Welcome to the Windows Central Forums Create Your Account or Ask a Question Answers in 5 minutes - no registration required!
Results 1 to 16 of 16
Like Tree8Likes
  • 1 Post By HeyCori
  • 2 Post By Oldmajor
  • 2 Post By Gaiking
  • 1 Post By theefman
  • 1 Post By threed61
  • 1 Post By Dave Blake
  1. HeyCori's Avatar
    Mod Emeritus

    Posts
    5,250 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,275 Global Posts
       #1  
    Oh wait, no they didn't. There's not a tech site out there that wasn't aware of the spec requirements of second gen devices. There's very little wiggle room with the biggest differentiators coming in the form of build quality. Thus, I'm a little surprised that the "spec-shootout" has resumed with the release of the 900.

    I recently decided to re-read some of the early reviews for the Titan on Neowin and the Verge and both reviewers seemed pleased with the speed of the device and the build quality. Specs weren't the main focus as much as the user experience.

    The requirements for second gen devices have not changed since then, yet look at some of the "spec" reviews of the 900 and it seems that the only thing that has changed is the perception. The Engadget reviewer seems genuinely upset that the 900 doesn't blow the other second gen devices out of the water -- despite already knowing that all second gen devices would all function roughly the same.

    But as Engadget put it:

    Stacked up against its WP comrades old and relatively new, including mid-rangers and high-end handsets, the 900 disappoints. With a middling SunSpider score, a WP Bench result that fails to best last year's Titan and battery life on par with Samsung's (non-LTE) Focus S, the 900 safely earns the underachiever crown. It's disheartening to see this highly anticipated phone fall prey to whatever discord resulted from AT&T, Nokia and Microsoft's combined software broth.
    You could make the argument that the 900 should firmly beat the competition in things like the SunSpider test or battery life, but as I said before, none of the second gen devices were going to completely demolish the other because there's little wiggle room in the specs. Reviewers seem unjustly disappointed because the 900 doesn't provide a significant hardware boost versus other WP devices. Now, if the 900 was significantly below the benchmarks of other second gen devices then that's a serious problem. But all second gen devices are pretty similar in benches, which is exactly what Microsoft was aiming for.

    What the 900 should be judged for is things like call quality, wifi range, the Nokia specific ecosystem (which is darn nice!), build quality and camera quality. But not because some benchmarks didn't jump leaps and bounds over the competition.
    Dave Blake likes this.
  2. Oldmajor's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    71 Posts
    #2  
    As I say to other people who ask for my opinion. Hardware is overated, after a point. If your device works well for you thats all that matters. I really like my HTC Arrive but I wanted something more stylish and bigger. This is also a 2nd Gen phone so i get a ffc to skype with (not really going to use it but it could be fun!).

    I really like Windows Phone and I really like this design, so I bought me a Lumia 900. The deciding factor was $99 vs $199 for the Titan II
    hellomiggy and ovrkast like this.
  3. Gaiking's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    165 Posts
    Global Posts
    278 Global Posts
    #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by Figure 8 Dash View Post
    Oh wait, no they didn't. There's not a tech site out there that wasn't aware of the spec requirements of second gen devices. There's very little wiggle room with the biggest differentiators coming in the form of build quality. Thus, I'm a little surprised that the "spec-shootout" has resumed with the release of the 900.

    I recently decided to re-read some of the early reviews for the Titan on Neowin and the Verge and both reviewers seemed pleased with the speed of the device and the build quality. Specs weren't the main focus as much as the user experience.

    The requirements for second gen devices have not changed since then, yet look at some of the "spec" reviews of the 900 and it seems that the only thing that has changed is the perception. The Engadget reviewer seems genuinely upset that the 900 doesn't blow the other second gen devices out of the water -- despite already knowing that all second gen devices would all function roughly the same.

    But as Engadget put it:



    You could make the argument that the 900 should firmly beat the competition in things like the SunSpider test or battery life, but as I said before, none of the second gen devices were going to completely demolish the other because there's little wiggle room in the specs. Reviewers seem unjustly disappointed because the 900 doesn't provide a significant hardware boost versus other WP devices. Now, if the 900 was significantly below the benchmarks of other second gen devices then that's a serious problem. But all second gen devices are pretty similar in benches, which is exactly what Microsoft was aiming for.

    What the 900 should be judged for is things like call quality, wifi range, the Nokia specific ecosystem (which is darn nice!), build quality and camera quality. But not because some benchmarks didn't jump leaps and bounds over the competition.
    So many of these spec hungry reviewers spend so much time obsessing over specs that they ignore what works well. ....Idiots.
    hellomiggy and ovrkast like this.
  4. kenosando's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    154 Posts
    #4  
    Hardly ever do these benchmarks translate in to real-world performance. They are handy if you are comparing to similar devices, but comparing the benchmarks of WP7 against these dual-core devices isn't telling me anything.
    Thanked by:
  5. theefman's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    2,843 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,844 Global Posts
    #5  
    They should create a spec item for how many times your phone reboots a day, that'll even things up nicely!
    oldpueblo likes this.
  6. threed61's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    368 Posts
    #6  
    Nokia isn't given nearly enough credit for the 900's best achievement, a great smartphone at a great price.
    HeyCori likes this.
  7. eastbayrae's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    319 Posts
    Global Posts
    619 Global Posts
    #7  
    It's like comparing an xbox to Alienware PC.
    When all else fails empty the magazine...
  8. txaggies07's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    197 Posts
    Global Posts
    209 Global Posts
    #8  
    The engadget quote above seems disappointed that the 900 only has the same battery life as the Focus S. To me, that is awesome. I am getting an LTE phone without the battery hit that other Android LTE phones have had. Anyone remember the Bionic?
  9. auniverseaway's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    21 Posts
    #9  
    I think J Tops put it best. The phone is speedy, but the specs don't exactly make it future proof. Apollo is probably going to want more RAM and a faster processor to make the most of it. It will be interesting to see how MS navigates this issue.
  10. Darth Lumia's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    79 Posts
    Global Posts
    82 Global Posts
    #10  
    specs smchmecks..... This phone does what I need it to do and it has good looks..
    Office ..Check
    Email.. Check
    Can I make phone calls.. Check
    Can I text... Check
    Is a Nokia.. Check
    ;)
    See... perfect phone for me
  11. theefman's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    2,843 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,844 Global Posts
    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by auniverseaway View Post
    I think J Tops put it best. The phone is speedy, but the specs don't exactly make it future proof. Apollo is probably going to want more RAM and a faster processor to make the most of it. It will be interesting to see how MS navigates this issue.
    No he doesnt because he has no bloody clue about the requirements for Apollo. Microsoft has made the current version more efficient to run SMOOTHLY on lower hardware requirements, why would one expect them to bump the specs so high that the next version of the OS will only run on super high end hardware? And how many "future proof" android handsets have got the latest version of their OS?

    People, esp these biased reviewers are so quick to think the worst about Microsoft and WP, yet so far major updates have been released to EVERY SINGLE DEVICE, unlike their beloved android. Lets actually wait and see before we condemn them for failing to deliver updates.
  12. HeyCori's Avatar
    Mod Emeritus

    Posts
    5,250 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,275 Global Posts
       #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaiking View Post
    So many of these spec hungry reviewers spend so much time obsessing over specs that they ignore what works well. ....Idiots.
    As mentioned in another thread, there's a great response on the Verge forums to their review of the 900. This portion in particular perfectly explains why Josh didn't give the 900 a fair shake.

    The first thing I really noticed in the video review was that the application listing on your device didn't even have the "App list keyword capability". What this means is that once you install specific number of applications, all applications are sorted in to groups and listed by their first letter. You can at that point swipe to the left then select the first letter of the app to instantly get directed to the relevant matches.

    There was around 60k apps when the 800 was released. Now we're approaching the release of the 900 and there are over 80k plus Nokia specific apps. Not downloading enough apps to even activate the jump list shows just how little time Josh invested in the actual WP ecosystem. This is also from a man who's on record as calling Windows "poison."
    Last edited by HeyCori; 04-05-2012 at 12:39 PM.
  13. threed61's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    368 Posts
    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by Figure 8 Dash View Post
    As mentioned in another thread, there's a great response on the Verge forums to their review of the 900. This portion in particular perfectly explains why Josh didn't give the 900 a fair shake.

    The first thing I really noticed in the video review was that the application listing on your device didn't even have the "App list keyword capability". What this means is that once you install specific number of applications, all applications are sorted in to groups and listed by their first letter. You can at that point swipe to the left then select the first letter of the app to instantly get directed to the relevant matches.

    There was around 60k apps when the 800 was released. Now we're approaching the release of the 900 and there are over 80k plus Nokia specific apps. Not downloading enough apps to even activate the jump list shows just how little time Josh invested in the actual WP ecosystem. This is also from a man who's on record as calling Windows "poison."
    I've always thought that if Josh Topolsky was less in love with the sound of his own voice, and more in love with tech, he would be a better reviewer.
  14. lipper2000's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    185 Posts
    Global Posts
    273 Global Posts
    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by kenosando View Post
    Hardly ever do these benchmarks translate in to real-world performance. They are handy if you are comparing to similar devices, but comparing the benchmarks of WP7 against these dual-core devices isn't telling me anything.
    I think spec whoring started primarily with games and pc's when people were trying to get their rigs to have the most power when playing games, especially against others.

    In reality it matters little. Actually it doesn't matter at all as long as the user experience works fine, which it does with windows phone.
  15. Dave Blake's Avatar
    Mod and Ambassador Team Emeritus

    Posts
    5,662 Posts
    Global Posts
    7,164 Global Posts
    #15  
    Nice write up Dash. I agree with you and I will say it again you can judge the anxiety of the competition by how hard they hit back. You can expect that those not satisfied with Microsoft and those that find fault with Windows Phones limitations will be hyper critical of any device that creates a buzz like the Lumia 900. We can only hope that the "User Experience" is emphasized enough to get people to look past the hardware limitations that everyone knew would be there. A person only has to use a Windows Phone device for a short time to realize the amount of effort that was put in to making every day tasks easy and fluid. Hardware limitations only enhance user experience on this OS. Hopefully this won't get berried in the spec wars. Only time will tell how successfully Nokia will be in making this distinction.
    HeyCori likes this.
  16. Adiliyo's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    454 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,000 Global Posts
    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by txaggies07 View Post
    The engadget quote above seems disappointed that the 900 only has the same battery life as the Focus S. To me, that is awesome. I am getting an LTE phone without the battery hit that other Android LTE phones have had. Anyone remember the Bionic?
    this.

    if i'm basically getting an LTE radio for "free" i don't see how that could be seen as a disappointment, especaily when considering the l900 only has a 300mah larger battery compared to the focus s.

    look at all the poor saps with the vzw gnex having to go buy larger batteries to get through a day.

    engadget is staffed by biased idiots.

Posting Permissions