Talk:Nokia N97

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The phone has been officially announced now. so removed the delete notice --digitalSurgeon (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Where was the availability date obtained from? There is nothing cited, and the official material from Nokia all state "first half of 2009". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It has been mentioned in videos by Nokia staff. Video Skroting (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I went back through the various versions; but couldn't find the one that had the better photo that showed the tilt-slider aspect of the phone. I wonder why this was changed?PVarjak (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


The introduction to this article is biased. The following sentences are highly opinionated, with no following reference: "The N97 has been widely criticised for having a slow processor and unstable applications. The GUI has been unfavourably compared to those offered by other manufacturers such as Apple, and the touchscreen poorly integrated with Symbian" The reference at the end of the paragraph do not support the sentences. TekBoi [Ali Kilinc] (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Only the introduction? The whole article tries to make N97 look bad. Ok, maybe I like Nokia and Im a Maemo fanboy, but there is certainly a principle of neutrality here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I just removed a big chunk of rant, which might be legitimate but was just really badly written. C&P'd it here for comments:

The GPS antenna on many early units were very inaccurate rendering the devices GPS capabilities practically useless. Again Nokia has acknowledged this issue & is willing to replace the antenna however the fix requires that you send your device in for servicing leaving user's without phones for several weeks.

The Operating system as of firmware is cumbersome & inconsistent in every way from its speed to its menus which are plagued with numerous unnecessary conformation screens for commonly used options including the option to Exit which is often tucked away last in an option menu.

3D support is inferior to most other devices on the market in 2008 yet the device was released in 2009.

Although avi & DivX file formats are sported using 3rd party software frame rates are terrible & the voices are often out of sync.

The Camera flash introduces flair to the left of photos.

Memory: Although the N97 has 32GB of internal Storage phone memory (Ram) is significantly less at 128Mb and is full of applications that cannot be removed such as Quick Office, Adobe Reader, Boingo, JoikuSpot Premium, Qik & Maps which are not free applications. This is really outrageous considering the price this device retails for. It's one thing to install applications on a computer such as Microsoft Office which users have the choice to purchase or not, but its another when the end users cannot removed said applications to make use of their memory how they see fit. This is corporate capitalism at it best. All purchasers of the N97 should be outraged and question the moves legality. (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

2nd Camera[edit]

If there is a 2nd camera it should be mentioned, if not, then it should be mentioned in the critisizim. (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  There is indeed a front camera too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 

Warnings to vandals[edit]

Hey, I notice no warnings have been given to vandals when there edits are reverted. There are a series of them at WP:UTM which can be used. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"C:/ drive"?[edit]

"Other common criticisms are the relative lack of RAM and free disk space on the C drive. With only around 50MB of free RAM available after boot, the phone can become sluggish and close programs in order to conserve memory. Many first part applications also will only install on C: and with around 50MB of free space, this is used quickly as it is also where temporary OS files are placed. This issue was resolved in the N97 mini as the user often has over 250MB of free space on C drive. A memory mapping alteration from firmware version 20 allowed applications to use less RAM and free it up better, helping to ease the strain of a lower amount of free RAM to the end-user."

Does Symbian actually use a Windows-like way of organizing things? Or is this just a "Windows world" misconception? (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, this segment is severely mutilating the meaning of RAM. (Xomm IP edit) (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The phone itself uses c: (phone memory) and e: (mass memory) in its application manager menus to show where an application is installed in to. So its a valid reference. (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality discussion[edit]

I flagged this article to get some input on its neutrality. Verbiage such as "GPS reception, which is so bad it actually renders the feature useless", and an antenna fix "very much in the same fashion people used metallic coat hangers as TV aerials before the digital switch" hardly strikes me as balanced. One of the sources sited comments on Nokia's products looking "like they have been created by a bunch of road workers, bakers, sewage cleaners, and not the engineers." The other headlines with comments such as, "NOKIA SUCKS". --OneCyclone (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not very neutral. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Not neutral and in contradiction with some reputable sources e.g. "locks onto a GPS signal quickly" as slaghgear wrote. Andries (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I removed the neutrality warning after removing the complaint about GPS, though a lot of criticism remains. And unfortunately the criticism should remain, because it was widely acknowledged that the original N97 was not a good phone at launch. Andries (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I only see advertisements for the mini, never for the original anymore, here in the Netherlands.~ Andries (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split: Nokia N97 (original) and Nokia N97 mini[edit]

I propose to split this article into Nokia N97 (original) and Nokia N97 mini. Though the phones are quite similar the latter never had any serious quality problems as far as I know, in contrast to the original Nokia N97. To keep the phones in one article in such a case is, I find, confusing. Andries (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As for your proposal, I do not see that problems with the N97 confuse the reader. Even if that were true simply placing a sentence to say that the the mini did not have any of the problems of the N97 would surely solve any qualms you have.
Also I do nto think that (original) is appropriate unless there is a version 2 which is equally deserving of a separate page, something I see as quite unlikelyChaosdruid (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
It does not make easy reading if we have to say for every paragraph that it applies only to the N97 original or only to the N97 mini and sometimes for both. More than 10% of the article differs for the two products. Ten percent is my personal maximum for keeping one article. What is your maximum? It is true that an attentive careful reader or who is already knowlegeable may not get confused, but I think the average reader is neither knowlegeable nor attentive and careful. Andries (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Simply that anything that relates to the mini should be in the section ==N97 mini==. Anything outside should relate specifically to the N97. Stating something along the lines of "The N97 mini did not suffer any of the problems of the N97..." in the lead and in the opening paragraph of the N97 mini sections should clear any misconceptions about the mini suffering from the N97 problems. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not think that we can write that the mini did not suffer the faults of the original, because that would be Wikipedia:Original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position Andries (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I followed your suggestion and I am not sure whether it made the article better. Andries (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality of images[edit]

The images used in articles related to mobile devices are low-quality non-professional images. Although there's no strict rule about the quality of images, I think the pages will look more sophisticated containing better images. I've prepared a collection of relatively better images taken by myself. Is there any specific limitations in employing these images? Adeeb A. Abramov , اپسیلون (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not think so, but you should release them free of copyright. I am not an expert in these matters. Andries (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)