Active Topics
-
Maemo repository (8)
to Community by Maemish - 1 day, 3 hrs ago -
Porting apps to Leste (44)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by norayr - 1 day, 7 hrs ago -
List of well performing apps on Leste (35)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by smatkovi - 4 days, 5 hrs ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (13)
to SailfishOS by edp17 - 5 days, 3 hrs ago -
Sailfish OS for the Samsung Galaxy Note 4 (SM-N910C) - (treltexx) (79)
to SailfishOS by edp17 - 5 days, 3 hrs ago -
U-Boot for Nokia RX-51 with BootMenu (updated version 2012.10-rc3-1) (843)
to Alternatives by Arno_11 - 5 days, 8 hrs ago - more...
|
2008-09-19
, 23:42
|
|
Posts: 551 |
Thanked: 46 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#262
|
If I were bringing to market several new devices that are similar in function but use two different wireless technologies I would test them with the new chipset and not old technology. IMO
|
|
2008-09-19
, 23:55
|
|
Posts: 551 |
Thanked: 46 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#263
|
Anyone think they might throw in OLED screen with haptic?
|
|
2008-09-20
, 00:35
|
|
Posts: 1,513 |
Thanked: 2,248 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ US
|
#264
|
Originally Posted by dan
You're a bit off here. The Wimax version has been ready for months upon months and uses the same old processor. If Nokia was going to push WiMax, they would have done it before this announcement of Maemo 5.
I would pass on to your bosses that they release the wimax soon with next big Diablo and use it to test Fremantle as it comes along. I'm sure they will have changed the processor to the new family for wimax edition.
| The Following User Says Thank You to SD69 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2008-09-20
, 01:59
|
|
Posts: 551 |
Thanked: 46 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#265
|
No wimax yet and they just delayed it again so I wouldn't be surprised if they repackaged the wimax with the new processor. They did say it was a class of processors and devices. Testing new processor with wimax would give them a good deal of experience in a short time frame for when they release the hspa version. I always saw the wimax as a throwaway to test a future platform. Its quite ambitious on Nokia part and if they pull it off they will definitely be guiding the industry and setting the standards for the next couple of years.
Of course this is all my own strategery.
no Nokia employees were harmed in these rambling thoughts.
Of course this is all my own strategery.
no Nokia employees were harmed in these rambling thoughts.
 |
|
2008-09-20
, 03:50
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#266
|
Originally Posted by dan
Did you just grant us the right to say 'told ya so' if the N810W is in fact just an N810 with a WiMAX radio added and no major components replaced?
No wimax yet and they just delayed it again so I wouldn't be surprised if they repackaged the wimax with the new processor. They did say it was a class of processors and devices. Testing new processor with wimax would give them a good deal of experience in a short time frame for when they release the hspa version. I always saw the wimax as a throwaway to test a future platform. Its quite ambitious on Nokia part and if they pull it off they will definitely be guiding the industry and setting the standards for the next couple of years.
Of course this is all my own strategery.
|
|
2008-09-20
, 07:12
|
|
Posts: 477 |
Thanked: 118 times |
Joined on Dec 2005
@ Munich, Germany
|
#267
|
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
I think that the people who think that voip over cellular data is an option forget something important:
Yes, some forbid this in their contract (NOT all!), but its questionable whether this holds up in court. Its also questionable if (and how) they're blocking VoIP or are going to block VoIP. I foresee some nice forum & wiki pages about this subject.
As VoIP is on the rise, it will change the way we communicate by voice one way or another. The question isn't if. Its when.
Its friday night, your weapon is the N900, start the revolution!
-cellular bandwidth is limited. Much more than you realise, even on 3G networks. The only way around that limitation is to add more cells, but that costs money. And there are already more cells than you realise: next time you go to a busy part of town, look around and you will find the antennas. I live in Munich, Germany. In pedestrian streets, you will find picocells every 100 meters in average (all carriers combined).
Of course it helps if you know how the antennas look like
-sip uses more bandwidth than voice, sometimes as much as 10 times. The gsm codec is very efficient (5600bits/s half-rate), compared to g.711 (64Kbits/s, a real waste, but part of sip specs), ilbc (15Kbits/s), or even g.729a/b (8Kbits/s). Even when the same codec is used (sip can use the gsm codec), the fact that it runs over a data connection adds two layers of protocol: ip and the data connection use an additional encapsulating layer on the air interface (it matters more if you lose one packet of data than one packet of voice).
This is the main drive behind the telcos blocking sip. They would rather give you unlimited voice calls than have you run g.711 on their network (and it happens often that sip adapters don't agree on anything else).
In Germany, all cellular carriers have changed their contracts about two years ago to specify that voip is not allowed. It took them two years to have the limitation active, because that is the usual maximum contract length. And that will hold in court: if you sign as a user that you are not allowed to run voip, there is no way you can complain.
So sorry, but a tablet with a data contract is not a phone. And I am pretty sure that Nokia knows this.
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jerome For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2008-09-20
, 08:19
|
|
Posts: 4,783 |
Thanked: 1,253 times |
Joined on Aug 2007
@ norway
|
#268
|
and the reason for the number of cells is that the frequencies used for umts have poor penetration compared to gsm ones. basically, just about any kind of concrete or brick building will reduce the signal, iirc.
so in a urban environment you cant really stick a umts antenna on a couple of rooftops and expect the signal to reach for kilometers.
then there is the number of handsets that can be in active use inside a cell. while both gsm and umts is more effective there then the old analog systems (digital packet switching helps) there is still a upper limit.
so in a urban environment you cant really stick a umts antenna on a couple of rooftops and expect the signal to reach for kilometers.
then there is the number of handsets that can be in active use inside a cell. while both gsm and umts is more effective there then the old analog systems (digital packet switching helps) there is still a upper limit.
 |
|
2008-09-20
, 08:35
|
|
Posts: 3,790 |
Thanked: 5,718 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#269
|
Originally Posted by Jerome
Correct. The carriers here start to change their products... The new contracts have an almost ridiculous download limit of around 500MB/month, afterwards they reduce your speed to 64kbps. The old contracts had download limits in the GB-range...
I think that the people who think that voip over cellular data is an option forget something important:
-cellular bandwidth is limited. Much more than you realise, even on 3G networks.
The only reason for this is that mobile internet is so popular here meanwhile that they reached the point where it's hard to keep up with the infrastructure.
|
|
2008-09-20
, 09:06
|
|
Posts: 477 |
Thanked: 118 times |
Joined on Dec 2005
@ Munich, Germany
|
#270
|
Originally Posted by tso
Not really. UMTS typically runs around 2GHz (in some countries lower bands are also used, list here), and 1,8GHz is also used for GSM for example. Besides, for steel-reinforced concrete, 2GHz often goes through while 900Mhz (typical first generation GSM) does not. You should also realise that a large part of the propagation goes via reflections (e.g. on walls), in some cases streets act as waveguides. Propagation in these frequency bands and in cities is relatively complex.
and the reason for the number of cells is that the frequencies used for umts have poor penetration compared to gsm ones. basically, just about any kind of concrete or brick building will reduce the signal, iirc.
As far as the air interface is concerned, the main characteristic of UMTS is that it uses spread spectrum on a 5 MHz wide channel. This is mainly what makes it different from GSM which uses TDMA on 200 KHz wide channels. UMTS degrades more softly when propagation is bad or when more users are added to a given cell.
World's first inductively-charged N900!