radiowc
|
2010-01-20
, 15:39
|
Posts: 248 |
Thanked: 43 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ US
|
#81
|
|
2010-01-20
, 15:45
|
Posts: 521 |
Thanked: 296 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#82
|
I guess I got too used to the E71 with it's great battery life. Of course such comparisons are not fair seeing that the E71 did not have a large touchscreen, cpu power etc.
It's too bad Nokia didn't ship the n900 with the same large battery as the E71, perhaps in the Maemo 6 device
|
2010-01-20
, 16:00
|
|
Posts: 218 |
Thanked: 56 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ Germany , Thüringen
|
#83
|
|
2010-01-20
, 16:06
|
Posts: 318 |
Thanked: 49 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
|
#84
|
|
2010-01-20
, 16:23
|
Posts: 2,014 |
Thanked: 1,581 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#85
|
|
2010-01-20
, 16:34
|
Posts: 318 |
Thanked: 49 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
|
#86
|
With active usage, of course the n900 will be worse.. however..
The comparison to E71 is fair as the tests are done without screen on and with no apps running other than IM and mail (basically idle).
N900 is definitely not optimized for 3G/Edge data connection... Hope Nokia will look into optmizations similar to how E71 is optimized
|
2010-01-20
, 16:41
|
Posts: 73 |
Thanked: 9 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
|
#87
|
|
2010-01-20
, 16:41
|
|
Posts: 1,309 |
Thanked: 1,187 times |
Joined on Nov 2008
|
#88
|
|
2010-01-20
, 16:55
|
|
Posts: 909 |
Thanked: 216 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ Bremen, Germany
|
#89
|
Lately my battery consumption has improved while my usage has not changed..
|
2010-01-20
, 17:09
|
Posts: 25 |
Thanked: 13 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#90
|