Results 1 to 15 of 18
- 10-27-2003, 07:18 AM #1sparksGuest
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
- 10-27-2003, 07:25 AM #2Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception
"sparks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
- 10-27-2003, 09:31 AM #3MacWilderGuest
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"
<[email protected]> 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
>
- 10-27-2003, 09:35 AM #4Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception
"MacWilder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
- 10-27-2003, 09:47 AM #5Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "MacWilder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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
- 10-27-2003, 11:20 AM #6MacWilderGuest
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"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"MacWilder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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
>
- 10-27-2003, 12:01 PM #7Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception
"MacWilder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
- 10-27-2003, 12:03 PM #8Lawrence GlasserGuest
Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
>
> "MacWilder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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
- 10-27-2003, 12:19 PM #9CAT0NHATGuest
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.
- 10-27-2003, 12:24 PM #10RexyBlueGuest
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 <[email protected]> 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.
- 10-27-2003, 02:09 PM #11John R. CopelandGuest
Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
>=20
> "MacWilder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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
> >
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Tom Veldhouse
>=20
>=20
Did Nokia really start using Qualcomm chips?
They were long-time holdouts, trying to develop their own.
If they actually ARE using Qualcomm chips now,
maybe their CDMA phones will be better than they used to be.
---JRC---
- 10-27-2003, 02:13 PM #12Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception
"John R. Copeland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: Did Nokia really start using Qualcomm chips?
: They were long-time holdouts, trying to develop their own.
: If they actually ARE using Qualcomm chips now,
: maybe their CDMA phones will be better than they used to be.
Nokia has used them for years in the CMDA phones. There was the old 5165(?)
model that Verizon used to sell, and they had Qualcomm stickers on them.
Tom Veldhouse
- 10-27-2003, 02:47 PM #13John R. CopelandGuest
Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
>=20
> "John R. Copeland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>=20
> : Did Nokia really start using Qualcomm chips?
> : They were long-time holdouts, trying to develop their own.
> : If they actually ARE using Qualcomm chips now,
> : maybe their CDMA phones will be better than they used to be.
>=20
> Nokia has used them for years in the CMDA phones. There was the old =
5165(?)
> model that Verizon used to sell, and they had Qualcomm stickers on =
them.
>=20
> Tom Veldhouse
>=20
>=20
I hope you aren't saying the newer Nokia CDMA phones *won't* be better =
than the old. :-/
---JRC---
- 10-27-2003, 03:29 PM #14Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception
"John R. Copeland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I hope you aren't saying the newer Nokia CDMA phones *won't* be better than
the old. :-/
---JRC---
AFAIK, old and new use Qualcomm chips.
Tom
- 10-28-2003, 02:54 AM #15RexyBlueGuest
Re: SAMSUNG phones do they really have the worst reception
Actually, no they didn't. The 6185 that Sprint sold several years ago
did not have the Qualcomm chipset. Nokia insisted on using its own.
There were many, many problems with that phone. And it was sort of
roll-of-the-dice. Some 6185's worked great. Many or most did not.
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:29:13 -0600, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"John R. Copeland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>I hope you aren't saying the newer Nokia CDMA phones *won't* be better than
>the old. :-/
>---JRC---
>
>AFAIK, old and new use Qualcomm chips.
>
>Tom
>
----------------------------
To email me, remove the zz.
Similar Threads
- Apple (iPhone)
- Apple (iPhone)
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
Kosmetyki
in Chit Chat