Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Samsung Finally Launches Its First Tizen Smartphone

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Samsung Finally Launches Its First Tizen Smartphone

    Phoronix: Samsung Finally Launches Its First Tizen Smartphone

    With Computex Taipei happening this week and the Tizen Developer Conference starting tomorrow in San Francisco, Samsung has finally announced their first Tizen smartphone. The Samsung Z is this forthcoming Tizen phone...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTcwNzM

  • #2
    Any details in the hardware? Native Wayland drivers may be?

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm kind of disappointed, Samsung. I was hoping to see three launch Tizen phones - the supreme, the optimal, and the budget. Otherwise, you are just mixing features and not impressing anybody.

      IE, a 5.5 - 6" 1440p phablet, probably waterproof / 64GB internal (minimum) / ARM64 octacore, sd slot, hdmi out, wireless charging, 4GB ram, 12+MP camera with all the whistles, etc for like $1k. Big flapship ass kicker to make people gaze in awe at Tizen glory.

      A 4.8" (like this one) 1080p big-little chip, 3gb ram, with pretty much these specs, for like $400. AKA, the no compromises mid range phone that most people would get.

      And a $200 720p 4" quad core a15 equivalent with 2gb ram, 8mp camera, etc - basically, a Moto G for Tizen with year-later specs - for the budget conscious, to make Tizen accessible on a budget with a premium product.

      This just looks like the original Jolla phone - and I understand why they had to skimp the tech specs and sell it at an upcost, because they aren't a huge international supercompany with capital coming out their asses. But Samsung is, and has no excuse to make the first phone so mediocre.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by zanny View Post
        I'm kind of disappointed, Samsung. I was hoping to see three launch Tizen phones - the supreme, the optimal, and the budget. Otherwise, you are just mixing features and not impressing anybody.

        IE, a 5.5 - 6" 1440p phablet, probably waterproof / 64GB internal (minimum) / ARM64 octacore, sd slot, hdmi out, wireless charging, 4GB ram, 12+MP camera with all the whistles, etc for like $1k. Big flapship ass kicker to make people gaze in awe at Tizen glory.

        A 4.8" (like this one) 1080p big-little chip, 3gb ram, with pretty much these specs, for like $400. AKA, the no compromises mid range phone that most people would get.

        And a $200 720p 4" quad core a15 equivalent with 2gb ram, 8mp camera, etc - basically, a Moto G for Tizen with year-later specs - for the budget conscious, to make Tizen accessible on a budget with a premium product.

        This just looks like the original Jolla phone - and I understand why they had to skimp the tech specs and sell it at an upcost, because they aren't a huge international supercompany with capital coming out their asses. But Samsung is, and has no excuse to make the first phone so mediocre.
        Why would a 64 bit phone only have 4 GB of RAM? I thought the Odroid board which uses Samsung chips supports 128 GB eMMC btw. So I'd expect a premium phone to have 16 GB of ram, 128 GB eMMC, possibly even 20 MP micro 4/3 sensor camera and pureview style MP inflation. Also USB3 and UHS-II SDXC.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by caligula View Post
          Why would a 64 bit phone only have 4 GB of RAM? I thought the Odroid board which uses Samsung chips supports 128 GB eMMC btw. So I'd expect a premium phone to have 16 GB of ram, 128 GB eMMC, possibly even 20 MP micro 4/3 sensor camera and pureview style MP inflation. Also USB3 and UHS-II SDXC.
          What are you ever going to use 16GB of ram in a phablet for? I say 4 because it is above market expectations right now, albeit 6 would be a good idea too. I acknowledge that with RAM more is merrier, but remain within reason - even an octacore 64 bit ARM chip running over 2ghz is paltry in performance next to even a celeron haswell chip.

          Remember, Android supports the ARM version of physical address extensions called large physical addressing, which is on the a15 chips already anyway. So going 64 bit is never for memory purposes, but to force a more recent ISA standard so binaries built targeting it can use optimizations not found on older 32 bit ISA versions.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by caligula View Post
            Why would a 64 bit phone only have 4 GB of RAM? I thought the Odroid board which uses Samsung chips supports 128 GB eMMC btw. So I'd expect a premium phone to have 16 GB of ram, 128 GB eMMC, possibly even 20 MP micro 4/3 sensor camera and pureview style MP inflation. Also USB3 and UHS-II SDXC.
            What the hell are you guys doing with your phones that requires 16GB of ram?? I run an entire distro/DE + Firefox (with plenty of heavy tabs) + Transmission + video player just fine on my 3GB DDR2 RAM from like, 6-7 years ago (with room to spare).
            Sure, it can't do any heavy gaming, but it runs League of Legends on Windows 7 at a smooth 22-25fps on minimum settings. Then again, I don't expect you to be doing any heavy gaming on a phone either...

            Comment


            • #7
              Because this is Sammy i'm not to excited but this is running EFL under the hood, so the experience should be quite fast, fluid and efficient. I also like that they intend for html5 to be the target of choice for developers, but they seem to be making these apis completely in house as opposed to the more standards bodies way that Mozilla is doing things.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
                smooth 22-25fps on minimum settings..
                dafuq ? it's not smooth if it's under 100 fps. I wouldn't even tolerate looking at your screen at such a low framerate, it would give me headache.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post
                  dafuq ? it's not smooth if it's under 100 fps. I wouldn't even tolerate looking at your screen at such a low framerate, it would give me headache.
                  Wrong choice of words. "Stable"... I meant "Stable"...

                  Also, since the refresh rate of most monitors is 60-75, I'm pretty sure framerates over that don't really contribute to "smoothness"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
                    Wrong choice of words. "Stable"... I meant "Stable"...

                    Also, since the refresh rate of most monitors is 60-75, I'm pretty sure framerates over that don't really contribute to "smoothness"
                    It's what I was thinking before getting a 120hz monitor. Going back to the 60hz laptop causes instant eye bleed.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post
                      It's what I was thinking before getting a 120hz monitor. Going back to the 60hz laptop causes instant eye bleed.
                      Yeah, the thing is, the human eye has a frame rate of only about 50hz, so anything above that all gets temporally interpolated by your eyes anyway...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by dee. View Post
                        Yeah, the thing is, the human eye has a frame rate of only about 50hz, so anything above that all gets temporally interpolated by your eyes anyway...
                        http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frame...humans_see.htm

                        Tests with Air force pilots have shown, that they could identify the plane on a flashed picture that was flashed only for 1/220th of a second.
                        Sure, it's not the same as a constant motion, but there is a CLEAR difference between 60 and 120hz, I can guarantee it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post
                          Sure, it's not the same as a constant motion, but there is a CLEAR difference between 60 and 120hz, I can guarantee it.
                          Yeah... sure, just like you can CLEARLY hear the difference in sound with these authentic, patented, gold-plated HiFi sound cables...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            To start off, your eye doesn't see in "frames", it pulls in a constant stream of information. Similarly, your eye doesn't have a resolution, parts of your eye see sharper than other parts (and as your eyes wander, your brain turns it all into a single, non-blurry picture for you).

                            That being said...

                            Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post
                            Sure, it's not the same as a constant motion, but there is a CLEAR difference between 60 and 120hz, I can guarantee it.
                            There is a CLEAR difference between 30fps and 60fps in games because 30fps is _just_ above the level where we need our brains to throw in made-up "frames" to simulate movement (25fps), while 60fps actually has those frames we're making up.
                            That said, there's obviously going to be a limit to the amount of information your eye can stream at one time, so maybe between 60 and 80fps (on a 120hz monitor) there is some little noticeable difference, but above 80 there's most likely nothing. That isn't to say that your brain doesn't know the difference between 80 and 100fps, it's just it doesn't see much difference in it.

                            Originally posted by dee. View Post
                            Yeah... sure, just like you can CLEARLY hear the difference in sound with these authentic, patented, gold-plated HiFi sound cables...
                            You can if you have the proper equipment/software to go with it. The human ear is very adapt at noticing changes in sound, so just because you got used to shitty 96kbps mp3s and can't hear "better quality", doesn't mean everybody has

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
                              You can if you have the proper equipment/software to go with it. The human ear is very adapt at noticing changes in sound, so just because you got used to shitty 96kbps mp3s and can't hear "better quality", doesn't mean everybody has
                              No, actually, you can't. It doesn't matter what the source material is, tests have shown over and over and over and over again that they make no difference whatsoever.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X