I don't know why so many are saying that they are changing or selling their n900 for new devices...

Why do people prefer new hardware instead of having a nice device to learn and play with?

For example I use my daily 9500 that is 6 y old but it has perfect battery life and perfect keyboard and does ( for work ) all what I need, there are NO devices like that one actually but everyone says it is oldie.

My n900 is perfect and it doesn't feel old for my appreciation.

This post is to say that I don't know that obsession to have the last device...

Why having the last if it is not the best?

Sorry for the brick...

Bluetooth 3.0 , wireless N or higher megapixel camera are certainly not the things that make this device old. In fact those things are just marketing gimmicks. For me N900 is getting old because of the lack of RAM and its inability to open heavy websites (not just flash based ones). 256mb is a joke nowadays and the slower CPU just makes it worse

It's because of competition. While this phone may suit our needs, other phones may suit other people better than an n900.

Your question totally makes sense. What do new smartphones have that older ones didn't have? No crucial improvements since like 2-3 years. If you have WiFi, GPS, Bluetooth, front facing camera, blablablabla... what does a brand new, Q3 2011 device add to this, hardwarewise? Nothing. A fast dual-core CPU, 1GB of RAM, some would say. Woooow, great, and how do I use all that stuff? If you are selling me fancy hardware and that is your main selling point, at least let me use it the way I want, that is, give me the drivers and all the other stuff I need and let me install GNU/Linux or whatever I want.

I guess it will take another couple of years for the manufacturers to adopt that approach. Then, it will totally make sense to ask for more RAM, a super-duper CPU, or a HDMI-out that you could use together with a BT keyboard/mouse to turn your phone into a real PC when necessary. But until then, they will keep ripping us off for some ridiculous "innovations."

The websites that I create now aren't fully compatible with the phone I had then.

That more or less sums up why I'd call it "old hardware".

I agree with OP. Although my gadget lust drives me to learn about and anticipate new devices, I don't always get the latest. I'm also confused by the constant internet battles about which phone is theoretically capable of a couple of extra CPU instructions per second, or has this or that GPU. Hardware is nothing without proper and efficient utilisation (which is one reason I do want an N9 as my next purchase over anything currently available other than a second N900).

Hmm? You're a talented communicator, so I normally understand your posts very clearly (even if I occasionally disagree with them) but I don't get this. How does hardware tie in? A lack of RAM? Or what?

What web technology (other than Flash... about which I don't personally care much) isn't working with the N900 these days? I'm not saying there isn't any - I'm just curious what the issue is and how your hands are tied by the hardware of the N900...

...or am I misunderstanding something?

I'm with the OP on this one, I've just had a look at the crop of 2011 phones (new gadget envy) and there still seems to be nothing to compete with my N900 on balance.

Everyone around me is adopting the newest Crackberries; I can admit to liking the Wireless-N and the speed of the UI - but where's the TV out? Why the tiny screens and keys? My 2-year-old hardware stacks up pretty well, thanks, and that's before I even go into the better usability provided by the software. For instance, a BB user described last night how he'd had to use Twitter to get weather forecasts while on holiday...he didn't look pleased when I showed him OMWeather nestled in between my e-mails and calendar. :-)

The N9, similarly, wouldn't tempt me if Nokia did release and support it in the UK. I'd like to play with one, but where's the microSD slot? No longer would I be able to repair all the memory cards corrupted by the BB-using masses! :-) Joking aside, 64GB fixed isn't an improvement on the N900. I'll keep my hardware keyboard, thanks.

So, I'm with you - Wireless-N won't move me, or not until I've got 100Mbit cable and expect my phone to keep up, HDMI won't move me, Bluetooth 3.0 won't move me, and I expect to keep an N900 alive for a year or two yet. Which begs the question: what WILL make the N900 redundant?

For me, the answer depends upon the spread of a technology that I actually want to use. When there are viable 4G networks and service plans, and cloud computing is the norm, I won't want a 3G handset. When I can actually use an NFC-enabled phone for mobile payments, local travel AND home integration, maybe I'll bite. Meanwhile, I'm keeping the N900...

Sorry but I dont get your point from a consumer prospective.

Putting aside all geeks and nerds and looking from the consumer point of view I see HUGE difference between N900 and devices released in Q3 2011 heck , even some that were released in Q1

I dont want to turn my phone to a PC I want to have a phone that performs tasks efficiently.

HDMI , 1GB or more RAM and a fast CPU are important for a Q3 2011 device

I just would like a bigger screen. Somebody give me a N810 with 3G and fremantle.

• HDMI? No argument there. N9 should have had it. I've yet to see any good reason why it doesn't other than some marketing fluff from Nokia.
• Fast CPU? Don't necessarily agree (see my previous post).
• 1GB RAM? Pretty sure N9 has this already. Check the spec.