Related
Has anyone else seen the iphone 4 commercial saying the screen is the highest resolution screen ever on a phone?
I thought the vibrant had a better screen? It definitely looks better than the iphone four though.
The iPhone 4 does have the highest resolution ever. Samsung claims that the SAMOLED screens have better viewing angles and all that ****. Its really just what u think overall I guess.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
The pixels and the screen size on the iphone 4 have a better looking screen while the vibrant has a bigger screen but lesser pixels so yeah the iphone 4 screen is better but iOS sucks =]
the iPhone 4 has a 3.5 inch LCD screen has a resolution of 960 x 640
the vibrant has a 4 inch S-AMOLED screen that has a resolution of 800 x 480
the S-AMOLED screen displays colors clearer and truer and is easier to see in the sun, the iPhone 4 has an insane pixel density that makes things look cleaner
its a matter of preference really once you let an iPhone 4 owner watch Avatar on your vibrant they will be extremely jealous
That's pretty surprising.
The kid with the iphone 4 finally got pissed at me and quoted the commercial lmao.
But I still think the vibrant looks cleaner plus bigger screen=better.
We compared angry birds visuals on lowest brightness. I won
xSunny said:
The pixels and the screen size on the iphone 4 have a better looking screen while the vibrant has a bigger screen but lesser pixels so yeah the iphone 4 screen is better but iOS sucks =]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Better looking screen"?! Are you for real?
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?deskto...e.com/watch?v=xiO3s8NdQ34&v=xiO3s8NdQ34&gl=US
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
ive compared the I4 and Vibrant tirelessly after seeing my friends I4. I was blown away and confused by how good the I4 OS looks, its pretty shocking because there is nothing else like it, at least in the domestic mobile device arena. I was actually pissed off that my vibrant looked so much fuzzier, i almost stopped using it and just pulled out my old nexus I was so bummed.
But after I looked into it further it became clear that the I4's visual advantage is limited to the OS, which is definitely important but it doesnt include media, so the Vibrant's samoled does have an advantage in that department. Also, I think the I4 is much easier to see in daylight, the Vibrant is somewhat better than than the Nexus, which is virtually invisible under the sun, but the Vibrant is still no treat to use outside.
The I4 is far and away better looking as far as the operating system which basically includes all lines; apps and their icons, text, the browser, you cant see pixels, its not even close. Also, the old and new Iphones alike scroll without blurring like Android does (I believe its because of GPU acceleration which, if Im not mistaken, Android will add with Gingerbread?), it keeps its resolution while scrolling which makes a big difference visually, particularly in the browser. With Android phones, once you are pressing the screen to scroll in the browser, you can see a huge difference between pressing and not pressing, as soon as you let up the screen goes back to its optimal quality. But the Vibrant absolutely looks better with all media.
I4 has more pixels on a smaller screen with crazy pixel density, so that part really cant be personal preference, unless you prefer fuzzier lines/text. But it is relative, if the I4 didnt exist I would be wild for the Vibrants screen in media and the OS alike. But the I4 obviously has a better look in the OS alone, but not media.
tonomon said:
That's pretty surprising.
The kid with the iphone 4 finally got pissed at me and quoted the commercial lmao.
But I still think the vibrant looks cleaner plus bigger screen=better.
We compared angry birds visuals on lowest brightness. I won
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Comparing Angry Birds is a bad comparison - the iPhone version is not optimized for the iPhone4 display, I don't think. It's a lower resolution than the Android version.
Retina display has higher pixel density, and you have to try real hard to distinguish between the pixels, however if you put two screens together and just look at them without digging your nose into your phone you can hardly see that SAMOLED is a bit washed out compared to the Retina, but once you fire up a high quality video SAMOLED will take it any day due to its brightness and dynamic contrast. I do think colors on Sammy are over saturated like with almost all of their LCD/LED panels.
tehmanmuffin said:
the iPhone 4 has a 3.5 inch LCD screen has a resolution of 960 x 640
the vibrant has a 4 inch S-AMOLED screen that has a resolution of 800 x 480
the S-AMOLED screen displays colors clearer and truer and is easier to see in the sun, the iPhone 4 has an insane pixel density that makes things look cleaner
its a matter of preference really once you let an iPhone 4 owner watch Avatar on your vibrant they will be extremely jealous
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
very true, my iphone 4 friends are jealous of my screen
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
yeah the iphone 4 have a better screen when we are talking about pixels but when it comes to watching video files, there's no way any other phone will beat our super duper amoled screen.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
DMaverick50 said:
ive compared the I4 and Vibrant tirelessly after seeing my friends I4. I was blown away and confused by how good the I4 OS looks, its pretty shocking because there is nothing else like it, at least in the domestic mobile device arena. I was actually pissed off that my vibrant looked so much fuzzier, i almost stopped using it and just pulled out my old nexus I was so bummed.
But after I looked into it further it became clear that the I4's visual advantage is limited to the OS, which is definitely important but it doesnt include media, so the Vibrant's samoled does have an advantage in that department. Also, I think the I4 is much easier to see in daylight, the Vibrant is somewhat better than than the Nexus, which is virtually invisible under the sun, but the Vibrant is still no treat to use outside.
The I4 is far and away better looking as far as the operating system which basically includes all lines; apps and their icons, text, the browser, you cant see pixels, its not even close. Also, the old and new Iphones alike scroll without blurring like Android does (I believe its because of GPU acceleration which, if Im not mistaken, Android will add with Gingerbread?), it keeps its resolution while scrolling which makes a big difference visually, particularly in the browser. With Android phones, once you are pressing the screen to scroll in the browser, you can see a huge difference between pressing and not pressing, as soon as you let up the screen goes back to its optimal quality. But the Vibrant absolutely looks better with all media.
I4 has more pixels on a smaller screen with crazy pixel density, so that part really cant be personal preference, unless you prefer fuzzier lines/text. But it is relative, if the I4 didnt exist I would be wild for the Vibrants screen in media and the OS alike. But the I4 obviously has a better look in the OS alone, but not media.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What are you talking about, I've used my phone in direct sunlight in the middle of the day and the screen is easily readable with MINIMUM brightness, unless your screen is dirty and is being extra reflective because of it, this screen works amazing in the sun, on full its clear even with glare
Also, my vibrant's browser does not blur, I just tested it for a goods few mins and no bluring at all
And lastly on discussion, the i4's screen resolution + the smaller size of the screen kinda makes you think its sharper but its a smaller screen...does a higher resolution help it at all? Do you see any distinguishable difference from a lower res screen?
The only advantage i4 has is how dim and how bright the display can get because its an lcd however super amoled wins overall
Sent from my SXY-T959
Doesn't super-Amoled give a blueish tint on whites? on my i4 the browser sucks, it gives pattern checker board things when scrolling super fast, and on android i never got this.
IMHO overall the S-amoled is better, the colors are more vivid but it's funny how the maker of both displays is Samsung
Hexmaster93 said:
IMHO overall the S-amoled is better, the colors are more vivid but it's funny how the maker of both displays is Samsung
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol then samsung wins
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
kanwal236 said:
What are you talking about, I've used my phone in direct sunlight in the middle of the day and the screen is easily readable with MINIMUM brightness, unless your screen is dirty and is being extra reflective because of it, this screen works amazing in the sun, on full its clear even with glare
Also, my vibrant's browser does not blur, I just tested it for a goods few mins and no bluring at all
And lastly on discussion, the i4's screen resolution + the smaller size of the screen kinda makes you think its sharper but its a smaller screen...does a higher resolution help it at all? Do you see any distinguishable difference from a lower res screen?
The only advantage i4 has is how dim and how bright the display can get because its an lcd however super amoled wins overall
Sent from my SXY-T959
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've had the blurry browser srolling on all my Google phones. Its more noticeable if you've used an iPhone for a while then used a Google phone for a while. Just go to this forum, and look at the arrows pointing right and the icons especially the envelopes to the left of the thread titles. Now slowly scroll, you'll notice the envelopes almost blinking, and the lines become jagged off and on. So when you scroll normally theres a subtle choppiness. But really its only annoying because iPhones don't do it they are smooth, I thinking its the gpu acceleration which we should have shortly. Android hadn't said why they have put off gpu acc so long. Or maqybe they have but I don't know about it. As far as sunlight it could he better but coming from a nexus I would say the vibrant is indeed a treat
I hope this isn't too off topic. I've over clocked and lag fixed my vibrant, I'm trying to show up this guy at my job that has iphone4 how do you run a benchmark test on iphone so we can compare? I'm at 1700 benchmark right now
Joshochoa187 said:
I hope this isn't too off topic. I've over clocked and lag fixed my vibrant, I'm trying to show up this guy at my job that has iphone4 how do you run a benchmark test on iphone so we can compare? I'm at 1700 benchmark right now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's linpack for iPhone, but it isn't made by the same company, so I am not sure how *valid* the comparison would be. There isn't really any universal benchmarking tools that exists on both platforms. So you are SOL at the moment.
Dunno why this turned into a iphone vs galaxy s post but here is a link for an unbiased view on both of these phones screens (scroll to bottom);
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i9000_galaxy_s_vs_apple_iphone_4-review-500p3.php
Most people won't be able to tell the difference in my opinion. Now if you are blowing up pics and text you will probably will see the difference. The super amoled blew me away the first time I saw avatar on it, Iphone can't do that.
I know that there have already been posts about this but...... I played with my friends galaxy s - vodafone branded. Totally rubbish screen. Vibrant, oversaturated, and very very blurry - almost PSP screen blurry. It was awful, and text virtually unreadable. Then, both my parents got iPhone 4s. WOW. Screen is so sharp its beautiful. Atrix was looking great until I saw that it was RGBW rather than RGB. Why? Can anyone comment? Is it better/worse than galaxy s clarity wise? Better/worse than iPhone 4 clarity wise? Any photos MUCH appreciated. Thanks a lot
iPhone 4 > Motorola Atrix
iPhone 4 has a 3.5" screen with a resolution of 960 by 640.
Now this screen is just drop-dead gorgeous. And nobody can argue with that. It has a pixel density of 326 ppi. This is more than the human eye can see, and is thus named the 'Retina Display'
On the other hand, the Motorola Atrix is much newer and is running Android. It has a 540by 960 but a 4 inch display. This is considerably more blurry than the iPhone 4's display. It has a useless laptop dock but for $499 who will think to buy it?!?!?!?! It does not even have a proper OS on it!
Once you have used the iPhone 4 I can assure you that you will never return to the Motorola Atrix. Now if you are a gamer like me, then you need a good Applications Store. The Apple iPhone 4 has the Apple App Store with stunning applications with HD graphics. Whereas, the Motorola Atrix utilises the Android Market which has rubbish, useless, demo apps. The best application on the Android Market is probably Angry Birds, which has advertisements filling the screen and can become very buggy.
In conclusion, I believe that iPhone 4, albeit much older, is superior to the Motorola Atrix anyday. This shows how Apple remains victorious so far. Until the iPhone 5 is released.
Apple troll
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App
holy fanboy batman!
yes, the pixel density of the iphone4 is better, but i assure you it's not so great you can't see it.
Trolls Trolls
Deary me, another appolyte . iSheep these days....
You have a point with the retina display being a higher PPI. Wow. It took a genius to figure that out. I'm trying to find out how much better it is, and I really can't take a trolls word for it :/
DarkyHero,
I want to thank you, I have not had a good laugh all day until reading your post.
kartik50,
First off i'd recommend to not pay any attention to trolls with some agenda and half baked inaccurate ideas.
But, moving on, in my family we have the Galaxy S, Iphone 4 and I have the Atrix. I do find the Iphone screen to be very good, no question about it however I personally liked the Galaxy S screen better. But that was until I got my Atrix. It was then I noticed how over saturated the Galaxy S looked (and as you said a little blurry, but not by much) when putting them side by side. As far as what one out of the three are the best? I think its personal preference and all 3 (to me) look very good. I'd pick the screen of the iPhone4 1st then the Atrix second. The Atrix is very sharp and clear and I'm having no complaints.
As far as the obvious far from fact-based claim from DarkyHero about the app market on Android.. I'm sure you recognize a troll for what they are.
I guess my eyes are just weird then. My freind standing right next to me, couldn't see any of the issues I could with the Galaxy s screen. We only looked at the Touchwiz Ui 3.0 text. However, iPhone blows me away. I have a 3GS right now, so I hope that the Atrix is far far superior. On a side note, Atrix vs Xperia Play? Both on Orange Uk, update months overdue.......
iPhone 4 wins as far as displays go. There isn't another mobile device on the market with a better screen. The Atrix has the best looking screen of any Android device, unless of course you like the oversaturated samsung super amoleds. The only use case where the Atrix's screen falls short is when brightness is cranked up to max, but there is honestly no need to do this unless you are trying to look at your phone in direct sun light.
I wish we were able to save you before the Apple troll showed up. Anyway.
iPhone 4 does have a beautiful screen, however, this 3.5" screen is way too small to enjoy. Once you try a +4" screen, you won't ever go back. Moreover, Atrix has the same footprint of iPhone 4, so you won't notice any extra bulk with the significantly bigger screen.
qHD is almost same as iPhone 4's screen resolution, so there should be no worries there either. As a matter of fact, given the widescreen you'll find on the Atrix, you'll see more pixels of your movies than you normally would on iPhone 4's square-ish display.
A BIG difference between iPhone 4 and Atrix is the dual-core Cortex A9-based Tegra 2 processor; you'll get a seemless FULL DESKTOP experience when browsing the web. With Opera Mobile 11, you'll be able to have iPhone-smoothness as well.
In response to darkyhero.
Is this a serious post? Or are you just this big of an idiot? The iTurd does not have a retina display, it was just marketing hype.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/06/iphone-4-retina/
I one minute Google search found this.
Sent from my ADR6400L using XDA App
wow!
Something tells me dhero has never used an atrix, been an android power user, played starfox 64 on their atrix with a wiimote, or understood the walled garden of apple's for what it is: a fortress of steve jobs devoid of hacking(the good kind), pornography, and meant for people of all ages, like the 13 year old darky hero here. Judging by your blind optimism for iOS and writing, maybe steve jobs was on the money making a sanitized kids toy. Oh wait its not a kids toy it shatters like a wine glass from 4 feet. Ok, I guess he just wants your money. Every year. You cannot even swap the damn batteries out, my last smartphone lasted me 3 years with 4 batteries. And yes it got five days of solid use with an extended battery...
Ugh don’t get me started on apple and their financial brilliance(their financial success often comes at the cost of their customers, *cough* apple tax *cough*).
So - clarity wise can anyone say its better than SGS? Also- I just saw a review from PhoneDog saying that Nexus S>Atrix? WTF? I mean lag lag lag lag thats all the Atrix was doing? I know there arent any custom roms - Damn you motorola! - but will there be fixes? I know what its like to get a cutting edge phone that became obsolete (samsung Tocco). BTW u guys reply FAST. Thanks!
Definitely. SGS has a 480x800 sceen. Clarity will definitely be better than that.
kartik50 said:
So - clarity wise can anyone say its better than SGS? Also- I just saw a review from PhoneDog saying that Nexus S>Atrix? WTF? I mean lag lag lag lag thats all the Atrix was doing? I know there arent any custom roms - Damn you motorola! - but will there be fixes? I know what its like to get a cutting edge phone that became obsolete (samsung Tocco). BTW u guys reply FAST. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I haven't seen any lag on my phone. Granted, I'm coming from a Touch Pro, so anything should seem fast buuuut...
Get Opera Mobile from the marketplace for a web browser and it clips along pretty good.
So it's not android optimization for dual core? If thats the case, then why te f.u.c.k did Moto even put on blur?!
I have two screenshots with accompanying pictures of the screen for comparison:
http://www.mylilsite.net/images/atrix/homescreen1.png
http://www.mylilsite.net/images/atrix/homescreen1-t2i.jpg
You'll notice any solid color ends up being "checkerboarded" by the PenTile screen.
http://www.mylilsite.net/images/atrix/speakPrompt1.png
http://www.mylilsite.net/images/atrix/speakPrompt1-t2i.jpg
The gradient was already weird (blocky?) in the screenshot, but on the actual screen it just looks terrible.
I notice the PenTile color "checkerboarding" all the time in w/e apps or videos and it is a distraction but for me it isn't a deal breaker.
Thanks so much for posting these pics! You call it checkerboarding, I call it blurriness but this is it - the thing I saw on the galaxy s. Well if it's back.... Mainly this screen will be used for gaming, movies and web browsing. I'd say movies will be below par due to bad colour- gaming too and email mucked up due to pentile. Plz correct me- bc it's looking quite grim...
kartik50 said:
Thanks so much for posting these pics! You call it checkerboarding, I call it blurriness but this is it - the thing I saw on the galaxy s. Well if it's back.... Mainly this screen will be used for gaming, movies and web browsing. I'd say movies will be below par due to bad colour- gaming too and email mucked up due to pentile. Plz correct me- bc it's looking quite grim...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You guys are high... I'm not experiencing any clipping like I did on the nexus one gallery. Quick pic for gallery and dolphin for browser.
Sent from my Motorola Olympus
ChongoDroid said:
You guys are high... I'm not experiencing any clipping like I did on the nexus one gallery. Quick pic for gallery and dolphin for browser.
Sent from my Motorola Olympus
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is clipping?
The Atrix has a 4" display with 540 x 960 resolution. This is higher pixel density than almost every other phone on the market except the iPhone 4. The iPhone, however, only has a 3.5" display, and once you have used a 4" display for any length of time (or even a 3.7") it is very hard to loose that extra space. It is the highest resolution and pixel density android phone available (except for that Sharp one in Japan that is an NTT DoCoMo exclusive and uses the same display Sharp supply to Apple).
PenTile is laid out RRB GGB so you have RGB, just two lots of each. Unless you are insanely fussy about screens, you will not notice. Plus it will look better than most other screens purely for having a higher pixel density.
I wouldn't worry about it being PenTile. Have a look at this http://www.anandtech.com/show/4165/the-motorola-atrix-4g-preview/4 .
I'd like to hear from people who currently own the SIII or have compared it directly to a HTC One X and iPhone 4 or 4S.
Specifically what I'd really like to know is how the screens of these devices compare to each other. From personal experience, I find the screen of the iPhone 4 and 4S to be a bluish hue whereas the One X has a wonderfully white display. (When both devices are at full brightness with auto brightness disabed.)
I'd like to know if anyone has experience comparing the SIII screen to the 4/4S and/or the One X. What I can tell from comparision videos so far is that the SIII has a bluish screen (a la the iPhone) compared to the One X.
Also, the issue the One X has with multitasking is well documented by now. Does the SIII share this issue?
Thank you in advance for any answers. After seeing the leaked next gen iPhone pics, I'm seriously contemplating getting the SIII when it comes to AT&T.
I am picky about screens. Or I should say, I became picky after owning the iphone 4.
The iphone 4 screen is 2 years old. It did not change for the iphone 4s.
Yet, it is still the king of the hill. The benchmark. Nice and bright with typical IPS viewing angles and a standard hdtv-like presentation (~500 nits) This does NOT speak to Apple's greatness. It only speaks to Apple's leverage and high standards for parts. They got exclusivity, and a high quality part, at a mass market price. Not sure if another maker could have gotten such a nice screen at an affordable price, nor am I sure if another maker would care to the degree that Apple does about using premium components. Colors are a bit undersaturated if you ask me. Thankfully other makers are now catching up to the iphone 4's display. But a tip of the hat to the iphone 4, which started it all and is still at the very top of the heap even 2 years later, an eternity in the smartphone world.
HTC One X, is the first screen that surpasses the iphone 4's screen, simply b/c it's bigger but maintains the same quality. I'd say that white is more truly white on the One X, and the screen is slightly brighter (~550 nits). Colors pop more and are more fully saturated. I would choose the One X or the iphone 4s screen soley based on your preferred screen size.
S3 I have not seen, but I have seen the Note's screen and Galaxy Nexus. My main issue is that they are not nearly bright enough. Blue cast, and of course the pentile matrix display. The matrix was easily visible to me, and the ovrriding reason why I downgrade the screens vs the One X and iphone 4. Next comes max brightness (~330 nits). You want a higher brightness when watching videos and using it in the sun. On the plus side, the blacks are the deepest they can be b/c the pixels are completely off. Can't beat that. Colors are very saturated, which is better than undersaturated. Also wonderful viewing angles.
My opinion is in the minority. Most people think that the S3's screen is wonderful and amazing. They are not bothered by the measurably less peak brightness, and the easily visible (to me) pentile matrix. I believe that IPS tech is still the superior one simply b/c it looks more natural, or maybe it's b/c what we're most used to, even outside of smartphone displays.
lamenramen said:
I am picky about screens. Or I should say, I became picky after owning the iphone 4.
The iphone 4 screen is 2 years old. It did not change for the iphone 4s.
Yet, it is still the king of the hill. The benchmark. Nice and bright with typical IPS viewing angles and a standard hdtv-like presentation (~500 nits) This does NOT speak to Apple's greatness. It only speaks to Apple's leverage and high standards for parts. They got exclusivity, and a high quality part, at a mass market price. Not sure if another maker could have gotten such a nice screen at an affordable price, nor am I sure if another maker would care to the degree that Apple does about using premium components. Colors are a bit undersaturated if you ask me. Thankfully other makers are now catching up to the iphone 4's display. But a tip of the hat to the iphone 4, which started it all and is still at the very top of the heap even 2 years later, an eternity in the smartphone world.
HTC One X, is the first screen that surpasses the iphone 4's screen, simply b/c it's bigger but maintains the same quality. I'd say that white is more truly white on the One X, and the screen is slightly brighter (~550 nits). Colors pop more and are more fully saturated. I would choose the One X or the iphone 4s screen soley based on your preferred screen size.
S3 I have not seen, but I have seen the Note's screen and Galaxy Nexus. My main issue is that they are not nearly bright enough. Blue cast, and of course the pentile matrix display. The matrix was easily visible to me, and the ovrriding reason why I downgrade the screens vs the One X and iphone 4. Next comes max brightness (~330 nits). You want a higher brightness when watching videos and using it in the sun. On the plus side, the blacks are the deepest they can be b/c the pixels are completely off. Can't beat that. Colors are very saturated, which is better than undersaturated. Also wonderful viewing angles.
My opinion is in the minority. Most people think that the S3's screen is wonderful and amazing. They are not bothered by the measurably less peak brightness, and the easily visible (to me) pentile matrix. I believe that IPS tech is still the superior one simply b/c it looks more natural, or maybe it's b/c what we're most used to, even outside of smartphone displays.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As someone who has compared the iPhone 4 and One X screens side by side, I agree entirely with your assessment. (I do think the One X has a definitive edge overall compared to the iPhone 4 screen.) However I think you'd need to see the SIII in person before making any assessments regarding it's quality. The impression I'm getting from HD YouTube videos is that the SIII screen possess a bluish hue, a la iPhone 4/4S, however the pentile display does not seem to produce a great deal of pixelation as I originally feared.
I've seen them all, and HTC One X's screen is definitely the best. You'll really notice the difference if you put them side-by-side for sure.
plisk3n said:
I've seen them all, and HTC One X's screen is definitely the best. You'll really notice the difference if you put them side-by-side for sure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Screen aside, I don't like the One X. Multitasking issues. Camera bump on the back. Prefer the hardware home buttons of the iPhone and SIII.
Htc one x screen is awful. Is clean yes but colors r not natural. White is not clear white whilr black is grey.
I own both and I will say this:
The One X screen is amazing. It is pin sharp. Fonts looks amazing. Colours are very natural and look good. (Sorry Totòòò, I disagree with you, perhaps your screen was faulty)
But, the Galaxy is better in 9/10 ways. It's near impossible to notice the pentile matrix. You have to zoom in on a font to even notice, beyond regular reading levels. The One X screen is just that bit more sharp, where in the above scenario, you still cannot make out any dots. EDIT: Although I have found that different fonts yield different results. For example, the font used in the stock browser looks really good, even when zoomed in a fair bit. The font used in Chrome Beta, does not. I notice the pentile matrix a lot more when using this font.
The galaxy S3 screen has deeper colours (if you've seen AMOLED before you know what I mean), and I find it more pleasurable to look at.
The only detractor with the S3, is that when scrolling text on white backgrounds (e..g web pages), and scrolling it fast, the fonts tend to blur a little bit due to the pentile matrix. When you stop scrolling, the fonts are pin sharp. The One X did not suffer from this.
Overall (and believe me I am picky about my screens) I find the S3 screen to *just* have the edge over the One X screen, due to the fact the colours being that little bit more pleasurable to look at.
Of course, this is all subjective. YMMV. At the end of the day they are both very good screens.
One X shty multi is the same as Sensations, totally a disaster. Plus closed case, cannot change acu, no microsd and huge slowness. Seriously this phone sucks. SGS3 on the other hand, like SGS2 do not have such problems.
Damn, i want my gs3 what is going on with Samsung,is there anyone who got the pepple blue in EU delivered.
Sorry guys,of topic i know
No there's noone, because Samsung stopped deliverys of blue one for around three weeks! Get a white one, it's hot!
Wysyłane z mojego GT-I9300 za pomocą Tapatalk 2
I know, there are a lot of threads about that and I read them! They are all outdated, they were written when razr had GB and nexus was on ICS.
What about now? RAZR has ICS and Nexus has JB.
I may have the opportunity to sell my RAZR (it has scratches, I hate my dog -.-" ) for 300€ and buy a new Nexus for the same price.
Do you think this is a good idea?
I'd say yes. The nexus screen looks much crisper and better, especially white text and things like that. Also for me the big selling point of the razr was the 8mp camera, but I find the Nexus takes better pics, mostly because I find the razr to have dull colors in the pics
Thanks! Someone else?
Depends on what matters to you…
The razr is a great phone, best radio, best sound quality, bright display, nearly indestructible and completely reliable. Sports a nice set of helpful extra functionality. Display is lower resolution and pentile, thus not as crisp as the nexus, still consider it much better (see below).
The nexus has the latest android version, and is open to custom roms. The display is higher resolution, but very dim, awful at low brightness (smudgy), and colours are completely off (yellow tint and gamma is a mess). The latter can be corrected to some degree with custom kernels. No SD card and only mtp. Battery life is short, but can be remedied by swapping batteries. Build quality is ok, but nowhere compared to the razr.
To put it simple, for me the razr is a great tool, the nexus a fun toy.
Sent from my XT910 using Tapatalk 2
Actually just received a Galaxy Nexus myself yesterday, and thus far, I pretty much agree with both of the above posts. Build quality-wise, the RAZR feels more solid, obviously much slimmer in the hand, and is lighter than the Nexus without feeling cheap. However I am surprised by the Nexus' build quality, it's not anywhere near as plasticky feeling as some previous Samsung phone's I've felt...there's no hollow creakiness to it when you hold it and it feels hefty. The only disappointment comes when you pry off the battery cover...it's one incredibly cheap cover.
The RAZR has considerably better sound quality, the speaker is much louder...in fact I believe the RAZR has one of the loudest loudspeakers period out of any phone out there. The Nexus on the other hand is much, much quieter...I'd say too quiet for the most part. I use speakerphone mode a lot for calls so this matters to me and is almost a deal breaker on the Nexus.
The Nexus does have a sharper screen, but I find the RAZR's screen gives more of that eye popping and color saturated AMOLED look, which you either love or hate. I find both screens are horrible at rendering white, and both look very yellowish if you use Auto-brightness. I thought the Nexus' 720 display sharpness would be night and day different to my eyes, but it's really not in day to day usage. More and more though I'm starting to realize I don't much care for AMOLED screens and would probably want a regular LCD for my next phone, the whites bother me quite a bit and I do get bothered by the heavy blue or green tint they pick up as you view the screen at off angles.
I haven't taken pics yet with the Nexus, but just from what I saw in the camera app, the camera seems to be much better at auto-focusing. I find the RAZR's focusing to be difficult to work with, and the picture quality is not that great.
Jelly Bean is indeed more fluid and smooth, but you'll still run into the occasional stutter here and there. More annoyingly is I'm already running into apps that won't work right on it. So expect to go through your usual headache period of apps not working, until developers catch up to updating their apps for Jelly Bean.
On the development front, there's a tremendous difference, the Nexus is indeed a developer's phone and it shows in its developer forum. I'm amazed at just how comprehensive the Nexus toolkit is that lets you bust open the phone effortlessly compared to any other phone...totally an all in one stop for rooting, bootloader unlocking, custom recovery, etc. The amount of available ROMs is also insane and make's the RAZR's totally a laughable joke in this regard.
In the end I'd agree with the sentiment that the RAZR makes a better day to day phone, while the Nexus makes for a better side toy to mess around with and install new stuff on.
Hey guys. Sorry for the hijack. This is really interesting as I am thinking of a gnex myself. Or a sgs3 if i can afford it.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Sent from my XT910 using xda premium
I've reconsidered! I'll keep my razr. It's a great phone after all and jelly bean is not enough to justify the change. Thanks to all of you!
I'm trying to decide if price is playing a huge factor between these two phones. I will also do another post in the Verizon Note 2 forum and see if adding a sd card slot and removable battery to the DNA would get people to change their minds.
I much prefer HTC over Samsung. IMHO, everything from the radios to build quality is better. Having said that, if I hadn't liked what HTC came out with this fall, I would have bought a GS3.
For me it comes down to storage, the Droid DNA only has a 16gb model and no Micro SD, it writes the device off no matter how good it is.
If it had a Micro SD slot at least then both devices are pretty much equal and it all comes down to which one you like the look of and if an extra 0.5 inch matters to you in a screen. Tbh nothing makes the GN2 stutter so I don't care about specs at this point, though the Droid DNA is more powerful on paper. Cameras are about the same, speakers are the same, mics are the same. I personally prefer TouchWiz, Samsung add so many good features standard Android doesn't have and I feel like everyone is playing catch up to Samsung. I mean the Pen has great features like being able to pull it out mid call and write a phone number down, which is a feature I've always wanted, it makes it so seamless. I love the Picture in Picture TouchWiz has and I love the multiple Windows you can have open in the GN2.
You ain't gonna complain with either device tbh...
GN2 has a removable battery, 0.5 inch extra screen size, pen, large storage + Micro SD
Droid DNA has the latest specs but only 16GB and no Micro SD
Really when it comes to screen quality, you wont complain with either, I don't buy into the PPI hype, you don't notice any difference above 250PPI when held from a normal distance.
I would go for note 2 because of the battery... DNA lasts for just 5 hrs
Sent from my GT-I9001 using xda premium
I would still get the DNA: Not a fan of SAmoled screens, Note II would be too large, love HTCs phones and Sense.
yajur1995 said:
I would go for note 2 because of the battery... DNA lasts for just 5 hrs
Sent from my GT-I9001 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not completely true. It depends on usage.
Playing 5 hours straight or 1080p video will definitely kill the battery. But then again that's 5 hours of 1080p video, can't complain there.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda premium
I vote Note 2.
The S-pen on the Note 2 is incredibly useful compared to the Note 1.
The Note 2 has true multi-window multitasking, you can watch a video, open up the browser and surf the web while looking at photos in the gallery. All on the same screen. It's actually quite awesome the first time you use it.
Note 2 has flash support in the browser.
The battery life on he Note 2 is hailed as probably the best in the business, lasts about twice as long as the DNA on a single charge.
removable battery is a plus on the Note 2 also.
expandable storage is another great feature of the Note 2. Slap in a 64GB card and you got 80GB of combined storage.
The screen on the Note 2 is quite beautiful, it is non-pentile so it is extra sharp and clear. Honestly I don't think you will be able to tell much difference between the two screens when using it day to day. Like someone said, it's hard to tell after 250ppi.
The Note 2's resolution should be much more compatible with more apps and games in the playstore. The 1080p on the DNA already has issues running many apps and games according to a few reviewers.
The DNA has a bettery cpu/gpu combo but it's pushing a lot more pixels, so I think that any performance advantage is cancelled out.
So it seems like the Note 2 is the much better device.
Everything is awesome about DNA except the battery. I'm a hardcore user i play lots of games. I don't understand HTC.. they didn't learn anything from One X. On the other hand Note 2 is very good but i don't like the Exynos cpu and 267 ppi pixel density is too low. So folks please help me what to choose. I'm driving myself insane.
This is the way I see it. Both phones doing extremely well on benchmarks so I wont comment about speed.
Note II Pros:
- Spen
- Multiwindow
- Battery life + removable
- MicroSD
- Bigger screen
- Available on all carriers
Note II Cons:
- too big, not comfy to hold
- looks ridiculous when held up for phone calls
- slippery plastic build quality
- amoled screen
- cell radio
DNA Pros:
- build quality
- excellent size, same width as SGS3 so its easy to hold
- 1080p screen + SLCD3
- wide angle front camera (pics with wife + video chat, very useful to me)
- best camera software
- waterproof rating is good (i've dropped 2 phones in the water)
DNA Cons:
- no microsd
- 16gb internal storage
- sense + verizon bloat (can both be fixed by roms and disabling)
- Verizon exclusive, works on some other GSM but no HSPA+ afaik
- battery not removable
For me personally I choose DNA. I've decided that the 16gb will do just fine for me since my current phone only has 8gb and is barely full. The rest of the Cons don't bother me at all as everything software side can be customized or fixed through roms. The battery is more than sufficient, especially if its better than SGS3 battery which most reviews seem to be saying.
The Note II is a great phone but the build quality, size, slippery feel and cell radio are things that cannot be changed. I sure as hell would not add a case to make it even bigger. I also would feel like an idiot holding that thing up to my face. Just my opinion though, I'm sure its a great phone for the right person, Lebron James.
Well its difficult to compare a phone and a phablet. Since DNA is almost the same size as S3 it would be like comparing S3 with Note 2.
That said. I dont know but everyone misses out on the Beats functionality in DNA. I have tried One X in ATT with beats headphones and my Nexus with beats head phones and for me the difference was huge.
DNA all the way for me. I've always been a fan of HTC, mainly because of their higher build quality and better radios. In this case, the screen is also better than the Note II, and for me that's among the most important pieces of the puzzle, since that's what you look at and poke with your fingers.
Guys you might want to see this: http://www.starkinsider.com/2012/11/oh-no-htc-droid-dna-battery-lasts-only-425-hours-in-test.html
Vadrieldur said:
Guys you might want to see this: http://www.starkinsider.com/2012/11/oh-no-htc-droid-dna-battery-lasts-only-425-hours-in-test.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is nothing new, he was going off the info from The Verge's review. Doing that same test the SGS3 got around 20min LESS than the DNA.
pottersam said:
This is the way I see it. Both phones doing extremely well on benchmarks so I wont comment about speed.
Note II Pros:
- Spen
- Multiwindow
- Battery life + removable
- MicroSD
- Bigger screen
- Available on all carriers
Note II Cons:
- too big, not comfy to hold
- looks ridiculous when held up for phone calls
- slippery plastic build quality
- amoled screen
- cell radio
DNA Pros:
- build quality
- excellent size, same width as SGS3 so its easy to hold
- 1080p screen + SLCD3
- wide angle front camera (pics with wife + video chat, very useful to me)
- best camera software
- waterproof rating is good (i've dropped 2 phones in the water)
DNA Cons:
- no microsd
- 16gb internal storage
- sense + verizon bloat (can both be fixed by roms and disabling)
- Verizon exclusive, works on some other GSM but no HSPA+ afaik
- battery not removable
For me personally I choose DNA. I've decided that the 16gb will do just fine for me since my current phone only has 8gb and is barely full. The rest of the Cons don't bother me at all as everything software side can be customized or fixed through roms. The battery is more than sufficient, especially if its better than SGS3 battery which most reviews seem to be saying.
The Note II is a great phone but the build quality, size, slippery feel and cell radio are things that cannot be changed. I sure as hell would not add a case to make it even bigger. I also would feel like an idiot holding that thing up to my face. Just my opinion though, I'm sure its a great phone for the right person, Lebron James.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to agree with you HTC's phones all have amazing build quality and that is a major factor for me when buying a phone, unfortunately I hate sense. The S-pen and multiwindow is what does it for me, as for screens I can't really say until I can test both of them, I honestly can't tell the difference between a retina display and my Droid Incredible's Amoled screen (unless I hold it within an uncomfortable range of my eyes).
pottersam said:
That is nothing new, he was going off the info from The Verge's review. Doing that same test the SGS3 got around 20min LESS than the DNA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a relief.. I'm sticking with DNA then.
pottersam said:
This is the way I see it. Both phones doing extremely well on benchmarks so I wont comment about speed.
Note II Pros:
- Spen
- Multiwindow
- Battery life + removable
- MicroSD
- Bigger screen
- Available on all carriers
Note II Cons:
- too big, not comfy to hold
- looks ridiculous when held up for phone calls
- slippery plastic build quality
- amoled screen
- cell radio
DNA Pros:
- build quality
- excellent size, same width as SGS3 so its easy to hold
- 1080p screen + SLCD3
- wide angle front camera (pics with wife + video chat, very useful to me)
- best camera software
- waterproof rating is good (i've dropped 2 phones in the water)
DNA Cons:
- no microsd
- 16gb internal storage
- sense + verizon bloat (can both be fixed by roms and disabling)
- Verizon exclusive, works on some other GSM but no HSPA+ afaik
- battery not removable
For me personally I choose DNA. I've decided that the 16gb will do just fine for me since my current phone only has 8gb and is barely full. The rest of the Cons don't bother me at all as everything software side can be customized or fixed through roms. The battery is more than sufficient, especially if its better than SGS3 battery which most reviews seem to be saying.
The Note II is a great phone but the build quality, size, slippery feel and cell radio are things that cannot be changed. I sure as hell would not add a case to make it even bigger. I also would feel like an idiot holding that thing up to my face. Just my opinion though, I'm sure its a great phone for the right person, Lebron James.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just how many of you who really used note 2? Many of the cons you listed are not valid.
Note II Cons:[/B]
- too big, not comfy to hold : now this is subjective call. But I rarely see note 2 user who complaint about the phone being too big after using it for a couple if days. Testing the phone on the store won't do it justice, unless you really hate big phone.
- looks ridiculous when held up for phone calls : since I used note 1 last year, there is only a few people who told me how big my phone is. Of course it will be different on each neighbourhood. But big phones are common nowadays. You won't be looked ridiculous when you use note 2 for phone calls. Using 7 inches tablet however is a different story
- slippery plastic build quality : I very much agree on this. But for me personally, I'd take removable battery and micro sd over superior build quality any day of the week
- amoled screen : past amoled screens have burn ins and black crush. not with note 2. Check the poll results in note 2 thread.
- cell radio : no comment on this. I don't have this problem
That said, I never used DNA yet. So I might change my mind when i get my hands in it.
Judging from the reviews, it looks to me that DNA is One X with superior speeds.
I got a Note 2 because Samsung's software advancements. Plus I sold my tablet, the multi tasking caught my eye. I hwen't used a Samsung phone since the first Epic. Touchwiz is smooth for once compared to sense.
I upgraded from a HTC One S, even-though Sense is elegant it does not have as many productive settings to make your life easier like the S 3 or Note 2 I Find myself doing less steps to complete simple task than I did with my One S. Like making a phone call. Zooming in and out with motion. Sure I look like a fool moving my phone around in the air but it is simple.
The AMOLED burn-in issue is what worries me the most about this phone.
Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 2
Note 2 is a great phone and I have nothing against it, had it been 5 inches and same dimensions as dna I would hands down get it. It is just simply too big for my hands I have held one and I wanted to put it down right away.
Now people talking about htc sense, sense has come a long was from being a system hog, it is no longer the same sense it used to be and much more efficient.
Although HTC has absolutely failed when it comes to multitasking, I mean can we please have some features similar to samsung or even LG, seems like HTC has settled in on sense and focused more on hardware design totally forgot about innovation on software side. I hope they are working on improving their multitasking.
It seems like HTC is learning a lesson when it comes to updating sense. They used to never update the sense version on the older phones and you used to have to get new htc phones to get improvements of sense interface, but it seems that they have learned a lesson and all the one series are being updated to sense 4+, its about time they learned from samsung that you cant just update the OS version and leave the new sense version out because that really doesn't count towards a great user experience.
azhurvadal said:
Just how many of you who really used note 2? Many of the cons you listed are not valid.
Note II Cons:[/B]
- too big, not comfy to hold : now this is subjective call. But I rarely see note 2 user who complaint about the phone being too big after using it for a couple if days. Testing the phone on the store won't do it justice, unless you really hate big phone.
- looks ridiculous when held up for phone calls : since I used note 1 last year, there is only a few people who told me how big my phone is. Of course it will be different on each neighbourhood. But big phones are common nowadays. You won't be looked ridiculous when you use note 2 for phone calls. Using 7 inches tablet however is a different story
- slippery plastic build quality : I very much agree on this. But for me personally, I'd take removable battery and micro sd over superior build quality any day of the week
- amoled screen : past amoled screens have burn ins and black crush. not with note 2. Check the poll results in note 2 thread.
- cell radio : no comment on this. I don't have this problem
That said, I never used DNA yet. So I might change my mind when i get my hands in it.
Judging from the reviews, it looks to me that DNA is One X with superior speeds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, like I said in my post, It's all my personal opinion. I could get used to using a Note II for calls just like I can get used to using a Nexus 7 for calls, but it doesn't necessarily mean I want to. In my experience with using a Note II I could feel my hand straining a bit while I griped it, while the S3, One X and GNex felt nice. I would say I have average size hands, 6ft tall and can 1-hand grip a basketball.
I don't mean to sound offensive, but a phone nearly the size of a tablet does look a little interesting during calls. Here's a few examples:
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
But again, just my opinion, maybe its because I'm in california where most people have iphones.
And regarding the amoled screen, as a photographer my main beef with it is color accuracy. If I didn't care as much about using the phone as a mobile portfolio, it wouldnt matter as much. I'm sure the colors could be tweaked, but afaik SLCD3 > Amoled
They're 2 completely different devices.
I don't know why people insist on comparing the DNA to the Note. The DNA is the phone, its not even 5mm taller than the S3. Compare it to that. Compare it to the Optimus G, the Nexus 4, etc.
Just cause it hit some magical 5in screen size its now a direct competitor to the Note? If the DNA were 4.9in would these threads even exist? When Samsung starts with their 5in phones will people be comparing the S4 to the Note? I'm guessing not, since by then it'll be common place.
The DNA is a phone, not a 'phablet', there is no direct competition to the Note at this moment, besides that LG thing.. Which isn't much competition.