Talk:Nokia N95

Added CPU type

You can find in the same site of Nokia that it's mention: Source http://forum.nokia.com/devices/N95

Dual CPU
CPU Type: ARM 11
CPU Clock Rate: 332 MHz
3D Graphics HW Accelerator

Expanding the information you can find that the real cpu is not a ARM11 but a ARM11 based (OMAP2420 more a "suite" rather a single cpu). Source : http://www.imgtec.com/

Anyways, the Dual CPU is not a 2x332mhz but a 332mhz cpu + 220mhz DSP cpu.

For some strange reasons to put the specifications of CPU about cellphone are usually removed, may be because this information can be confidential (in fact it is not) or another kind of reasons.

Another note that Iphone (go away fanboys) is a 6xx mhz but in a different kind of architecture (also based in ARM11) so it's not trivial to say that Iphone is more fast without a decent benchmark but Apple currently dissalow it so for a while nobody can determine which cellphone is the more faster. --Magallanes 00:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Phone specs like this are usually removed because they're added without references. Until recently Nokia did not publish this information at all, which meant that there were no reliable sources for it. It's fine to add this information in, just make sure to add a reference for it when you add it. Wibbble 10:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Production location

Being a anti-global supporter of national industry I oppose CHines manufactured Western products. Does anyone know here this phone is manufactured? Thanks! Koalorka 23:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for the article, and not the place to ask questions about this phone. Try asking on a forum or somewhere like Nokia's own discussion boards. As an aside, given that Nokia is a multi-national company, you might need to specify which 'nation' you want to support the industry in. Ultimately, unless you're Finnish buying Nokia doesn't have much jingoist value. Wibbble 23:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Nokias bought within Europe are manufactured in Finland and say 'Made in Finland' on the box. Nokia devices bought outside the EU usually say 'Made by Nokia' and, as far as I'm aware, are made in Asia. I don't have any references but I'm sure I heard this somewhere. If anyone wants to add this, find a reference first. 91.105.206.139 (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

redirect appropriate?

When I think of N95, I think of a NIOSH certification level for respiratory protection (masks). Therefore, I wonder if it's appropriate to have a redirect that goes to this page. I know there isn't an article for respiratory protection (or at least I havent found it), but still--{{SUBST:User:Coryma}} 23:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If there's no article, then there's nothing else to redirect to. It's perfectly possible to turn N95 into a disambiguation page with a link to Nokia N95 and a note about the respiratory protection masks/a link to an appropriate article. Wibbble 00:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, well explained. Thanks. --{{SUBST:User:Coryma}} 23:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation - perhaps a disambiguation link at the top of the article would suffice, although it would require creating the article in the first place. Wibbble 00:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So someone added this in anyway, even without an article to go to. Why? I disagree, as the N95 is surely (going to be) more popular than some mask certification level thing. 87.75.140.141 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So yeah I made this a redirect (a few weeks ago I think), but hadn't read this discussion until now. I agree that if there are no other articles, it makes sense to redirect to Nokia N95. I put the dab link on top... Dj stone (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

MicroSD support.

The Nokia specs page for the N95 says a maximum of 2GB is supported - and given that the 4GB MicroSD cards are actually a different format (SDHC) and not backwards compatible with normal SD card slots, it seems unlikely that this will change. FWIW, this would apply to anything else that uses MicroSD (or other forms of SD) cards too, including other Nokia handsets. Wibbble 01:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The physical format is the same, and the logical format only has minor changes. The main are block addressing instead of byte addressing (which should be firmware upgradeable) and FAT32 support (which really isn't a reader issue, but a question of file system support on the host device itself). There are many examples of devices that have added SDHC support by a firmware update, for example the Nokia N800 Linux-based Internet Tablet (which happens to have the same processor - omap 2420 - as the N95). Sandisk's product page for their 4GB microSDHC card also lists the N95 as supported. That would at least imply that the N95 either already supports microSDHC or that support is going to be added by a firmware update. Still, it is probably not worth adding this to the article before we have official word from Nokia. 85.167.139.132 13:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Various forum posts suggest that (at least some) 4GB cards have been found to work.

The Sandisk page saying that the N95 supports SDHC is here --Apyule 15:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That's quite interesting, since Nokia say otherwise in their own product compatibility info (and if you were to call/email and ask them), and there's no mention of SDHC anywhere on Forum Nokia. On the other hand, the Sandisk website is definitely a reliable source - although you could argue that it's only a good source for Sandisk products and not necessarily the best for Nokia info... Wibbble 13:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If this statement would be confirmed, I believe our discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nokia_N76 should be reconsidered Dreambringer 08:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it has any relevance to your claim that all Smartphones can access any size of memory card. This is an issue of if the Nokia N95 hardware supports SDHC. SDHC support has to be in hardware, as it is a different standard of memory card (using the form factor of the previous SD card standard). In any case, if you have a desire to dredge that back up, the place to do it is the talk page for the N76. Wibbble 17:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me it's eventually relevant to the statement, that Nokia, as well as other vendors, provides information favorable to manufacturers -> they wouldn't mention compatibility with accessories from competitors -> when Nokia will obtain its own 4GB memorycard, it would be mentioned on nokia.com -> is it really necessary to assist vendors in they marketing strategy? Dreambringer 12:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss a different article on this talk page - it is not appropriate. Discuss it in the proper place. Wibbble 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wibbble, I thought this was sufficiently covered in the second comment in this thread but evidently not... The physical characteristics of SD and SDHC are the same. The issues are FAT32 support (which is entirely software) and a new addressing mode (which is also software, but requires that the firmware on the SD controller can be upgraded). The SD controller in the N95 is implemented in the OMAP processor which is definitely firmware upgradeable. So with regards to the N95 (and incidentally, all firmware-upgradeable SD readers) SDHC support is a software issue only. 84.202.176.97 19:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue of 'firmware' versus 'hardware' isn't a clear one, however it does appear that you are correct. N95s since SW version 12 are now advised by Nokia as supporting the Nokia 4GB MicroSD card - although, I have to say that I've not found any information on if this card is SDHC or not, even using non-public information. Wibbble 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I just bought a 4 gig from San disk and it works fine with the N95. However, this could be considered orginal research. However, the SanDisk website is not and it is correct.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 23:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nokia can ensure just the bare minimus specifications and usually they did it. Even more Nokia can ensure compatibility with just one brand of memory but this can be unrelated with the true facts. --200.73.30.108 22:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that an N95 will take a Sandisk 4GB MicroSD card just fine 80.229.160.127 20:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What you can confirm works doesn't really matter, as that is original research, and as such not appropriate for wikipedia. What we need is a reliable source for this. I think that for mobile phones, the only truly authoritative source is the manufacturer. Anyone else can claim their memory cards work, but that doesn't make it so. Wibbble 20:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

I've edited the article to just say 'microSD card' and not list any capacity. It's not wikipedia's place to inform buyers or anything like that - since this is an issue under debate, I think it's best to just avoid it entirely in the encyclopedia. People looking for other users' experience with the N95 can go to forums, discussion boards, and review sites. Wibbble 23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So Does it have FOTA ("Firmware over the air" update ability) or Not ????

There was debate before the release as to whether FOTA would be included as a feature. In the specs list it still says "May include FOTA". So now that the phone is out, can anyone confirm whether or not this feature is actually included??? 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have the N95 and can confirm that there is NO FOTA. Firmware updates are to big to be updated over the air (100 mb +). I have removed the line regarding FOTA--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 21:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Audio/video playback details?

Is information available on exactly what the N95 is able to play back?

As in, it supports H.264 but at what profile (basic, extended, main, high) and what level (1.2, 1.3, 2,..)?

84.202.105.83 23:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My testing seems to indicate that B-frames and CABAC isn't supported, guess that means main profile isn't supported. It should support streaming, so it would make sense for the decoder to support extended. Not tested, though. Looks like bitrates go to at least 1400Kbps, so level is probably somewhere between 1.3 and 2. 85.167.139.132 13:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that article talk pages are just for discussion of the article, and not the phone itself. If you've done testing yourself, then it's Original Research, and so not relevant to the article. You might want to talk this sort of thing to a mobile phone forum or something. Wibbble 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Article update

I have rewritten most of the article and added more information. Also, I have the N95, so if there are any questions regarding the phone, feel free to ask.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 21:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work on the edit, although some of it might need to be tweaked a little to be a little bit more NPOV. It's a bit gushing/marketing-speak. Also, keep in mind that wikipedia isn't the place to be asking/answering questions on the phone itself - you might want to try hanging out on the Nokia discussion boards if you're interested in doing that. Wibbble 21:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean any questions in regards to the article that can be answered due to having the subject of the article, the phone. As for marketing speak, I tried my best to simply describe the product. Feel free to reedit the parts you feel violate NPOV.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 07:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The odd thing with wikipedia is that having the handset doesn't actually make you better placed to edit the article than anyone else, since you should only be putting on material which can be verified from external sources. A good example of this is the CPU used in Nokia handsets. Nokia doesn't publish this information anywhere for almost all handsets, but it c an easily be got from most S60 handsets by running a particular third-party application. However, that's original research, and so can't be included. I only mentioned the forum thing because it's really common for people to misunderstand what talk pages are about and ask for help here on using their phone - or worse, edit that sort of information into the article itself. Wibbble 12:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have this phone also, but I am new to wikipedia and am not feeling bold enough to edit quite yet. I was wondering if the detail about the iPhone and its internet connectivity is really appropriate for this page? Im a bit of a video codec nerd so I'll try to get more details on the H.264 profile(s) the N95 supports, along with other info. I agree NPOV could be improved on a tad. There's a few functionality facts I could add but am I correct to think I should source such facts at the same time that I add them? SteveElbows 06:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing information is always the way to go on Wikipedia. Don't be afraid to edit. Be bold and go ahead and add what you feel needs to be added. Worst come to worst, it can be undone (though this is no excuse for vandalism).--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 07:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that any edits you make should be verifiable. Probably the best source for technical information on the N95 will be the Forum Nokia website. Wibbble 12:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifications, description and features

Ok, I'm gonna be bold here and improve the whole article. If I'm not mistaken, wikipedia articles should include cites to reliable sources, not to some blogs or known-for-no one tech sites (there are quite a lot more reliable sources) to call it "iPhone killer". These products are too different to be killers of one another. Next, almost all mentioned features (except for GPS and 5Mp camera) comes from software platform (s60 v3 fp1 s60 platform) and not a unique or important features (store pictures and video in the internet services? is there any smartphone unable to do this?) If you wanna describe those features, start article s60 3rd edition fp1. Too many typos, by the way... Is there any need to place Pricing here? Will it be interesting for somebody in 2009 for example? Or someone gonna update it now-and-again? Dreambringer 12:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It is being positioned as an iPhone killer. Multiple news sources (not only blogs) confirm this. Whether or not it actually is is a POV.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 21:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's being "positioned" as such by the media - are there any references that Nokia themselves intend it to be taken this way? Wibbble 22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There were a lot of POV's (like positioning Nseries as "flagship" - who said this? and what about Eseries?), so before undoing to previous versions, let's discuss it. Dreambringer 13:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Battery life time should be commented :-)

No serious page doing a balanced presentation of the N95 would be complete without a comment about the battery life. I got my N95 two days ago, charged it for 24 hours, and started using it. After 6 hours it was out of battery.

My 6 hours of battery life time is far away from what Nokia promises.

I will have to start researching the process; I believe gersbo.dk/2007/05/nine-tweaks-that-will-improve-nokia-n95-battery-life-by-328.html is a good guide for that.

Keep in mind that your experiences are not appropriate for inclusion in the article, as that would be original research - you'd need to find a reliable source which could show that poor battery life was a common concern. Note that blogs don't count as reliable sources for wikipedia. Wibbble 21:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How about every review (I defy you to find an exception) and a mass of forum posts (e.g. allaboutsymbian.com)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.133.69.162 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Forum posts are not reliable sources, however you could mention reviews -- so long as they were from reliable sources. Also, please keep in mind that 'hints' or anything like that on improving the battery life is not appropriate for wikipedia - see what wikipedia is not. Wibbble 20:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the batter issue is not a aislated trouble then the sums of all reviews must be considered like valid. Otherwise the only appropiate proof of failure must came from Nokia and this will never happens. So in other words common sense must prevail and wiki rules are too flexible to allow it. --Magallanes 00:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The phone (or should that be user) has a habit to keep applications running in background (as identified by a vista style circle over their icon). This significantly kills battery life. You can turn 3-4 days battery life into 6 hours just by leaving it running. I dont think that people using the phone incorrectly by forgetting to turn tasks off when they stop using them should be blamed on the phone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.35.18 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You bet comments on the very poor battery life should be included! In fact, I wrote quite a lengthy comment on that a few months ago, but it was repeatedly deleted for various bogus reasons. Had that comment been left in place (and perhaps a note added to the main article), users like you would never have those problems, because you would never buy the phone in the first place. Seems to me that some hardcore fans or Nokia employees are haunting these discussion boards, or the admins are rather fascinated about certain flashy (yet useless) capabilities, instead of being concerned with serious issues this device has. 12.28.109.82 00:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nokia's cooperation with Apple

look at this signature string from broadbandreport: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaN95/11.0.026; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413

shouldn't we tell people about "Nokia's cooperation with Apple, as the Series 60 browser will use the same open source components, WebCore and JavaScriptCore, that Apple uses in its popular Safari Internet browser"?

http://press.nokia.com/PR/200506/998214_5.html

It's certainly worth mentioning that it has the Nokia MiniMap browser - although this is standard across all new S60 handsets. The N95's browser is nothing special. Wibbble 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, this is mentioned in the specs, so I don't think there's any further need to mention it. Wibbble 16:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

you get me wrong - I think that we should mention that "Nokia Web Browser with Mini map" is based on Apple's WebCore. Isn't it "verifiable, encyclopedic", not widely known and interesting information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.184.147.66 (talk • contribs) 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it's suitable for this article, since this isn't an article about the browser. Either create an article for the browser - if there's not one already - or add it to the S60 platform article. Wibbble 20:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there's already an article for this browser which has plenty of discussion of the Apple connection - Web Browser for S60. Wibbble 12:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I got it. Thanks.

"The phone can also act a WAN access point allowing a tethered PC access to a carrier's packet data network."

How?

Wikipedia isn't the place to ask for help with your phone, and the talk page is for discussion about the article, not the N95 itself. If you need help, try contacting the manufacturer, your network, or posting on a general board such as Nokia's own discussion boards. Wibbble 16:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is that I'm not sure it can do this. Mine can't - but maybe that's the network's modified firmware.

My bad... I was reading WLAN not WAN (and ignoring the slightly puzzling "tethered"). I have been looking for a way to use the device as an IAP for the 3G network using WiFi (thus allowing sharing of the 3G connection with multiple laptops). I don't think that's possible but it would have been a very nice feature to build in for business users.

What you looking for is possible, but not with the phone alone. You need a special access point that connects to your phone. Its essentially a wireless router where the WAN port connects to the phone. Beware, these are pricy...1000+ USD.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood, but if tethering with the N95 is anything like the Sony Ericsson K800i, just a simple Bluetooth connection to a notebook is all it takes to use it as (essentially) a Bluetooth HSDPA modem. The guy I spoke to in the T-Mobile store here in the UK also mentioned being able to connect it wirelessly to my notebook. Hope this helps. Gentian Hush 20:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Price?

can we please have some info about price? A ballpark figure will do, after all, Wikipedia is a great resource used by people worldwide because of its very detailed articles. 203.214.98.123 10:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Price varies with place of purchase. In the US, it can be bought unlocked for 750 USD plus tax. In Europe and Asia, it can be bought unlocked or locked for various prices, depending how much carriors subsidise it.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 23:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

US Version?

Should the article make mention of the recent news of the upcomming US configuration of the N95?

Yes, if it comes from a reliable source that can be referenced. I haven't heard anything about it, but if you have and can reference it, then by all means add it. ABVS1936 05:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I also have confirmation from AT&T reps that the it'll be picked up with a service contract later on this year. Not sure how to reference it though.68.33.240.65 04:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The referencing for the US version was all second and third hand, and certainly nothing confirming or announcing anything. I've removed it for the time being, but as soon as it has been announced and there's reliable sources for it (ie, Nokia or a network), it should get added back in. I think it's worth adding that just because it's doing the rounds on the rumour mill doesn't mean it'll get released - not all phones that pop up as 'coming soon' actually make it to market. Wibbble 02:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

FCC documents for the certification of the US variant are available so that 'coming soon' claim is looking very strong. Although I agree it shouldn't be included in the article until an official announcement from Nokia. What I don't get is why references to the 8GB version are being repeatedly deleted when it definitely has been announced and Nokia has even published tech specs on it on their website. 84.202.176.97 17:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Official specs for the N95 NAM are now up on forum nokia, so it seems it is time to include it in the article. I suppose the best way is to expand the tech specs table to include the differences between the original, the 8GB and the NAM? UnAimedPlayer 11:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Firmware Update section.

Since Nokia - AFAIK - still does not publish changelogs for software updates, or information on when they are released, or which product codes have updates available, it's not possible to have reliable references for this section. It's also going to tend towards userguide/how-to type content (which isn't appropriate for wikipedia, see: WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#GUIDE). I've trimmed it a bit, and if no one can find references for what's left, I plan to remove it. Wibbble 11:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that - the only info that really needs to be included if it can be referenced (and only at a stretch) is the current version number, and even that doesn't really belong. ABVS1936 12:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me as though the information in this section can be referenced w/ a link to nokias patch page. users are welcome to download the firmware themselves and patch their phones to verify that the information given in this section is in fact true, or if it is false they can fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.83.192.85 (talk) 01:59, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

That would be original research, though, and would require someone having each variant of the handset to check it. That's not a verifiable source - and it still doesn't answer the question of the change-log and release date information, which isn't published anywhere, to the best of my knowledge. Wibbble 07:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing section

Given the dazzling argument here against the entire section, I agree with that slightly incoherent IP user and I'm going to remove the entire section as unreferenced. If anyone can find reliable, verifiable, references, and can justify the whole section under WP:NOT as mentioned above, speak up here before adding it back in. Wibbble 07:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

It should be fairly easy to find references for most of this article from Forum Nokia (http://forum.nokia.com) and the Nokia website. Anyone up for hunting them down? Wibbble 07:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Music Edition

I've removed the section about the Music Edition of the N95 for a number of reasons:

1) it hasn't been officailly announced by Nokia yet;

2) from 1) we therefore have no officail list of specs and anything that would be included in the article is not from reliable sources, would be unreferenced, and would be OR.

3) it is not that notable yet to be included - if the specs differ markedly from the original then it would deserve a section to itself - otherwise a sentence or two in the intro to the article or perhaps near the Spec sheet would suffice.

Let's hold off and not jump the gun on this one - of the speculation I've read (and it is at this point ONLY speculation) the closest release date anywhere will be the end of Q4 2007 - at least 4 months away. I'm sure we'll hear something reliable from Nokia in the mean time. Cheers, ABVS1936 05:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

N95 8GB

Where did you get this information: "128MB RAM, up from 64MB." It's not listed on the side with technical specifications, and I can't find it in any announcement news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bateyes (talk • contribs) 06:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Forum Nokia has specs which list 'SDRAM Memory: 128 MB ~90 MB Free Executable RAM Memory' Wibbble 21:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Something else: There it says something about Symbian OS V 9.2, this article writes 9.3 for N95. I can't believe that there'll be a downgrade on N95 8GB. [[1]] says that 9.2 is used. So I think 9.3 is a mistake. Bateyes 04:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"A revision of the N95, called N95 8GB, was announced on August 29 2007" The release date being...??

I suppose it won't be 6 months since it's just a revision, but nevertheless it should be mentioned if available. 12.28.109.82 23:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

USB Connector

Unlike most mobile phones (Motorola, SonyEricsson, BlackBerry, and others) that feature a mini-USB connector, N95 do not charge its battery with the USB connector. It requires the user to carry a separate power supply. This is a drawback that should be advertised. Xor74 09:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing should be "advertised" on wikipedia. Does this fact really need to be included in the article? Nokia never claimed that the phone could be charged via USB, nor do you have any references to point to this fact, and hence you are adding OR. therefore, it should not be included and I am thus removing it. Cheers, ABVS1936 05:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, excuse my poor choice of words. If you own a mobile device with mini usb nowadays you assume it can be used to charge the device. Not so with Nokia. I believe worthy of noting as it is noted in almost every serious review of the phone. I've also added reference to N95 review in My-Sign.com. Xor74 12:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you choose your words badly: nothing should be "assumed", especially on WP - like I said before, nowhere has Nokia claimed that the USB charges the battery (for comparison, I own this phone and did not assume it could be charged via USB - likewise with my other Nokia phones). However, in order to stay out of an edit war, i.e. a 3RR, I wont revert it again, but I'd like other opinions on the matter - anyone care to comment? Also, the ref you added I might point out is only a review of the phone, not from the manufacturer - something from the manufacturer would be a better source for a ref, perhaps a spec sheet or some such. Cheers, ABVS1936 05:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As an owner of an N95, I believe that it is important to mention the fact that the usb-connector does not charge the battery, I know I had expected it to do so and was disappointed to discover otherwize. Jobnikon 12:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WIkipedia isn't a consumer guide, and if we're going to list all the things that every product with an article doesn't do or have, all the articles would get very long. I'm going to remove this while doing some other clean-up of the article. Before adding this sort of thing, please remember that wikipedia isn't a review site, or supposed to tell you if a phone is 'good'. There's other sites that are for that, and you should read reviews there rather than trying to make wikipedia into something it's not. (Oh, and adding a reference doesn't make it suitable for inclusion, unless you want to show that charging over USB was a widely expected feature and many reviewers noted it for not existing - which is unlikely given that the only Nokia phones to charge natively from USB are micro-USB, and not mini-USB.) Wibbble 19:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia and last time I checked that means that you have to have all the available information on everything or singular things.

Forget assumptions, advertising or arguing terms.. You are right the articles would get long if it included everything, however instead of arguing about mini-USB or micro-USB how about conceding that this is a truly valid nugget of information. IF you use this as a business phone then it is likely you will have information on it instead of a USB key, however as a business use phone it will also get drained quickly of power... thus it is equally valid information that IN USE the phone will need a USB cable and power pack. This information is just as valid as the type of GPS chipset or the size of the battery pack as it is an inherent ability of the phone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclical (talk • contribs) 01:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image changes?

Can I ask, why the image changes? The current images are called "official" images of either the n95 or the n95-8Gb, but where exactly did these images come from? And why change from the documented free images that were there in the first place? ABVS1936 (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

These images are official, they were released by Nokia. I felt it was better to have them there because they are from Nokia, and not taken by a user, like the old picture which had a picture of a guy on the screen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nokia_N95.png) and the other picture didn't have the N95 8GB in fully (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:N958GB_1.jpg) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.109.195 (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)