Re: Disappointing 6100 ?

"Demion Driel" <dem_d@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D3CFED07CE51A7E@67.98.68.10...
> newman <aa111@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>> Jon wrote:
>>
>>> Demion Driel posted the following for all to hear...
>>> > After using an 8310 I went and got a 6100.
>>> >
>>> > Am I missing something or is the 6100 almost no real
>>> > improvement over the 8310?
>>>
>>> No, you're not missing anything really. It's much the same in
>>> a different shell.
>>>
>>> > What key features have I overlooked?
>>>
>>> There aren't any.
>>
>> Triband?
>>
>
>
> But to offset the triband (and polyphonic ringtones, plus better
> antenna and battery indicators) which the 6100 has over the 8310,
> ...
>
> (1) there is no FM radio on the 6100
> (2) surprisingly, the screen is probably less clear than the 8310
> (3) there are fewer ring tones on the 6100
> (4) there is a smaller phone book memory
> (5) the 6100 has a PHF connector more prone to damage
>
>
>

i think youll find that the 6100 wasnt a successor to the 8310 it was infact
the 7210, im my view looking at the 6100 i believe nokia have tried to
create a new success which represented that of the 3210 as you can see the
looks resemble the old 3210 but improved and created smaller.

This is why the 6100 has no radio and other features its created to be
basic. Its for the business user, why would a business person need radio and
other gimmicks? same for the 8310 it was designed with fashion in mind.

--fx