Skip to main content

Is This Nokia's First MID?

Over the weekend, a report citing an FCC filing referring to a new device from Nokia called the Nokia RX-51 showed up on Engadget. Rumored to be the company's first mobile internet device, the device is said to be the Maemo5-powered Rover, which was first alluded to back in May. Not really much to note from the images, other than the fact that it will have a five megapixel camera with a Carl Zeiss lens.

Folks have been looking forward to a tablet or MID from Nokia for a while now and things really started to heat up when the company announced a partnership with Intel.  At the time, the two companies said the deal would see them collaborate on developing chips for mobile devices, however little detail was offered on any solid plans to release an MID, netbook or tablet.

Read more here and here.

  • ceteras
    old news.
    I suggest writing something about Linux on slow days
    Reply
  • Shadow703793
    ceterasold news.I suggest writing something about Linux on slow dayslol. +1.
    Reply
  • WheelsOfConfusion
    Only if by "mobile internet device" you mean something equipped with an Atom, and even then I'm not sure this has one. Nokia's had at least three moderately successful internet tablets running on ARM-based SoCs, all running Maemo.
    Reply
  • Hanin33
    ceterasold news.I suggest writing something about Linux on slow days
    there's news in linux? like what? they've made it even faster at doing nothing useful? they've added a new front end to the same old media players? i use linux exclusively on every router and net appliance i build but i would never want to run it as a desktop... it has features that make it more secure and slightly faster than windows but at the end of the day i don't want to have to deal with getting my windows appz to work on it since there are no worthwhile native linux alternatives. and let's not forget that documentation and support (for doing things beyond the scope of just pointing and clicking) for hardware that isn't super popular or mainstream is a pain in the ass...

    i guess the only news i'd want to hear coming out of the linux community is that it can run any windows app just as well as windows could. then we'd be somewhere!
    Reply
  • MU_Engineer
    Hanin33there's news in linux? like what? they've made it even faster at doing nothing useful? they've added a new front end to the same old media players? i use linux exclusively on every router and net appliance i build but i would never want to run it as a desktop... it has features that make it more secure and slightly faster than windows but at the end of the day i don't want to have to deal with getting my windows appz to work on it since there are no worthwhile native linux alternatives.
    Perhaps if you spelled "apps" right you could find something useful. Plus, why the heck would you expect unmodified Windows applications to run perfectly on Linux? Linux is a completely different OS than Windows, just like Apple's OS X. Do you expect to be able to run Windows applications on Macintosh OS X too? Or how about running your Windows applications on a frigging IBM mainframe running AIX?

    and let's not forget that documentation and support (for doing things beyond the scope of just pointing and clicking) for hardware that isn't super popular or mainstream is a pain in the ass...

    At least there isn't anything that's a complete black box in Linux, whereas the same actually can't be true for any version of Windows after W2K. If you had documentation or source code and knew how everything worked in Windows XP and newer, you'd know how the activation and DRM key generation and authentication works and it'd be trivial to break. Also, tell me how well hardware bought before, oh, 2005 or 2006 works with Vista 64 versus a current 64-bit Linux distribution.

    i guess the only news i'd want to hear coming out of the linux community is that it can run any windows app just as well as windows could. then we'd be somewhere!

    No, we wouldn't, as a clone of Windows can't really be any better than Windows. If you build a "better Windows," it probably wouldn't be compatible with much as Windows is riddled with bugs that many programs code around to run (such as IE7 having an intentionally buggy "IE6 quirks mode" to support old web pages that depend on IE6's bugs). If you fix those bugs, then old programs that depend on those bugs break, just how we saw a ton of poorly-coded web pages that depend on IE6's quirks break with the more-closely-standards-adherent IE7 or Firefox. Or how we saw a bunch of poorly-coded XP and earlier applications that had little to no concept of a multi-user environment with limited privileges (despite Windows XP supporting limited user accounts!) failing to work on Vista in anything but Administrator mode.

    If you want a better OS, you have to realize that a lot of the poorly-coded hack job applications that dominate the software market aren't going to work with the newer OS. Properly-written ones will run well, but those are few and far-between. You can't have both a better OS and perfect support of old crappy programs without emulating the crappy old OS the old crappy programs were written for. That's the trick MS used for Windows 7 and it works on Linux as well.
    Reply
  • zdzichu
    This is not Atom based device, this is OMAP one (ARM). It's Nokia's fourth internet tablet. For information gathered from kernel prepard for this sweet toy, see http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=25478
    Reply
  • enewmen
    This seems to be the first real PC that's in a phone size device. There are earlier Nokia devices based on Maemo and OMAP, but I think this new "RX-51" will finally have near (early) EeePC type performance. This is also a lot more pocket friendly than the 5-7" UMPCs that's been around a while.
    Lets hope the RX-51 will also have normal phone capability!
    Anyway, this is big news..
    Reply
  • nachowarrior
    I think they mean for use on cell towers, if so then this is still incorrect. you can get n810's with that support.
    Reply