Hey everyone
SO I got a s2 classic. I was told that it was Better than having a f1tbit....
I see there are some running apps, nike+, shealth....but is there anythign where you can track ur progress over a couple of days like fitbit?
everyone is saying this is a better "fitness tracking" watch....but I have yet to be shown how?
Thanks in advance...
i have both fitbit charge hr and samsung gear s2. in health tracking, fitbit is the best hands down. cannot really compare them. but i gave up using the fitbit in favor of s2, as i don't really need detailed tracking and screen is way better and informative on s2. s health doesn't offer a web interface or anything like fitbit though.
I used to have a Charge HR and I loved it. Always had the heart rate monitoring and battery still lasts a week. It's step count seems spot on top. This Gear S2, horrible... I will walk down isles at a store and count my steps and compare to the watch, most of the time it doesn't register a single step taken. Other times it only counts half of what I actually did. The heart rate monitor on this thing is a complete joke! It took me 8 times to get it to read my heart rate after a workout and it said I was 75bpm, my heart was still pounding!!
The only benefit this watch has over the fit bit is being able to make calls and reply to texts, which I think the fit it with the GPS can actually do.
simpletona70 said:
I used to have a Charge HR and I loved it. Always had the heart rate monitoring and battery still lasts a week. It's step count seems spot on top. This Gear S2, horrible... I will walk down isles at a store and count my steps and compare to the watch, most of the time it doesn't register a single step taken. Other times it only counts half of what I actually did. The heart rate monitor on this thing is a complete joke! It took me 8 times to get it to read my heart rate after a workout and it said I was 75bpm, my heart was still pounding!!
The only benefit this watch has over the fit bit is being able to make calls and reply to texts, which I think the fit it with the GPS can actually do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You may want to exchange the S2. I use both it (Gear S2 Classic) and a Vivofit I picked up a week earlier... and the S2 is vastly more accurate. I can't compare it to the Fitbit but from what I have experienced comparing two fitness trackers, the S2 you have should be functioning far better.
The S2 detects walking when I am on a treadmill, walking outside, just walking around my apartment, and so on. Depending on how I use my hands it will also count "steps" on my elliptical trainer. It tracks my heartbeat very well and when I compare it to the machine's heart rate monitor they match. It also matches the heartrate measured via my Galaxy S4 (I use an app which uses the flash and camera to measure heart rate)
The Auto HR (Heart Rate) of the Gear S3 isn't satisfying, it only takes (measures) 1 time every hour, the Gear S2 did that every 10 minutes! What a huge step back from Samsung, I just hate it! Will send back this item to Amazon, what a shame
Bit of an extreme reason to send it back. Check your settings etc... anyway
Mine records a measurement every ten minutes and stores it in SHealth.
Lakota said:
Bit of an extreme reason to send it back. Check your settings etc... anyway
Mine records a measurement every ten minutes and stores it in SHealth.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We don't have the possibility to change how often we want to measure! We only have the option Auto HR on or off, this is ridiculous! Mine only measures every hour :/
Mine measures every 10 mins pretty reliably. I know I've seen the setting for this somewhere but I honestly can't find it now, I'm sure someone else can tell you where it is.
memo357 said:
We don't have the possibility to change how often we want to measure! We only have the option Auto HR on or off, this is ridiculous! Mine only measures every hour :/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mine does every 10 minutes too. But it's not a heart monitoring watch. It's an added feature on a watch with a million other features. "Ridiculous" that it does not have specific adjustment details that a relatively small fraction of the customer base probably needs? I agree that's probably a bit harsh!
If THAT is the one feature that is a deal breaker for you, yeah, you chose the wrong watch. The accuracy on any watch HR monitor is questionable anyway. And you can do it manually whenever you want. How much data do you need?
Return your gear and get a fitness-specific device! Start here... http://www.wareable.com/fitness-trackers/best-heart-rate-monitor-and-watches
Sounds like you need a chest strap.
Has anyone found where I can change the intervall to 10mins? Generally once every hour is fine IMO, but there are certain scenarios where I'd like to monitor my heart rate more closely.
It's 10 mins by default. The problem is you are moving when it try's to take a measurement and fails. To demonstrate this try and take 2 manual readings - one perfectly still and the second time keep moving your fingers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
memo357 said:
The Auto HR (Heart Rate) of the Gear S3 isn't satisfying, it only takes (measures) 1 time every hour, the Gear S2 did that every 10 minutes! What a huge step back from Samsung, I just hate it! Will send back this item to Amazon, what a shame
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
K bye. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
I know exactly how you feel. That's why when I work out I switch out my gear s3 with my gear fit2 or fitbit2 blaze. The blaze can accurately measure while in motion, the Gear fit2 lacks accurately getting a bpm while in motion.
The blaze fitbit also severely lacks instant notifications. Pretty ineffective if that's what you want it for. Stick with the fit2 or gear s3 as their on target when it comes to notifications being accurately relayed to the wearable
It seems pretty accurate when I'm at rest but I'm not sure about its readings while I'm walking or hiking. Maybe I should tighten up the band when my arms are swinging.
The latest S3 and Samsung Health updates has fixed the accuracy.
I used Polar M400 with chest sensor before S3 and when I started with S3 it seemed to be underrating, for the same 45 minutes cross trainer session, Polar counted about 400 calories and S3/Health - about 300. S3 also shown about 5 bpm less constantly.
With the latest update things seem to be fixed, S3 indications are quite close to Polar.
I'm doing the same session 2-3 times per week, so I can compare the data.
MichaelGG said:
I used Polar M400 with chest sensor before S3 and when I started with S3 it seemed to be underrating, for the same 45 minutes cross trainer session, Polar counted about 400 calories and S3/Health - about 300. S3 also shown about 5 bpm less constantly.
With the latest update things seem to be fixed, S3 indications are quite close to Polar.
I'm doing the same session 2-3 times per week, so I can compare the data.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had a garmin vivoactive hr before and the HR seems to be the same while running but the calorie count is really low on s3. 1000 vs 300
Those of you having issues with movement - slide the watch further up your wrist. Every HR monitor ive tried has the same issue. If it is too close to your hand, it will give crap readings. Apple Watch 2 has the same issue and I have to run with it about an inch higher than where I normally wear it.
I had the Gear S3 about a month after it came out and the heart rate accuracy was pathetic. I was coming from Fitbit Charge HR and that one had problems and still was better than the Gear. For example on a treadmill I was running and my Gear could not get above 80 bpm when I know from manually taking my bpm it was around 160 at least. I think it's from the sensor being on a completely flat surface so it's hard to stay accurate during movement.
I now have the Garmin Vivoactive HR and it is worlds better. Stays within 2-3 bpm of what a chest strap would read.
I think just about any wearable has accuracy issues here and there, but in general you can and do get a fairly good representation over time. If you're looking for dead nuts accuracy, no wearable is going to deliver. I've worn my chest monitor with my Fitbit Charge2 and Gear s3, and overall through the course of a workout, my readings are close enough to produce physical results.
I wear my Charge2 on one arm and gear on the other. The Charge is touted as a fitness tracker and my gear s3 SMARTWATCH produces results that are pretty dang close. Close enough anyway.
I find I get better hr readings lower on my wrist. YMMV.
If no one has found out yet. Maybe different in S3, but in my S2, it is located in SHealth app of gear (not phone). The far right card is settings and inside there is a menu called "Auto HR" which is selectable between Frequent, Moderate or Off.
Hey guys ,.
I'm facing an issue with my step counting, the watch doesn't count my steps if i walk less than 20 steps, so when I'm walking at my home almost none of my steps being counted
Also every 3000 step i get only 40 calories burned while my iPhone shows the double, so is my watch normal ?
I'm having the same issue although I've not worked out what the threshold is as I only got it yesterday. Is it definitely 20 steps? My Fitbit is showing over 5000 today but the Huawei is on 3005.
I found a note in the help that standing only registers between 07:00 and 19:00 and if you're doing medium to high intensity for over a minute. It'll only count once in an hour as well. Can't see anything about how it counts steps though.
breavo said:
Hey guys ,.
I'm facing an issue with my step counting, the watch doesn't count my steps if i walk less than 20 steps, so when I'm walking at my home almost none of my steps being counted
Also every 3000 step i get only 40 calories burned while my iPhone shows the double, so is my watch normal ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've observed the same behavior with my new HW2. Steps aren't being counted unless I walk at least ~20 steps, then it counts those steps along with whatever steps follow. Is this a defect or typical function for the watch? Anyone found a remedy? Throws off step counting by as much as 50% on some days, depending on my activity.
guys, you should know that walking does not burn much calories and therefor you shouldnt pay much attention to step counts less than 500 and it's normal and OK that the gps is not that accurate...
Same problem with my HW2, steps are about a 1/3 of my fit bit. I stand and then take 10 steps one way, stop and abut 15 steps in another direction. I do this all day. I register 12,000 steps on fit bit, but 2,000 on hw2. Not happy. It I can't get a resolution, Returning it.
Hi all,
Just wanted to check...if you have location services switched on on this device. I tried switching it off and experienced a remarkable improvement in the battery life. Am I missing something without location services on?
According to the user guide, the Galaxy Watch 4 draws the location from your phone when this is connected to it via BT, except for Samsung Health. What kind of improvement did you see? My watch drains around 2% per hour during the day with normal use and 10% over night. This is with everything on, apart from AOD and with Location on Improved Accuracy.
Fousekis7 said:
According to the user guide, the Galaxy Watch 4 draws the location from your phone when this is connected to it via BT, except for Samsung Health. What kind of improvement did you see? My watch drains around 2% per hour during the day with normal use and 10% over night. This is with everything on, apart from AOD and with Location on Improved Accuracy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With location on, I would start the day with 100% and 6 hours in to the day I would have lost around 25%. With location off and under the same conditions, I would have lost around 16%. That's about 9% save over 6 hours. In both these situations, I'm assuming the same level of activity.
Interesting. I will try with location turned off, myself (it was on). I am not sure why a watch needs location, other than for weather or maybe exercise tracking without the phone? And without it, it should just use your home city or last location, anyway. And I don't use exercise tracking and don't have Samsung Health installed. For it to use much battery, either it would have to be requesting location through BT regularly, and I am not sure why it would need to, or it would be without a BT connection and have to figure it out on its own. In my case, the watch is always connected via BT.
crxssi said:
Interesting. I will try with location turned off, myself (it was on). I am not sure why a watch needs location, other than for weather or maybe exercise tracking without the phone? And without it, it should just use your home city or last location, anyway. And I don't use exercise tracking and don't have Samsung Health installed. For it to use much battery, either it would have to be requesting location through BT regularly, and I am not sure why it would need to, or it would be without a BT connection and have to figure it out on its own. In my case, the watch is always connected via BT.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure why the watch would request for location from the phone when there is an inbuilt GPS receiver. But, yes, long story short, without the location enabled, the battery life is great.
amirage said:
I'm not sure why the watch would request for location from the phone when there is an inbuilt GPS receiver.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I assume because it is a lot less "expensive" to ask the phone than to exert a lot of battery to find out on its own.
crxssi said:
Interesting. I will try with location turned off, myself (it was on). I am not sure why a watch needs location, other than for weather or maybe exercise tracking without the phone? And without it, it should just use your home city or last location, anyway. And I don't use exercise tracking and don't have Samsung Health installed. For it to use much battery, either it would have to be requesting location through BT regularly, and I am not sure why it would need to, or it would be without a BT connection and have to figure it out on its own. In my case, the watch is always connected via BT.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm getting great battery life with location turned on - and IMHO turning location off on the Galaxy Watch 4 kinda negates its main advantages over the Galaxy Watch (Google Maps, etc.).
If battery life is your overriding priority, and you don't care about the health and location-based features of the GW4, I would suggest that you buy an original Galaxy Watch, at a fraction of the price, and up to 2x the battery life.
jtOttawa said:
I'm getting great battery life with location turned on - and IMHO turning location off on the Galaxy Watch 4 kinda negates its main advantages over the Galaxy Watch (Google Maps, etc.).
If battery life is your overriding priority, and you don't care about the health and location-based features of the GW4, I would suggest that you buy an original Galaxy Watch, at a fraction of the price, and up to 2x the battery life.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I already have a S3 classic (still sitting on the desk). And it did suit me fine for years, except the battery is half worn-out now. Plus, it had no search capability, which is the killer feature I wanted in the GW4 (and doesn't really have it quite yet). I don't use the exercise/health or mapping. I use it mostly for time, calendar, notifications, weather, AOD, stopwatch, and occasional texting. Most of the other features are a waste on me, that is true. Of course, each person will have a set of features important to him/her; so it is nice to have lots of features to reach a broader customer base.
It is a bit annoying that the watch feels a bit like a beta, but I did expect that going into it (being the first WearOS 3 device, and buying it the moment it was released). But with regular updates, I am sure it will get worked out.
crxssi said:
I already have a GW3 classic (still sitting on the desk). And it did suit me fine for years, except the battery is half worn-out now. Plus, it had no search capability, which is the killer feature I wanted in the GW4 (and doesn't really have it quite yet). I don't use the exercise/health or mapping. I use it mostly for time, calendar, notifications, weather, AOD, stopwatch, and occasional texting. Most of the other features are a waste on me, that is true. Of course, each person will have a set of features important to him/her; so it is nice to have lots of features to reach a broader customer base.
It is a bit annoying that the watch feels a bit like a beta, but I did expect that going into it (being the first WearOS 3 device, and buying it the moment it was released). But with regular updates, I am sure it will get worked out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fair enough. I passed on the Galaxy Watch as it didn't offer me any significant advantages over my Gear S3s (one of which I still have) and the GW3 seemed like a downgrade from the Galaxy Watch given the smaller battery (plus we didn't ever get the much-vaunted BP and ECG here in Canada - and still don't have it officially for the GW4).
BTW, I replaced the battery myself in both of my Gear S3s - you can order Samsung originals online, and installation is easy if you're careful and mechanically inclined. Not sure if that is the case for the GW3 and GW4, but something to keep in mind should you ever decide you'd like to extend the life of your watch.
jtOttawa said:
Fair enough. I passed on the Galaxy Watch as it didn't offer me any significant advantages over my Gear S3s (one of which I still have) and the GW3 seemed like a downgrade from the Galaxy Watch given the smaller battery (plus we didn't ever get the much-vaunted BP and ECG here in Canada - and still don't have it officially for the GW4).
BTW, I replaced the battery myself in both of my Gear S3s - you can order Samsung originals online, and installation is easy if you're careful and mechanically inclined. Not sure if that is the case for the GW3 and GW4, but something to keep in mind should you ever decide you'd like to extend the life of your watch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, I accidentally said GW3 when I meant S3. I corrected my posting, above. Like you, I passed on the Galaxy Watch (until 4) for the exact same reasons. Plus, I didn't like the horrible black bezel on the silver Classic (what was that about?)
crxssi said:
Sorry, I accidentally said GW3 when I meant S3. I corrected my posting, above. Like you, I passed on the Galaxy Watch (until 4) for the exact same reasons. Plus, I didn't like the horrible black bezel on the silver Classic (what was that about?)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed! Silver with the black bezel was the only option - much preferred (and still prefer) the look of the all-black S3. Plus, the battery life on the S3 was just fine as far as I was concerned - and with the new battery, I'm getting 3+ days again.
crxssi said:
Sorry, I accidentally said GW3 when I meant S3. I corrected my posting, above. Like you, I passed on the Galaxy Watch (until 4) for the exact same reasons. Plus, I didn't like the horrible black bezel on the silver Classic (what was that about?)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
BTW, here's the link if you ever want to order original Samsung parts for your S3 (and I see they are just starting to get parts for the GW4): https://rounded.com/?subcats=Y&pcod...erformed=Y&q=gear+s3&dispatch=products.search
jtOttawa said:
Agreed! Silver with the black bezel was the only option - much preferred (and still prefer) the look of the all-black S3.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wanted all silver, no black
jtOttawa said:
BTW, here's the link if you ever want to order original Samsung parts for your S3 (and I see they are just starting to get parts for the GW4): https://rounded.com/?subcats=Y&pcod...erformed=Y&q=gear+s3&dispatch=products.search
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kewl
amirage said:
With location on, I would start the day with 100% and 6 hours in to the day I would have lost around 25%. With location off and under the same conditions, I would have lost around 16%. That's about 9% save over 6 hours. In both these situations, I'm assuming the same level of activity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can you clarify if you have LTE or non-LTE version of watch? Do you have "improve accuaracy" on? I have non-LTE Classic 46mm and I have location services on but improve accuracy off. I'm getting very good battery life and have never experienced loosing 25% in 6 hours. I'm getting about 2 1/2 days of battery life. What face are you using and is there something on your face which would be using location services? What apps do you have allowed in permissions? To determine this go into location in settings (on watch), then permissions, then allowed.
crxssi said:
Interesting. I will try with location turned off, myself (it was on).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I notice no change in battery life between location on (with improve accuracy OFF) and with location off. Still around 25% over 9 hours (46mm non-LTE classic, AOD on, health stuff off, WiFi off, very sparce notifications, Watchmaker face).
fliptwister said:
Can you clarify if you have LTE or non-LTE version of watch? Do you have "improve accuaracy" on? I have non-LTE Classic 46mm and I have location services on but improve accuracy off. I'm getting very good battery life and have never experienced loosing 25% in 6 hours. I'm getting about 2 1/2 days of battery life. What face are you using and is there something on your face which would be using location services? What apps do you have allowed in permissions? To determine this go into location in settings (on watch), then permissions, then allowed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm on non-LTE version and improve accuracy is switched off. I have the activity watch face which shows the steps counter, weather, heart rate etc. So, yes, health services are on which is one of the main reasons I got this watch. Notifications are also on for apps that I have enabled. I have limited location usage on almost all apps...Anyways, I'm still playing with the watch a lot so let's see once everything settles down...BTW on the update prior to the DUJA...I believe DUJA has a lot of battery improvements.
On a different note, I'm pondering whether to have AOD on or not...not sure how much of a battery impact will that have.
amirage said:
On a different note, I'm pondering whether to have AOD on or not...not sure how much of a battery impact will that have.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It isn't like you need to speculate. Just turn it on and see. AOD will drain the battery more than most anything else you can do with a non-LTE watch. It will easily will cut run time in at least half (when using a robust watchface). And since you will have to charge more often, it will also wear out the battery much more quickly (hopefully replacing the battery in the GW4/4C will not be a nightmare). But it is also awesome (and a "must" for me).
crxssi said:
It isn't like you need to speculate. Just turn it on and see. AOD will drain the battery more than most anything else you can do with a non-LTE watch. It will easily will cut run time in at least half (when using a robust watchface). And since you will have to charge more often, it will also wear out the battery much more quickly (hopefully replacing the battery in the GW4/4C will not be a nightmare). But it is also awesome (and a "must" for me).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think I'll pass on the AOD.
amirage said:
I'm on non-LTE version and improve accuracy is switched off. I have the activity watch face which shows the steps counter, weather, heart rate etc. So, yes, health services are on which is one of the main reasons I got this watch. Notifications are also on for apps that I have enabled. I have limited location usage on almost all apps...Anyways, I'm still playing with the watch a lot so let's see once everything settles down...BTW on the update prior to the DUJA...I believe DUJA has a lot of battery improvements.
On a different note, I'm pondering whether to have AOD on or not...not sure how much of a battery impact will that have.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was not health services I was concerned with. Not sure how weather on face gets its information. I can't imagine it would use location from your watch but I don't know...