Talk:Nokia 8110
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nokia 8110 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Release date
[edit]The page says 8110 was released 1998. I bought mine Summer 1997 and it wasn't brand new model even then, so I suspect the release date on the page might need some restudy. Zds 18:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, that's bothered me too. *#8110# on one of my 8110s gives a date of 1996, and 1997 on another. Wonder where to find the proper release date? Lewis Collard! (natter) 20:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, the date was in the Nokia press release. 1996 it is! Lewis Collard! (natter) 21:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
'The phone was also the first GSM cellphone to use an ARM processor' contradiction
[edit]This statement cites https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/11/a-history-of-arm-part-2-everything-starts-to-come-together/ , which in turn cites this Wikipedia article. I think this is a bad case of circular reference.
Anyway, https://community.arm.com/arm-community-blogs/b/architectures-and-processors-blog/posts/history-of-the-mobile-form-factor states that the first phone to use an ARM CPU was the Nokia 6110, which the corresponding Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_6110) also states.
All in all, I think the 'The phone was also the first GSM cellphone to use an ARM processor' sentence should be removed from this article. 90.247.190.199 (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. According to https://lpcwiki.miraheze.org/wiki/Nokia_8110 it's based on the DCT2 platform powered by a (non-ARM) Hitachi CPU. Corroborated by https://www.bs0dd.net/index.php?lang=eng&page=news/main&npage=13 ~2026-48030-5 (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm the one who added the statement and citation (which seemed trustworthy at the time); no objections to removing it.
- This article didn't make the claim when I added the Ars Technica reference, and I haven't found any previous references with a WikiBlame search going back 1000 revisions, so I don't think Ars Technica was sourcing the claim from this article. It just looks like contradictory information from different sources. • WarpFlyght (talk • contribs) 07:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)