Hmm... I wonder how 'off' the phone is when it's 'off'... If you see what I mean..
I guess the reason all the old phones can do it is because they use proprietory single-tasking operating systems, and it's quite easy to simply give the system two states - powered up and doing whatever you're currently doing, or 'off' and simply running as a clock that checks against a list of events every second. That way, it consumes minimal power, as it's only really 'working' once every second.
But with a multi-tasking threaded OS, for the device to support alarms when 'off', it really means the only thing you're switching off is the screen.
Take my iPaq for example - even when it's off, the battery drops noticeably (say 10% a day with no use).
It's much harder to set up a phone running Symbian, then, to respond to alarms when it's off. Either you trade off a massive loss of battery life when the phone is 'off' (because actually, it'd be on, with the full OS running, and any errant tasks still consuming vast processor resources), or virtually zero battery loss because the system is completely suspended (all tasks are sleeping, the processor is dead, and any register states are stored in memory, so the only battery usage is keeping the memory alive by refreshing it).
Do the Nokia series 60 phones support alarms when off? If they do I'd be interested to see what the battery drain is like when they are 'off'.
Either, IMHO, Nokia decided to leave the whole system up and running when the phone is off (and just kill the screen), or they have implemented an entirely independant alarm system into the phone - which is possible, simply a PIC with a list of events to check against on a time basis..
I could be way off with all of this, of course, but that's my thoughts, hopefully they'll make sense to someone! 😃 😊
Aaron