NOKIA 6800 or MOTOROLA V60i ?

the v60i and its predecessor hte v60 have the same weakness... that little
stubby antenna tends to snap off... and that is not covered by warranty..
insurance will cover it at a 35 bux deductable

nokia in this case is a better choice... the 6800 is GSM/GPRS while the v60
is TDMA


"Roy Beames" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3f4a703f$1_4@newsfeed...
> I want a new phone , can I get your thoughts on these 2 phones. I know the
> obvious on the Nokia TEXT messaging is much easier But I never have used
> either ...
> Also I am with Cingular right now but am considering AT&T Wireless here in
> Southern Indiana.
>
> Please respond both to the newsgroups & my
>
> Roy Beames
> E-Mail [email protected]
>
>

---

› See More: NOKIA 6800 or MOTOROLA V60i ?

"0¿0" <[email protected]> wrote:

> the v60i and its predecessor hte v60 have the same weakness... that little
> stubby antenna tends to snap off... and that is not covered by warranty..
> insurance will cover it at a 35 bux deductable

My v60i antenna has never snapped off (nor have the antennas on the v60i
phones of my other family members). If it does, then I'll just go to Radio
Shack and get a new antenna for about $10.00.

> nokia in this case is a better choice... the 6800 is GSM/GPRS while the
v60
> is TDMA

I've read rpeorts that the Nokias' performance on CDMA is somewhat lacking,
and so--based upon our excellent experiences with the v60i phones--I'd
definitely recommend it for anyone.
--
D.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762
davidjosborn at sbcglobal dot net

> > nokia in this case is a better choice... the 6800 is GSM/GPRS while the
> v60
> > is TDMA

> I've read rpeorts that the Nokias' performance on CDMA is somewhat
lacking,

GSM/GPRS is not CDMA technology. However, GSM is superior to TDMA in my
opinion.

You just have to think you have to choose a Ferrari(Nokia) or a
Toyota(Motorola). What do you choose? NOKIA is superior in ANY way from
Motorola.It has tradition on making mobile phones !>>this is my
personal opinion<<!

"Mark." <m.nikia#optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > > nokia in this case is a better choice... the 6800 is GSM/GPRS while
the
> > v60
> > > is TDMA
>
> > I've read rpeorts that the Nokias' performance on CDMA is somewhat
> lacking,
>
> GSM/GPRS is not CDMA technology. However, GSM is superior to TDMA in my
> opinion.
>
>

"0¿0" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> the v60i and its predecessor hte v60 have the same weakness... that little
> stubby antenna tends to snap off... and that is not covered by warranty..
> insurance will cover it at a 35 bux deductable
>
> nokia in this case is a better choice... the 6800 is GSM/GPRS while the v60
> is TDMA
>
>
> "Roy Beames" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:3f4a703f$1_4@newsfeed...
> > I want a new phone , can I get your thoughts on these 2 phones. I know the
> > obvious on the Nokia TEXT messaging is much easier But I never have used
> > either ...
> > Also I am with Cingular right now but am considering AT&T Wireless here in
> > Southern Indiana.
> >
> > Please respond both to the newsgroups & my
> >
> > Roy Beames
> > E-Mail [email protected]
> >
> >
never have broken ant on my v60i.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:13:55 GMT, "NRG" <[email protected]> posted in
alt.cellular.motorola:

>You just have to think you have to choose a Ferrari(Nokia) or a
>Toyota(Motorola). What do you choose? NOKIA is superior in ANY way from
>Motorola.

Except in CDMA.
--
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net

"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:13:55 GMT, "NRG" <[email protected]> posted in
> alt.cellular.motorola:
>
> >You just have to think you have to choose a Ferrari(Nokia) or a
> >Toyota(Motorola). What do you choose? NOKIA is superior in ANY way from
> >Motorola.
>
> Except in CDMA.

Motorola has often being accused of being the largest supplier in the US,
but fairing badly in the rest of the world. for nokia, it's the other way
around. GSM is the dominant technology Globally, but the US is hanging on to
half a dozen other networks in an attempt to keep some coverage. The US has
a worse cellular coverage than the UK has broadband coverage.

The choice often comes down to where you live, and so what networks are
available. if you must go CDMA/TDMA, you might get better performance with a
Moto, otherwise go nokia and GSM.

Martin Crosbie

>Except in CDMA.

Actually I have had excellent luck with CDMA and Nokia. I had several 6185's
and they all worked flawlessly for years.

My son's girlfreind has a Nokia 3585i and it seems to be working just fine too!
A co worker just got one this weekend and so far is hapy with it. Admittadly,
he hasn't a lot of experience with it just yet.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

>Motorola has often being accused of being the largest supplier in the US,
>but fairing badly in the rest of the world.

It is a false accusation!

Nokia outsells Motorola by a large margin here in the USA as well as the rest
of the world.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:48:36 +0100, "Martin Crosbie"
<[email protected]> posted in
alt.cellular.motorola:

>The choice often comes down to where you live, and so what networks are
>available. if you must go CDMA/TDMA, you might get better performance with a
>Moto, otherwise go nokia and GSM.

GSM currently has very little coverage in the US.
--
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net

"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:48:36 +0100, "Martin Crosbie"
> <[email protected]> posted in
> alt.cellular.motorola:
>
> >The choice often comes down to where you live, and so what networks are
> >available. if you must go CDMA/TDMA, you might get better performance
with a
> >Moto, otherwise go nokia and GSM.
>
> GSM currently has very little coverage in the US.

But GSM has the vast majority of coverage in the rest of the world.

My point above is that if you can go GSM, if your locality is covered by the
GSM net, then go for nokia, but if you have to go with other technologies,
then the Motorola is probably the better option.

Martin Crosbie

I live in southern Michigan. I have AT&T they are the worst wireless company
I ever had. They lost a lot of towers that they had so now my phone doesn't
work is a lot of areas that it worked in before. I tried to get out of my
contract because I can't use my phone in the areas that I work in. They will
only let me out if I pay the 175.00 cancellation fee. It hardly seems fair
if the coverage area is smaller that I still have to pay the cancellation
fee. AT&T says they can change the coverage area any time.
Also many time when I try to call out the network is to busy to make a call.
A lot of time when someone tries to call me the phone never rings and goes
directly to voice mail or it tells them that I am not answering my phone.
Ever time I call customer service I get the run around. I spend hours every
week talking to them trying to resolve these problems.
But they never fix and of them.
"Roy Beames" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3f4a703f$1_4@newsfeed...
> I want a new phone , can I get your thoughts on these 2 phones. I know the
> obvious on the Nokia TEXT messaging is much easier But I never have used
> either ...
> Also I am with Cingular right now but am considering AT&T Wireless here in
> Southern Indiana.
>
> Please respond both to the newsgroups & my
>
> Roy Beames
> E-Mail [email protected]
>
>

Tim Smoot wrote:
> I live in southern Michigan. I have AT&T they are the worst wireless company
> I ever had. They lost a lot of towers that they had ...


Their maps don't work too good for them either, huh?


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

"Tim Smoot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I live in southern Michigan. I have AT&T they are the worst wireless
company
> I ever had. They lost a lot of towers that they had so now my phone
doesn't
> work is a lot of areas that it worked in before.

How can they lose towers? The US network is poor as it is, so why on earth
would they reduce their coverage? it makes no sense. is it common for
service areas to change like this?

Martin Crosbie

They were leasing towers from other companies. When the least ran out the
company would not release them the towers.
"Martin Crosbie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tim Smoot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I live in southern Michigan. I have AT&T they are the worst wireless
> company
> > I ever had. They lost a lot of towers that they had so now my phone
> doesn't
> > work is a lot of areas that it worked in before.
>
> How can they lose towers? The US network is poor as it is, so why on earth
> would they reduce their coverage? it makes no sense. is it common for
> service areas to change like this?
>
> Martin Crosbie
>
>