It's apparently lost on you that your reply ironically demonstrates the correctness of my statement and undermines your own. As you note, 'Thin Client' is not a precise term at all. On the other hand, X terminal is an absolutely precise term. Nothing about my description of the 770 as an X terminal is 'subjective'. It's a very precise term. 'Subjective' is, however, a pretty good word to apply to what a thin client is, as you yourself posit, viz. "for some it MIGHT be a thin client".

Your experience with 'apps on big computer(s) (which) would not fit small screen anyway' implies that your experience with 'thin clients' has left you feeling unfulfilled because the GUIs on those apps don't scale and the apps themselves aren't designed for remote collaborative groups. Your situation is like someone with a TV who doesn't have any way to get any broadcast programming connection.

My experience, for over a decade, contrasts with yours. The GUIs I deal with daily are remotely served from many locations to my display. They're always properly scaled and always place me in the appropriate collaborative workgroup context. It isn't the application that does this, though, it's X. The remote apps are graphic, but they're very compact. Executable code is only about 3 Mb. Graphical X apps can be very small, of course, because they can be rendered and don't require bitmaps.

I use touchscreen displays and touch-driven apps all over the country every day but there is no touchscreen code in any of the apps I'm getting displays from. How can that be? The answer is 'X'. All X apps are touchscreen apps if my remote user X configuration defines a touchscreen. Extrapolate the significance of that example of the advantage of that specific feature of X architecture if you will.

The 770 is an X terminal because it's built to be one. Nobody has to add any code at all to operate it as an X terminal. That's not a subjective judgement that I or anyone else makes. It's a fact of the 770's design. I think you should argue with Nokia, perhaps, and tell them that the 770's ability to serve up remote displays to X client applications all across the internet is just an opinion that they have about what the 770 can do. Certainly, anyone can choose to not use the 770 as an X terminal, but that doesn't change anything. If I have car and I don't drive it, well, it's still a car, you see, and that's not a subjective judgement, is it?