Continuing with the series of posts of the best value components you can buy for your computer, this section is all about RAM. RAM is a component of the PC which is essential to performance and depending on a number of factors, the ideal amount of RAM can differ from person to person. RAM also has one wonderful quality, it is dirt cheap! This gives you little excuse for skimping on it but there is a point where you will be spending a significant amount of money for very little gain in performance.

For choosing the amount of RAM, there is a few things you need to consider. Firstly, the amount you need. Many computers you buy ship with 4GB of RAM standard and very few cheap computers will come with 2GB. Regardless of your budget, I recommend going with a minimum of 4GB of RAM but to ensure that your computer runs smoothly for many years to come, 8GB is probably going to be a better choice. I would also buy the minimum number of sticks of RAM you need to as this allows you to upgrade your computer in the future (so, instead of getting 4 2GB sticks, get 2 4GB sticks instead - this will often be cheaper). 2 4GB sticks is a good amount and can be bought for under $50 if you try to get the cheapest price.

Next, you need to look at the speed. Often this will not severely affect your computers performance but the goal here is to avoid bottlenecks. The latest processors all work fine with 1066 or 1333MHz DDR3. Faster memory than this will be useless for most people. Where it will come in handy is for overclockers since as you overclock your CPU, the FSB speed increases meaning you need faster memory to stop bottlenecks from occurring and negating the performance benefit of overclocking.

Taking all this into consideration, at the moment it looks like the best value RAM for everyday use is the Kingston KVR 4GBx2 kit which is rated at 1333MHz. At the time of writing it costs $48 which is essentially the cheapest you can get this type of RAM. Kingston is also a well known brand with good quality products so despite its low price, the RAM should be top notch.

If you have an old computer which only supports DDR2 or DDR then you may have a harder time locating RAM. On top of this it will be quite expensive due to a lower supply. 1GB of Kingston DDR RAM will cost the same amount as 8GB of DDR3 RAM. If your computer is this old, you may want to consider upgrading it as it will be cheaper in the long run rather than replacing parts with legacy hardware which is difficult to find and technologically inferior for a premium price.

In the fast moving world of technology, it can become impossible to keep up with the ever changing landscape. This is why I have introduced this new series of posts to give you guys an idea of what is upcoming in the world of computers and whether it is worth the wait or better to just buy what is currently on offer. New technology also leads to price drops in the older (but not outdated) technology. For example, when Sandy Bridge processors from Intel came out, they offered a large jump in processing power as well as efficiency but laptops with the older generation of i5 and i7 could be found for $500-700, a far cry from the $1700 they were available for 6 months before. If you're willing to buy slightly older technology, the newer components can lead to massive savings for you especially as manufacturers and shops try to clear out their stocks. So what's new in the world of CPUs?

Intel

Intel is on the verge of releasing its new Ivy Bridge processors built on the 22nm architecture. They should by unveiled early next year and released soon after. It promises processors with more cores, more power and more efficiency than the previous generation as well as bringing 6 core processes to a more mainstream level (although still at the higher end). Obviously the high end will be well above $1000 but it should bring prices of existing Sandy Bridge processors down significantly. Sandy Bridge should be fine for the majority of people and is perfectly adequate for gaming as well. The potential cost savings are huge for those who want to build a cheap desktop or buy a new laptop. The advantages of upgrading to Ivy Bridge would be significant mainly for laptop users. The 22nm manufacturing process means less heat generated with more power. It should also be good news for overclockers especially due to the already high clock speeds and availability of multiplier unlocked processors.

AMD

AMD has already released their Bulldozer processors which includes the highest clock speed processor currently available however benchmarks have been disappointing. An interesting direction AMD seems to be taking is in launching Accelerated Processing Units (APUs) which aim to combine the roles of CPUs and graphics cards into one. This has the advantage of utilising the power of often unused graphics cards for everyday tasks. This also provides the benefit of lower power usage and less components in the system. This new concept will be of particular importance to laptops due to these key aspects. AMD is expected to replace its Bulldozer processors with the new Piledriver architecture in mid-late 2012. One key point about AMD processors is they are also significantly cheaper than Intel ones but offer similar performance. These soon to be released processors are capable of competing directly with both Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge processors from Intel and can be an excellent choice for those with a tight budget not looking to skimp on performance.

This is a brief summary of things to come in 2012. If you are considering building or buying a new computer, you might want to wait a few months for these new technologies to be released, either to have the latest and greatest or save a few bucks on the previous generation products. Please note that this information is based on leaked roadmaps and may not be 100% accurate, it is just meant to be used as a rough guide. The next post will cover motherboards.

UPDATE: I found this link to some tweaking software for the Developer Preview which fixes a few of these problems. You can add shutdown, restart and sleep buttons to the start menu now and also completely remove the Metro Start screen. Here is a link to the download

By now we've all had a chance to play around with the Windows 8 Developer Preview. Now, I know this isn't the final version but there are several things which Microsoft has done which annoy me to no end.

Firstly, there is the placement of the shutdown button. One of the most known commands on every single computer is usually kept in the most conspicuous place possible. What puzzles me to no end is why Microsoft chose to put it in the Settings menu. It makes no sense and to most people who think logically, it is the last place they would look. Clicking on the username gives the user the option to log off but not to shutdown. Obviously tablet users will not be bothered by this since most will just put their tablet to sleep but since this is meant to be a full blown desktop OS, many users will want to shutdown at the end of the day. It seems like a bit of an oversight to me.

The new Metro interface seems pretty cool when you first try it out but it's only when the fun is over and you need to do actual work that you realize how useless it is for productivity. First, it is not very clear what applications are currently running in the background. If you have 2 apps open you can easily switch between them by dragging from the left side of the screen but when there is more than this, it just becomes annoying. You have no idea what you are doing and having to keep returning to the Start screen to open new apps and search just adds an extra click to every process. A feature similar to Expose (but not a copy) on Mac OS X would be awesome for this purpose so I could have a birds-eye view of everything which is happening.

As well as this, Windows 8 offers both a Desktop mode and Metro mode. The Desktop mode is for compatibility applications but ends up being used quite often anyway. But what bothers me is that there seems to be absolutely no integration between the two. An app which I open on desktop mode cannot be dragged over to Metro and made full screen, it will just change that monitor to desktop mode as well. If I wanted to take a Metro app out of full screen and make it windowed, there is no way for me to do this either. To add insult to injury, there are TWO versions of Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer, one for each interface. Neither has any connection with one another and they seem completely different. Essentially this means that anyone who is new to computers is going to have to learn how to do the same thing on both modes in two different ways. Something which is honestly just stupid. It seems kind of like using two different operating systems at once and I don't think this is the way to go. It adds confusion and basically shows that Microsoft isn't really sure what they're doing. Finally, there is the lack of a list with all of your programs in it. You only have a choice of manually pinning it to the Start screen or searching for it. All this again requires an extra click or an extra two clicks if you are on Desktop mode.

So, quite obviously, the Metro interface is almost specifically designed to be used with touch screens. But since it is meant to also be a full blown desktop OS, it should also be keyboard and mouse friendly. Unfortunately, I often find that the mouse isn't two suited to Metro. It feels very out of place with all the random gestures and flicking, scrolling etc. Maybe there should be a few more options about how the OS handles the mouse, making it more mouse friendly when someone prefers to use that rather than an awkwardly placed touchscreen. I mean, let's face it, How many people actually have touch screen computers?

I feel that the new Metro interface is nice to look at but productivity is where it falls short. Everything you are used to doing takes an extra click. It feels more suited to tablets and phones rather than proper computers. I think there are quite a few improvements which can be made to improve the OS and it isn't a total lost cause. There are still plenty of aspects which I like about it but obviously those don't really fit with the title.

So what do you think about the new developer preview? Is it something you would like to use on a daily basis?

Recently, I had to come up with the task of choosing a new laptop to buy. It seems like an easy task until you actually try it. Everywhere you go, every brand, every model - nothing is perfect! You start off with a good idea of what type of laptop you want, the amount of power, the battery life and you find that this laptop you've been picturing in your head simply doesn't exist.

Personally, I wanted a laptop which had a decent graphics card, at least an i5 processor and an anti glare screen for around $1700. The problem being that no one who wanted an anti glare screen had any need for a powerful laptop so you either had to go for an under powered laptop with the screen you want or a laptop with all the power you could need but a screen you can never see unless you close all the curtains and turn off the lights. Anything which looked to be perfect ended up costing around $3000 because it had all these other features which i had no need for.

I'm sure other people have had similar dilemmas when trying to buy a computer, there is nothing which quite fits everything you require for. This means that your purchase ends up being a series of trade offs. For me, I valued power so I got something which was not very expensive, had heaps of grunt and had a full HD screen (still glary). It seemed like an almost perfect laptop, until when I brought it home. I realised it only had a 1.5 hour battery life!

Pros

• Excellent interface
• Easy to use
• Good detection rate

Cons

• Ambiguous on how to configure automatic firewall
• Password setup is annoying with interactive firewall
• Not as many extra features as competitors

Review

After sticking with Avira Security Suite for almost a year a decided it was time for a change. ESET has released a free public beta version of their Smart Security suite and I thought I would give it a whirl. Once downloaded, installation was a breeze. The one thing I didn't get was that it made me set a password for going into setup. It makes sense since it stops random people messing around with your settings but after a while it got REALLY annoying (more on that later).

ESET has incuded quite a few features in the security suite but none of the extras which other companies have put in. For instance, Avira included a backup utility with their security suite, others include online backup. ESET includes none of these bells and whistles.

Starting up the program, the interface looked incredibly appealing and a huge leap forward from the appearance of Avira. Everything was organised and easy to understand so anyone can instantly see what's going on with their computer's security. But along with this simple interface, good for non-tech savvy people, was a hidden jungle of advanced options. Once you click advanced options you notice that there are millions of ways you can customise this program to suit your needs.

This makes the program accessible to everyone while not leaving out those who need a bit more customisation. Scheduling and setting up tasks is also another thing which is incredibly intuitive and simple to do. Since the software is also connected to the cloud, this means it will be able to be up to date and able to protect your computer against the latest threats. As well as this, the software turns out very few false positives while still maintaining a high detection rate.

One irritating thing was the firewall. Although it was set to "Automatic with User-exceptions", I couldn't find a way to add a single program to the trusted section, only certain IP ranges. One of my programs was blocked from working and the only way I could get it to work was by turning off the firewall. Eventually, I changed the firewall to "Interactive mode", which isn't as fun as you think it would be. This means I have to manually click allow or deny which is okay since that's what I did with Avira as well. The only problem with this was, once the mode was changed, I had to allow every single service that wanted to get to the internet. On top of this, by setting up a setup password, every time I clicked allow, I need to type the password in to verify it. I had to do this well over 20 times and it was getting really frustrating. Eventually, i just turned the password off. Nothing was worth that much frustration.

Conclusion

Despite a few minor flaws with the firewall configuration (I could have just missed something obvious), ESET Smart Security is an awesome piece of software with an really good amount of customisability, an excellent interface and amazing protection. They have made the software accessible to everyone and I think that should be commended. The suite is still in beta but it is fairly stable, it hasn't crashed on me yet. You can download it for free from their website and the license will last until the 23 of August. It is worth downloading, especially if you are feeling stingy and need a free security suite.

Most people when they hear the name Telstra, they run. Not only have Telstra got a bad reputation from past customers but their plans are notorious for being over-expensive and not even remotely competitive with other mobile carriers. Up until now I believed the same thing, that was until I tried Telstra's mobile broadband offering.

First, the plan i chose was the 7GB Liberty which I got for $39.95 a month (a $20 discount because of having other services with Telstra). Seeing as the normal price is $59.95, this plan is incredibly expensive compared to what you're getting. The $39.95 price makes it slightly more reasonable. Other carriers like 3/Vodafone and Optus give you between 8 and 12GB for $39.95 a month. The biggest problem with all these carriers is their data services are unreliable and not upto scratch. Using a mobile phone as a modem with 3, I got a maximum speed of around 1mbps but it was usually around 400kpbs. This barely qualifies as broadband and it is painfully slow. So despite the extra data you get, it really isn't worth the trouble. Another issue is the coverage. Both Vodafone and Optus are notorious for having poor signal in amny areas and lots of blackspots, most likely due to their overloaded networks. 3 has decent coverage in metropolitan areas but you get hit with roaming charges if you wander out of their coverage area which is anywhere outside major cities and towns.

With Telstra, they give you a free "Ultimate" wireless modem depending on the plan you get. This modem gives you a theoretical maximum speed of 21mbps. In the real world, this is practically impossible but in practice, my internet speed is at 13mbps and has gone as high as 15mbps. Although you have to be living fairly close to the CBD to get these speeds, outside these areas you will still get upto 8mpbs theoretically. The main difference is that these speeds are much faster than any other networks and you can have internet access almost anywhere in Australia with fairly decent signal and speed. So, is it worth the extra cost? Personally, I think it is since with the other carriers you will end up being frustrated trying to get decent signal and the high data allowance will be useless. The other advantage is that with Telstra there are no excess usage charges as with other carriers, once you reach your monthly allowance it is shaped to 64kpbs.

Many people are tempted, when building their own computer, to dedicate the majority of their budget to get the best performing components they can afford. This leads to parts like the case which are deemed as unimportant to get very little of the budget. You may be tempted to go to your local computer shop and see a whole bunch of cases around the $120 mark but see one no-name brand case which looks pretty cool and is only $80. STOP!

Before buying this case, have a look at it. What does it feel like? Do the parts seem cheap? Do the different panels fit on properly? Some cheap cases can be an absolute bargain, getting good quality at a low price but there are some fancy cheap cases which may come with LCD screens and cool LEDs but there are areas where there have been cut backs. For example, if the case comes with a fan, this could be the cheapest and noisiest fan available. Sure you could always invest in a better fan, but what if you end up with a more serious problem than that?

An issue you will probably not even consider is the wiring inside the case. The wire which connects the power switches to the motherboard and the card reader to the USB slot. Recently, a firend wanted me to build him a computer. He decided to buy the parts himself and asked me to assemble it. The parts he bought were quite good but he decided get a cheaper case. Once the computer was built, we tested it out and checked everything was working. It was working okay but we could smell something coming from the computer. It got worse when the computer stayed on for longer. We searched around but couldn't see any smoke. Eventually after about half an hour, we took of the front panel and saw that the wire leading from the power switch to the motherboard was smoking. The casing had melted and the nearby wires were also getting affected.

The reason for the smoke was dodgy wiring. The case manufacturer had tried to combine two wires into one and they ended up shorting. This is a problem which you would not expect in a case and if left unnoticed, could cause a fire and ruin the computer and potentially burn down a house. The fact is that with well known manufacturers, you can trust their products and you know there is a degree of quality to them. Cheaper cases often don't have the same quality and this can lead to big problems down the track.

So next time you are building a computer for yourself or someone else and think of skimping on the case, think again.

As most people do, I used to believe that in order to secure your computer you just put a password for Windows and then it is impossible to access. This all changed when a friend of mine came to me because they had forgotten their password. They wanted me to try and reset the password. I honestly had no idea what to do but I said I would give it a go. A quick google search later, I found several pages detailing how to reset a 'forgotten' password. After about 10 minutes I found simple to use program. All it needed was a USB stick and the computer where you had forgotten your password. It took me about 10 minutes to erase the password and get into the locked computer. I could access everything no problem and I am a  complete amateur when it comes to hacking.

Now, obviously, if someone stole my laptop they would be able to do the exact same thing. Its like setting a PIN code and telling everyone what it is, it's useless! So if your operating system password doesn't do anything to secure your computer, what do you do?

Well, if your files are top secret and need to be secure, encryption is the answer. There are many programs to encrypt all of your files but one of the easiest to find and use is Windows Bitlocker. It comes built in to all computers which have Windows Vista or 7 Ultimate edition. Bitlocker uses either a recovery key and password or a TPM chip inside your computer. By setting a password, you need to type it in every time you start the computer and if you forget it, there is a recovery key which you save to a USB stick so you can recover the data of your hard drive. If you lose the recovery key, your data will be forever lost. A TPM chip is built in to your computer and it basically stores the encryption keys. When your computer starts up, everything on your hard drive is decrypted and so you can access it.

A TPM chip is useful because if an attacker removes your hard drive and installs it in another computer, the hard drive will remain encrypted and will be useless. IThe chip comes built in to many business laptops as these people are the ones with the most sensitive files.

So, if you think your computer is secure because you have set a password, think again. Try other methods such as encryption to keep prying eyes away from your files.

Pros

• Support for HTML5 and WebGL
• Super fast
• Chrome Web App Store is fun
• Minimalist design
• Instant works on both search and web pages

Cons

• Sometimes pages fail to load properly or at all

Review

The latest version of Google Chrome has been released. Although Google releases a new version every couple of months, the browser is constantly evolving and getting faster with each release. I have used all of the main browsers in their latest iterations and although they all claim to be fast, Chrome is by far the fastest. Start up is almost instantaneous and you can basically get straight into your web browsing. With the new Google Instant feature web browsing is even faster and easier than before. All of your web pages and searches start loading as you type which is really good because you can quickly see if there ahve been any updates on the pages and searches become much more efficient.

The Chrome web store is another new feature on the browser. Basically, there are a series of apps which are essentially websites and allow you to play games,write documents or edit photos. For example, there is a game called entanglement which is a simple yet addictive game all done in HTML5. The whole concept is based around that of Chrome OS where everything is based on the web. Installing an app is as simple as typing in the URL and the apps will always have the latest updates. The web browser is basically the same Chrome OS in that it tries to focus everything in the cloud and i once you use it, you can really see the benefits.

Another benefit of Chrome is that it automatically updates. Every time a new update is released, you don't need to worry about it. Chrome will always have the latest update installed on your computer.

One of the biggest downsides is that all of the apps need a constant internet connection which is sometimes not possible. As well as this, I have an issue that after about 15-20 minutes on the browser, none of the pages load anymore. All websites just show the loading circle and I can't browse until I close and reopen Chrome. This can get a bit annoying at times but the sheer speed of Chrome can make up for it.

Conclusion

The new version of Chrome adds a  whole lot more to browsing. The apps made in HTML5 have amazing presentation and are fun to use. The instant search makes web browsing more efficient and easier and Chrome still maintains its trend of being faster than the competition as well as previous builds.

Sony's main competitor for the PSP2 is the Nintendo 3DS but then you go onto think, the iPod Touch has a pretty large gaming presence with heaps of support from developers who are willing to create new and innovative games for the iPod Touch. The PSP2 is actually very similar to the iPod Touch in terms of things which it is supposed to do. No doubt it will be able to play music and video as well as awesome games but is pure power enough to beat both Nintendo and Apple? Based on the previous generation, the Nintendo DS sales far surpassed that of the PSP yet it was technologically inferior. Sure it has a touch screen but it wasn't amazing. The same thing could happen with the iPod Touch vs PSP2.

Obviously, Apple has the whole logo thing guaranteeing popularity for the product but the PSP2 boasts graphical power comparable to the PS3 and touchpads on the back and the front basically adding a whole new dimension to gaming. Having not really seen the interface of the new PSP, I can't comment on whther or not it is better than iOS but the familiarity of iOS will give it the upperhand. As more console games such as FIFA are released on iPod Touch, it has become more and more orientated towards gaming.

An iPod is something most people carry with them all the time. If you could fit games with good graphics and length on it then clearly there is a huge potential to use it as a handheld gaming device. Rumour has it that Apple could upgrade the already decent A4 processor with a dual core A5 processor making it an even more capable gaming machine. So how can the PSP2 compete with a device with so much exposure already?

The PSP2 and other handheld gaming devices hold several advantages over the iPod Touch. Firstly, there is the fact that it actually has physical buttons which makes a game so much more playable. Touch games are incredibly playable with the iPod Touch, often using innovative interfaces but when it comes to first person shooters and sports games, you need to have physical buttons. Personally, I cannot play those sorts of games on the iPod Touch even though others can manage.

Secondly, the iPod Touch doesn't really have the support of hardcore gamers and PlayStation exclusive games. The PlayStation has been around for a long time and over this time it has built a huge base of supporters and game series which everyone likes. Some games which will come out on the PSP2 include Resistance, Little Big Planet and Call of Duty which are games that will probably never come to iPod Touch.

Finally, the PSP2 outdoes the iPod Touch in specifications. The 5 inch OLED touch screen looks amazing, the physical buttons and dual analog sticks add so much more control to the game. As well as this, current PSP games and PS1 classics will be able to be played on the device. Add connectivity to social networks and you have a pretty good looking gaming device.

There is the matter that people will not want to carry a million devices in their pockets. If a phone can replace a handheld gaming device and an mp3 player well, people will take it. So the PSP2 has to be something pretty awesome to convince people to use it.