Talk:Samsung Galaxy Note (2011 smartphone)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extra Store Saudi Arabia[edit]

This should release in december? but why extra store in Saudi has display this device in thier website for 2999 SR price thi November? Halil marx07 (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Variants[edit]

--79.69.96.49 (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)There are 3 variants[reply]

1 Oragianal MOdel 2 Lte Model Identical but with diffenr proccesor 3 American Verision Cactaive keys 4 Cheap Verion--79.69.96.49 (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)--79.69.96.49 (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)--79.69.96.49 (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)--79.69.96.49 (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)--79.69.96.49 (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the source listed (http://androidcommunity.com/samsung-galaxy-note-lte-gets-official-in-korea-20111128/) does not specify that the Korean LTE version runs a different processor from the n-7000's dual-core 1.4GHz Cortex A9 processor. Can we remove that reference to the Scorpion A8 1.5 MHz dual-core until we have a better source? Thanks Dickmojo (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, since no one replied I'm going to change it myselfDickmojo (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the AT&T version. It does not belong here and should receive its own Wiki page when it is officially released. Check the model numbering. Although it is being called a "Note" for the US market, it belongs to the SGH family (SGH-i717 to be exact). The true Note family is the N7000 series. -Nitroblu (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Korean version has been grouped with the US LTE variant release. I will update the article accordingly Nitroblu (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Cream Sandwich Upgrade[edit]

The source cited for the ICS upgrade doesn't meet Wikipedia's standard. It's an un-sourced report on an Android blog. The closest I could find to a real source were unconfirmed comments from Samsung Italy (not Samsung Korea aka the real Samsung) about the Italian Galaxy S2.

HDBlog.it report

Does Wikipedia post rumors now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wffurr (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?[edit]

I see the text "But Sk telecom, KT, LG U+ use 1.5Ghz Snapdragon S3 Chipset" in the technical specifications - and that makes no sense at all.

Perhaps someone can verify and edit? 83.217.140.11 (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Note[edit]

The first part of this discussion was originally posted to User_talk:Rwxrwxrwx . It is copied here.

Steve Jobs died before the Samsung Galaxy Note was introduced, so his quotation about hating styluses doesn't refer to the Galaxy Note. It also isn't necessary to include an entire history of the stylus in the article on a single product. Please stay on topic. White 720 (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for talking about this. The stylus is one of the major talking-points among reviewers of the Galaxy Note, mainly as a result of its recent fall from use and Jobs's outspoken views. It's only natural that that context would be mentioned here. It is certainly not a full history of styluses, just enough to establish the context. However I don't see how your addition "despite the negative review from Steve Jobs of Apple, the Galaxy Note stylus implementation ..." makes sense, since, as you point out, Jobs was not alive to review it. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the article, citing sources who hold similar views to the late Mr. Jobs and who don't want consumers to buy Samsung Galaxy Note. White 720 (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of copied text

You are being confrontational and POV-pushing, not to mention inconsistent. First you repeatedly removed any mention of Jobs's views about styluses. Now you have reversed your approach, and are using Jobs's comments to point out that, in your words, "it is important that customers not purchase a device with stylus" [1]. You are clearly trying to push your own POV here. It appears you are offended at a single Samsung advert in one (presumably your) part of the world which poked fun at obsessive Apple fans, and you are now trying to warn people that buying a Galaxy Note would be in defiance of what Steve Jobs would have wanted (as if Samsung buyers would care). Any issue about that advert is totally trivial, and will be completely forgotten very soon by the few people who still remember it. Adverts routinely mock their rivals; live with it. Also, that long list of references you inserted are very low quality; all that most of them say is that the advert was silly. The original text, before your edits, was neutral in tone, simply briefly mentioning the recent history of styluses and Jobs's comment about them. People can weigh that up whatever way they want, without having POV pushed into their faces. I suggest we revert to the original text. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The original text contained numerous grammatical errors and peacock terms and lacked sources. I'd like to ask that you allow me to continue to improve this article so that the world may learn from it. Your defensiveness of "the original text" is causing harm to the Wikipedia, and I'd like to ask that you solicit third-party assistance to help improve your writing. White 720 (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with keeping such comments out the article. Jobs's POV isn't relevant here (should the IPhones articles mention criticism of them from Samsung, Google or Nokia CEOs?). Criticism of styluses is irrelevant, as on such devices you are not required to use them, it is an optional additional input device - one which phones such as IPhones aren't capable of supporting. One can always not use a stylus if you don't like it, so mentioning dislike of styluses in this article is just FUD. Mdwh (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Samsung Galaxy Note and Samsung Original Accessories.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Samsung Galaxy Note and Samsung Original Accessories.JPG, 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

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Samsung Galaxy Note and Samsung Original Accessories.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Issues[edit]

There needs to be a section in regards to the ongoing screen issues on this device. XDA forums, for example, is awash with threads detailing "black crush". watching videos or viewing pics is greatly hampered by this issue which samsung has not commented on and all the reviewers seem to have missed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.163.251 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered what you were harping on about, and found a demo on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a8aIGeLERg
Software settings problem - poor gamma correction fails to show even gradation of dark tones.
Is it adjustable in Android ? (Brightness+Contrast+Gamma)
Maybe a manual hack of a config file ?
Is it adjustable in any media player ?
Try different media players ?
Install a utility app to correct ?
Voodoo Colour ?
Screen Adjuster ?
The linked XDA Forums page is clearer, and some of the commenters have more of a clue
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1559800
It is very much related to 'banding' - no idea why people deny that !
NB their Test card is not very useful, as it only tests the dark side of the greyscale.
XDA say

But if you're able to clearly see the box with the number 1, and

[it] is dramatically different from the black box above it,

then you can objectively conclude that the device has a problem.

LOA1955 on YouTube changes his mind about what he wants to see
(or is he doing that confusing US thing of saying the opposite of what he means ?)

Now my blacks clip at #7 on the gamma test pattern

(6 and lower are solid black.)

All this did was move the black clipping problem to the grays.

If you can see 2 -7 or so, then it's still not correct.

There's an element of hysteria/perfectionism/propaganda/FUD.
You will see more blacks in a dark room - the film guy complains

bought the phone to show off my films when out and about

No-one makes a display that won't wash out to some extent outdoors.
If you turn up the brightness/contrast/gamma to compensate,
obviously it will compromise the calibration for indoors
However, as you say, no reliable source has observed it.
The only reason I can think of to have a near-black threshold
would be if AMOLEDs become non-uniform, or unstable, when almost off.
Or is it intrinsic to the maths of trying to fit 0 lumens when the LED is off
onto a logarithmic scale, where each step in the 'test card' is x1% brighter, not +1 unit brighter.
The very concept of Gamma goes very much against including zero brightness.
Perhaps Samsung should have levels from 1-256, not 0-255
however much you want to boast of an infinite contrast ratio !
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S pen link[edit]

The link on the side bar to spen redirects to the same article, it is not very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.82.86.2 (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Competing models[edit]

Are there any other models of phone that are projected to be similar or competitors for the Galaxy Note? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.191.35.98 (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jellybean on Galaxy Note[edit]

The article says: Operating system Android 4.1 (Jellybean) (since October 2012); That is not true at all. There is no avaiable jellybean ROM for the Galaxy Note anywhere. And the source is not trustworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.73.72.189 (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This file is not used on this page Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

128 or 256 levels of S Pen sensitivity?[edit]

This page claims 128 (source), but the article for the Galaxy Note 2 claims the Note 1 has 256 levels of pressure sensitivity (source). --84.147.43.214 (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samsung_Galaxy_Note_(2011_smartphone)&oldid=1212968438"