@pika2000 the Shures are more expensive - so what? Didn't say they are not overpriced... imho 350$ for some in-ears is slightly too much. But hey, if you got the money... go for it.
Isn't it even more clumsy now? I seriously don't knwo why this should be more elegant. Ah wait, because it looks like a fat DVD player now. Or maybe because it has a black bar and engadget now likes black bars...
Hmm... I don't like the black bar, I find it too heavy. The old design was much lighter. The overall site design is nice, there are a few things though. The top story entry sucks big time, way to confusing, one doesn't know where too look at. At first I though this one big image. I like the layout of the articles sites much more. On the side - why is the calendar with the archives so big and on top? Is it really so important or shouldn't the breakings be on the top?
I'd give it a low-noise non-changeable 18x or 20x DSLR-style zoomer lens (like the FZ-50 had only a bit more zoom), give it a 500$ price tag and call it FZ-52
"I love my little computing companion but I often find myself missing a full sized keyboard. I have been looking at several of these portable and flexible keyboards, but I can't seem to make up my mind about which I should buy. I don't want the keyboard to be overly expensive, but I want it to be good quality. Also, how difficult is it to type on these keyboards? Thanks!"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
the Shures are more expensive - so what? Didn't say they are not overpriced... imho 350$ for some in-ears is slightly too much.
But hey, if you got the money... go for it.