Like my review of the Spycraft 1.0 Core, this will mostly focus on the conversation document since I already own the original print book.
First off, the book is less dated in the way that it is more fluffy than the 1.0 Core, containing tons of adventure ideas and plot hooks to play with. I really like the Shadowforce Archer setting, and unsurprisingly the main book is a good place to start. There's some crunch in the psionics and mystic rules, but that's covered in the conversation - psionics in particular receives the most in-depth overhaul yet as there's no comparable 2.0 system yet.
However, two sections of the conversation struck me as a bit of a cheat: the gadgets and the chemical augmentations. The gadgets can certainly be built with the 2.0 Gadget system, sure, but I think this would've been the opportunity to have a few examples statted out to help beginers grasp the Gadget rules. They're not mechanically difficult, but you have to grok them before you can play with them. Examples would really, really, really help, and I hope the Crafty guys do some example conversations in future PDF releases. Also, some things do not seem to have an obvious conversation - like the Battle Bus suites. (I've gone with just using big tool kits installed in a semi, but again, this is puzzle work and should, in my opinion, be considered for inclusion.)
The chemical augmentations, I must admit, never sat right with me, being odd and arbitarily powerful - granted, it's a conversation, but if the Crafty guys ever come across this topic again, I'd love to see some extensive rethinking of the concept. My dislike aside, the chemicals Endure and Sharpen refer to game mechanics that were changed between editions. This is precisely what the document is supposed to address, and a simple line to the effect of say "You may not receive critical injuries" or "The skill bonus applies to Search and Notice"...well, that would've been helpful.
This does not kill the product, by any stretch, but it's the little things that I'd wish to see addressed in the next iteration.
[4 of 5 Stars!]