When I bought my 2nd SSD a few weeks ago (first was an M4 for my laptop, this being for my desktop), I opted for a 128GB Samsung SSD 830. It's a great little drive, and was ~30% cheaper than Intel SSD 510.
I went for the 830 over a Sandforce-based drive because of their reliability. There's a reason why Apple use Samsung SSDs in their laptops.
Every time I click on a news story involving Google, I'm all but positive that the first post will be:
a) Posted with a 2.5+ million UID
b) Over 100 words long, yet still posted the same minute the story goes live
c) Negative towards Google
Here we go again. Welcome back CmdrPony / InsightIn140Bytes / DCTech. Happy shilling. Hope you karma manages to hold out for more than 4 days this time.
As it stands right now, the prototype version is consuming 2.6W in idle with the target being 2W, while the worst case scenarios are video playback: watching the video at 720p in Adobe Flash format will consume 3.6W, while the target for shipping parts should be 1W less (2.6W)
The final chips, which ship early next year, aim to cut this down to 2W and 2.6W respectively. This is in-line with the latest ARM chips, though again, we’ll need to get our hands on some production silicon to see how Medfield really performs.
Great. How about comparing it to a NEXT GEN chip then? Not to mention power consumption - which is its Achilles heel - still can't compare to THE LAST GEN ARM CHIP.
Exactly. And the current crop mostly have 45/40nm fab. How will it compare to the 32/28nm fab, quad core and A15 based ARM processors? Will Intel still be trying to get the power consumption down to acceptable levels then?
Sure, it's great, and compares well to this gen of processors (which are all at the 45/40nm fab (the exynos 4210 is 45nm, not 32nm as vr-zone incorrectly states)). But what about the next gen chips that will have 32/28nm fab?
And how will it compare to the Quad-Core A9 processors (Tegra 3), higher clocked dual core A9 processors (Exynos 4212) or A15/A15 based designs? (Exynos 5250 and Krait/Snapdragon S4)
You should theoretically be able to flash w/e modem file you want to it, IIRC.
Oh, and you're lucky with the GPS performance. I had one of the very first Galaxy S phones, and the GPS would always drop, and never get a proper lock. It was utterly useless for navigation, because it always assumed I was somewhere else.
hah, I've had many people and a few ROM/CM developers say Galaxy S was a paid beta for Galaxy S II;-). When I got it, my friend even said the next one will be 10x better. Given my relative naivety at the time, I didn't think it'd be possible...
The shocking thing is that even though it was a beta, Galaxy S was arguably the best android phone on the market for at least 6 months. It did many things right: Decent internal memory size, Best in class GPU, proper multi-touch touchscreen (no bs dual-touch like Nexus One/Desire/Incredible/Droid), ~1.8GB for app installs (150ish MB was the norm back then). Brilliant video playback and codec support.
But 1GB RAM, dual core 1.2ghz A9, 8MP camera with 1080p and flash, flawless high profile 1080p playback and even 1080p flash playback (youtube). Like anandtech said: The Best, Redefined.. and that review was 5 months after the phone launched!
No, it wasn't a rebuttal post. If I wanted to rebut, I could have simply stated: IMHO was regarding the three issues that plagued it, not about GPS being one of the issues. 99/100 people would probably have GPS as one of the main issues.
There were 3 problems with Galaxy S, imho. 1) Shitty rfs file system. 2) Shitty GPS. 3) Relatively low RAM
rfs isn't a shitty file system. It actually performs rather well. Samsung's original implementation of it sucked in a truly mind-boggling way. The file system drivers these days work very well and that can be seen clearly as there's no longer a performance improvement gained when converting later Gingerbread based roms to ext4. I don't know what they were thinking originally though. I think the rfs issue made up 90% of the performance problems on Eclair and Froyo.
GPS sucks. This isn't your opinion. It's everyone's opinion. It's not just the software, but also the hardware. The software does help though. Later modems like JVS actually perform very well despite the shitty antenna design.
The RAM issue on the other hand isn't so much as the system has low RAM, but rather that Samsung have made such a bloated piece of crap implementation of Android. Switching to Cyanogenmod showed how little Android is supposed to use when running, and also freed up some 80mb on the/system partition.
Sigh. From the top: I don't know of how they've changed RFS over the last few months, but it was shitty when I used it. Does it still lock up where there is I/O going on, like media scanner running? That's what I always noticed with it.
GPS sucks: It is my opinion, and it just happens to coincide with what majority of the problems other people have. There are people that are perfectly happy with the way their GPS works too...
The RAM issue is real. I could feel the pinch, but others might think it's okay and perfectly normal. Had the same problem on Samsung based ROMs, and CM7/AOSP ROMs. I've never felt like that for Galaxy S II
Erm, no. 2.0 éclair and 2.1 update 1 are very different.
Effectively what the market is saying is that at the end of a two-year contract, your device will be obsolete.
That's how it is for pretty much all major smartphone platforms. Android, iOS, blackberry and probably WP7. No iOS device has had 3 version updates, and iOS is typically updated every year.
It's a combination of both shitty software on Samsung's part, and poor contact to the GPS antenna. Newer models have somewhat fixed the contact issue, and GPS on them runs much better.
Put either a ported Galaxy S FW on it, or put CM7/9 on it. Problem solved.
And yes, it does have a bad update track record in US of A. I've only experienced the EU Galaxy S and Galaxy S II, and have no problems with their release speed.
It shows that they realised the mistakes they made with the original, and made positive changes. It's not all rosy though. The sound codec for example, isn't as good as the Galaxy S
Besides, does not having the latest version of the OS on your phone suddenly make it horrible? There are many people out there that simply don't care what version of software is on their phone. A friend for example didn't want me to update their ZTE blade to a newer version of CM7 because the version they already had was working fine.
It's easy to say, that, but I can list a bunch of devices that have had two full software updates, same as most iPhones. Galaxy S, HTC incredible/evo, Motorla Droid X, SE Xperia X10. All flagship devices, all got 2 software updates.
That chart points out the differences of how software is updated on the platforms, and how fast it is iterated. The android model is not the same as the iPhone model, and to compare it as such is simplistic to say the least. iPhone 3G was unusable after it got updated to iOS 4, and then by iOS 4.2, Apple shitcanned support for it too.
Slashdot Mirror
When I bought my 2nd SSD a few weeks ago (first was an M4 for my laptop, this being for my desktop), I opted for a 128GB Samsung SSD 830. It's a great little drive, and was ~30% cheaper than Intel SSD 510.
I went for the 830 over a Sandforce-based drive because of their reliability. There's a reason why Apple use Samsung SSDs in their laptops.
Here we go again!
Every time I click on a news story involving Google, I'm all but positive that the first post will be:
a) Posted with a 2.5+ million UID
b) Over 100 words long, yet still posted the same minute the story goes live
c) Negative towards Google
Here we go again. Welcome back CmdrPony / InsightIn140Bytes / DCTech. Happy shilling. Hope you karma manages to hold out for more than 4 days this time.
It's just a render, and possibly a mishmash between Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Xoom
What?
Samsung are one of the few OEMs to not lock their bootloaders. If you go low enough (read: ODIN or heimdall) you can do whatever you want with it.
Yeah... no.
vr-zone
As it stands right now, the prototype version is consuming 2.6W in idle with the target being 2W, while the worst case scenarios are video playback: watching the video at 720p in Adobe Flash format will consume 3.6W, while the target for shipping parts should be 1W less (2.6W)
extremeTech
The final chips, which ship early next year, aim to cut this down to 2W and 2.6W respectively. This is in-line with the latest ARM chips, though again, we’ll need to get our hands on some production silicon to see how Medfield really performs.
Great. How about comparing it to a NEXT GEN chip then? Not to mention power consumption - which is its Achilles heel - still can't compare to THE LAST GEN ARM CHIP.
Exactly. And the current crop mostly have 45/40nm fab. How will it compare to the 32/28nm fab, quad core and A15 based ARM processors? Will Intel still be trying to get the power consumption down to acceptable levels then?
Sure, it's great, and compares well to this gen of processors (which are all at the 45/40nm fab (the exynos 4210 is 45nm, not 32nm as vr-zone incorrectly states)).
But what about the next gen chips that will have 32/28nm fab?
And how will it compare to the Quad-Core A9 processors (Tegra 3), higher clocked dual core A9 processors (Exynos 4212) or A15/A15 based designs? (Exynos 5250 and Krait/Snapdragon S4)
It beats the current crop of dual core ARM processors (Exynos, snapdragon s3 and Tegra 2) in one benchmark that "leaked".
Nothing fishy about that at all.
Wait, why is it superior?
Windows Phone is Superior; Why Hasn’t it Taken Off
ex-Windows Phone evangelist Charlie Kindel
Oh, right
Hey, 90% of the world used to use internet explorer too...
Quadrant is such a flawed benchmark.
P.S. You took my post way too seriously.
The T-Mobile Vibrant is still stuck at Froyo.
Well, it' s T-Mobile phone, not a Samsung phone.
Quadrant
Dude, you just lost all credibility in my eyes.
Well, I only have experience of the European phones, and yes GPS is a sore point for all of the first gen Galaxy S phones.
As for you Faux G not working on AOSP ROMs, it was like that for all of the WiMax phones until someone wrote a driver for it a while back (IIRC)
You should theoretically be able to flash w/e modem file you want to it, IIRC.
Oh, and you're lucky with the GPS performance. I had one of the very first Galaxy S phones, and the GPS would always drop, and never get a proper lock. It was utterly useless for navigation, because it always assumed I was somewhere else.
1. Android
2. Google Account
3. Chrome Store
hah, I've had many people and a few ROM/CM developers say Galaxy S was a paid beta for Galaxy S II ;-). When I got it, my friend even said the next one will be 10x better. Given my relative naivety at the time, I didn't think it'd be possible...
The shocking thing is that even though it was a beta, Galaxy S was arguably the best android phone on the market for at least 6 months. It did many things right: Decent internal memory size, Best in class GPU, proper multi-touch touchscreen (no bs dual-touch like Nexus One/Desire/Incredible/Droid), ~1.8GB for app installs (150ish MB was the norm back then). Brilliant video playback and codec support.
But 1GB RAM, dual core 1.2ghz A9, 8MP camera with 1080p and flash, flawless high profile 1080p playback and even 1080p flash playback (youtube). Like anandtech said: The Best, Redefined.. and that review was 5 months after the phone launched!
No, it wasn't a rebuttal post. If I wanted to rebut, I could have simply stated: IMHO was regarding the three issues that plagued it, not about GPS being one of the issues. 99/100 people would probably have GPS as one of the main issues.
There were 3 problems with Galaxy S, imho. 1) Shitty rfs file system. 2) Shitty GPS. 3) Relatively low RAM
rfs isn't a shitty file system. It actually performs rather well. Samsung's original implementation of it sucked in a truly mind-boggling way. The file system drivers these days work very well and that can be seen clearly as there's no longer a performance improvement gained when converting later Gingerbread based roms to ext4. I don't know what they were thinking originally though. I think the rfs issue made up 90% of the performance problems on Eclair and Froyo.
GPS sucks. This isn't your opinion. It's everyone's opinion. It's not just the software, but also the hardware. The software does help though. Later modems like JVS actually perform very well despite the shitty antenna design.
The RAM issue on the other hand isn't so much as the system has low RAM, but rather that Samsung have made such a bloated piece of crap implementation of Android. Switching to Cyanogenmod showed how little Android is supposed to use when running, and also freed up some 80mb on the /system partition.
Sigh. From the top: I don't know of how they've changed RFS over the last few months, but it was shitty when I used it. Does it still lock up where there is I/O going on, like media scanner running? That's what I always noticed with it.
GPS sucks: It is my opinion, and it just happens to coincide with what majority of the problems other people have. There are people that are perfectly happy with the way their GPS works too...
The RAM issue is real. I could feel the pinch, but others might think it's okay and perfectly normal. Had the same problem on Samsung based ROMs, and CM7/AOSP ROMs. I've never felt like that for Galaxy S II
Erm, no. 2.0 éclair and 2.1 update 1 are very different.
Effectively what the market is saying is that at the end of a two-year contract, your device will be obsolete.
That's how it is for pretty much all major smartphone platforms. Android, iOS, blackberry and probably WP7. No iOS device has had 3 version updates, and iOS is typically updated every year.
It's a combination of both shitty software on Samsung's part, and poor contact to the GPS antenna. Newer models have somewhat fixed the contact issue, and GPS on them runs much better.
Put either a ported Galaxy S FW on it, or put CM7/9 on it. Problem solved.
And yes, it does have a bad update track record in US of A. I've only experienced the EU Galaxy S and Galaxy S II, and have no problems with their release speed.
It shows that they realised the mistakes they made with the original, and made positive changes. It's not all rosy though. The sound codec for example, isn't as good as the Galaxy S
Besides, does not having the latest version of the OS on your phone suddenly make it horrible? There are many people out there that simply don't care what version of software is on their phone. A friend for example didn't want me to update their ZTE blade to a newer version of CM7 because the version they already had was working fine.
It's easy to say, that, but I can list a bunch of devices that have had two full software updates, same as most iPhones. Galaxy S, HTC incredible/evo, Motorla Droid X, SE Xperia X10. All flagship devices, all got 2 software updates.
That chart points out the differences of how software is updated on the platforms, and how fast it is iterated. The android model is not the same as the iPhone model, and to compare it as such is simplistic to say the least. iPhone 3G was unusable after it got updated to iOS 4, and then by iOS 4.2, Apple shitcanned support for it too.