Galaxy S6

[soulsyphon]

of course galaxy s6 has better battery longevity... the 14nm chip is more energy efficient. there is also less bloatware than s5.

people think because the screen has more pixels, it means that it uses more battery... which is false because samsung said their new screen is also energy efficient.

whats going to suck is devs who will make quad-hd video games... that will eat the battery... hopefully like pc... the incoming games will allow to change the resolution.

 

[mKTank]

The majority of users use a version of Windows from 2009. More recent versions are horrible. Windows 10 is a giant apology and still lacks any creative vision.

Please, continue to waste your money on a second rate operating system which people begrudgingly use. After all, I wouldn't want to put the employees of anti-virus and spyware companies out of business when users have a real operating system to work with.

Stop, you're embarassing us Apple fans.

I'm a huge Apple fanboy in many ways but even I can admit that Windows 7, 8, 8.1, and 10 run circles around Yosemite in every metric including stability.

Stuck in 2004 mentality, are we? Might want to update your knowledge base if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[skratch77]

Stop, you're embarassing us Apple fans.

I'm a huge Apple fanboy in many ways but even I can admit that Windows 7, 8, 8.1, and 10 run circles around Yosemite in every metric including stability.

Stuck in 2004 mentality, are we? Might want to update your knowledge base if you want to be taken seriously.

Someone should tell him corporate world also uses windows server and is definitely the most stable os out there.

Let me know when the whole banking and stock exchange runs osx

 

[AustinIllini]

Galaxy S6

Stop, you're embarassing us Apple fans.



I'm a huge Apple fanboy in many ways but even I can admit that Windows 7, 8, 8.1, and 10 run circles around Yosemite in every metric including stability.



Stuck in 2004 mentality, are we? Might want to update your knowledge base if you want to be taken seriously.

If the truth embarrasses you, I suggest heading over to PCWorld.

I test software for a living. Windows is the least stable and least useable of any operating environment on the planet.

Perhaps you should spend a little more time working with said OS's before criticizing my opinion.

----------

Someone should tell him corporate world also uses windows server and is definitely the most stable os out there.



Let me know when the whole banking and stock exchange runs osx

That is more due to hardware availability than anything to due with OS stability. Dell undercuts everyone in the server industry to the point where it isn't fiscally possible to support an OS X server.

Also, Windows expert, those systems run Server 2008, R2, and Server 2012. Those are significantly less bloated that their personal computer garbage.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, the corporate world is clinging for dear life to Windows 7 to avoid the Windows 8 catastrophe. Add to that, Windows 10 is a giant apology to the enterprise community.

 

[skratch77]

If the truth embarrasses you, I suggest heading over to PCWorld.

I test software for a living. Windows is the least stable and least useable of any operating environment on the planet.

Perhaps you should spend a little more time working with said OS's before criticizing my opinion.

----------




That is more due to hardware availability than anything to due with OS stability. Dell undercuts everyone in the server industry to the point where it isn't fiscally possible to support an OS X server.

Also, Windows expert, those systems run Server 2008, R2, and Server 2012. Those are significantly less bloated that their personal computer garbage.

Where did I say they weren't running server? and the fact that this very website is being run on a WIINDOS server is even more insult to injury

 

[AustinIllini]

Galaxy S6

Where did I say they weren't running server? and the fact that this very website is being run on a WIINDOS server is even more insult to injury

Apple doesn't build servers. We settle for Windows servers because they are cheaper. It's really simple. Dell priced Apple out of servers.

The existence of Windows server does not somehow invalidate the truth that OS X is a superior operating system.

 

[skratch77]

Apple doesn't build servers. We settle for Windows servers because they are cheaper. It's really simple. Dell priced Apple out of servers.

It doesn't matter any more osx is using x86 CPUs just like windows are and the hardware is the exact same CPUs from Intel or amd.they are running the same instruction set and a Mac today is nothing more then a PC with an apple logo on it running osx vs windows.

Oh PS corporate america never used windows 7,they never used any home version and use windows server that never went anything like windows 8

PSS when I said windows servers I wasn't meaning the server racks with 100s of CPUs I ment windows server as the main operating system running those 100s of cpus

Let me know when you can run 200 threads in osx to 50 server racks with 300gb of ram

 

[AustinIllini]

It doesn't matter any more osx is using x86 CPUs just like windows are and the hardware is the exact same CPUs from Intel or amd.they are running the same instruction set and a Mac today is nothing more then a PC with an apple logo on it running osx vs windows.



Oh PS corporate america never used windows 7,they never used any home version and use windows server that never went anything like windows 8

You need to adjust your understanding of corporate America, because nothing you have said about it is remotely true.

 

[skratch77]

You need to adjust your understanding of corporate America, because nothing you have said about it is remotely true.

Windows 7,8 98,melinuim 2000 etc are home versions.

Windows server is corporate

Windows server 2012 r2 can run 320 i7 CPUs with 4 terabytes of ram.

That is one hell of an operating system! Do you have any clue on how hard it is for one os to run that much memory and run virtual images and stay stable and basically be built to NEVER reboot?

The reason people use windows is because of the software to push those racks not because apple priced them out.

I don't think you know how expensive windows server operating system cost(just for the software)here is a sale on a 2 socket data center that will support 2 15 core 30 threads Xeon CPUs and its 5 grand just for the software

 

[jamezr]

Apple doesn't build servers. We settle for Windows servers because they are cheaper. It's really simple. Dell priced Apple out of servers.

The existence of Windows server does not somehow invalidate the truth that OS X is a superior operating system.

That sounds like BS since when has price been an issue for Apple.? Their products to are always on the high end of the price spectrum. It hasn't hurt them before. The truth is Apple left the enterprise market some years ago. They stopped development and concentrated on the consumer side of things. I have worked with Xsevers and they left a lot to be desired. Windows and UNIX blows it away.

 

[hot spare]

That is more due to hardware availability than anything to due with OS stability. Dell undercuts everyone in the server industry to the point where it isn't fiscally possible to support an OS X server.

Making a product within a reasonable price range isn't something bad.

BTW, Dell is 3rd in server market behind HP and IBM. You should read more. And out in my place, feels like every 2nd graduate in my neighbourhood is a software tester. Probably the easiest job to get.

 

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Does anyone know when Best Buy will have the S6 on display? I remember they had the S5 on display prior to release last year.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Someone should tell him corporate world also uses windows server and is definitely the most stable os out there.



Let me know when the whole banking and stock exchange runs osx

That is largely to do with cost, availability and software rather than reliability. In my experience Macs are more reliable which is why they have a 5 year upgrade cycle where I work and us product designers change our PC's every 18 months to 2 years.

Horses for courses. Most film and graphics studios use Macs, whereas banks, the stock exchange, and manufacturing sector will use PC's due to the reasons already mentioned. It's not a slight on either.

 

[AustinIllini]

Galaxy S6

Windows 7,8 98,melinuim 2000 etc are home versions.



Windows server is corporate



Windows server 2012 r2 can run 320 i7 CPUs with 4 terabytes of ram.



That is one hell of an operating system! Do you have any clue on how hard it is for one os to run that much memory and run virtual images and stay stable and basically be built to NEVER reboot?



The reason people use windows is because of the software to push those racks not because apple priced them out.



I don't think you know how expensive windows server operating system cost(just for the software)here is a sale on a 2 socket data center that will support 2 15 core 30 threads Xeon CPUs and its 5 grand just for the software

Goodness. You have no idea what you are saying.

1) PCs undercut Apple, so Apple no longer makes standalone servers.
2) windows server is for Servers. Windows 7 is not exclusively for home use as all corporate non servers run it.
3) I am quite aware how much a virtual server costs. I run a pharmaceutical plant with 60 virtual workstations every day. I am in charge of replacing hardware.

----------

Making a product within a reasonable price range isn't something bad.

BTW, Dell is 3rd in server market behind HP and IBM. You should read more. And out in my place, feels like every 2nd graduate in my neighbourhood is a software tester. Probably the easiest job to get.

I run Chemical Engineering software. It's a little tougher than regular software testing. Not like it matters.

 

[jamezr]

Making a product within a reasonable price range isn't something bad.

BTW, Dell is 3rd in server market behind HP and IBM. You should read more. And out in my place, feels like every 2nd graduate in my neighbourhood is a software tester. Probably the easiest job to get.

At my work we run about 10K servers about 80% are Windows the rest are a mixture of Unix variations of Unix. Then another 4K VM windows 8 workstations. Our hardware/software upgrade cycle is a refresh every 3 years. Not because the servers will not last but mainly for the security benefits the software upgrades bring.

 

[Tig Bitties]

Can we please get back on topic of the Samsung Galaxy S6, and not Windows vs. Apple OS.


I would be totally shocked and blown away if the new S6 has similar battery life to the classic Galaxy Note 2. The Note 2 is like top 5 best flagship Android battery life phones ever released.

I'll believe it, once I start seeing multiple review sites, all stating this.

 

[MRU]

Can we please get back on topic of the Samsung Galaxy S6, and not Windows vs. Apple OS.


I would be totally shocked and blown away if the new S6 has similar battery life to the classic Galaxy Note 2. The Note 2 is like top 5 best flagship Android battery life phones ever released.

I'll believe it, once I start seeing multiple review sites, all stating this.

As long as it gets a full day use with 4-5 hour screen on time - I think that will be grand for the majority of users.

I was able to squeeze a full day use and 4 hours screen on time with the Alpha and that was running exynos chipset and only a 1800Mah battery.

 

[mKTank]

Windows 7,8 98,melinuim 2000 etc are home versions.

Windows server is corporate

Windows server 2012 r2 can run 320 i7 CPUs with 4 terabytes of ram.

That is one hell of an operating system! Do you have any clue on how hard it is for one os to run that much memory and run virtual images and stay stable and basically be built to NEVER reboot?

The reason people use windows is because of the software to push those racks not because apple priced them out.

I don't think you know how expensive windows server operating system cost(just for the software)here is a sale on a 2 socket data center that will support 2 15 core 30 threads Xeon CPUs and its 5 grand just for the software

Don't bother with him, scratch. Some brand loyalists are just too far gone.

 

[epicrayban]

From where are we getting that the s6 will have note 2 like battery life?

 

[skratch77]

That is largely to do with cost, availability and software rather than reliability. In my experience Macs are more reliable which is why they have a 5 year upgrade cycle where I work and us product designers change our PC's every 18 months to 2 years.

Horses for courses. Most film and graphics studios use Macs, whereas banks, the stock exchange, and manufacturing sector will use PC's due to the reasons already mentioned. It's not a slight on either.

Really most films graphic studios use macs? Avatar was mad with 4000 hp blade servers from weta digital and they also have a lot more movies under there belt like.
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, X-Men: The Last Stand, District 9, and King Kong, just to name a few.

Can you name me some CGI movies using macs for production

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Really most films graphic studios use macs? Avatar was mad with 4000 hp blade servers from weta digital and they also have a lot more movies under there belt like.
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, X-Men: The Last Stand, District 9, and King Kong, just to name a few.

Can you name me some CGI movies using macs for production

I should have said graphic and digital media rather than film as I wasn't talking about the film industry. This is in danger of getting a little petty and very off topic so I will stop there, we've made our points.

 

[Tig Bitties]

As long as it gets a full day use with 4-5 hour screen on time - I think that will be grand for the majority of users.

I was able to squeeze a full day use and 4 hours screen on time with the Alpha and that was running exynos chipset and only a 1800Mah battery.

I work out in the field majority of my workdays, and for me, I need a phone that gets in at least 5-6 hour screen on time, to make it through my busy days.

I have owned 13 different Android flagship phones, the past 5+ years. And have noticed which phones lasted me a full day with zero worries about battery life. On a workday, I am hammering my phone all day, with tons of e-mails, lots of phone calls, texts, GPS navigation, web surfing, etc... all day long. And my top phones to last no problem are;

#1 = iPhone 6 Plus - by bedtime still have 30% - 40% battery life left
#2 = Galaxy Note 2 - this old classic was a beast, by bedtime would have approx 25% - 30% left
#3 = OnePlus One - This one surprised me, and by bedtime would have approx 20% battery life after a heavy workday.

These other two are pretty good too, but not as good ass the above three. #4 being my Nexus 6 and #5 the HTC One M8, but the M8 had to be babied, and monitored, half the time would be in the red by dinner time.

My usage is unplugging the phone with 100% full charge at 6:00am each morning, and not putting back on the charger until 11:00pm. So that's around 17 hours each day off the charger.

So will the new S6 be anywhere near my top 3 ?

 

[MRU]

I work out in the field majority of my workdays, and for me, I need a phone that gets in at least 5-6 hour screen on time, to make it through my busy days.

I have owned 13 different Android flagship phones, the past 5+ years. And have noticed which phones lasted me a full day with zero worries about battery life. On a workday, I am hammering my phone all day, with tons of e-mails, lots of phone calls, texts, GPS navigation, web surfing, etc... all day long. And my top phones to last no problem are;

#1 = iPhone 6 Plus - by bedtime still have 30% - 40% battery life left
#2 = Galaxy Note 2 - this old classic was a beast, by bedtime would have approx 25% - 30% left
#3 = OnePlus One - This one surprised me, and by bedtime would have approx 20% battery life after a heavy workday.

These other two are pretty good too, but not as good ass the above three. #4 being my Nexus 6 and #5 the HTC One M8, but the M8 had to be babied, and monitored, half the time would be in the red by dinner time.

My usage is unplugging the phone with 100% full charge at 6:00am each morning, and not putting back on the charger until 11:00pm. So that's around 17 hours each day off the charger.

So will the new S6 be anywhere near my top 3 ?

Yeah you sound like you really need phablet sized battery life. I honestly don't know if we will see the Galaxy S6 last that long, but depending on what you need to do with the phone you could always enable power saving modes to eek out that longer battery life ..... The ultra power saving mode is probably too gimped for you ?

My moto X 2014 I can almost eek out as much screen on time as my Note 4 - (about 5 hours) so I assume the 2k screen will add overhead to battery on the S6 regardless that its using a more efficient CPU.

 

[Tig Bitties]

Yeah you sound like you really need phablet sized battery life. I honestly don't know if we will see the Galaxy S6 last that long, but depending on what you need to do with the phone you could always enable power saving modes to eek out that longer battery life ..... The ultra power saving mode is probably too gimped for you ?

My moto X 2014 I can almost eek out as much screen on time as my Note 4 - (about 5 hours) so I assume the 2k screen will add overhead to battery on the S6 regardless that its using a more efficient CPU.

Good points thx. Just wish I could find a phone with phablet like battery life, but not so large. I am starting to get a little tired of large smartphones. My 6 Plus and OnePlus One, are just a tad too big for my comfortable use, and my Wife's Nexus 6 is a joke it's so huge, no way can that thing be one handed. I found my One M8 and old S4 to be very easy for one handed use and comfortable, but their battery life was just ok.

Too bad the Motorola MAXX battery tech isn't found in new smartphones. Imagine a slightly thicker S6, but with a 3,500mAh battery in it ��

I just read some site or someone's posts saying the new S6 was tested as having similar battery life as the old Note 2. Which would be amazing, but having a hard time believing.

 

[jamezr]

I work out in the field majority of my workdays, and for me, I need a phone that gets in at least 5-6 hour screen on time, to make it through my busy days.

I have owned 13 different Android flagship phones, the past 5+ years. And have noticed which phones lasted me a full day with zero worries about battery life. On a workday, I am hammering my phone all day, with tons of e-mails, lots of phone calls, texts, GPS navigation, web surfing, etc... all day long. And my top phones to last no problem are;

#1 = iPhone 6 Plus - by bedtime still have 30% - 40% battery life left
#2 = Galaxy Note 2 - this old classic was a beast, by bedtime would have approx 25% - 30% left
#3 = OnePlus One - This one surprised me, and by bedtime would have approx 20% battery life after a heavy workday.

These other two are pretty good too, but not as good ass the above three. #4 being my Nexus 6 and #5 the HTC One M8, but the M8 had to be babied, and monitored, half the time would be in the red by dinner time.

My usage is unplugging the phone with 100% full charge at 6:00am each morning, and not putting back on the charger until 11:00pm. So that's around 17 hours each day off the charger.

So will the new S6 be anywhere near my top 3 ?

Not sure TB. But while you are driving do you have the ability to plug into a power source? The S6 boasts it can charge for 10 minutes and give 4 hours of battery life. So that might work for you.