|
2007-02-06
, 09:25
|
Posts: 114 |
Thanked: 7 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
|
#2
|
|
2007-02-06
, 09:51
|
|
Posts: 2,853 |
Thanked: 968 times |
Joined on Nov 2005
|
#3
|
|
2007-02-16
, 18:35
|
Posts: 84 |
Thanked: 4 times |
Joined on Apr 2006
@ California
|
#4
|
|
2007-02-16
, 19:01
|
Posts: 152 |
Thanked: 6 times |
Joined on Dec 2006
|
#5
|
|
2007-02-16
, 19:52
|
|
Posts: 3,220 |
Thanked: 326 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
@ "Almost there!" (Monte Christo, Count of)
|
#6
|
In a way, the answer is yes. Well, I have no direct way of comparison of the n800 and the 770 , but from my brief usage of 770, I'll have to say the battery life is somewhat similar(if n800 is carefully handle). but the problem is the 770 have the hard cover which put it to sleep whenever the the cover is on automatically, but the n800 don't. As you can see, your behavior is what save the battery life on the 770, while n800 you have to lock the screen and "wait" for it to go sleep. if you touch the screen or hit any button after it lock but didn't go to sleep yet, the countdown to sleep kinda start all over again. The 770 simplify that step for you. Which remind me, who is the id!ot in Nokia decide to take this feature out in the N800. So, if you can put that extra steps on the n800 on every after usage, then I'll say the battery life is indistinguishable.
|
2007-02-16
, 20:04
|
Posts: 244 |
Thanked: 10 times |
Joined on Jan 2007
|
#7
|
|
2007-02-16
, 20:19
|
Posts: 244 |
Thanked: 10 times |
Joined on Jan 2007
|
#8
|
|
2007-02-16
, 20:37
|
Posts: 114 |
Thanked: 7 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
|
#9
|
|
2007-02-16
, 20:59
|
|
Posts: 299 |
Thanked: 168 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ Wales UK
|
#10
|
I'm quite happy with the 770 and I would only purchase the N800 if there are a lot of improvements.