This alternative Kindle, called the DX, is a super-size version of the popular Kindle 2, which arrived earlier this year. It sports a 9.7-inch screen, some 2.5 times as big as the surface area of the Kindle 2’s 6-inch display. It also sports a higher price tag — $489, versus $359 for its smaller sibling, which remains on the market.

Amazon’s Kindle DX

Like previous models, the Kindle DX allows you to shop for, and wirelessly download, any e-book in Amazon’s (AMZN) growing catalog — now about 275,000 titles. It uses the same easy-on-the-eyes screen technology as the smaller model but at a higher resolution. It still lacks color, and renders images only in gray scale. But the new DX adds a new capability: auto-rotation, which allows you to read in landscape mode.

This new, larger model isn’t primarily aimed at readers of standard books. It is targeted at three markets: textbooks, newspapers and other periodicals, and business documents in either Microsoft’s (MSFT) Word format or Adobe’s (ADBE) PDF format.

Unfortunately, I’ve been testing the Kindle DX and I didn’t like it nearly as much as the Kindle 2, which I own and enjoy using daily. While it performs its promised tasks adequately, I found that its size and weight made it awkward and tiring to hold for long periods of reading. It’s still fairly thin and light, but it’s 85% larger and heavier than the standard Kindle.

In addition, Amazon has degraded the user interface. To prevent the device from being even larger, the company had to remove the left-side page-turning buttons, confining all the controls to a vertical strip on the right. The keyboard at the bottom is also more vertically cramped.

If you’re left-handed, you have to spin the device around and rotate the screen to get buttons on the left, where they appear with their labels upside-down.

Similarly, if you choose to read in landscape mode, all the navigation controls, including the joystick for moving the cursor, will be awkwardly placed at either the top or bottom, far from where your hands are holding the device, and the keyboard essentially will be unusable.

In my view, the Kindle DX would have been a better product with on-screen touch controls that could instantly adapt to its size and orientation.

In reading standard books on the DX, I also encountered instances where the text on a page varied in shade from light gray to black.

I had mixed results with business documents. As with previous Kindles, you can either email personal documents to your device, for a fee, or drag them onto the Kindle via a cable, for free. But, unlike the smaller models, the new DX has PDF display capability built in, so it renders PDF files much more accurately than the older Kindles. That is a big improvement. It also allows you to view Excel and PowerPoint files if you save them in PDF format before sending them to your Kindle DX.

The Kindle DX, right, is a large-screen version of the popular Kindle e-reader, left.

I tried a variety of documents, and in many cases the results were great. The text was crisp, and the tables and graphics looked like they should. But I found that on some of these PDF documents, the text was too small to read. Yet, the Kindle lacks the ability to zoom in on PDF documents. You often can make the type larger by rotating to landscape mode, but this splits the PDFs into multiple pages, sometimes breaking them awkwardly.

Also, Amazon has raised its fees for converting and delivering business documents via email to all Kindles. The charge was formerly 10 cents a document. Now, it’s 15 cents per megabyte, which can add up if you load up your Kindle with lots of large documents. Most of my test documents, which were fairly small, cost over $1 each.

Newspapers looked about the same on the DX as they do on the smaller Kindles. Despite the larger screen, they don’t use traditional print or Web layouts, but a special Kindle layout that some users like a lot, but which I find annoying because it makes it harder to quickly scan multiple headlines.

The Kindle DX does have some nice touches. For the extra money, you not only get a larger screen, but also about twice the storage capacity. Also, because the screen is wider, you can adjust the margins on the DX, to obtain a line length that’s comfortable for your eyes and optimal for reading speed.

Amazon claims the same multiday battery life for the DX as for the Kindle 2. In my tests, I was able to go for several days of moderate reading without recharging, and much more if I turned off the wireless capability.

Although I wasn’t able to test college textbooks, I suspect they may be the killer app for this product. Many already are so expensive and heavy they could make the weight and price of the Kindle DX seem trivial in comparison.

But for standard books, I’d stick with the smaller, more comfortable Kindle 2.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

These types of attacks are called “social engineering,” and they are used by criminals to steal your money and identity, and to plant on your computer malicious software that can be used to keep ripping you off. Social engineering is the online equivalent of an old-fashioned con game, in which a crook frightens people with false warnings, or tempts them with false promises, and then robs them.

While viruses and spyware overwhelmingly afflict Microsoft’s (MSFT) Windows users and spare users of Apple’s (AAPL) Macintosh computers, social-engineering schemes can ensnare Mac users as well. There’s nothing inherent in Macs that makes their owners more resistant to falling for social-engineering scams.

The most common form of social engineering is called phishing, a one-two punch using both email and Web browsing to trick people into typing confidential information into Web sites that look like the sites of real companies, especially financial institutions. But these phishing sites are actually skillfully designed fakes that transmit your sensitive data to criminals, often in distant countries. Once these creeps have your passwords and account numbers, they can loot your funds and steal your identity.

Here are some tips to help you avoid being the victim of social engineering, updated from a similar column I wrote in 2006. It includes information on some antiphishing software that wasn’t available back then. But remember: Security software alone can’t save you from scams.

1. Never, ever click on a link embedded in an email that appears to come from a financial institution, even if it’s your own bank or brokerage and even if it looks official right down to the logo. The same goes for payment or auction services, like PayPal or eBay (EBAY). Don’t do this even if the email asserts that your account has a problem, or that the bank has to verify your information. And certainly don’t enter any passwords, Social Security numbers or account numbers directly in an email.

These types of emails are almost always fakes, and the links they contain almost always lead to phony Web sites run by criminals. The only exception might be a confirmation email from a brokerage firm concerning a trade you know you made minutes before. Even legitimate-looking addresses in emails or in the address bar of Web browsers can be fakes that hide the crooks’ true Web addresses. The lock icon on a Web site can also be falsified.

If you are truly worried about your account, call the bank or company, or go to its Web site by manually typing in its address or by using a well-established bookmark in your browser that you created yourself.

2. Don’t click on links to offers for free software or goods that you receive in an email, especially from a sender or company you’ve never heard of.

3. Never download software from unfamiliar Web sites unless you are absolutely sure you need it and it’s legitimate. Even if it claims to be a useful program, it may very well be a malicious application like a “key logger,” which can report back to crooks everything you type into your computer. If you really want the program, do a Web search on it first, to see if others have reported it as a malicious fake.

4. If a Web site tells you that you need to download special viewing software to see its videos, don’t do it. Even if it claims to be giving you legitimate viewing software, like Microsoft’s Silverlight, Adobe’s (ADBE) Flash or Apple’s QuickTime, don’t download it there. Go to the official Microsoft, Adobe or Apple Web sites to get these viewers.

5. Use a Web browser, like Internet Explorer 7 on Windows, or Firefox 2.0 on Windows or Mac, that includes built-in features to warn you about, or block access to, known phishing sites. The next versions of these two browsers will have even stronger features that will detect sites that are not only fake, but which are known to distribute malicious software.

Unfortunately, the third major browser, Apple’s otherwise excellent Safari for Mac and Windows, lacks any such antiphishing detection, though I expect Apple to add the feature in a future version. So, for now, Mac users worried about phishing should rely on Firefox.

6. Consider security software that tries to detect and block phishing sites. McAfee’s (MFE) free Site Advisor and paid Site Advisor Plus products do a good job. Symantec (SYMC) has similar features built into its large security suites, Norton 360 2.0 and Norton Internet Security 2008.

7. Educate yourself by reading about social engineering and phishing and how to avoid being a victim. Microsoft has a very good guide at: microsoft.com/protect/yourself/phishing/identify.mspx and Symantec has one at: symantec.com/norton/clubsymantec/library/article.jsp?aid=cs_phishing.

Follow these tips and you’ll be a happier — and safer — surfer.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

• Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

So, last month, the photo giant introduced Photoshop Express, its free Web-based service for storing, sharing and editing photos, in an effort to compete with established online photo services such as Yahoo’s (YHOO) Flickr, Google’s (GOOG) Picasa Web Albums, or the photo-laden Facebook social-networking service.

Photoshop Express has many of the same features as Flickr and its ilk. It gives you two free gigabytes of photo storage. But Adobe is hoping to make its mark with editing.

Most online photo services offer little or no editing, assuming you’ll do that using software on your computer before you upload your pictures. But Photoshop Express, borrowing from Adobe’s deep knowledge of photo editing, offers the nicest set of Web-based editing tools I have seen. They are sophisticated for a consumer application, yet easy to use. They edge out those in Picnik, a pioneering Web-based photo editor I hailed last year.

These slick editing tools are not only available for use with photos you’ve uploaded from your hard disk. You can also use them to edit pictures stored in your accounts at Facebook, Picasa Web Albums and another big photo-storage service, Photobucket — all without leaving Photoshop Express. You can even move pictures between Photoshop Express and these three services just by dragging and dropping.

Adobe’s new service is available in the U.S. only, at www.photoshop.com/express.

I’ve been testing Photoshop Express and its service overall is pretty good, even though it’s still labeled “beta.” It’s a nice example of the Web 2.0 trend, where programs accessed via a browser can look and feel like applications that live on your computer.

But Photoshop Express is rough around the edges. It can be slow at times, and it’s missing some obvious features, like the ability to easily download publicly shared pictures from other members or to print photos. Adobe says it is working on these things.

Photoshop Express isn’t meant to replicate all the features and power of Photoshop. It’s more like a Web-based version of Photoshop Elements, Adobe’s consumer software package.

I tested Photoshop Express on multiple computers: PCs running Microsoft’s (MSFT) Windows XP and Windows Vista, and Macs running Apple’s (AAPL) Leopard operating system. I used it in all three major Web browsers: Internet Explorer for Windows, Firefox on both Windows and Mac, and Safari, also on both platforms. It worked fine in all of these operating systems and browsers, though it does require Adobe’s free Flash software.

For my tests, I uploaded from my computers dozens of photos, from very large images captured with good digital cameras to smaller shots from cellphones. All were handled perfectly by Photoshop Express. I also opened and edited pictures in Photoshop Express from my accounts on Picasa Web Albums and Facebook. All of this worked well, though uploads of large images can be slow if your Web connection is pokey.

Photoshop Express is a handsome product, presenting your photos on a gray background with controls and features arrayed at the top and bottom, and down the sides, in a logical, clear manner. Your own photos are presented in a section called “My Photos,” and can be organized into albums. Photos that other Photoshop Express users have chosen to publicly share are organized into collections called “Galleries,” which can include multiple albums. You access these community photos by simply clicking on “Browse” or performing a search.

For each album you create, you can choose to share it publicly or to keep it private. Whichever option you choose, you can email friends either a link for viewing the album or a single photo. Your own photos can be downloaded at a variety of resolutions, including original size.

When you view shared galleries or albums, they appear as slide shows. You can select a number of slick effects by which the slides appear, allowing them to zoom and glide into place from various directions.

The editing features really stand out. In addition to standard tools such as auto-correction and red-eye elimination, Photoshop Express lets you touch up areas; adjust exposure, saturation, and lighting; and even make certain colors pop — so grass is greener, for instance. And, in most cases, it shows you small example images illustrating the changes, then previews those changes in the larger main image just by moving your mouse over the example. You can revert to your original at any time.

Unfortunately, there are a number of problems. Photos, especially large ones, can take awhile to appear in the editing module and to snap into focus. Captions sometimes get lost or mixed up when you move photos to other services. You can view shared albums only as slide shows, not as individual photos.

Still, Adobe has made a good start with Photoshop Express, and it’s worth a try if you want better online editing for your pictures.

Email me at mossberg@wsj.com. Find all my columns and videos online, free, at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

The most tangible example of this new approach is Dell’s XPS One desktop — an elegant, handsome, cleverly designed one-piece computer. If it didn’t have the Dell logo on it, the XPS One might be mistaken for a product of the PC industry’s design leaders, Apple or Sony.

Like Apple’s iconic iMac, the XPS One looks like it’s simply a sleek, flat-panel monitor. The guts of the computer have been stuffed into the back of the screen.

But this new Dell is no mere iMac clone. It makes its own style statement, even though it shares the same 20-inch widescreen display and a similar Intel dual-core processor with the base-model iMac. Where the iMac is squarish and silver, the XPS One is all black and rectangular, with speakers attached to the sides and a wide glass base. It looks more like a small TV set than a computer and, in fact, comes with a built-in TV tuner.

In my tests, I found the XPS One to be much better designed and equipped than Gateway’s iMac competitor, also called the One. In fact, the Dell XPS One is the first Windows all-in-one desktop I’ve tested that I believe matches or exceeds the iMac in hardware design. That’s no small feat, especially coming from Dell.

Unlike the Apple, for example, the Dell has a built-in slot for camera memory cards. It comes standard with a wireless keyboard and mouse, which cost extra on the iMac. Its screen can be turned off with the touch of a button without turning off the computer itself. Its USB and headphone ports are arrayed conveniently on the side, instead of mainly at the rear, as on the iMac.

And, when you wave your hand in front of the black border to the right of the screen on the XPS One, a set of blue, back-lit touch controls magically appear for controlling the playback of music or video. They go away after a few seconds. The Dell also comes with a free year of 10 gigabytes of online backup.

For my tests, I used the least expensive standard configuration of the XPS One, which can be ordered for $1,499 at dell.com/theonepc. It came with two gigabytes of memory (twice the comparable iMac’s standard amount), a 250 gigabyte hard disk and Wi-Fi wireless networking, unusual in Windows desktops.

The computer performed crisply and well for me. I installed several popular third-party programs that weren’t included, such as Microsoft Office, the Firefox Web browser, Apple’s iTunes and Adobe Reader. All worked fine.

I also successfully tested the built-in TV function, which requires a cumbersome external attachment to work with a cable box. I was able to view and record TV shows, something you can’t do out of the box on an iMac.

I still recommend the iMac over the XPS One for several reasons other than hardware design. First, there’s the software. I believe Apple’s operating system, Leopard, is superior to the new Windows Vista operating system, the only choice on the XPS One. In my tests, a reboot of the XPS One took more than twice as long as a reboot of the iMac.

And I regard Apple’s built-in software, especially the iLife multimedia suite, as superior to the Dell’s built-in software, which includes a group of Adobe multimedia programs that are less well integrated and more complex.

The XPS One, unlike the iMac, also came with a bunch of craplets — trial software like Yahoo Music and come-ons for online services like NetZero.

Second, the iMac, unlike the Dell, is immune to the vast majority of malicious software floating around, so you don’t have to run annoying, memory-hogging security programs. The first time I turned on the beautiful Dell I was met with a warning that I had “multiple security problems,” and was led to install a security suite in a complex and tedious process.

Third, defying popular perception, the iMac costs less than the XPS One. The base, 20-inch iMac costs $1,199 — about $300 less. And even if you double the memory, and add a wireless keyboard and mouse to match the Dell, it’s still $1,399 — $100 less than the base XPS One (though Dell is currently running a sale that wipes out the $100 gap). Even the cheapest iMac has a dedicated video card with its own memory, something the base XPS One lacks.

Plus, while Dell offers only 20-inch screens on the XPS One, Apple has higher-end iMacs with huge 24-inch screens for the same price, or less, than the higher-end Dells.

Still, if you want a stylish Windows Vista machine that runs well and won’t cost a fortune, the XPS One fits the bill, despite its unlikely heritage.

• Email me at mossberg@wsj.com. Find all my columns and videos online free at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

Such Web-based software has existed for years, but it was clumsy, slow and simplistic — no match for locally installed software. Common techniques, such as dragging items around the screen, were impossible. Seeing the results of an action often required the Web page to reload.

Now, developers are churning out Web-based applications that are so fast, rich and smooth they can hardly be distinguished from standard programs. And because they live online, these Web applications can be constantly updated; can run on both Windows and Mac computers; and can be easily integrated with other Web sites and services.

One of the best examples of these slick new Web-based application is Picnik, a sophisticated, photo-editing application offered free of charge at picnik.com. I have been testing Picnik and I like it a lot. It’s a fast and impressive program for tweaking and improving your photos, then posting them to popular photo Web sites, saving them to your own computer, emailing them, or even printing them.

Picnik, which comes from a small Seattle company called Bitnik, isn’t meant to compete with Adobe Photoshop, or to serve professional photographers or dedicated hobbyists. Instead, it’s for the same casual photographer who would use the limited editing tools in Apple’s iPhoto or Microsoft’s Windows Vista Photo Gallery.

Picnik isn’t a place to store your pictures, or a way to organize them — yet. The company says it will consider adding these features down the road. For now, it is focused on being an editing complement to popular Web services — such as Yahoo’s Flickr, Google’s Picasa Web Albums, and the independent Facebook — that already allow for storing and organizing photos. You could also easily use it as the main editor for photos you store on your hard disk.

The program is currently in beta, or test, phase, though in my tests it worked smoothly and surely. During this beta period, all of its features are offered for free. Later this summer, the company expects to end the beta period and begin charging something like $20 or $25 a year for access to some of the more rarified special effects that Picnik offers, though the core editing and sharing functions, and some of the effects, will remain free.

In my view, Picnik has a beautiful and responsive user interface that worked perfectly on the multiple Windows and Macintosh computers I used to test it. It worked equally well in the latest versions of the three best-known Web browsers: Microsoft’s Windows-only Internet Explorer, Mozilla’s Firefox (on both Windows and Mac) and Apple’s Safari (on both Mac and Windows.)

Picnik uses a simple tabbed interface across the top to navigate among its major functions. Edits and changes are previewed in real time, instantly, without the need for a page refresh or reload. Actions are confirmed with translucent messages that pop up on the screen and fade gracefully.

Any edit or special effect can be undone or redone instantly, all the way back to the original version of the picture, which Picnik retains on its servers during the editing process.

For example, you can zoom in or zoom out on a picture with a slider that works just as it would in a local program — the effect is immediate, with no jerkiness. If you wish to crop a picture, a pane representing the region to be included in the crop is superimposed on the photo. Everything inside the pane is sharp and clear, and everything else is faded a bit. This pane can be dragged, or resized, in real time.

Another example: If you want to tint a picture, the program shows you a color palette with a white dot you can move around the palette to pick your tint. As you do this, or move a slider that controls the intensity of the tint, the changes are instantly previewed in the picture.

None of this is unusual for a standard photo program installed on your computer, but it is impressive to see these effects happen so quickly and interactively in a program functioning over an Internet connection.

Picnik’s makers have struck partnerships with Flickr, Picasa and Facebook, and you can easily fetch pictures from these sites and post new pictures or edited versions of the originals back to the sites. You don’t need to switch to the sites themselves, they appear inside the Picnik Web page.

You can also upload pictures for editing from any other Web site, or from your hard disk, and you can email pictures to friends or to a wide variety of other sites, such as PhotoBucket, SmugMug and Snapfish.

The designers of Picnik have done such an elegant job that I wish the site would allow storage of photos, or organization of photos across your multiple online accounts and your hard disk. If you want to see how good a Web application can be, take Picnik for a spin.

• Email me at mossberg@wsj.com. Find all my columns and videos online free at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

But how, exactly, does one make such a video? I’ve had multiple readers ask me about how I do mine, so I thought I’d explain the process. Because the Journal employs professional producers who help me, the method I use isn’t a purely amateur experience. But most of it is the same as what anyone could do at home. One look at my (ahem) production values confirms that. You can see for yourself at wsj.com/mossbergvideo.

My method is pretty simple. Shortly after writing the columns each week, I sit down in front of a computer with a built-in video camera and record the commentary using the free software that comes with the computer. Then, using the same software, I convert the movie into a format our Web producers can use and upload it to them. They add titles and insert footage of any products I’m discussing.

I have recorded most of these videos in my home office in Maryland, using a desktop computer. But when I am on the road, I have used a laptop in hotel rooms from Las Vegas to New York City to Munich. At home, I use a professional microphone supplied by our producers, but on the road, I just use the laptop’s built-in mic. And I don’t use any special lighting.

In both settings, but especially in hotel rooms, I make sure the parts of the room that get in the shot aren’t too messy or distracting. Nobody wants to see a used room-service tray in one of these videos.

So far, I have done all my videos on a Macintosh, either an iMac desktop or a MacBook Pro laptop, and I’ve used Apple’s built-in iMovie software — mostly because it is simple and reliable, and produces good videos despite unpredictable conditions. It also easily exports the videos into QuickTime files, an Apple format that our producers — who also use Macs — can easily use. YouTube can use this format, too, along with other formats.

Such videos could also be created on a Windows computer that has a camera and accompanying video software. I have tested this on a Hewlett-Packard Pavilion dv6000 laptop with a built-in camera, using the free Windows Movie Maker program in Windows XP. The videos recorded fine, and I was able to save them in Microsoft’s Windows Media Video format, which the Journal producers — or sites like YouTube — can use.

Unfortunately, on this particular H-P computer, I’ve had problems with the video and audio being out of sync, an obstacle I’ve never encountered on the Macs. But I assume that doesn’t happen on all, or even most, Windows machines.

My videos are very basic: It’s just me talking into the camera and occasionally holding up a product. I’m not moving around much, or including other people. I don’t usually record multiple takes, and I don’t have time to do editing. Because I don’t care much about production values, there are shadows and the sound is hardly perfect. But you could use the same hardware and software to make more elaborate videos with better lighting and sound. Both iMovie and Windows Movie Maker allow extensive editing, the use of video effects and the addition of titles and transitions.

You could also buy better video software. For instance, our producers in New York edit my videos using off-the-shelf Macs running a high-end Apple video program called Final Cut Studio, which costs $1,299. A simpler version, Final Cut Express, costs $299. On Windows, there are video programs like Adobe Premiere Pro, for $849, or the simpler Premiere Elements, for $99.

What if you want to use a digital camcorder or the video function of a digital still camera, to shoot your videos? Well, you can easily do that and just import your videos from the camera into your Mac or Windows computer using a cable and most video software.

After you’ve imported the video and saved it to your hard disk, you can either directly upload it to YouTube or another Web site or edit it first before uploading.

While my computers have built-in cameras, if yours don’t you can buy an add-on, such as the external iSight camera made by Apple. For Windows computers, Logitech and others make a variety of external cameras. If you use a Mac, I also recommend a small program called iGlasses, a terrific $8 utility that can tweak Apple cameras to compensate for poor lighting or to enhance images. It is available at www.ecamm.com.

Two other tips: Remember to look into the camera, not at the screen, so you don’t appear to be looking away from the viewer. And if you wear glasses, as I do, turn off the screen, so it doesn’t reflect in your glasses.

If I can make videos, so can you.

Email me at mossberg@wsj.com. See video versions of my reviews at wsj.com/mossbergvideo.

You know what I mean. You pull up a Web page, and you decide to print it out for easier reading, or for filing. But you wind up with one or more wasted pages, usually at the very end, consisting of mostly blank space with just one line of useless text — perhaps just a copyright notice. Or, you waste a lot of ink printing images on the Web page that aren’t germane to the article.

There are ways to minimize this. You could use the “printer friendly” option on many Web sites. That may eliminate some unwanted graphics and text, but not all, and it doesn’t solve the problem of the wasted page at the end. Or, you can use a print preview feature, hope the preview is accurate, and then manually try to adjust the range of pages printed. But this doesn’t always work and it’s time consuming.

Now, a start-up company in Portland, Ore., has come up with a software product that aims to solve the wasted-page problem. It’s called GreenPrint, and it automatically detects these unnecessary pages and eliminates them from your printouts. The company, GreenPrint Technologies, promises that its simple software not only will save you money on paper and ink, but also will help the environment by saving trees — thus, the name.

GreenPrint inserts itself between your Web browser (or any other program that prints) and your printer. It takes the form of a faux printer. You print to this virtual printer, called GreenPrint, as if it were real. Then, it analyzes the document, identifies and eliminates wasted pages, and hands the document off to your actual printer, which prints it.

The product also has some other nice features. It can save any Web page as a PDF file, which can be called up later in the free Adobe Reader program. It can also show you a detailed preview of a Web page, or any other document you’re printing, and allow you to manually eliminate pages from the printout.

GreenPrint costs $25 after a 14-day free trial (it goes to $35 after the holidays) and works only on Windows XP and Windows 2000 for now. A Macintosh version is planned for next summer. It’s available from the company’s Web site, printgreener.com.

I tested GreenPrint on two Windows computers. Each was connected to my home printer, an H-P DeskJet 5850 model, which automatically prints on both sides of the page.

In my tests, GreenPrint worked well, correctly identifying and eliminating wasted pages and properly creating PDF copies of Web pages. I tried it with both the Firefox and Internet Explorer Web browsers, and also with Microsoft Word, for non-Web documents.

After you install GreenPrint, it adds two new entries to your list of printers. One, called GreenPrint, is the virtual printer you use to eliminate the extra pages. The other, called GreenPrint PDF, is used to directly save Web pages and other documents as PDF files. GreenPrint doesn’t erase your actual printer from the Windows printer list. You can still select your regular printer and bypass GreenPrint, but you won’t get the benefits of GreenPrint. In fact, while it makes sense to make GreenPrint your default printer, you don’t have to do so.

GreenPrint can work automatically in the background. But, if you want to make sure it’s only eliminating unimportant pages, or if you want the opportunity to cull the printout manually, you should use its preview feature. This presents a very nice print preview, better than the one in the new IE 7 browser.

If you double-click on any page in this preview, it turns red and won’t be printed. You can also right-click on any page to have GreenPrint eliminate images or text before printing. From this preview screen, you can also save the document as a PDF file.

You can tweak how GreenPrint works. For instance, you can specify how few lines of text a page must display before it’s considered worthy of elimination. Or you can add or subtract other factors GreenPrint uses to decide if printing a page would be a waste, such as whether a page has nothing but a border, or nothing but a single image.

If you want, you can set the program to analyze and eliminate only the final page in a document, or to only display its preview if it finds a wasted page.

There are some rough edges, however, and the product is something of a work in progress. At first, GreenPrint wouldn’t allow my printer to print on both sides of the paper. I asked the manufacturer about that and the company quickly sent me a new version of the product that fixed the problem. GreenPrint also crashed several times in my tests after I changed configuration settings. The company says a new version that avoids those crashes will be available for download by the time you read this.

Overall, GreenPrint is a good product — a simple solution to an annoying and wasteful problem.

Email me at mossberg@wsj.com.

But this month, Sony is taking a new whack at the problem with a sleek, attractive $350 device called the Sony Reader. The Reader tries to take advantage of two developments since 1998: cutting-edge technology for improving screens and battery life, and the example of Apple Computer’s iPod and iTunes, which showed how a great gadget with strong software and abundant titles can create an end-to-end digital content solution that consumers will embrace.

The Reader can hold about 75 books at one time in its internal memory and can accept add-on memory cards to expand its capacity. In addition to books, the Reader can also store and display Microsoft Word documents, text files and Adobe PDF files, so you can take personal or work documents with you. It even works with music files and photos.

I’ve been testing a Sony Reader for about a week and have been evaluating not just the hardware itself, but the whole system. That includes the PC software that downloads and organizes the material and transfers it to the reader; and Sony’s new online electronic bookstore, where you can buy books for the reader.

My verdict is mixed. The Reader is a handsome device with a stunning black-and-white screen and terrific battery life. But it has some serious limitations. The software, called the Connect Reader, is simple and plain, but effective. The online bookstore, called the Connect eBook store, has only a modest selection compared with a physical bookstore and is hard to use.

The Reader itself is small, slim and light — about the length and width of a large paperback book, just a half-inch thick and about nine ounces in weight. It’s cloaked in a flexible black cover that folds back to reveal the screen and a handful of easy-to-use buttons.

The key feature of the Reader is its high-contrast, but low-power, six-inch screen, which is quite different from the screens on laptops. Unlike those power-hungry displays, the Reader uses a new technology called Electronic Paper from a Massachusetts company called E Ink. This screen needs no backlighting and consumes no power until you change what’s being displayed by electronically “turning a page.”

The contrast between the black text and the light-gray background isn’t as good as on a paper book, but it’s easy on the eyes and makes the Reader usable even in bright sunlight.

You can select from three text sizes for books and switch the screen between vertical or horizontal orientations.

Because it uses so little power, the Reader has strong battery life. Sony says the Reader can perform 7,500 “page turns” on a single battery charge. Most people could go days, even weeks, without having to recharge, unless they play a lot of music or view a lot of photos.

The Reader’s screen can’t display color and is only fair at graphics because it has just four levels of gray. So photos appear in gray, and titles that make heavy use of charts and graphics don’t display well. Also, it’s too easy to accidentally press buttons and land far from the page you were reading.

The electronic books cost less than print or audio versions. I bought Bob Woodward’s “State of Denial” from Sony for $13.59. Amazon.com charges $17 for the print and audio editions. In at least one of the books, George Orwell’s “1984,” which comes free on every Reader, I found typos that were inexcusable.

In my tests, Word documents looked OK, if not perfectly faithful to their layouts. But the Reader’s claim to display PDF documents proved hollow. In every PDF document I tried, the text was nearly unreadable and the text resizing feature of the Reader didn’t help. Sony concedes that PDF documents work well on the Reader only if they are created for the Reader’s screen size and resolution. But it includes no conversion software to make them fit.

Another big disappointment: The Reader lacks a bunch of features that would enhance the reading experience. You can’t enter notes, search inside books or documents, or look up words in a built-in dictionary. And while you can bookmark pages for later retrieval, you can’t highlight passages. Sony says it’s working on a future version of the Reader that can perform these tasks.

The Reader software was fine at organizing and transferring books, and at importing your own documents, music and photos to your PC, then transferring them to the device. But it doesn’t automatically synchronize material. The online bookstore is poorly organized and has an awful search function. Its 10,000 titles are only about 10% of what you’d find in a typical big bookstore.

Overall, I’d call the Sony Reader a good start — impressive in some ways, but clearly a work in progress. I enjoyed using it, but would advise all but hard-core ebook fans to wait for an improved version.

• Email me at mossberg@wsj.com.

The Finnish cellphone giant is introducing a phone called the E62 that resembles, and is aimed at, the Palm Treo, the latest BlackBerry phones from Research In Motion and the Motorola Q.

Nokia’s E62

Like those other smart phones, the E62 has a full keyboard and is actually a little computer that is meant to be a serious email device as well as a phone. Like the Q and the Treo, it can play music and videos, surf the Web, and display photos.

Unlike the Treo and the Q, however, the Nokia E62 can run a service licensed by RIM that allows it to behave like a BlackBerry. It can send and receive email using either a corporate BlackBerry server or a consumer BlackBerry service offered by a cellphone carrier.

I’ve been testing the E62 and I like it. It’s fairly utilitarian-looking and won’t likely become an object of desire like the Q and the Treo. But it gets the job done and may well be the best bargain in its category.

In the past, Nokia has relied on a smart-phone design that was a thick, long device that flipped open to reveal a wide, horizontally aligned keyboard and screen. That design sold OK in Europe but flopped in the U.S. Now, with the E62, Nokia is adopting the American-type design pioneered by the BlackBerry and used by the Treo and the Q.

Nokia is being coy about the timing, pricing and wireless carrier for the E62. But I expect it to be available late next month from Cingular Wireless. And I expect it to cost even less than the Q, which at $199 is the least expensive product in this group. The latest Treo models, the 700p and 700w, are being sold by Verizon Wireless for $299 right now, after rebates.

The E62 works on the so-called GSM cellphone standard that’s universal in Europe, and used by Cingular and T-Mobile in the U.S. This means it can be used in both America and Europe, as well as in some other countries. The Treo 700 models, sold by Verizon and Sprint, and the Q, sold only by Verizon, use an American technology called CDMA that doesn’t work in Europe or in most places outside the U.S.

However, that GSM technology also saddles the E62 with its biggest drawback: It is much slower at receiving data such as email and Web pages than the Q or the Treo 700, or even certain BlackBerry models. That’s because it uses EDGE, a GSM variant that has been blown away by a technology called EVDO used by the Treo 700 and the Q. In my tests, EVDO has been up to seven times as fast as EDGE.

The E62 also lacks a camera, unlike the Q and the Treo 700. But, like them, it has Bluetooth wireless technology.

Nokia has built in a sharp, vivid screen with a resolution of 320 by 240. That’s better than the resolution on the Treo 700w and identical to the Q’s screen resolution — but inferior to the resolution on the Treo 700p.

The new Nokia is a bit larger than the Q — wider, thicker, longer and heavier. But it’s thinner and lighter than the Treo 700, albeit a bit wider and longer.

In my tests, the voice quality of the E62 was very good. Battery life was decent, with a talk time of between four and 5.5 hours. The phone accepts memory cards for storage of files and applications.

The BlackBerry Connect service and software, likely to cost around $45 a month, worked well. After I installed the BlackBerry software on the new Nokia and configured the service on the E62 and on an accompanying Web site, the service “pushed” all emails from my regular account to the E62 reliably. There’s no limit to how much email you can receive, though the carrier may intervene if it believes you are abusing the service.

The only downside of the BlackBerry Connect feature is that there’s a noticeable latency when you open an email before it displays on the screen.

In my tests, the N62 could open most major email attachment types, including Word documents, Excel spreadsheets and Adobe PDF files. It’s also supposed to work with PowerPoint presentations, but in my tests, this function failed.

The user interface on the E62 isn’t nearly as fast or slick as on the Palm operating system used by the Treo 700p. But I preferred it slightly over the Windows Mobile operating system used on the Treo 700w and some other smart phones. There were still too many menus and extra steps compared with the Palm system, but at least you can delete an email with one click. Turning on the speaker phone was also quick and easy.

I was able to synchronize the E62 with Microsoft Outlook, and bring over my contacts and calendar, using the separate Windows software that comes with the phone. And I was able to load up the memory card with pictures and songs from my computer and use them successfully on the E62.

All in all, the E62 is a solid and inexpensive smart phone.

• Email me at mossberg@wsj.com.