I am currently deciding whether to purchase a Galaxy Note or Nokia Lumia 900 since my previous AT&T contract is about to end. I personally favor Android OS, but I am cautious of purchasing one because my previous experience with the Atrix 4G being abandoned by Motorola after only 9 months. I don't personally know how reliable Samsung is with updates. My reasoning for switching to a Windows 7 Phone (Nokia Lumia 900) would be for update reliability knowing for sure that I will be covered for a minimum of two years.
galaxy note of fucking course.
If you have big enough pockets, Galaxy Note.
If not, throw out all your old pants, buy some with big pockets THEN the Galaxy Note.
I do agree, but I am still wavering about the reliability of Samsung and whether or not they will abandon the phone in the coming months when/if an updated version is released.
[QUOTE=sjberlyant;34187853]I do agree, but I am still wavering about the reliability of Samsung and whether or not they will abandon the phone in the coming months when/if an updated version is released.[/QUOTE]It's one of their flagship devices, they won't abandon it. It's also getting ICS soon.
[QUOTE=sjberlyant;34187853]I do agree, but I am still wavering about the reliability of Samsung and whether or not they will abandon the phone in the coming months when/if an updated version is released.[/QUOTE]
never heard of samsung abandoning other phones like that
[URL="http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/23/2657132/samsung-no-ics-upgrade-for-galaxy-s-and-galaxy-tab"]http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/23/2657132/samsung-no-ics-upgrade-for-galaxy-s-and-galaxy-tab[/URL]
Here is an example with the galaxy S and galaxy tab. The GS was released in June of 2010 and the tab was released in November of 2010. Both were not upgraded because of Samsung's TouchWiz android skin
The Galaxy Note is a great device, no doubt about it, but if you aren't going to use that dual core for anything really, I'd say the choice is a draw. The OS on the LUmia 900 is simply better for everyday usage, in my opinion. If you want to fuck around with Android, and maybe want to play some games or do some serious web browsing, get the Note.
[editline]13th January 2012[/editline]
And Samsung's quality is just fine.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;34188848]The Galaxy Note is a great device, no doubt about it, but if you aren't going to use that dual core for anything really, I'd say the choice is a draw. The OS on the LUmia 900 is simply better for everyday usage, in my opinion. If you want to fuck around with Android, and maybe want to play some games or do some serious web browsing, get the Note.
[editline]13th January 2012[/editline]
And Samsung's quality is just fine.[/QUOTE]
I'm having experiences that beg to differ.. but it's still better than the iPhone.
[QUOTE=Chulo Arco;34189599]I'm having experiences that beg to differ.. but it's still better than the iPhone.[/QUOTE]
What happened?
[QUOTE=sjberlyant;34188281][URL="http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/23/2657132/samsung-no-ics-upgrade-for-galaxy-s-and-galaxy-tab"]http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/23/2657132/samsung-no-ics-upgrade-for-galaxy-s-and-galaxy-tab[/URL]
Here is an example with the galaxy S and galaxy tab. The GS was released in June of 2010 and the tab was released in November of 2010. Both were not upgraded because of Samsung's TouchWiz android skin[/QUOTE]
So? Neither did any Moto or HTC or LG devices from that time period, Android devices are typically given 18 months of firmware upgrades. I'd also like to point out the Galaxy S got gingerbread before ANY other device besides the Nexus S which got it right from Google.
[editline]14th January 2012[/editline]
My vote has to go with the note because it simply has more functionality than any WP7 device, but it's not for everyone.
[editline]14th January 2012[/editline]
Oh by the way. If it's the Snapdragon Galaxy Note then I take back my recommendation. The snapdragon S3+Adreno 220 Galaxy S II models have significantly more stutter than the Exynos based ones, so I'd really hate to see them trying to run a WXGA device.
It is the snapdragon note
Why does everyone dislike the Snapdragon S3 chip-set anyways?
[QUOTE=sjberlyant;34189753]What happened?[/QUOTE]
Graphical bugs and unstable OS
Sent back to Samsung, gave the same thing back with a reinstalled OS
That sucks, the same thing is happening now with my Atrix 4G. Since I am getting a new phone in a few weeks there is no point in formatting it or sending it back.
[QUOTE=sjberlyant;34203722]It is the snapdragon note
Why does everyone dislike the Snapdragon S3 chip-set anyways?[/QUOTE]
The snapdrqgon chips are simply slower, and they don't provide any advantage over the exynos, really. The Lumia 900 (along with the rest of WP devices), but optimizations makes this completely unnoticeable.
Get an Android device that is supported by CyanogenMod.
I'm running on a ZTE Blade and it's 2.1 default, 2.2 on some carriers and some people are actually working on bringing ICS to this piece of shit.
Samsung is good with updates, it's just carriers holding them back a majority of the time.
[QUOTE=sjberlyant;34203722]It is the snapdragon note[/QUOTE]
Welp then don't get the Galaxy Note, or import a good one from the UK.
[quote]Why does everyone dislike the Snapdragon S3 chip-set anyways?[/quote]
They're noticeably slower than the competition from Texus Instruments and Samsung, to less of an extent Nvidia. Anybody who buys a device with one is wasting their money.
My favourite example is how Qualcomm's 1.5GHz dual core can't even perform the view all screens gesture smoothly on the SGS II variants with it. All it does is zoom out and show all the homescreens at once, something that my original SGS can do fine. It leads me to believe that the issue is the slowness of the Adreno 220 chip.
[QUOTE=garrynohome;34208360]Welp then don't get the Galaxy Note, or import a good one from the UK.
They're noticeably slower than the competition from Texus Instruments and Samsung, to less of an extent Nvidia. Anybody who buys a device with one is wasting their money.
My favourite example is how Qualcomm's 1.5GHz dual core can't even perform the view all screens gesture smoothly on the SGS II variants with it. All it does is zoom out and show all the homescreens at once, something that my original SGS can do fine. It leads me to believe that the issue is the slowness of the Adreno 220 chip.[/QUOTE]
Why would they put them in the phone if they are snapdragon processors are so bad? Is it a cost factor?
[QUOTE=sjberlyant;34213747]Why would they put them in the phone if they are snapdragon processors are so bad? Is it a cost factor?[/QUOTE]
It's because the US carriers want their phones to be "different" as seen with both the SGS and SGS II, and due to the fact that the Exynos chipset doesn't support LTE or 42Mbps HSPA. I don't get the logic behind it though, why would I want THEORETICALLY faster network speeds in exchange for causing stutters when using my phone? I think that's a horrible tradeoff. It's the same thing here in Canada, but we do have a sensible carrier called Bell who doesn't alter phones.
[QUOTE=garrynohome;34214134]I don't get the logic behind it though, why would I want THEORETICALLY faster network speeds in exchange for causing stutters when using my phone?[/QUOTE]
You can't market a slightly faster CPU (ignore iPhone 4S, you know that shit was going to be bought in masses even without marketing), but you can market AMAZINGLY FAST BLAZING 4G SPEEDS ONLY BY OUR CARRIER.
The good thing with AT&T is that you get 30 days to try out the phone. So if it is really jittery and cannot run android well I will just give it back.
[QUOTE=nikomo;34214165]You can't market a slightly faster CPU (ignore iPhone 4S, you know that shit was going to be bought in masses even without marketing), but you can market AMAZINGLY FAST BLAZING 4G SPEEDS ONLY BY OUR CARRIER.[/QUOTE]
You're definitely right there about the 4G. The network generation thing is really bad here in Canada. LTE is marketed as "Beyond 4G" but in reality it still doesn't even meet IMT-Advanced specifications which define 4G. Anyway I'm just hoping Samsung's next SoC has native LTE support so the CPU issue can go away.
[editline]14th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=sjberlyant;34214243]The good thing with AT&T is that you get 30 days to try out the phone. So if it is really jittery and cannot run android well I will just give it back.[/QUOTE]
Oh man, 30 days? Lucky guys. Bell's policy is 14 days, but if you exceed 30min talk time or 50MB data you can't bring it back.
[QUOTE=garrynohome;34214300]You're definitely right there about the 4G. The network generation thing is really bad here in Canada. LTE is marketed as "Beyond 4G" but in reality it still doesn't even meet IMT-Advanced specifications which define 4G. Anyway I'm just hoping Samsung's next SoC has native LTE support so the CPU issue can go away.
[editline]14th January 2012[/editline]
Oh man, 30 days? Lucky guys. Bell's policy is 14 days, but if you exceed 30min talk time or 50MB data you can't bring it back.[/QUOTE]
That sucks
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;34188848]serious web browsing.[/QUOTE]
I just imagined someone with a really focused look on their face staring intensely at the screen.
[QUOTE=Panda X;34228817]I just imagined someone with a really focused look on their face staring intensely at the screen.[/QUOTE]
~browse_pr0 4lyfe~
xXxqu1ckph0nebrowserxXx
Samsung makes great quality hardware, but Nokia's new phones look fucking amazing.
In terms of software, I think Android and WP7 are functionally equal at this point, the only difference is between them being App availability and style.
To be honest, I saw a Lumia 800 in use last week, the UI is sleek and responsive as fuck, and the amount of integration between services is fucking insane compared to Android.
Android is for running apps, Windows Mobile 7 is for actually getting shit done.
Android and WP7 is pretty much equal in terms of everything but Apps at this point.
The Note has a much better screen than the Lumia, but the Lumia has really amazing hardware design and camera
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
