Is it ever the perfect time to buy a new product? I'd say no, because there's never a perfect time to review a new product, either. There's always something right around the corner that promises to be faster, better, cheaper. But you won't know if those claims are true until someone tests them.
Case in point: I spent the first half of this week benchmarking Netgear's Nighthawk X6 Wi-Fi router (aka the Netgear R8000), so that I could publish this review today. Benchmarking takes time, as does analysis and writing. Asus decided to ship its all-new RT-AC87U Wi-Fi router on Wednesday, and my eval unit showed up today. Is it better, faster, cheaper than the Nighthawk X6? Right now, all I know is that it costs $20 less than Netgear's router despite its status as the first "Wave 2" 802.11ac router (that means it supports multi-user MIMO, which you can read all about in this story).
The Nightawk X6 bears an uncanny resemblance to a facehugger from Ridley Scott's sci-fi classic Alien.
The Nighthawk X6 does not support MU-MIMO, but it does have a strategy for supporting lots of wireless clients. Netgear describes it as a “tri-band” router, which is a bit of a stretch. It still operates on only two frequency bands—2.4- and 5GHz—just like its high-end competitors, but this router is unique in that it has three Wi-Fi radios to support three independent wireless networks. Here's the rest of what I know.
The Nighthawk X6 is not the fastest router I've tested. As you'll see from the performance charts, that distinction still belongs to the Linksys WRT1900AC (again, I have not yet benchmarked the Asus RT-87U). And if your wireless network streams video to just one or two devices, you probably don’t need a router with the Nighthawk X6’s advanced capabilities.
Dooble is another entry into the large field of "web browsers that aren't Explorer, Firefox, or Opera." As with most such entries, it is reasonably functional and has a few new ideas, but it doesn't offer an overwhelmingly compelling reason to switch from your primary browser.
The main focus of Dooble is privacy and security. Dooble operates by default in what other browsers call "private mode," and the user explicitly grants exceptions to retain data from various sites between launches. It will request a password on application launch. A built-in cookie browser is easily accessible from the main menu bar, making it simple to see what data sites are tracking (if you know how to interpret the information). The more secure HTTPS protocol is on by default, as well.
Another virtue of Dooble is that it's fast, or at least it feels fast (this is a case of subjective perception, not precisely timed rendering tests). I spend a significant portion of my life staring at browser windows, and Dooble renders quickly, even on image-heavy sites. There's a crisp sharpness to it, and this is worth mentioning.
In addition to the Windows edition, Dooble comes in Mac and Linux flavors.
Dooble has some unusual features, and it feels fast and easy to read.
One unusual feature of Dooble is a built-in desktop. While most browsers accept local URLsand present directory listings. Dooble includes a simple desktop/file manager, desktop, with multiple windows, and management functions. Unfortunately, the usefulness of this is limited. For example, it doesn't read file type associations from Windows, so the user must enter them manually, and, having done so, the launching of the application based on the file is sporadic at best. Often, the application would open, but the selected file would not open within it. While I could open text files with Notepad++ or XLS files with Excel, I could not open html files with Firefox or FLV files with VLC media player.
Dooble has hooks for plugins, but, so far, only one is available, a chat/IRC type application. Because the "plugin/extension ecosystem" is becoming such a vital part of Web browsing, as the Web becomes more of an environment in itself, any browser that can't tap into that either needs to include a kitchen sink's worth of features (contrary to the current trend of slimmed-down programs), or risk being overlooked because a useful function can't be added.
I experienced only one system crash with Dooble, which I could not replicate. Given the myriad possible causes of such a one-off event, I'd rate Dooble as quite stable.
Dooble is drifting towards a niche—high privacy, with the program heavily slanted towards safe defaults—but it needs a good bit of work and polish to be good enough as an overall browser for daily use. It performs as well as any browser for the basic functions of the Web, but it is missing those "quality of life" features that are what drives a user to choose one browser over another when all of them are, in essence, presenting the same data. I hope to see functionality added in future versions, and existing functions enhanced and extended.
Note: The Download button on the Product Information page will download the software to your system.
Intel is next in the long line of companies dreaming of killing cable and launching a streaming Internet TV subscription service, according to a Wall Street Journal report. The Journal says the company has been meeting with content providers, hinted at building its own set-top box and hopes to launch the service by the end of 2012.
Though details are sparse, it sounds like Intel isn't simply making a Netflix or Hulu knockoff. Instead, Intel is attempting to bump the infrastructure of traditional cable TV subscriptions onto the Internet with a "virtual cable operator" that would "offer U.S. TV channels nationwide over the Internet in a bundle similar to subscriptions sold by cable- and satellite-TV operators."
Overthrowing traditional cable has been a long-standing aspiration for many other bigger companies, so it's a little strange to hear that Intel -- typically content building the chips that power PCs, OS X machines, and now smartphones -- is trying to succeed where Apple, Microsoft and Google (Intel briefly supported Google TV with its processors) have all failed.
One problem I can see right away are how oversaturated we are with set-top boxes for streaming content. Unless Intel options out its cable service to other devices, likely in the form of apps, consumers would be stuck with yet another little plastic box to share bandwidth with Internet-connected TVs and stack atop their Apple TV, Roku, TiVo, and Xbox 360.
Also, in the marketing scheme of things, Intel has comparatively little brand awareness. It's a household name, but only in certain neighborhoods. And when consumers are faced with the choice of going with familiar and beloved brands, like Apple or Amazon, choosing Intel somehow seems all the less likely.
Then there's the money. It's expensive securing premium content and can get even more expensive trying to keep it -- just think of how Netflix lost Starz even after offering $300 million for a slightly longer contract. Plus, most premium content providers aren't willing to relinquish their goods for any price. HBO is a great example here. HBO has its own streaming service, HBO Go, which is slowly being released to other devices but still requires an old-school monthly cable subscription.
Not to say that Intel doesn't have the money; its current market value is $137 billion, and when you compare that to potential competitors like Netflix ($6 billion), Intel's chances of scoring premium goods improves. However, compare that to Amazon ($83 billion) or Apple ($521 billion), add in the Journal’s projected cost of yearly content licenses ($38 billion), and financial feasibility gets even more dubious.
Dooble has some unusual features, and it feels fast and easy to read. 
Intel is next in the long line of companies dreaming of killing cable and launching a streaming Internet TV subscription service, according to a Wall Street Journal report. The Journal says the company has been meeting with content providers, hinted at building its own set-top box and hopes to launch the service by the end of 2012.
One problem I can see right away are how oversaturated we are with set-top boxes for streaming content. Unless Intel options out its cable service to other devices, likely in the form of apps, consumers would be stuck with yet another little plastic box to share bandwidth with Internet-connected TVs and stack atop their Apple TV, Roku, TiVo, and Xbox 360.
Not to say that Intel doesn't have the money; its current market value is $137 billion, and when you compare that to potential competitors like Netflix ($6 billion), Intel's chances of scoring premium goods improves. However, compare that to Amazon ($83 billion) or Apple ($521 billion), add in the Journal’s projected cost of yearly content licenses ($38 billion), and financial feasibility gets even more dubious.