Read the Info, one is an At&t and the other is T-mobile.
Can anyone tell me the difference between Samsung Vibrant(this phone) and Samsung i897-Captivate except looks??????
I dont understand why Samsung is launching two phones of almost same features at the same time.
i like it.. because is faster phone.. it's android..
i find it. thanks for
Which one is better? this phone or Sony Ericsson Xperia X10? Can anyone compare & let me know please?
Anonymous, 27 Jul 2010AMOLED is definitely worse than a good TFT - ISP with LED back lit. An important factor tha... morelol... stupid entry... I think you should go back to 1990's monochrome display such as on those cheap 2 colors LCD screen Nokia in the 90s. Safe for your eyes pal!!!. Me? I am going use the new LCD technology.
I think it is time people who acutally have the phone post their experiences and/or problems. I bought this phone for my wife a couple weeks ago and here are my impressions mostly compared to my i8910.
First off she loves the size and responsiveness of the screen and it has nice resolution. I am not as picky about my screens as some of you guys seem to be. I judge them mostly based on size, resolution, and responsivness. The color/contrast/energy efficiency of the screen isnt a huge selling point to me. The sunlight visibility of the superAMOLED wasn't that impressive. I held my i8910 right up next to it and there wasn't a huge difference in sunlight. The captivate was better, but not by much. Moving on from the screen...texting is also very easy with a big screen, especially with swype pre-installed. The loudspeaker isn't the best but works for the speakerphone pretty well, but lack when watching movies. Tons of memory with 16GB onboard memory and a microSDHC card, But it needs a different video player. i transferred a couple movies to it that i watch on my i8910 no problem, but the captivate was unable to play them. The camera is nothing special and the lack of a flash is laughable. but I love the photo gallery. The video recording is noticeably better than my i8910, I assume due to the 30 fps vs my 20-24. The speed of the phone was great, everything loaded faster and the kinnetic scrolling was much smoother than my i8910. I'm not used to android so I can't comment on the utilities or organizational features like file browsing, copying, editing. I also didn't test out the DLNA or wireless data transferring. No reception issues or problems as of yet either.
Overall i think the phone most noticable drawback with this phone are the camera and lack of flash, and a video player that can't play divx,xvid,avi encoded videos.
Just my 2 cents.
I don't think this unit is quite ready for prime time; Google for "Samsung Captivate Forums" and you will find that people are having many problems with this phone, mainly with the GPS failing to function properly, but also with software lag, hangs, etc. I think this is the best phone ever, but I am going to wait until all the wrinkles are ironed out.
Apple is famous for all its crap but many more things bug me
> E-fuse on DroidX
> No camera flash on Galaxy S/ Captivate
Seriously! Does any of the companies give us our money's worth?
Im really bored with phones today? no original designs... They copy each others designs or if not they will just change some areas of the designs... all phones today doesnt have uniqueness... compare this phones design with HTCs designs...
Captivate looks great, powered my android 2.1 and a combination of new screen attractive it is. Huge screen, rich look but i still doubt can it be a Iphone killer??
I have an HTC AT&T Tilt. I found it to be an excellent cellphone for a couple of years. Now I have the Tilt 2. Much smoother; faster, etc. Time marches on; your point is?.....
AMOLED is definitely worse than a good TFT - ISP with LED back lit.
An important factor that has to be consider for this Super AMOLED is that the light directly beams into eyes from its source which is OLEDs.
All natural vision of human eyes is when the light comes from reflections of light, generated by sun or lamps, over objects: the photon beams don't directly get from source into eyes; also the beam of phones is not reflected as you may think: you don't get back through reflection the original photons from source; the phones are not as ping-pong balls cast back by objects which they hit; the beam is absorbed by objects, converted in energy and the objects emit other photons back in a sub spectrum of the original beam, lower intensity and broader uniformity over object surface thus giving color to objects and thus protecting the eyes from artificial light that maybe dangerous for human retina when comes from artificial powerful punctiform sources. The LED back lit from TFT is diffused over a white panel then by reflection passes though liquid crystals and get into eye so it is a reflected light, not the original light. OLED like CRT colored phosphors or plasma's pixels directly beam the light into eyes thus you are not protected from X-rays and ultraviolet emissions (UV radiation) and high energy photons which make lesions in organic tissue.
So, TFT displays are safer for health than AMOLED and CRT and plasma displays.
Anonymous, 26 Jul 2010Maybe, in the future, AMOLED will improve. So far, AMOLED is definitely worse than a good TFT ... moreYou've never used an AMOLED have u?
They work under the same principals as LCDs except they use organic diodes to produce light which have off states to produce deep blacks leading to vibrant colors via the contrast, and they save battery power since each pixel in a picture with dark colors is in an off state or is technically a turned off pixel (No power used) or a low power state, also each AMOLED pixel produces it's own light, manufacturers provide backlights to boost the existing lighting in outdoor scenarios, with an option to turn the additional lighting off...
these are the qualities tht make AMOLEd desirable vibrant colors and low power usage...
CRTs use an electron gun to fire electrons at the screen; that react with the phosphorous coated front display to produce light..
c'mon they teach this in physics class, high school to Uni... u got to be kidding me with tht loong a** answer tht makes no sense!!!
LCDs OLEDs AMOLEDs are based on crystal manipulation technology and are safe for ur eyes
CRTs are miniature particle accelerators tht smash electrons to a screen converting their energy to light energy via reacting with phosphorous coatings... n they aren't tht great for ur eyes a below 50Hz CRT can cause Nausea n headaches!!!
Hope u learn't something...
Power consumption - most of web pages have white background:
While an OLED will consume around 40% of the power of an LCD displaying an image which is primarily black, for the majority of images it will consume 60–80% of the power of an LCD - however it can use over three times as much power to display an image with a white background such as a document or website. This can lead to disappointing real-world battery life in mobile devices.