But while Adobe provides a free reader for viewing PDFs, creating PDFs yourself can be costly and confusing, even though the format is great for saving and sharing documents of almost any kind including images, Web pages, Word documents and emails. For users who want higher-end PDF creation and collaboration software, Adobe Systems Inc. offers its $450 Adobe Acrobat 8 Professional software program. But that’s pricey for most casual users. So this week I tested some inexpensive or free methods for making PDFs.

Converting documents into PDFs is simplified with Adobe’s online service (top) and Docudesk’s deskPDF program (bottom).

There are plenty of Windows programs available for download online that will help you create basic PDFs. On Windows computers, I tried three programs, starting with the $20 standard version of deskPDF from Plano, Texas-based Docudesk Corp. (www.Docudesk.com). I tested a stripped-down and less-expensive version of Adobe’s program called Create Adobe PDF Online, which works by uploading your document at www.CreatePDF.com and costs $10 monthly or $100 annually. And I also used a free program called CutePDF from Acro Software Inc. (www.CutePDF.com).

If you own a Mac, things are even simpler. Macs come out of the box with the ability to turn documents into PDFs, and I tested that function as well.

DeskPDF and CutePDF worked roughly the same way, though deskPDF costs $20 and CutePDF is free. Adobe’s less-expensive program offered a few more features than deskPDF and CutePDF, such as the ability to add password encryption to a document or to make it unprintable by others. Making PDFs on the Mac was a cinch, including options to compress or encrypt a PDF. None of these methods allowed me to add extra features to PDFs like bookmarks and hyperlinks; for that, you’ll need a more serious program.

When Microsoft’s Office 2007 program shipped early this year, many people expected that it would have the built-in ability to save documents in PDF format; it didn’t. Users can find a patch that fixes this on Microsoft’s Web site.

Apple’s operating system has long been known for the ease with which it can create PDFs using built-in tools. Put simply, any document that can be printed from a Mac can also be turned into a PDF. Users follow the normal steps necessary to print a document or Web site (usually File, Print), but can choose a button on the Print screen labeled “PDF” that converts the document.

In seconds, I turned all types of documents on my iMac into PDFs, including images in JPEG and TIF formats, emails, Word documents and Web sites. This last conversion was helpful for saving not just a view of the current screen, but the entire site from the top of the page to the bottom.

Options labeled “Compress PDF” and “Encrypt PDF” can be chosen in this Print screen. I chose Encrypt PDF and protected a PDF using a password in one quick step. The option to compress a PDF will decrease the size of an image in a document, but won’t decrease the size of a text-only document.

Two of the three Windows programs use a method similar to Apple’s, letting me send documents or Web sites into print mode and converting them into PDFs. Downloading and installing deskPDF or CutePDF adds a virtual printer driver to the computer. Rather than choosing a separate button labeled “PDF,” the conversion program is selected from a list of printers, and hitting the Print button saves the document as a PDF file. The first time I did this, I thought my document was printed rather than saved because a printer icon appeared in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen, as if the document was printing. But a screen appeared asking where I wanted to save the new PDF, and I specified a location.

Docudesk offers free 24-hour technical support with all of its deskPDF programs, even trial versions. The company also touts its $40 deskUNPDF program, which restores PDFs to Word documents for editing purposes, one of the features also found in Adobe’s $450 product.

CutePDF writer and deskPDF must be used with separately installed converter programs, but these are small and free, and their installation is prompted after each of the core programs is downloaded. Both programs are also offered in upgraded versions that cost $50 for CutePDF Pro and $30 for deskPDF Pro, enabling advanced features like hyperlinks, encryption, password protection and printing restrictions.

Adobe’s Create Adobe PDF Online program offers a few more features than the others, but feels a bit disconnected because it uploads documents to the Web for PDF conversion rather than converting documents in an installed program.

An option called Create Adobe PDF Online Printer installs a printer driver on your PC, like deskPDF and CutePDF. But this saves your PDF online forcing you to retrieve it via Adobe’s Web site, an emailed link or an emailed attachment.

After registering to use Adobe’s online conversion product, users must select the file or Web page intended for PDF conversion. Security features are optional with each document, such as requiring a password to view it or not allowing others to print it. I tried both successfully. Once converted, a document can be delivered to you via email in a link or attachment. It can also be retrieved from a Conversion History section on the site or converted directly on the site.

Most of these conversion programs are available in some free capacity. DeskPDF can be used five times free of charge in the standard and professional versions before it starts adding a watermark to each PDF, which is intrusive. Adobe’s program can be used five times for each email that you register before you must subscribe to its conversion service.

If you need to save a document in a format that has the greatest likelihood of being viewable by all of your recipients, PDFs are the way to go, and they aren’t difficult to make.

Edited by Walter S. Mossberg

• Email: MossbergSolution@wsj.com

This week, I tested three such replacement options: two keyboard sets that operate wirelessly using Bluetooth — the replacement for wires running short distances — and a stand-alone wired ergonomic keyboard made for touch typists who value comfort during long hours in front of a computer screen.

Top left: $150 Logitech Cordless Desktop MX 5000 Laser. Top right: $65 Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000. $150 Microsoft Wireless Entertainment Desktop 7000.

The two wireless sets I used are Microsoft Corp.’s Wireless Entertainment Desktop 7000, which came out just a few months ago, and Logitech Inc.’s comparable but older Cordless Desktop MX 5000 Laser, which has been available for about a year and a half. Each costs $150. These keyboards have built-in shortcuts that make them handy to use on or off the desk when browsing through digital media like photos, videos and music.

I also tried Microsoft’s wired $65 Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000. It incorporates some shortcut buttons of its own, but stands out more because of its appearance: its keys are split into two groupings for right and left hands and each side slants upward in the center around an arch, forcing your hands to rest more naturally as if positioned to shake. The keyboard comes with a detachable wrist rest that raises your wrists a third of an inch above the rest of the keyboard.

Each product brought something slightly different to the table: The ergo offers comfort and functionality; the wireless Logitech has a multifunctional mouse and a keyboard with a built-in LCD; the wireless Microsoft shows off a sleek look and 17 touch-sensitive buttons. As a touch typist, I preferred Microsoft’s Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 for its hand-relaxing setup and 13 shortcut buttons. I’m using it now to type this column, and my fingers have less distance to go before reaching a key than on a regular keyboard.

The basic functions of these keyboards/keyboard sets work out of the box on Mac and Windows operating systems, but their extra features work only after installing included or downloaded software, and neither the wireless Microsoft set nor the Logitech set will work on a Mac, period. Both companies claim that these products will work with Windows Vista, Microsoft’s newest operating system, but the ergonomic keyboard’s extra bells and whistles didn’t work properly on my Vista laptop.

I easily got the wireless Logitech and Microsoft keyboard sets communicating with their corresponding Bluetooth receivers on PCs and laptops. I pressed a Connect button on the base of each set’s mouse and keyboard before pressing the same button on the USB Bluetooth receiver and a few seconds later, I was in business.

The Microsoft and Logitech wireless desktops use USB plug-in Bluetooth receivers to connect the computer with the mouse and keyboard. Both mice operated on rechargeable batteries and must be docked occasionally for recharging, which is annoying — especially if you’re forgetful. But each will fully recharge in two hours, giving two and three weeks for the Logitech and Microsoft mice, respectively. Both mice get enough juice for a full day of usage after charging for 10 minutes.

Both keyboards use regular keys and a series of touch-sensitive buttons that work when you hover your finger over the intended button and touch it very slightly. Logitech’s touch-sensitive media buttons are relegated to the far left of its keyboard, including zoom and volume buttons that adjust with a finger flick up or down. Microsoft’s touch-sensitive keys line the entire top edge of its keypad.

Logitech’s wireless keyboard is about two inches wider than Microsoft’s, and for good reason: the Microsoft keyboard lacks a numeric keypad on its far right side, a feature that I missed. In place of the keypad are a set of directional buttons that mimic the basic functionality of a mouse. These let you push back from your desktop to browse digital photos while leaving your mouse on the desk yet still taking advantage of some of its functions.

The Logitech Cordless Desktop MX 5000 Laser keyboard uses a built-in LCD at the center top of its keyboard. This screen reflected the keyboard’s synching with my computer: it displayed my name, the date and the time. When I played music, the artist and song title scrolled across the screen. This could come in handy if you planned to constantly use the keyboard away from the PC. But in most cases, the content on the LCD wasn’t that helpful, and seemed repetitive of what was on the computer screen.

The Logitech mouse is sculpted to fit a hand and it offered more buttons for scrolling and navigation than the Microsoft set’s mouse. To recharge, this mouse fits upright in a stand. Microsoft’s wireless mouse recharges by lying flat on a recharging strip.

I used Microsoft’s Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 with my desktop computers at work and in place of a small laptop’s squished keyboard. Its arched center and split keys took a little getting used to, but I was soon hooked. A special feature in the center of the keyboard called the Zoom Slider lets you zoom in or out to adjust the view of a screen. This worked for me in Microsoft Word documents, but not in Outlook Express or within Firefox’s browser.

Five large, numbered buttons at the center top of this ergo keyboard are called My Favorites, and I programmed them with ease by pressing one and entering the desired destination, including folders, browsers, or specific Web sites.

But typing on this keyboard really won me over. Its split setup won’t work for everyone, but for touch typists, it’s truly more comfortable. I typed away with ease using my right and left fingers, and keys felt closer together due to their inward-tilting shape. I noticed that I made fewer mistakes typing on this keyboard than on a regular keyboard.

If you spend a lot of time at a computer each day, you may want to consider one of these keyboards or keyboard sets for better ergonomics and production. It takes a little while to get used to using keyboard shortcuts for things like music and photos, but these can be real time-savers. Whatever you choose, know that there are other options out there beyond what came with your computer, and that they’re usually worth the extra money.

Edited by Walter S. Mossberg

• Email me at MossbergSolution@wsj.com. Find these columns online for free at the new All Things Digital Web site: solution.allthingsd.com.

To many of us, the Internet is an essential part of our daily lives, whether we’re communicating by email, chatting via instant messaging or surfing the Web for research or entertainment. But to some friends and family who don’t own computers or aren’t comfortable going online, the Internet can come off as a club that pulls its users closer together while causing others to feel left out.

For the analog grandfather who wishes he could see the digital vacation photos that everyone else in the family emails to one another, or the beloved aunt who just can’t or won’t get an email address, one company thinks it has a solution: turn emails and digital photos into paper documents, automatically, without a computer.

The Presto service offers a way for users to receive emails without having a computer: by printing them out. www.presto.com.

This week, we tested a new service called Presto that works with a special Hewlett-Packard printer called the Printing Mailbox. After setup, the user is assigned a Presto.com email address to which friends and family send text emails or photos. But the owner of this gadget doesn’t need a computer, and never has to go online to retrieve emails. The Printing Mailbox automatically and periodically dials into the Internet using a regular phone line, retrieves all messages sent to it — including photos — and prints them out.

Hewlett-Packard Co.’s Printing Mailbox costs $150. The accompanying Presto service (www.presto.com) from Presto Services Inc. costs about $10 monthly or $100 annually. The printer doesn’t work without Presto, making it useless if you stop the service.

The Presto plan includes optional free subscriptions to various articles and puzzles, which print out in addition to any emails that you receive. You set up and manage the account via a Web site accessed from a computer, a task intended to be performed on the owner’s behalf by a friend or relative.

Overall, we liked Presto and the H-P Printing Mailbox. It has some room for improvement, but it does an excellent job of emphasizing simplicity, and providing a way for the computer-phobic to feel part of the online community.

But the system has one major drawback: It’s a one-way street. The owner of the device can receive emails but can’t email back. The printer has no keyboard, and can’t scan in typed or written notes that might be converted into emails and sent to others.

The idea of bringing email to those without computers has been tried before. For years, EarthLink sold a simple two-way device called the MailStation. This small tabletop gadget included a bare-bones screen and keyboard and also used a dial-up connection to automatically receive and send email. But EarthLink stopped making the MailStation.

To get started with Presto, we took 10 minutes setting up the Presto account, doing so as if the Printing Mailbox were going to be used by someone else. This process designated us as the account managers and asked us to choose a username and password that let us log in to the account from any computer. Another step suggests setting up dial-in and printing schedules; we chose 9 a.m., 3 p.m. and 9 p.m. Print size can be preselected as medium, large or larger — a feature that helps older users with poor eyesight.

We entered our credit-card information and created an email address. This address will receive messages only from those whose names and emails are added to a list so as to prevent spam or unwanted email.

Finally, we scanned a list of optional subscriptions before choosing a few, including a weekly health column; a daily Sudoku puzzle; and a Dave Barry humor column that comes out each Sunday. Other optional categories included food and recipes, arts and entertainment and travel.

We unpacked our printer, plugged in its power and phone cords, inserted its included ink cartridge and loaded 50 sheets (the maximum amount) of paper. We never had to turn it on or off; the printer automatically dialed into Presto the first time its phone cord was connected. Unlike a fax machine that audibly dials, the Printing Mailbox works silently until it churns out a message, pleasantly chiming to indicate new messages.

Even though we receive many emails on a daily basis, the sound of the Presto chimes had us up and dashing to the printer to see which friend or family member had sent us something and what it was. The Printing Mailbox prints embedded or attached photos but not attached Microsoft Word documents — a feature Presto may add in the future. The photos looked good, even on basic white paper. Users could insert photo paper for printing, as long as it was the same 8½” by 11″ size.

By default, an attractive pale green border printed around each personal email, with the subject line prominently centered at the top of the page. The Presto account manager can set the style for all printouts, such as Birthday or Wedding. Or anyone sending email to a Presto user can go to Presto.com to select an email style. Each style has a designated code that, when used in the subject line, produces the printed template for the receiver. We tried this by labeling a subject line as “Hi Walt [Presto YellowWave]” and the printout had a pale yellow design on its top and right edges.

The printer itself is handsome with a shiny white patina and the cartridge and loaded paper hidden from view. It has just three buttons: stop, volume up and volume down; the notification chimes can be adjusted to one of six noise levels. Holding stop while pressing the volume up button twice forces the printer to dial in and check for mail, a handy feature if you can’t wait to receive something.

The printer and its ink cartridges can be ordered through the Presto.com site. They cost $25 for a cartridge that will print about 330 pages and $35 for a 580-page cartridge. The printer’s ink level can be monitored from the Web site, letting the account manager order more ink when necessary.

The Presto service and its accompanying H-P Printing Mailbox offer a simple and relatively affordable way for friends and family to feel included in the otherwise intimidating environment of email. We wish Presto offered a way for recipients to respond, but this service might be just enough for its target audience.

Email: MossbergSolution@wsj.com

For the blind and visually impaired, technology has been helpful in many ways. Software can dictate the text on a computer screen, and advancements in voice recognition have made it possible to navigate a computer more easily.

But, for reading printed documents, like magazines, menus and mail, many blind and visually impaired people must still rely on other people to read to them, or must use large, deskbound reading machines that do nothing to allow reading while on the go. These dependencies are affecting more and more people, as aging Boomers confront diseases like macular degeneration and the effects of diabetes on eyesight.

The $3,495 Kurzweil-National Federation of the Blind Reader takes digital pictures of text and reads them out loud. www.knfbreader.com.

Starting this month, there’s a new portable gadget for the blind that permits them to “read” printed documents anywhere, at home or away, without the aid of sighted people. This gadget takes a digital picture of a page of text, and then reads it aloud to the blind person, either through a speaker or through earphones. It’s called the Kurzweil-National Federation of the Blind Reader, and we’ve been testing it.

We aren’t blind or visually impaired, so we can’t presume to speak for people who are. But we do know gadgets, and we were able to test the new Reader on different printed documents to see how well it did.

Our verdict: The K-NFB Reader was remarkably effective on a wide variety of documents, and would be a real boon to anyone who is blind or has seriously failing eyesight. It isn’t perfect — it can get confused by highly stylized text, or by illustrations embedded in text, for instance. It’s a bit bulky. And, at $3,495, it’s quite expensive. But it works.

The Kurzweil-National Federation of the Blind Reader was released on July 1. It is the result of a collaboration between the Kurzweil Foundation and the NFB, and it might be the closest a blind person can get to reading without using Braille.

The K-NFB Reader consists of two digital devices, connected electronically and surrounded by a synthetic case, plus special software that performs the scanning and reading aloud.

It is made up of a personal digital assistant, or PDA, stuck to a digital camera. The camera captures the image of a document, then sends that image to the PDA, which uses software to translate and read aloud the document in just 30 seconds.

We tested this device with magazine and newspaper articles, printed Microsoft Word documents, bills, junk mail and books. The results were impressive, and with a little patience and practice, we think the K-NFB Reader can be truly liberating for the blind. But it definitely takes some getting used to.

The reader consists of two digital devices, connected electronically and surrounded by a synthetic case.

It’s obvious that this reader can get even smaller and better in the coming years. The foundation and the federation are already looking into whether the reader’s functionality can be replicated on a cellphone with a built-in camera.

The digital camera used in this first version of the reader is a Canon SD20, which goes for about $200 online; the PDA is a lesser known product here in the U.S. — the Fujitsu-Siemens LOOX N560, priced at around $600 on the Web. But the total cost for the K-NFB Reader is a stunning $3,495.

The companies explain that this is the list price and that the software makes up a huge chunk of the cost. We certainly can’t put a price on a blind person’s new ability to “read,” but this seemed a little steep to us.

The PDA and camera are directly connected electronically (no cable is needed) and its casing covers the slots for your camera battery and PDA SD card. Altogether, the Reader only weighs about 12 ounces, making it portable for everyday use.

The included 1-gigabyte memory card stays in the PDA, not the camera, and is estimated to hold about 900 pages of documents. The camera battery and PDA battery must each be charged; the NFB estimates the camera battery will last for about 100 images and the PDA battery for about six hours of normal use.

The PDA has a large, 3.5-inch screen, which, logically, never displays anything as you use the device. Below the screen, four buttons surround four directional up, down, left and right buttons; these surround one center select button. The Reader’s directions instructed us to treat the four outer buttons as F1, F2, F3 and F4, though they aren’t labeled as such.

To turn on the device, you press F1 and then F2. Pressing the F2 button lets you scroll through three modes: User Settings, Shooting Mode and Document Reader, each with its own menus. The device speaks the name of each function and menu as you select them, so a blind person knows what he or she is doing. The device also comes with directions in Braille and regular print, and they were pretty straightforward.

The Reader can be set in one of two modes for reading: books, articles and labels; or bills and memos. We kept ours in the former category for most of our testing.

We started off testing the Reader with a simple Word document. We followed instructions, holding the device up near our eyes. Pressing the up arrow gave us a “field of view report,” or an audible description of what the camera saw on the table in front of us, like “Left, right and bottom edges visible.” The best view description is announced as, “Portrait view” or “Landscape view,” and you’ll want to press the down arrow to capture your image as soon as you hear this.

The reader can be set in different modes: books, articles and labels; or bills and memos.

It takes a few tries to get a hang of how to position the Reader. But thanks to the detailed description, you can usually figure out which way to move the Reader to view the document at the best angle.

When we pressed the down arrow to take a picture, a voice announced “Taking picture,” “Preprocessing picture,” and then “Processing image.” If the device is idle for more than three minutes (by default), it will announce, “Auto shutdown is turning the system off, goodbye.”

After 30 seconds of processing, the device’s voice started reading the text from our Word document without a problem. However, it had trouble reading articles that started with an extra-large, graphical first letter, a style found in many magazines and newspapers (like this column). For example, if the first word in a story was “Walt,” the Reader would say, “W” and “alt,” pronouncing the “W” and “alt” as two separate words. Sometimes it would skip the large first letter.

Articles that were written in column form were handled without much problem; when the Reader got to the bottom of one column, it started at the top of the next. But illustrations positioned in the center of a block of text posed a problem; in one case, the Reader read a cartoon illustrator’s signature, in another, it interpreted squiggles in the drawing as apostrophes or dashes or even letters.

When used for a page in a hardcover book, our Reader did a good job, though we doubt anyone would use this for hundreds of pages.

Katie tried the reader on a box of over-the-counter pills to see if it might accurately identify its contents, and the directions, for a blind person. The gadget was able to read smaller print, such as the “Just one tablet per dose” warning. But the largest text on the box — the product’s name — wasn’t recognized, nor was the name of its manufacturer. Both words were written in more stylized text, which we guess gave the Reader trouble.

One downside of this first version is that the reader’s voice is robotic and flat, with little or no inflection, but the Kurzweil Foundation notes that many blind people are used to this robotic voice because it has been used on other products in the past. Even when the reader captured all of the words, it sometimes pronounced them strangely, or incorrectly, such as pronouncing “reading” as “redding” and “cool” as “see all.”

On Tuesday, a new version of the software will allow users to choose a more human-sounding playback voice. We tested this, but didn’t find it to be a big improvement. It’s still pretty robotic.

Documents can be saved on your Reader according to the current date, and special audio files called Voice Notes can be used to tag each document. We tried this and easily recorded a Voice Note describing one of our documents, later linking the note to our document by pressing F3.

If you take the time to learn how to use the Kurzweil-National Federation of the Blind Reader, we think you’ll be very pleased with the results. This gadget, though expensive, is simple to use and works quickly. It also does a good job of explaining its processes to the user, so he or she knows what is happening on the gadget at all times.

For someone who can’t see, the K-NFB Reader might offer a huge lifestyle change.

• Email: MossbergSolution@wsj.com.

When it comes to smartphones that have a full keyboard and good email capability, Palm’s fast-selling Treo is the best. New devices are constantly being announced in hopes of becoming the “Treo killer.” Most of these challengers use Microsoft’s Windows Mobile software, formerly called Pocket PC, which was designed to evoke the Windows computer experience on a hand-held device.

None of these Microsoft-based devices has gained much traction, however. The most notable entry so far has been a hybrid gadget — a Treo that uses the Windows Mobile software, the 700w. But this model is mostly aimed at the computing staffs of big companies, who rigidly favor Microsoft products. For individual users, Palm still offers the Treo 650, which uses the Palm operating system and will soon be replaced by a newer Palm-based model capable of running on faster networks.

This week, we tested two of the latest Microsoft-based, would-be Treo killers: T-Mobile USA’s $400 MDA and Sprint Nextel Corp.’s $600 PPC-6700. (Both cost less when purchased with service plans.)

These new email phones have some very nice hardware features. But they suffer when compared with the Treo because of their Windows Mobile software, which often requires more clicks and greater menu navigation to get simple things done than the Palm-based Treo does.

Sprint PPC-6700 by Sprint Nextel Corp. $599.99. www.sprint.com.

The two devices are nearly identical. In fact, they’re really the same core device made by the same Asian manufacturer, HTC Corp. Sure, there are various small physical differences between the two, such as their different styluses and navigation buttons. But they both offer the same two striking features: a generous 2.8-inch color LCD screen that can switch automatically from portrait to landscape view; and a full QWERTY keyboard that slides out from behind this screen. Like the Treo, each offers Bluetooth short-range wireless networking. Unlike the Treo, they also offer Wi-Fi wireless networking.

The biggest difference is in their speeds over cellphone networks, and it’s a major distinction. Like the Windows-based Treo, and the forthcoming new Palm-based Treo, Sprint’s PPC-6700 works on an EV-DO network, a high-speed wireless broadband connection comparable with that of a home DSL line. T-Mobile’s MDA offers only EDGE, a drastically slower alternative that constantly reminded us that we were using a pokey mobile device, rather than a home computer.

The two devices have physically bigger screens than the Treos. But while their resolution — how much material they can display — is better than that of the Treo 700w, it’s actually less than on the Treo 650. The new contenders have much larger, roomier keyboards than the Treo does.

We tested most of the features in both devices without much trouble, synchronizing digital photos, Word documents, Internet Explorer Favorites and music files from a Dell desktop computer to each. Both have built-in 1.3-megapixel digital cameras, like that found on the Treo 700w, and the photos that we snapped around the office turned out surprisingly well. We sent them off in emails with a few simple steps.

We used each smartphone to place calls, and immediately noticed another deficiency compared with the Treo. Because the keyboards on these new models are typically hidden when the phones are held vertically, you are forced to tap soft keys on the screen to dial a phone number. With the Treo, the keyboard, which includes number keys for dialing, is always available.

The Sprint felt bulkier and more rectangular when held up to our ears compared with the T-Mobile MDA, which has more rounded-off edges. Their specs say that these two share roughly the same dimensions (about 4″ by 2″ by 1″), but the MDA’s tapered edges give it a better feel in your hand. The T-Mobile is also lighter than the Sprint, 5.29 compared with 6.1 ounces, respectively.

T-Mobile MDA by T-Mobile USA. $399.99. www.t-mobile.com

After sliding the full keyboard out, the screen view on each of the smartphones automatically switched to horizontal view for use with the keyboard. We preferred this view for Web browsing, as it offered a wider screenshot for each Web page and made it easy to type in new Web site addresses, using the keyboard.

We also tested email, which worked OK, though it was very slow on the T-Mobile device and we found the email software to be limited and clumsy compared with the Treo’s.

But it was difficult to use Windows Mobile on either device as we walked around or stood in a crowded subway. Many commands seemed to take multiple steps, and many of them required the use of the stylus, which was a pain to get out so often. By contrast, the Palm-based Treo has been engineered for minimum steps and one-handed use, with the stylus rarely required.

For instance, you can delete an email on the Palm-based Treo with just one keystroke. But, in Windows Mobile, you have to open a menu, and hit “Delete” — two keystrokes. Those extra motions really add up if you’re clearing out a lot of messages. And there are similar extra steps all over the interface.

T-Mobile’s MDA has two handy one-touch buttons at the top of its screen: one for mail and another for Internet Explorer. The Sprint didn’t have a direct access button for mail, and its Internet Explorer one-touch button was poorly positioned on the side, where we accidentally turned it on a few times — especially while sliding the keyboard back in.

Using the T-Mobile’s EDGE Internet access, it took our device a full 50 seconds to pull up the Journal’s home page, WSJ.com. The same page came up in its entirety using the Sprint PPC-6700’s EV-DO connection in only 25 seconds.

If you’re wowed by the larger screen, or need the roominess of the slide-out keyboard, these devices might appeal to you. But the T-Mobile MDA is slow; and the Sprint PPC-6700, while quite fast, is hampered by a bulky design and oddly placed navigational buttons. Both suffer from the extra steps, and frequent stylus use, dictated by their Windows software. On balance, neither of these devices offers the form and functionality of the Treo 650.

• Email: MossbergSolution@wsj.com

Just a couple of months ago, in this column, we proclaimed that Apple Computer’s iMac G5, then the company’s flagship Macintosh desktop computer for consumers, was the best consumer desktop PC on the market. In fact, we called it the “gold standard” of desktop PCs and said no desktop from the major makers of Windows-based computers could match it.

Last week, in a surprise move, Apple gave the iMac a brain transplant. It chose the iMac as the first Macintosh model to be converted to work on the same Intel processors used by makers of Windows PCs, rather than the PowerPC processors from IBM that have powered Macs for many years. This was serious surgery to perform on the company’s star product and launched the planned transition to Intel much sooner than originally expected.

Apple’s new Intel-powered iMac.

Apple says it changed chips because Intel’s latest processors are faster and run cooler, and allow for more flexible and creative computer designs in the future. It says the new iMac is two to three times as fast as the old one, mainly because the Intel Core Duo chip it uses packs in the equivalent of two processors.

But there’s a downside. Nearly all existing third-party software for the Mac, including major programs like Microsoft Office, will have to be rewritten to run on the Intel processor — a process that is under way but will take months to complete. Apple had to build into the new model special, invisible, translator software that allows the older programs to run on the new chip in the meantime. This translator software, however, doesn’t work with every program and can slow down the ones it does work with.

So, how did the brain transplant go? Is the new Intel iMac as good as its predecessor? Does the machine’s raw power offset the translation slowdown?

To find out, we’ve been testing an Intel-based iMac against an iMac G5 only about a month old. The two machines look identical and sport nearly identical features. The major differences are hidden under the hood.

For days, we ran a wide variety of software on the two iMacs, and performed all of the common tasks mainstream consumers do — surfing the Web, emailing, instant messaging, word processing, using spreadsheets, editing photos, playing music, managing personal finances, playing simple games.

Our verdict: The brain transplant was a success. The two machines behaved almost identically in our tests. Compatibility is excellent. The new model easily handled all the major consumer software we threw at it. We never noticed the translator software, called Rosetta, and any slowdowns it imposed were so slight as to be indiscernible.

The new model was actually a little faster at a few of the tasks we tried, but nothing like the two to three times as fast that Apple claims. A mainstream user who didn’t know what was under the hood couldn’t tell the difference between them, even after using them for hours. It appears that the faster chip roughly balances out the translation effect.

So, if the new model works only about as well as the old one, what’s the advantage for consumers? Well, the slight, scattered, speed gains we saw should grow greater over time, as Apple and third-party software makers tweak their applications to take full advantage of the dual-core Intel chip. A year from now, an Intel iMac purchased today will likely be notably faster, if you update your software to newer versions.

But, even now, this is a terrific computer. It’s still the best consumer desktop on the market. It still runs crisply, still is free of viruses and spyware, still has the best operating system and the best built-in software of any desktop we’ve tested. Given how smoothly the new machine works, and how likely it is to get even better, we would prefer it today over the iMac G5, which Apple is still selling for the same price until inventories are gone. The G5 is still a fine machine, but the Intel model has a brighter future, and, based on our tests, it seems ready to go today.

There are a couple of caveats about our results. We tested only common consumer software and tasks, not heavy-duty or professional applications, like Adobe Photoshop, or professional music and video programs, which tend to stress the processor. Some of these nonconsumer products won’t work right until they are rewritten.

Also, there are two drawbacks to the Intel-based iMac that we judged relatively unimportant to most users, but which could be crucial to some. It can’t run old, pre-2001 Mac programs that were written for the old Mac operating system, called “Classic.” And, even though it now uses the same processors that Windows machines do, the new iMac can’t run Virtual PC, the Microsoft program that allows Macs to run Windows software. Microsoft is rewriting Virtual PC for the new Macs but won’t be done until 2007. Some other company may bring out a way to run Windows stuff on the new Mac sooner than that. But, for now, it can’t run Windows programs.

On the other hand, the new iMac has a few advantages. It has a faster video card than the old model and a digital video connector rather than an analog connector.

Doom 3, a non-Apple program, ran well on the new iMac.

From the outside, the two machines are twins. Apple was careful to keep the same physical design, a beautiful white flat-panel monitor with the entire guts of the computer stashed behind the screen in an amazingly thin space. Both have a built-in camera and microphone. The user interface and software features are also identical. Both models run the same excellent Mac OS X operating system. And both also include Front Row, the special interface that allows you to view photos and videos, and play music, from across a room using a small, included remote control.

Even the price of the new model is the same — $1,299 for a version with a 17-inch screen and $1,699 for one with a 20-inch screen.

For our tests, we copied all the third-party software and files from our iMac G5 to the Intel iMac, so the machines were configured comparably. Both had the same amount of memory, the same DVD drives and the same Internet connections.

We ran a mix of Apple and third-party software. We weren’t surprised that all the Apple programs, like iTunes and iPhoto and the Safari Web browser, ran perfectly and swiftly. Apple has already rewritten them for the Intel chip.

But we were pleasantly surprised by the performance of non-Apple programs. We tested Microsoft Office, Adobe Reader, the Firefox Web browser, Skype, Google Earth, Quicken, the Eudora email program, Doom 3, Kodak EasyShare and others — none of which had been rewritten. All launched quickly and ran smoothly and well.

We did find one program that wouldn’t run at all on the Intel iMac: AOL for Mac OSX. But AOL’s main features can all now be accessed from its Web site, so you don’t need this software in most cases.

Web pages loaded swiftly on the new iMac, though not markedly faster than on the old model. We changed the font on a thousand-word document in Microsoft Word and saw no lag at all. We created a chart in Microsoft Excel, and it appeared almost instantly. Email worked indistinguishably well.

This column was written in Word on the Intel iMac, and there were no glitches or hitches or hang-ups of any kind.

On four of our test tasks, the new model outperformed the old one significantly — all in Apple software that had been rewritten for the new chip. It was 15% faster at importing music from a CD, using iTunes. It was 42% faster at converting a video clip from one format to another, using Apple’s QuickTime program. It was 44% faster at importing nine large digital photos into iPhoto. And it was 24% faster at duplicating a huge folder filled with more than 27,000 files occupying more than 12 gigabytes of space.

Why didn’t our results support Apple’s claim of a two to three times speed gain? Like most computer companies, Apple bases such claims on special, complicated benchmark software that doesn’t necessarily match up with the kinds of mainstream consumer tasks we tested.

The bottom line: Apple’s iMac, with its new Intel processor, is still the gold standard of consumer desktop PCs. And it stands to get better over time.

• Email: MossbergSolution@wsj.com.