TabletPCReviews has included the Samsung Q1 within the top ten Tablet PCs of July 2007.
The Samsung Q1 is making some kind of come back returning to the list for the first time this year. Maybe it's due to all the improvements that have been made to this sleek UMPC. The Samsung Q1 features an Intel Celeron processor, 512MB of RAM, 40GB hard drive, and a 7-inch widescreen. The Q1 also runs Windows Tablet PC OS.
To me it is very interesting that they did not selected the newest Q1U but the old Q1 with Celeron Processor. The Q1 with Celeron has the same performance than the Q1P and cost a lot less. The only difference between the two is about 10 to 20 minutes more of battery life in the Q1P. I have been using the Q1 for around 10 months and as of today I have not found a better companion. I need more performance and I need more battery life, no question about it. Have I thought about replacing the Q1? Yes, but it's not the time yet. The second generation of UMPC does not give me the performance that I need and it's worse than what I have in my Q1. They have a better battery life but no all of them and those with a better one only have 1 hour more of life, something that I get easily with a extended battery. And now with Vista and the HID Driver I even do not miss any more the mouse of my eo v7110 which was a big point in the past for me. So here I'm, a happy camper with my Q1.
It is interesting that the original Q1 is making a comeback of sorts. Do you really think the only difference between the Q1 and Q1P is 10 to 20 minutes of battery life though? Having owned both, I think the Pentium M offers a noticeable boost over the Celeron. Just my opinion...
ReplyDeleteKevin, I have compared many times the # of all your tests during your Q1 Celeron Period with the # of the same tests ran in my Q1 and my results were and are always a lot higher than yours.
ReplyDeleteAnother point is that if you compare all benchmark and tests you have ran in your Q1p with Vista installed with the some tests ran on mine and the difference is not noticeable.
Check This link
I love my Q1. I've been keeping an eye on new UMPCs but so far, nothing has stood out enough to cause me to abandon the Q1. 10 to 20 minutes of battery life doesn't cut it for me.
ReplyDeleteForgetting about the UX? They probably put it low on the list because of its small screen size. When it comes to being a UMPC and not a tablet, the UX is clearly the victor : )
ReplyDeleteHello Frank,
ReplyDeleteFantastic blog...your unique visitors from all over the world is an example of your blog popularity...I am happy to here...you have done and are doing a great job...keep the good work going on...
Thanks! I hope that sponsors are reading your comment! :D
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link Frank; having the benchmarks is one place is useful! You'll have to explain to me how a 900 MHz Celeron Q1 gets a 20% better CM score than a 1 GHz Pentium M Q1P; both with 1 GB of RAM. That's what your chart is showing. Doesn't makes sense to me....
ReplyDeleteKevin, I think that the main secret is optimization. The numbers are there and as you can see if you compare no only the CrystalMark results but also the Vista Performance Score there are cases where the Q1p score better, other where the Q1 and Q1p score the same and other when the Q1 score better. I think that these results are in this way because of the different quality of the memory used in our hardware upgrades and the differences in software used in our devices.
ReplyDeleteAnother point is that the Intel Celeron always run at 900 MHz while the Pentium in your machine has stepping and it only run at 1000 MHz when it really needs to save in that way battery life. This is one of the reason why the Celeron could have better results in some benchmarks.
I noticed these too in my tests with my eo v7110, VIA also use Stepping. In my eo in order to gain in performance I have it set to stay at 1000 MHz when I'm connected to power, no stepping and when I'm running on battery I had to change the low speed from 400 to 800 MHz. You can do these things using NHC.
This is the logical explanation behind those numbers. Or at least the one I can see so far.