Windows-based devices often receive flak for their lack of reliability, but Windows is much more reliable than it used to be. The operating system itself doesn't crash particularly often -- it's the applications that are usually the culprit. 

Because the Q1 is unlikely to be used as your primary PC, you're unlikely to install the same amount of random rubbish on it. It should therefore be much more reliable than Mac cynics give it credit for. I've been using it steadily for several weeks and it has been very dependable. On the few occasions when it did freeze up, I simply hit the reset switch and it started again straight away.

Unlike the Windows-based Q1, the Newton runs a rock-solid OS. Few users have seen what the Newton OS looks like when it's crashed. Plausibly, an application could bring the system down, but it's rare. Obviously the Newton has the advantage here because it's dealing with a whole lot less legacy code than the Samsung.

The Newton has no known viruses, while the Q1, which runs Windows, has around 60,000. The Q1 is also susceptible to spyware, keyloggers and rogue diallers; the Newton is vulnerable to none of those things.

Though it's easy to argue the Newton has security through obscurity, you do have to question whether it was wise to bring all the overheads of Windows to a small portable device like the Q1. An operating system designed for a desktop computer will rarely shoehorn well into a portable device, yet that is exactly what Samsung has tried to do with the Q1. Very little consideration has been given to the differing priorities of desktop and small-form computer users. Windows is a one-size-fits-all solution, whereas the Newton OS is very specifically built for the efficient use of a small screen and stylus.