onscreen keyboards in previous Microsoft operating systems, with responsive, well-spaced keys. I found the Shift key would lag a little occasionally, leading to some typing mistakes, and you'll have to spend some time getting used to the layout, which is slightly different from that of the iPad's familiar onscreen keyboard. Besides the standard keyboard layout, there are also split-key and handwriting options.
The biggest difficulty I encountered was the onscreen keyboard not popping up when it should have, in Google Docs, for example. If you need to call up the onscreen keyboard manually, it's an unintuitive procedure, requiring too many steps (slide out the Charms bar from the right side of the screen; tap Settings, tap Keyboard, then pick the style of keyboard you need).
The 12.5-inch screen has a native resolution of 1,920x1,080 pixels, which is incredibly high for an ultraportable laptop. The Windows 8 not-Metro interface scales nicely to it, but Web pages and the traditional Windows desktop view can look very shrunken. Fortunately, the display's pinch-to-zoom feature works great, much as it does on an iPad or Android tablet. That said, I found some Web sites didn't render correctly after pinching to zoom, and in Google Docs, for example, the onscreen cursor and the zoomed view didn't quite match up.
Audio was predictably thin, but fine for basic online video watching. Interestingly, the original Dell Duo had a sold-separately docking stand with bigger speakers built in.
Dell XPS 12
Average for category [ultraportable]
Video
DisplayPort
HDMI or DisplayPort
Audio
Stereo speakers, headphone jack
Stereo speakers, headphone/microphone jacks
Data
2 USB 3.0, SD card reader
2 USB 3.0, SD card reader
Networking
802.11n Wi-Fi, Bluetooth
Ethernet (via dongle), 802.11n Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, optional mobile broadband
Optical drive
None
None
Expandability, performance, and battery life With such a small body, the port selection on the Dell XPS 12 is likewise slim. The most notable deviation from the norm is the video output -- you get a DisplayPort output, rather than the more common HDMI.
Dell offers four base configurations of the XPS 12 (the unit I reviewed is the most expensive one). The entry-level model starts at $1,199 for a Core i5 CPU and 128GB SSD, and by adding either a Core i7 CPU, a larger 256GB SSD, or both, you can take it all the way up to $1,699. Several of the more design-heavy Windows 8 laptops we've seen have targeted that premium price range, but a $1,600 laptop is still a very tough sell, no matter how clever its engineering.
With an Intel Core i7 low-voltage CPU and 8GB of RAM, the XPS 12 was predictably fast in our benchmark tests. Honestly, if you're interested in this system, the lower-end Core i5 configurations will be more than fine for everyday Web surfing, productivity, and media playback tasks.
Battery life was, unfortunately, not the strongest in this laptop. That's a shame, as this is a slim system clearly intended for travel or use as an untethered tablet. In our video playback battery drain test, the XPS 12 ran for 4 hours and 43 minutes, which is on the low side for an ultraportable laptop -- especially one with a power-efficient SSD hard drive. Anecdotally, while using this laptop I found myself reaching for the A/C adapter more often than I'd expected.
Conclusion The Dell XPS 12 is unique among the Windows 8 laptops we've previewed and reviewed, offering a different take on the convertible laptop/tablet concept. At the same time, it's not exactly an original idea, being based on one of Dell's previous high-concept designs, the Inspiron Duo.
The flip-screen construction is surprisingly practical for sharing your screen with others, and using a touch screen with a keyboard and touch pad works well in Windows 8. But it's hard to justify spending $1,699 when the XPS 12 doesn't entirely satisfy as a slate-style tablet, even if Microsoft shoulders most of the responsibility for that. If you're in love with the XPS 12's design, I'd suggest sticking to the less expensive configurations.
Find out more about how we test laptops.
System configurations:
Dell XPS 12 Windows 8 (64-bit); 1.9GHz Intel Core i7-3517U; 8GB DDR3 SDRAM 1,333MHz; 32MB (Shared) Intel HD 4000; 256GB Lite-On IT SSD
Sony Vaio Duo 11 Windows 8 (64-bit); 1.7GHz Intel Core i5-3317U; 6GB DDR3 SDRAM 1,600MHz; 32MB (Dedicated) Intel HD 4000; 128GB Toshiba SSD
Apple watch it s been 5 years since my original review and reflect apple watch it s been 5 years since you passed apple watch it s been 5 years since you ve apple watch it s been 5 years since i met apple watch it s been 5 years jamie foxx apple watch it s been 5000 years apple watch it s been 50 years meme apple watch it s been a long day lyrics apple watch series 8
Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up
Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up
I'd love to say that when I first put on the Apple Watch, I'd never seen anything like it before. But of course, that's not true. By late 2014 I'd been surrounded by smartwatches for a few years. So when Apple announced it was making its own watch, my thought (as so often with Apple) was: finally.
The first smartwatch I reviewed at CNET was the Martian Passport, an analog watch that could make phone calls. It sounds so primitive now, but it was cool in early 2013. The Pebble Watch followed, and the Steel version became my favorite: It was like a Casio watch turned into a useful little pager-assistant. It was simple and had long battery life, and it was great.
There were others, too: Samsung's first smartwatches were ambitious (a camera?). Google's first Android Wear watches arrived in 2014. Meanwhile, there were Fitbits and Jawbone trackers galore.
I say this to lay the groundwork for the Apple Watch and what its impact was. Like the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, the Apple Watch wasn't the first smartwatch... but it made the biggest footprint. It was another step validating that a world of wearables was here to stay.
I was able to wear the Apple Watch a month before it went on sale. I spent a ton of time with it, getting used to both how it handled phone calls, and the activity tracking rings. I looked at my heart rate measurements. I accidentally ordered an Xbox One with an early Amazon app.
The Watch was, much like the first iPhone, sometimes feature-limited. But it also had some features that already stood out.
My original review was updated a year later, which you can read here. Some parts have changed, clearly, and Apple has updated the OS. But I'll comment on what I wrote then, and how I felt, and how that's evolved. Quotes from the original review are in italics.
The gold Apple Watch, way back when.
James Martin/CNET
An excellent design, with luxury overtones
Apple wants you to think of the Apple Watch as fine jewelry. Maybe that's a stretch, but in terms of craftsmanship, there isn't a more elegantly made piece of wearable tech. Look at the Apple Watch from a distance, and it might appear unremarkable in its rectangular simplicity compared with bolder, circular Android Wear watches. It's clearly a revamped sort of iPod Nano. But get closer, and you can see the seamless, excellent construction.
The first Apple Watch came in aluminum, steel and ramped all the way up to a gold model costing more than $10,000. Compared to other smartwatches, it screamed luxury.
Certain touches felt luxurious, too: the fine-feeling Digital Crown, which spun ever so smoothly like a real watch part, for instance. The OLED display, which was a first for an Apple product, looked crisp and bright.
The most amazing part, maybe, were the watch bands. Apple created a really nice series of specially designed straps, from a steel link to a clever magnetic Milanese mesh that were extremely expensive and impressively engineered.
Its watch face designs were great, too, and they integrated some information from the iPhone that aimed to add at-a-glance ease of use. There was a Mickey Mouse watch face that danced! The Solar face showing sunrise and sunset, and the astronomy face that showed planetary alignments and moon phases, felt like magic. I wanted more, but Apple's assortment of watch faces was limited, and it didn't allow for third-party watch face design. That's still the case now.
A lot of the Apple Watch reminded me of the strides Apple began with the iPod Nano, which also had watch mode... and a Mickey Mouse watch face.
Sarah Tew
New technologies at first: fantastic haptics, a force-sensitive display
All Apple Watches have a new S1 processor made by Apple, that "taptic" haptic engine and a force-sensitive and very bright OLED display, which is differently sized on the 38mm and 42mm models. The watch has its own accelerometer, gyrometer and heart-rate monitor, but no onboard GPS. It uses Bluetooth 4.0 and 802.11b/g/n 2.4GHz Wi-Fi to connect to your phone or your home network. There's a built-in speaker and microphone, but no headphone jack.
As I wore the watch on the first day, I felt a rippling buzz and a metallic ping: one of my credit card payments showed up as a message. Apple's "Taptic Engine" and a built-in speaker convey both a range of advanced taps and vibrations, plus sounds. Unlike the buzz in a phone or most wearables, these haptics feel sharper: a single tap, or a ripple of them, or thumps.
Sometimes the feelings are too subtle: I don't know if I felt them or imagined them. My wrists might be numbed from too many smart devices. I set my alerts to "prominent" and got sharper nudges on my wrist.
The first watch introduced some ideas that eventually made their way to other iPhones. A "taptic engine" delivered on some amazingly refined vibration effects, ranging from a purr to a ping to a gentle tap. These were way ahead of what anybody else was doing -- and they weren't just a gimmick. The notification types associated with unique vibrations felt distinct. Sometimes, the vibrating taps on the first Watch weren't as powerful as I wanted. But with later updates, the haptics made parts of the interface seem real: virtual wheels, clicking as if moving with invisible gears.
The more advanced haptics made their way to the iPhone next, making us used to them now. Other phones, game consoles like the Nintendo Switch, and VR accessories, have evolved haptics since, but the Apple Watch was the first mainstream device that upped the haptics game.
Force Touch was another wild idea: Apple made its watch display force-sensitive, meaning a deeper press could work like pushing a button. Though this idea was refined further into 3D Touch on the iPhone 6S, 3D Touch was a technology that never became as necessary as expected, and current iPhone models have dropped the pressure-sensitive display tech completely.
The Apple Watch still has Force Touch, though, and I think it always will.
Digital Touch: I never used it much after that.
Sarah Tew
Lots of features. Too many features?
As you can see, this is a lot of stuff. Did I have fun using the watch? Yes, mostly, but there are so many features that I felt a little lost at times. There are so many ways to interact: swiping, touching, pressing harder into the display, a button and a clickable digital crown-wheel. Plus, there's Siri. Do I swipe, or click, or force touch or speak? Sometimes I didn't know where an app menu was. Or, I'd find getting back to an app I just had open would require an annoying series of crown clicks, swiping through apps, then opening the app again.
There's a reason I used the word "complicated" to describe my feelings using that first Apple Watch. Setting up bits of information, called complications, was slow and not always intuitive. Apps took a while to load, and were sometimes so slow that it was easier to check my phone instead. Quick glances and notifications, and phone calls, were fine. Apple Pay on the watch was clever, but would I use it? I wished the watch had more battery life.
I didn't like the overcomplicated feel. The design of the OS, and the card-like swappable mini-view apps that used to be on the Watch like a dock, changed over time. It's gotten better since.
Storing music on the watch, while it took a while to sync, was easier than attempts on Samsung Gear or Android Wear. Of course, I had to hunt for a good pair of Bluetooth headphones to connect with the watch.
Today I still forget to dive into and make the most of the apps on the watch. I just dusted off Walkie Talkie: it's cool. There's noise monitoring. One app lets me remote control my iPhone camera, which has been a huge help for my stay-at-home self-shot videos. The Remote app helps me when I lose the Apple TV remote every other day.
Third-party apps, and the grid of options? It turns out I don't use them much at all. I don't dig down deep into the layers of functions. I prefer what's on the surface: watch faces, and their readouts. But I've come to appreciate the watch's surprising number of options and settings. It's better than not having them at all.
The rings were the beginning.
Sarah Tew/CNET
Fitness: The ring idea was just the beginning
The Apple Watch doesn't work any fitness miracles that the rest of the wearable world hasn't already invented, and it doesn't ship with any new magical sensors that change the game. But the Apple-made integrated fitness apps, Activity and Workout, are far and away the best fitness apps on any existing smartwatch that isn't a dedicated "fitness watch" (Samsung Gear, Android Wear, Pebble and the like). A clever three-ring method of tracking daily activity, which simultaneously measures and rewards daily calorie burn, active exercise and standing up, feels like a fusion of rewards and metrics seen on the Nike FuelBand, Jawbone Up, Fitbit and others.
I appreciated Apple's complete-the-ring motivational activity tracker, which felt inspired by wearables like the Nike FuelBand (not surprising, since Apple's head of fitness, Jay Blahnik, arrived from Nike). For the red ring's daily goals, it's great. It felt too easy to complete the blue Stand ring, and it still does.
There are tons of fitness advancements Apple has made on the Watch in the last five years: GPS, resting heart rate, workout controls, social sharing, third-party app integration, swimming, modes for accessibility, activity trends -- and I haven't even discussed Apple's massive health aspirations like adding ECG, checking for falls, monitoring elevated or irregular heart rate or women's health tracking. There is some form of coaching and motivation, too. But I'd still love to see more of that. I hit a wall when trying to be fit, and there's only so much watches seem to help.
The first Apple Watch was more of a Fitbit. Now, it's more of a health companion. Those two worlds still feel like they need to dovetail and grow. There are missing features, too, like sleep tracking, which feels like the inevitable next step.
You still need an iPhone, just like in 2015.
Sarah Tew
It was, and still is, an iPhone accessory
Much like most other smartwatches, the Apple Watch isn't a standalone device -- it's a phone accessory. Android Wear, Samsung Gear, Pebble and others work the same way. But here, you must own an iPhone 5 or later to use the Watch. A few Apple Watch functions work away from the phone, but the watch primarily works alongside the phone as an extension, a second screen and basically another part of your iOS experience. It's a symbiote.
One thing I noted back then was that you needed an iPhone to use the Apple Watch. Unlike other wearables that can pair with Android or iOS, or even sync with a computer, the Apple Watch was always designed to live symbiotically with the iPhone.
That's still the case now. Even with independent cellular options, and an on-watch App Store, you can't use the Watch without pairing to an iPhone. And it still won't work with Android. It's a shame, because a fully standalone watch could be a really helpful tool for many people who don't have iPhones, and it could even be a phone alternative (for kids, maybe).
Apple's AirPods created a gadget trinity where the Watch, the iPhone and AirPods can all work seamlessly together. But that trinity is an expensive one. The entry price of the Apple Watch has dropped, at least. But it feels like an extension of the iPhone more than its own device, even now.
The Apple Watch Series 5: much better, with a few similarities.
Sarah Tew/CNET
Today: the best watch in a war of attrition
You don't need an Apple Watch. In many ways, it's a toy: an amazing little do-it-all, a clever invention, a possibly time-saving companion, a wrist-worn assistant. It's also mostly a phone accessory for now. In the months and years to come, that may change: with Apple's assortment of iPads, Macs, Apple TV and who knows what else to come, the watch could end up being a remote and accessory to many things. Maybe it'll be the key to unlock a world of smart appliances, cars and connected places. In that type of world, a smartwatch could end up feeling utterly essential.
I think back to what the Apple Watch was competing against back then: Jawbone, Pebble, Fitbit, Google's Android Wear, Samsung's watches, the Microsoft Band. A lot of competitors are gone now. Fitbit was acquired by Google. Samsung still has watches. Garmin makes lots of dedicated fitness watches. There are still plenty of more affordable relative newcomers, too.
The original Apple Watch, with the Pebble Steel, Moto 360 and the original iPod Nano with wristband (clockwise from top left).
Sarah Tew
In a field of fewer alternatives, the Apple Watch's consistent addition of new features and ongoing performance improvements has made it the best option. It's Apple's commitment to gradual improvements that has made it a stand-out watch now, especially compared to the struggles of Google's Wear OS.
The Apple Watch is still an iPhone accessory. And it's still not an essential product. But it's become a really fluid and useful device, one with lots of key upgrades that work, and one that's a lot easier to use.
What's the best smartwatch now? The Apple Watch. That doesn't mean I don't want to see improvements: battery life, sleep tracking, a watch face store and most importantly, Android support and true standalone function. If the last five years are any indication, Apple will tackle these problems on its own... time.
