Slashdot Mirror
Motorola's First Intel-Based Handset Launches In UK
New submitter lookatmyhorse writes "As promised, Google's Motorola unit has released its first Intel-powered smartphone. The Razr i is based on a mid-range model sold in the U.S. that features an ARM-based Snapdragon processor. Motorola said the change of chip meant improved camera performance. However, it has also meant Google's Chrome browser is not installed on the device. Intel recently cut its sales forecasts citing weaker demand. Although it dominates PC chip sales, it is a niche player in the smart device sector. The handset is Motorola's first to feature an Intel processor; its existing smartphone partners — ZTE, Lenovo, Lava, and Gigabyte — are all relatively minor smartphone forces in Western markets. So, Intel's tie-up with Google — which also makes the Android system — is widely seen as its most significant effort to crack the market to date. The handset will be offered in the UK, France, Germany and Latin America."
1. Motorola using an intel processor?!? (ok, so it's really Motorola Mobility which is really motoroogle, but still...)
2. A Google phone without Chrome?!?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I don't think I was the only one hoping for x86-compatible instead of yet again another ARM-based processor.
Kriston
Motorola said the change of chip meant improved camera performance. However, it has also meant ...
The battery will only last 1/4 as long. Whoops.
Pretty soon smartphones will be just like old fashioned "cordless" phones where unless you're actively using it in your hand, its in the charger.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Uhhhh.. except Intel has also been announcing processors that they're saying (if you can believe it, which I don't) won't work with Android. IF you believe Intel, then this phone is a dead end and will have no market which provides binary-compatible software.
The release of this phone is analogous to an MPAA member releasing a movie. If anyone buys it, they promise (in advance! they're telling you now) they will punish the customer by doing everything they can, to frustrate them.
"We assure you: your money will be wasted."
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Will it run Windows?
If it does, the next objective will obviously be getting an android emulator onto that.
And Crysis...
Oh And a visual basic app to track an IP Address.
Android is an ARMv7 platform, just like Windows is x86, no matter how hard anyone tries to change it.
With x86 Android, all the CPU-intensive apps, WON'T RUN. They mention Chrome, but Firefox is also out. Non-trivial games won't run, as they're all native ARMv7. I know I make extensive use of emulators like MAME and others on my phone, but not if it's missing an ARMv7 CPU.
Multimedia apps are almost all out of the question, as they're ARMv7 for performance reasons. This includes Flash, so no luck if you wanted to use it. For multimedia, you're pretty much stuck with the piss-poor built-in audio and video players, since they've gone through the trouble of recompiling/porting them to x86.
My point is simple... No matter how fast the CPU may be, you aren't going to be able to run ANY apps that would benefit from a fast CPU, cause none of them will run, AT ALL. I think the potential for a non-ARM chip will have to come from the low-end instead... Maybe China's ridiculously cheap, low-end MIPS CPUs will make for cheap enough low-end tablets, that aren't fast enough for games and video anyhow, that developers slowly begin porting their apps, and opening the door for high-end MIPS devices as well.
Intel's strategy seems inherently doomed.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Everyone saying that the Atom has terrible power consumption should go and read this preview from Anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5365/intels-medfield-atom-z2460-arrive-for-smartphones
The Atom Z2460 beats most phones in benchmarks, and plays in an even field regarding power usage.
Motorola have decided to run it at 2.0 ghz however, which will of course cause higher consumption. The Intel reference designs run at 1.6 ghz.
Also, the Motorola Razr i has a 1780mah battery while the old Razr M had a 2000mah. Both are specified to run roughly 24h.
So why are everyone saying Atom has terribly high power consumption?
BBC says 20 hours between charges. They're competing against an iPhone 5 which is thinner and ten times longer battery life.
You say it's comparable performance to ARM dual core, but I don't see any evidence from you. This is not IBM, you don't get to sell people a 25 MIPS mainframe pretend it's superfast. They'll benchmark it. It's unlikely a single core CISC processor will be faster than a dual core RISK.
Intel needs to up its game.
Older Atom chips were often less efficient, like-for-like, than ARM chips. While Intel (will) have made improvements, it takes a while to change people's perceptions.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
The same company that now touts an 'Un-Linuxable' chip family? Don't trust them, Google.
Perhaps slightly OT, but what do you mean, "unlike Windows"? The NT kernel, which powers what most people think of as "Windows", has been portable for longer than Linux (the kernel) has!
The first portable version of Linux was 1.2 (released March 1995) and supported x86, Alpha, SPARC, and MIPS. The prior release, 1.0 in March 1994, was x86 only.
Windows NT, by comparison, wasn't even developed initially on x86 (explicitly to avoid x86-specific behavior from creeping in), although it was of course ported to x86 before release. The very first release (numbered 3.1 to match the DOS-based Windows version of the time) supported x86, Alpha, and MIPS in July 1993.
I will grant you that only recently has MS bothered to port NT to ARM, but that's because they had another kernel (CE) which they've been using to power ARM devices since at least 1997. However, despite recent massive improvements to CE, it's still inferior to NT for a general-purpose computer (though it has other useful characteristics, such as being hard-realtime and able to run on extremely minimal systems).
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Compared to most phones produced last year, yes. Compare it with HTCs One X or the Samsung Galaxy SIII (or the iPhone 5), and try again.
Also, it beats few phones on GPU performance. That, and power consumption, is probably why Motorola slapped a crappy 540x960 screen in the phone.
Spec sheet for the Razr i says "Up To 20 Hours". That's make it worse off for power consumption than the old Razr M.
Seriously though. Are those actual standby numbers? Do these phones have to be charged atleast once daily, without being used?
I easily get 48h+ on my Galaxy Nexus with light usage (a few phonecalls, some sms/gtalk, checking twitter/mail). It's got a 1750mAh battery.
It's "up to 20 hours" with "normal use" - not standby.