The PS3 Slim sees Sony hoping to invigorate sales of the Playstation 3 with a lighter and much less expensive model. No doubt the company views this as a chance to redeem the brand before it starts to look like a fat old aunt in the console war. For this redemption to take place we would need to see some serious new features go …
PS2 Backwards compatability
The "fat" versions of the PS3 lost this several years ago, back when it lost its third and fourth USB ports and its card reader.
Besides, who buys a PS3 to play PS2 games? At this point, God Of War 2 (perhaps the last "big" title) is three years old, and you can still buy a PS2 for half nothing.
I still prefer the xbox360 to the other offerings... although its really down to personal choice now, no rampant fanboi-ish here... move along.... move along, this is not the flame war you are looking for.
Search for emacs vs vi on google, if you want one of those.
What features do you feel have been omitted from this games console? It plays blu ray, you can get a freeview tuner for it and it becomes a PVR, it works with 3rd party bluetooth kit out of the box. All pretty good features not included on any other competing platform. PS2 compatibility was dropped from old style PS3s long ago, hence why you can get more than enough on eBay for a PS2 compatible 60GB one to buy yourself a brand new slim and have change for a game.
this model is epic fail
No OtherOs = No linux etc...
I understand Sony's stated reason of not doing this ie having to continually mantain the hypervisor as the underlying hardware changes, but this is just an utter slap in the face to us.
If the PS4 is similarly shut off, you will have NO SALE here. You have been warned.
No good games? Are you on crack?
Search for games from 01/01/2009 > with a score of 80% or more (the "get it" level)..
If you really want to up the ante, then raise it to 90% or more:
go sit in the corner with your back facing us for being proved to be a crap "reviewer". Metacritic does not lie, biased reviewers (like yourself) can't make a different. ( A biased industry can however, look at the MW2 score, but that's a different story).
I found out, when looking for the original PS3, that one version had hardware backwards compatability, one software, and one nothing at all.
Then to add to that there were other positives and negatives of buying each type. I gave up in the end, and went without.
The Slim has been out for ages, why are you only reviewing it now?
As for having no PS2 game support, the 80Gb Fat PS3 was the first model to lose that feature, so this is not something introduced with the slim.
I agree with the comments on Blu-Ray, and the lack of good titles on PS3. Every store I go in has at least triple the space dedicated to each of the other consoles (Nintendo DS included) as what the PS3 has.
Still there are some great games (Uncharted 2 among them), and I quite like the PSN (I've even made some purchases on it), and my PS3 sees a lot of action playing movies off both the internal and usb connected storage.
Overall I'm very happy with my PS3 and have no desire to run out and buy a XBox 360 (I also have a Wii, but that's just for the kids and doesn't even see much action from them)
Stop - for only getting it half right.
Not 100% accurate
Quote: "Unlike the ‘fat version’, there is no backward compatibility with PS2 games"
Not all the 'fat versions' were backwards compatible, it was only the original 60gb launch machines that could play PS2 games.
Sadly for supercomputer enthusiasts, the 'Slim' has lost the 'otheros' option.
This means Linux is no longer an option.
Just a note - not every 'fat' PS3 had backwards compatibility. Sony apparently had two ways of doing backwards compatibility - the first was hardware emulation,by implanting a PS2 chip (the 'emotion engine') into each PS3, and the second was software emulation. The first-generation 20GB and 60GB models, which had hardware PS2 emulation, never made their way to the UK; the first PS3 model available in the UK was second-generation 60GB model, which had software emulation - this was then superseded by third-gen 40, 80 and 120GB models, all of which had no PS2-support whatsoever. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS3#Model_comparison )
So the point is here that Sony technically could enable PS2 support for all PS3s that lack it, in the software form, if they wanted to; the thought is that they may use this in the future to add a 'PS2 Classics' section to the PS Store, similar to the existing 'PSOne Classics' section - the problem is that Sony would probably not enable running games from discs, unless they were also fazing out PS2s, which they're still trying to flog at the moment.
has it taken you so long to review this???
I disagree with the part about the limited games and PS network. As a ps3 owner from early on, I have never been let down by either, there are lots of amazing games - some of the best ive ever played, and online is great to with PS home and the PS store having lots of content - like PS1 classics and small, 'indie', innovative games. I have never played on a console better than the ps3.
85% if you have an xbox still working 95%+ otherwise
So no mention of iPlayer or the newly added HDMI CEC support. The movie store, the fact it's a better HD network video and audio player than dedicated devices costing almost as much.
The review is obsessed with exclusive games but that only matter if you've got an xBox that is still working.
I like mine
I'm a casual gamer at best, so I can't really comment on the PS3 Slim as a hard-core gaming machine; but it's a great home entertainment component.
We wanted a LAN- and NetFlix-enabled Blu-Ray player that could also play MP3 files from our home server. The PS3 Slim is a fantastic value for that.
Blu-Ray players with similar functionality cost $250 or more here in the colonies. Sony's own Blu-Ray player with those features was $279, and it did not have a hard drive to buffer streaming movies. For $299, the PS3 was an obvious choice.
Another nice PS3 feature (at least in the stateside version) is integrated DivX playback. It was fairly simple to register the PS3 as a device on my DivX account, which enables us to watch (legal) DivX movies on the big screen that I downloaded on PC.
Since our cable converter box has an integrated DVR, an HTPC setup would have been overkill (and yet another Windows box to patch and maintain). The PS3 is a very good media hub; the fact that we can play Rock Band on it is a goodie-grab-bag extra.
More raw power?
The PS3 most certainly does not have more raw power. The 360 bests in in almost every cross platform game ever made.
How little you know
There is one reason for that - The Xbox 360 is the lead development platform for most multi-platform games, they are then 'ported' to the PS3 and therefore aren't designed to take advante of the extra grunt the PS3 offers.
However as the PS3 closes the sales gap with the 360 more and more multiplatform games are being developed on the PS3, or seperately so there is parity between them or the PS3 has extra benefits designed to take advantage of the Blu-ray's extra space.
You only have to look at PS3 exclusive titles like Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, heavy Rain & God Of War to see that titles developed for the PS3 are leaps and bounds ahead of the opposition.
The 360 is better at cross-platform gaming because lazy devs can practically recompile and get a working game for it. That's not really a selling point, that you get a bunch of me-too PC games for more money than they cost on the PC.
look at the screens.
Exactly... Cross Platform!! This is because its easier to develop on the 360, developers are lazy and so port games over, hence the superior quality on the 360... which is minimal if at all noticeable. More recently though the PS3 has become the platform of choice so you will start to see this trend move in favor of the PS3... FFXIII for example is far superior on the PS3. Then you only have to look at the PS3 exclusive, all much better quality than any 360 exclusive. Only thing i like about the Xbox is its low price point... still wouldnt make me buy one though.
You want to do some research mate.
The reason cross-platform stuff often looks identical or better on the 360 is because they are often developed on the 360 and ported to PS3, not the other way round.
Note: I am a 360 owner.
nice link for you
This post links to half a dozen others, and covers the exacting details of the PS3 hardware vs the xBox 360. The PS3 is simply far more powerful.
That said, Sony designed the SP3 to be an ever improving console, with an 8-10 year lifespan. How? They LIMIT access to CPU and RAM resources for devs, slowly bumping the game quality year over year, so each release allways look better than the previous. Look at early PS2 games compared to laterone, same deal there. Microsoft on the other hand is allow devs access currently to more then 85% of system resources. The console will simple top out at max quality within another year or so, but the PS3 will continue to improve for 5-7 more years. Sony is only giving devs about 65-70% of the raw power currently. Further, as firmware unlocks more power, even older games will start to look better. Right now, there's not a lot of difference...
Also, with cross platformers, you do have to take a serious look at a) which platform was it developed for primarily, and b) which parent company is pushing harder to ensure the game look s better on theirs (a lot of cross platformers are core M$ apps and only give Sony second fiddle to bump sales, others are long standing Sony games and the opposite applies, many more still are PC GAMES, ported to consoles and they actually look far better on a PC than a console (since it offers better than HD resolution and far bettter lighting and DirecX effects, not to mention a better physics engine).
Couple > 1
"Unfortunately, there are a couple of big drawbacks to the PS3 Slim, which could also be seen as downgrades. Unlike the ‘fat version’, there is no backward compatibility with PS2 games, which is a shame, and may discourage a wider budget audience from buying it."
You don't mention the other drawback, and I know nothing about the either PS3 so was interested to hear...
Interesting Points raised In The Review?
Hopefully I can counter them without having post failed by a mod for no reason again....
"hampered by a limited range of quality titles"
Really? Well just read what Metacritic (the industry leading review aggregator) had to say, crowning the PS3 the best gaming console of 2009 with 5 out of the top 10 rated titles on the PS3, 4 to the 360 and 1 to the DS.
It also had the highest rated game of the year in Uncharted 2 which has now won more Game Of The Year awards then any other game in history.
You can read the plaudits the PS3 games received last year here
this year has already been even better with the release of MAG, Heavy Rain & God Of War 3, encompassing a wide range of genres which shows the PS3 real strength over its competitor in doing a better job of appealing to a wide range of tastes than any other machine available.
"In terms of features there may be a long way to go"
Odd comment for a machine which as acknowledged by industry experts above has the greatest range of 'great' games and the lowest amount of 'poor' or 'mixed' games along with being a media centre powerhorse playing everything from CDs to DVDs and the latest Blu-rays with no add-ons needed.
The web browser is unique in HD consoles and greatly expands the flexibility of the unit
It also has either 120GB or 250GB HardDrive shipped with every unit, unlike the 360 where these are expensive additions if you go for the 'cheap' model which brings me on to wireless... These days wifi connectivity is pretty much essential, with the PS3 it comes as standard with the 360 this is an expensive extra.
Online play is also free with the PS3...
Has anyone here actually burnt their fingers on ejecting a disc?
Although the styling is in line with current trends, I can't help thinking this one looks like it's been built to a cost. Sony are definitely trying to save money here.
You miss the point. cross platform games don't make any use of the consoles "special features".
All the multi-platform titles are basically running on the main PPE in the PS3, with some common libraries running on the other processing cores. They are in no way maxing the PS3./
In other words, the Xbox360 is the PS3's limitation when it comes to multi-platform games.
You only have to look at the platform exclusives where compromises don't need to be made, and the PS3 is like a generation ahead of what the Xbox can achieve. Microsoft launched early, got a foothold and now ALL gamers regardless of what system they own had to be hampered by the Xbox limitations, purely because it's a significant userbase.
As for this "review", it sounds like the reviered didn't even open the box (perhaps perferred to keep it sealed so they can sell in on Ebay or Amazon marketplace) and got their information from Google and the Xbox forums... It truly is misinformed tripe.
Still not a bad box for the average bod
I bought my PS3 in September 2007 partly for the Blu-ray player (had also bought the big HD telly and surround system) and partly for playing games. All in all it was pretty obvious choice despite the price and I have no regrets.
If I was starting again I'd buy this new slim model. The killer application is still the blu-ray capability and it's a decent player as well, none of this waiting around for 2 minutes for content to load. I also had a Tosh EP30 HD-DVD player, it was bloody awful to use (even with DVD's) but still cost £200 quid.
I've a 60gb version
And I'm half tempted to sell it on ebay for a 250gb slim. I've a reasonable sized catalogue of PS2 games but long since got rid of my PS2. I dare say at some point Sony will either re-enable PS2 support on the new models or add them to the PSN as they are doing with PS1 classics.
I used to use Linux to rip Blu-Ray movies but the length of time it takes to extract, then compress to a decent size, it's just as easy to download off the net.
This model I have can be noisy at times. It's also a refurbished model as my previous one stopped playing discs. Which again puts me off keeping it.
I do love my PS3 though. And I'm only a casual gamer. I use it more for media streaming than I do for anything else.
Sony recently made it VERY clear, PS2 back compatability will never be reintroduced. They have begin moving the PS2 classics collection into PS Home for download as native PS3 titles. Unfortunately, you have to buy them, even if you have the PS2 game itself, and I do not believe saved games can be imported from original PS2 (have not tried).
What sony really needs to do is set up a system whereby I can send in the original medial for any PS2 game available on PS Home, and they add the digital PS3 native version of the game to my account for download (and re-download up to say 5 consoles). Then I'll care...
For the monent, I actually have a PS3 hooked up, and have dabnled with the online system a bit, but I have no PS3 games AT ALL. I use it only for NetFlix, BlueRay, and streaming other media. Too cheap to buy all the controllers, accessories, and games atm, and still playing and betatesting too many PC titles to waste the time.,..
3 pages of review??
Why review it at all? Could have easily summed it up as:
"Same as last one, minus the Linux option that very few people used anyway"
As pointed out by several before me, Sony ditched the PS2 support a while ago, first in hardware, then in software as I recall.
Me, I'm happy with my "fat" version. Prefer the shiny version (let's face it, how often do you touch it anyway?). The *only* thing missing is USB ports at the rear. Guitar Hero dongles and charging controllers hanging out the front is rather unsightly.
Is he back?
Mark 'I married my Sony Kit' Fanboy Saddo:
"No good games? Are you on crack?"
Jesus F'ing C'rist! Get over it. I've been gaming since my ZX-81. I'm a PC gamer 1st, XBox 360 second. They are just devices to play games. My Xbox has not RRo'D. BF:BC2 has caused me many crashes on my PC. I just wish people would stop slagging off other devices. I only care if a game plays properly on the system I have bought.
Jeez! I hate 'fanbois'
More than just a 'games console'.
I had an XBox360 for 3 years. I was on my third console the previous 2 having been repaired due to the 3 red rings issue. When the slim came out, the Game store was offering a part exchange deal so I jumped at the chance to get rid of the poorly designed xbox. Having had the slim now for about 6 months I can make a few direct comparisons between the 2
1) yeah nice games if you're into pure gaming.
That's about the only positive thing I can think of.
1) yeah nice games if you're into pure gaming.
2) can charge controllers directly from console from day one without having to buy any additional kit.
3) DLNA compliant. I can stream movies from by buffalo linkstation live directly to my PS3. The 360 was also 'DLNA compliant' but in a typical microsoft way i.e. it didn't work properly. Had to use a third party application called TVersity to get the streaming to work on the 360. Therefore always needed a PC switched on to stream movies. In fact not just movies. Music and pictures too. As a media hub is it fantastic and just works without the need for a desktop PC being in the loop.
3) built in wireless. Didn't need to spend £50 on a wireless adaptor.
4) built in Blue Ray
5) built in web browser (I use it to get free view channels from tvcatchup.com after my freeview box broke)
6) it is very quiet. It is quieter than my Panasonic DVD player which has a built in hard drive. I use the PS3 now to watch DVDs.
7) it is still running after 6 months which is more than I can say for the Xbox360
Redeem the console?
I have an original release PS3 - you know, the one that can actually do shit, before they started ripping everything out - and it kicks ass. Unlike the 360, it doesn't explode at every given opportunity, so my 60GB edition is still working fine. It needs no redeeming. Sure, the online service isn't as good as XBL, but you get what you pay for, and I rarely play online anyway. Other than that it's a totally bitchin' device that was overly slated at launch, mainly for being too expensive.
As for games, most of the big stuff gets released on PS3 *and* 360, so WTF are you on about? The main reason I don't own an Xbox has nothing to do with it being a poorly designed piece of shit - between my PS3 and my PC, I can get all the games I want, so what's the point?
Anyway, I'm off downstairs to fire the sucker up and play God of War 3. Only had chance to play the first area so far, but god DAMN, it's stunning.
Considering some of the trash reviewed here gets 100%
I switched from Xbox to PS3 about a year back, and the PS3 is twice the console the Xbox is... They both have excellent games, but the Xbox stops there, the PS3 offers an immense amount for, for free. (and better exclusive games)
Vidzone, iPlayer, Blu-Ray, mediastreaming (not the half-assed Xbox abortion), Web Browser, DigitalFreeview Recorder(PlayTV) and tonnes more.
My PS3 is awesome bit of kit. It's silent and the the only box I need under the TV. The saddest part is some of the XBox fanboys here that seem to believe everything Microsoft tell them about the PS3... I used to be one, until I saw the light.... (or the dark in this case)
Horses for courses ....
Still got my 360 (now two years old, no RRoD - howzat for tempting fate?) but the PS3 ended up being flogged pretty quickly - no games that really took my interest (Little BigPlanet and MotorStorm were the only two that grabbed me) and it was, at best, a passable Linux box - on the strength of that I wouldn't miss the 'Other OS' option. At the time, the only thing that made the PS3 more attractive was the ability to swap HDDs, which I duly did .. PS2 compatability, or lack of, didn't bother me then and it doesn't now as I've still got my PS2.
Granted, the 360 suffers from a bad attack of 'spaghetti publishing' (throw stuff at a wall and see what sticks) but the fact remains that the 360 has more games that appeal to me than the PS3 - if that changes, I may consider picking up a PS3 again but to be honest, that doesn't seem likely until GT5 finally emerges blinking into the sunlight, and I've got PGR4 and Forza3 to tide me over 'til then.
I'm no fanboi, I just know what I like - my 360 satisfies my gaming needs for now, but if a compelling reason to buy a PS3 emerges (GT5 ... hint, hint) then I'll pick one up.
what my PS3 was missing until i needed it. That is A2DP blutooth support. I would really like to get this on the PS3 so i can use my bluetooth stereo headset. Works with my SonyEric phone, can't be too hard for them to implement. Is it too much to hope Sony base their product planning on these forums?
Don't have an HD TV, so not remotely interested in blu-ray. Maybe when players are £30 from China, PC drives are a similar price, blank media is 10p a dozen and I can get the blu-ray equivalent of DVD Shrink or OGMRip. Yes, I bloody well will have HD movies on my hard drive, and bollocks to a DMCA that doesn't apply to me.
As for the console itself, well I gave up PC games because of the DRM encrustation and constant need to spend shedloads on playing hardware catch-up. That and exclusively requiring an operating system that I gave up on for similar reasons. I gave up on most consoles because the prices of the games are blatantly a rip-off. Nintendo DS, see that? You can get pretty much any DS title for under £30. Don't tell me it can't be done for the PS3 or 360.
So thanks but no thanks. At least when I have some money, I'll be spending it on much nicer toys that aren't made to actively shaft you. Like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x2mbEVqJW4
So much more fun than being stuck indoors pretending to fly something around, and you get full surround sound and ultra-high-def graphics provided by Model 1 Ear and Eyeball as a bonus!
(also, didn't Sega try this years ago with the Megadrive 2, shortly before they drank the kool-aid?)
so you think DS titles should be the same price? a DS game must take a shole week to do the graphics for since its only tiny little sprites and maybe some 3d. ive yet to see a DS game that looks any good and the ones the mrs play look like something from the late 80s
What late 80s do you come from?
Show me a computer from the late 80s that could do Mario Kart DS without thousands of pounds worth of video accelerator, please.
Ahh, Xbox360 vs PS3...
...it never gets old. Or does it?
Heheh, I shall add to this :P
I did consider getting an Xbox 360 (I have some playstations).
1. I would not based on the fact that linux is a PITA to run on the 360 (if at all). I hear it may not be all that stable either (I have had PS3's up for 6 months. rebooting only for kernel rebuilds).
2. The CPU while interesting, is not nearly as interesting as the cell
3. Seems you have to pay for xbox live to play stuff like MW2...
4. I hear xboxen are not all that reliable :P
I might get an xbox though, seriously, if I game enough and if there's something good enough on it to warrant gaming on it instead of a PS3, but at the moment, for all intents and purposes, for the limited array of games I play, they are about the same imho, with advantage to the PS3 for nerd potential, history of not-getting-bricked, and no subscriptions necessary.
I would not get this new PS3 though for the lack of OtherOS support unless it was like 100 quid or something cheaper. That way I'd free up my current linux capable gaming PS3.
LOL @ Generation Ahead
Sorry, but the PS3 isn't a generation ahead of the 360. It just took a different tack, going for lots of smaller cores rather than the 3 in the 360.
Unfortunatly Sony didn't do enough on the dev side to help the studios use those cores effectivly. Microsoft did what they do best, and harness the developers, with lots of docs, decent tools and old fashioned bribes.
The other big diff technically is the GPU, the 360's is slightly better, and more importantly (as it turns out) has a larger memory for the framebuffer.
If you read any of the EuroGamer head-to-heads, its this framebuffer size that tends to allow the 360 to have proper AA, and not the blur-o-vision smear of the PS3.
Both consoles have enough power to have decent games, and both companies are supporting them long term with addons and internal redesigns. I don't think we'll see new devices until after the next GPU generation (ie the one after Nvidia's fermi and ATI's 5970 gen)
"It really does look modern and classy"
now come on, it looks about 20 years old...and cheap..yes they are well built but my 360 was cheap and has great games...and sounds like a jet engine at 3000 degrees celsius
You know you can get pretty much all PS3 titles for under £30 if you look hard enough (i.e. anywhere but the high street ripoff).
And the key difference, It's not DS shovelware on PSP and PS3, it's decent titles...
If you take your metacritic analysis and remove all the multi platform games where the PS3 version is markedly inferior (check the Digital Foundry comparisons on EG to get you going), you'll be left with an entirely different set of numbers.
Don't be silly....
Stop it right now...... you're showing a distressing tendency to logical thought and a sense of proportion.....
Actually liking the PS3 and giving it a good review isn't good enough..Total uncritical Sony-Love is required. You have been warned
@sT0rNG b4R3 duRiD
"No OtherOs = No linux etc..."
And the point being?
They are selling this as a games console, not a computer. If you want to install linux on something, get out the game section of PCWorld.
No coat, as I can't install other operating systems on it.
"The point being?"
You are obviously not a nerd and do not appreciate fine hardware.
Do you even realize what is in a PS3?
When it came out it was the cheapest highest performing piece of kit for number crunching you could get easily. Arguably with GPU's/CUDA now it may be a slightly different story but PS3's are still remarkably cheap.
It was also incidentally the cheapest 64 bit powerpc machine you could get. As it stands, old G5 macs are still more expensive than PS3's but they are coming close to matching the price of a new PS3 on Ebay.
For the $$$ you pay the (fat) PS3 is STILL an incredible bargain for a nerd. There is A LOT you can do on it.
You say "They are selling this as a games console, not a computer. If you want to install linux on something, get out the game section of PCWorld."
Remember this: Sony actually encouraged OtherOS at launch. The linux port and hypervisor evolved with each other, with Sony's help and blessing.
A few places have ps3 clusters solely devoted to computation of complex problems. They are cheap and they can do the job.
You might argue that a cell is a dead-end technology but it is still VERY widely available resource ( there are quite a few PS3's shipped, eh? ) I feel to restrict access to it is a foolish cost cutting venture, especially if sony feel they will field cell-like or POWER-like technology in future PS consoles. Having more people familiar with an architecture they might use can only be good for them.
Again I will say this: To have this removed is a slap in the face to all who have contributed thus far.
(One could say something similar about the xbox 360 but M$ never promised us shit anyways, they never ever supported any other OS's, and besides the xenon just doesn't quite cut the mustard like a cell does).
And now for something completely relevant.
First of, I'm an Xbox 360 owner, a gamer and a (moderately) sane human being.
I bought my 360 after reviewing the games available, and what would be available in the near and further future. The PS3's titles, exclusive or otherwise did leave me a little cold when I reviewed the list almost 2 years ago. Even now, I see nothing that really grabs my gentleman parts and says "play me". The 360 on the other hand, did have the type and style of games I wanted to play, so I went with that console. That does not mean I have ruled out buying a PS3 in the future, provided the games range comes a little closer to the games I like to play.
As hardware goes, the PS3 is a pretty solid piece of kit, no question that its worth the cash given what you should be able to get out of it entertainment wise (Blu Ray films, games with better graphics and seamless play). However, the content for me is lacklustre for the most part, with God of War 3 being a rather bright star in an otherwise uninteresting collection of games. Its not enough for me to shell out the £260+ for a unit though, but it is a point in its favour for 'future purchases'.
If you want a console with a great range of games, see what games are available for each console and see what grips you, regardless of the fanboy rantings of others (Opinions are like bum-holes everyone has one and they all make worthless noise that can clear a room in seconds). Buy for your own wants and needs, not those of others... unless your married, in which case the decision is out of your hands (sorry).
ps3 all the way
when my xbox died last year for no reason, just died i decided to buy ps3 - maaaan that's so much better device, media streaming box, console, blu-ray player.
and for everyone into online gaming - ps3 online is free not like bloody m*/soft and 'live' thingy
nope, ps3 is more mature, it's quiet and it became entertainment centre for me, something what xbox couldn't achieve because of not working DLNA, noise, heat, and so on
- Crawling from the Wreckage Want a more fuel efficient car? Then redesign it – here's how
- Apple SILENCES Bose, YANKS headphones from stores
- Flesh-flapping, image-zapping app Snapchat NOW ad-wrapped
- Vid NASA eyeballs SOLAR HEAT BOMBS, MINI-TORNADOES and NANOFLARES on Sun
- TV Review Doctor Who's Flatline: Cool monsters, yes, but utterly limp subplots