03-01-12 01:12 PM
55 123
tools
  1. tranceforge's Avatar
    nice article and should be updated with the follow serries

    97xx
    98xx
    xx80
    01-09-11 12:12 AM
  2. deezy87's Avatar
    also 99xx. Does that also mean the new Bold 9900 is the most bad base model bold?

    'bad base model bold' lol a tongue twister
    02-13-12 11:00 PM
  3. Raestloz's Avatar
    I'm not trying to be "that guy" but the original article is less "How does RIM number their products?" and more "Here's what the current numbering scheme means"

    Because the article cannot predict what the next number will be used for what set of features, which is what you would expect in an article that implies the poster knows the algorithm behind RIM's numbering decisions

    I for one do not think this deserves a sticky. It's much better (and accurate) to simply look up a specific device's official specifications instead of referring to this.

    I do not deny that RIM does seem to have some kind of numbering scheme regarding the last two digits (such as 30 for CDMA variant). But the point is the original article does not explain why they chose the number "30" for CDMA variant, instead explaining what number "30" means
    02-29-12 06:38 AM
  4. Sith_Apprentice's Avatar
    At the time this was written, this was indeed the numbering scheme used by RIM, I know because not only did I write it, but got it directly from people that handle such things. I have not spent the time to update it as I was away from CB for quite some time and have not really felt the need to do so. Future devices (as compared to this list) were less like their original numbering scheme and I never went back to find out why.
    03-01-12 08:08 AM
  5. Raestloz's Avatar
    At the time this was written, this was indeed the numbering scheme used by RIM, I know because not only did I write it, but got it directly from people that handle such things. I have not spent the time to update it as I was away from CB for quite some time and have not really felt the need to do so. Future devices (as compared to this list) were less like their original numbering scheme and I never went back to find out why.
    I do not dispute the fact that the numbering scheme that the article presents is correct. What I dispute is the notion that the article knew "how the numbers were chosen" instead of simply "what the numbers mean".

    It's the difference of telling "why Joe named his sons 'Dave' and 'Bill'" and "Here's the meaning of 'Dave' and 'Bill'"
    03-01-12 01:12 PM
55 123
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD