Motorola's Xoom Family Edition Review: Not Just For The Kids

Status
Not open for further replies.

onanonanon

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2010
50
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]tranfire[/nom]@tanjo it has micro SD[/citation]
Yeah, but for me, one of the best uses of a tablet would be to view photos from a digital camera and yet very few models support an SD or SDHC card.
 

cknobman

Distinguished
May 2, 2006
985
33
19,010
0
Sorry but regardless of price after seeing just how piss poor the screen is (most notably extreme light bleed) and how long the charge times are I dont think the low price justifies its shortcomings.

Heck its not uncommon to get a Transformer or A500 for $299-$349 these days which blow this tablet out of the water.
 

acku

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2010
559
0
18,980
0

1. The Transformer also has light bleed.
2. The 299 price is because of black Friday, cyber Monday, and holiday sales. It's definitely not "normal"
 

pyrrocc

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2011
9
0
18,510
0
Grrr... can't do standard inequality of angled brackets....

FYI, on the front-face cam, 1.3MP does not equal 640x480... Heck 1200x900 (4:3) = ~1MP
 
G

Guest

Guest
The size specs on the Xoom and Xoom Family are not correct. Xoom Family is longer AND wider, not the other way around.
 

acku

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2010
559
0
18,980
0
The size specs on the Xoom and Xoom Family are not correct. Xoom Family is longer AND wider, not the other way around.
Right and Wrong. Official specs

SIZE (H X W X D)
Xoom -249.1 x 167.8 x 12.9 mm
Xoom FE - 260 x 177 x 11.4 mm

But we still take our own measurements in the lab. Manufacturers often arbitrarily decide where to measure from. I've corrected the table to use official specs to reduce confusion.


I go by online prices. Not by Christmas specials.




Sensor is 1.3 MP. Native storage picture is 640x480.
 

suny_hk

Distinguished
Dec 2, 2011
1
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]pyrrocc[/nom]Grrr... can't do standard inequality of angled brackets....FYI, on the front-face cam, 1.3MP does not equal 640x480... Heck 1200x900 (4:3) = ~1MP[/citation]

Actually, I believe 1.3MP is the number of sensors, and each sensor only records one channel, either red, green or blue. Thus 640x480 image is about 1MP.
 
G

Guest

Guest
This tablet got so many good reviews and was selling so well that Best Buy seems to have jacked up the price to (in their view an attractive price) $499. I was trying to make up my mind if I could overlook all the short comings for the attractive price of 349, but at $499 who'd be stupid enough.
 

nottheking

Distinguished
Jan 5, 2006
1,456
0
19,310
16
Aside from the debacle over the front-facing camera (more on that below) I'd note that the specs on the iPads appear to be off: the iPad 1's RAM was, in fact, dual-channel, while the iPad 2's effective speed was 533 MHz, not 1066 MHz; the source of the latter figure appears to have been a third-party analyst's claims that weren't sourced. A check on Samsung's own page for the model of RAM used in the A5 show that the A5's model is the SLOWEST LP-DDR2 they sell, with speeds listed up to 800 MHz. Since we all know there's no such thing as DDR2-1600 (let alone a low-power version) it's safe to say that the speeds mentioned are effective, (MT/s) not actual. (true MHz)

[citation][nom]acku[/nom]Sensor is 1.3 MP. Native storage picture is 640x480.[/citation]
I wouldn't be so quick to state that; this makes zero logical sense. As Tom's used the comparison twice without explaining it, and all other sites fail to mention a resolution, (but universally state it as "1.3 MP") it implies that either Tom's made a mistake on the resolution, or, in fact, it's not a 1.3 MP camera, in spite of readily-circulated claims.

Occam's Razor definitely suggests something more reasonable than the other mumbo-jumbo mentioned in the comments here: I'd stake it on it being somebody's error; either Toms' mistakenly said 640x480 (twice) or everyone else has been repeating a "1.3 MP" figure that cropped up somewhere without bothering to check it.
 

KelvinTy

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2011
194
0
18,690
4
It seems so weird... Why would they compare a notebook processor to something like a smartphone processor? and then, SSD vs intentionally weakened version of SSD?
Looking at the specs, you would know the battery life sucks, the processing power will be better, the graphics would be semi-decent...
The bottom line is, they didn't do anything wrong, nor they did something brilliant, it's just a calculated solution executed correctly and pop goes this product.
However, the cameras are to be improved ^.^" and the maybe the interface too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS