Review: Samsung Highnote
Top message: It fails in it's key duty as a music player phone. by casualsuede
Replying to: Re: It fails in it's key duty as a music player phone. by SPRINTPDAGUY
HAve you actually read the review?
"I'm not sure if loading the store is the problem, but when you press the side music key, you are alerted that Java is booting. Why you need to know this I don't know. You are then informed to please wait. And wait. And wait. It takes 40-50 seconds for the player to boot up, either because it's also booting up the store app or loading up your songs. The more songs you've got, the longer it takes. But even with a minimal number of tracks, expect to wait at least 15-20 seconds before you can do anything."
"Once you select All My Music, you'll wait another 7-10 seconds, depending on how many tracks you have, for all your music to be loaded. I side loaded around 6 GB of music from Windows Media Player to an 8 GB microSD card, and waited nearly a minute before I could actually start listening to music. "
That is one of the core aspects of a good music player, being able to PLAY THE MUSIC in a reasonable amount of time.
And yes, in design, it is a copy of the Chocolate 2, a phone that is near end of life.
As for your claim that the Samsung Highnote having much better call quality:
Chocolate 2 (4 Stars)
"We tested the dual-band, dual-mode (CDMA 800/1900; EV-DO) LG VX8500 Chocolate in San Francisco using Verizon's service. Call quality was impressive, and we had no problem getting a signal. Callers could still tell were using a cell phone, but they had no problem hearing or understanding us. The speakerphone quality was also good; incoming sound was loud and clear and callers could hear us just fine." - From CNET
Samsung Highnote (3.5 stars)
We tested the dual-band, dual-mode (CDMA 800/1900; EV-DO) Samsung Highnote in San Francisco using Sprint service. Call quality was enjoyable overall. Voices sounded natural, and we had enough volume. Also, the signal was strong and free of static or interference. Our only complaint was that the audio sounded a bit hollow at times. It wasn't a big deal, though.
On their end, callers said we sounded fine. They could tell we were using a cell phone, but that's a typical experience. On the upside, they said the volume was loud, and they had no trouble hearing us. But on the downside, a few of our friends mentioned a slight echo. Automated calling systems had no trouble understanding us if we were in a quiet room." - Cnet
Doesn't sound like the Chocolate 2 is inferior, but I guess I wouldn't expect much objectivity from a guy named SPRINTPDAGUY!
Samsung hasn't been making phones that much longer than LG. The first LG phone was sold commercially in 1997 (LGC-300W) whereas the first Samsung (SCH-1000) in 1995. And if your strange logic, does that mean Motorola and Nokia are much better than Samsung, since they have started even earlier?
"Once you select All My Music, you'll wait another 7-10 seconds, depending on how many tracks you have, for all your music to be loaded. I side loaded around 6 GB of music from Windows Media Player to an 8 GB microSD card, and waited nearly a minute before I could actually start listening to music. "
That is one of the core aspects of a good music player, being able to PLAY THE MUSIC in a reasonable amount of time.
And yes, in design, it is a copy of the Chocolate 2, a phone that is near end of life.
As for your claim that the Samsung Highnote having much better call quality:
Chocolate 2 (4 Stars)
"We tested the dual-band, dual-mode (CDMA 800/1900; EV-DO) LG VX8500 Chocolate in San Francisco using Verizon's service. Call quality was impressive, and we had no problem getting a signal. Callers could still tell were using a cell phone, but they had no problem hearing or understanding us. The speakerphone quality was also good; incoming sound was loud and clear and callers could hear us just fine." - From CNET
Samsung Highnote (3.5 stars)
We tested the dual-band, dual-mode (CDMA 800/1900; EV-DO) Samsung Highnote in San Francisco using Sprint service. Call quality was enjoyable overall. Voices sounded natural, and we had enough volume. Also, the signal was strong and free of static or interference. Our only complaint was that the audio sounded a bit hollow at times. It wasn't a big deal, though.
On their end, callers said we sounded fine. They could tell we were using a cell phone, but that's a typical experience. On the upside, they said the volume was loud, and they had no trouble hearing us. But on the downside, a few of our friends mentioned a slight echo. Automated calling systems had no trouble understanding us if we were in a quiet room." - Cnet
Doesn't sound like the Chocolate 2 is inferior, but I guess I wouldn't expect much objectivity from a guy named SPRINTPDAGUY!
Samsung hasn't been making phones that much longer than LG. The first LG phone was sold commercially in 1997 (LGC-300W) whereas the first Samsung (SCH-1000) in 1995. And if your strange logic, does that mean Motorola and Nokia are much better than Samsung, since they have started even earlier?
Replies
No replies to this message
