Related
Hey,
Just wondering how does one tell if a unit is pre-production unit? Do the pictures of the following indicate a pre-production unit?
http://img152.imageshack.us/my.php?image=imgp1711xk1.jpg
http://img516.imageshack.us/my.php?image=imgp1708fn9.jpg
Thanks for your help!
"EVT2" means that this is a test version, but one of the final tests.
As far as I know release devices are called "DVT"
Yes, this is a Pre-Production unit or some sort of engineering sample. It has branding so I'm assuming it's a unit that is very close to production.
Usually when people take shots of these phones they will cover up the numbers at the top so they don't get identified.
mamaich said:
"EVT2" means that this is a test version, but one of the final tests.
As far as I know release devices are called "DVT"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually it goes as such:
EVT = evaluational unit
DVT = developmental unit
PVT = Production unit
here the test and review by GPS PASSION
http://www.gpspassion.com/forumsen/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=105771
energy59 said:
here the test and review by GPS PASSION
http://www.gpspassion.com/forumsen/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=105771
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This device, as attractive as it may be, is starting to rack up some real negatives:
1) the confused (for consumers) situation with the Qualcomm chip and the US Court injunction (what effect may that have on overall sales and consequently warranty, quality control etc ?)
2) variations in build quality (sliders, screens unglued etc)
3) constant WWE ROM supply problems and high prices
4) the ongoing argument over video drivers (may not be a real issue, since it seems unlikely to me that any class action will actually occur)
I'm getting a small amount of "sand in my shoes"
I wonder: why are we bashing this device more and more lately? The more we bash, the less people buy, the worse TC sales are, the less support we'll get and eventually we might wind up with NO software updates at all..
So let's try to think about the positive things shall we
ianl8888 said:
1) the confused (for consumers) situation with the Qualcomm chip
2) variations in build quality (sliders, screens unglued etc)
3) constant WWE ROM supply problems and high prices
4) the ongoing argument over video drivers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1: is a non-issue, by the time in 2009 when HTC will need to use a new chip, this device will have been replaced in all likelihood, or will have a slightly different chipset. No problem.
2: I've not heard of any problems, slight noise from a screen and concerns here and there, but no issues with previous build so why this one? Anyway, you get a defective one, you return it!
3: supply will level in a month or two, place an order now and you should have it early Feb. The fact that it's popular should tell you a lot.
4: again is a non-issue - either you want a multi-purpose phone like this or you don't. The video will be as released, I don't believe anything more will happen with it. It's fine as released for general purpose stuff...
Essentially, if you wanted a high-performance video device this one was never for you; if you want a great PDA phone it is. Make your choice. For me build quality is excellent and the rest is of no importance.
If you want great video performance buy a Cowon iAudio A3 (I got the A2), great rendering to high resolutions too in widescreen format, bigger and heavier than the TC but good for all your video/audio/FM radio/pictures/document needs. No input possible of course. That's why I needed the TC
SabbeRubbish said:
I wonder: why are we bashing this device more and more lately? The more we bash, the less people buy, the worse TC sales are, the less support we'll get and eventually we might wind up with NO software updates at all..
So let's try to think about the positive things shall we
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Simple.
Post cognitive dissonance:
http://www.ciadvertising.org/sa/fall_03/adv382J/mbabbott/advertising.htm
There have been high expectations from the device for a long time, combine that with the difficulty in actually getting hold of one and a couple of new models from other manufacturers on the horizon, and those expectations will change. Cognitive Dissonance is a much more difficult problem for companies to manage these days, mostly because of the internet.
I must say, truly interesting! And indeed I've caught myself luring to Eten and LG devices, but none are up to the TC challenge imho.
All i can say is i am right with rickgillyon.
Everyday, i am happy to have TC.
GPS, sound, screen, weight, radio, phone are perfect.
A lot of Applications are available.
I haven't buy this device for video but if it works well, i will use it some times.
Ziggy
fishes234 said:
Simple.
Post cognitive dissonance:
http://www.ciadvertising.org/sa/fall_03/adv382J/mbabbott/advertising.htm
There have been high expectations from the device for a long time, combine that with the difficulty in actually getting hold of one and a couple of new models from other manufacturers on the horizon, and those expectations will change. Cognitive Dissonance is a much more difficult problem for companies to manage these days, mostly because of the internet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True enough, although I have not yet made a decision to dissonate about. I had been somewhat interested in the ETEN X800 until some independent tests showed a slowness in its response - some people report it is now improved with some ROM changes, others don't think so.
My decisions tend to be based on the actual experience of the product - paper specifications simply weed out those that do not interest me to start with.
It's also interesting that the optimists here discount issues - eg. one reply to my "sand in my shoes" post suggested that by 2009 the Qualcomm Court injunction will be irrelevant as HTC will be using a different chip. But I don't really intend to change devices annually, so for me it is a potential issue, particularly as the outcomes cannot be easily predicted.
Supply is an issue - we've been given way too many false dates since August to believe "the next one". And there has been no real attempt at an explanation - but given the seemingly unglued screens and flimsy controls reported on some units, quality control on production issues may be a factor. Simply returning it is a very last resort, especially from O/S. It's far better to avoid the problems to begin with.
But then, without the optimists life would be dull I suppose. Even when they quote posts selectively ...
ianl8888 said:
It's also interesting that the optimists here discount issues - eg. one reply to my "sand in my shoes" post suggested that by 2009 the Qualcomm Court injunction will be irrelevant as HTC will be using a different chip. But I don't really intend to change devices annually, so for me it is a potential issue, particularly as the outcomes cannot be easily predicted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The outcome is already known, replacement chips are ready according to Qualcomm, and you won't have to change your device - they won't make us hand our phones back in...
As I say, it's a non-issue for the end user.
rickgillyon said:
The outcome is already known, replacement chips are ready according to Qualcomm, and you won't have to change your device - they won't make us hand our phones back in...
As I say, it's a non-issue for the end user.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've discussed this out in another thread - so repetition is pointless. If you believe Qualcomm's rationalisations (after they have been convicted of knowing patent infringement), then I have some shares in the Sydney Harbour Bridge for you. Cheap, too. Such chips need to be fabricated, then assembled in new devices for testing. Qualcomm's "new" chips are also subject to a further Court examination next February before design release- the time and results of that are not predictable.
I'm not suggesting that the devices already sold will be recalled - do you understand the term "straw man" ? If world wide sales of the P3650 are repressed through this issue, HTC will reduce development and support for this model as fast as it can ... that's the core of my comments.
It's racking up real negatives. The only defence to this is cool examination of potential outcomes, or risk wasting money.
Chips need to be fabricated? Really? I'd never have guessed...
Fact is that Qualcomm, naughty as they undoubtedly are, have been working on this problem for some time as they knew they would lose. I see no reason to doubt that chips will be ready, and will be available. The reason Qulacomm will be hurrying out a replacement is to avoid the punitive commission they are paying right now.
HTC support? Surely you're kidding?
If, as you say, the issue stretches beyond early 2009, and supplies stop in early 2009, what's the difference? How often have you seen real support or development of an HTC product after the first few months? IME that support and development only comes in the cooked ROMs.
This still looks to me like the best device available right now, and with Qualcomm and HTC able to use the chip until 2009, not much of an issue for us. What's the alternative?
I am surprised at the amount of stick this device seems to be generating. I bought it as a replacement for my original Touch as I missed 3G and I have to say it's a fairly stunning device. Build quality on my unit is excellent, the slider and the scroll wheel are firm and responsive. The unit itself performs what I expect of it: PDA, email, fast internet. I fully expect this to be my longest lasting phone for quite a while, easily until end of FY 2009/2010. Problems like video drivers etc I don't really understand, it's adequate for a phone. If I want to watch videos I tend to use a full video capable device (eg PSP) rather than try to watch them on a phone.
SabbeRubbish said:
I wonder: why are we bashing this device more and more lately? The more we bash, the less people buy, the worse TC sales are, the less support we'll get and eventually we might wind up with NO software updates at all..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But if we don't bash them, they think everyone's happy with the current performance and they don't bother improving it or doing anything about it.
andyturner said:
But if we don't bash them, they think everyone's happy with the current performance and they don't bother improving it or doing anything about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No no, I do insist we bash them PERSONALLY, but not on the sales websites, as potential future customers may be scared in the future, even if the issue is already resolved, and therefore make the release of TC a fiasco, which would make HTC not distribute any sw updates...
Just a question:
How much would an external antenna help to get a better signal?
I would like to use the TC to track a short hike. Due to the test mentioned above, I would be forced to take the TC in my hand all the time. So I thougt I plug in an external antenna and fix the end somewhere to my clothes/backpack. Would that help?
Straputsky said:
Just a question:
How much would an external antenna help to get a better signal?
I would like to use the TC to track a short hike. Due to the test mentioned above, I would be forced to take the TC in my hand all the time. So I thougt I plug in an external antenna and fix the end somewhere to my clothes/backpack. Would that help?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Depends on the satellite coverage... My country has only 8 satellites covering it, so we couldn't utilize it fully even if we wanted to. (I don't know the background but thats the max number of lockons everyone gets around here)
But if your TC performs well in the city, i don't see any need for an external antenna, but an extra battery is a different story. And I hope you have other tracking softwares in your arsenal than the included TomTom...
gnick666 said:
...And I hope you have other tracking softwares in your arsenal than the included TomTom...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With TomTom it would be a very short trip.
No, I plan to use TrackMe which was created by someone here in the community. It allows you to turn of the display, so the device consumes less power.
The problem is, that the TC didn't perform that good and I was thinking if it performs better with an external antenna. Especially in wooden areas I hope to gain a significant better signal.
Straputsky said:
...Especially in wooden areas I hope to gain a significant better signal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You'd definitely get a better reception, but that would increase battery drainage. Bigger external antenna, heavier the drain on the battery.
But you can always pack the external antenna, and use it if needed. You won't loose anything, and we'd get some fieldtest results from the woods in Germany
@rickgyllion
Wot, no Harbour Bridge shares ? I'll even lower the price ! Oh well ...
"If, as you say, the issue stretches beyond early 2009 ..." I never said that, I simply pointed out that Qualcomm still faces unpredictable Court examination of its new designs. An inconvenient fact ...
"How often have you seen real support or development of an HTC product after the first few months?" Since the 1st non-English ROM devices have now been out a few months, one might think that stage has already been reached.
Between Qualcomm and HTC, it's a real stuff-up.
My attempt at resolution is that I have pre-ordered both the P3650 and an alternate non-HTC device. Both are due "in February" or "real soon now" or whichever comes first. When one or the other finally makes it to the retail market, then I'll make a decision.
Hi,
I was wondering if someone who has an O2 Orbit 2 would read the box it came in, and tell me what the following SAR ratings are.
HEAD SAR =
BODY SAR =
I know that there are some figures bouncing around the net, but they all seem to contradict each other, so that is why I was wondering if someone who actually owns one could quote me from the box or manual.
Thanks
SAR?
Hey Ppl!
The SAR rating which is printed in the German O2 Handbook is shown as 1,72W/kg. There ist no differncing between head and body rating. The same rating is shown on the O2 Internetsite.
Remember, if you have a bad cell the SAR rating rises to the max, in good cells the rating is much less than the max.
Frank
You see I had heard that figure !
...and it is the figure which is printed on the O2 UK website but I don't know whether this is just an outrageously high SAR rating, or whether it is misreporting, i.e. a 'combined' SAR rating
i.e.
HEAD SAR 0.888
BODY SAR 1.81
As is suggested for the Touch Cruise in this thread...
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=371121
Does this phone actually have the same SAR as the Touch Cruise, its just that it is reported differently?
If this phone's SAR is 1.7, then that is ridiculous !!!!
The n95 for instance (I know, Nokia are evil, but for the sake of comparison...) has a rating of 0.58 !!!
I don't care even if it is the Max - 1.7 is far too high
I was literally on my way to buy this phone, when I found out the SAR rating !
As a result I am no longer going to buy it !!!!
Why should the HTC have SAR ratings which are so high ?????
SAR differences
Hey kdm!
Why u should by a HTC device? Because they`re cool and in the forum very good supported.
Everybody knows about SAR and I`m using an BT headset for every call.
The Hardware of Polaris and Orbit2 is the same, like u read your linked thread.
I like my Orbit with my headset!
Frank
er... wots SAR then?
Oh ok, Specific absorption rate right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate
Isnt google amazing!
has anybody really proved the SAR rating thing yet? last I heard here in australia was that EU phones are more powerful then AU phone and as such the rating system never came in to effect in australia. Well the way I look at it is I do much worse things then use my phone....
ANyone ?
No one still have their box or manual lying around ?
What does it matter dude?
I sure hope all this SAR stuff is crap, because I sleep with my phone next to my head every night!
What does it matter dude?
I sure hope all this SAR stuff is crap, because I sleep with my phone next to my head every night!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow ! Thats living life on the edge !!! I think even those who state that mobile phones are largely safe still caution against that !
Look, to be honest I am undecided as yet whether SAR ratings really are something to worry about, but until it is established once and for all I think it better to hedge ones bets !
As a result I went for the Touch Cruise instead of the Orbit2 becaus the SAR is reportedly lower.
Radiation emmisions
Hey kdm!
Think about all the radiation of atombombs, nuklear accidents like tschernobyl and harrisburg and all the untold accidents... The radiation from outer space and so on...
About all the radar for airtraffic, Radiofrequencies and all the other emmisions we are exposed to everyday...
Without any longtime (50 years and longer) studies i think it would be difficult to assess the effect of all these including the SAR effect in our heads...
Just think about it...
Frank
Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, (the Federal Office For Radiation Safety in Germany) rates it at 0,89 W/kg (http://www.bfs.de/elektro/hff/oekolabel.html)
Here's a link to a list of many phones and their SAR ratings as reported by Swisscom (http://www.swisscom-mobile.ch/scm/mce_sarwerte-en.aspx). Most Touch phones listed are between 0,4 and 0,8 W/kg.
There are two different standards for maximum exposure limits. The International (2.0W/kg) and the US FCC (1.6W/kg). The information above is based on 2.0W/kg testing. The SAR ratings listed throughout the internet for this phone range anywhere from 0,4xx to 1.4xx W/kg, which shows that testing and reporting varies as do beliefs on what's safe and not safe.
Best way to avoid cooking your brain is to just use the speaker phone or an ear piece, corded preferably. Using a bluetooth earpiece can be just as bad or worse (in the case of inside-the-ear dwelling models) than having the phone next to your head since they too put out RF signals.
kdm2008 said:
Wow ! Thats living life on the edge !!! I think even those who state that mobile phones are largely safe still caution against that !
Look, to be honest I am undecided as yet whether SAR ratings really are something to worry about, but until it is established once and for all I think it better to hedge ones bets !
As a result I went for the Touch Cruise instead of the Orbit2 becaus the SAR is reportedly lower.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same hardware (HTC Polaris / P3650), really only cosmetically different.
So I am keen to read opinions about the relatively high SAR value of the Alcatel Idol 3 and its possible negative
effect on the human head and body. I remember owning phones having significantly lower SAR values, such as the
Galaxy Nexus and the Galaxy Note II, clocking in around 0.2 W/Kg, instead of the idol 3's 1.42 W/Kg.
Should we be worried with every day use? The maximum allowed SAR value is set at 1.6 W/Kg. Below is the official report
of the Idol 3 regarding SAR ratings:
THIS MOBILE PHONE MEETS THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUIREMENTS FOR
EXPOSURE TO RADIO WAVES.
Your mobile phone is a radio transmitter and receiver. It is designed and manufactured
not to exceed the emission limits for exposure to radio-frequency (RF) energy. These
limits are part of comprehensive guidelines and establish permitted levels of RF
energy for the general population. The guidelines are based on standards that were
developed by independent scientific organizations through periodic and thorough
evaluation of scientific studies. These guidelines include a substantial safety margin
designed to ensure the safety of all persons, regardless of age and health.
The exposure standard for mobile phones employs a unit of measurement known
as the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR. The SAR limit set by public authorities such
as the Federal Communications Commission of the US Government (FCC), or by
Industry Canada, is 1.6 W/kg averaged over 1 gram of body tissue. Tests for SAR are
conducted using standard operating positions with the mobile phone transmitting at
its highest certified power level in all tested frequency bands.
9 10
Although the SAR is determined at the highest certified power level, the actual SAR
level of the mobile phone while operating can be well below the maximum value. This
is because the mobile phone is designed to operate at multiple power levels so as to
use only the power required to reach the network. In general, the closer you are to
a wireless base station antenna, the lower the power output of the mobile phone.
Before a mobile phone model is available for sale to the public, compliance with
national regulations and standards must be shown.
The highest SAR value for this model mobile phone when tested is 1.39W/Kg for use
at the ear and 1.42W/Kg for use close to the body.
Source: http://support.bell.ca/_web/Guides/...tel-EN/Alcatel-OneTouch-Idol-3-User-Guide.pdf
SAR is a really useless measure.
http://www.electricsense.com/1133/cell-phone-sar-totally-misleading/
"even the FCC now casts doubt on the usefulness of comparing maximum SAR values for determining the potential health risks of cell phones."
flopticalcube said:
SAR is a really useless measure.
http://www.electricsense.com/1133/cell-phone-sar-totally-misleading/
"even the FCC now casts doubt on the usefulness of comparing maximum SAR values for determining the potential health risks of cell phones."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So it's basically about locations where there is bad reception and the cellphone trying hard to get a connection, increasing the SAR value. It's still
relatively high, the peaks. Anyone else input?
Peaks don't mean anything by themselves, its the average power put out over a long period of time that matters. Think marathon runner vs sprinter.
flopticalcube said:
Peaks don't mean anything by themselves, its the average power put out over a long period of time that matters. Think marathon runner vs sprinter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess you're right. However, many people advise to wear/carry a cellphone (our Idol 3 in this case) away from the body. How does that even work for men? I've always carried my cellphone in my pocket. How dangerous are we talking??
make my day.
gideonMorrison said:
I guess you're right. However, many people advise to wear/carry a cellphone (our Idol 3 in this case) away from the body. How does that even work for men? I've always carried my cellphone in my pocket. How dangerous are we talking??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Put it this way, you are FAR more likely to be killed by reading a facebook post on your phone rather than paying attention to traffic than you are by the minimal radiation put out by the phone in your pocket.
DallasCZ said:
make my day.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct thread?
Put it this way, you are FAR more likely to be killed by reading a facebook post on your phone rather than paying attention to traffic than you are by the minimal radiation put out by the phone in your pocket.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess you're right, but I don't like tumors etc There's always a risk of course, just wondering how large that risk truly is...
nobody likes tumors and cancer and so on...but the thing is, that you more likely got cancer from stress and ubhealthy living style than from mobile device radiation (my opinion). But anyway if you want to avoid SAR radiation to your body buy a device with lowes SAR HERE Is link to one article in Czech (because iam from Czech republic) and if you use google translation you will notice, that lowest radiations has for example LG G3, so go for this device and you will be happy (more likely untill you got tumor from something else than SAR radiation ). I myself dont take this things so seriously because there are no proper research and no straight proven consequences between tumors, cancer and magnetic field radiation. It simply stands on more things than a device you use (genetic predisposition, living style, stress...). Thatswhy i put the post above
edit: just for the end..there was a research that prooves that when you ejaculate often (at least once a day), that lowers significantly the chance to get prostatic cancer. so turn of the computer and go for it.
DallasCZ said:
nobody likes tumors and cancer and so on...but the thing is, that you more likely got cancer from stress and ubhealthy living style than from mobile device radiation (my opinion). But anyway if you want to avoid SAR radiation to your body buy a device with lowes SAR HERE Is link to one article in Czech (because iam from Czech republic) and if you use google translation you will notice, that lowest radiations has for example LG G3, so go for this device and you will be happy (more likely untill you got tumor from something else than SAR radiation ). I myself dont take this things so seriously because there are no proper research and no straight proven consequences between tumors, cancer and magnetic field radiation. It simply stands on more things than a device you use (genetic predisposition, living style, stress...). Thatswhy i put the post above
edit: just for the end..there was a research that prooves that when you ejaculate often (at least once a day), that lowers significantly the chance to get prostatic cancer. so turn of the computer and go for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Although your post made me chuckle a couple of times I do feel it could be a serious matter, as I think we all would prefer a SAR value as low as possible. I reckon we can safely use our i3's however.
gideonMorrison said:
Although your post made me chuckle a couple of times I do feel it could be a serious matter, as I think we all would prefer a SAR value as low as possible. I reckon we can safely use our i3's however.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would prefer to see a better way of rating a phone's total RF power output over a period of time. For all we know, the Idol 3 may be much safer than a Galaxy S6 over a typical day even if it does have a higher SAR peak. The likelihood is that both are amongst the least of your worries in life.
flopticalcube said:
I would prefer to see a better way of rating a phone's total RF power output over a period of time. For all we know, the Idol 3 may be much safer than a Galaxy S6 over a typical day even if it does have a higher SAR peak. The likelihood is that both are amongst the least of your worries in life.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well put and I agree. I will still be wearing the i3 5.5 in my pocket as I've always done. Is there an app for making my balls radiation-free?
gideonMorrison said:
Well put and I agree. I will still be wearing the i3 5.5 in my pocket as I've always done. Is there an app for making my balls radiation-free?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 xD
Does anyone know the difference between these 2? The specs look identical
https://www.sandisk.com/home/memory-cards/microsd-cards/extremepro-microsd
VS
https://www.sandisk.com/home/memory-cards/microsd-cards/extremeplus-microsd
Apo11on said:
Does anyone know the difference between these 2? The specs look identical
https://www.sandisk.com/home/memory-cards/microsd-cards/extremepro-microsd
VS
https://www.sandisk.com/home/memory-cards/microsd-cards/extremeplus-microsd
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The "plus" version is probably intended for the average user and has a moderate level of quality and durability. The "pro" version is probably intended for professionals and users that would need a better quality and more durable product.
In other words, they have equal specs and both are good quality but one is made a bit better than the other.
Sent from my LGL84VL using Tapatalk
Droidriven said:
The "plus" version is probably intended for the average user and has a moderate level of quality and durability. The "pro" version is probably intended for professionals and users that would need a better quality and more durable product.
In other words, they have equal specs and both are good quality but one is made a bit better than the other.
Sent from my LGL84VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure what "better quality" means in this context. Durability is a measurable specification, and each card type has Max supported reads/writes, per sdcard association specifications. Both are C10, U3, A2 and V30 and according to that, have same durability, in terms of Max reads/writes... Not sold on your response, I think there is either no difference and it was just a marketing decision, or it's something else.
Apo11on said:
I'm not sure what "better quality" means in this context. Durability is a measurable specification, and each card type has Max supported reads/writes, per sdcard association specifications. Both are C10, U3, A2 and V30 and according to that, have same durability, in terms of Max reads/writes... Not sold on your response, I think there is either no difference and it was just a marketing decision, or it's something else.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A little of both, it's like laptops, some are marketed at the consumer level at a certain price point and others are marketed at the business/professional level at a higher price point, overall difference between the two marketing levels isn't that much but it's enough to make it worthwhile to the professional at a higher price point, for whatever reason.
Pro has read/write speed of 95MB/s
Plus has read/write speed of 90MB/s
But none of this matters for use as storage in android devices, these differences only matter when it comes to photography and in use in cameras. All you need to worry with for android is for it to be a class 10 card.
Sent from my LGL84VL using Tapatalk
Droidriven said:
Pro has read/write speed of 95MB/s
Plus has read/write speed of 90MB/s
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The speeds you provided are inaccurate, and do not match the speeds listed on SanDisk product pages I provided in the OP. The read/write speeds, listed by SanDisk for both cards are identical, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. I only asked because I coudn't find any difference in any of the specs. If it was 95Mbps vs 90Mbps - my question would have been redundant.
Apo11on said:
The speeds you provided are inaccurate, and do not match the speeds listed on SanDisk product pages I provided in the OP. The read/write speeds, listed by SanDisk for both cards are identical, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. I only asked because I coudn't find any difference in any of the specs. If it was 95Mbps vs 90Mbps - my question would have been redundant.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/comp...e/BHitems/1275615-REG_1276278-REG_1275611-REG
https://www.phototraces.com/sandisk-extreme-pro-vs-sandisk-extreme-plus/
https://boards.cruisecritic.com/top...ard-vs-sandisk-extreme-plus-which-one-to-buy/
As you can see, there is more than enough information that disagrees with you.
Sent from my LGL84VL using Tapatalk
Droidriven said:
Here
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/comp...e/BHitems/1275615-REG_1276278-REG_1275611-REG
https://www.phototraces.com/sandisk-extreme-pro-vs-sandisk-extreme-plus/
https://boards.cruisecritic.com/top...ard-vs-sandisk-extreme-plus-which-one-to-buy/
As you can see, there is more than enough information that disagrees with you.
Sent from my LGL84VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The links you provided unmistakably indicate you don't even understand what we're talking about:
First, all links you provided are about sdcards, and my question in the OP and the product links I posted in the OP are for MICRO sdcards. Those are 2 very different form factors. They use very different manufacturing process and sd vs microsd *always* had different speeds, even when plus/pro/extreme etc. naming convention was the same.
Second, your links are not only for the wrong form factor products, but they are also for very different, tiny capacity cards. I specifically linked and asked about the new 1TB sizes, and you are linking to 32GB, 64GB small capacity, old cards in different form factor. It is well known card's storage capacity affects it's top speeds and it can be clearly seen on SanDisk's site, if you check specifications for the "same" card in different sizes
Third, and most importantly - what I said about specs of the cards I'm asking about cannot be "disagreed with", because I didnt provide an opinion, or any kind of speculation for specifications - I provided a direct link to the manufacturer's own website and manufacturer's own specifications of the products *they* created. Therefore, those specs are a hard fact, like gravity - not something you can disagree with by providing links to some random online resellers or some forums, that might be selling or discussing the product. Manufacturer provided information about their own products superseeds/overwrites any 3rd party information, and all your links are for very different products anyway.
Some people just dont know when to quit, and argue for the sake of arguing...
Apo11on said:
The links you provided unmistakably indicate you don't even understand what we're talking about:
First, all links you provided are about sdcards, and my question in the OP and the product links I posted in the OP are for MICRO sdcards. Those are 2 very different form factors. They use very different manufacturing process and sd vs microsd *always* had different speeds, even when plus/pro/extreme etc. naming convention was the same.
Second, your links are not only for the wrong form factor products, but they are also for very different, tiny capacity cards. I specifically linked and asked about the new 1TB sizes, and you are linking to 32GB, 64GB small capacity, old cards in different form factor. It is well known card's storage capacity affects it's top speeds and it can be clearly seen on SanDisk's site, if you check specifications for the "same" card in different sizes
Third, and most importantly - what I said about specs of the cards I'm asking about cannot be "disagreed with", because I didnt provide an opinion, or any kind of speculation for specifications - I provided a direct link to the manufacturer's own website and manufacturer's own specifications of the products *they* created. Therefore, those specs are a hard fact, like gravity - not something you can disagree with by providing links to some random online resellers or some forums, that might be selling or discussing the product. Manufacturer provided information about their own products superseeds/overwrites any 3rd party information, and all your links are for very different products anyway.
Some people just dont know when to quit, and argue for the sake of arguing...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The links that I gave were to demonstrate that there is a difference between the Pro and Plus versions, regardless of form factor or size.
When comparing a Pro with "this" form factor and "that" many GB to a Plus with the same form factor and same GB, there is a difference, that is the point. Your nitpicking doesn't change that.
Sent from my LGL84VL using Tapatalk
Droidriven said:
The links that I gave were to demonstrate that there is a difference between the Pro and Plus versions, regardless of form factor or size.
When comparing a Pro with "this" form factor and "that" many GB to a Plus with the same form factor and same GB, there is a difference, that is the point. Your nitpicking doesn't change that.
Sent from my LGL84VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In post #5 I called you out for listing the wrong speeds for the products I asked about, which do not match manufacturer specifications. In post #6 you quoted that call-out, said "As you can see, there is more than enough information that disagrees with you." and linked some websites which provide the same wrong speeds i called you out on. Therefore, no - you didn't give those links to "demonstrate that there is a difference between the Pro and Plus versions, regardless of form factor or size." - the context of the conversation unequivocally indicates you gave them to disproof my statement you provided wrong speeds for the products I'm asking about. The purpose of your post #5 was very different from what you now claim, and anyone with a common sense, who would read this thread will be able to see that.
I guess you're entitled to an opinion and can call pointing out that you provided links to wrong product, in different form factor, different capacity and designated 3rd party links as "evidence, which disproves manufacturer's own specifications" to be "nitpicking", but I don't think too many people would agree with you on that one.
And no - the links you provided for very different products that also happen to have "pro" and "plus" in their names do not prove there is speeds or specs difference between products I'm asking about, because the official manufacturer provided specifications for the products I'm asking directly contradict that and list identical specs, including read/write speeds.
Update: Spoke to SanDisk support directly - they confirmed the specs are identical, and Pro vs Plus branding is just a marketing decision/trick.
Apo11on said:
Update: Spoke to SanDisk support directly - they confirmed the specs are identical, and Pro vs Plus branding is just a marketing decision/trick.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Finally, a proper answer.
Sent from my LGL84VL using Tapatalk
Finally got that 1TB Extreme PLUS card. If you're expecting the advertised 170Mbps read speeds - don't hold your breath. I've gotten 85Mbps read, 80Mbps write best case, and Google research says SanDisk even admits that 170Mbps read speed can only be achieved using their Mobilemate USB to sdcard adapter, which uses SanDisk proprietary hardware and transfer technology.