On Cell Phone Forums - help with your mobile device
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. #1
    sparks
    Guest
    I was looking to upgrade my phone to a flip style
    I looked at the Samsungs that were listed in the ads
    this weekend and several friends said DONT get a Samsung
    Why?
    Hey they don't get any reception..get a sanyo if you want a phone
    you can use.

    I want a better phone but I want one that will work when I need to
    talk.

    Is one brand better than another of just some models to avoid?

    What is the best dual band flip phone now?

    thanks big time for any help
    don't want to waste good money on a crap phone.
    And I am not going to get a 2 yr contract to upgrade so I won't be
    getting one for free. I have been with sprint 3 yrs and the sprint
    phone I have is a junk qualcomm 2760.First light weight phone I could
    find at the time.
    BUT you can't change the battery and it won't hold a charge any more
    reception I guess average. Would not break any records on distance and
    lost calls

    again thanks for any and all help

    sparks






    See More: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception



  2. #2
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception


    "sparks" <sparks@here.com> wrote in message
    news:uc6qpvs34u01p0iul1ne4g54m77v1gkqll@4ax.com...
    > I was looking to upgrade my phone to a flip style
    > I looked at the Samsungs that were listed in the ads
    > this weekend and several friends said DONT get a Samsung
    > Why?
    > Hey they don't get any reception..get a sanyo if you want a phone
    > you can use.
    >
    > I want a better phone but I want one that will work when I need to
    > talk.
    >
    > Is one brand better than another of just some models to avoid?
    >
    > What is the best dual band flip phone now?
    >


    My Samsung A500 has very good reception. My wife's A460 has decent
    reception, but not as good as my A500. The new A600 and VGA1000 phones are
    known to get very good reception. I would't worry about it at all.

    The best phones known for their reception with Sprint are the Sanyo phones.
    They all seem to get pretty decent reception, but currently, they seem to be
    riding on reputation as the latest Samsungs are known to perform as well as
    the Sanyos.

    Tom Veldhouse





  3. #3
    MacWilder
    Guest

    Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception

    My home is in a marginal area. My wife's Nokia 3585i get materially
    better reception than my A500.

    MacWilder

    On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:25:30 -0600, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
    <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:


    >
    >My Samsung A500 has very good reception. My wife's A460 has decent
    >reception, but not as good as my A500. The new A600 and VGA1000 phones are
    >known to get very good reception. I would't worry about it at all.
    >
    >The best phones known for their reception with Sprint are the Sanyo phones.
    >They all seem to get pretty decent reception, but currently, they seem to be
    >riding on reputation as the latest Samsungs are known to perform as well as
    >the Sanyos.
    >
    >Tom Veldhouse
    >





  4. #4
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception


    "MacWilder" <MacWilder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:ijeqpv8ra74tn7hren2mq1php67lkq2pnu@4ax.com...
    > My home is in a marginal area. My wife's Nokia 3585i get materially
    > better reception than my A500.
    >
    > MacWilder
    >


    What software revision is your phone at (and what PRL)? I know that
    software shouldn't make a difference, but it did seem to on my phone. It
    wasn't until WD29 that the phone finally came into its own. There must be
    some reason for it, but I don't know what it is.

    Tom Veldhouse





  5. #5
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception


    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:3f9d3bda$0$41291$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...
    >
    > "MacWilder" <MacWilder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:ijeqpv8ra74tn7hren2mq1php67lkq2pnu@4ax.com...
    > > My home is in a marginal area. My wife's Nokia 3585i get materially
    > > better reception than my A500.
    > >
    > > MacWilder
    > >

    >
    > What software revision is your phone at (and what PRL)? I know that
    > software shouldn't make a difference, but it did seem to on my phone. It
    > wasn't until WD29 that the phone finally came into its own. There must be
    > some reason for it, but I don't know what it is.
    >
    > Tom Veldhouse
    >
    >


    I want to add that candybar style phones seem to have better reception than
    their flip phone counterparts. I believe this has to do with the total
    length of the antenna. Candybar style phones often allow more power
    consumption because battery size is not quite as important as it is for flip
    phones (and thus, they can use larger "standard" batteries).

    Tom Veldhouse

    Tom Veldhouse





  6. #6
    MacWilder
    Guest

    Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception

    I have the WD29, using 10021 in both phones. I agree totally with
    your observation that the latest upgrade to the A500 made all the
    difference in the world. With the previous version (wasn't it VI 16
    or something like that?) the phone was essentially unusable at home.

    Your candybar explanation in the next message seems as good as any to
    me, although I harbor the suspicion that Nokia may just simply know
    how to make better phones, having been at it for so long.

    MacWilder

    On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:35:29 -0600, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
    <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    >"MacWilder" <MacWilder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >news:ijeqpv8ra74tn7hren2mq1php67lkq2pnu@4ax.com...
    >> My home is in a marginal area. My wife's Nokia 3585i get materially
    >> better reception than my A500.
    >>
    >> MacWilder
    >>

    >
    >What software revision is your phone at (and what PRL)? I know that
    >software shouldn't make a difference, but it did seem to on my phone. It
    >wasn't until WD29 that the phone finally came into its own. There must be
    >some reason for it, but I don't know what it is.
    >
    >Tom Veldhouse
    >





  7. #7
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception


    "MacWilder" <MacWilder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:rokqpvg94l3f3r6v7noeauj8v06eo5c5oa@4ax.com...
    > I have the WD29, using 10021 in both phones. I agree totally with
    > your observation that the latest upgrade to the A500 made all the
    > difference in the world. With the previous version (wasn't it VI 16
    > or something like that?) the phone was essentially unusable at home.
    >
    > Your candybar explanation in the next message seems as good as any to
    > me, although I harbor the suspicion that Nokia may just simply know
    > how to make better phones, having been at it for so long.
    >
    > MacWilder
    >


    I believe Nokia just uses a Qualcomm chip, so the reception is pretty much
    determined by the chip, antenna and perhaps software that controls the chip
    (setting parameters appropriately). I think that most reception perceptions
    are the result of which phone shows higher "bars" rather than actual phone
    performance.

    Tom Veldhouse





  8. #8
    Lawrence Glasser
    Guest

    Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception

    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
    >
    > "MacWilder" <MacWilder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:rokqpvg94l3f3r6v7noeauj8v06eo5c5oa@4ax.com...
    > > I have the WD29, using 10021 in both phones. I agree totally with
    > > your observation that the latest upgrade to the A500 made all the
    > > difference in the world. With the previous version (wasn't it VI 16
    > > or something like that?) the phone was essentially unusable at home.
    > >
    > > Your candybar explanation in the next message seems as good as any to
    > > me, although I harbor the suspicion that Nokia may just simply know
    > > how to make better phones, having been at it for so long.
    > >
    > > MacWilder
    > >

    >
    > I believe Nokia just uses a Qualcomm chip, so the reception is pretty much
    > determined by the chip, antenna and perhaps software that controls the chip
    > (setting parameters appropriately). I think that most reception perceptions
    > are the result of which phone shows higher "bars" rather than actual phone
    > performance.


    Ah, the old "bars" misconception.

    Larry



  9. #9
    CAT0NHAT
    Guest

    Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception

    > I think that most reception perceptions
    > are the result of which phone shows higher "bars" > rather than actual phone

    performance.

    > Tom Veldhouse

    ==============================
    We have enough reports here of dropped calls, no signal at all, folks having to
    go outside their house etc, to know better. Some of these Samsung and LG phones
    just should have been recalled.



  10. #10
    RexyBlue
    Guest

    Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception

    I happen to REALLY like Samsung phones and have no problem with
    reception. I can vouch for the A-460, A-500 and A-620 (VGA 1000).
    Sanyos are good too. You won't lose with either.

    On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:18:00 GMT, sparks <sparks@here.com> wrote:

    >I was looking to upgrade my phone to a flip style
    >I looked at the Samsungs that were listed in the ads
    >this weekend and several friends said DONT get a Samsung
    >Why?
    >Hey they don't get any reception..get a sanyo if you want a phone
    >you can use.





    ----------------------------
    To email me, remove the zz.



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast