I'm an immigrant, so I think that I use a dictionary more often than regular American people. I'm tired of carrying a thick, heavy dictionary with me all the time, so this device really saves me from that inconvenience. I'm so glad. This is small enough to carry everywhere.This speaking function is awesome. This is the reason I bought this device. My American wife said that most of the words sound OK. It's great that I can check pronunciation by hearing. I think that this way makes it faster to memorize new words too.
For ESL (English as a Second Language) people, how easy the word definition is, is very important. The other function I like very much is that when the definition has a word I don't know, I can check that word also in the dictionary right away without typing that word, and I can go back to the previous definition by pushing the "back" button. This function is really useful. Though this device's definitions are a little bit difficult for me, it includes a thesaurus, so I can usually guess the meaning of words by using both books. However, if you're not using an English/English dictionary now, my advice is to use an easier paperback English/English dictionary (Ex: Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) first to get used to using an English/English dictionary.
Some people say that the function's responses are too slow. If the response was quicker, it would be great, but I think that anyway it's quicker than using a paperback dictionary for me. When I check words with a paperback dictionary, I support the dictionary with one hand and turn pages with the other hand, then I often lose my place where I was reading in my book and have to find that place again before I can continue reading. However, I only need one hand to use this device and the other hand can be keeping my place in the book. People who don't lose their place while reading might not understand this point.
Anyway, the pros outweigh the cons for this device. I would recommend it.
Let me start off by saying that I have owned both the Franklin SCD-1870 and the MWD-1450. After using the 1450 for about a week, I returned it to the store where I purchased it.I will present this review as a comparison between the Franklin SCD-1870 and the MWD-1450.
Content:
The winner is the 1870. You know that the 1870 has a larger database by the specifications, but it really becomes apparent when you use the device. With the 1450, many words are available for lookup, but it only tells you the part of speech. To find the definition, you have to access the thesaurus for a brief definition with synonyms. So far, the 1870 has contained every definition that I have asked from it, with the exception of some modified words. For example, if you search for `ardently,' it will only return that it is an adverb. If you want the definition, you have to enter the root, or `ardent.'
Others have mentioned the 1450's lack of phonetic spellings, which I did find to be a disappointment. The 1870 also lacks the printed phonetics, but makes up for it with the speaking ability. On the topic of speaking, the 1870 does pretty well. It is a little quite, but I think that is a good thing. I don't have to worry about accidentally speaking a word too loudly in the office. The synthesized voice is a little hard to follow while reading the definitions due to an unnatural flow. Some words are spoken with no space between them, while others leave a second between words.
The 1870 has a lot more to offer past the dictionary and thesaurus capabilities, most of which I don't have much use for. It has a menu for "Signs, Symbols and Tables" that lists lots of... well, signs, symbols and tables. The content varies from the astronomical symbols used to label the planets on a sky chart, to the start-dates of the Jewish calendar, to the books of the Bible, to the elements of the Periodic Table. Could be useful to some, but I don't find myself needing to access that information very much.
Both have some word games, with the 1870 having at least twice as many as the 1450. They both use cheesy graphics for transitions (winning or losing a game) that you can easily turn off. Due to the poor screen of the 1450 (see below) I did not spend much time on the games. The 1870's games are entertaining. One feature that I miss from the 1450 is a "Word Learning" option. It was sort-of like a "word of the day," except it would give you a new word every time you powered up (I guess you could call it "word of the session").
I will not comment on the organizer capabilities of each device because it is something that I personally have no use for. I can imagine, however, that this feature would have been helpful while I was a high school student (10 years ago!).
Screen:
With the number of electronic devices incorporating LCD's today, the quality to cost ratio is usually extremely high. Not so, however, with the 1450. The screen is MISERABLE. Aside from the inconvenient screen size, the quality simply sucks. You have to have absolutely perfect lighting to read the screen with ease; lighting that I do not have in my office or next to my bed at home. It was my sole reason for returning the 1450.
The 1870 on the other hand, has a screen that is clear, legible, and a pleasure to read, and is much larger and more efficient at providing information -that's what I expect.
Ergonomics:
I initially preferred the horizontal layout of the 1450, but have grown to favor the vertical design of the 1870. The vertical arrangement makes it natural to hold in one had while navigating the system. The 1450's keyboard is easier to use since the buttons are larger and spaced further apart. However, the buttons seem like the printing will wear off very quickly. On the 1870, the buttons manageable.
Construction:
Here, I would have to favor the 1450 for its cover. It is hard and opens and snaps shut with ease. I would have no worries dropping it into my pocket and forgetting that it was there. The 1870 has a semi-soft cover that just flips around from the front to the back. It is convenient, but it doesn't protect the screen and buttons as well and the attachment feature seems rather flimsy.
The 1450 tries to be high-tech with `touch-screen technology.' It is a waste. You can clearly see the wiring lines on the screen that make it function, and you end up with lots of fingerprints and smudges at the bottom of the already crowded screen. The 1870 uses much more robust dedicated buttons below the screen to access the menu items.
For use on a desk, I prefer the 1870. The 1450 was nice... until you start typing. While pressing the letters to the outside, the unit rocks side-to-side, which gets annoying. The 1870 can lay nice and flat, and can easily be propped up for easy viewing as seen in all of the advertising photos. In this position, it is not practical to enter or scroll through information.
Recommendation:
Both units provide sufficient value to the user. The MWD-1450 would be more suited for a younger user, perhaps elementary students up to high school. The hard cover makes it that much more rugged and able to withstand the abuse of a backpack. Also, children are less demanding on quality and ease of use and are less likely to complain about the poor screen. From high school on up, the SCD-1870 is the definite winner. It has a far greater ease of use, many more functions, and a larger content that is demanded at a higher level.
Overall, the 1450 is OK and the 1870 is GREAT. Enjoy!
