Talk:Droid X

Is it GSM or yet another US-only phone like the HTC Evo?

According to Motorola executives at the live press conference the Droid X will only be offered on Verizon... TrbleClef ♮ (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

QUESTION: Why is the screen specified as 240 dpi. I punched in the screen size and resolution into three different DPI calculators and they all came up with 228 dpi. AllenHalsey 21:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllenHalsey (talk • contribs)

Someone please update this to include information that it has the Motorola Milestone bootloader, eFuse, and that Motorola has come out stating that it is not for developers or anyone who wishes to do system or hardware development. References are available on just about any tech blog or Android news site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.118.74 (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph says it's NOT the successor to Droid. The column on the right says its predecessor is Droid. So... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.204.194 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is correct as is. --72.64.105.184 (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Better sources

While I do think it is worthwhile to have this article, it does need better sources. All the current sources are blogs, which are not reliable sources. Yankeefan233 (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps Motorola's website? --72.64.105.184 (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Does need more and in some cases better sources, but blogs are not categorically unreliable sources. Most of them are probably unreliable, but blogging is simply a medium, like television brodcasting, newspaper journalism, book publishing, filmmaking, photography, etc. It's the reliability & reputation of the person(s), within the context of the article and its topic, who use the medium, not the medium (and underlying technology) itself that determines reliability for WP purposes. Don't blame the tool for the faults of the wielder. If Martha Stewart blogs about flour-to-oil-to-water ratios in high-altitude baking, she's surely a reliable source on that, despite it being in her blog and not her magazine, books or TV show. She would not be a reliable source for installation problems reported with Ubuntu Linux on AMD-based systems regardless of medium/format (unless it turns out she's a techie, too, which would be amusing and weird). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point regarding the blogs. I think Wikipedia generally frowns upon blogs being used as reliable sources, but I guess there are exceptions to this. However, Wikipedia is first and foremost a encyclopedia and thus requires sources to be reliable and verifiable. With blogs that is most of the time not the case, even when a celebrity blogs about it because it can be a paid post (which dilutes the purpose). Yankeefan233 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Froyo update?

Resolved

 – Moot: Android 2.2 finally was made available for Droid X by Verizon, on Sept. 22, 2010.

Is there any actual evidence that Froyo is being, in Sept. 2010, auto-upgraded onto Verizon Droid X phones as promised? Not one of the Droid X users I know has Froyo, other than a guy who rooted his and installed it manually a month ago. I guess we have a source that the upgrade was promised in Sept., but I don't think this adds anything to the article if the promise isn't being kept. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What you are talking about is in the sidebar, I don't think that it is as important as the text. The upgrade was promised by the end of the summer, then by early September. While I believe the best wording for this is "expected in September", there may be a better way of saying it that is not attacking the late release. Perhaps changing it to "currently expected in September" would be more fitting. If you remove the refrence to September you should cite a source stating that it is unlikely to be complete in September. PS Remember September 21 is the last day of summer, cross your fingers. --97.77.55.58 (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never said anything about any part of the article allegedly being more important than any other. It doesn't work that way here. A Wikipedia article is a Wikipedia article. Unreliable information doesn't get a free pass simply because it's in an infobox instead of the main prose. No one is "attacking" anything. Removal of bad information does not require a citation; please read WP:V. But I didn't suggest that all mention of Froyo be removed in first place, only that uncritically reporting a company's promises doesn't help our readers. Please actually read what I wrote. Futher, we are not here to cross our fingers. We're supposed to be accurate and informative. This isn't your personal blog or a chat board; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

eFUSE Controversy

I believe the statement, "Motorola officially said they do not use this to restrict the Droid X, or any other phone from booting with a custom ROM" is misleading. The article states nothing about being able to boot with a custom rom, in-fact the article says the opposite! I think the wording should be fixed to allow for the distinction of booting (and running) from a custom rom and preventing booting (or possibly just running, depending on your interpretation of booting).

The technology intended to prevent custom ROMs from running, and instead present a recovery option (note that recovery options can be displayed when a ROM that will not run on any device is installed). I think therefore the recovery option is a pre-boot environment meaning that eFUSE _is_ used to prevent booting of custom ROMs.

--72.64.105.184 (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mention of Rooting

Is the mention of specific means of rooting appropriate? --97.77.55.58 (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You have a point. We should acknowledge that rooting is possible, and perhaps explain what it does, but beyond that the reader should be doing there own research. I cleaned up the section a bit but didn't drop the external links to Z4 Root or DROIDXROOT. HarmlessKitten (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Rooting links appear to have vanished at some point. It appears that 2.3.6 has been rooted for some time, contrary to the second paragraph in the description section, but, the somewhat underground nature appears to preclude the existence of a completely reliable source of this information. Thoughts? --Comrade pem (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

SD Memory

RE supplied micro SD - Verizon now says only 2 GB SD included (they say 16 GB was promotion now expired) - also unsure if Class 2 SD card will meet speed requirements for Droid X but would like to find requirement.  No Verizon people seem to understand the question but will sell upgrade memory for big $$$$.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.64.149 (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC) 

memory change

the main 1st section, says it has 8gig and includes a 16gb card this has changed, now they only include a 2gb card —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.80.10 (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Video Resolution

The Droid X captures video at 720p HD resolution, which is 1280x720. The sidebars for the Droid X and X2 both indicate the video resolution is 720x480 (720p). The resolution needs to be corrected to 1280x720 for both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.117.2 (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Motorola Droid RAZR - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 17:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Description

Somebody might want to clean up the third paragraph under description. It is very poorly written and is not up to Wikipedia standards.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Droid X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715232857/http://www.verizonwireless.com/droid-x2-motorola.shtml to http://www.verizonwireless.com/droid-x2-motorola.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110209180644/https://supportforums.motorola.com/community/manager/softwareupgrades to https://supportforums.motorola.com/community/manager/softwareupgrades

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)