Skyrocket's Full Specs

[HushH]

So this has the same size and resolution as the Infuse but with better "plus" technology.
My Infuse screen is phenomenal. Can't wait to see how much better the Skyrocket will be!

And the case is thinner, shorter and more slender than the Infuse. Amazing.

The Infuse is SAMOLED+ as well.

 

[CZ Eddie]

The Infuse is SAMOLED+ as well.

Not according to Samsung?

Infuse:
Samsung Infuse 4G Smartphone | Samsung SGH-I997ZKAATT

Galaxy SII:
Samsung Galaxy S

Note all the Plus phones are listed as "Plus" but the Infuse is not.


Edit, n/m. It is plus. They just aren't advertising it that way on the specs page for some reason.
Sorry.

 

[HushH]

Yeah, not sure why it is not listed as such on the Specs page. Regardless, the display is certainly good enough for me, and I see no problem with the 800x480 resolution on a 4.5" screen.

 

[Tom S.]

I agree but for the amount of hype it had I feel like the hardware specs didn't live up to it.

Dual core doesn't really mean anything if you practically just use one. The Galaxy Nexus is optimized for dual core cpus. SGSII isn't. That is, unless I missed something.

 

[titanoman]

Dual core doesn't really mean anything if you practically just use one. The Galaxy Nexus is optimized for dual core cpus. SGSII isn't. That is, unless I missed something.

I'm tired of people trying to justify why they don't have top-of-the-line phones by saying things like dual-core and mega-pixel size doesn't matter. Get off it.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

 

[methree]

I see no problem with the 800x480 resolution on a 4.5" screen.

That in itself is the problem. Low resolution on a big screen is a bad combination because that means bigger pixels. That same res on a say a 4" screen would look a lot better.

My impatients is killing me. I've been waiting to see if the Galaxy Nexus is going to make it to AT&T, but now the Skyrocket's (SR) got my attention. Looking at the quick specs would make you think the SR is an easy choice, with the GN only having a bigger screen and ICS, where as the SR has expandable memory vs built-in only, 1.5 GHZ processor vs. 1.2, 8mp and 2mp cams vs 5mp and 1.3mp, fulltime 4.5" screen vs whatever size the GN screen is when the buttons are on, Super AMOLED plus vs. non-plus. However, beyond skin deep, the GN is likely better optimized and could possibly process everything faster. The camera is super quick and takes pictures on par if not better than the i4S (based on the few comparison pics I've seen), so who cars about megapixels. The user interface is great. I'd rather have Super AMOLED with 1280x960 than Super AMOLED Plus with 800x480. I have a i3G now with 16G that I have 11G unused, so 16G is plenty for me.

That all said, I'll take what I can get with AT&T, so if it's the SR, I'll take it. And....if what AT&T has been saying about it's "circuit switch fall back"applies to the SR, that's all the better. I went to an AT&T store today and looked at a SuperAMOLED plus (non-HD) phone. I really don't care for the over saturated colors. Is there a way to adjust the colors? I hope the SR is a bit more toned down in that regard. I'm going to wait til the end of the month. If there is no anouncement of the GN for AT&T on LTE, I'll get the SR.

 

[Tom S.]

I'm tired of people trying to justify why they don't have top-of-the-line phones by saying things like dual-core and mega-pixel size doesn't matter. Get off it.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

Do some research before you talk trash. I have an Atrix and the SGSII. Do you know anything about operating systems? For example, if you have a 64 bit processor but your Operating system is 32 bit you don't take advantage of the capabilities. You can't even access more that 4 GB of RAM. Stop being a d-bag running your mouth when you know jack sh@@.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk