Ever wondered who wrote the first blog? Hint: there's no simple answer. On roughly the tenth anniversary of the "blog", C-Net's News.com has an article up that talks about the form's origins (and possible definitions) and interviews some of those credited with being "first".
It's a thoughtful, well-considered article that goes back to the .plan files that pre-date the internet itself, including a shout-out to the most famous .plan of them all, maintained by id Software's John Carmack. We've come a long way since those simple text files, although the basic format of the blog (a reverse-chronological listing of individual posts) has not changed much.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
HDTV Upgrade: a Case Study
A little late (in more ways than one) but I've had my new Westinghouse LVM42-W2 long enough now to write some decent hands-on thoughts about it.
The LVM42-W2 is, as its name suggests, a 42" high definition LCD television. It could very well have been replaced by the time you read this - in April, Westinghouse will be releasing the TX-42F430S, one of a new line of television sets that feature some relatively minor upgrades in exchange for higher MSRP's. These upgrades - a dynamic contrast ratio (something of a marketing gimmick), the replacement of the DVI ports with HDMI, and a built-in tuner - were not worth the extra 2 months and $300 or so for me, but they certainly won't hurt. I'm sure most of this review will apply to the new sets as well.
We were upgrading from a 26" Samsung CRT HDTV that we had always considered a "temporary" set, destined for eventual bedroom duty from the date of purchase. I had bought the Samsung after getting fed up with the horrendous compression Time Warner Cable NYC was foisting on its customers on the standard-def channels, knowing that eventually I'd be buying an LCD or plasma as my long-term television. I wanted a cheap HDTV, and the Samsung fit the bill at the time - $600 in 2004.
Why upgrade from a CRT to an LCD? Well, a little background on the various display technologies out there at the moment:
CRT
Pros: Deep black level, high contrast, clear picture from any viewing angle, proven and mature technology
Cons: Low resolution, analog, bulky, heavy cabinets, geometry and convergence issues, doesn't scale well to large sizes, prone to glare and reflections, prone to "burn-in"
DLP
Pros: High resolution at relatively low cost, better contrast than earlier projection technologies, scales well to large sizes
Cons: Bulky cabinets, the "rainbow effect", poor viewing angles, low brightness relative to other technologies, still has convergence and geometry issues
Plasma
Pros: Thin and flat, direct-view digital, no geometry or convergence problems, good black levels and color accuracy, scales in size well, capable of a CRT-like picture without some of CRT's problems
Cons: Low resolution at a relatively high cost, low maximum brightness, picture "noise" and lack of shadow detail in some sets, prone to glare and reflections, the "screen door effect", "buzzing" noise at high brightness, possibility of screen "burn-in"
LCD
Pros: High resolutions at a relatively low cost, thin and flat, direct-view digital, no geometry or convergence problems, high maximum brightness, immune to reflections and resistant to glare, immune to "burn-in"
Cons: Mediocre black level and contrast, difficult to scale to large sizes, color accuracy varies wildly from model to model, prone to dead/stuck pixels, prone to uneven backlighting/banding, can be prone to motion blur
As you can see, at the present time there simply is no perfect display technology. That said, we've all become spoiled - almost any HDTV set, regardless of technology, is capable of providing a picture that we could have only dreamed of 20 years ago. The "cons" listed above are really all relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. Which technology is best for you just comes down to your own personal preferences and how you plan to use your set.
Our needs included a larger screen size than our current 26" CRT, the ability to connect a wide range of devices including a home theater PC, and a small, light cabinet. How small? This small:
That's a component cable hooked up to my DVD player - the FiOS TV box is connected through HDMI on the other side of the "spine".
The PC requirement, in particular, necessitated a direct-view digital set capable of 1:1 pixel mapping, where the TV's resolution exactly matches the PC's. This is easiest when the TV's native resolution is a PC-friendly resolution supported by the drivers included with modern graphics cards. It just so happens that 1920x1080 is one such resolution. This works out nicely, since the 1080i programming produced by most TV networks is also 1920x1080 (interlaced to 1920x540 in alternating frames).
I considered plasma, which has a picture somewhat similar to CRT and is often the technology of choice for those moving directly from analog CRT to digital flat panel (as I was). The main problems there were the low resolution of most affordable plasma screens and the overall fragility of plasma technology. While burn-in is not the problem it used to be, plasma screens still have a tendency to color-shift over time, and even today, most manufacturers recommend using stretch mode or grey pillarboxing on standard-def content to help alleviate this. I didn't want to have to deal with babying my TV all the time.
Now, there are plasmas with higher resolution - even up to 1920x1080 and supporting full 1080p content. While these may be something of a present-day holy grail in terms of picture quality, unfortunately, they're priced accordingly. A 1080p plasma set will set you back about $10,000. And you'll still need to worry about the screen door effect and buzzing and burn-in and other potential plasma pitfalls.
Enter LCD. We've all grown accustomed to LCD screens in our daily lives - not counting our TV, we have three of them in my house, and I also use one at work. We're used to them. LCD's also have the advantages of higher resolutions at lower prices, no burn-in whatsoever, and of course none of the problems inherent to analog displays, like convergence or geometry issues. A 1920x1080 LCD panel hooked up through a digital connection to an HDTV set top box *should* give you perfect 1:1 pixel mapping, with no loss or distortion of any kind. It's as pure a signal as you can get. (Note that this doesn't mean it's automatically subjectively the "best" picture, but it is the most accurate to the original signal.)
I settled on the Westinghouse because it offers the best bang for the buck. While its price advantage is not what it once was (the big names have lowered prices in response), it's still priced about 20-30% lower than the LCD competition at the same specs, and in fact it has more inputs and better features than some of the big name brands. I could have spent even less and gone for lower resolution, either from Westinghouse or another manufacturer, but I wanted full HDTV resolution and true 1:1 pixel mapping. I also wanted 1080p to take advantage of Blu-Ray movies, which are definitely in my future. And I like the three digital inputs.
A quick digression about names like "Westinghouse" and how they apply to the world of modern-day television. Westinghouse was once known for making things like washing machines. This is not the same company that exists today. Some people are afraid of buying TV's made by an "off-brand" like Westinghouse, Syntax or Vizio, but don't be. There are only a few panel makers in the world today and in fact, the panel makers working with these so-called off-brands have just as much experience in making flat panel displays as big names like Sony or Sharp - they've been doing it for big PC makers like Dell and HP for many years. These same manufacturers now make the panels for the smaller brands in the TV manufacturing industry.
Back on-topic. There are those that will argue that you can't discern the difference between 1080i/p and lesser resolutions on a 42" screen, which is, to be charitable, BS. It's true, you can't sit back and count pixels (that's a good thing - no screen door effect), but on my set, at about 7 feet, there's a clear difference between 720p and 1080i content.
That's "Ghost Whisperer" in 1080i, on pause so it's actually displaying 1920x540. Still looks pretty good, eh?
Fox and ABC are the only two stations broadcasting in 720p, and their content always looks soft compared to any other channel. It's subtle - I'm not going to say the difference is glaring - but the 720p channels are just not "tack sharp", and I find my eyes struggling to focus occasionally, as if the image is *almost* in focus but not quite. 1080i content, on the other hand, is generally so clear it's more like looking out a window than at a TV screen. Of course, it can depend on the quality of the source material as well, so not all 1080i content looks perfect.
"LOST" in 720p. This was not a controlled environment, so don't take the two photos above necessarily as a comparison, especially considering the "Ghost Whisperer" image is half-res. (720p on pause is the full 1280x720, being progressive and all.) I really just wanted to show off some of what this set can do.
So, how do I like my TV? While I admit to experiencing a bit of TV technology culture shock initially, I'm now in love with my Westinghouse. It does exhibit some very minor banding and its black level doesn't match my CRT, but its overall picture quality is almost unbelievable for the price. Once you go 1080p, you can never go back. I was also lucky enough to get a set with no dead or stuck pixels, which almost seems like a rarity if you read other reports from around the net about LCD TV's, regardless of brand or price.
There are some new technologies on the horizon that will make for even greater improvements in picture quality in future sets. SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display) technology, for example, offers the best features of CRT, LCD and plasma with few of the drawbacks (though it is susceptible to burn-in). LCD televisions using LED backlighting with "local dimming" will bring traditional LCD sets up to par with CRT sets in contrast and black level by substituting LED's for traditional fluorescent bulbs and enabling the set to turn off the backlight completely in black areas of the picture. And some are still keeping the faith in OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) sets for the ultimate in contrast, though it's looking less likely that this technology will ever prove practical.
Personally, I think LED backlighting with local dimming will prove all the industry needs to propel picture quality to new heights and accelerate HDTV adoption. These sets will be on the market within the next year, and as prices continue to fall, expect them to be affordable only a year or two after that.
I obviously couldn't wait that long and I'm not sure it really makes sense to. No doubt, though, that my next set will be even better than my Westinghouse. Until then, I'm more than happy with what I've got.
The LVM42-W2 is, as its name suggests, a 42" high definition LCD television. It could very well have been replaced by the time you read this - in April, Westinghouse will be releasing the TX-42F430S, one of a new line of television sets that feature some relatively minor upgrades in exchange for higher MSRP's. These upgrades - a dynamic contrast ratio (something of a marketing gimmick), the replacement of the DVI ports with HDMI, and a built-in tuner - were not worth the extra 2 months and $300 or so for me, but they certainly won't hurt. I'm sure most of this review will apply to the new sets as well.
We were upgrading from a 26" Samsung CRT HDTV that we had always considered a "temporary" set, destined for eventual bedroom duty from the date of purchase. I had bought the Samsung after getting fed up with the horrendous compression Time Warner Cable NYC was foisting on its customers on the standard-def channels, knowing that eventually I'd be buying an LCD or plasma as my long-term television. I wanted a cheap HDTV, and the Samsung fit the bill at the time - $600 in 2004.
Why upgrade from a CRT to an LCD? Well, a little background on the various display technologies out there at the moment:
CRT
Pros: Deep black level, high contrast, clear picture from any viewing angle, proven and mature technology
Cons: Low resolution, analog, bulky, heavy cabinets, geometry and convergence issues, doesn't scale well to large sizes, prone to glare and reflections, prone to "burn-in"
DLP
Pros: High resolution at relatively low cost, better contrast than earlier projection technologies, scales well to large sizes
Cons: Bulky cabinets, the "rainbow effect", poor viewing angles, low brightness relative to other technologies, still has convergence and geometry issues
Plasma
Pros: Thin and flat, direct-view digital, no geometry or convergence problems, good black levels and color accuracy, scales in size well, capable of a CRT-like picture without some of CRT's problems
Cons: Low resolution at a relatively high cost, low maximum brightness, picture "noise" and lack of shadow detail in some sets, prone to glare and reflections, the "screen door effect", "buzzing" noise at high brightness, possibility of screen "burn-in"
LCD
Pros: High resolutions at a relatively low cost, thin and flat, direct-view digital, no geometry or convergence problems, high maximum brightness, immune to reflections and resistant to glare, immune to "burn-in"
Cons: Mediocre black level and contrast, difficult to scale to large sizes, color accuracy varies wildly from model to model, prone to dead/stuck pixels, prone to uneven backlighting/banding, can be prone to motion blur
As you can see, at the present time there simply is no perfect display technology. That said, we've all become spoiled - almost any HDTV set, regardless of technology, is capable of providing a picture that we could have only dreamed of 20 years ago. The "cons" listed above are really all relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. Which technology is best for you just comes down to your own personal preferences and how you plan to use your set.
Our needs included a larger screen size than our current 26" CRT, the ability to connect a wide range of devices including a home theater PC, and a small, light cabinet. How small? This small:
That's a component cable hooked up to my DVD player - the FiOS TV box is connected through HDMI on the other side of the "spine".
The PC requirement, in particular, necessitated a direct-view digital set capable of 1:1 pixel mapping, where the TV's resolution exactly matches the PC's. This is easiest when the TV's native resolution is a PC-friendly resolution supported by the drivers included with modern graphics cards. It just so happens that 1920x1080 is one such resolution. This works out nicely, since the 1080i programming produced by most TV networks is also 1920x1080 (interlaced to 1920x540 in alternating frames).
I considered plasma, which has a picture somewhat similar to CRT and is often the technology of choice for those moving directly from analog CRT to digital flat panel (as I was). The main problems there were the low resolution of most affordable plasma screens and the overall fragility of plasma technology. While burn-in is not the problem it used to be, plasma screens still have a tendency to color-shift over time, and even today, most manufacturers recommend using stretch mode or grey pillarboxing on standard-def content to help alleviate this. I didn't want to have to deal with babying my TV all the time.
Now, there are plasmas with higher resolution - even up to 1920x1080 and supporting full 1080p content. While these may be something of a present-day holy grail in terms of picture quality, unfortunately, they're priced accordingly. A 1080p plasma set will set you back about $10,000. And you'll still need to worry about the screen door effect and buzzing and burn-in and other potential plasma pitfalls.
Enter LCD. We've all grown accustomed to LCD screens in our daily lives - not counting our TV, we have three of them in my house, and I also use one at work. We're used to them. LCD's also have the advantages of higher resolutions at lower prices, no burn-in whatsoever, and of course none of the problems inherent to analog displays, like convergence or geometry issues. A 1920x1080 LCD panel hooked up through a digital connection to an HDTV set top box *should* give you perfect 1:1 pixel mapping, with no loss or distortion of any kind. It's as pure a signal as you can get. (Note that this doesn't mean it's automatically subjectively the "best" picture, but it is the most accurate to the original signal.)
I settled on the Westinghouse because it offers the best bang for the buck. While its price advantage is not what it once was (the big names have lowered prices in response), it's still priced about 20-30% lower than the LCD competition at the same specs, and in fact it has more inputs and better features than some of the big name brands. I could have spent even less and gone for lower resolution, either from Westinghouse or another manufacturer, but I wanted full HDTV resolution and true 1:1 pixel mapping. I also wanted 1080p to take advantage of Blu-Ray movies, which are definitely in my future. And I like the three digital inputs.
A quick digression about names like "Westinghouse" and how they apply to the world of modern-day television. Westinghouse was once known for making things like washing machines. This is not the same company that exists today. Some people are afraid of buying TV's made by an "off-brand" like Westinghouse, Syntax or Vizio, but don't be. There are only a few panel makers in the world today and in fact, the panel makers working with these so-called off-brands have just as much experience in making flat panel displays as big names like Sony or Sharp - they've been doing it for big PC makers like Dell and HP for many years. These same manufacturers now make the panels for the smaller brands in the TV manufacturing industry.
Back on-topic. There are those that will argue that you can't discern the difference between 1080i/p and lesser resolutions on a 42" screen, which is, to be charitable, BS. It's true, you can't sit back and count pixels (that's a good thing - no screen door effect), but on my set, at about 7 feet, there's a clear difference between 720p and 1080i content.
That's "Ghost Whisperer" in 1080i, on pause so it's actually displaying 1920x540. Still looks pretty good, eh?
Fox and ABC are the only two stations broadcasting in 720p, and their content always looks soft compared to any other channel. It's subtle - I'm not going to say the difference is glaring - but the 720p channels are just not "tack sharp", and I find my eyes struggling to focus occasionally, as if the image is *almost* in focus but not quite. 1080i content, on the other hand, is generally so clear it's more like looking out a window than at a TV screen. Of course, it can depend on the quality of the source material as well, so not all 1080i content looks perfect.
"LOST" in 720p. This was not a controlled environment, so don't take the two photos above necessarily as a comparison, especially considering the "Ghost Whisperer" image is half-res. (720p on pause is the full 1280x720, being progressive and all.) I really just wanted to show off some of what this set can do.So, how do I like my TV? While I admit to experiencing a bit of TV technology culture shock initially, I'm now in love with my Westinghouse. It does exhibit some very minor banding and its black level doesn't match my CRT, but its overall picture quality is almost unbelievable for the price. Once you go 1080p, you can never go back. I was also lucky enough to get a set with no dead or stuck pixels, which almost seems like a rarity if you read other reports from around the net about LCD TV's, regardless of brand or price.
There are some new technologies on the horizon that will make for even greater improvements in picture quality in future sets. SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display) technology, for example, offers the best features of CRT, LCD and plasma with few of the drawbacks (though it is susceptible to burn-in). LCD televisions using LED backlighting with "local dimming" will bring traditional LCD sets up to par with CRT sets in contrast and black level by substituting LED's for traditional fluorescent bulbs and enabling the set to turn off the backlight completely in black areas of the picture. And some are still keeping the faith in OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) sets for the ultimate in contrast, though it's looking less likely that this technology will ever prove practical.
Personally, I think LED backlighting with local dimming will prove all the industry needs to propel picture quality to new heights and accelerate HDTV adoption. These sets will be on the market within the next year, and as prices continue to fall, expect them to be affordable only a year or two after that.
I obviously couldn't wait that long and I'm not sure it really makes sense to. No doubt, though, that my next set will be even better than my Westinghouse. Until then, I'm more than happy with what I've got.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Television
So I bought a new TV. It hasn't arrived yet; it's somewhere between Virginia and New York. I'll put up a real post about it when it gets here and I've had a chance to play with it. It's this one:
That's the 42" 1080p Westinghouse, model LVM-42w2. I had good reasons for choosing it, which I'll get into in my later hands-on post.
I also bought a new stand to go with it - had to, my old stand couldn't accomodate a TV that big. Went with this:
Just built it; looks beautiful. If you can believe it, it's from IKEA. $229. Go ahead, try to find a stand made out of real hardwood, with nine total shelving areas including an open center section (for center speakers), for $229. You can't. This is the best deal out there.
I'll post pics of the setup once it's complete, along with a bunch of commentary on the whole experience. All of your HDTV questions will be answered.
Stay tuned; hopefully less than a week. (Which means really somewhat more than a week.)
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Phone Review: Samsung SGH-A707 (Cingular Sync)
I'm gonna take a little break from my Japan scan postings and write up a little review of my new Samsung SGH-A707, otherwise known as the "Cingular Sync". Cingular/AT&T has been making a big deal out of this phone of late, and for good reason - it's something of a holy grail phone in terms of features and performance, at least for the west. It's about as close as we'll probably come to one of these uber-cool NTT DoCoMo phones - well, minus the fancy styling. More on that in a minute.
A little early digression is probably warranted, because a lot of people really don't realize how far behind we are in the United States in terms of both cell phones and service. It all probably started with NTT's wildly popular i-Mode, which drove both sales of advanced handsets and data services. A bonafide culture was born that then spread all over Asia. Nowadays, it's almost difficult to find a phone with less than a QVGA (320x240) screen, most phones support 3G networks for speedy data service, many have niceties like TV tuners, 5MP (and up) cameras, and more. And the sheer variety of styles and colors they're available in is mind-boggling. Best of all, Asian networks are rock-solid - it's just expected that call quality will be as good as a land line. Seriously.
So it's been difficult for me to "upgrade" from my trusty (but rusty) old Sony Ericsson Z500A, because frankly, the phones available here have just not been very exciting and the networks (take your pick) so rickety that it's almost painful to throw any money at them. I knew that I wanted to stick with a clamshell, because if there's one thing I've learned from past experience, it's that you want to protect your screen (hello, iPhone?). I knew that I wanted 3G, because honestly, there have been times when I've really had to rely on data services, and it's just painful navigating the web with a 2G phone. (During both the 9/11 attacks and the Northeast blackout, cell phones were the only real way to get information.) I knew that I wanted a better screen than I had, more storage space for video and photos, and honestly, I really wanted a strap/lanyard loop. Having gone through two phones now without a lanyard loop, I was itching to regain that ability to personalize.
I thought about switching over to T-Mobile and going with the Motorola PEBL, which is nicely styled but does not offer any expandable storage and is not a 3G phone. Ditto for the standard RAZR. Korea's LG offers a 3G phone with Cingular but it lacks a lanyard loop (I was shocked by this) and also feels a bit flimsy. For a long time, I felt like I was stuck in no-man's land.
Enter Samsung with the SGH-A707. From the moment this phone was announced, I knew it was the one for me. It does literally everything I want. It is a 3G phone. It's a clamshell. It has a QVGA screen (a beautiful one at that). It has a lanyard loop. It has a slot for a MicroSD memory card. It has a built-in media player and a 2 megapixel camera. A bonus for me, it also has Bluetooth built in - I'm not one of those guys who walks around seemingly talking to himself through a wireless headset, but it does make PC syncing much easier. I was sold on this phone sight unseen. When I saw Amazon offering it for a penny straight up (before rebate!), I pulled the trigger.
I know, six paragraphs in and I still haven't gotten to the heart of the matter for some of you - how well does it work?
In short, very well. It's not without its subtle quirks and minor hiccups, but overall I am quite pleased.
What does it do so well? For one thing, it's fast. I mean lightning fast. Not just in data transfer either, though it's fast at that - provided you're on Cingular's 3G or "3G+" (HSDPA) network. But no, even the interface is fast. No lag, which is a problem I've had with every other phone I've ever used, all of which seem to have barely enough processing power to even turn themselves on. The A707 is just a pleasure to navigate around, especially if you're familiar with the Samsung interface - the A707 uses a prettier version of the same interface on all of the company's phones. And it may just be my perception, but the processing speed seems to extend to calls as well - whereas most phones seem to have a bit of a radio-like delay built in, this phone doesn't. Or at least it doesn't feel like it does.
The main screen on the A707 is gorgeous, and big. Coming from my old Z500A, the first time I opened up my new phone was almost a shock. It's like looking at a little high resolution laptop display.
The phone also has a front screen for basic info, though it's disappointingly low in quality compared to the main screen. Still, it gets the job done - but it's not something you'd want to show off to friends.
I've always thought reception and call quality issues are more a function of the network than the phone, and I still think that's mostly true. Cingular's network is, like all other networks in this country, pretty much crap. There are dead spots everywhere, including a big one that my house happens to sit right in the middle of. In the wrong spot in my house, I can hit zero bars of signal - and I'm 1 mile outside of the New York City limits. Still, I know it's not my imagination that reception is slightly better with this phone than my old Z500A. Whereas I used to have to be on the second floor of my house to have any hope of carrying on a conversation, I can now sit on my couch and talk relatively comfortably. I do still miss calls if I've got the phone in the kitchen (where I charge it), but at least parts of my house are now accessible to me. That's an improvement.
Along with the A707, Cingular has dropped the prices on their media/data plans to just $20 a month for unlimited service (on top of the regular voice plan). You need an unlimited plan to even access Cingular Video, which is streaming video over their 3G network (supported by a few phone models, including the A707). Unfortunately, I have not yet had the chance to try this out, as Cingular seems intent on screwing up my order whenever I try to add the Media Max bundle on my plan.
But I have transferred my own video over. The phone supports mpeg4, Windows Media, 3gp and several other formats, and it will play them in full screen landscape mode if you choose. Unfortunately, it seems that the video decoding is probably being done in software with a processor that's not quite up to the task, as there is some choppiness and video "tearing" during complex scenes encoded at high frame rates. I'm curious to see what Cingular's own video looks like, but I've had to compromise a bit with my own video encoding. The screen on the phone is beautiful, but you need to dial down your compression and frame rate settings a bit in encoding, so you're not quite utilizing all that the screen is capable of.
Connecting the phone to my PC was something of an adventure. Samsung and Cingular sell a "media kit" that includes a USB cable, which from what I understand works well (though it's overpriced at $39). I want nothing to do with cables, though, so I went out and bought a $20 Bluetooth adapter for my PC. This necessitates downloading the PC Studio software from Samsung's web site - it is not included with the phone. It also requires changing the sync option on the phone from Windows Media Player to PC Studio - something that, from what I can tell, is undocumented anywhere in the manual.
The result of this was much pulling of hair as phone and PC refused to pair up, or would pair but then refuse to transfer files. Eventually a posting on Cingular's user forums led me to a different version of PC Studio - the one linked from their A707 product page is not compatible with the phone! This may be fixed by the time you read this, but it's such an obvious and stupid mistake that it bears mentioning.
However, once I loaded up the correct version of PC Studio, I was up and syncing both contacts and media over Bluetooth without problems. PC Studio is actually a pretty powerful app for something given away as a free download. It'll manage all your media (though it wouldn't be my first choice to do it), it'll sync your contacts, email and whatever else from Outlook, it'll let you browse your phone's files and drag and drop, it'll even let you edit your media files, and encode them to different formats. Very, very few free applications will actually encode to mpeg4, as mpeg4 itself is not a free license. So this is a really nice bonus.
The web browser included with the phone is a full web browser, though the screen is still too small to view many sites properly. Sites like gmail, however, work just fine. (The phone also supports Flash, though I haven't actually tried to view a Flash-based site.) Gmail also has their own mobile app now, which I tried to download, but got a "java certificate mismatch" error. Hmmmm.
The phone has a 2 megapixel camera that's about on par with my first-ever digital camera that I purchased in 2000. In other words, it's not great... but it's at least useful, unlike previous generation phone cameras (see here for an example of what I mean). This is a picture of the Times Square area that I took with the A707, and keep in mind Blogger does recompress images a bit, so the quality's actually slightly better than this. Click through for the full-size version.
The phone's photo viewer is odd in that unlike the video player, it does not allow you to view full screen. You're always stuck with the interface cluttering things up. Ah well, there's probably a java app somewhere that I can download. (Provided I don't get a "certificate mismatch" again.)
Battery life is fair, though good for a powerful 3G phone. I do have to charge it a little more than I'd like - maybe twice a week, with moderate use - but this is a far cry from early 3G phones that were notoriously power hungry. One annoyance about all Samsung phones I've ever owned is that as soon as you lose one bar on your battery meter, you'd better head for a power outlet as soon as possible. Each bar of the meter is definitely not created equally. The last two go fast.
I should talk a little bit about the styling and feel before I close this review. While this is a phone made in Korea, it's made specifically for the US market. The A707 was originally only available in black, as is common in this country. In black, the phone looks pretty sleek, but basically unremarkable. It's neither too thin or too thick, too large or too small. You probably won't wow anybody with this phone until you open it up and show them that beautiful screen. The body is plastic made to look like metal; it's pretty convincing, though the material is quite slippery and also does not hide fingerprints at all. Samsung now offers this phone in red as well, which to my eyes is much more interesting, and almost really does look like an Asian phone. I'm a sucker for straight lines, though, and the somewhat bulbous, curvy look of a lot of American phones I think is a little strange in terms of design. The A707 does have a curved body, but it's very subtle. This is a classy looking phone, but it's not one that's likely to get noticed... for either positive or negative reasons.
Could the A707 be improved? Sure, but it's mostly in areas of spit and polish. This is a highly advanced phone for the American market, and at its price, it really can't be beat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
