Small, seductive but flawed
Written: Nov 30 '00 (Updated Dec 17 '00)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Small size, battery life, sound quality
Cons: Construction quality, buttons, ergonomics
|
|
|
| three60's Full Review: Nokia 8260 Cell Phone |
What up y'all. It's been a long time since my last epinion. Between working alot and not getting my hands on any new toys, well, there went all my time. Anyway, I did get something pretty new last week, my new Nokia 8260 cell phone!
I had been using my Nokia 6160 for nearly 2 years and it has served me exceptionally well. I've traveled with it all over the country, dropped it in the rain, had it slide around the inside of my car and even had it trampled on in the train. The combination of AT&T/Cellular One service and the 6160 was provided some of the best cell phone coverage and reception around. I would still be using it, except I dropped it one too many times and it started crapping out on me and shutting itself off at seemingly random and usually inopportune times :(
As usual, I'll break this review down into different areas and give each a 1-5 rating.
The Look: 4
When I was shopping around for a new phone, I realized early on that the coolest phone by far is the Nokia 8890, the one with the matte aluminum finish and slide-down cover, retractable antenna, etc. The whole nine yards. To me, that phone represented a huge leap in not only functional industrial design, but also in size. However, that phone operates on GSM networks only (in my area, that means Pacific Bell) and I wasn't about to give up my crystal clear Cellular One/AT&T service. So, I settled for the 8260, which is the next best thing.
This is a slick looking phone. I've seen pretty much all of them and it's one of the better looking ones out there. Overall, I'd say it's like the 8890's younger cousin, sans nice finish, antenna and sliding cover.
Ergonomics and Functionality: 3
For those of you familiar with the now ubiquitous 6100 series phones, you'll pick up this phone and will be able to use it pretty quickly. Nokia did a fine job programming the nice user interface and logical button scheme, so why mess with success? Well, while most of the UI and functions are the same, the buttons on the 8260 are significantly smaller and closer-spaced, making them harder to push. In addition, the "talk" and "end call" buttons are on opposing sides of a wide rocker switch, that I really don't like. On the phone whole, nearly all the buttons are significantly lower and thus hard to identify by touch. The power button at the very top right is practically flush to the case as is the increase volume rocker on the side. I hate this. Bear in mind, I have very thin fingers to begin with so anyone with even average-sized hands is going to have a problem operating this phone.
The buttons themselves seem to be of lower quality than the nice, firm rubber ones on the 6160. They are made of a cheap-feeling plastic and the backlit LED illumination that is so nice on the 6160 isn't nearly as good on the 8260 -- in fact, in the dark, the keypad doesn't illuminate evenly which makes the numbers tougher to read.
Along with the whole new small form factor, the 8260 comes with a new battery design that is internal. In order to swap out batteries, you need to slide off the rear cover and then pry out the internal LiION battery. Not easy when you're on the run. I prefer the old 6160 series where it was easy to snap on batteries in seconds.
One other thing I don't like: Nokia took the existing 6160 LCD screen and "framed" it in a smaller casing with the 8260. The end result is that the top portion of the screen gets cropped off slightly, making it hard to read, esp if the exterior cover is casting a shadow on it. This is hard to explain, but if you compare the two phones in person, it's easy to see what I'm talking about. The end result is, it's hard to see if you have 3 or 4 bars of reception/battery life, which is annoying. It's also hard to read the clock...grr....
As far as included accessories are concerned, it's slightly better than standard fare. The 6160 came with a heavy charger and heavy NiMH battery. The 8260 improves on both with a much smaller and lighter travel charger which has a higher output for quicker charging and it also includes a light weight LiION battery as standard. In addition, it comes with a hands-free earpiece which is a much better design than the old 6160 one, which never stays in place and is so prone to breaking off.
But how does it sound? Reception: 3.5
Cell phone sound quality is largely dependent upon alot of factors beyond one's control. Even if you have the best phone in the world, you'll still get crappy reception if your service sucks. That said, I tried to do the best I could by going with AT&T.
I must admit that I was pretty spoiled with my 6160. I had great reception throughout the SF Bay Area, and around the country. I even had reception in the middle of the desert in Arizona. I credit it to good AT&T coverage as well as the fact that the phone could switch to analog mode whenever needed.
Around downtown SF and the East Bay, I routinely got 4 bars of reception and most people thought I was calling them from a land line. That's probably the ultimate "compliment" a cell phone can get. With my new 8260, I think it's not quite as good. While people I call can hear me perfectly fine, I am hearing a bit more background noise than I did with my 6160. I'm not sure if I'm ready to live with this or if I should just go back and get another 6160. Hmm....
When I compare it side-by-side with the 6160, the 8260 usually starts dropping to 3 bars before the 6160. You can usually "induce" it to drop by simply placing your hand over the upper portion of the phone, where the internal antenna lies.
Overall, I'd say the 8260 sound quality so far is about 80-90% as good as the 6160. There is a slight difference, noticeable, but I think I can live with it. If you're like me, your talking conditions aren't all that great and there's lots of ambient noise from the street, crowds etc. In those situations, the two phones would sound nearly identical.
Build Quality: 3.5
I would say this is more of a "designer" phone than anything else. While I felt comfortable throwing my 6160 around, I wouldn't do the same with the 8260. Firstly, it just feels so much less dense and solid. Secondly, there are more shiny parts on the front face that are prone to getting scratched. However, the internal antenna is a very nice feature. My 6160 antenna was starting to break and crack and I know of many people who "accidentally" sat on their 6160's and broke their antennas clean off.
I've had this phone for less than a week, so I'll have to update this a few months down the road.
Overall: 3
Before I forget, I got a pretty decent deal on it. As an existing AT&T subscriber, I got this phone for around 80 bucks after serious rebates from both AT&T and Nokia. Price before rebates was $199.
You're probably wondering why I give this phone a 3.5-star rating. Well, I must say that the small size is simply incredible. It makes the difference between putting a phone in your pocket and putting it in your pocket and forgetting it's there. With the 6160 in your pocket, girls are like, "Are you happy to see me?" Not so with the 8260. Is that good or bad? Hmm....
UPDATE: 12/17/2000
Well, after 2 solid weeks of heavy use, I decided to return this phone in exchange for another 6160. Even though the 8260 was really small, I found the buttons just way too closely spaced together to be easy to use. I was finding myself constantly having to look at the keypad carefully instead of being able to navigate by touch. Also, I miss the easy slide-on/off battery feature of the 6160, which I really need. I didn't like having to slide off a cover, pry out the battery and replace it with another one on the 8260. Moreover, when doing so, you'd lose your clock settings and it wouldn't prompt you to reset them once you replaced the battery. What else did I miss? I missed the easier to read screen and more evenly backlit keypad. One other thing: nearly all of my friends use Nokia 51/6100 series phones, so if I'm ever in a bind and need to borrow batteries, it's much easier.
The most important thing is to figure out what your needs are and then see what phone helps fill those needs. I was so attracted to the phone for its small size and ignored other usability and practicality issues, but am now happy back with a good ol' 6160.
Peace!
Jason
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
three60
|
|
Location: New York, NY
Reviews written: 34
Trusted by: 72 members
About Me:
I try to give real-world, user-experience reviews of electronics and SF restaurants. Since 1999. ha-ha.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.