Amongst all the current Windows Phones, which has the strongest specs?

[brmiller1976]

"Well, my 2 inch smartphone has much higher PPI than your 4.8 inch phone!"

"Oh yeah? My phone is 720 x 1280 while yours is only 800 x 480!"

"Oh yeah? My phone is made out of durable aluminum! Clearly the best since it's light and durable!"

"BAH! My phone is MUCH better. It's made out of space-age polycarbonate!"

"CHEAP PLASTIC! And your phone weighs a TON!"

"It needs to weigh a ton to deliver the VASTLY SUPERIOR digital camera that totally blows away the one on your phone!"

"A phone is a phone, not a camera. For photos, I use my DSLR. Weight and battery life are far more important!"

Etc., etc., etc.

Even which "specs" are important is a matter of opinion.

 

[brmiller1976]

If you were a journalist, would you skip a Microsoft Windows 8 and WP8 unveiling (with lots of extra juicy news promised) to attend the unveiling of a phone line that sells slower than the BlackBerry Torch?

 

[Daniel Ratcliffe]

If you were a journalist, would you skip a Microsoft Windows 8 and WP8 unveiling (with lots of extra juicy news promised) to attend the unveiling of a phone line that sells slower than the BlackBerry Torch?

I'd want to go to the W8/WP8 unveiling myself. I want to see how everything connects.

And also, not to hate, but the BlackBerry Torch was a fantastic phone for me when I had it. I loved it. Not enough to go back to BB, but still love it.

 

[brmiller1976]

Whoops, posted that in the wrong thread. Sorry. Using a Mac this month has made me dumber.

 

[X0LARIUM]

Whoops, posted that in the wrong thread. Sorry. Using a Mac this month has made me dumber.

Lol! That post actually made me ponder...

Sent from my RaZr on JB!

 

[VagrantWade]

The 920 has the better specs in virtually every category IMO. The only thing the 8X has over it, is a slighter denser PPI, but the 920 has the better overall display.

And I am not a fan of AMOLEDs.

 

[brmiller1976]

I haven't seen the 920 yet, but if its claims of "superior display" are as credible as those made for the 900, I'll take the 8X (which has an SLCD 2).

 

[VagrantWade]

I haven't seen the 920 yet, but if its claims of "superior display" are as credible as those made for the 900, I'll take the 8X (which has an SLCD 2).

1) 920 has a better resolution.

2) This is a PureMotion HD+ display. And it has automatic color adjustment for sun glare.

3) The 900 had an AMOLED display. So it's about as credible as your lack of knowledge on the subject.

 

[brmiller1976]

920 has higher resolution, but not significantly so.

"PureMotion HD+" is marketing blather. It's like HTC claiming to have an "UltraMotion Mega XL+" display.

The 900 claimed to have the best display in the sun (not true) and be brighter than any other display on the market (not true). That suggests that Nokia is prone to, shall we say, "exaggeration" on the display quality front.

Meanwhile, HTC's SLCD display on the One X (the same as on the 8X) is acknowledged to be the best out there. It will take Nokia a lot more than trash talking, spec-blather, and marketingspeak to beat it.

 

[a5cent]

How is that misleading? It has a better PPI because the screen is smaller. No one is saying it has a better resolution.

It is absolutely true that the 8X's display has a higher pixel density (higher PPI) than the 920. However, the statement that one is "better" than the other could still be viewed as misleading. Why? Because the human eye has no chance of discerning the difference in PPI between those two devices. If the human eye can't discern a difference, than the 8X is only "better" on paper. For all practical intents and purposes, the term "better" doesn't make sense. See also post #36.

HTC also makes good screens, so we will need to get both devices reviewed by people who do more than just look at the spec sheets (measure contrast, brightness, color gamut, reflectivity, etc.).

 

[VagrantWade]

920 has higher resolution, but not significantly so.

"PureMotion HD+" is marketing blather. It's like HTC claiming to have an "UltraMotion Mega XL+" display.

The 900 claimed to have the best display in the sun (not true) and be brighter than any other display on the market (not true). That suggests that Nokia is prone to, shall we say, "exaggeration" on the display quality front.

Meanwhile, HTC's SLCD display on the One X (the same as on the 8X) is acknowledged to be the best out there. It will take Nokia a lot more than trash talking, spec-blather, and marketingspeak to beat it.

The 920 is not using an AMOLED display like the 900. So why bother comparing the two anyways?

 

[Heron_Kusanagi]

920 has higher resolution, but not significantly so.

"PureMotion HD+" is marketing blather. It's like HTC claiming to have an "UltraMotion Mega XL+" display.

The 900 claimed to have the best display in the sun (not true) and be brighter than any other display on the market (not true). That suggests that Nokia is prone to, shall we say, "exaggeration" on the display quality front.

Meanwhile, HTC's SLCD display on the One X (the same as on the 8X) is acknowledged to be the best out there. It will take Nokia a lot more than trash talking, spec-blather, and marketingspeak to beat it.

The Nokia L900 screen might not be the best out there indoors, but outdoors? Tablet and Smartphone Displays Under Bright Ambient Lighting Shoot-Out

And unless you are a vampire, you will use it in the sun. That's a benefit and a spec.

I will also add this: no phone is perfect for everyone. Just find the phone that best fits your needs.

 

[Villain]

people are getting ridiculous lately. "Im buying this device so no other device can have a pro over it"

they all have pro's... accept it and enjoy whatever one you buy.

 

[VagrantWade]

people are getting ridiculous lately. "Im buying this device so no other device can have a pro over it"

they all have pro's... accept it and enjoy whatever one you buy.

Yea I really don't understand it. Buy the phone you like the best. My coworker is getting the 8X because he currently has an HTC. I am getting a 920 because I just like the way it looks more and I want a good camera. Neither of us argue over the specs, because when it comes to a phone, it's about a lot more than specs. You have to use the thing a dozen times a day most likely. You need to like more than the specs to not get bored of your phone.

 

[brmiller1976]

It is absolutely true that the 8X's display has a higher pixel density (higher PPI) than the 920. However, the statement that one is "better" than the other could still be viewed as misleading. Why?

Because it isn't an "UltraMegaPureSlide XL+ Series II Evolution" display, obviously.

 

[brmiller1976]

The Nokia L900 screen might not be the best out there indoors, but outdoors? Tablet and Smartphone Displays Under Bright Ambient Lighting Shoot-Out

And unless you are a vampire, you will use it in the sun. That's a benefit and a spec.

I will also add this: no phone is perfect for everyone. Just find the phone that best fits your needs.

I agree that no phone is perfect for everyone, but in order to get decent "outdoor performance" with the L900, you had to turn off auto brightness and crank up the brightness all the way. Good luck getting it to last the day (especially on white screens) when you do that.

While I understand that spec-talk is often inherently misleading, I think Nokia's track-record of promising incredible screens and delivering "okay" ones that only perform when you use them in unlikely conditions (e.g. with the brightness cranked to "max") means it's perfectly reasonable to take marketing claims with a moon-sized grain of salt.

 

[Winterfang]

Some people just want the absolute best. They don't want other phone to be anything over it, unless that phone is specialized on that. (For example the Galaxy Camera).

I'm somewhat like that because I bought a phone that wasn't the best when it came out and it got obsolete in months. I can't find a single thing wrong with the Note II specs wise though =)

 

[AngryNil]

"PureMotion HD+" is marketing blather. It's like HTC claiming to have an "UltraMotion Mega XL+" display.

http://i.nokia.com/blob/view/-/1824216/data/2/-/PuremotionHD.pdf

It minimises motion blur. It's got a higher resolution than 720p. The name is fully justified and encompasses even more.

Because the human eye has no chance of discerning the difference in PPI between those two devices. If the human eye can't discern a difference, than the 8X is only "better" on paper.

Do you know what's wrong with this argument? Two things.

1. The Retina classification: "300PPI" on a phone at "normal viewing distances". I could hold my phone much closer than you. I will hold my phone at a different distance depending on the size of the display. Why is 300PPI the magic number? Why not 301?

2. "I can't notice the PPI difference". Yes, you're not meant to count the pixels. But can you notice if the text is slightly crisper? Entirely possible, and while that might not be the case with the incremental gains here, once you see that 1080p 5" display you definitely won't be talking about a 300PPI barrier anymore.

 

[a5cent]

It is absolutely true that the 8X's display has a higher pixel density (higher PPI) than the 920. However, the statement that one is "better" than the other could still be viewed as misleading. Why?

Because it isn't an "UltraMegaPureSlide XL+ Series II Evolution" display, obviously.

You have any idea how hard it is not to take that bait? I'm one of the guys least concerned with (actually averse towards) marketing brands and names... and that is what you come up with? C'mon Miller! Have a heart!

 

[Heron_Kusanagi]

I agree that no phone is perfect for everyone, but in order to get decent "outdoor performance" with the L900, you had to turn off auto brightness and crank up the brightness all the way. Good luck getting it to last the day (especially on white screens) when you do that.

While I understand that spec-talk is often inherently misleading, I think Nokia's track-record of promising incredible screens and delivering "okay" ones that only perform when you use them in unlikely conditions (e.g. with the brightness cranked to "max") means it's perfectly reasonable to take marketing claims with a moon-sized grain of salt.

I will note that white is a flaw of AMOLED screens, and that's not something I will try to defend against. I also want to say that even for Samsung, HTC, Apple and other companies, their marketing claims don't match up to what they deliver too. So it's not just Nokia.