Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

In alt.cellular.motorola John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:58:02 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in

> Probably hundreds of thousands, plus or minus.

That might be urban legend, or at least a gross assumption.

> MPT actually works quite well.

It does. If you have a static configuration, and make connections that are
the same each time. Variances cause grief. Once I got mine working, it
seemed to work well, but occasionally, usually after a long enough absence
that I assume "something" changed, it would fail to connect to the phone.
Using it on a daily basis, it would connect time after time.

> >> >Do you maintain the old version on a separate PC?
> >
> >> I kept it running on my primary machines.
> >
> >How do you interface with the V3xx, then, that needs 4.51c?

> My V551 is in the dustbin.

Then I am confused as to why you would keep an old version on your primary
machines. My V551 would not operate with 4.51c, my V3xx would not work
without 4.51c

> >I'm not sure what you are asking. My V551 is not supported. My V551 is a
> >single example of a telephone that sold in quantity.

> In other words, just a single data point.

A single phone, sold in numbers that exceed the entire MPT subscriber base.

> Not well. See my prior posts.

I lose track, pardon me. If it's in the dustbin it doesn't matter.

> >Tech support from BVRP-USA told me that support was dropped at
> >the request of Motorola.

> That sounds like Urban Legend to me.

Which would be the urban legend? That Motorola said it to BVRP, or that
BVRP said it to me?

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

---

› See More: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:16:51 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.motorola John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:58:02 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
>
>> Probably hundreds of thousands, plus or minus.
>
>That might be urban legend, or at least a gross assumption.

True, but the math seems pretty reasonable to me.

>> MPT actually works quite well.
>
>It does. If you have a static configuration, and make connections that are
>the same each time. Variances cause grief.

Yep. It's designed for just one connection. That said, the grief is
pretty minor.

>Once I got mine working, it
>seemed to work well, but occasionally, usually after a long enough absence
>that I assume "something" changed, it would fail to connect to the phone.
>Using it on a daily basis, it would connect time after time.

[shrug]

>> My V551 is in the dustbin.
>
>Then I am confused as to why you would keep an old version on your primary
>machines.

I didn't say I did, and I don't.

>My V551 would not operate with 4.51c, my V3xx would not work
>without 4.51c

My problems weren't so serious, but I'm using 4.5.1c in any event.

>> >I'm not sure what you are asking. My V551 is not supported. My V551 is a
>> >single example of a telephone that sold in quantity.
>
>> In other words, just a single data point.
>
>A single phone, sold in numbers that exceed the entire MPT subscriber base.

Maybe. Maybe not.
But I don't think it's a meaningful analogy in any event.

>> >Tech support from BVRP-USA told me that support was dropped at
>> >the request of Motorola.
>
>> That sounds like Urban Legend to me.
>
>Which would be the urban legend? That Motorola said it to BVRP, or that
>BVRP said it to me?

That Motorola took such a position. Color me very skeptical.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:16:51 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
> <[email protected]>:

> >In alt.cellular.motorola John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:58:02 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
> >
> >> Probably hundreds of thousands, plus or minus.
> >
> >That might be urban legend, or at least a gross assumption.

> True, but the math seems pretty reasonable to me.

So it's completely baseless, but a reasonable guess.
I can accept that, but I can also accept that I have seen over 100 posts
about problems.



> >Then I am confused as to why you would keep an old version on your primary
> >machines.

> I didn't say I did, and I don't.

It seems like you did say that, and continued on that thought in a
second post in this thread, but I am clearly mistaken.

... > >> No biggie -- just stick with the version that works, as I did.
... > >
... > >Do you maintain the old version on a separate PC?

... > I kept it running on my primary machines.



> >A single phone, sold in numbers that exceed the entire MPT subscriber base.

> Maybe. Maybe not.
> But I don't think it's a meaningful analogy in any event.

How is that an analogy? A popular phone is unsupported.

> >Which would be the urban legend? That Motorola said it to BVRP, or that
> >BVRP said it to me?

> That Motorola took such a position. Color me very skeptical.

MPT beyond some version won't write to my V551. BVRP-USA support says it
is because my firmware level is unsupported.

Color me disappointed.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:32:31 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:16:51 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>
>> >In alt.cellular.motorola John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:58:02 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
>> >
>> >> Probably hundreds of thousands, plus or minus.
>> >
>> >That might be urban legend, or at least a gross assumption.
>
>> True, but the math seems pretty reasonable to me.
>
>So it's completely baseless, but a reasonable guess.

I didn't say or even imply that. Kindly stick to what I actually say,
rather than trying to put words in my mouth. "The math seems pretty
reasonable to me" means that I ran some numbers to arrive at a
reasonable estimate. Did you?

>I can accept that, but I can also accept that I have seen over 100 posts
>about problems.

Where? I've not seen posts by 100 different people. I have seen lots
of posts by the same people over and over, and too much anonymity to
reach any definitive conclusion.

>> >Then I am confused as to why you would keep an old version on your primary
>> >machines.
>
>> I didn't say I did, and I don't.
>
>It seems like you did say that, and continued on that thought in a
>second post in this thread, but I am clearly mistaken.
>
>.. > >> No biggie -- just stick with the version that works, as I did.
>.. > >
>.. > >Do you maintain the old version on a separate PC?
>
>.. > I kept it running on my primary machines.

That meant that I kept the old version running on my primary machines
_when_ I was using the V551. That was months ago. I'm now using a V3xx
with the latest version of MPT, as should be clear from my posts.

>> >A single phone, sold in numbers that exceed the entire MPT subscriber base.
>
>> Maybe. Maybe not.
>> But I don't think it's a meaningful analogy in any event.
>
>How is that an analogy? A popular phone is unsupported.

BVRP still has it in the list of supported devices.

>> >Which would be the urban legend? That Motorola said it to BVRP, or that
>> >BVRP said it to me?
>
>> That Motorola took such a position. Color me very skeptical.
>
>MPT beyond some version won't write to my V551. BVRP-USA support says it
>is because my firmware level is unsupported.
>
>Color me disappointed.

Seems to me your beef is with BVRP, and that it's not much of a beef at
that, since the older version of MPT still works fine with the V551.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>