Talk:Samsung Galaxy S II/Archive 1

Archive 1

Telus.ca announces Galaxy s2 X

Is this the same thing as the LTEmodel? Any idea of availability? - sep 16- ksaliba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.164.135 (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Telux Samsung Galaxy S II X and the T-Mobile Samsung Hercules are essentially the same phone and that they both support 42Mbps HSPA+. 205.204.248.67 (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Cisco Anyconnect

Is this page just a replication of some advertisement or has anybody done any research? I use my S2 for about a week but the promised Cisco Anyconnect is not avaliable. Also all of the other business-features like encryption still seem to be in development. (Also no NFC btw.)

NFC

Is NFC support a definitive feature? Several sources say that there will be two versions, one with and one without NFC support. Samsung gives a hint that this might be the case, as on the feature page they write about the differences in thickness between the NFC and non-NFC versions of the device.

Availability by country

I really don't understand the need to specify the availability by country. What if the phone is available in 40 countries, are we going to specify each one of them on the Wikipedia page ?

I think it's a bit ridiculous, and not an interesting information. --Zouzzou (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That list in the infobox looks hideous. - Niri / ನಿರಿ 04:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The list also does not include most countries where its gonna be available, as date of availability is still not announced in most. This confuses the reader about the availability of the product. Readers may have an assumption that if its not in the list, it will not be available. 217.169.193.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

i9103 / Tegra 2 version

I don't understand why this is mentioned in the article. I can't find any original source that confirms the existence of a Samsung Galaxy S II powered by Tegra instead of Exynos. The only sources I can find are various blogs and tech site entries from february 2011 that claim Samsung is producing a Tegra 2-version due to Exynos-shortages, claiming nVidia as a source, without quoting a particular press release though. But neither nVidia or Samsung has any information on their official websites about this i9103. GSM Arena doesn't contain any entry either. Now, 4 months later, we are yet to see a Tegra-powered Galaxy S II.

It seems like vaporware to me. I propose deleting the references to this unconfirmed phone from the article. --MadiZone (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to add on to this. In looking up the "i9103" (amongst other variants) it actually looks to be sold under another name altogther with gsmarena suggesting "Galaxy R" and "Galaxy Z" (apparently it was officially released sometime June and won't be released till Q3?). Furthermore the specs differ beyond the screen and chip which only furthers the idea that it's a seperate phone and not some whacky variant in disguise. There is talk of a "i9101" which supposedly comes with the NFC chip but nothing seems concrete on it (if anything, people seem conflicted on what the difference is) other than that it looks like an SII and has a slightly different bootup screen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.243.146 (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Second thinnest dual core phone in the world

I am pretty certain that that NEC Medias does not contain a dual core processor, reliable information is hard to come by, Can anyone confirm? Furthermore written in this way the article wont be stable i.e. when another thinner phone is released it will need to be updated, perhaps a better way of saying it would be "...at the time of release the Samsung galaxy s2 was the thinnest/second thinnest dual core smart phone available." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick sey (talk • contribs) 02:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

802.11n

Could anyone get an information if it is 150 or 300 Mbps version? Piotrek54321 (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Camera

Please add the container, video format, and audio format to infobox and the Camera section if u have info, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.65.164.80 (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody know how to silence the camera so that it doesn't make any noise when you take pictures? Just putting the phone on vibrate or silent doesn't do the trick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.92.135 (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Samsung NYC event August 30, 2011

Added out-of-date template message. Some things need to be added from the Samsung event in NYC that happened August 30. Michael73072 (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Music Player UI.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Music Player UI.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

File:TouchWiz 4.0 by Samsung.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TouchWiz 4.0 by Samsung.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

File:TouchWiz 4.0 (3).jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TouchWiz 4.0 (3).jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Battery life

I have this phone. Advertised battery life is very inflated. It's not 10 hours with heavy usage. With heavy usage, battery life is about an hour.

With occasional use or even left on standby, battery life is about 8-10 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informationrestorer (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but your edits to the article are entirely original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Futhermore, "I have this phone" does not make any of your contributions all the more verifiable, and statements must be sourced with reliable sources.

Also, I'm certain you are using some kind of power-hungry settings; I have lasted 36 hours without having to charge my phone before, and I have the Galaxy S2. If you have a reasonable brightness, backlight timeout, WLAN and packet data setting, the phone is capable of lasting quite a long time. For me, even heavy usage (WiFi browsing) doesn't pose too much of a problem regarding battery life, and at the end of the day I'd still have a charge of 31%. Are you sure you don't have GPS, Bluetooth, WiFi and packet data on at all times, 20 different applications running in the background, and the screen permanently on the highest brightness? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure. And it's pretty well known that claims about battery life are gross exaggerations. I wouldn't really call this "original research", I would call it "real life experience as opposed to marketing claims". But have it your way; I'm finding a lot of people are incapable of objectivity. I'm assuming you have an economic interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.22.8 (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

0/10, see me after class. I'm a Physiotherapy student. I'll overlook your personal attack for now, but keep in mind next time that such comments are in violation of Wikipedia's core policies. Also, how do you explain this screenshot? 20 hours and 15 minutes on battery, with WiFi and packet data on the whole time, and a remaining charge of ~30%. How do you explain this screenshot, which shows 1 day and 43 minutes, with 3G on the whole time, and ~10% remaining charge? and this screenshot? 1 day, 2 hours and 38 minutes with WiFi on the whole time. Other than having either a faulty battery (in which anyone smart enough to realise they have a 1 year factory warranty would send their phone back for a replacement), or having non-optimal settings, I don't see how you can justify that the phone should only have a battery life of ~2 hours of heavy usage and ~8 hours of standby, when there are many cases of other people having a completely different outcome. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I would explain your screenshots as just screenshots, without any information about what they pertain to. My experience, not just with this phone, but with several others, is that battery life is typically grossly overstated. Sorry, I'm not going to go through the trouble of proving this to you. I don't care enough. Do you care? Do you think you're unbiased? I really think this phone is an amazing device, but the battery life claims are just baloney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informationrestorer (talk • contribs)

>I would explain your screenshots as just screenshots, without any information about what they pertain to.
And there you go confirming that you have a limited understanding of Android phones in general. The battery counter resets when the AC is attached; here is anecdotal evidence in the form of screenshots, where a phone has lasted more than 26 hours, with WiFi on, and sparing usage.

Anyways, if you really are having battery issues, you can always use a battery optimiser such as JuiceDefender; practically any Android 2.3.x user who knows what they're doing uses JuiceDefender. That's the counterbalance for using Android over iOS - if you want Apple to hold your hand when doing anything, making everything easier but being extremely limiting as to what you can do, buy an iPhone. If you know what you are doing, and are fine with tinkering around with things, in addition with relying on 3rd party applications to rectify a few things, get an Android. That's how things have always been, and most people either deal with it, or switch to iOS which holds your hand for you when you cross the road. Either optimise power usage properly, or switch to iOS - they are the two main options one can take here. I'll leave it at that, since I'm practically crossing the WP:FORUM line here. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email

I don't think this confirms my limited understanding of Android phones at all. My understanding of Android phones isn't really relevant to this discussion either. You linked a screenshot. There is no origin or discussion with it, at best it is a screen shot, at worst just an image someone drew. It has nothing to do with any kind of evidence. Are these the reliable sources that you mentioned earlier?

I agree with you that these Android systems still appear to have a lot of bugs and that therefore the system needs hand holding and sometimes system restarts. This may impart a sense of "knowing what you're doing" similar to the ability to drive a Ford Model T. But I don't think all that is relevant to a discussion about battery life either.

But I will concede that with GPS, WIFI and Bluetooth turned off and no use, the phone's battery lasts considerably longer. At that point however, the phone is also not very useful anymore. I'll admit that I have no idea how long the battery would last with those setting, since wherever I go, I want either GPS, WIFI or Bluetooth, or a combination thereof.

It appears that some of the devices in the phone use an exorbitant amount of juice and therefore the phone is in need of settings to disable them. That shows the limits of current technology.

For example, with GPS turned on and running an app like Google's My Track, the battery will be depleted in about two hours, even when not doing anything else. This makes the phone unsuitable for tracking my hikes, which typically last longer, and will also rob me from the ability to call for help if I'd twist my ankle on a mountain.

And that's not all. Even when the phone is attached to a charger, driving directions from Google Maps Navigate will slowly deplete the battery. So when I drive to a hike, my battery is usually down to about 25% by the time I get there and the phone will loudly interrupt my nature walks with its ugly cries for electricity before it finally decides shuts down.

In contrast to this, I have a compact handheld dedicated GPS (Garmin Etrex Legend HCx) which will last well over 12 hours on two NiMH AA batteries while tracking my path. Its display isn't nearly as nice as the smartphone, it doesn't have a touchscreen but it's water resistant and has gotten me home many times, on land, inland waters or open ocean, day or night.

Finally, it appears skill and zeal at Wikipedia editing is actually hurting the quality of its content. Obviously you're more informed about and skilled in the rules of Wikipedia editing than I am. Perhaps you would like to chastise with me with this skill. I don't think this is productive and neither are quips.

I would have liked to contribute to this article about the Samsung Galaxy S II with insight such as described above, but I've lost appetite. I am convinced that any edits I would make would quickly be removed. Wikipedia is at the mercy of people most dedicated to it.

It's nice that you love smart phones so much. I think it's helpful to stay critical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informationrestorer (talk • contribs) 19:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"since wherever I go, I want either GPS, WIFI or Bluetooth, or a combination thereof." - another reason why you should buy a phone that holds you by the hand, like an iPhone. I don't see teenage kids using Gentoo Linux either. Not everyone is suited for Android phones, just like how I'm not suited to use Mac OS X whilst on a computer; in that case there are great alternatives that will suit your needs, and Android isn't one of them. Do you really need GPS on whilst you're sleeping? Do you really need Bluetooth when you're not transferring files? Enough with this tl;dr WP:DEADHORSE discussion already. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Memory Expansion 32GB vs 64GB

The article states the phone can be expanded by a 64GB microSD card, but the official specifications at Samsung's site says 32GB. I suggest that Wikipedia uses the official specification, not a reference to an informal forum as a source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.191.3 (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

S3 info credibility

I looked into the phandroid.com article(ref) about the release dates of Galaxy S3. They linked to a WSJ article which they claim to directly quote from JK Shin. I have a subscription to WSJ so I looked into the article, which only talked about the Galaxy Tab but found no word about S3.

Next, I looked at the CNet page(ref) about it and they also referred to a morningstar.co.uk article but the link was broken.

Can anyone update this section with some primary sources? So far, I haven't been able to search up anything that looked primary. It's possible that Samsung requested the above 2 sources to take down any (sensitive) info about the S3. --Immer in Bewegung (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

update - Ok... searching through the Korean newspaper articles, I can go as far as one newspaper article saying "... JK Shin, in an interview with a foreign press, said ..." Here I'd assume the foreign press is the WSJ. But it looks like WSJ itself doesn't want to make this information public. Should we continue to list the above mentioned (ref)s as credible sources? --Immer in Bewegung (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Does not have Gorilla Glass

From an email received from Samsung.com support on Nov. 23, 2011:

Thank you for your inquiry. We apologize for the inconvenience regarding your phone. The Samsung Galaxy II does not feature the Gorilla glass [emphasis mine]. However, we assure you that the all components of the phone passed the Samsung quality and is tested to withstand multiple different conditions. It also features the Super AMOLED™ Plus Technology that enables users to interact with a phone by touching images, words, or icons on the display.

We appreciate your understanding in this matter.

Thank you for your continued interest in Samsung products. Have a good day.

Sincerely,

Jen Technical Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAtoz (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

However the official Corning website shows otherwise. Per WP:V, your email doesn't seem as verifiable as a source. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

i9100G contradicting sources

According to GSMarena the i9100G is clocked at 1.2ghz while the source cited in the article details that the phone is only clocked at 1ghz. So what do we do here? Remove the less reputable source and replace it with GSMarena? YuMaNuMa ^{Talk Contributions} 07:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1