View Single Post

Old 25-08-2010, 11:09 AM
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by talhamid View Post
And hey, a couple more things

Yes, Symbian is cheap, and offers smartphone functionality at unparalleled mass market levels. Nokia is to be applauded for that. That said, at the absolute bottom rung is where the OS belongs in terms of user experience.

Secondly, the STRICTLY THEORETICAL premise that Symbian is efficient on the resources is soundly rejected by an endless line of Nokia phones which were downright dogs to operate. Even their 'good' phones pale in comparison once you use a non-Nokia device.

Thirdly, I'd like AAS to publish comparison between a proper Android device and a high=end Nokia phone.
Well there's not much sense in any of that (or anything talhamid writes on here) but I would like to know why Symbian only belongs on the bottom rung?

I mean if you have good hardware, QT and an improved UI how is Symbian only confined to basic phones? I see no reason for a limit at all. But I tend to be a postive kind of person.

BTW, I am an Android user.