Asus Lyra Trio (AC1750)

The Lyra Trio Mesh WiFi system is a triple hub, dual-band kit that follows up from the original Asus Lyra Home Wi-Fi system that was released in 2017. 

This new kit is more affordable than its predecessor, but drops a few more esoteric features in order to do so, including MU-MIMO (which will be a turn off for some). 

It’s also a bit slower, with the headline performance dropping down to AC1750 (1,300Mbps on the 5GHz band and 450Mbps on the 2.4GHz band), as opposed to the original’s AC2200 (2x 867Mbps @ 5GHz and 400Mbps @ 2.4GHz). Each hub has 3x dual-band MIMO antennas and a Bluetooth antenna.

This is a Mesh Wi-Fi solution, which means that the three hubs work together to provide seamless coverage for your whole house, and Asus believes this kit is ideal for a large, 2-3 story home (375 square meters).

One unit needs to be connected to your router, but the others can be placed wherever works best for you, and each unit boasts an RJ45 Ethernet port, for physical connections if you’re not happy staying completely wireless. The actual setup up and configuration of the network is handled by the Asus Lyra app, which is clear and easy to use, while also offering a reasonable amount of stats for would-be network managers.

Pricing and availability

Asus is a well-respected name, with good connections with plenty of major outlets, which means that you shouldn’t have a problem tracking down these units. 

All the usual suspects (Amazon, Newegg, local resellers) have the Lyra Trio kit available at competitive prices, and at around $253 (£270, AU$340), the kit is reasonable value for money for a triple-hub solution.

If you have a bigger area to cover, then you may want to pick up additional individual units, which are available for around $130/£100/AU$170 each.

Alternatively, if you have a smaller home, than just a pair may provide enough coverage, although this would add up to being more expensive than just buying the triple kit we’ve reviewed here.

Design and setup

It’s worth spending a bit time of talking about the design of the Lyra Trios, as they make for a significant break from what has quickly become the norm. 

Look at other mesh hubs, and they tend to favour squat cylinders. Indeed the previous Lyras sat in that groove too. So why has Asus decided to go for something a bit more space-age/steam iron-like? Apparently to accommodate angled antenna, as each of the three sloped pillars is actually home to one.

The obvious question is, do these hubs look good when placed around your home? That question isn’t so easy to answer. 

The benefit of the common cylinder look is that they could be any piece of tech at all, from a smoke alarm to a Bluetooth speaker. We’re used to such kit being around our homes, and generally don’t give them a second thought. 

The Acer Lyra units stand out far more than that, although that’s not necessarily a bad thing. They are pleasingly finished, and thanks to slots on the underside can be wall mounted if needed, so there are some good options for how to place them throughout your home, but personally we prefer the subtle approach of other kits.

Software

One area where Asus does get an unequivocal nod of approval is in the fact that the units can be controlled via the app or by a web interface by pointing your browser at a specified address. 

While we’re fine with the general shift to the app model, being able to query your devices directly from your laptops and desktops just feels that little bit more serious, and means you’re not having to hunt down whatever device you used to set the Lyra Trio up with in the first place.

It’s a shame therefore that this isn’t implemented quite as brilliantly as it could have been. There are certain things you can seem to do in the web interface, that you can in the app. Turning of the LEDs for example. 

In fact, while we’re on the subject, you can’t automatically dim these like you can with the TP-Link Deco M5 and M9 at certain times of the day, which is annoying, particularly if you have a hub in your bedroom (the LEDs are really bright).

Performance

To say the performance of the Lyra Trio was erratic would be an understatement. When testing from various locations throughout our home we would see high performance and few inches one way or another, barely any connection at all. 

The supposed seamless hand-off between different the different hubs would sometimes leave us with no connection at all as well, which is disappointing, as “seamless roaming” is a big selling point of the kit. 

The frustration with the system is best summed up by our two main testing sites though: one set of tests is done just 5ft from the hub, with a clear line of site (using a laptop, and in this case for verification a tablet as well). 

The other site is 13ft away with multiple walls in the way, to a desktop PC that connects to the hub using an Ethernet cable. Somewhat confusingly we had no problems with the performance of the fixed system that was further away: It offered performance on a par with the likes of the M9 and M5 Deco kits, at least for download speeds,though uploads were a little off the pace. 

The closer test was consistently poorer when it came to downloading (although uploads were better). 

Verdict

The overall design of the Lyra Trio is striking, and could appeal to a slightly more techy audience. The units are incredibly simple to get up and running, and the fact that they offer web and app interfaces for tweaking the settings is welcome.

We’re impressed by the lifetime protection as well, as this is the sort of feature that can add up for competing units.

However, our frustration with the performance of the Lyra Trio ultimately holds us back from recommending it wholeheartedly, even though it can offer strong performance that’s on a par with more expensive, and more capable solutions. The whole interface experience could benefit from some consistency improvements too,

This kit is easy to get up and running, and there are plenty of options and settings for you to play around with if that’s your thing. The big problem though is the performance. When it’s working it’s great, but it’s inconsistent, and we experienced enough dropped connections to know that this has the potential to really frustrate.

from TechRadar: Technology reviews https://ift.tt/2zHRI8B

Pokémon Go trainer battles detailed, will launch later this month

After teasing last week that trainer battles are coming to Pokémon Go, developer Niantic today spilled more details on how the feature will work.

Trainer battles will begin rolling out in Pokémon Go this month. You can challenge another trainer at any time using a Battle Code, and while players will typically have to be near each other to battle, Ultra Friends and Best Friends can fight each other from any distance.

When you engage in a trainer battle, you'll select a team of three Pokémon to take into the fray. Players must complete in the same Trainer Battle League that will determine the CP limit for the participating Pokémon, which will help ensure that the battle isn't completely one-sided. Battles happen in real-time, and your Pokémon can execute both Fast Attack and Charged Attack moves. You can also deploy a Protect Shield to save your Pokémon from critical damage, but you'll only have a limited number of these in a battle.

When a trainer battle is done, both players will receive rewards, including a chance at getting rate Evolution items. And to help you prepare for your next battle, you can practice with team leaders Spark, Candela, and Blanche and earn rewards once per day.

Battling your friends with the Pokémon you've worked to train has always been a huge feature of the Pokémon games, so it's good to see it finally coming to Pokémon Go. It's also great to see Niantic enable the ability to battle your close friends no matter where they are. While it makes sense for most battles to require your opponent to be nearby, as Pokémon Go is all about getting outside and exploring, being able to battle your good friends no matter where you are should help to make trainer battles more fun.

from PhoneDog.com - Latest videos, reviews, articles, news and posts https://ift.tt/2ARjQG7
via IFTTT

Did you replace your iPhone's battery?

This year has been a strange one when it comes to the people I've spoken to and iPhone upgrades. I have a healthy mix of friends who upgrade on a regular basis (yearly), and those who don't. But even the folks who didn't upgrade last year and said they planned on doing it this year, because they wanted to see how Apple improved upon the iPhone X, apparently haven't gotten around to it.

And I don't think they plan to, either.

As much as I've wanted a blue iPhone, a friend of mine has wanted a yellow one. But the iPhone 5c wasn't an option for the most obvious reasons, so when the iPhone XR was unveiled it felt like the stars were finally aligned. I pulled the trigger on my blue iPhone, and I hadn't seen my friend since the XR's launch and we talked about that yellow phone, so I expected him to be fully switched over.

That was not the case. I met up with him a couple of days ago and I honestly wanted to see what it looked like in person, but instead he was still rocking the iPhone 7. When I asked what the hold up was he just shrugged and said, "I haven't gotten around to it yet." I obviously asked if he planned on it and he said he'd think about it, but he wasn't in a rush.

Well okay then!

Another friend of mine is using an iPhone 6s and he isn't going to upgrade, either. Well, that's not true. He picked up an iPhone XS and wasn't impressed enough to spend the money on it. So he's keeping the old phone, even though the battery is not what it used to be and the phone's overall getting a bit sluggish.

And that's the trend with the others I've spoken with, too. Which is why I wanted to reach out to all of you who have older iPhones. Many of the people who don't plan on upgrading have already replaced their current iPhone's battery. And the others plan on doing the same thing. Which makes sense, because Apple is still hosting that $29 battery replacement program, but that ends on December 31.

So, I wanted to find out if you have opted to simply replace your battery, and keep your current iPhone, rather than spending a lot more money to upgrade the entire phone? Are you keeping your current device for at least one more year? Let me know!

Apple iPhone 7 Plus

Apple

from PhoneDog.com - Latest videos, reviews, articles, news and posts https://ift.tt/2Uf9HMs
via IFTTT

AT&T will launch a 5G Samsung smartphone in the first half of 2019

Verizon isn't the only carrier that'll have a 5G smartphone from Samsung in 2019.

AT&T today confirmed that it will launch a 5G Samsung smartphone in the first half of 2019. No other details, like specs or pricing, have been announced, but AT&T says that it'll share more information in the coming months.

AT&T has installed mobile 5G network equipment in 12 markets across the U.S. where it plans to launch its service in 2018. The cities where AT&T mobile 5G will go live this year include Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Louisville, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, Raleigh, San Antonio, and Waco. Coverage will expand to parts of Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Nashville, Orlando, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose in the first half of 2019.

Rumors have suggested that Samsung is prepping a 5G version of the Galaxy S10, and it's possible that that's the device that could launch at AT&T and Verizon. Not only do Samsung's Galaxy S flagships already launch on multiple carriers, but a special Galaxy S10 with 5G connectivity and high-end specs could help convince more consumers to make the jump to 5G.

AT&T

Samsung

from PhoneDog.com - Latest videos, reviews, articles, news and posts https://ift.tt/2Ug7bp1
via IFTTT

Alcatel 1X Evolve coming to Metro by T-Mobile next week

If you're looking for a new, affordable Android phone on prepaid, Metro by T-Mobile may have the device for you.

The Alcatel 1X Evolve is officially launching at Metro by T-Mobile on December 10. It features a 5.34-inch 960x480 display with 18:9 aspect ratio, and its body is covered in a soft blue finish. There's an 8MP camera with LED flash on the back of the 1X Evolve, and the front is home to a 2MP snapper.

Inside the body of the Alcatel 1X Evolve, you'll find a 1.1GHz quad-core MediaTek MT6739WM processor paired with 2GB of RAM and a 2460mAh battery. Alcatel has included 16GB of storage, 9GB of which is available to the user, and there's a microSD card slot so that you can add another 32GB of storage if you'd like. Also packed inside this phone is a 3.5mm headphone jack, FM radio, micro USB, and Android 8.1 Oreo.

When it comes to connectivity, this Alcatel 1X Evolve includes support for LTE bands 2, 4, 5, 12, 66, and 71. The support for LTE band 71 is notable because that's T-Mobile's 600MHz LTE, which the carrier has been aggressively rolling out lately and is now in more than 1,500 U.S. cities and towns. 600MHz LTE signals can travel farther and penetrate buildings better than mid-band LTE, and so it's good to see it included with the Alcatel 1X Evolve.

Neither Alcatel nor Metro are ready to divulge the 1X Evolve's pricing, but with a launch happening in one week, we should hear more soon. Stay tuned.

MetroPCS

Alcatel

from PhoneDog.com - Latest videos, reviews, articles, news and posts https://ift.tt/2AOc6F0
via IFTTT

Amazon Fire TV Stick

A few months ago, Amazon launched a shiny new version of it's thumb drive-sized streaming stick. Called the Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K, it's capable of 4K HDR playback, and boasts a number of new specs – like an 802.11ac Wi-Fi chip and a 1.7GHz quad-core processor. 

But the previous model, the regular old Amazon Fire TV Stick, is still a solid streaming device if you're not so fussed about 4K, or your TV doesn't support it. 

And that's the biggest difference between the older model, the newer model and Amazon Fire TV – the latter two boast 4K streaming capabilities. However, Amazon doesn't hold buying a  budget streamer against you, giving you brilliant value for money whether you're streaming in 4K or regular HD.

Despite its affordable price tag of $39.99 (£39.99 / AU$69.99), the Fire TV Stick has a good voice search interface that we've found incredibly snappy and speedy. It allows users to access most of the apps that we'd all need on a regular basis. Just throw in the platform's rich search library, through Amazon Video, and you have all the ingredients for a capable streaming sticks that's got the basics sorted.

Although this second version of the Amazon streaming dongle has had significant improvements since its first release, there are still a few niggling issues. For example, despite its large library of apps, major streaming services like Now TV are missing, and we've found the voice search doesn't cover enough of the big services.

Having said that, if you can stay within the confines of Amazon's video safe haven, you'll find a lot to love about the budget-friendly Amazon Fire TV Stick. On the other hand, if you're the kind of cinephile who doesn't like being constrained to a handful of services, you'd be better off examining Roku's offerings or Google's Chromecast instead.

• Here's everything you need to know about the new Amazon Fire Stick 4K.
• Best Amazon Prime Instant TV Shows: 25 to choose from
• Best Netflix TV Shows: 25 of the best

Design

If you’ve used an Amazon Fire TV Stick in the past, then design-wise this latest version will be very familiar. 

The stick measures 85.9 x 30.0 x 12.6mm, and it's designed to plug straight into an HDMI port on the back of your TV. 

You might find that Amazon’s hardware is a little wider than your standard HDMI cable. But luckily, in the likely event that it’s too bulky to plug directly into the HDMI port, Amazon also includes a short male-to-female HDMI cable to help it fit. 

On the side of the stick is a micro USB port for powering the device. If you’ve got a newer TV, then there’s a good chance it’ll have a USB port on the back for powering gadgets. But again, if not Amazon also handily includes a power adaptor in the box, and the supplied USB cable should be more than long enough to reach a power supply.

But although on the outside things feel very much the same, internally the device has seen a bit of an upgrade over the previous generation of Fire TV Stick. Firstly, its Wi-Fi has been upgraded from 802.11n to the faster 802.11ac standard, which should allow content to buffer as quickly as possible. Its CPU has jumped from a dual-core to a quad-core, Dolby support has jumped to 5.1, and the Bluetooth version has gone up from 3.0 to 4.1. 

Unfortunately the one spec you’re likely to care the most about, resolution, has seen no change between the previous generation of the Fire TV Stick and this one. It’s still a 1080p, non-HDR streaming stick, despite Google’s Chromecast Ultra proving that the dongle form factor is able to handle 4K just fine. If you want a streamer that’s able to handle 4K with the Amazon name on it, then you’ll need to spend more on the premium Amazon Fire TV dongle or something similar.

So far so similar. But where you'll find the biggest change with this version of the Amazon Fire TV Stick is in its remote. The bottom six buttons are exactly the same as on the previous remote, as is the four-way nav pad which allows you to navigate the device’s menus. 

But what’s changed is the addition of a voice control button. You hold it down to summon Alexa: in theory that makes up for the simplicity of the remote by allowing you to search for the exact show that you want without having to type using an on-screen keyboard.

However in practice its functionality is limited, something we’ll cover in more depth in the performance section below. 

You also have the option of using the Fire TV remote on a smart device, which has the benefit of offering an on-screen keyboard that’s much faster than using the remote to type. Annoyingly, though, this keyboard is limited to apps which use Amazon’s own keyboard. Again, this is very much a device for Amazon lovers, but if you love other services and apps, you'll come up a little short.

This means that for an app like BBC iPlayer, which has its own keyboard built into the software, you won’t be able to use the app’s on-screen keyboard – instead you’ll be forced to laboriously navigate the keyboard on your television screen using the remote. 

The selection of apps, in the UK at least, is fairly decent. Catch-up services from each of the major broadcasters are present (including UKTV), as are Netflix and Amazon Prime Instant Video (naturally). The one major omission from a UK perspective is Now TV, which is all that prevents the Amazon Fire TV stick from having a full suite of software. 

For customers in the US there are even more options like Hulu, Sling TV and DISH's new DISH Now service that lets you stream content from your Hopper to your Amazon Fire TV wherever you are in the world.

Performance

There's no doubt that the Amazon Fire TV Stick is one super speedy device. Scrolling through menus is delightfully quick, and once you find something you want to watch it loads almost instantly (although that does also depend on the speed of your internet connection). 

The Amazon Fire TV Stick’s user interface is laid out in a straightforward way that's bound to make sense for those who haven't even used a streaming device before. Recently accessed shows and apps can be found on the home screen, or you can scroll up and across to find different content and apps. 

The most annoying thing about the experience is that for many apps you can’t access their content directly from the home screen. Instead, you’ll have to navigate to the app first, and then find content within the app. 

The result is that finding what you want to watch may take you a little longer depending on which platform it’s on, especially if you’re making use of the Fire TV Stick’s search functionality. 

If it’s on one of the platforms supported by Amazon’s universal search (Amazon Prime and Netflix being the two main examples) then you’ve got the perfect device for it. You have two options here. Either you head up and left on the main menu to reach the search box, and enter the TV show or film name on the on-screen keyboard, or you can simply hold down the voice search button on the remote and say the name of the content you’d like to watch. 

If you’ve ever used Alexa on one of Amazon's Echo range of smart speakers, then you’ll know it’s a very accurate piece of voice recognition software. And with the Fire TV Stick that was no exception. It was able to understand what show we were looking for almost every time, and on the one occasion it didn’t, it presented two options for us to choose from on the screen. 

But our biggest bugbear is that a lot of the streaming services on the Fire Stick aren’t covered by this universal search functionality, and this makes their content much harder to find. 

For example, when we reviewed the Fire TV Stick, if you search for a show that’s only available through the BBC iPlayer, Amazon’s software will have absolutely nothing to show you. It’s not even intelligent enough to know which streaming service the show is available on. 

Instead you’ll have to navigate to the app in question (which can be done using voice search), open it, and manually find the program via the app’s own interface – and here you won’t be able to use Alexa to search, so you’ll have to navigate an on-screen keyboard using your remote. 

The search function, including Alexa, is more or less limited to searching for program titles, despite the steps Amazon has taken with its X-ray functionality, which allows you to access IMDB information within its shows. 

Search for ‘Jeremy Clarkson’ for example, and rather than bringing up Amazon’s flagship show, The Grand Tour, you’re instead confusingly given a link to the TV show Dexter of all things. 

Although Amazon’s search functionality is fast and accurate, it only covers a fraction of the content you’re likely to be streaming, and it’s not nearly as clever or as capable as Alexa is on the Echo, which is a real shame for those who have become accustomed to her super helpful recognition smarts.

We also feel that Alexa is under-utilised when it comes to controlling the playback of content. You’re able to skip ahead to the next episode using your voice, but you’re not able to skip back an episode – and if you’re watching a series on anything other than Amazon Prime then you won’t even be able to skip forward. 

We liked 

The Amazon Fire TV Stick’s interface is quick and snappy. It’s intuitively laid out, and finding most content is quick and easy. And it's that interface that makes it one of our top (if not the top) affordable streaming devices around.

Once you get to your content it streams without any complaints or buffering. And playback is smooth and looks good. 

The voice search functionality is quick and accurate when searching for Amazon or Netflix content, and it’s also a speedy way of hopping between apps. Most major streaming services are supported, but it's definitely one for the die-hard Amazon fans. 

We disliked

Although you can access Amazon and Netflix content from the home screen or search results directly, most other apps require you to launch the app in question first and then navigate to its content. This limits the usefulness of the device’s search functionality, especially its excellent Alexa voice recognition search. 

Alexa is also under-utilised when it comes to controlling playback. You can use it to skip to the next episode, but you can’t skip backwards, and nor can you jump to a particular episode. 

Resolution is limited to 1080p, although this is perhaps understandable given that this is a budget-focused device. 

Being able to use the Fire TV app to enter text is useful, but the amount of situations in which this actually works is very limited. 

Final verdict

The Amazon Fire TV Stick with Alexa Voice Remote can at times feel like a missed opportunity. There’s so much functionality here that should make the device easier to use, but which ultimately only ends up being of benefit for Amazon’s own video content. Great for Amazon fans and Netflix content, not so great for everyone else.

That's because if you’re watching Amazon or Netflix content then the interface is a dream. It’s quick, voice search works well, and it’s easy to find what you want to watch. 

Venture into more niche streaming services, however, and the stick’s functionality is much more basic, offering merely a portal to each app’s own interface rather than functionality of its own. 

This is a solid piece of streaming hardware, but it’s not the step forward we hoped Alexa might have enabled it to be. 

If you’re in the market for a Fire TV device, it might be best to try your luck with the Amazon Fire TV Cube or new Fire Stick 4K instead. But if you want a capable streamer that gets the job done this one is more than enough to get you up-and-running.

from TechRadar: Technology reviews https://ift.tt/1vOxtzo

Emsisoft Anti-Malware Home

Emsisoft is a New Zealand-based company which has been providing antivirus solutions since 2003, and now has products covering everything from regular home users to demanding business types via its Enterprise Console.

Emsisoft's baseline product is Anti-Malware Home, a capable offering which uses two engines (Bitdefender's and Emsisoft's own) to detect and block viruses, ransomware, 'potentially unwanted products' and more.

The package is priced at a fairly average £26 ($33.80) for a one-computer, one-year license – to put that in perspective, Kaspersky Anti-Virus is £25 ($32.50), Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2019 is £30 ($39).

• You can sign up for Emsisoft Anti-Malware Home here

Adding more devices and extending your subscription cuts the price-per-system, but not quite to the level you'll usually see elsewhere. A three-device, three-year Emsisoft license costs £75 ($97.50), for instance, but choosing Kaspersky will see the price fall to £70 ($91), while Bitdefender asks £45.50 ($59.15) for the first year, £65 ($84.50) on renewal.

If the price isn't an issue, a 30-day free trial enables checking out the product before you buy, and there's also a 30-day money-back guarantee as extra protection.

Setup

The Emsisoft Anti-Malware trial was easy to download, and installed with surprising speed. There's no waiting around while a progress bar grinds oh-so-slowly onwards – it's finished almost immediately.

Although the website prompts for your email address after the download, it's not a requirement. Emsisoft doesn't require you to 'register' or hand over any personal details at all, unlike many competitors.

We browsed the Emsisoft program files to run a few checks, but couldn't see any issues. All the executables were correctly signed, including third-party components like OpenSSL and the Bitdefender engine, and they all appeared to be well-protected from attack. This isn't a package which malware can easily disable.

As we've seen with previous reviews, Emsisoft Anti-Malware grabs a little more resources than usual, with the main Emsisoft Protection Service using an average of 300MB RAM even when idling in the background.

That's not going to be a major issue for the average user, though, and the package compensates with reduced requirements in other areas. Emsisoft doesn't install chunky browser extensions to keep you safe from malicious websites, for instance – that all happens automatically at the network level.

Features

Emsisoft Anti-Malware has no significant bonus features, but somehow its interface still manages to be even more cluttered than most full-strength suites. There are four colored tiles titled Protection, Scan and Clean, Logs and Settings, for instance. Clicking any of these displays further panels stuffed with options, and scrolling down reveals even more elements to explore.

This doesn't necessarily make the program difficult to use. If you're not technically inclined, you can ignore most of the options, and just click Scan and Clean > Quick Scan to run a basic malware check, or Logs to review what's happened recently.

The real value here, though, is for more experienced users who'll appreciate Emsisoft Anti-Malware's extreme configurability. You can set up custom scans, for instance, defining exactly what they'll check and the low-level technical detail of how they check it.

And a hugely flexible scanner enables running your scan type at a specific time or interval, during defined hours (every hour between 9am and 5pm on Mondays, Thursdays and Fridays), or on a system event (when Windows starts, or after you've plugged in a USB key).

That's just the start. The URL filter can be extended with your own rules, or by importing your HOSTS file. You can precisely define when files are scanned, set up email notifications if malware is detected, customize when and how the program runs updates, decide which program events generate notifications, and control which user accounts are able to access Anti-Malware (great for stopping the kids changing your settings).

Although we appreciate this power, the layers to the interface sometimes make it awkward to navigate. For instance, having a Logs panel on the front page might make you think it's easy to get a look at exactly what happened during, say, the last-but-one scan. But the reality is a little different.

Click Logs and you get a complicated event log of all recent events, not just user actions. Scroll down to find the scan and you'll see items for both Scan Start and Scan Finish. Double-clicking Scan Finish displays a scrolling list of basic actions, without any of the results.

You might give up at this point, but if you scroll to the bottom of that list, you'll see a 'View the detailed Scan log' which finally gives you all the information you need. Once you've learned your way around, this isn't difficult to do, but it doesn't feel particularly natural or intuitive, either.

You probably won't spend much time navigating the interface, of course, and in regular real-world use the program performed reasonably well. Quick Scans checked running processes in around 15-20 seconds, and a more capable Malware Scan examined all the common infection points in around 90 seconds, while both scan types picked up all our sample threats.

URL filtering was relatively weak, with the program catching less than half our test URLs. That's not as dangerous as it sounds – the antivirus engine correctly detected and blocked every malware download – but it's a definite weakness in the system.

An Emergency Kit Maker enables creating a portable Emsisoft setup which you can save to a USB key and use to disinfect other computers. This is probably as basic as a recovery setup can be – it's just a couple of Windows executables – and so can't begin to match the power of a bootable recovery environment. But if you do have a second PC which has become infected, you'll probably be glad it's there.

If you expect your antivirus to throw in a bundle of extras, Emsisoft will leave you disappointed. There's no password manager, secure deletion tool, system optimizer or anything else. It makes for a short feature list, but as this kind of bonus feature rarely competes with the best-of-breed freeware, we don't think it's a deal-breaker.

Protection

While we run some malware detection tests during reviews, they can't compete with the large-scale efforts of the independent antivirus testing labs. Comparing and combining our results with their reports is the best way to get the big picture.

AV Comparatives' regular real-world protection tests have placed Emsisoft in the bottom half of the list for most of second half of 2018. For example, the company was ranked 10th of 18 in July, 14th in August, 16th in September and 17th in October.

These results clearly aren't great, but looking at the last summary report (February to June 2018) helps to put them in perspective. Emsisoft may have ranked a lowly 13th out of 18, for instance, but that's better than big names like Panda (14th) and BullGuard (17th), and not too far behind Avast (9th) and AVG (10th).

If you're interested in Emsisoft's Android app, you might be more impressed by AV Comparatives' giant Android antivirus roundup from back in March 2018. The company tested more than 200 security apps, and while more than half were almost worthless, Emsisoft was one of only 28 to catch 100% of the sample threats.

AV-Comparatives October 2018 Performance Test suggested that Emsisoft Anti-Malware has an above-average system impact, with Emsisoft placed a lowly 17th out of 18 top antivirus packages. The scoring system includes a lot of elements which may not bother you in day-to-day life, though (the delay introduced when you install or uninstall an app, for instance), and the differences in rankings can be very small. If the penalty of using Emsisoft Anti-Malware is that it takes half a second longer than usual to launch an application, for instance, you may well not care or even notice.

Usually we try to compare the testing reports from multiple labs, but that's not possible here. Emsisoft isn't currently on the list of contenders at AV-Test or SE Labs.

We did run a small test of our own, using a custom ransomware simulator we've developed to encrypt an entire folder tree of media and document files. As this was our own tool, we knew that Emsisoft was most unlikely to detect it from the file signature alone, making the test an interesting assessment of Emsisoft's behavior monitoring.

Unfortunately, our simulator was able to run to completion, encrypting thousands of documents without Emsisoft noticing that anything that was going on.

Our test threat wasn't real malware, so we can't be entirely sure why it was missed here. Especially as we know from AV-Comparatives' tests that Emsisoft Anti-Malware can detect real-world zero-day threats, so the package clearly picks up on at least some dubious behavior.

Still, we have had much more success with other antivirus vendors. Bitdefender not only detected what was happening and killed our test process, it also recovered the small number of files the malware had managed to encrypt.

Final verdict

Emsisoft Anti-Malware doesn't make any huge mistakes and we like its high level of configurability, but the package doesn't quite have the features, speed, ease of use or accuracy to compete with the best of the big-name competition.

• We've also highlighted the best antivirus software in this roundup

from TechRadar: Technology reviews https://ift.tt/2sMRSsl

Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM | Art review

Sigma has spent the last few years redefining what DSLR and mirrorless users should expect from third-party lenses, with many of its Art-series optics in particular released to laudatory reviews. Now, with many popular options ticked off, the company has stretched out to deliver a handful of more unusual options.

The optic on test fits in this category as much as it doesn’t. Canon, Nikon and Pentax all offer 40mm lenses, for example, and this focal length is slightly closer to the “standard” 43mm for 35mm-based system than the more common 50mm. Yet, its particularly wide aperture makes it unique, and it’s not often we see such a lens breach four figures in both price and weight. Furthermore, unlike the options from the above manufacturers, it’s neither a macro lens nor a pancake lens, but has a more conventional (if large) design.

Features

• Hyper Sonic Motor with manual override
• 9 blades promise a rounded diaphragm
• 3 FLD and 3 SLD elements

The lens is one of the latest of Sigma’s prime lens to have a f/1.4 maximum aperture, having been announced at the same time as the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary and 28mm f/1.4 DG HSM | Art Optics. As a ‘DG’ lens it’s most at home on a full-frame body, although it will also work with cropped-sensor cameras, whereupon its effective focal length is around 55mm, depending on the specific camera used.

If you’re thinking 40mm is an odd choice for stills photography, it probably won’t surprise you to learn that inspiration behind the lens appears to be the company’s CINE line of optics. The company has stated that this is the “first lens developed originally to live up to the sought-after angle of view and performance standard for a benchmark cine lens.” To that end, it reassures users that it delivers the kind of resolution that befits 8K recording. 

Inside its barrel, 16 elements are arranged over 12 groups, with three of these being “F” Low Dispersion (FLD) and a further three being Special Low Dispersion (SLD). This means we should expect chromatic aberration to be minimal, while the further aspherical element positioned at the back of the optical array should help to combat further distortions. Specifically, Sigma promises 1% distortion and non-existent coma, the latter being a bugbear of many wide-aperture optics. 

Sigma also promises beautiful bokeh from the optic, which is no doubt partly down to the use of nine aperture blades that promises a rounded diaphragm. Multi coatings have also been applied to the elements to keep flare and ghosting low, and a petal-shaped lens hood with an integrated lock is also supplied as standard to shield the lens from extraneous light.

If you’re lucky enough to use one of Canon’s most recent DSLRs, you’ll also be able to take advantage of the Lens Aberration Correction feature on these bodies to iron out any minor aberrations that may remain. Nikon users, meanwhile, who can apply their own corrections applied manually on their camera, have the advantage of electromagnetic diaphragm control, which allows for smooth autoexposure changes when shooting continuously.

The HSM suffix indicates the use of a Hyper Sonic Motor, and autofocus can be overridden by manual control through the focusing ring. A 0.15x magnification rating means you won’t be calling upon it for macro work, but its minimum focusing distance of 40cm means you can still get reasonably close to your subjects.

As with Sigma’s other recent lenses, the optic is also compatible with the USB dock for the purpose of firmware updates and performance optimisation.

Build quality and handling

• Dust- and splash-proof design
• Solid barrel
• Focus ring has a wide angle of rotation

The lens is about as long as the 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art, which itself is considered to be fairly large for an 85mm f/1.4 lens, but slightly less bulbous and with a filter thread that’s 4mm smaller. It should be fairly obvious from its size and heft, if not from its generous f/1.4 maximum aperture, that this is a lens designed for more considered use – and Sigma appears to have crafted it with build to match. 

Various seals protect the lens against dust or any splashes of water, with a rubber ring around the back to form a more secure connection when mounted, and this is complemented by a coating on both the front and rear element to help repel oil and water. The mount feels sturdy and the rubber ring the encircles it only comes out a little, but it doesn't appear to need to be any further out than it is. The rear element is very close to the back of the lens, however, so care should be taken when removing and replacing the lens.

The lens adheres to the same minimal design as other Art-series primes, with a smooth finish on the barrel and a deep focusing ring towards the front. A small window displays focusing distance in both feet and metres, which is useful, although, particularly on such a large lens, some may have preferred this window to be a little larger and it’s markings a little more prominent. But these are small points. 

The only switch on the barrel flicks between manual and autofocus, and this gives easily and clicks positively between the two positions. The focusing ring has a pleasingly large angle of rotation too, which makes critical adjustment of focus convenient.

Performance

• Good autofocusing performance
• Excellent sharpness, even wide open
• Noticeable vignetting at wide apertures

Focusing speeds are generally good, particularly when there’s plenty of light. ‘Fast’ is perhaps stretching it – the weight of the elements is no doubt partly why this is the case  but it will be fast enough for most subjects. You can hear the focusing system work in the absence of any ambient noise too, which is something to bear in mind if you want to use this during video, but this is masked by ambient noise outdoors.

Sharpness is already excellent in the centre of the frame at f/1.4, and corners hold up remarkably well at this point, but as soon as you stop down consistency across the frame is excellent. Chromatic aberration is also remarkably absent from images. There’s the faintest touch of lateral chromatic aberration in some scenes, but traverse aberrations are superbly controlled, which is very reassuring when you consider just how frequently this lens will be relied upon at its widest apertures.

Moderate vignetting can be seen at f/1.4, to the point where it appears that the image is underexposed as a whole, but this improves significantly at f/1.8. It continues to lessen until you get to around f/2.8, after which point it’s not an issue in real-real-world images. Perhaps better correction should be expected from such a design, although no doubt rectifying this optically would necessitate an even larger and heavier construction. It’s also likely that your camera will be able to lift away the worst of this though its own corrections. On the Canon EOS 6D Mark II we used the correction was significant, although a touch of vignetting remained.

Depth of field at f/1.4 is very shallow and out of focus areas have a very pleasingly smooth character. While the level of vignetting is no doubt why some cat’s eyes-shaped bokeh can be seen in the peripheries of the frame, in the centre of the frame it’s perfectly round at f/1.4.

Verdict

With a lofty price tag and the performance of other Art-series optics setting a high standard, we should expect a lot here – and we certainly get it. 

The lens is capable of resolving superb detail and beautifully round bokeh, with excellent control over chromatic aberrations and virtually absent curvilinear distortion. It’s also solidly built and, given that its closest rivals are either manual focus only or slower in terms of maximum aperture, right now it appears to without any direct competitions from other brands.

Indeed, if anything rubs off the lens’s shine, it’s Sigma’s own alternatives. With the company’s also-excellent, much lighter 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM | Art retailing at almost half the price, that lens appears as a far more practical solution for anyone wishing to use it handheld. The 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM | Art is also very well regarded, and likewise significantly cheaper, although its angle of view is noticeably narrower. Of course, these are not the same optics, although the fact that you can pick up both for only a little more than the 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art alone is something to think about.

To sum up, the Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art may be large and heavy, and potentially as impractical as it will be affordable for most, but its optical performance is hard to fault. The only signifiant downside that you're likely to come up against in everyday shooting is pronounced vignetting at wider apertures, although this is often used creatively, of course, and can be equally rectified where necessary. 

• Best lenses for Canon full-frame DSLRs
• Best lenses for Nikon full-frame DSLRs
• Best lenses for Sony full-frame mirrorless cameras
• Best portrait lenses

from TechRadar: Technology reviews https://ift.tt/2Q8IOvf