Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga 13 Review: One Flexible Ultrabook

Whether in notebook, stand, tent, or tablet mode, the Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga 13 is definitely a head-turner. But does this Ultrabook's innovative multi-mode design effectively juggle its multiple personalities in an equally-harmonious, Zen-like manner?

With Windows 8 slowly  picking up momentum, the constantly-evolving touchscreen-enabled hybrid Ultrabook/tablet is also becoming more commonplace. In the race to discover the perfect form factor, PC manufacturers need to think more aggressively outside the proverbial box to earn your business. The IdeaPad Yoga 13 is a prime example of Lenovo’s approach to this unique market.
Labeled as the world’s first multi-mode Ultrabook, the IdeaPad Yoga 13 appears to be ready for virtually any Windows 8 mobility scenario the casual user, student, or professional can throw at it.
The Yoga 13 is capable of assuming any of four different orientations, or "operational modes": Laptop, Stand, Tent, and Tablet.

Laptop Mode

This traditional mode resembles any other clamshell-style Ultrabook or laptop PC. As with all typical laptops, the keyboard and touchpad serve as the primary input in this configuration. However, having the added benefit of a touchscreen provides the Yoga 13 with a welcomed third input option. Obviously, Laptop Mode is useful for basically any task that you would use a notebook for, such as office productivity, photo editing, light gaming, email, and Web browsing, just to name a few.

Stand Mode

In Stand Mode, the screen is capable of being rotated well past 180 degrees. The exposed keyboard and touchpad faces the same surface that the system rests on, so the touchscreen becomes your only input. This mode is particularly suited for viewing video content because, unlike the Yoga 13's next mode, Stand Mode allows you to adjust the tilt of the screen to find that perfect viewing angle. Likewise, this orientation is also great for teleconferencing, since tilting the screen also adjusts what's captured by the embedded HD webcam.

System Builder Marathon, Q2 2013: $650 Gaming PC

System Builder Marathon, Q2 2013: The Articles

Here are links to each of the four articles in this quarter’s System Builder Marathon (we’ll update them as each story is published). And remember, these systems are all being given away at the end of the marathon.
To enter the giveaway, please fill out this SurveyGizmo form, and be sure to read the complete rules before entering!
Day 1: The $650 Mini-ITX Gaming PC
Day 2: The $1300 Mini-ITX Enthusiast PC
Day 3: The $2500 Mini-Performance PC
Day 4: Performance And Value, Dissected
Day 5: The $400 "True Spirit of Mini-ITX" PC

Introduction

At the very heart of our System Builder Marathon series, the embers of competition glow hotly. Each builder has an obligation to squeeze the most performance possible from his budget, or else be prepared to defend his alternate path.
But staff and readers alike also hold our builds to various other standards. Thomas' high-end rig undergoes the most scrutiny. It's expected to not only perform exceptionally well, but to also look and feel the part. Don’s enthusiast-oriented PC gets away with more sacrifices, and its lower price might even justify somewhat flat performance right out of the box. However, it still has to be tweaking-friendly and put up big numbers when it gets overclocked. As for my budget-oriented build, I try to earn that gaming PC moniker first and foremost, rather than trying to compete across the productivity-oriented apps that push my less expensive hardware around.
Last quarter, we upped the stakes in our first System Builder Marathon of 2013, by pursuing the most performance possible from three tightly-grouped budgets: $600, $800, and $1000. In essence, we were looking to identify the sweet spot where bang-for-the-buck value is maximized. Surprisingly, the early favorite and reigning champion, Don's mid-priced enthusiast PC, wound up in last place overall, despite winning the hearts of gamers with an unlocked Core i5-3570K processor and powerful Tahiti LE-based Radeon HD 7870 graphics card. On the other hand, my $600 gaming PC successfully captured the overall gold medal once I overclocked it.
But keeping the mainstream Radeon HD 7850 graphics card from the previous two $500 efforts was a disappointment to many, who expected a more generous $600 budget to pack more graphics muscle.

Convinced that a Core i5-3350P a Radeon HD 7850 was a winning combo for overall value, this round I justified shifting funds from the CPU to graphics to see how much better a more focused $600 machine might game. At the same time, we'd also figure out how much performance we'd lose in threaded content creation and productivity apps.

Thoughts of pairing AMD’s FX-6300 with the biggest and baddest GPU I could afford ended when the crew started talking about mini-ITX configurations. As a personal fan of small form factor systems, I was immediately on-board. But I also expressed my concern about the premiums on small parts, along with a desire to make optical drives optional. Some of the most attractive cases, such as Fractal Design's Node 304, don't even include an external drive bay, while many smaller enclosures require a pricier slim drive.
As I waited for the team's input, I priced out a mini-ITX gaming box with a Core i3-3220 and the least-expensive 7-series motherboard, GeForce GTX 660, and 4 GB kit I could find. I would have loved to go even smaller, but I just couldn't deny that Cooler Master's $40 Elite 120 chassis met our value expectations best, while allowing enough left over for a 430 W modular power supply. The build rounded up to exactly $600, shedding the optical drive many folks consider optional anyway.

The talks evolved, though, and in the end we settled on $650, $1300, and $2600 as our final budgets. With an extra $50 burning a hole in my pocket, I was torn between conflicting interests. How would we judge what makes the best mini-ITX gaming box? Should I stay true to the roots of our SBM and augment performance, or build something a little more in tune with what I'd personally want to own? The ultimate small form factor box would either be hidden or attractive enough for my family room. Of course I'd still want it to deliver a solid 1920x1080 gaming experience. I could now shrink down to a SilverStone Sugo SG05 with its 450 W SFX power supply, and use the leftover budget to double my system memory. Or, some folks might add back the optical drive. But I knew that neither route would bolster performance.

Gigabyte Reveals GTX 770 WindForce 3X OC, Has 4GB VRAM

Gigabyte has launched its GTX 770 WindForce 3X OC with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Gigabyte has announced a new version of its GeForce GTX 770 card, this one packing a meatier cooler and more memory. The GTX 770 WindForce 3X OC is a card that is built using a custom PCB, carrying the WindForce 3X cooler, having higher factory clock speeds, and a couple of extra gigabytes of graphics memory.

The card's WindForce 3X cooler is built with six copper heat pipes, some big aluminum fin stacks, and three 80 mm fans. This cooler can generate up to 450 W of cooling power. Of course, with such cooling power the manufacturer cannot get away with giving us a card with factory clocks. As such, the card is clocked at 1137 MHz base and 1189 MHz boost speeds. This makes the boost clock over 100 MHz higher than the reference specification.

Gigabyte's GTX 770 WindForce 3X OC also carries 4 GB of GDDR5 memory that runs over a 256-bit memory bus at an effective speed of 7.0 GHz.
The card should already be available through retail channels for an MSRP of around $499.99.

MSI GeForce GTX 760 Packaging Mistakenly Pictured

Oops, it appears that someone had forgotten to check the model numbers of the boxes retrieved from their shelves, and accidentally included the packaging of the GTX 760 with a roundup of GTX 780 cards.

While little is known about the GTX 760 currently, it appears that someone from PC Games Hardware has mistakenly taken a picture of the packaging of the GTX 760 card and published it. The reason we say that it was accidental is because it was included in a roundup of three GTX 780 cards, and it seems that someone may have accidentally swapped the MSI GTX 780 packaging for that of MSI's GTX 760. From the packaging, we can see that the card will carry the TwinFrozr cooler, and will be themed as part of the Gaming series of PC components, meaning that it will be black and red. The box also indicates that the card will be factory overclocked.

An earlier report did shed some light onto the GTX 760's specifications, though their likeliness remains questionable. According to these specifications, the GTX 760 would not be very different from the GTX 660 Ti, featuring higher clock speeds and a wide memory interface. More details here.
Reports indicate that the GTX 760 is expected to launch this week still with an MSRP of $299.

Samsung's Galaxy S4 doubles download speeds on LTE-Advanced network

Samsung plans to begin selling a Samsung Galaxy S4 smartphone capable of supporting LTE-Advanced 4G networks -- which offer download speeds that are twice as fast as LTE -- in South Korea this month.
No U.S. wireless carrier is implementing LTE-Advanced yet, though all four major carriers have expressed interest in the technology or have described plans to offer the faster speeds as early as later this year.
The four major U.S. carriers (Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile USA) are provisioning or have recently provisioned LTE (Long Term Evolution) network switching gear and antennas nationwide that generally provide average downlink speeds of 10Mbps.

None of the four major U.S. carriers responded Monday to a request for information on their plans for LTE-Advanced networks.

Samsung is working with Qualcomm on LTE-Advanced chips for the GS4, said JK Shin, co-chief executive of Samsung Electronics, in an interview with Reuters in South Korea.
Shin told Reuters, in a story posted early today, that Samsung is talking to carriers outside of South Korea to sell the LTE-Advanced GS4. He refused to disclose the carriers Samsung is talking to.
He also claimed that Samsung will be the first manufacturer to sell a commercial version of an LTE-Advanced smartphone.

Shen told Reuters that a three-minute download of a movie using current LTE technology would take just over a minute on an LTE-Advanced network.
He did add that a Galaxy S4 that supports LTE-Advanced will be slightly more expensive than the LTE version.
Shin claimed sales of the GS4 "remain strong," and have been thus far stronger than the GS III. The smartphone became available in April. He appeared to be reacting to analyst forecasts that demand for the Galaxy S4 is lagging.

After those analyst forecasts appeared earlier this month, shares of Samsung stock quickly dived by 6% and the company's market value has dropped by nearly $20 billion since June 7.
The addition of LTE-Advanced to the GS4 is another example of how phone makers must constantly improve hardware and software to keep customers interested in a smartphone market that has become saturated.

LTE-Advanced has been on the minds of smartphone chip makers for months.
Nvidia, for instance, downloaded 150Mbps in a prototype LTE-Advanced smartphone running over a Tegra 4i chip at the May CTIA trade show in Las Vegas. Broadcom in February showed off a BCM21892 modem that supports LTE-Advanced and ST-Ericsson is developing an LTE-Advanced chip.
According to the 3GPP, a standards body, the top theoretical downlink data rate from LTE-Advanced networks is 3Gbps, while the uplink is 1.5Gbps. For LTE, the theoretical down and up rates are 300Mbps and 170Mbps, respectively. However, the speeds are much lower for practical uses.
A 20,000-mile road test of AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless networks by PC Magazine found an average downlink speed of 15.24Mbps over AT&T's LTE network in Atlanta, and 11.27Mbps over the Verizon network in Los Angeles.

NSA can access data without court approval, leaker says

Analysts at the U.S. National Security Agency can gain access to the content of U.S. targets' phone calls and email messages without court orders, NSA leaker Edward Snowden said, contradicting denials from U.S. government sources.

U.S. surveillance agencies have weak policy protections in place to protect U.S. residents, but "policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens," Snowden, the former NSA contractor, said in a chat on The Guardian's website Monday.

The technology filter designed to protect U.S. communications is "constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the 'widest allowable aperture,' and can be stripped out at any time," Snowden wrote in the chat. "Even with the filter, US comms get ingested, and even more so as soon as they leave the border."

If an analyst at the NSA, CIA or other U.S. intelligence agency has access to the databases of collected communications records, "they can enter and get results for anything they want," Snowden added. "Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id, and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time."
Earlier this month, The Guardian and The Washington Post published information leaked from Snowden about the NSA and other U.S. surveillance. Snowden leaked a document showing a court order allowing the NSA and Federal Bureau of Investigation to collect phone records from Verizon customers, and he alleged that NSA analysts can gain access to phone calls and email messages without court approval.
Snowden's comments came after U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, suggested that lawmakers were told in a classified briefing last week that officials with the NSA and FBI believe they don't need court-ordered warrants to listen to phone calls and read emails.
Nadler, in a hearing last Thursday, asked FBI director Robert Mueller if the agencies need a warrant to listen to phone calls.

"You have to get a special, particularized order from the FISA court directed at that particular phone and that particular individual," Mueller said.
NSA director Keith Alexander also said the agency needs warrants to access the contents of phone calls and email messages when questioned in another hearing last week.
The U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence Public also disputed Snowden's assertions of warrantless wiretapping and Nadler's understanding of the classified briefing to lawmakers.
"The statement that a single analyst can eavesdrop on domestic communications without proper legal authorization is incorrect and was not briefed to Congress," the ODNI said in a statement.
Nadler, in a statement released after the Thursday hearing, said the Obama administration had assured him that the "NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans' phone calls without a specific warrant."

Oracle's Q4 results: What to expect

Many eyes in the tech world will fall on Oracle later this week, when the vendor's fourth-quarter results are set for release. This is typically the biggest reporting period for Oracle each year in terms of revenue, but a number of questions loom beyond its top-line performance.
Here's a look at some of the topics Oracle CEO Larry Ellison and other executives may discuss or be asked to address during Thursday's conference call on the results.

New software purchases versus maintenance: Oracle has consistently made sure to highlight its strong software maintenance revenue, which existing customers pay each year for support and updates. Maintenance fees carry extremely high profit margins for Oracle and other software vendors.
But another key metric to watch is new software license revenue. Growth in this area says customers are broadening their investments in Oracle software, whether by adding licenses for their existing implementation or trying out newer products.

Oracle has begun reporting new software licenses sales in tandem with cloud software subscription services as it moves further into the SaaS (software as a service) market. Last quarter, revenue in the combined category fell 2 percent, which along with a 1 percent drop in overall revenue led to some shaky nerves on Wall Street.
This time around things should be different, analyst firm Canaccord Genuity said in a report issued Monday. "Our research indicates that aggregate software demand improved sequentially from [the third quarter]," the report states. "However, there are treacherous pockets of weakness. We expect Oracle to navigate those challenges and post at least a consensus quarter."

Hardware ho-hum?: A less likely outcome of Thursday's results is a sudden turnaround in Oracle's hardware revenue, which have fallen consistently since the acquisition of Sun Microsystems. Oracle has maintained it is focused on higher-margin systems like Exadata, rather than commodity servers. During its third-quarter earnings call, CFO Safra Catz said customers had also been waiting for new Sparc-based systems to be released, and Ellison himself told analysts not to expect a turnaround until the first quarter of Oracle's fiscal 2014.

Fusion Applications update: One thing is for sure: Nobody can accuse Oracle of over-hyping the success of its next-generation Fusion Applications. To the contrary, its public remarks on uptake of Fusion have suggested industry watchers should manage their expectations, as installed-base customers of older applications adopt modules incrementally, particularly in SaaS form.
Oracle has said there are more than 400 Fusion customers, but many observers will be looking for an updated figure, as well as some color regarding how many have gone live, compared to ones in mid-implementation, and which types of modules they are choosing.

How Apple shook up the electronic book market

IDG News Service - Apple didn't try to fix or raise the prices of electronic books when it entered into the market in 2010, according to Apple Senior Vice President Eddy Cue. Rather, he says, the company was only working to ensure a profit for itself.

"We're not willing to lose money in any business," Cue told the court, referring to Amazon's practice of 2009 to sell electronic books for less than what it paid for them.
But in doing so, the U.S. Justice Department contends, Apple violated antitrust laws by colluding with the five largest book publishers -- HarperCollins, the Penguin Group, the Hatchett Group, MacMillan, and Simon & Schuster -- to fix the prices of electronic books. As a result of their actions, the prices of electronic books rose in 2010, the DOJ contended.
While the five publishers have since settled with the DOJ out of court, Apple is defending its practices in a DOJ antitrust trial now under way at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of New York, with District Judge Denise Cote presiding.
In its arguments, the DOJ portrayed Cue as the mastermind of the operation, the one who coordinated the actions of the publisher CEOs while keeping Apple's then-CEO, Steve Jobs, informed of the progress he was making. Last week, Cue took the stand to explain the reasoning that led Apple and the publishers to set up an entirely new pricing model for electronic books, called the agency model.
The agency model works differently from the wholesale model that publishers have been using for centuries. In the wholesale model, the book publisher sells the books to the retailer, and then the retailer can resell the book at whatever price it sees fit, usually at a profit. In the agency model, such as the one Apple uses for its App Store, the manufacturer sets the retail price and the retailer gets a certain percentage of the sale. In Apple's case, it would take 30 percent of whatever publishers intended to charge.
Does the DOJ have a case against Apple? While a move to the agency model may be legal, the work of coordinating competitors in a single market to agree on prices is not, said Keith Hylton, a professor at the Boston University School of Law. The complexity in this case is that the two issues are confounded, he said.
Agency pricing is similar to another mechanism, "resale price maintenance," in which the manufacturer sets the prices of its goods, Hylton said. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007, in a case concerning the pricing of leather apparel, that resale price maintenance was legal unless the practice was shown to be harmful to consumers.
The agency model, on its own, "doesn't even raise an antitrust issue, because the seller never owns the book," Hylton said.

But while a manufacturer and reseller can work together to determine a price, multiple manufacturers cannot collude together to set prices. The plaintiff, in this case the DOJ, has to make a compelling case that this conspiracy actually took place, Hylton said.
When questioned by DOJ attorney Lawrence Buterman, Cue said he was unaware that publishers were discussing the proposed Apple deals among themselves. He had been unaware, he said, that the CEOs of the largest book publishers had been holding talks among themselves for at least a year prior to meeting with Cue.
What the publishing CEOs were discussing was the issue of how Amazon was selling electronic books for its Kindle book reader, which they called the "$9.99 problem." According to the DOJ, the publishers were frustrated that Amazon was selling their best-selling titles at US$9.99 each, which was, in many cases, less than what Amazon was paying for those electronic books.
The publishing companies feared that if Amazon continued to offer bestsellers at such a reduced rate, the public would come to assume that would be the natural price for a book. They also worried that Amazon was moving to disintermediate publishers, or to cut them out of the publishing cycle and deal directly with authors.
Enter Apple. In December 2009, Apple was preparing to launch its iPad, which Cue thought would make for a terrific electronic book reader. It was Cue's idea for Apple to enter the market for electronic books. Apple CEO Steve Jobs thought the format wouldn't work for either the iPhone or Mac laptops or desktop computers. But the iPad would make a fine reader for electronic books, offering features such as enhanced color and video, Cue thought. Cue felt personally close to Jobs; he had worked closely with him for about 16 years and was aware Jobs was dying. (Jobs died in 2011.) The project to set up the iBookstore "had extra meaning to me," he told the court.A
Cue had to work fast, though. Jobs was planning to introduce the iPad to the world in little more than a month, on Jan. 27, 2010. Cue would need to have preliminary agreements from all the major publishers in place by then for Jobs to include iBookstore in his presentation.A
According to Cue's testimony, he initially approached publishers individually in December 2009 about reselling their books in a typical wholesale model.A In Cue's first meeting with a publisher, with HarperCollins, an executive floated the idea of working with Apple under an agency model. Cue took the idea back to Jobs, who approved the basic concept. The company was already using that model for both its App Store and its iTunes music and video service. So over the next few weeks, Cue and his team worked up an agency plan, one that guaranteed Apple a 30 percent cut of each sale.A
Cue proposed different pricing tiers that publishers had to adhere to.A Electronic versions of best-selling hardcover books, for example, could be sold at $12.99 or $14.99. At the publishers' insistence, he added $16.99 and $19.99 as well. The contracts also prohibited the publishers from "windowing," or delaying the electronic release of popular books on Apple's store. "If you run a store, you can't have windowing at all," Cue explained before the court. "Even though some prices would go up, in exchange, [there would be] no more windowing."
Cue quickly realized that, in order for the agency model to work, the same deal must be struck with all electronic book vendors, lest Apple's prices be undercut by other retailers. The problem, Cue recalled Apple's legal counsel telling him, was that Apple couldn't force publishers to change their contracts with other retailers.
Instead, Cue introduced what he called a "Most Favored Nation" clause, in which the book publishers would guarantee that they would offer their books to Apple at 30 percent less than any other e-book retailer's price. In this way, Cue explained, publishers would not have to sign over the rest of their clients to the agency selling model. "In a legal agreement, I couldn't force Amazon and Barnes & Noble to move to the agency model," he said. The DOJ has maintained that the MFN clause in effect forced book sellers to move to an agency model.
With the public launch of the iPad coming up on Jan. 27, Cue rushed to get all the publishers to sign contracts by a week before then. Book publisher Hatchett signed an agency-model deal on Jan. 24, and the other four publishers signed similar deals within the following two days. In the following months, the publishers struck agency deals with other electronic book retailers. The Apple contract took effect on April 3, and the prices of the best sellers quickly rose to the top $16.99 tier in the weeks after. (As part of their 2011 settlements with the DOJ, the book publishers ended all their agency-model contracts).
In antitrust cases, "Once there is a proof of conspiracy, it is up to the defendant to prove that the consumer wasn't harmed," Hylton said. In this case, the DOJ focused its questioning on the increase in book prices right after the new agreements were in place.
When Buterman asked if he knew book prices would jump after the agreement, Cue refused to acknowledge that electronic book prices increased overall. He replied that while some book prices increased, the prices for other books would be priced more "flexibly," and still other books were introduced to the market that previously weren't available in electronic form, thanks to Apple's insistence on not windowing or withholding book releases.
"I expected higher prices for some books, but [there would be] flexibility for other books," Cue said. He also noted that not all the prices for electronic books increased. Most of the price increases were for new, best-selling books.
"Do you recall customers calling to thank you for raising [electronic book] prices?" Buterman asked.
"They thanked me for opening an iBookstore," Cue responded.
During questioning by Apple's own attorney, Orin Snyder, Cue maintained that Apple did not have a set expectation for how much electronic books should cost. "$9.99 might be the right price, but we didn't know what the right price was," he said. Rather, Apple left it to the publishers to set the prices, requiring only 30 percent of the final price in order to keep its own business profitable. After expenses of delivering product and maintaining an electronic commerce store, Apple would reap a net profit in the "high single percentages," Cue said.
"Volume, not price, drives Apple's profits," Cue said.
In its case, the DOJ contends that Apple coordinated the activities of the five publishers, informing them that each of their contracts would be similar, and keeping each of the publishers abreast of what the other publishers were thinking. To this end, DOJ says it has plenty of electronic evidence, between emails and phone calls, that publishers were conferring with each other on the issue. For example, Jobs, in one email, stated that Apple could help publishers solve "the Amazon problem."
Another key part of the evidence was a quote from Steve Jobs, made right after the iPad launch. When asked by The Wall Street Journal why someone would pay $14.99 for a book on an iPad when they could get the same book for $9.99 from Amazon or Barnes & Noble, Jobs replied "that won't be the case ... the prices will be the same." For the DOJ, this quote was evidence that Apple knew it was asking all the publishers to raise prices for their books across the board.
The DOJ, however, still has to back its argument by showing very clearly that collusion took place. "If you want to prove conspiracy, you better bring very strong evidence. It can't be stuff that people can confer by just connecting the dots," Hylton said. Apple, meanwhile, is charging that the DOJ is taking these electronic documents out of context.
Cue, when questioned by Buterman, denied that he or Apple spoke with any of the publishers about what the other publishers were doing. He also repeatedly denied that he pitched publishers with the idea that Apple could incite a change in the structure of the entire electronic book market. He said he did not know who came up with the idea of all publishers going to an agency model at the same time. "My concern was to remain competitive," he said.
Concluding arguments from both sides are expected later this week.

McAfee Internet Security 2013 Review: Proficient antimalware, super-quick installation

McAfee Internet Security 2013 ($40 for one year of protection on up to 3
computers, as of 12/19/12) didn’t manage top marks in our security suite tests,
but it’s still a fairly proficient antimalware program that will keep you relatively
well-protected. This security suite, which boasts a simple user interface and
a super quick installation process, scans your system quickly and efficiently.
However, McAfee’s uninspired design and average performance makes it a less
attractive choice compared to its competition.
In our real-world attack test, McAfee was able to completely block 94.4 percent
of attacks. Unfortunately, this means that it did let through 5.6 percent of
attacks, allowing our test system to get infected. This test indicates how well a
product will be able to block brand new malware attacks as it encounters them
in the wild—and of the nine security suites we tested, only two let such a large
percentage through.
That said, McAfee was competent at cleaning up malware infections once they
were already on the system. In our system cleanup test, the program detected
and disabled 100 percent of infections, and fully cleaned up 70 percent of
infections. Five of the nine security suites we tested performed better than
McAfee in this test, completely cleaning up at least 80 percent of infections.
McAfee had an excellent false positive percentage: It didn't flag a single safe file
(out of over 250,000 files) as malicious. It also did a very good job at detecting
known baddies: in our malware “zoo” detection test, it managed to detect 99.9
percent of known malware samples.
McAfee adds just a little extra weight to your system, performance-wise. In our
PC speed tests, the program added a little less than one second to startup time,
and about four seconds to shutdown time. McAfee’s scan times are slightly
higher than average: It takes one minute and 35 seconds to complete an on-
demand (manual) scan, and five minutes for an on-access scan (the automatic
scan that happens when you open or save a file to a disk). In both cases, that's
about average for the suites we tested.
Installing McAfee Internet Security 2013 is a breeze. There are just three screens
to click through, the program doesn’t try to install any extras (such as toolbars) or
change any of your settings (such as your default browser search), and it doesn't
require a restart is required.
McAfee’s user interface, though uninspired, is simple and easy to understand. It’s
not very attractive (the main window is gray with green and blue accents), but it
does have a large banner at the top that shows your protection status, along with
four small modules so you can quickly access important security areas. These
areas include virus and spyware protection, Web and email protection, updates,
and your subscription information. There are also three smaller modules that let
you quickly access McAfee’s other services, including data protection tools, PC
home and network tools, and parental controls.
On the right side of the main window are links to navigation and help. The
navigation section is where you’ll find the main settings, as well as information
about each of the suite’s features. You can also click the modules on the main
window to access settings for individual features. The settings menus are a
little difficult to navigate, but McAfee does offer up simple explanations for each
area, as well as a “Learn more” link that takes you to the a relevant online help
document.
McAfee offers decent protection and a user-friendly interface, but overall it’s
just average—nothing about it is too impressive, but it’s also not terrible. Its
protection, performance, and documentation are mediocre, while its user
interface is bland and uninspiring (though easy to navigate and understand). It’s
not a bad program, but there are better security suites out there.

AMD slates first ARM server chip, 'Seattle,' for 2014

AMD plans to sample its first ARM-based processors for servers early next year, alongside paired CPUs and integrated graphics cores in an attempt to oust Intel's Xeon from its dominance in the server market.
Specifically, AMD's ARM core will be code-named "Seattle," and will ship in volume during the second half of 2014, AMD executives said. In 2014, AMD will also ship "Berlin," a core available in both a CPU form factor as well as an APU, which integrates the processor with an integrated graphics coprocessor. Finally, there's the "Warsaw," which will compete with in high-performance computing (HPC) applications with the Xeon.
Seattle is of interest to both AMD and to other industry watchers because it represents one of the more interesting opportunities for AMD to regain share in the server market. Last year, AMD said last year that it had agreed to license ARM 64-bit technology, and would combine it with its Freedom Fabric, the name given to its high-speed networking technology it acquired via SeaMicro.
Intel sells more than 80 percent of all microprocessors by unit volume, but in servers it's a virtual dictatorship; during the fourth quarter of 2012, Mercury Research estimated that Intel sold about 95.7 percent of all server microprocessors sold. To compete, AMD needs something different, and it's hoping ARM represents that edge.

The hope for ARM

ARM is the processor architecture that powers the vast majority of the world's smartphones, where low power is a priority. That hasn't been the case inside the server space until the last few years, when system administrators realized that the majority of cost in operating a server comes from the power it takes to operate it. The problem, however, is that the low-power ARM architecture still runs using a 32-bit instruction set, rather than the 64-bit instructions demanded by server makers.
ARM announced its ARMv8 64-bit architecture in 2011, and has worked to build an ecosystem of software and hardware since then. Eventually, hardware licensees like Applied Micro and others, including AMD, will manufacture ARM-based CPUs. Then server makers will build out their own products, putting ARM-based servers on the market possibly late next year. Those "microservers" will be used for hosting, static workloads like serving Web pages, cloud gaming, and other functions.

Microservers like HP's "Moonshot" will prove to be good homes for AMD processors, it hopes.

"This isn't someone questioning if ARM is really a viable technology," said Michael Detwiler, a product marketing manager with AMD. "ARM is going to be a player in the server market."
Detwiler said that AMD admits that other companies have more experience building phones and other clients around the ARM architecture. With its SeaMicro technology, however, which can work with a variety of processor architectures including ARM and X86, Detwiler said he expects no other provider will be able to surround the ARM Cortex-A57 core, the heart of "Seattle," with the type of enterprise logic that AMD will provide.
AMD promises that the Seattle chip will run at greater than 2GHz, and have between two and four times the performance for the Opteron X-series, also known as the "Kyoto" cores, which AMD will also ship in the same timeframe for the microserver market. Each Seattle chip will contain 8 cores with 128MB of DRAM support, followed by a 16-core version. Dedicated encryption and compression blocks will also be included, Detwiler said, along with 10-Gbit Ethernet for networking.