N900 Specifications - Page 39 - maemo.org

Matan | # 381 | 2009-09-22, 17:59 | Report

Originally Posted by frals View Post

... except it won't have to do the bluetooth ;-)

Of course, bluetooth takes 2.5mW (times two for both sides of the connection), while HSDPA takes 2W, so there is much more HSDPA pain than bluetooth gain.

The Following User Says Thank You to Matan For This Useful Post:
eiffel

Saturn | # 382 | 2009-09-22, 20:50 | Report

Originally Posted by Matan View Post

Of course, bluetooth takes 2.5mW (times two for both sides of the connection), while HSDPA takes 2W, so there is much more HSDPA pain than bluetooth gain.

I don't remember where I read it, but ~2mW was the difference in the consumption if the BT was simply on instead of off and if receiving-transmitting should be ~1W. Could be really wrong though.

In any case, 2.5mW doesn't look like a realistic number for something transmitting/receiving. .

attila77 | # 383 | 2009-09-22, 20:54 | Report

Don't forget these mW are for transmitted power, not power usage.

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to attila77 For This Useful Post:
allnameswereout, GeneralAntilles, ossipena, Saturn, twaelti

eiffel | # 384 | 2009-09-22, 21:15 | Report

Originally Posted by qole View Post

So, have you seen the lead Fremantle device? ... If not, you really should. See if there's a Nokia store near you that has one, and take it for a test drive...

For sure I will test drive the device when I can, but there's nowhere in my city that has an N900. I notice that quite a few people here reported being "won over" by the device once they test drove it.

Maemo is exactly the software that I want on a mobile computer. A 3-row keyboard with a 3.5" screen, small battery, and small-but-fat form factor is exactly the hardware that I don't want on a mobile computer.

Not happy, after a year of promises. But I'll stop whining because it's not a constructive thing to do in a forum.

Regards,
Roger

The Following User Says Thank You to eiffel For This Useful Post:
qole

texaslabrat | # 385 | 2009-09-22, 21:24 | Report

Originally Posted by Saturn View Post

I don't remember where I read it, but ~2mW was the difference in the consumption if the BT was simply on instead of off and if receiving-transmitting should be ~1W. Could be really wrong though.

In any case, 2.5mW doesn't look like a realistic number for something transmitting/receiving. .

Depends on the class of bluetooth.

Class 2 has a maximum permitted transmission power of 2.5mW. Class 1 is 100mW. Either way, it's a lot less than the 3G radio's power. But that makes sense...bluetooth is generally talking to something in the same room...3G is talking to a tower hundreds of meters (or more) away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth

And has been noted...these numbers reflect the amount of power being radiated by the antenna...the underlying chip logic generating the signals consume energy in addition to that.

The Following User Says Thank You to texaslabrat For This Useful Post:
Capt'n Corrupt

Saturn | # 386 | 2009-09-22, 22:09 | Report

Originally Posted by texaslabrat View Post

Depends on the class of bluetooth.

Class 2 has a maximum permitted transmission power of 2.5mW. Class 1 is 100mW. Either way, it's a lot less than the 3G radio's power. But that makes sense...bluetooth is generally talking to something in the same room...3G is talking to a tower hundreds of meters (or more) away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth

And has been noted...these numbers reflect the amount of power being radiated by the antenna...the underlying chip logic generating the signals consume energy in addition to that.

Obviously I was talking about 'consumption'

Originally Posted by Saturn View Post

I don't remember where I read it, but ~2mW was the difference in the consumption if the BT was simply on instead of off and if receiving-transmitting should be ~1W. Could be really wrong though.

In any case, 2.5mW doesn't look like a realistic number for something transmitting/receiving. .

since Matan said 'takes'

Originally Posted by Matan View Post

Of course, bluetooth takes 2.5mW (times two for both sides of the connection), while HSDPA takes 2W, so there is much more HSDPA pain than bluetooth gain.

I assumed takes = consumes, since he multiplies it by 2 when receiving and transmitting and the context of the conversation is battery consumption.

texaslabrat | # 387 | 2009-09-22, 23:51 | Report

Originally Posted by Saturn View Post

Obviously I was talking about 'consumption'

since Matan said 'takes'

I assumed takes = consumes, since he multiplies it by 2 when receiving and transmitting and the context of the conversation is battery consumption.

Even so..."consumption" is likely in the 10's of milliwatts range (assuming class 2) no matter how you want to define it, with rolling eyes or not, and not in the whole-watt range as you have surmised. The chip doesn't take that much juice to run. By way of example, a typical usb bluetooth dongle has a maximum *total* power draw of around 400mW or less, and that's with all the logic to run the USB bus on top of the bluetooth logic and radio. In the OMAP3 platform, the bluetooth logic connects via a simple (and by comparison very efficient) serial bus to the chipset. Another example (and perhaps more telling) is that many bluetooth headsets consume on the order of 50mW when actively communicationg (http://www.techonline.com/product/un...2000480?pgno=2) So, no matter how you slice it, the original argument stands insofar that the 3G radio is a FAR larger power hog than is the bluetooth stack.

Last edited by texaslabrat; 2009-09-22 at 23:54.

shadowjk | # 388 | 2009-09-23, 05:04 | Report

I've seen bluetooth consume almost 150mA on an idle connection on N810, that's about 500mW

Usually reconnecting brings the power use down. Radiated power is pretty insignificant compared to total power used by the radio.. Also noticeable with the wlan, where you basically see no measurable difference in power use between 10 and 100mW settings, not even when sending huge files from N8x0.

Another comparison point, streaming music (screen off) my N810 uses a bit more power (on wlan) than my E75 on edge.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to shadowjk For This Useful Post:
allnameswereout, GeneralAntilles

hypest | # 389 | 2009-09-23, 07:22 | Report

Originally Posted by ColdFusion View Post

Nope. Only volume + -, camera, lock and power buttons.

So, with the device in "standby" (screen off), in order to start a phone call, I have to turn it on (that's OK), start playing with the device in the air to bring it to an upright position so the phone App starts, touch the on-screen num buttons or select a phonebook entry and then touch the call screen-button? What happens if I'm lying on a bed where I hold the phone facing down? I still have to manage to convince the device to bring up the phoneApp...

Or else, I have to navigate to home screen and press a phoneApp shortcut etc?

I have a feeling that Nokia chose a WAY TOO minimalistic approach regarding the dedicated-operation buttons. Yesterday, I was really excited enough to pre-order it (when I "discovered" that it even has IR port!!), but today I'm thinking, I'll wait to see the next iterations and stick with my HTC Kaiser (

) and my 2 N800s (

)

hypest

Kozzi | # 390 | 2009-09-23, 07:36 | Report

Originally Posted by hypest View Post

So, with the device in "standby" (screen off), in order to start a phone call, I have to turn it on (that's OK), start playing with the device in the air to bring it to an upright position so the phone App starts, touch the on-screen num buttons or select a phonebook entry and then touch the call screen-button? What happens if I'm lying on a bed where I hold the phone facing down? I still have to manage to convince the device to bring up the phoneApp...
hypest

I think you can do it by 2 way.
- place phone shortcut on every homescreen.
- start typing a name (I read in some threads that n900 will start searching from contacts right away)