If you’ve been waiting for ASUS’s latest RTX 50-series laptops to arrive in India, we have some great news. ASUS has finally announced the availability of its newest premium gaming and creator laptops in the country, headlined by the flagship ROG Zephyrus Duo. The lineup also includes refreshed versions of the Zephyrus G14 and G16, the TUF Gaming A14, and the creator-focused ProArt PZ14. The new machines are powered by the latest Intel Core Ultra, AMD Ryzen AI, and Snapdragon X processors, paired with NVIDIA’s GeForce RTX 50-series GPUs. ASUS is also leaning heavily into AI this year, with some models offering dedicated NPUs capable of delivering up to 80 TOPS of AI performance.

The Zyphyrus Lineup

The most interesting laptop in the lineup is undoubtedly the ROG Zephyrus Duo. ASUS describes it as its most advanced gaming and creator laptop yet, and it’s easy to see why. The machine features dual 16-inch 3K OLED Nebula touch displays, giving users significantly more screen real estate for multitasking, streaming, video editing, or keeping multiple applications open while gaming.

Under the hood, the laptop can be configured with up to an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 GPU and Intel Core Ultra processors. ASUS has also included its ROG Intelligent Cooling system to help keep temperatures under control during long gaming or rendering sessions.

For users who want flagship performance without carrying around a massive gaming laptop, ASUS is also bringing the latest Zephyrus G14 and G16 to India. Both laptops feature premium lightweight designs, OLED Nebula displays, and NVIDIA RTX 50-series graphics. The G14 gets a 73Wh battery, while the larger G16 bumps that up to 90Wh. ASUS says the machines are designed for users who want a single laptop for gaming, content creation, and everyday work without sacrificing portability.

TUF Gaming A14 & ProArt PZ14

The TUF Gaming A14 targets gamers and students who need something more portable than a traditional gaming laptop. Weighing just 1.46kg, the laptop combines AMD Ryzen AI processors with NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 graphics. ASUS has also retained the military-grade durability the TUF series is known for, making it a more rugged alternative to the Zephyrus lineup.

Meanwhile, the ProArt PZ14 caters to creators looking for a highly portable AI PC. The device features a detachable Bluetooth keyboard and a 2-in-1 design, allowing it to function as both a laptop and a tablet. It runs on Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X2 Elite processor and includes a 14-inch 3K ASUS Lumina Pro OLED display. At just 0.79kg, it’s easily the lightest device in the lineup. ASUS is also positioning it as an AI-focused machine, thanks to support for up to 80 TOPS of AI performance.

Price and Availability

The new ASUS laptops are now available across ASUS Exclusive Stores, ROG Stores, the ASUS eShop, Amazon, Flipkart, Reliance Digital, Croma, Vijay Sales, and other authorized retail partners. Pricing starts at ₹1,99,990 for the TUF Gaming A14 and goes all the way up to ₹6,99,990 for the top-end Zephyrus Duo with RTX 5090 graphics. ASUS is also offering No Cost EMI options through ASUS Easy Pay for up to 18 months, with monthly payments starting at ₹11,111.

OS PLATFORMS

Maybe sometimes users know best

OPINION On June 24, 2021, Microsoft announced Windows 11, unveiling a new and controversial operating system. Five years on, how has that worked out for you, Redmond?

Windows 11 has always been a problem child for Microsoft. It was announced in June 2021 and became generally available on October 5 that year, while much of its customer base was still reeling from the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time, The Register called it pointless rather than a point release of Microsoft’s flagship operating system.

Why? Because Windows 10 was more than adequate. Microsoft’s apology for the Windows 8.x era was… fine. It mostly worked without difficulty. It lacked the user-experience missteps of its predecessors and was an architectural step up from Windows 7. And, most importantly, the operating system didn’t trip up a user’s workflow.

There is an old adage: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” but Microsoft set to work fixing Windows 10 regardless, and the result was Windows 11.

The user experience has irked users ever since. Did you like being able to move the taskbar around in Windows 10? Tough – in Windows 11, you’ll have to learn to love where Microsoft stuck it. How about the Start Menu? Again, Microsoft knew best and redesigned it.

In the last year, Microsoft appears to have realized that its actions have alienated users and promised to restore eliminated user interface elements, such as the movable taskbar. It hasn’t, however, gone back on another Windows 11 feature – the infamous hardware requirements.

While Windows 11 contained plenty of software elements to annoy users, it was the company’s decision, on security grounds, to render hardware perfectly capable of running the operating system obsolete at a stroke that really angered users. Even hardware (including some of the company’s own) that was still on sale at the time wouldn’t work. The company demanded TPM 2.0 and warned that anything older than an eighth generation Intel CPU (or equivalent) would not make the cut.

Then and now, the decision carries an arbitrary air, particularly as several workarounds emerged, revealing the requirements to be the technically unnecessary decisions they were.

More than anything, Microsoft’s hardware requirements slowed the operating system’s adoption, as hardware that ran Windows 10 perfectly well was rendered obsolete overnight.

In the end, it took until 2025 for Windows 11 to overtake its predecessor in market share, and until 2026 for the gap to widen. Much of the change in market share is likely due to hardware replacement cycles and the end of mainstream support for Windows 10 on October 14, 2025.

Microsoft’s operating systems have followed a set pattern over the years. Windows XP was good, Windows Vista was not. Windows 7 was good, Windows 8.x was not. Windows 10 – good. Windows 11 – oh dear, it seems it was always destined to be a bit of a duffer, even without Microsoft loading it with ads and AI.

While hindsight has made Windows 10 seem rather good, retrospectives are unlikely to be so kind to Windows 11, which marked an era in which Microsoft took its eye off the desktop to focus on shinier, AI-related things. Microsoft has already dropped Copilot branding from products like Notepad, an acknowledgment that the assistant is not the welcome pal in every place it is forced into. The same could be said for Windows 11, which has become a byword for iffy quality and bad management decisions.

Based on the last five years of Windows 11, Windows 12 should be a beacon of light. Right? ®

The Apple Watch is reigning king among fitness trackers, but there’s a big enough gap in the market for Apple to release a ring-style tracker, even though it probably won’t.

I hate the Apple Watch. I know, I know, heresy, but I do.

And I don’t even hate it for a singular reason. I hate it for a multitude of reasons, which is impressive, because I’ve bought three in my lifetime.

I hate the way the Apple Watch looks. It’s too chunky on my delicate little bird-wrists and, regardless of the band I choose, it managed to ruin every non-gym outfit I ever wore it with.

It’s also physically uncomfortable as all get out. I’m not entirely sure how everyone else here manages to wear theirs at the desk.

I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t look cool.

I’m a bit more flexible than I should be, so as a result, I needed to wear my watch “upside down” to avoid summoning Siri every time I ride my bike, do a push-up, or push open a door. It also pinches the ever-loving crap out of my inner wrist, eventually leading to a bruise that horrifies everyone who’s ever seen it.

I’m willing to bet that some of this may be my faulty genetics. Sure, it’s not Apple’s fault, but it’s still something I have to live with.

But the worst part about the Apple Watch? It is, effectively, another screen vying for my attention.

I didn’t know this until I bought my first Apple Watch and wore it for a month, but attaching a screen directly to my body is not ideal. I am not built for a screen I can’t opt out of.

I don’t think I’m alone in this, either. Even with going in and manually disabling all but the barebones notifications, it doesn’t seem to be enough.

It always goes something like this:

There’s a buzz when my phone rings or I get a text. I look at the screen, despite the fact that I’ve already reached for my phone or looked at my desktop screen. Now I’m interfacing with my Apple Watch. I’m touching the screen for some reason, now I’m scrolling through the information there.

I’m holding my iPhone, sitting in front of my iMac, and looking at my Apple Watch. I’m suddenly a caricature of a tech-addicted millennial in a political comic.

If this sounds extreme, don’t worry, it is. But this is also just how I react to the constant reminder that I’m available to everyone and every app in my life at all times. I am not built for this sort of thing.

So, into the box, and onto the electronic bay, my Apple Watch went. Goodbye, psychological torture device.

I already hear you guys typing your comments, saying, “Well, then don’t wear an Apple Watch. And, for the love of all things holy, stop buying them!”

And yes, I agree! Except there’s one problem:

I actually like the Apple Watch.

In theory.

Hello, midlife crisis.

Before we get started here, I’d like to point out that I am not an athlete. For years, I’d argue that I was actually the opposite of an athlete in pretty much every way you could be.

However, in 2023, I got my first bike after not having one since 2005. Suddenly, I was doing things like “going outside,” “going to the gym,” and “willingly participating in physical activity instead of aimlessly walking around my city in an effort to stave off the inevitable decay of my corporeal form.”

All that to say, I wasn’t completely sedentary before 2023, but I definitely wasn’t prioritizing physical activity.

Three years later, I now hit the gym four or five times a week, weather permitting. Also, weather permitting, I’ll log about a hundred miles on my bike in the same timeframe.

This year I’ve started hiking. I’ve managed to hike about 20 miles, which is impressive solely because of the hostile weather the Great Lakes region has had to endure this year.

I enjoy going hiking on one of the rare days that the weather allows it.

I’m pretty proud of how much I’ve changed in the last three years. I don’t actually think this is a midlife crisis, for the record, I think I just got a bike and could do more things.

That being said, I’ve done a lot in the last three years, and I like seeing how I can improve. Currently, my method for tracking that improvement is a bunch of different apps and relying on the basic features of my iPhone.

If only there were a way to track this data in a single device. And could you imagine if it were integrated with Apple’s ecosystem nicely?

Oh, wait. There is.

And I sold it on eBay. Twice, actually.

Damn it.

Understanding the follies of fitness trackers

Fitness tracking is, as many health professionals will tell you, not an exact science. Fitness trackers themselves aren’t infallible, and they’re far less accurate than the manufacturers would lead you to believe.

There are scenarios in which fitness trackers are not actually useful. Caloric burn, or more accurately, energy expenditure, is probably the most well-known place where fitness trackers come up short.

If you got an Apple Watch to hit a target amount of calories burned in a day, I’ve got some bad news for you: it doesn’t actually have any idea how many calories you’ve burned.

Most studies say the Apple Watch is accurate within an 18% to 40% range. You know what else is probably accurate within a 40% range?

Me. I can probably guess how many calories I’ve burned going on a one-hour-long hike at a moderate pace, and I’d probably be within 40% of the actual number.

A lot of this is purely human biology. A fitness tracker can make an educated guess, but it is effectively a form of digital divination, reading tea leaves and spitting out something fact-adjacent.

Step tracking is another thing that is difficult for a tracker to measure. A “step” is not a standardized unit of measurement or a standardized movement across all bodies.

It’s wild that we assume a fitness tracker could accurately guess the steps of both shuffling elderly and elite college athletes. Steps taken in crowded areas will be measured differently from those done on uneven ground while jogging on a wilderness scale.

The Apple Watch is markedly better at tracking steps than energy expenditure. According to an Ole Miss meta study, the Apple Watch is within a 10% of the actual number of steps taken, at least in a lab setting.

So if they’re not useful for tracking activity, why would we want to use them? Or, more specifically, why do I want one?

Getting trendy with it

While fitness trackers might not track things perfectly, they are actually quite good at tracking things over time. For the average person, and even for most lower-level athletes, you don’t actually need hard numbers to track your progress.

What you need is trends over time.

For example, let’s say your Apple Watch move goal is 350 calories. If you’re hitting that consistently, it doesn’t actually matter what the number of calories burned was.

Eventually, that goal may increase, either because you increased it or the Apple Watch decided it needed to be higher. If you continue to meet or exceed that goal, you’ve got documentation that you’re trending in a positive direction.

Same with exercise minutes. Maybe you started with a modest goal of 10 minutes a day, but over time you began stretching that to 12, then 15, then 20.

Views of Trends and Highlights in Health for iOS

Advertisement

Similarly, you can also use downward trends to keep an eye on your health. Maybe you notice you start taking fewer steps, suggesting you’re not getting enough movement in.

Maybe your VO2 starts dropping steadily below your baseline in the days before you become ill. This is genuinely beneficial information to have.

And the only way you can track those trends is by consistently wearing a fitness tracker.

Bringing it full circle

I know a lot of people love the Apple Watch, and they’re great at wearing it consistently. And I’m super happy for them.

I’m not one of those people. And judging by the fact that Oura’s done well enough for itself to release the fifth iteration of its tracking ring, there’s a solid market for non-wrist-based trackers.

And once upon a time, Apple was rumored to be working on such a device. Though if you’ve been around the block a couple of times, you know that patents effectively mean nothing in terms of what will or won’t make it to market.

I would love an Apple Ring were one to ever actually materialize, provided Apple didn’t decide that it needed to be another “everything” device like the Apple Watch.

Render of a possible Apple Ring

Advertisement

I would wear the ring every day. I want my sleep metrics, I want to know my heart rate during an intense biking session. I’d like to know what it thinks my average step counts are, so I can work on getting that number higher.

Wearing a ring is pretty set-and-forget as far as activities go. I used to wear my second-generation Oura ring all the time before the battery life finally started degrading to the point of needing to be charged daily.

For the record, I appreciate what Oura is doing, but I still crave the deep Apple ecosystem integration. I want to close my rings, I just want to do it sans Apple Watch.

I really want this stupid ring to exist. Which, frankly, sucks, because I don’t think it’s going to happen anytime soon.

I think Apple’s figured out exactly where it wants to be vis-a-vis the whole device roadmap for the next five years.

We just got the MacBook Neo, and the iPhone Fold is coming out at some point. I suspect that Apple’s HomePod-with-a-Screen will make an appearance at some point in the next year or two.

Apple’s going to buckle down and come to market with some sort of AR glasses situation, much to my chagrin.

I think if Apple made a fitness ring, it would entirely upset the wearable market again. I think it would sell, and I think it would sell incredibly well.

I could see it doing better than AirPods, frankly.

And maybe that’s another reason Apple won’t do it. Apple wants you to buy an Apple Watch.

The Apple Watch comes with accessories you can swap out, and third-party developers make and, crucially, sell, apps for it. You only have to produce an Apple Watch in a few different sizes, whereas an Apple Ring would probably need to come in at least eight sizes.

And the Apple Ring would most assuredly cut into the Apple Watch market. Considering how hard Apple pushes the Apple Watch, I can’t see it wanting to split people off for what it may view internally as a less worthwhile product.

So, I don’t see it happening anytime soon.

For now, I suppose I’ll continue to use my four separate apps to track the various workouts I do. Maybe someone else will come to market with a ring that is just as good as the Apple Ring could be.

Maybe I’ll eventually cave and buy an Oura Ring 5.

Either way, I’m still going to hope Apple has a change of heart and finds a way to make the fitness tracker of my dreams a reality. I think it’d be way better than the stupid Pixar lamp it’s allegedly got in the works, at any rate.

Facebook announced on Wednesday that it’s reimagining its Creator Studio tool as a stand-alone AI companion app designed to help creators grow their audiences on the social network.

By giving creators access to this AI companion app, Meta is looking to keep creators active on Facebook as it competes for their attention against rivals like TikTok and YouTube. The company also likely hopes that the app will eliminate the need for creators to turn to third-party tools like ChatGPT when brainstorming content ideas and analyzing performance.

The new app, which is currently being tested with select creators, will have Facebook’s recently launched AI creator assistant built into it. The assistant provides creators with personalized recommendations based on their content style, performance, audience engagement, and goals.

Creators often have to sift through charts and dashboards to understand their performance, but with the AI assistant, they can get quick answers to questions like “When should I post?” and “What are people saying in my comments?” Since the AI assistant is conversational, they can also ask follow-up questions, like how their audience has shifted over time. 

Beyond the built-in AI assistant, the Creator Studio app will include a set of several new features, such as an AI-powered comment tool that will help surface the most important comments and draft replies in the creator’s own tone. Creators can edit and approve the drafted replies before posting them, Facebook says.

When creators open the app each day, they will see a feed of daily priorities: reviewing their newest post’s performance, tracking progress toward goals, and flagging comments in need of a reply.

Wednesday’s announcement adds to Meta’s recent wave of app launches. Last month, the company rolled out a stand-alone app for Facebook Groups called Forum that functions similarly to Reddit. In April, Meta launched a new app called Instants that lets users share disappearing photos with Instagram friends.

The pipeline keeps growing. The New York Times reported on Tuesday that Meta is building its own Polymarket-like app, internally called “Arena,” though it has yet to launch.

The cadence is deliberate. The Wall Street Journal reported in April that CEO Mark Zuckerberg told employees that AI-driven efficiencies would enable the company to build more apps than it has historically.

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is warning of hackers actively exploiting flaws in Ubiquity UniFi OS and Lantronix serial-to-ethernet servers.

According to the BOD 26-04 directive, federal agencies have three days to apply available security updates or vendor-recommended mitigations.

The Ubiquiti flaws that CISA added to its catalog of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities are:

• CVE-2026-34908: an access control bypass flaw that allows an unauthenticated attacker to make unauthorized changes to a UniFi OS system, potentially leading to full system compromise.
• CVE-2026-34909: a directory/path traversal vulnerability that allows an attacker to access sensitive files on the underlying operating system, potentially exposing configuration files, credentials, and other sensitive data that could facilitate account takeover.
• CVE-2026-34910: an improper input validation flaw that enables an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary operating system commands, potentially leading to remote code execution and complete system takeover.

Ubiquiti released security updates for the three vulnerabilities in May, warning that they could be exploited remotely without privileges.

Researchers at Bishop Fox later demonstrated that the three flaws could be chained to achieve full remote code execution with elevated privileges on vulnerable UniFi OS devices.

Bishop Fox has also released a free detection script on GitHub to help defenders discover vulnerable instances in their environment.

The security issue exploited in Lantronix servers is tracked as CVE-2025-67038, and is a critical-severity root-level command injection affecting model EDS5000 running firmware 2.1.0.0R3.

The vulnerability exists in the HTTP RPC module, which executes a shell command to log failed authentication attempts.

The supplied username is concatenated directly into the shell command without proper sanitization, allowing an attacker to inject arbitrary operating system commands.

Lantronix released a released a patch for CVE-2025-67038 and recommends users to upgrade to EDS5000 version 2.2.0.0R1.

CISA has not shared any details about the observed exploitation of any of the four flaws, while the “use in ransomware campaigns” flag was set to “Unknown” for all of them.

System administrators managing the above products are recommended to apply the available updates and/or suggested mitigations as soon as possible.

Security teams log 54% of successful attacks and alert on just 14%. The rest move through your environment unseen.

The Picus whitepaper shows how breach and attack simulation tests your SIEM and EDR rules so threats stop slipping by detection.

Advertisement

Get the whitepaper