Showing posts with label Lowpriced. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lowpriced. Show all posts

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Lumia 635 review: Could this be the low-priced future of Windows Phone?

Microsoft Nokia 635 Microsoft Lumia 635 $168.00 The Lumia 635 from Microsoft is a budget Windows Phone that sacrifices some features, but generally meets the basic requirements of a modern smartphone.

I initially wanted to dislike the Lumia 635, only because I feel Microsoft’s Lumia phones can aspire to something better. But the phone delivers the basics, with one inexplicable omission: a front-facing camera.

Microsoft’s new Lumia 635 may be marketed as one of the first Windows Phones to be sold to customers with the amazing features of Windows Phone 8.1, but that doesn’t mean much: the “Cyan” update will soon roll out Windows Phone 8.1 to all Nokia Windows Phone 8 handsets. No, it’s the price that matters: $168 at T-Mobile, or $7 per month over 24 months. (The Lumia 635 is also available via AT&T for $139.) 

Why is the price so important? Because Microsoft said this week that the midrange is the company’s new focus. In July 18 report, analyst firm Chitika revealed that the Lumia 520 and Lumia 521 delivered more than 54 percent of the ad impressions to the Windows Phone platform. The new chief of Microsoft’s device business, Stephen Elop sealed the deal.

 “In the near term, we plan to drive Windows Phone volume by targeting the more affordable smartphone segments, which are the fastest growing segments of the market, with Lumia,” Elop wrote in a memo this week.

Microsoft Nokia 635

The Lumia 635 (right) alongside the Lumia Icon.

That puts new pressure on the Lumia 635.

The Lumia 635 is an inherently basic phone; the 4.5-inch, 854x480 display even has something I’d forgotten about: visible pixels. The display is viewable in bright sunlight, but you’ll need to maximize the brightness, and there’s no adaptive brightness control to facilitate that. In general, it looks a little dull.

Microsoft Nokia 635

Viewed outdoors, the Lumia 635 screen is barely legible.

Inside is a 1.2-GHz Snapdragon 400 quad-core chip, which is no slouch. Still, don’t expect to run high-performance apps. Our SunSpider test averaged 1.47 seconds, about three times slower than the flagship Lumia Icon. (Our Peacekeeper test failed to run.) But the 512 MB of RAM the phone includes means that you’ll be seeing the “Resuming...” message quite a bit as you switch between apps that the Windows Phone OS has suspended. I also noted several instances where the phone would simply lock up briefly, such as after entering the PIN to unlock it.

Microsoft Lumia 635 health and fitness Mark Hachman

The Bing Health & Fitness app can now pull information on how many steps you’ve taken, directly from the phone.

But this phone has one feature other Windows Phones don’t: motion-data collection. This enables it to act as a pedometer in addition to tracking your distance traveled via GPS. That feature ties into the Bing Health & Fitness app, as well as other apps you allow. Personally, knowing I walked a mile or so is good enough for me; but for those obsessed with accomplishing 10,000 steps or more, it might eliminate the need for a separate fitness tracker. 

The Lumia phones' other selling point has traditionally been the camera, so I was surprised to find the experience with those phone rather middling. Lumia fans will be disappointed to find out that the camera hardware button on the side of the phone has been removed; in fact, the home, back, and search buttons on the phone are also screen icons now. (Only the power and volume rocker switches remain.)

As I mentioned up top, the front-facing camera is gone as well. You can forget about taking selfies with this phone. For me, that's almost unforgiveable in this day and age. Sure, there's trimming the fat to save a few bucks. But this is trimming the fun.

The rear camera, meanwhile, is just 5 megapixels—that's a far cry from the 41MP the Lumia 1020 offers. The one unexpected plus is that the notorious shutter lag—the time from when you touch the camera shutter icon to when it takes a picture—has disappeared almost entirely. And I found nothing to complain about save for the fact the photos looked a bit washed out, as the Nokia Camera app (not the other stock “Camera” app) includes all the lovely manual controls.

Microsoft Nokia 635

Nokia has removed the hardware camera button from the Lumia 635.

I discovered numerous other oddities and bugs, too. Although the T-Mobile version of the device supports its LTE bands and Wi-Fi calling, it failed to connect to T-Mobile to register it, popping up a “REG90 Failed to Connect” warning over and over and over. Apps loaded slowly, and although the phone shipped with a Hulu+ live tile, the app wasn’t actually installed.

These latter glitches could have been just the vagaries of a test phone. I hope so. Fortunately, the Lumia 635 handles the basics pretty well. Calls were fairly clear, and they connected quickly. My only complaint while surfing the Web was that the low display resolution made pages like SFGate.com difficult to read when the desktop page was preferred. And the camera, while basic, did the job.

I wonder, though, how many Lumia 635s will be returned when consumers discover the lack of a front-facing camera. That’s a real blow to the platform, especially when you factor in the lack of first-party apps in the Windows Store. Phones like the Lumia 1020, Lumia Icon, and Lumia 1520 have given Lumia owners something to brag about. Phones like the Lumia 635 will straddle the narrow line between value and mediocrity.


From PC World. Electronics product reviews and advice for best reference

Monday, February 3, 2014

Trendnet TEW-805UB review: Low-priced adapter delivers lackluster performance and features

The Trendnet TEW-805UB’s best features are its size and its price tag, both of which are small. It will protrude from your computer’s USB port by about 2.625 inches, and it’s street-priced at only $40. But it brings up the rear in most every other metric. It doesn’t have any special features, and in my roundup of six 802.11ac Wi-Fi client USB adapters, it finished fourth in one test location and dead last in the other three.

The adapter is short, and it comes with a USB 3.0 interface, but that interface isn’t hinged and Trendnet doesn’t provide a USB cradle. Those decisions leave very little placement flexibility. The TEW-805UB’s close-range performance was merely adequate. Whereas the top-performing Asus USB-AC56 delivered TCP throughput of 404 megabits per second when situated 9 feet from the router, the Trendnet managed just 256 mbps. Still, that’s good enough to beat the Buffalo WI-U2-866 (240 mbps) and the Linksys WUSB6300 (230 mbps).

802.11ac Wi-Fi adapters

As relatively slow as the Trendnet TEW-805UB is, it should still be fast enough to stream HD video just about anywhere in your home. (Click to enlarge.)

In the other three test locations, Trendnet’s adapter trailed the field by wide margins. It was the only one of the six models that couldn’t muster a triple-digit performance when the client was at its farthest point from the router—65 feet away—and it only barely achieved that when the client was in my home theater, 35 feet away. When the client was in the kitchen, the TEW-805UB was 33 mbps slower than the fifth-place finisher, the Linksys WUSB6300. While it proved to be 26 mbps faster in the bedroom than the WUSB6300, which finished last there, it was 148 mbps slower than the first-place finisher (the Asus USB-AC56).

If your 802.11ac Wi-Fi budget is limited to $40, Buffalo’s WI-U2-866D is the far better buy. If you can stretch it just $10 more, D-Link’s DWA-182 will deliver even higher performance. There’s very little reason to buy Trendnet’s TEW-805UB.

Note: This review is part of a roundup of six 802.11ac Wi-Fi client USB adapters. For more, read the introduction to the roundup.

Michael manages PCWorld's hardware product reviews and contributes to TechHive's coverage of home-control systems and sound bars.
More by Michael Brown


From PC World. Electronics product reviews and advice for best reference