Mitac MIO 8870 vs Motorola EM35

Key differences

Calculated from recorded specifications using minimum difference thresholds. These are differences, not an overall ranking. For three phones, numeric highlights compare the two extremes.

• Depth

  EM35: 5 mm thinner

  MIO 8870:

  21 mm

  EM35:

  16 mm

• Height

  EM35: 3 mm shorter

  MIO 8870:

  110 mm

  EM35:

  107 mm

• Release year

  MIO 8870:

  2004

  EM35:

  2008

Relative size, not calibrated actual size. Front and side outlines share one scale and a bottom baseline. Generic outlines use recorded body dimensions, excluding camera bumps.

1. 1. MIO 8870

   Height:

   110 mm +3 mm versus EM35

   Width:

   49 mm

   Depth:

   21 mm +5 mm versus EM35

2. 2. EM35

   Height:

   107 mm

   Width:

   49.5 mm

   Depth:

   16 mm

Screen size

Approximate rectangular screens calculated from recorded diagonal and aspect ratio at one relative scale. Rounded corners and cutouts are not subtracted. These are not phone outlines or calibrated actual sizes.

At least two phones need compatible screen dimensions for a drawing.

1. 1. MIO 8870

   MIO 8870: Screen geometry unavailable or conflicting.

2. 2. EM35

   Screen diagonal:

   2.2 in

   Aspect ratio (height:width):

   4:3

   Approximate rectangular screen area:

   15 cm²

Memory variants

Each row compares the same storage capacity. Cells show recorded RAM alternatives, not combined maxima. Not recorded does not mean unavailable in every market.

No unambiguous storage/RAM pairings are recorded. See the original specifications below.

Practical features

Explicit Yes and No values are shown directly. Qualified or regional records retain their details. Unknown means the record is missing.

Battery capacity

Capacity is not battery life. No endurance test is implied.

Open a section for more detail. On narrow screens, swipe sideways or use Left/Right arrow keys while the table is focused. Unknown means missing data, not No. Recorded zero values are shown as recorded.