Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 63

Thread: Samsung Finally Launches Its First Tizen Smartphone

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,126

    Default 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. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Any details in the hardware? Native Wayland drivers may be?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    552

    Default

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    552

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote 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...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,438

    Default

    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bordeaux, France
    Posts
    305

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote 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"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bordeaux, France
    Posts
    305

    Default

    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •