Sustainability is becoming a more important concern for businesses than ever. A KPMG report from 2020 showed that 80% of top companies have sustainability reports and a growing number of small businesses are following suit. There is a clear economic reason for this since 92% of consumers state that they are more willing to trust environmentally friendly businesses.

But how do you actually run a green business?

Some of the most important steps you can take involve procuring eco-friendly products and materials and investing in renewable energy.

However, there is another important way that many companies can lower their carbon footprints. They may start offering work-from-home policies. As we have stated in the past, getting employees to work from home could potentially lower your company's carbon footprint.

Keep in mind there is going to be a learning curve. One of the most important things that you need to do is make sure that you have the right software to manage it more easily.

If you frequently conduct online meetings or video calls, you know how important it is to have a reliable and user-friendly tool. But with so many options, it can be overwhelming to figure out the best fit for your needs.

Here are some of the essential features you may need to learn about regarding web conferencing software. Whether you're a green business owner, a remote worker, or just someone who needs to stay connected with colleagues and clients, these features can make a huge difference in your online communication experience.

Related: 5 Ways to Protect Your Business from Climate Change Disaster

Screen Sharing

Screen sharing is essential to any good web conferencing software. It allows you to share your screen with others during a meeting or video call, which can be incredibly useful for various purposes.

Also, screen sharing can be helpful for collaboration purposes. If you're working on a project with a team, you can share your screen to show them your work and get their feedback. This can save much time and hassle compared to explaining things over the phone or messaging.

Many web conferencing software allows multiple users to share their screens simultaneously, which can be especially useful for team brainstorming sessions or group problem-solving. Overall, screen sharing is an essential feature that can significantly enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of your online meetings and video calls.

On-Demand Webcasting

On-demand webcasting is another helpful feature to look for in web conferencing software. This allows you to record your online meetings or video calls and make them available for viewing at a later time.

This can be incredibly helpful if you have team members or clients who cannot attend the meeting in real time. They can watch the recording at a convenient time and catch up on any critical information or discussions that took place.

On-demand webcasting can also be helpful for training purposes. If you have a new employee or team member who needs to learn about a specific topic, you can record a meeting or training session and share the recording with them.

This can be much more efficient than scheduling multiple training sessions or explaining things over the phone or through messaging.

Simulations and games

Simulations and games can be a fun and engaging way to make your online meetings and video calls more interactive and dynamic. Many web conferencing software now offer built-in tools for creating and hosting simulations and games during your sessions.

For example, you might use a simulation to role-play a particular scenario or practice a new process. This can be a great way to help your team learn and prepare for real-world situations.

Games can also be a great way to break up the monotony of a long meeting and add a bit of fun and friendly competition. Use a trivia game to test your team's knowledge on a particular syllabu or a more interactive game like a virtual escape room to challenge your team's problem-solving skills.

Simulations and games can add excitement and engagement to your online meetings and video calls. They can also be a helpful tool for training and development purposes, as they allow your team to practice and learn in a more interactive and immersive way.

Whiteboard

A whiteboard is another helpful feature to look for in web conferencing software. This allows you to create and share a virtual whiteboard during your online meetings or video calls, which can be incredibly useful for various purposes.

For example, use a whiteboard to brainstorm ideas, sketch out diagrams or flowcharts, or jot down notes. This can be especially helpful if you're working with a team and must collaborate on a project or problem-solve together.

Web conferencing software like Adobe Connect offers a variety of whiteboard tools, such as adding text, shapes, and images and saving and sharing your whiteboard with others. This can be a great way to keep your team organized and on the same page, even if you're in a different location.

These are just a few of the essential features you should be aware of when it comes to getting web conferencing software as a green business. A reliable and user-friendly tool can make a big difference in your online communication experience, so finding one with the right features is critical. This will help you have a work from home program that is both better for the planet and more productive.

• Adobe Acrobat PDF capabilities are coming to Microsoft Edge.
• Microsoft Edge's built-in PDF reader will be powered by Adobe Acrobat tech, which should deliver more accurate colors and improved performance.
• Narration, improved text selection, and improved security will also be available within Edge's PDF reader.
• Purchasing an Acrobat subscription will provide access to more features within Edge through a browser extension.

Microsoft and Adobe just announced that the Adobe Acrobat PDF engine will come to Microsoft Edge later this year. Beginning in March 2023, Edge's built-in PDF reader will use the Adobe Acrobat PDF engine. Microsoft promised the shift would result in higher fidelity, more accurate colors and graphics, and improved security in its announcement post. The company also highlighted that the switch would bring better security and greater accessibility.

“PDF is essential for modern business, accelerating productivity in a world where automation and collaboration are more critical than ever,” said Adobe SVP and GM Ashley Still. “By bringing the global standard in PDF experience to Microsoft Edge and the billion-plus Windows users worldwide, Adobe and Microsoft are using our joint heritage and expertise in productivity to take an important step forward in making modern, secure, and connected work and life a reality.”

Microsoft promises that the features of the new Adobe-powered PDF experience will be the same as the current offering. Additional capabilities, such as editing text and images, and converting PDFs to other file formats, will be available to those that sign up for an Acrobat subscription.

The new PDF experience will be available in Edge on Windows 11 and Windows 10.

Microsoft will shift to the Adobe Acrobat engine in phase. The move is scheduled to occur in March 2023. The legacy engine will remain available until March 31, 2024. Switching to the Adobe Acrobat engine will be opt-in for organizations at first. General users will not have the option to revert to the legacy PDF engine after the Adobe Acrobat engine launches. Microsoft has an FAQ section plus other information in a Tech Community post.

© Provided by Windows Central

Microsoft Edge | Free

Microsoft Edge is the default browser on Windows. It's based on Chromium, so it's compatible with the vast majority of the web. There are several Insider versions of the browser, allowing you to test new features and provide feedback to Microsoft.

© Photo by Amelia Holowaty Krales / The Verge Stressed about this choice? We’re here to help.

I recently published my review of the MacBook Pro 16 with M2 Max, which Apple released at the beginning of 2023. Now I’ve finally gotten my hands on the less powerful (and less expensive) MacBook Pro 16 powered by Apple’s M2 Pro chip. I’ve run the various benchmarks and done the various tasks, and I’ve even (finally) run the battery into the ground. Today, I’m here to talk to you about how these chips stack up to each other to help you decide which MacBook Pro model is right for you.

Behold, the benchmarks (scroll to the right to see more):

M2 Pro vs. M2 Max: price

Sixteen-inch M2 Pro models start at $2,499, while M2 Max models start at $3,099. The base M2 Pro model has 16GB of memory and 512TB of storage, while the base M2 Max has 32GB of memory. Bumping that M2 Pro model up to 32GB of memory puts it at $2,899, giving the M2 Max about a $200 premium over the M2 Pro for identical specs. That’s a consistent differential regardless of how you tweak the specs.

If you want to jump up to the M2 Max with 38 GPU cores (which is the one I tested), however, that’s going to be an additional $200 premium. This is the only CPU that can be paired with 96GB of RAM — the 30-core M2 Max model maxes out at 64GB.

M2 Pro vs. M2 Max: Battery Life

I averaged close to 14 hours of nonstop use on the M2 Max model with my workload. I can’t ensure everyone will get that amount of time, especially since my workload largely involves Chrome tabs, Google docs, and some streaming, but I do think most people will get more out of the M2 Max than they would out of the vast majority of 16-inch laptops on the market.

I averaged closer to 17 nonstop hours on the M2 Pro model. In practice, this means I can use it on battery for two to three days at a time, plugging it in like every so often. While the M2 chips don’t have as massive of a battery life delta that their M1 predecessors did, the M2 Pro — for my personal workload — had around 20 percent more juice to a charge than the M2 Max.

For me, this battery life differential wouldn’t be a dealbreaker. At a certain point, long battery is long battery. I generally use a MacBook Air as my personal computer, which averages me around 13 hours between charges, and I don’t feel that I need more. That said, if you’re really seeking a device that never dies, the M2 Pro may be slightly more attractive to you. For everyone else, it should be another part of the calculus: in addition to paying extra dollars for the M2 Max over the M2 Pro, you’re paying some hours of battery life.

M2 Pro vs. M2 Max: CPU

The difference in CPU power between the M2 Pro and M2 Max depends on which model you go for. All 16-inch M2 Pro models have 12 CPU cores. If you go for a 14-inch MacBook Pro, you can get an M2 Pro with 10 CPU cores, but the 16-inch models all have 12 CPU cores, regardless of whether you go for the Pro or the Max.

We had the 16-inch model in both cases, so both of these devices had 12-core CPUs. These chips have the same architecture — so if you’re doing primarily CPU-heavy work during your day, you’ll get very little benefit from the Max over the Pro.

Don’t believe me? Check out the Cinebench and Geekbench results in the chart above, which are quite close together (and identical in some cases).

Now, there’s one caveat here. The M2 Pro models max out at 32GB of memory, whereas the M2 Max can handle as much as 96GB. Folks who need to spend more on a 64GB or 96GB model probably know who you are: people who work with big datasets, for example, and are consistently handling large amounts of information may have a better time with one of those (very expensive) M2 Max models.

M2 Pro vs. M2 Max: GPU

The more significant difference between these two chips lies in GPU power. You can basically think of the M2 Max as the M2 Pro with some extra graphic chops.

All 16-inch M2 Pro units have 19 GPU cores, while M2 Max buyers have a choice of 30 or 38 cores. (Our test unit has 38.)

In Geekbench Compute, which tests GPU power, we can see over a 55 percent increase in graphics power, which tracks with the close to 50 percent increase in GPU core count. On Shadow of the Tomb Raider, a GPU-heavy game benchmark, the M2 Max did close to 80 percent better than the M2 Pro. That’s a very visible difference on the 120Hz screens these MacBooks have.

There’s one other major difference between these chips that only some of you will care about, which is that the M2 Max has two video encode engines and two ProRes engines, while the M2 Pro only has one of each. This means that video editors specifically can expect faster encoding and playback speeds from the M2 Max. (Exactly how much faster can be inconsistent — more on that in a minute.)

So those are the raw numbers. How does this all shake out during a workday?

M2 Pro vs. M2 Max: real-world tasks

The M2 Max is noticeably faster in video work. It beat the M2 Pro in PugetBench for Premiere Pro. My experience using it to edit was incredibly speedy. It flew through playback and exports. If I were a video editor (assuming my employer was footing the bill), I’d absolutely want one of these things.

The M2 Pro was not quite as consistent. I exported the same five-minute 4K video a number of times on it and could see a time anywhere from around the two-and-a-half minute mark to over six minutes. The process did not get consistently faster or consistently slower as I went on testing; there was no rhyme or reason for the varying times. What I did notice was that the M2 Pro often got hung up on graphics that the M2 Max was able to breeze right through. Becca Farsace, our senior video producer, had the same experience exporting a different video file.

With that said, the M2 Pro is hardly a slow chip. Adobe Premiere Pro work on it was still quite smooth. The M2 Max was both a bit louder and hotter than the M2 Pro during Premiere work (it has a High Power Mode specifically meant to maximize performance during sustained workloads, which the M2 Pro doesn’t have). Becca’s recommendation in our latest guide to the M2 line was that folks who work with 3D, animation, 8K content, and 4K content over an hour long should seriously consider the M2 Max model. The M2 Pro should be fine for everyone else (unless money is really no object).

The difference was not as stark in Xcode performance. The M2 Max completed the Xcode Benchmark just over three seconds faster than the M2 Pro. That’s a difference, sure, but it’s not nearly as wide as, say, the gap between the M2 Pro and the M1 Max. I would not expect the M2 Max to be a necessity for lighter tasks like web design.

I know there are many, many tasks people might want to use these MacBooks for that are not covered here. In general, the best way to approach this decision is to figure out: A. how much of your workload leverages heavy graphics and B. whether you need to get that work done with every ounce of speed you can get.

Oh, and I don’t imagine that any of you were considering this, but just in case you were — no, it does not make a ton of sense to upgrade to these M2 models from the M1 line. The M1 and M2 MacBook Pros were expensive and fast machines, and they should still have quite a bit of life in them. But if you are still on an Intel MacBook Pro and didn’t spring for the M1 series last time around, either the M2 Pro or Max MacBook Pro will provide a considerable jump up in performance, thermals, and battery life.

Upgrading your desktop or laptop to a solid-state storage solution—whether that's a traditional 2.5-inch drive or a cutting-edge M.2 one—is a quick, often inexpensive way of adding some much-needed performance to an aging system. By installing a solid-state drive (SSD) in your desktop or laptop, you can drastically reduce the amount of time files, applications, and even operating systems take to load, install, or copy versus older platter-based hard drives. As long as you have the slots, ports, or bays necessary, the amount of movies, photos, and games you can shuttle onto or off of one machine is almost limitless.

To make sure you always get the best bang for your storage buck, we here at PC Labs have developed an exhaustive testing suite. A mix of industry-standard tests, "trace-based" measures (more on what that means in a moment), and home-cooked trials, it runs each drive we review through a series of real-world and synthetic scenarios to help us determine which drives are the fastest, which are the slowest, and who falls in between.

Mind you, with SSDs, speed isn't everything. We also evaluate drives on the basis of value for money and additional features, such as warranty, durability ratings, and supplementary software. But SSDs have become so good these days that sometimes it's subtle things that separate an average drive from a winner.

The Testbeds: The Systems We Rely On

Depending on the bus architecture (PCI Express vs. SATA) and connection protocol (M.2 or 2.5-inch for internal SSDs; USB or Thunderbolt for external SSDs), we test any drive that comes through the labs on a certain single testbed, or pair of testbeds, among three testbed systems.

PCIe 3.0-Based M.2 Internal SSDs; Serial ATA 2.5-Inch or M.2 Drives

These drives are tested on our main Windows-based storage testbed. This is a resolutely high-end PC circa 2020. It is equipped with an Asus Prime X299 Deluxe motherboard with an Intel Core i9-10980XE processor clocked for a max boost frequency of 4.6GHz. We use 16GB of DDR4 Corsair Dominator RAM clocked to 3,600MHz, and the system is using an Nvidia GeForce RTX discrete graphics card to power video. This PC represents a state-of-the-art high-end desktop configuration, with an SSD boot drive as the primary drive and the drive being tested configured as supplemental storage.

(Credit: Kyle Cobian)

M.2 drives on this system are installed in a secondary M.2 slot below the video card and configured as secondary storage. (The X299 motherboard we use supports both PCI Express M.2 and SATA M.2 drives.) Traditional 2.5-inch SSDs are installed on the first SATA port powered by the motherboard's main SATA controller, and installed in a 2.5-inch bay.

PCIe 4.0-Based Internal SSDs

PCI Express 4.0 M.2 SSDs offer higher potential sequential-throughput speeds than PCI Express 3.0 ones. PCI Express 4.0 support is generally available only on late model AMD-based systems from the X570/B550/TRX40 chipset period onward (using Ryzen 3000 series CPUs or later), and Intel systems with Z490 or more latest motherboards (using 11th Generation "Rocket Lake" CPUs or later). All PCIe 4.0 SSDs are M.2 drives. You can use a PCI Express 4.0 SSD in a 3.0-only motherboard, but it will bounce down to 3.0 speeds.

(Credit: Kyle Cobian)

As a result, to test the speed potential of these drives, we needed a different testbed from our X299 build. This more latest testbed uses an MSI Godlike X570 motherboard with an AMD Ryzen 9 3950X CPU installed. We use the same 16GB of DDR4 Corsair Dominator RAM clocked to 3,600MHz, and the system employs an Nvidia GeForce RTX discrete graphics card, too.

PCI Express 4.0 speedsters tend to generate a lot of heat. If a drive has its own heatsink, we test it with the sink in place. If it lacks a heatsink, or just has a basic heat spreader, we test it using the testbed motherboard's own heat sink.

As of early 2023, companies are showing off their first consumer-level SSDs that support the latest standard, PCI Express 5.0—which offers maximum theoretical sequential read speeds in excess of 15,000MBps, about double the PCI Express 4.0 max. We will be upgrading our testbed and protocols to support the testing of PCI Express 5.0 SSDs in the near future.

External SSDs

We use two testbeds here. The first is the same system as our PCI Express 3.0 testbed (Asus Prime X299 Deluxe motherboard, Intel Core i9-10980XE processor, 16GB of DDR4 Corsair RAM, Nvidia GeForce RTX card). Depending on whether an external drive meets the near-ubiquitous USB 3.2 Gen 2 standard or supports the high-speed USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 version of USB, it is tested either attached to this motherboard's sole USB 3.2 Gen 2 USB Type-C port (a 10Gbps port) or to the 20GBps USB-C port on a USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 expansion card, made by Orico, that is attached to our main storage testbed.

(Credit: Molly Flores)

After we've run the tests defined below for external drives, we then format the drive to exFAT and run a couple of supplemental tests on a 2016 Apple MacBook Pro, testing over Thunderbolt 3 (if applicable) or USB Type-C. If the drive is a Thunderbolt 3-only drive, we run just the MacBook-based tests.

The Benchmarks: Internal SSDs

Here is a breakdown of the benchmark set we run on internal drives, whether M.2 "gumstick" drives or conventional 2.5-inch SATA internals. The drives are secure-erased between each run of the different tests.

PCMark 10 Storage

The main PCMark 10(Opens in a new window) Storage test from UL is an invaluable cutting-edge measure, providing a high-level view of how the drive will function under various everyday workloads, such as word processing and videoconferencing.

(Credit: UL)

For internal SSDs, we first run the drives through the PCMark 10 Full System Drive benchmark, which simulates 23 different "traces" (simulated tasks) in the course of the run. The traces flex the drive in ways that approximate launching Adobe-based creative programs, booting up Windows 10, copying files, launching popular games, and more.

(Credit: UL)

The overall score that PCMark 10 reports back represents how well a drive does throughout the entire PCMark 10 run. This score is the sanctioned score presented by UL's software at the end of each run. This score reflects a weighted average of the various activities that the PCMark 10 storage test simulates, a general indicator of how consistently a drive can perform through the 23 different usage scenarios.

It's a proprietary number, though, and is meaningful only when compared with scores of other, competing drives. That is where our reviews come in.

Getting Granular: Booting Windows 10 (PCMark 10 Trace)

We also dig into the more granular trace data that PCMark 10 presents. The first part of it we report is culled from the Windows 10 boot trace, which simulates a full operating-system startup procedure. The throughput number we report reflects how quickly the drive is able to feed the data required for that task set.

(Credit. Microsoft)

This and the following three PCMark 10-derived, trace-based tests represent a simulation of how quickly a drive is capable of feeding data when launching a particular program, copying files, or, in this case, booting Windows 10. PCMark 10 records how many megabytes per second the drive is practicing what are known as "shallow-queue 4K random" blocks of data (i.e., of the kind in which most applications, games, or operating systems are stored). While UL recommends using the overall "read/write MBps bandwidth" metric in these tests, we dug a bit deeper to include only random 4K bandwidth in order to paint what we believe is a more specific picture of how well a drive can perform in these tasks.

Game Launching Tests (PCMark 10 Trace)

Next we report data from PCMark 10's traces around game launching. This again reflects how quickly a drive can read shallow-depth small random 4K packages. Note that the "4K" we're talking about here is file-block size(Opens in a new window), not file size; 4K is one of the more commonly used file-block sizes for game installations, though that composition does depend on the title you're playing.

(Credit: Activision Publishing Inc.)

While the three games tested in PCMark 10 are stored primarily in small random 4K, tests from around the web have shown that MMORPGs can more often use the 16K block size, and some games in other genres may tend to employ larger block sizes, from 32K up to 128K. However, for the sake of these tests, 4K small random read is the most accurate block-size metric relevant to these three popular FPS titles: Battlefield 5, Overwatch, and Call of Duty: Black Ops 4. We again report the read throughput for this kind of file.

Adobe Launching Tests (PCMark 10 Trace)

Next is the set of results based on traces simulating Adobe-application launches. As anyone who works regularly in programs like Adobe Premiere or Photoshop can tell you, a constant pinch point is the time it takes for these programs to launch.

(Credit: Adobe)

Mind you, our results don't tell the whole story of how a drive will perform for all creative applications. Depending on the complexity of your work and the number of elements in a scene, your software may have to load 3D models, sound files, physics elements, and more; in other words, more than just the program. Still, this is nonetheless interesting fodder for folks who live and breathe these Adobe apps.

Copy Tests (PCMark 10 Trace)

Finally in PCMark 10, we report on PCMark 10's traces that simulate file-copy actions. While at first these numbers might look low compared to the straight sequential-throughput numbers achieved in benchmarks like Crystal DiskMark and AS-SSD (below), that's due to the way this score is calculated and the nature of and differences between the source data. If you're regularly moving files around on your drive from one folder to another, this test is a handy relative throughput measure.

Crystal DiskMark 6

Beyond PCMark 10, we also use the venerable Crystal DiskMark(Opens in a new window) utility for a second opinion on throughput. Crystal DiskMark's sequential-read tests measure read/write activity with data written in a large contiguous block on the drive, which is similar to how manufacturers themselves test drives to advertise their peak performance. These tests represent a "best case," straight-line scenario for file transfers.

(Credit: Crystal Dew World)

We also use Crystal DiskMark's 4K tests to measure random reads/writes, which reflect data activity in which the drive is fetching and writing scattered files and pieces of files across the drive. This is mostly just used as a reality check against the wealth of 4K read data culled from PCMark 10's traces.

3DMark Storage Gaming Benchmark

Gamers have long relied on 3DMark testing to benchmark their CPUs and GPUs. 3DMark Storage, introduced in late 2021, takes SSDs through their paces in performing a variety of gaming-related functions. It produces an aggregate score, combining traces of tasks from some popular AAA games. These include loading Battlefield V, Call of Duty: Black Ops 4, and Overwatch; recording a 1080p gameplay video at 60fps while playing Overwatch; installing The Outer Worlds from the Epic Games Launcher; saving game progress in The Outer Worlds; and copying the Steam folder for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.

(Credit: UL)

The Benchmarks: External SSDs

As noted, in testing we attach external SSDs to the native USB 3.2 Gen 2 port on our main Windows 10 testbed, and afterward (if relevant) to a Thunderbolt 3/USB Type-C port on our test MacBook Pro. With the Windows machine, we'll cite if a drive supports Gen 2x2 speeds and is attached instead to the expansion-card USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 port.

PCMark 10 Data Drive Benchmark

We're not done with PCMark 10 quite yet! The Data Drive Benchmark is a solid test to run on any drive you intend to use as a data archive or a backup drive, and typically takes between 10 and 30 minutes to run, depending on the drive type and its connection standard.

(Credit: UL)

Like the PCMark 10 Storage test, it runs through a host of trace-based activities to simulate typical daily drive activities for a secondary drive. The proprietary number it reports back is useful only when compared against other drives' PCMark 10 results.

Crystal DiskMark 6

For external SSDs, we run the Crystal DiskMark 6 test under the same parameters as for internal drives above (sequential read/write, and 4K read/write).

Blackmagic Disk Speed Test

With this and our next test, we move the drive, if compatible, over to our Apple MacBook Pro tester platform and reformat it into exFAT. We use the macOS-only Blackmagic Disk Speed Test(Opens in a new window) app from professional media firm Blackmagic Design (the makers of DaVinci Resolve) to perform this test. It reports back a drive's throughput in bits per second. This utility is typically used to discern whether a given drive has enough throughput to play back specific video formats smoothly. But it also returns some useful throughput measurements.

(Credit: Blackmagic Design)

Blackmagic offers both a read score and a write score, which we compare with those of other, similar drives. These scores are useful in discovering the theoretical maximum speed that a drive can achieve.

Folder Transfer Test

The final test for external drives is a drag-and-drop test, also performed on our MacBook Pro. It uses the macOS Finder to copy a 1.23GB test folder full of several different file types from the testbed's internal drive to the external SSD being tested. We hand-time the scores (in seconds).

The best Adobe After Effects alternatives offer powerful visual effects software - whatever your experience and budget. 

Long-considered one of the best VFX software solutions on the market, Adobe After Effects delivers Hollywood-grade special effects, motion graphics, and video compositing.