What’s New in 2012 Security Suites

More viruses, more protection? In the stress test we show how well the new security suites protect against the flood of malware.

You would have to look deep into the architecture of the security suites to understand the developments made in the 2012 version. Even though nothing much appears changed, it’s worthwhile to take a closer look. How will these antivirus programs with their improvements fare against the current malwares, we test just that in the AV test lab. We are very keen to see if the developers have ironed out the biggest weakness of the software that was seen in the 2011 version – poor system disinfection. 

           The biggest danger for computer users currently is the sheer number of newer variants of known malware that keep popping up. Symantec registered a total of 286 million different viruses, Trojans, backdoors and others in the last year. Most of these exist on the web for a very short while – 75 percent of the malware do not affect more than 50 computers worldwide.

Collected knowledge about viruses

There are two sets of solution to fight malware: Information about viruses should spread quickly over the cloud, unknown malware should be better recognized with real time protection. Kaspersky distributes updates for new viruses to users just after 90 seconds they are out. Even ESET, one of the few products till now without a cloud connection, has followed suit with Smart Security 5. The result is remarkable: the latter that was beaten last year, this year Smart Security 5 recognizes and blocks all unknown malware without any errors. ESET now effectively detects even the malware programmed in the laboratory (zoo malware) with which AV-test checks the recognition mechanism. Together with improved system performance, the program catapults itself from the last place directly into the top group. Even in real time protection, which recognizes threat with the help of behavioural detection technology, developers have beefed up security. According to Stefan Wesche, Technical Expert Norton Products, the latest version of Norton Internet Security, supervises over 120 new behaviours in the active processes in real time. G Data has integrated proactive protection against online banking Trojans like Zeus. Both programs are among the best in malware recognition last year. Microsoft’s free scanner Security Essentials cannot exactly keep up with them, however it’s more effective than other full suites and even pushes McAfee to the last rank. Its Internet Security 2012 recognized too few malware like its predecessor. Even when McAfee assured us that there will be technical innovations in the beginning of the year 2012, we do not recommend the program in its current state.

 Finally, better system disinfection? 

System DISINFECTION :
In comparison to last year, the cleaning of infected
systems has improved.

However, Kaspersky holds the top spot in the malware analysis with a very high recognition rate of unknown malware, rootkits and zoo malware. In addition, the Internet Security 2012 cleans infected systems very thoroughly. From 24 malware, it managed to remove at least 21. Here, only ESET was a bit better and removed only 23 of the 24 malware. Other vendors like F-Secure have also improved the system cleaning visibly, which was the biggest drawback in the previous version that was released last year. Some exceptions: McAfee Internet Security 2012 undercut the unsatisfactory results of the last year. The suite did not recognize five of the malware at all, and in all it removed less than half of the total number of malware (11 out of 24). Even Microsoft’s free protection software managed better than that. Although the scanner did not keep up with the best commercial programs, if you want something without having to pay a paisa, this still provides solid protection. Only thing is that you cannot create a recovery CD with it. This would have been useful in case the system cleaning fails in Windows. Such a live system (mostly Linux based) can be created in other programs at any time and you can subsequently disinfect the system with this.

Stopped instead of removed

A cleaner and more secure computer is one thing, but it should also be fast. At least the security suite should not overly slow down the system. AV-test analysed the system load on a desktop PC running Windows 7 Ultimate, powered by a quad-core Intel Xeon CPU (2.83 GHz) and 4 GB of RAM. Typical tasks such as system startup, file transfer, download, website loading, application installation and launching were timed. Contrary to the widely spreading prejudice, Norton was the frontrunner in the overall performance test. This is not surprising since Norton was already at the second place last year in this assessment. What is remarkable is just the minimal lag in Windows startup in the range of milliseconds. Moreover, Norton scanned downloaded files faster than the competition and allowed programs such as Adobe Acrobat Reader or LibreOffice to install smoothly – only Avira and McAfee were better here. The activity for which the computer is most often used by many is very dangerous: surfing the web. According to Symantec, the number of web-based malware attacks has increased in the past year by 93 percent. Here, the security programs had to take a closer look without slowing down the browser. With the help of the information stored in the cloud database, the virus scanner analyses the reputation of the website you have opened. This is based on the experiences of the clients connected to the cloud – if the website has been identified as a source for viruses and malicious content, then it is directly blocked. For unknown sites, the scan engine analyses the downloaded HTML or Java Script code on the computer. The 2012 Internet Security suite from G Data seems to look even closer since it required a little more time to load sites such as Amazon, YouTube or Wikipedia – and that with a 100 Mbps dedicated line in the test laboratory. Neither the testers from AV-Test nor those from G Data could explain this. However, one reason could be the time-consuming scan with a second engine which had brought G Data to the last place in the performance assessment last year. For users who feel that the system should be fast with an antivirus installed, G Data shouldn’t be the first preference. However, for protection-oriented users, it offers the second best recognition rate in the test. 

Less added value through new extras

System LOAD :

Some suites slow down the computer to a great extent

during tasks like system start or downloading

Panda offers an additional surfing protection. With the secure browsing feature which runs in a Sandbox, you can browse the web without worrying about being infected by malware. But this feature only works after you download and install the additional component called VirtualBox. Other manufacturers are also trying to make their products more attractive with additional features besides the virus weaponry. Symantec offers the option to manage all the computers on which Norton is installed via remote maintenance, something that is especially interesting for smaller networks. Kaspersky has once again integrated the File Advisor with which you can upload individual files for virus scan with a click. But as for most functions, there are many freeware tools that can do the same job just as well or even better. The free support that Avira offers for all users is however very helpful – including remote assistance. Through the automatically installed TeamViewer, Avira Support can solve many problems directly on the users’ computers. If you want to stay loyal to your current antivirus brand, you can upgrade to the 2012 version for free if you still have valid licenses. The improvements in the latest version provide better protection which no one should ignore.

Verdict

First Runner Up : Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 uses a cloud-based

reputation database for effective threat detection.

The security suites have improved overall, even if none of them offers you perfect protection. The package that offers by far the best protection and performance is F-Secure Internet Security 2012, and it wins just ahead of Kaspersky Internet Security 2012. Norton is the best at economically utilizing system resources, while ESET shines as the most improved product of the lot. McAfee remains disappointing, however, and still lags behind Microsoft's free security solution. 

Test winner

F-Secure offers the best protection and an easily understandable interface.

Test winner : The Online Safety module in F-Secure Internet Security 2012 allows limiting

 web access.

Solid State Drives and Standard hard drives : A Comparison

Everyone needs to store data; the only question is whether the new solid-state drives have overtaken standard hard drives. We puts spinning platters against compete against ROM and reveals the advantages and the disadvantages of both classes.

Most people agree you can never have enough storage space! But in the computer world, where CPUs are already no longer measured by Gigahertz numbers and the prices of notebooks count more than their performance, hard drives are not bought for their capacity alone. Good performance, energy effi ciency, and robustness also have to be considered. In this scenario, standard hard disks have the size and price advantages, while on the other hand modern solid state drives offer speed and reliability. Which one will win the battle overall? We invites you to watch our storage format war!

Round 1: Speed

At first, 2 Terabytes of disk space sounds impressive. But what is the use of such giant hard disks when you have to wait for hours to store your data? Today’s 3.5- inch HDDs, are all equipped with SATA 2 interfaces (though SATA 3 will become popular this year) which are found in every current PC and are known to provide solid performance. The current best-selling hard drives have average data transfer speeds of 111 MBps, both during data reading and writing. In practice, this means that copying the entire contents of a DVD onto another hard disk takes nearly 45 minutes. The transfer rate falls around 28 percent with smaller 2.5-inch drives, which are used in notebooks and super-compact desktops. The fastest notebook hard drives on the market today achieve around 80MBps while reading and around 75MBps while writing which is just about OK. Now Solid State Drives (SSDs) enter the ring—and all hard drives are simply wiped out. The Intel X25-E (and the internally identical Kingston SSDNow E Series) reach data speeds of 243 MBps when reading and more than 206 MBps when writing. The best SSD is nearly twice as fast as a top 3.5-inch hard disk and approximately three times speed of a top notebook hard drive! Even the SSDs in the lower ranges of the price-performance list off er data rates comparable to the fastest HDDs.And this is not all: the fastest SSDs already achieve the theoretical 3Gbps limit of SATA 2. SSDs will become even faster as soon as SATA 3.0 drives and controllers are available, since this standard doubles the rated speed to 6 Gbps. You won’t even have time for a sip of coffee. The difference is really striking when you consider access times, i.e. the standby time before which stored data can be accessed. The top-performing Western Digital VelociRaptor manages with very little standby time of just 7 milliseconds while reading. While writing  drives need 15 ms while reading and 10 ms while writing. Notebook HDDs work with access times of upto 15 milliseconds for the same tasks.The Intel X25-E lowers standby time to almost zero. Only 0.07 milliseconds while reading and 0.05 milliseconds while writing. This is 60 times faster than the VelociRaptor! Clearly the first round goes to solid state drives. But beware: all SSDs are not created equal. The worst Flash drives are extremely sluggish with more than 200 milliseconds of delay while writing. Even the most appalling notebook HDD does not require more than 17 milliseconds.

Round 2: Priceperformance analysis

Hard drives had no chance in the speed comparison, but this is not a reason to count them out. Magnetic drives have a very, very strong trump cards to use: the maximum capacity and the price per Gigabyte figures. Today, there are already 3.5-inch hard drives with 2 Terabyte capacities, and notebook drives are hitting 1 TB (though the biggest standard-height drives are still 500 GB) and the pace of development has not slowed down. And this is frankly enough to hold off the attack of the SSDs for now. The current standard of normal SSDs are available in sizes of up to only 256 GB. The few exceptions which go as high as 512 GB are stratospherically expensive. Though 256 GB is enough for most applications, it’s just not enough for today’s digital films, music and photos. The price per Gigabyte round just goes against SSDs. A 1 TB 3.5-inch drive should cost no more than Rs 4,500. This works out to 1 GB of space for Rs 4.5 per gigabyte. At present a notebook drive costs Rs 4,800 for 500 GB, which comes to Rs 9.6 per GB. On the other hand, the fastest Intel X25-E costs US$ 799 for only 64 GB! Even the cheapest 32 GB SSD comes for around US$ 100 . The painful thing for all SSD fans is that they must pay many times more for the comparatively modest 2x performance boost. Also you cannot have high space demands, or you will need to use the SSD solely for

applications and add another HDD for mass storage. Clearly the second round goes to HDDs.

Round 3: Electricity consumption

Most users and buyers rarely consider anything beyond the speed, capacity and cost. However SSDs are trying to attract attention to another area: a good modern SSD needs only 1 Watt while reading and 2 Watts while writing data. In comparison with 3.5-inch HDDs, this is a big advantage since the best case scenario for them is 4 Watts on average. However notebook HDDs keep up very well; even reasonably priced ones consume between 0.6 and 2.2 Watts on average while reading and 2.5 Watts while writing. Therefore this round is a draw.

Round 4: Stability

Better robustness is taken for granted with Flash memory. SSDs have no moving parts and can recover from vibrations and shocks better than hard drives which have delicate read heads and thin magnetic platters. For those who use their laptops outdoors, in moving vehicles or in harsh conditions, an SSD is a better choice. But what about their overalldurability? Here, there is still no longterm test to prove which is better. SSDs are still too new, and Flash modules have a limited lifespan. SLC chips can withstand around 100,000 writing circles, but MLC chips can take only around 10,000. That is why manufactures have come up with a variety of techniques to distribute write operations in cycles across the memory area so that no part gets worn out. And just like HDDs, SSDs also come with guarantees of three to fi ve years. Being tested and known, HDDs win out here.

Round 5: Operating Noise

Our final parameter is the amount of noise each type of drive makes. SSDs seem to win here since they have no moving parts making noise at all. However the notebook drive is also not bad: it’s rare to hear even a slight whisper while in operation. In contrast, 3.5-inch hard drives can be heard from quite far away, and the noisiest of them all is the the Western Digital VelociRaptor, which spins at an amazing speed to achieve its fast data rates. In this round the victory goes to SSDs.

The Result: Undecided!

Which type of drive is better? Even after extensive testing, CHIP reads this result as a draw, because the answer depends on the individual demands of the user. Those who wish for the ultimate in performance with no worries about price and no high memory requirements should go with an SSD. Even laptop owners who travel a lot and expose them to harsh conditions are served well with SSDs. If you are lucky enough to have a laptop with space for two drives, you can get an SSD to boot from and a HDD for bulk storage; a fi ne balance. For all other users, an SSD is just not worth it. At prevailing prices, one can get a standard hard drive with lots of memory space for very little money.

The Power of DLNA

A simple set of networking standards built into most of today’s entertainment devices will let you use them all together.

Nearly a decade ago, consumer electronics manufacturers began realizing that consumers’ demands were evolving, and the idea of a “digital lifestyle” began to take hold. People were already looking for ways to avoid duplicating files, burning CDs and being physically tied to their devices. So manufacturers began seeing the advantages of a more connected lifestyle—why should anyone be forced to play digital music tracks only on the computers they are saved on when they have a perfectly good stereo system? Why shouldn’t anyone be able to watch their movies and TV shows on any screen in the house, including phones and tablets? DLNA (the Digital Living Network Alliance) is a set of guidelines and standards that PC and electronics makers can use to ensure that their devices are able to share media and talk to each other without the need to deal with any of the technicalities. Certified products usually carry the DLNA logo, so buyers are assured of compatibility. In order to be compliant, devices have to be able to connect to a network. If the network is set to allow devices to join automatically, configuration can be automatic. Ideally, users should be able to plug in their devices and immediately start browsing, playing and controlling media. Different devices support DLNA functions differently, and can be summed up as follows:

• DLNA SERVERS: These are typically networked hard drives, libraries onyour PC, and media hubs that attachto your TV. They host the files thatwill be streamed across your networkDLNA 
• PLAYERS: These are TVs, mobile phones, speaker docks, digital receivers and even some PC software, which you can use to pull media from a server and play it.
• DLNA CONTROLLERS AND RENDERERS: In many cases, you can use a DLNA device to pull media from a server and play it on another device. In this case, one device is the Controller (such as a smartphone running a remote control app) and the target device is a Renderer (TVs, media receivers, speaker docks etc, which simply receive media that is pushed to them).

Additionally, some of these devices might support Digital Media Uploader and Downloader functions, which were conceptualized for copying media to and from portable devices such as MP3 players. You can usually use these functions to copy files from a Server to a Player or vice versa.

           Different devices will support different combinations of DLNA functions, for example a network media receiver such as the WD TV Live Hub lets you browse and play media on a server (acting as a Player), but will also stream to other devices from its internal hard drive (acting as a Server) and can receive commands from a cellphone (acting only as a Renderer). Most apps let you choose between rendering on the device itself or on other devices detected on the network. This might be confusing, but the good news is you really don’t have to keep track of what each device is doing—this information is just to help you use all the flexibility that your devices are capable of off ering.

            DLNA streaming also lets you avoid making additional copies of your files and wasting space on your phone or tablet. To use your iPhone, iPad or iPod touch as a DLNA Player or Controller, you’ll need a suitable app. Two examples are SmartStor Fusion Stream, which is packed with features, and Living Media Player, which is a much simpler option. After downloading and LMPlayer or Smartstor Fusion Stream, the first thing you’ll see is a list of servers detected on the network. You’ll need to be connected via Wi-Fi and the DLNA Server (your computersor storagedevices) will need to be on the same network, though they can be connected either with a fixed wire or wirelessly. Once you select your server, you’ll be able to navigate its contents. You can browse by metadata such as title, artist, etc, or by the files’ actual folder location. Note that both applications have a dropdown menu near the top. Clicking this scans the network for compatible DLNA Renderers, so you can select which device your files will start playing on. You can play most types of videos on your iPhone, iPod or iPad itself (with the notable exception of AVI files, due to a limitation in iOS). However you can still use these apps to control playback of the same files on other devices such as your TV or media receiver—in this case the apps act only as DLNA Controllers. SmartStor Fusion Stream adds Uploader and Downloader functions in addition to playlist creation. If the need arises, you can use it to carry copies of your files with you, or selectively copy them to other compatible devices. You can even upload photos taken with your iPhone/iPod camera to a server for storage, though you have to select one at a time.

Is your browser a spy?

"You can be traced on the Internet through Facebook and new web technologies—but there are still things you can do in such cases."

Your browser is a constant companion online: it knows what news sites you read, where you shop and in which communities you spend hours participating in. Your browser probably knows you better than your best friend. But Firefox and its friends don’t keep this information to themselves; they disclose private and even juicy tidbits about your life to those who have the right kind of access. We will show you where and how you reveal more about yourself than you’d think, and how you can protect yourself from such software

Social networks lead the assault

The fact that online communities contain a lot of information about a person is not new. But one leaves traces behind not only on Facebook, but also on the rest of the Web. The reason for that is the ‘Like’ button on Facebook, which can be found on hundreds of websites outside of the actual social network. Facebook provides website owners with the option of integrating the button on any site on the Internet, and it’s remarkably easy to do. Users can then click on it and inform their friends on Facebook that they like the particular site. This is done voluntarily of course, but what many don’t know is that if one is logged in as a Facebook user in one tab and simultaneously surfs on a site with the ‘Like’ button in another tab, Facebook can track the surfing behaviour—irrespective of whether one clicks the button or not. Professor Dr Mario Fischer, editor of the magazine ‘Website Boosting’ says "It is not known if Facebook traces the surfing behavior, but this can be expected in light of the settings announced by its founder."

             Other social networks have their own quirky behaviors. Users of Xing, a professional networking site, can be tracked easily. A simple trick can help members fi nd out which other logged-in Xing users have visited their profi les. To do this, they have to embed the bogus HTML line

<img.src="http://www.xing.com/

profi le/Firstname _ Lastname">

in their website, which essentially pings their own profile page. The person whose profile was specified now sees the name, profession and further information about surfers who have visited the site, under the ‘Visitors’ log. 

             To save yourself from this kind of tracking by networks that you are a member of (including mail, chat, social networks etc), always specifically log out of them. It’s not enough even to close the respective browser tab. This is often easier said than done, since many users prefer staying permanently signed in to their communities, but it ensures that your surfing behaviour cannot be linked to your profiles. Firefox users can use an add-on called Prism that loads websites like self-contained applications that run in parallel to the actual browser. Not only is this convenient, but it also protects your privacy, since you are eff ectively using a different Firefox profile. Even the new IE9 comes with this function; an add-on is not required. You only have to pin the site’s shortcut to the taskbar using drag and drop.

Finger print The site panopticlick.eff.org shows that your browser is as
 unique as a fingerprint—and you can be identified through it.

Supercookies act as homing devices

If, for example, you are currently searching for information about a new hard drive on an electronics store’s website, chances are that the entire web will soon know about it. In the most intrusive situations, the item in question is suddenly advertised with alarming frequency no matter which other websites you visit. Cookies left behind by the shop on your computer make this possible. You will notice that the advertising pattern goes back to normal once you rid your browser of these cookies—at least in a normal scenario. However, hacker Samy Kamkar wants to prove that this supposition is outdated. Kamkar is not an unfamiliar name in

security circles; he caused quite a stir in 2005 by publicizing a MySpace bug, using which he cheated a million other users in just 18 hours. 

           This time he has caused turmoil with a bit of JavaScript code that he calls Evercookie. The snippet is supposed to be able to set a persistent cookie that the user cannot easily detect or remove. Kamkar's trick uses 13 individual components that are saved in diff erent locations using diff erent protocols and storage techniques, including everything from  standard HTTP to Flash to HTML5 storage data. Each piece of the puzzle is enough to completely restore Evercookie. If you delete all cookies from the PC, there is still information embedded in an additional PNG file that Kamkar (or anyone with the right knowhow) can read using HTML5 techniques. Kamkar provides Evercookie’s technology for free to anyone who wants it, on his site www.samy.pl. He is not scared of companies using it. The hacker tells CHIP "I am not afraid that programmers will use Evercookie. What worries me most is that many companies have been using similar techniques for a long time. I only want to expose what many companies try to hide." Tracking occurs without anything being noticed, without installation, and across all browsers, so long as Flash is installed. The new HTML5, which is already being used on some sites, makes anonymous surfing even less easy (see box). If you really want to surf incognito on the web, use a portable browser (such as Portable Firefox), even on your own computer. Designed for USB pen drives which can be moved anywhere, these browsers do not retain information from websites, and don’t save anything to the computer’s hard drive. In our tests, evercookie could not restore any user data here. According to Kamkar, even Safari in private mode leaves no traces behind.

Browsers in Private Mode are still untrustworthy

The private mode, which is now available in all browsers, does not provide any magic guarantees that you can’t be snooped on. Though the browser leaves behind fewer tracks, Flash and other plugins such as Adblock Plus are not affected by such settings, and continue to divulge more information than most people realize. While browsers delete HTTP cookies, history and search queries in private mode, they have no control over Flash, which also collects its own cookies which remain on the PC. To make it even worse, these files cannot be managed by the browser; only the Flash plugin itself has access to them, and that too only via Adobe’s own website. If you surf through a site with Flash content in private mode, anyone with access to the same computer can read the history through Adobe's ‘Website Storage Settings’ panel. You can find the web tool at Adobe’s website and delete any Flash cookies that might be tracking you.  Adobehas released a new version of its Flash plugin; version 10.1, which now supports private browsing. However, not everyone upgrades to the latest version in time!

         Even the Firefox ad blocker Adblock Plus needs to be patched. If one allows a site to display ads in private mode, they can be tracked in the normal mode at all times: the filter lists, in which these exceptions are entered, can be accessed in both the modes. To stay safe, always update Flash player; this will improve your privacy. In Adblock Plus, it helps to disallow all sites from showing ads in the private mode. Alternatively, under ‘Tools | Adblock Plus – Settings’ in Firefox, check the list to see if it contains sites that you don’t want seen, and then delete these manually.

ARE CHEAP QWERTY PHONES REALLY GOOD?

Nokia X2-01, cheapest among NOKIA

QWERTY phones by big brands like Blackberry, Nokia and Samsung have been around for a very long time. A few years ago, the choices were limited, but the market is now fl ooded with offerings by smaller brands like Karbonn, Lava and Micromax, which are giving the giants a run for their money. These Java-based phones offer a lot more than their reputed counterparts — dual-SIM support, answering machine, TV, FM radio with antenna, optical trackpad, and so on. And the best thing is that they cost only a few thousand Rupees. Topend models with Wi-Fi cost around Rs 4,500. Considering only the feature set, are these phones value for money? Yes, absolutely! However, the feature set is not the aspect that makes or breaks a phone. Build quality, ergonomics and performance are also important and go a long way in adding value. Fine details like hot-swap for memory card, dedicated volume control buttons and shortcuts add to user comfort. For a QWERTY phone, the size, spacing and tactility of buttons is important. Tiny and stiff buttons are frustrating, whereas, large buttons with good tactility help composing messages effi ciently. The budget QWERTY phone roundup was a very good opportunity to fi ndout how good the  models by smaller  brands are and whether any of them can defeat the Nokia C3 or X2. The ones I found most fascinating were the Fly Circle B436, Lava B8, and Videocon V1676. Other phones had some issues or the other. Some had poor build quality,while others lacked good ergonomics. Some phones had a sluggish UI and most phones shot horrible photos. The Fly Circle B436 has an excellent keypad, dedicated volume control and secondary camera for self-portrait. Its key feature is its speaker, which is loud… really, really loud. You’ll have angry eyes staring at you if you play music at full volume on this phone in public places. The Lava B8 looks great and reminded me of the Nokia E71. It was the most feature-rich phone, but it scores low on ergonomics. Its keypad isn’t very comfortable and typing messages with the T9 dictionary active was painful. The Videocon V1676 has everything except Wi-Fi, which is forgivable because it offers very good ergonomics and performance. It has dedicated volume control, hot-swap for memory card, excellent keypad and separate keys for commonly used punctuations like period and comma. Other phones had punctuations combined with the alphabet keys, requiring the user the press the shift/function key in combination; I’ve observed this in QWERTY phones by Nokia. Out of all brands, only Videocon has got the keypad correct. And yes, it’s a C3 killer. It offers more features than the Nokia C3 for a lesser price and the overall performance is impressive. When buying a budget QWERTY phone, I strongly suggest you get a feel for the device and pay good attention to ergonomics. Don’t base your buying decision only on the feature set.

Are high-end Android phones really worth it?

"These phones take the user experience to a whole new level!"

My journey with Android phones started with the Samsung Galaxy 3, which I’ve been tinkering with for a long, long time. Initially, it took a little time getting used to the touchscreen, especially while composing emails and messages. But after a few weeks of extensive use I was very happy with certain features, such as out-of-the-box support for DivX and MKV files and good quality. At the same time, I wasn’t too happy with small things that impacted productivity. Firstly, the screen was too narrow to type on the virtual QWERTY keyboard in portrait mode, and also the built-in dictionary of the stock Samsung keyboard wasn’t too intelligent to autocorrect mistyped words. The gaming performance also wasn’t too great. With even a bit of eye candy or 3D graphics appearing in games, frame rates used to go for a toss. I tried multiple ROMs and overclocking the phone's CPU from 667 MHz to a crazy 1200 MHz! It did help to quite an extent, but the battery life took a nosedive. I’m now considering investing in a high-end handset to satiate my needs for comfort and eye candy. This month’s comparison of high-end Android phones was a nice chance for me to get a hands-on experience with some of the best phones on the market. I started off with the Sony Ericsson Xperia Arc, which I was very scared to use because it felt too feeble. The display also didn’t have Gorilla Glass for protection against scratches. However, the user interface was good and gaming on it was fun. The screen was also wide enough for typing messages in portrait mode without any strain. The big thing that turned me off was its 8 megapixel camera, which I expected to be excellent. The images came out quite grainy and some highcontrast night shots that I took were quite disastrous. I used it for almost a week, until I found it drab after getting the Samsung Galaxy SII in hand. You have to check out the quality of its Super AMOLED Plus display to believe how gorgeous it looks. It’s overly vibrant, but videos, games and photos look awesome. Paying Rs 4,000 over and above the price of the Xperia Arc is completely justified for a dual-core processor, 16 GB of built-in storage, sexy display and the sleek form. However, the camera performance isn’t quite up to the mark. The third and the last phone I used for quite a while was the HTC Incredible S. Hats off to HTC for the excellent Sense UI they’ve designed. It looks great, it’s extremely fluid, and the provision of quick access to the important functions has been paid a good deal of attention, which makes the phone a breeze to use. Overall, the phone is excellent, but it’s quite expensive. The sheer power and design of these high-end phones takes the user experience to a completely different level, but they come in at a hefty premium. Be careful and make wise decisions – you may get something much better by spending a few thousand Rupees more, and you won’t regret.