09-23-2012, 05:50 PM #1
- 134 Posts
The back of the Lumia 920 is curved so that it's thicker in the middle and thinner at the sides. The phone is also tapered at the top and bottom. The Nokia specs page for the Lumia 920 lists its thickness as 10.7mm*. That * is used to explain that the measurement is of "volume thickness." Does this really mean "average thickness," "maximum thickness," or something else? (The Lumia 900 lists its thickness as 11.5mm without need for a footnote.)
Early pictures that I saw of both phones made it look like the 920 was thicker than the 900 despite the smaller number quotes on the spec sheet.
So, what is the thickness of the Lumia 920 at its thickest point?
09-23-2012, 09:08 PM #3
- 134 Posts
That said, I re-found the picture that first made me worry, along with the thread here that speculated that the maximum thickness might be greater than "volume thickness." I also found a Gizmodo story that shows the 900 and 920 on edge (see the picture after the first video). This picture appears to confirm that the 920's bottom isn't tapered and that it's maximum thickness is slightly less than that of the 900.
I think that the case is closed. The 920 is a tiny bith thinner than the 900, although it has gained some weight. Still, I wonder why Nokia introduced new language to the dimensions of the new phones...
09-24-2012, 09:37 AM #6
- 833 Posts
That 12.1mm on Lumia800/n9 should be measured on the very middle of the device as the curved glass and back protrudes the most there.
Because how sculpted the phones are it's so hard to go comparing when we are talking about 1mm there and so on.
- 09-24-2012, 02:47 PM #7
Volume thickness HAS to be less than the actual maximum thickness...
Unless the phone is exactly rectangular... which is not really possible given the rounded edges etc..
My guess is that if you measured in the center of the device it woudl be closer to 12mm.. but that is just a guess..
So for example if you took the 900 it would be 99cm cubed volume thickness without knowing the actual thickness.. but the actual volume is 90 cm cubed... if you did the same thing (volume thickness) for the 900 it would have a thickness of 11.12 mm which we know it is not .. actual thickness is 11.5mm
To play it further... if we assume the same ratio of difference betweeh max thickness and volume thickness .. the 920 max thickness should be around 11.1mm at max.. basically the same as the 920.
Anyway.. its a play on calculations to clearly list the 920 as being thinner than it actually is..
The real question is.. is it too thick and heavy for your personal tastes...
Last edited by waycoolkennel; 09-24-2012 at 03:58 PM.
09-24-2012, 03:56 PM #8
- 156 Posts
Okay, I'm going to compare the 920 to the 900. Fits in my pocket just fine...jeans, dress pants, khakis, and even suits. It fits just fine. Fits in my hand just fine. I can use it with one hand just fine. The weight different between the two is a measly 25 grams.
For those of you obsessed with the "monstrous" weight difference, there's something to chew on:
* 25 grams is not even 1 ounce.
Less than 1 once will not pull my pants down. Less than one ounce will not tire my hands or arms when I'm talking on my phone. Less than on ounce will not make a damned difference. There are approximately 454 grams in a pound.
So the question was if it was too thick or heavy for *my* taste?? No. Quite frankly, I think people get too caught up on numbers and specs. And in reality, it will not affect them at the least. It's all in your head.
- 09-24-2012, 04:02 PM #9
It would not surprise me if the design goal for the 920 was to pack all those addtional features (wireless charging, Pureview) without increase size or weight by a specified percentage..
IMO its worth the size and weight..
- 09-24-2012, 05:18 PM #10Phone History (hopefully in order): Samsung SGH-D407 > AT&T (HTC) Tilt > Sony Ericsson W580 > Blackberry Curve 8900 > Sony Ericsson C901 > HTC Touch Pro 2 > Blackberry 9700 > iPhone 3GS > Motorola Defy > Blackberry 9650 > iPhone 4 > Nokia E71 > Dell Venue Pro > HTC Titan > HTC Titan II > Lumia 900 + Samsung Galaxy Exhibit > Nokia Lumia 920 + Nokia Lumia 521 + Motorola RAZR V3xx
Last updated: 05/13/2013
- 09-25-2012, 01:44 AM #12
And actually, weight isn't always evenly distributed across a smartphone, but it surely isn't all bunched up like coins. What I did was put the coins on the screen (spread out of course) of the my Lumia 900, then picked it up. It didn't feel like it weighed as much as the DVP, but close. You could definitely tell it was heavier than the 900 (well obviously, I put the coins there). I guess if you wanted to know how it'd feel in your pocket, I guess you could tape the coins onto the phone?Phone History (hopefully in order): Samsung SGH-D407 > AT&T (HTC) Tilt > Sony Ericsson W580 > Blackberry Curve 8900 > Sony Ericsson C901 > HTC Touch Pro 2 > Blackberry 9700 > iPhone 3GS > Motorola Defy > Blackberry 9650 > iPhone 4 > Nokia E71 > Dell Venue Pro > HTC Titan > HTC Titan II > Lumia 900 + Samsung Galaxy Exhibit > Nokia Lumia 920 + Nokia Lumia 521 + Motorola RAZR V3xx
Last updated: 05/13/2013
- 09-27-2012, 07:15 AM #13
09-27-2012, 08:22 AM #14
- 2,585 Posts
It's no wonder quarters were invented. Carrying around 5 nickels probably gave people hip problems.Talk to me about Windows Phone, Windows 8, XBOX, art, animation, design, or anything! Be sure to follow me on Twitter and friend me on Facebook (say you're from here or I may not accept)
- 09-27-2012, 08:35 AM #15
But quarters are soooo heavy too! We should do away with change all together!
In an effort to lighten our pockets, please send all of your change to me for "disposal."
Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board ExpressApp: Beer Knurd
The liver is evil and must be punished!