6230 - functional integration stinks!

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

Sure the 6230 has loads of functions, is loved by many, wins comparison
tests and all. Does nobody except me get upset by the horribly poor
function integration of this thing?

A few exaples:

- the Media/Radio won't play without headset, the Media/Music player does.

- the Media/Radio can be accessed though a shortcut, the Media/Music
player can't

- the Media/Music player does not support MP3s on the MMC card, the
Gallery does.

- the Media/Music player player does not support MP3s in subdirectories,
the PC suite does

- the main window supports custom wallpapers, other menus don't

- Applications/Extras are accessible through short cuts,
Applications/Collection are not.

Looks like they hastily mingled up a bunch of code pieces from their
firmware grabbox, but made no serious attempt at integration design,
implementation, and testing. Or maybe they threw it at the consumers
halfway through the development cycle. The product has been on the
market for a year now, has seen a bunch of firmware releases and still
stinks in the integration department.

Truly unprofessional.
20 answers Last reply
More about 6230 functional integration stinks
  1. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    "Greg N." <yodel_dodel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:csthf2$qo9$1@online.de...
    > Sure the 6230 has loads of functions, is loved by many, wins comparison
    > tests and all. Does nobody except me get upset by the horribly poor
    > function integration of this thing?
    >
    > A few exaples:
    >
    > - the Media/Radio won't play without headset, the Media/Music player does.
    >
    because the headset doubles as the aerial..what good is a radio without
    one?
  2. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    Alistair wrote:

    >>- the Media/Radio won't play without headset, the Media/Music player does.
    >
    > because the headset doubles as the aerial..what good is a radio without
    > one?

    Good one! I take back this point. Any plausible explanations for my
    other points, too?
  3. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    "Greg N." wrote:

    > - the Media/Radio won't play without headset, the Media/Music player does.

    Since the radio antenna is in the headset this is unavoidable.

    --
    ir. J.C.A. Wevers // Physics and science fiction site:
    johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl // http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
    PGP/GPG public keys at http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/pgpkeys.html
  4. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    My 6230 DOES support MP3's on the MMC card ... i play them all the time and
    have copied loads to the card so im not sure what your doing wrong or maybe
    your card is buggered?
  5. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:49:46 -0000, "Alistair"
    <news@alistairbremoveme.co.uk> wrote:

    >
    >"Greg N." <yodel_dodel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >news:csthf2$qo9$1@online.de...
    >> Sure the 6230 has loads of functions, is loved by many, wins comparison
    >> tests and all. Does nobody except me get upset by the horribly poor
    >> function integration of this thing?
    >>
    >> A few exaples:
    >>
    >> - the Media/Radio won't play without headset, the Media/Music player does.
    >>
    >because the headset doubles as the aerial..what good is a radio without
    >one?

    The phone appears able to pick up signals from cell sites quite
    adequately without an external aerial, so why can't it pick up a
    signal from commercial FM radio stations? I've seen several miniature
    FM radio receivers that are able to function quite well without a
    large external antenna. I'm sure Nokia could have improved the design
    of this function a bit.

    Chris
  6. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:59:17 +0800, Chris Blunt
    <chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote:

    >On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:49:46 -0000, "Alistair"
    ><news@alistairbremoveme.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Greg N." <yodel_dodel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>news:csthf2$qo9$1@online.de...
    >>> Sure the 6230 has loads of functions, is loved by many, wins comparison
    >>> tests and all. Does nobody except me get upset by the horribly poor
    >>> function integration of this thing?
    >>>
    >>> A few exaples:
    >>>
    >>> - the Media/Radio won't play without headset, the Media/Music player does.
    >>>
    >>because the headset doubles as the aerial..what good is a radio without
    >>one?
    >
    >The phone appears able to pick up signals from cell sites quite
    >adequately without an external aerial, so why can't it pick up a
    >signal from commercial FM radio stations? I've seen several miniature
    >FM radio receivers that are able to function quite well without a
    >large external antenna. I'm sure Nokia could have improved the design
    >of this function a bit.


    Because the wavelength of an FM signal is at least 10 times as great
    as that of the lowest frequency cell signal thus it needs a much
    longer antenna for efficient reception.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    Chris Blunt wrote:

    > signal from commercial FM radio stations? I've seen several miniature
    > FM radio receivers that are able to function quite well without a
    > large external antenna.

    They also use the cable to the earphones as antenna.

    > I'm sure Nokia could have improved the design
    > of this function a bit.

    No, this is a matter of physics. Larger wavelengths require a larger
    antenna, that's not something Nokia can change.

    --
    ir. J.C.A. Wevers // Physics and science fiction site:
    johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl // http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
    PGP/GPG public keys at http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/pgpkeys.html
  8. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    raybo wrote:
    > My 6230 DOES support MP3's on the MMC card ... i play them all the time and
    > have copied loads to the card so im not sure what your doing wrong or maybe
    > your card is buggered?

    Sorry, I should have said:

    - the Media/Music player does not support MP3s on the MMC card *in
    subdirectories*, the Gallery does.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:01:45 +0100, "Greg N." <yodel_dodel@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >raybo wrote:
    >> My 6230 DOES support MP3's on the MMC card ... i play them all the time and
    >> have copied loads to the card so im not sure what your doing wrong or maybe
    >> your card is buggered?
    >
    >Sorry, I should have said:
    >
    >- the Media/Music player does not support MP3s on the MMC card *in
    >subdirectories*, the Gallery does.


    It does if you make a playlist first. I've forgotten the details but
    if you go and look at the 6230 forum at www.expansys.co.uk you'll
    probably find them there.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    lysander@uk2.net wrote:

    >>- the Media/Music player does not support MP3s on the MMC card *in
    >>subdirectories*, the Gallery does.
    >
    > It does if you make a playlist first. I've forgotten the details but
    > if you go and look at the 6230 forum at www.expansys.co.uk you'll
    > probably find them there.

    I know, I do it all the time.

    A 512 MB MMC card will hold around 150 to 200 songs. If you do not use
    subdirectories, you have no practical way of finding anything.
    Furthermore, all connection methods (IR, BT, and DKU-2 are really too
    slow for that amount of data, there is no way to fill a 512 MB card in
    less than an hour. I think a memory card reader is really the only
    feasible way of managing large MMC cards, it can do a whole 512 MB in
    less than 10 minutes.

    Then, when you're done with copying your music, you still have to do go
    through the PC suite and update your playlist, otherwise the Media/Music
    player has no way of accessing any of your music.

    That's what I meant by the subsequent point: - the Media/Music player
    player does not support MP3s in subdirectories, the PC suite does
  11. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    Greg N. wrote:

    > Does nobody except me get upset by the horribly poor
    > function integration of this thing?

    here are a few more examples:

    - large MMC cards (e.g. 1 GB) work only if you format them on a PC. If
    you put them into the phone unformatted, the phone cannot use (format) them.

    - the gallery can automatically play a few seconds off all MP3s in a
    folder ("open in sequence"), but it can't play entire songs this way.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    > because the headset doubles as the aerial..what good is a radio without
    > one?
    >

    Pity the aerial wasnt inbuilt like the ph aerial, maybe no room :-)
  13. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:14:52 +0000, lysander@uk2.net wrote:

    >On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:59:17 +0800, Chris Blunt
    ><chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:49:46 -0000, "Alistair"
    >><news@alistairbremoveme.co.uk> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Greg N." <yodel_dodel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:csthf2$qo9$1@online.de...
    >>>> Sure the 6230 has loads of functions, is loved by many, wins comparison
    >>>> tests and all. Does nobody except me get upset by the horribly poor
    >>>> function integration of this thing?
    >>>>
    >>>> A few exaples:
    >>>>
    >>>> - the Media/Radio won't play without headset, the Media/Music player does.
    >>>>
    >>>because the headset doubles as the aerial..what good is a radio without
    >>>one?
    >>
    >>The phone appears able to pick up signals from cell sites quite
    >>adequately without an external aerial, so why can't it pick up a
    >>signal from commercial FM radio stations? I've seen several miniature
    >>FM radio receivers that are able to function quite well without a
    >>large external antenna. I'm sure Nokia could have improved the design
    >>of this function a bit.
    >
    >
    > Because the wavelength of an FM signal is at least 10 times as great
    >as that of the lowest frequency cell signal thus it needs a much
    >longer antenna for efficient reception.

    So how come an AM radio, which receives signals 1,000 times the
    wavelength of a cell signal still doesn't need an external antenna?
    According to your explanation, it should need an antenna which
    stretches across the road.

    Chris
  14. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    Because it has a ferrite coil antenna, which electrically looks like it
    stretches across the road.
    Electrically FM needs a physically long antenna.

    "Chris Blunt" <chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote in message
    news:1r96v0t65df2e9nukn0fk99o3vb6cjh8jl@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:14:52 +0000, lysander@uk2.net wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:59:17 +0800, Chris Blunt
    >><chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:49:46 -0000, "Alistair"
    >>><news@alistairbremoveme.co.uk> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>"Greg N." <yodel_dodel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>>>news:csthf2$qo9$1@online.de...
    >>>>> Sure the 6230 has loads of functions, is loved by many, wins
    >>>>> comparison
    >>>>> tests and all. Does nobody except me get upset by the horribly poor
    >>>>> function integration of this thing?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A few exaples:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> - the Media/Radio won't play without headset, the Media/Music player
    >>>>> does.
    >>>>>
    >>>>because the headset doubles as the aerial..what good is a radio without
    >>>>one?
    >>>
    >>>The phone appears able to pick up signals from cell sites quite
    >>>adequately without an external aerial, so why can't it pick up a
    >>>signal from commercial FM radio stations? I've seen several miniature
    >>>FM radio receivers that are able to function quite well without a
    >>>large external antenna. I'm sure Nokia could have improved the design
    >>>of this function a bit.
    >>
    >>
    >> Because the wavelength of an FM signal is at least 10 times as great
    >>as that of the lowest frequency cell signal thus it needs a much
    >>longer antenna for efficient reception.
    >
    > So how come an AM radio, which receives signals 1,000 times the
    > wavelength of a cell signal still doesn't need an external antenna?
    > According to your explanation, it should need an antenna which
    > stretches across the road.
    >
    > Chris
    >
  15. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:01:29 +0800, Chris Blunt
    <chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote:

    >On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:14:52 +0000, lysander@uk2.net wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:59:17 +0800, Chris Blunt
    >><chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:49:46 -0000, "Alistair"
    >>><news@alistairbremoveme.co.uk> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>"Greg N." <yodel_dodel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>>>news:csthf2$qo9$1@online.de...
    >>>>> Sure the 6230 has loads of functions, is loved by many, wins comparison
    >>>>> tests and all. Does nobody except me get upset by the horribly poor
    >>>>> function integration of this thing?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A few exaples:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> - the Media/Radio won't play without headset, the Media/Music player does.
    >>>>>
    >>>>because the headset doubles as the aerial..what good is a radio without
    >>>>one?
    >>>
    >>>The phone appears able to pick up signals from cell sites quite
    >>>adequately without an external aerial, so why can't it pick up a
    >>>signal from commercial FM radio stations? I've seen several miniature
    >>>FM radio receivers that are able to function quite well without a
    >>>large external antenna. I'm sure Nokia could have improved the design
    >>>of this function a bit.
    >>
    >>
    >> Because the wavelength of an FM signal is at least 10 times as great
    >>as that of the lowest frequency cell signal thus it needs a much
    >>longer antenna for efficient reception.
    >
    >So how come an AM radio, which receives signals 1,000 times the
    >wavelength of a cell signal still doesn't need an external antenna?
    >According to your explanation, it should need an antenna which
    >stretches across the road.


    Because it uses a long piece of wire wound onto a ferrite core which
    (electrically) stretches a very long way down the road.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    "Greg N." <yodel_dodel@yahoo.com> wrote in news:csthf2$qo9$1@online.de
    wrote:
    "
    > Sure the 6230 has loads of functions, is loved by many, wins
    > comparison tests and all. Does nobody except me get upset by the
    > horribly poor function integration of this thing?
    >
    > A few exaples:
    >
    ....
    > Looks like they hastily mingled up a bunch of code pieces from their
    > firmware grabbox, but made no serious attempt at integration design,
    > implementation, and testing. Or maybe they threw it at the consumers
    > halfway through the development cycle. The product has been on the
    > market for a year now, has seen a bunch of firmware releases and still
    > stinks in the integration department.
    >
    > Truly unprofessional."


    Yes, it does look like a rush job, especially with the interface
    elements. Got mine when they first appeared in April 2004 (so not quite
    a year, then), and the firmware seems still 'unfinished' at v4.44. And
    *still* no direct shortcut for the MP3 player. ??? There's *still* MMC
    recognition problems and card memory reporting glitches. ???

    For a flagship replacement for the 6310i, I don't quite know what they're
    playing at.

    I've contacted Nokia on a few occasions politely asking for clarification
    of fixes for shortcuts and schoolboy-error bugs, but have been
    stonewalled by the Club Nokia drones.

    It's very annoying (almost seems deliberate), so the 6230 will be the
    last Nokia phone I buy. No regrets.


    --
    sA
  17. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:38:42 +0000, lysander@uk2.net wrote:

    >On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:01:29 +0800, Chris Blunt
    ><chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:14:52 +0000, lysander@uk2.net wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:59:17 +0800, Chris Blunt
    >>><chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:49:46 -0000, "Alistair"
    >>>><news@alistairbremoveme.co.uk> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"Greg N." <yodel_dodel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:csthf2$qo9$1@online.de...
    >>>>>> Sure the 6230 has loads of functions, is loved by many, wins comparison
    >>>>>> tests and all. Does nobody except me get upset by the horribly poor
    >>>>>> function integration of this thing?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> A few exaples:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> - the Media/Radio won't play without headset, the Media/Music player does.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>because the headset doubles as the aerial..what good is a radio without
    >>>>>one?
    >>>>
    >>>>The phone appears able to pick up signals from cell sites quite
    >>>>adequately without an external aerial, so why can't it pick up a
    >>>>signal from commercial FM radio stations? I've seen several miniature
    >>>>FM radio receivers that are able to function quite well without a
    >>>>large external antenna. I'm sure Nokia could have improved the design
    >>>>of this function a bit.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Because the wavelength of an FM signal is at least 10 times as great
    >>>as that of the lowest frequency cell signal thus it needs a much
    >>>longer antenna for efficient reception.
    >>
    >>So how come an AM radio, which receives signals 1,000 times the
    >>wavelength of a cell signal still doesn't need an external antenna?
    >>According to your explanation, it should need an antenna which
    >>stretches across the road.
    >
    >
    >Because it uses a long piece of wire wound onto a ferrite core which
    >(electrically) stretches a very long way down the road.

    So it doesn't actually need to be physically long after all, it just
    needs to appear 'long' electrically. Which brings us back to my
    original point. If Nokia can incorporate an antenna for 1,000MHz which
    will fit inside a phone, and an antenna for 1MHz will also occupy a
    similar amount of space, Nokia should have been able to come up with
    an antenna for 100MHz to do the same.

    Chris
  18. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:32:57 +0800, Chris Blunt
    <chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote:

    >On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:38:42 +0000, lysander@uk2.net wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:01:29 +0800, Chris Blunt
    >><chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:14:52 +0000, lysander@uk2.net wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:59:17 +0800, Chris Blunt
    >>>><chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:49:46 -0000, "Alistair"
    >>>>><news@alistairbremoveme.co.uk> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>"Greg N." <yodel_dodel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>>news:csthf2$qo9$1@online.de...
    >>>>>>> Sure the 6230 has loads of functions, is loved by many, wins comparison
    >>>>>>> tests and all. Does nobody except me get upset by the horribly poor
    >>>>>>> function integration of this thing?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> A few exaples:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> - the Media/Radio won't play without headset, the Media/Music player does.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>because the headset doubles as the aerial..what good is a radio without
    >>>>>>one?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>The phone appears able to pick up signals from cell sites quite
    >>>>>adequately without an external aerial, so why can't it pick up a
    >>>>>signal from commercial FM radio stations? I've seen several miniature
    >>>>>FM radio receivers that are able to function quite well without a
    >>>>>large external antenna. I'm sure Nokia could have improved the design
    >>>>>of this function a bit.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Because the wavelength of an FM signal is at least 10 times as great
    >>>>as that of the lowest frequency cell signal thus it needs a much
    >>>>longer antenna for efficient reception.
    >>>
    >>>So how come an AM radio, which receives signals 1,000 times the
    >>>wavelength of a cell signal still doesn't need an external antenna?
    >>>According to your explanation, it should need an antenna which
    >>>stretches across the road.
    >>
    >>
    >>Because it uses a long piece of wire wound onto a ferrite core which
    >>(electrically) stretches a very long way down the road.
    >
    >So it doesn't actually need to be physically long after all, it just
    >needs to appear 'long' electrically. Which brings us back to my
    >original point. If Nokia can incorporate an antenna for 1,000MHz which
    >will fit inside a phone, and an antenna for 1MHz will also occupy a
    >similar amount of space, Nokia should have been able to come up with
    >an antenna for 100MHz to do the same.

    Why should they when they have a perfectly suitable antenna available
    in the headphones?
  19. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    "Chris Blunt" <chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote in message
    news:lbd7v0lf6iko9794fpk6lj4ehs0jnf4kum@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:38:42 +0000, lysander@uk2.net wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:01:29 +0800, Chris Blunt
    >><chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:14:52 +0000, lysander@uk2.net wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:59:17 +0800, Chris Blunt
    >>>><chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:49:46 -0000, "Alistair"
    >>>>><news@alistairbremoveme.co.uk> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>"Greg N." <yodel_dodel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>>news:csthf2$qo9$1@online.de...
    >>>>>>> Sure the 6230 has loads of functions, is loved by many, wins
    >>>>>>> comparison
    >>>>>>> tests and all. Does nobody except me get upset by the horribly poor
    >>>>>>> function integration of this thing?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> A few exaples:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> - the Media/Radio won't play without headset, the Media/Music player
    >>>>>>> does.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>because the headset doubles as the aerial..what good is a radio
    >>>>>>without
    >>>>>>one?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>The phone appears able to pick up signals from cell sites quite
    >>>>>adequately without an external aerial, so why can't it pick up a
    >>>>>signal from commercial FM radio stations? I've seen several miniature
    >>>>>FM radio receivers that are able to function quite well without a
    >>>>>large external antenna. I'm sure Nokia could have improved the design
    >>>>>of this function a bit.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Because the wavelength of an FM signal is at least 10 times as great
    >>>>as that of the lowest frequency cell signal thus it needs a much
    >>>>longer antenna for efficient reception.
    >>>
    >>>So how come an AM radio, which receives signals 1,000 times the
    >>>wavelength of a cell signal still doesn't need an external antenna?
    >>>According to your explanation, it should need an antenna which
    >>>stretches across the road.
    >>
    >>
    >>Because it uses a long piece of wire wound onto a ferrite core which
    >>(electrically) stretches a very long way down the road.
    >
    > So it doesn't actually need to be physically long after all, it just
    > needs to appear 'long' electrically. Which brings us back to my
    > original point. If Nokia can incorporate an antenna for 1,000MHz which
    > will fit inside a phone, and an antenna for 1MHz will also occupy a
    > similar amount of space, Nokia should have been able to come up with
    > an antenna for 100MHz to do the same.
    >
    > Chris
    >

    I thought that this has just been explained.

    The MW and LW antenna is different from the FM antenna. To add a MW antenna
    would require adding a ferrite rod and coil. This would add to the bulk and
    weight of your phone. You like the phone small, no?

    However if you use a headset you can double that for an fm radio antenna,
    there are loads of cheap FM only radios that use the headset as an antenna.
    It is a clever additional functionality and you get the headset free!! I
    have no grumbles with the radio.

    :)
    Tony
  20. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nokia (More info?)

    On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:35:47 +0000, lysander@uk2.net wrote:

    >On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:32:57 +0800, Chris Blunt
    ><chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:38:42 +0000, lysander@uk2.net wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:01:29 +0800, Chris Blunt
    >>><chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:14:52 +0000, lysander@uk2.net wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:59:17 +0800, Chris Blunt
    >>>>><chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:49:46 -0000, "Alistair"
    >>>>>><news@alistairbremoveme.co.uk> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>"Greg N." <yodel_dodel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>news:csthf2$qo9$1@online.de...
    >>>>>>>> Sure the 6230 has loads of functions, is loved by many, wins comparison
    >>>>>>>> tests and all. Does nobody except me get upset by the horribly poor
    >>>>>>>> function integration of this thing?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> A few exaples:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> - the Media/Radio won't play without headset, the Media/Music player does.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>because the headset doubles as the aerial..what good is a radio without
    >>>>>>>one?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>The phone appears able to pick up signals from cell sites quite
    >>>>>>adequately without an external aerial, so why can't it pick up a
    >>>>>>signal from commercial FM radio stations? I've seen several miniature
    >>>>>>FM radio receivers that are able to function quite well without a
    >>>>>>large external antenna. I'm sure Nokia could have improved the design
    >>>>>>of this function a bit.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Because the wavelength of an FM signal is at least 10 times as great
    >>>>>as that of the lowest frequency cell signal thus it needs a much
    >>>>>longer antenna for efficient reception.
    >>>>
    >>>>So how come an AM radio, which receives signals 1,000 times the
    >>>>wavelength of a cell signal still doesn't need an external antenna?
    >>>>According to your explanation, it should need an antenna which
    >>>>stretches across the road.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Because it uses a long piece of wire wound onto a ferrite core which
    >>>(electrically) stretches a very long way down the road.
    >>
    >>So it doesn't actually need to be physically long after all, it just
    >>needs to appear 'long' electrically. Which brings us back to my
    >>original point. If Nokia can incorporate an antenna for 1,000MHz which
    >>will fit inside a phone, and an antenna for 1MHz will also occupy a
    >>similar amount of space, Nokia should have been able to come up with
    >>an antenna for 100MHz to do the same.
    >
    >Why should they when they have a perfectly suitable antenna available
    >in the headphones?

    So that people can play the radio through the loudspeaker without
    needing to have the earphones hanging off the phone.

    Chris
Ask a new question

Read More

Nokia Music