Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

6230 - functional integration stinks!

Last response: in Brands
Share
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 4:49:18 PM

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.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 4:49:19 PM

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?
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 5:10:34 PM

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?
Related resources
January 23, 2005 12:12:19 AM

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?
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 12:59:17 AM

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
January 23, 2005 12:59:18 AM

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.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 12:59:18 AM

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
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 2:01:45 AM

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.
January 23, 2005 2:01:46 AM

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.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 2:44:12 AM

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
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 2:51:40 AM

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.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 5:05:49 AM

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 :-)
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 4:01:29 PM

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
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 4:01:30 PM

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
>
January 23, 2005 4:01:30 PM

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.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 6:53:29 PM

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
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 1:32:57 AM

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
January 24, 2005 1:32:58 AM

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?
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 3:34:16 AM

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
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 4:17:18 PM

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
!