Samsung touts the Jet as a mobile phone that's faster than a speeding bullet, but it left us with the feeling we were creeping along on a lawnmower. Bright and vivid it may be, but the resistive touchscreen requires a firm touch, and the user interface is confusing in places. The Jet has a huge amount going for it, but, without a fun-to-use interface, it ends up providing a frustrating experience.
You can grab the Jet from free on a £20-per-month contract, or for around £320 unlocked and SIM-free.
Speedy does it
Speed and responsiveness are the two most important features for a
touchscreen, so we had high hopes for the Jet, which Samsung claims to be the fastest
full-touch handset in the world. But we weren't blown away by the Jet's speed.
For example, when we swiped a finger to switch between home screens, the transition wasn't any faster or smoother than we've seen on other touchscreen phones, and was far less smooth than a top-of-the-range touchscreen device like the iPhone 3GS. There's a split-second delay between the swipe and the change, the widgets each take a moment to appear on the screen, and the speed of the transition doesn't match the speed at which you swipe your finger.
Applications like the Web browser load up very quickly -- as they do on most phones at this level -- but we didn't find rendering particularly fast. Our favourite site, CNET UK, took 15 seconds to load on the Jet over Wi-Fi, compared to 4 seconds on the 3GS. The Jet invites the comparison by calling itself the world's fastest touchscreen phone, but we cut it some slack -- it is much less expensive than the iPhone -- and also compared it to a Nokia 5800 XpressMusic. The 5800 took 10 seconds to load the site -- 5 less than the Jet.

Even subtracting the 2 seconds that it took both the Jet and the 5800 to load the Flash elements on the page -- the fancy-pants iPhone doesn't support Flash -- the Jet we tested proved far from the fastest phone for browsing the Web.
Everyday tasks like starting a new text message, opening the Web browser and viewing contacts don't feel any faster on the Jet than on the 5800. The Jet's 800MHz processor may make a difference when you're running several applications at once and making big demands on the processor, but we weren't able to prove it in our tests. A speedy processor means little if the operating system doesn't take advantage of it, and the Jet just didn't impress us in the real world.
Resistive is futile
The Jet also suffers from a resistive touchscreen, which feels rather squishy and requires pressure
to make it respond. As a result, it seems less
responsive than a capacitive touchscreen. We prefer the touchscreen on Samsung's budget phone, the Tocco Lite. We usually needed to use
a fingernail, rather than a fingertip, to get the Jet to respond. The Tocco
Lite shows that a resistive touchscreen can be decent, even on the cheap, so
we're disappointed that Samsung hasn't
managed to achieve the same with the pricier Jet.
The Jet's AMOLED screen is gorgeously bright and vivid, though. Web sites look great, although scrolling and zooming tends to be jittery. Zooming works by holding down a finger and sliding it up and down. That's an innovative idea, and it does away with screen-hogging zoom controls, but it means you can only zoom in on the centre of a page.
User unfriendly
Samsung's version of the Symbian operating system is much better-looking
than the version Nokia uses on the 5800, but it's confusing and too convoluted
at times. For example, when we couldn't connect to a Web page, the error message
was: 'Failed to connect to DPS. No response from AP.' That's not much help, even for mobile-phone experts.




User reviews10
Add your review
Nicole Chiddy 11 May 2011
Good: Nothing!
Bad: Everything!
Comment: Its slow, full of bugs and after a year the internal mic broke which meant I could not use it as a phone without using earphones!! And even then, only one ear bud was functional!
Loading pages on the internet was slow and using the cursor when browsing and clicking on links was painful.
STAY AWAY AT ALL COSTS! I'm never going back to Samsung again.
chazday 10 September 2010
Good: Fast UI and great camera.
Bad: Has no app store.
Comment: Has a great camera, the screen is fiddly and not very smooth to operate, it is expensive on contract.
CudiLupe 1 July 2010
Good: Screen quality, Camerra, Find music feature works well, Divx support,Video playback
Bad: Useless widgets, Cheap shutter button quality, its trying to be somethin its not, Gps
Comment: First lets get thigs right, this is not a symbian smart phone, it uses Samsungs own touchwiz interface. It has basic multitasking but thats it, it relys on java applications. How could Cnet get this wrong??
Y would u bother with a buggy pc suite to transfer media to and from the phone on a PC when this phone supports mass storage mode???
Camera is really good, Screen is georgeous and it looks good, the Divx works very well, . But it has too much flimflam and i prefer my 5800 because its a more honest phone. This will impress at first then once the novelty wears it will annoy you, though only slighltly.
Oh, and its a bit of a pain to text with. the keypad is not very responsive.
See all 10 user reviews