- 09-05-2012, 03:07 PM #1
This thing is going to weigh 0.41 pounds (versus 0.353 lbs for Lumia 900), versus 0.30 for the Samsung ATIV. Plus, it will be 0.42" thick (versus 0.45 for Lumia 900), versus 0.34" for the ATIV. This is just plain massive. I know- Samsung is flimsy and plastic, but this is just a hulk. This is very disappointing. I like the Lumia 900, but it is still too heavy and too thick. Anyone else feel the same way?
- 09-05-2012, 03:19 PM #3
I might just go for the iphone 5. I am not a fan of Samsung based on past android experience. I really wanted the Nokia Windows phone. I'd go for the new 800 series Lumia announced, but it has a lower quality screen resolution than the 920- EDIT- nix that idea- the new 820 will weigh the same as as the Lumia 900.
Last edited by hbg1; 09-05-2012 at 03:28 PM.
- 09-05-2012, 03:32 PM #4
it is thinner than the 900, and the weight thing is no big deal for a phone that size. I'm probably going with the ATIV S since I can't support HTC with my money for being A-holes.
- 09-05-2012, 03:40 PM #5
I don't know, personally never understood the craze about thin phones when we are in the 12mm range, neither have i ever used phone that was somehow heavy, but each of it's own.
Never really liked Samsung designs as they seem to release the same slap every year. Maybe ATIV S being the most horrible looking with that plastic that is made to look like metal back. Especially after the GS experience, never going back to Samsung or Android.
Looking at the Lumia 920 features i'm more than likely going for it. HTC might surprise but looking at the least... probably not. Software side is of course given on Nokia's side.
- 09-05-2012, 04:07 PM #6
I don't feel that way at all. The size is barely bigger than the 900 which I have no problems with. I've dropped my 900 several times and have only scratched it. I'll take the slightly bigger size to have the quality and durability. Not to mention the many other great features like the camera lens which takes room.
- 09-05-2012, 05:14 PM #7
Lumia 920: 10.7 mm thick and 185 gms! Talk about regressing.
Inexcusable especially with a non removable battery and it is not like you are getting a bigger battery either. It is still 300mAh smaller than the Ativ S.
- 09-05-2012, 05:46 PM #9
Dude, I want extra weight on my phone. Pure and simple. I'm going for the 820 because I want a removable battery. I have a 4.7" phone atm, and I like it, but I think 4.3" will be enough for me.
- 09-05-2012, 05:46 PM #10
I'm not exactly sure what's responsible for the weight increase but:
1. Larger battery--170mAh more.
2. Wireless charging added.
3. Slightly larger screen. They also mentioned it had curved glass.
4. 8.7MP + the optical stabilization/floating lens.
5. Phone is 2.3mm wider, 2.5mm taller.
6. They also said they made it sturdier or something like that. That would probably mean more weight.
I guess that adds up to an extra 25 grams of weight. I mean the Lumia 900 was already heavy (compared to iPhone/Samsung's plastic phones) to begin with. Adding more stuff and making it bigger would only increase weight.
09-05-2012, 09:09 PM #11
- 31 Posts
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
I used to own an E90. Nothing is big and heavy compared to that thing (20mm thick, 210g weight).
To be honest, I think Nokia might just be a bit... poor at making phones thin. The 820 is 9.9mm and 160g, and there's no obvious reason why it shouldn't be less when comparing to the ATIV.
- 09-05-2012, 10:20 PM #13
I think all the manufacturers are making their phones too thin and fragile. How many thread have we seen where someone drops their phone 2ft getting out of their car and shatter the screen. Dave Blake dropped his 1st Titan, I think it was, and his screen shattered
I actually liked the size and weight of the Palm 750. You could play football with the old Palm phones and not break them
- 09-06-2012, 12:25 AM #15First, the build quality of these Windows Phone 8 handsets is fantastic. Compared to smartphones from vendors such as Samsung (005930), Motorola and LG (066570), Nokia’s Lumia phones are in a completely different league. There are no flimsy plastic covers or cheap-feeling buttons, just a high-quality unibody plastic case that feels terrific in the hand. Granted, we were only able to spend a minute or so with each handset before our Nokia rep was informed by a colleague that the press wasn’t supposed to handle the devices, but it was long enough to confirm the same great build quality seen on the Lumia 900.
09-06-2012, 07:13 AM #18
- 8 Posts
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
The wireless charging receiver in the inside adds some extra weight.
Samsung has less weight but no wireless charging. Why bother whining about small weight difference? Baby hands can't hold phone that's like 5% heavier?
- 09-06-2012, 01:23 PM #20
- 09-06-2012, 01:38 PM #21
- 09-06-2012, 02:37 PM #25
I was really hoping for a 4.3" screen in a smaller package. I don't want a huge phone and always thought that the HTC Trophy was a great sized device. If they had been able to pack in a larger screen without making the phone much bigger, I would have been sold. As of now, it looks as though I'm going back to Android for the Droid RAZR M but I will definitely keep an eye out for a WP8 phone that better suits my needs. Don't think that I'm knocking what the 920 is, however. The technology going into the screen and the camera is awesome, but the overall package is just too large for my needs. I still plan on picking up a Windows RT tablet though.
Last edited by scout_313; 09-06-2012 at 02:42 PM.