• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Bionic or htc vigor?

Vehtemas said:
Vigor is out because from what I have read and heard the processor, while 1.5 GHz is an A8 not A9 meaning it is the same as 1.2 GHz Omap/Enoxys(SP) processor. - AKA, it will get hotter and use more battery for less of an advantage.
Click to expand...

If Vigor is equivalent to a 1.2GHz Omap, then it's still 20% faster than Bionic. Sounds like a significant advantage for those not overly concerned w/battery life.
 
BlueBiker said:
If Vigor is equivalent to a 1.2GHz Omap, then it's still 20% faster than Bionic. Sounds like a significant advantage for those not overly concerned w/battery life.
Click to expand...

Not overly concerned with battery life?

You get 20% for a lot more battery drain and heat.

I would rather have a slightly slower (and definitely not by much) phone that runs cooler and has a better battery life.
 
Vehtemas said:
Not overly concerned with battery life?

You get 20% for a lot more battery drain and heat.

I would rather have a slightly slower (and definitely not by much) phone that runs cooler and has a better battery life.
Click to expand...

I might also, depending on how bad it is. Some people even underclock their devices for extreme battery life or so they can run without a noisy cooling fan.
 
BlueBiker said:
I might also, depending on how bad it is. Some people even underclock their devices for extreme battery life or so they can run without a noisy cooling fan.
Click to expand...

And again, it is not just the processor, HTC is notorious for having small batteries regardless and lower quality build/parts.

Besides, if Motorola did a good job on their own LTE chipset then there is a chance it will be much more efficient.
 
Vehtemas said:
And again, it is not just the processor, HTC is notorious for having small batteries regardless and lower quality build/parts.

Besides, if Motorola did a good job on their own LTE chipset then there is a chance it will be much more efficient.
Click to expand...

All good points. Other than the display, the Bionic might be the better phone in a lot of ways.
 
BlueBiker said:
All good points. Other than the display, the Bionic might be the better phone in a lot of ways.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the display, I looked at the DX2 and D3 and to be honest I don't notice any low quality...

I checked emails, browser, and texts and everything was sharp and crisp.

I did notice some small amount of ghosting when going from one screen to the other, but to be honest that wouldn't bug me at all.

I don't see any downside to the Bionic.
 
Vehtemas said:
I don't know about the display, I looked at the DX2 and D3 and to be honest I don't notice any low quality...

I checked emails, browser, and texts and everything was sharp and crisp.
Click to expand...

That's kewl. I didn't mean to devolve this into yet another Pentile thread, and I hope Bionic will be a huge upgrade from your OG Droid.
 
Vehtemas said:
I don't know about the display, I looked at the DX2 and D3 and to be honest I don't notice any low quality...

I checked emails, browser, and texts and everything was sharp and crisp.

I did notice some small amount of ghosting when going from one screen to the other, but to be honest that wouldn't bug me at all.

I don't see any downside to the Bionic.
Click to expand...

  1. Locked bootloader
  2. Enormous delays after going back to the drawing board to 'redesign'
  3. MotoBLAH
 
Considering I burned through my 256 on mny DROID, probably not. Just as an aside, my computer has 12 GB of RAM....

I like having RAM.
 
johnlgalt said:
Considering I burned through my 256 on mny DROID, probably not. Just as an aside, my computer has 12 GB of RAM....

I like having RAM.
Click to expand...

Android is designed to run on low amounts of RAM.

Motoblur can be changed to any other launcher.

The primary delay was creating their own LTE chip.

The battery last time I checked was an 1800 MAh.
 
Android *and all the apps you want installed* is a different ballgame completely. I have to repeatedly remove apps as I am constantly pushing the limit with my OG DROID - Just earlier this week I had to remove both Skype and the Phandroid App, b/c both were running services in the background that were killing my available RAM and causing massive slowdowns....

And while you say Android was meant to be run in low mem, if that were truly the case, then how come the OG Droid does not have enough RAM for a stock (unmodified) GB ROM? Remember, 1 GB is only 4 times the 256 installed on the DROID - and if 256 is not enough for a stock GB, there goes a minimum of 25% of the RAM to the OS on a 1 GB machine....

Until I can root the device, how do I remove MotoBLAH?

yeah, I saw your post about that - that kinda intrigues me, actually - as we going to be guinea pigs? :p

and 1800 mAh is nto a lot more than the 1400 that comes with the DROID (1390/1420), especially considering LTE, dual core, high clock speeds....bigger OS (with more services runing in the bg)....
 
johnlgalt said:
Considering I burned through my 256 on mny DROID, probably not. Just as an aside, my computer has 12 GB of RAM....

I like having RAM.
Click to expand...

There aren't any 12GB RAM Android phones coming out this year. Not sure what iPhone 5 is gonna have.
 
And neither will my phone be running Windows 7 / Windows 8. yeah, I know, but I like to have more RAM in the even that I *need* it. My DROID's RAM has been the number one stickler for me the entire time I ahve had it, an I want something with good enough specs to last me for a solid year and a half before I feel the need to upgrade again.
 
johnlgalt said:
And while you say Android was meant to be run in low mem, if that were truly the case, then how come the OG Droid does not have enough RAM for a stock (unmodified) GB ROM? Remember, 1 GB is only 4 times the 256 installed on the DROID - and if 256 is not enough for a stock GB, there goes a minimum of 25% of the RAM to the OS on a 1 GB machine....
Click to expand...

Total RAM isn't the right way to look at it. Available RAM after OS and app services is.

Say that Froyo + services takes approx 128MB. That leaves 128MB for your OG to load apps in.

Now say that Gingerbread + services takes up twice as much space at 256MB, which is probably overly generous. That still leaves 768MB out of a Gigabyte.

So you don't think going from 128MB free to 768MB -- a factor of six -- is going to make a huuuuuge difference?

johnlgalt said:
and 1800 mAh is nto a lot more than the 1400 that comes with the DROID (1390/1420), especially considering LTE, dual core, high clock speeds....bigger OS (with more services runing in the bg)....
Click to expand...

That's 28% more battery, and dual-cores are known to be generally less power hungry. LTE probably does gobble up more power, but the size of the OS is irrelevant -- only the proportion of time it's executing code.
 
Increased screen size (and the qHD is a lot brighter than the OG Droid, at same levels on the brightness scale), and LTE are going to be battery hogs, sorry.

The battery will most likely be between 1700 mAh and 1800 mAh, not a ton more than the OG Droid, as has been said earlier.

Also remember, this LTE chipset is Moto's first gen. It's not the end-all phone, unfortunately. I just know I'm going to buy this thing and be appalled at the 6 hour battery life. I'll be living with it plugged into my computer or the car charger.

I just don't see a better alternative for at least another year. Why can't anyone work on developing more efficient batteries?
 
BlueBiker said:
Total RAM isn't the right way to look at it. Available RAM after OS and app services is.

Say that Froyo + services takes approx 128MB. That leaves 128MB for your OG to load apps in.

Now say that Gingerbread + services takes up twice as much space at 256MB, which is probably overly generous. That still leaves 768MB out of a Gigabyte.

So you don't think going from 128MB free to 768MB -- a factor of six -- is going to make a huuuuuge difference?



That's 28% more battery, and dual-cores are known to be generally less power hungry. LTE probably does gobble up more power, but the size of the OS is irrelevant -- only the proportion of time it's executing code.
Click to expand...

Point taken regarding total RAM versu what's left over. However, OSs are notorious for increasing in size of RAM used, so, with ICS around the corner, and who knows what next, that 1 GB will look rather small by the time it is time to replace the phone. I am not lookig at now I'm looking toward the future. The same way I build my computers - when 256 MB was the norm I built 1 GB. When 1 GB was I built 4. 4-6 is the norm now and I'm at 12.

I like to future proof as much as possible.

As for the 28% increase in battery, see bf's response

bluefire1914 said:
Increased screen size (and the qHD is a lot brighter than the OG Droid, at same levels on the brightness scale), and LTE are going to be battery hogs, sorry.

The battery will most likely be between 1700 mAh and 1800 mAh, not a ton more than the OG Droid, as has been said earlier.

Also remember, this LTE chipset is Moto's first gen. It's not the end-all phone, unfortunately. I just know I'm going to buy this thing and be appalled at the 6 hour battery life. I'll be living with it plugged into my computer or the car charger.

I just don't see a better alternative for at least another year. Why can't anyone work on developing more efficient batteries?
Click to expand...

I'm hoping that the Moto Chipset will surprise the lot of handset manufactuers out there - key word being hoping - I'm not expecting it to, and in fact, there is a good possibility that I might regret buying this phone - however, I'm also leery of switching to antoher manufacturer also, b/c I haven't really found one that meets all of my expectations.

If only phone hardware was upgradeable....
 
My earlier comments were not to detract me (nor anyone else) from getting this phone - I was just being realistic about the fact that even this phone has issues that I'd rather have taken care of that most likely will not. To coin a phrase and steal a clich
 
johnlgalt said:
Point taken regarding total RAM versu what's left over. However, OSs are notorious for increasing in size of RAM used, so, with ICS around the corner, and who knows what next, that 1 GB will look rather small by the time it is time to replace the phone. I am not lookig at now I'm looking toward the future. The same way I build my computers - when 256 MB was the norm I built 1 GB. When 1 GB was I built 4. 4-6 is the norm now and I'm at 12.

I like to future proof as much as possible.
Click to expand...

That's a smart way to do it. I think Win7 is the first Microsoft OS ever that actually uses less RAM than its predecessor (because so many complained about what a hog Vista was).
 
[hijack]

johnlgalt said:
Not sure that it uses less memory so much as it uses it much more efficiently....
Click to expand...

No, Win7 uses a TON less than Vista did. Any box that ran WinXP, you can pretty much bet that it will run Win7. Try that same box with Vista ... *PUKE*! Win7 is a really good, solid OS that uses little RAM, and looks good while doing it. Frankly, I love it.

[\hijack]
 
messenger13 said:
[hijack]



No, Win7 uses a TON less than Vista did. Any box that ran WinXP, you can pretty much bet that it will run Win7. Try that same box with Vista ... *PUKE*! Win7 is a really good, solid OS that uses little RAM, and looks good while doing it. Frankly, I love it.

[\hijack]
Click to expand...

Speaking of Windows, I expect Windows 8 to be bigger than some may expect for tablets next year. I also expect a big push for modular laptops from that point forward. Transformer will be one of many of a design standard, next year (for all OS flavors).

A dual Windows 8 with Icecream would rock for me- passive cooled, of course (for battery life) :)

Modular will be HUGE business and will also segway into desktop design. Bet on it :)
 
I ran WinXP on a Pentium 200 MHz machine with a whopping 96 MB of RAM, 8 MB video card, and dual 7200 rpm 20 GB HDs. I guarantee windows 7 won't run on that machine.

You're right in a sense, in that it seems that Win 7 uses less memory - but I'm not wrong b/c Windows 7 uses memory more efficiently and thus uses less of it at any given moment versus Vista.

Vista is to XP was ME was to 98. Both sucked, and with good reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom