Motorola cell phones FAQ

Q: Why is charging of Motorola phones so slow on the travel charger?

A: The standard travel charger packaged by Motorola with many current
phones puts out insufficient power for fastest possible charging and for
continuous use while charging.

For example, charger SSW-0509 for the V551 puts out only 375 mA. The
V551 detects this as a slow charger, and thus keeps the external display
backlight off during charging. Worse, there's not enough current to
keep up with use of the phone while charging, so while the phone is use,
the battery will still be discharged even with the phone on the charger.
With a fast charger the external display backlight is on during
charging, and the phone can be used while the battery is charging.

Motorola makes fast 1500 mA chargers that are compatible with these phones:
* SPN4716* (where * might be "B" or "C"), also known as
* NNTN4250 (nominally for Nextel, but also works with non-Nextel phones).
These chargers are readily available from dealers and on eBay for under
$15 (plus shipping).

(For what it's worth, Motorola probably saved less than $1 in cost by
packaging slow chargers instead of fast chargers with these phones.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Where can I get USB modem drivers for Motorola cell phones?

A: In <[email protected]> on Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:57:50
GMT, "David" <[email protected]> wrote:

>If you are trying to get your Motorola phone to look like a modem. The
>following information from, BRVP's (of Mobile PhoneTools fame) may be of
>help:
>
>Trouble installing or updating Motorola USB Modem drivers
>
>Motorola phones use the built-in Windows USB modem driver (usbser.sys) for
>communication with MPT. The USBMOT2000.INF driver file (which comes with
>MPT) lists the USB product IDs for Motorola phones and instructs Windows to
>use the usbser.sys file with them.
>
>Unfortunately, the drivers may not be installed correctly for the phone in
>any of these situations:
>
>- The phone was plugged in before installing MPT and the user cancelled out
>of the hardware wizard.
>
>- The user had an old version of MPT (and thus an old version of the driver
>file) that did not contain the product ID for a very new phone (for example,
>the E815). And, even after LiveUpdating to the latest version of MPT, the
>new driver file is not installed.
>
>Recently, BVRP posted a driver installation tool on their website, developed
>by Motorola, that will remove all instances of the old drivers and any
>traces of previously installed phones. It will then install the latest
>drivers and reinstall the phone, solving any issues. The driver tool is at
>this location:
>
>http://www.bvrp.com/Customers/Motorola/DriverTool.zip

---

› See More: Motorola cell phones FAQ

Yes, but even $1 per phone adds up. Now you know why they did it. Just
donb't buy a Motorola phone.


John Navas wrote:
> Q: Why is charging of Motorola phones so slow on the travel charger?
>
> A: The standard travel charger packaged by Motorola with many current
> phones puts out insufficient power for fastest possible charging and for
> continuous use while charging.
>
> For example, charger SSW-0509 for the V551 puts out only 375 mA. The
> V551 detects this as a slow charger, and thus keeps the external display
> backlight off during charging. Worse, there's not enough current to
> keep up with use of the phone while charging, so while the phone is use,
> the battery will still be discharged even with the phone on the charger.
> With a fast charger the external display backlight is on during
> charging, and the phone can be used while the battery is charging.
>
> Motorola makes fast 1500 mA chargers that are compatible with these phones:
> * SPN4716* (where * might be "B" or "C"), also known as
> * NNTN4250 (nominally for Nextel, but also works with non-Nextel phones).
> These chargers are readily available from dealers and on eBay for under
> $15 (plus shipping).
>
> (For what it's worth, Motorola probably saved less than $1 in cost by
> packaging slow chargers instead of fast chargers with these phones.)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Q: Where can I get USB modem drivers for Motorola cell phones?
>
> A: In <[email protected]> on Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:57:50
> GMT, "David" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If you are trying to get your Motorola phone to look like a modem. The
>> following information from, BRVP's (of Mobile PhoneTools fame) may be of
>> help:
>>
>> Trouble installing or updating Motorola USB Modem drivers
>>
>> Motorola phones use the built-in Windows USB modem driver (usbser.sys) for
>> communication with MPT. The USBMOT2000.INF driver file (which comes with
>> MPT) lists the USB product IDs for Motorola phones and instructs Windows to
>> use the usbser.sys file with them.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the drivers may not be installed correctly for the phone in
>> any of these situations:
>>
>> - The phone was plugged in before installing MPT and the user cancelled out
>> of the hardware wizard.
>>
>> - The user had an old version of MPT (and thus an old version of the driver
>> file) that did not contain the product ID for a very new phone (for example,
>> the E815). And, even after LiveUpdating to the latest version of MPT, the
>> new driver file is not installed.
>>
>> Recently, BVRP posted a driver installation tool on their website, developed
>> by Motorola, that will remove all instances of the old drivers and any
>> traces of previously installed phones. It will then install the latest
>> drivers and reinstall the phone, solving any issues. The driver tool is at
>> this location:
>>
>> http://www.bvrp.com/Customers/Motorola/DriverTool.zip

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:


My, how time flies. Time again for the bull****-meister.

Dave wrote:
> Yes, but even $1 per phone adds up. Now you know why they did it. Just
> donb't buy a Motorola phone.

They didn't save $1 per phone, he made that number up, as well as
admitting that he has no idea how much they saved, if anything.

In reality, Motorola chose to ship a charger with a smaller physical
size. Most people charge their phones overnight, and the 375mA rate of
charge is fine, and lengthens battery life. With cellular, people like
small, even when there are trade-offs.

Look at the actual price of the SPN4716 and the SPN5037 (375mA) from the
same vendor, and it's almost always the same price. I.e. from
CellularAccessory.com, where I usually buy my accessories, both are $6.95.

The difference in component cost between the two chargers is negligible,
if any difference exists at all. It's entirely possible that the smaller
size unit actually cost Motorola a bit more to have made.

Not buying a Motorola phone may be acceptable for GSM, but for CDMA,
there are some very good reasons to select Motorola over other brands.

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:44:55 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Dave wrote:
>> Yes, but even $1 per phone adds up. Now you know why they did it. Just
>> donb't buy a Motorola phone.
>
>They didn't save $1 per phone, he made that number up, as well as
>admitting that he has no idea how much they saved, if anything.

That's actually based on experience in electronic manufacturing.

>In reality, Motorola chose to ship a charger with a smaller physical
>size. Most people charge their phones overnight, and the 375mA rate of
>charge is fine, and lengthens battery life. With cellular, people like
>small, even when there are trade-offs.

In fact quite a few people have been unhappy about the lackluster
performance of Motorola chargers. The difference in size is too small
to matter (and could easily be reduced to zero), and the low charging
rate actually serves to decrease battery life, especially through
insufficient/partial charging.

>Not buying a Motorola phone may be acceptable for GSM, but for CDMA,
>there are some very good reasons to select Motorola over other brands.

In fact Motorola makes some very good and very successful CDMA phones;
e.g., V325i, RAZR V3m, KRZR K1m.

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

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:57:36 -0800, Randall Ainsworth
<[email protected]> wrote this with the utmost thought:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>My, how time flies. Time again for the bull****-meister.

My, how time flies. Time again for the whingeing gits to reappear.

Just ignore the posts if they irritate you, same as we do with the Spam.

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:44:55 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Dave wrote:
>>> Yes, but even $1 per phone adds up. Now you know why they did it.
>>> Just donb't buy a Motorola phone.
>>
>>They didn't save $1 per phone, he made that number up, as well as
>>admitting that he has no idea how much they saved, if anything.
>
> That's actually based on experience in electronic manufacturing.


Was that before or after your time as an accountant? Or was it around the
time of your professional use of copyright law? Maybe about the same time
as your project management stint?


Keep piling on the supposed pieces of your resume- you simply become the
poster child for the phrase, "Jack-of-all-trades, master of none."

Scott wrote:

> Keep piling on the supposed pieces of your resume- you simply become the
> poster child for the phrase, "Jack-of-all-trades, master of none."

FWIW, I actually do have extensive experience in manufacturing,
especially in small switching power supplies. If you were building the
same size power supply, then the component cost for the lower current
device would cost a little less, a few cents less for the inductor, a
few cents less for the transformer, and a few cents less for the
capacitors. However the savings go out the window when you also shrink
everything down in size, as the smaller size components are more
expensive. It's safe to say that the difference in cost to Motorola is
virtually nil. It could go a few cents either way. The decision on which
power supply to include was based on size. It's a similar issue with
switchers for notebook computers. At least Dell often offers different
wattage supplies for the same notebook, the difference being how fast
the computer can be charged. The disadvantage of the higher wattage
supply is the weight and size, as well as the fact that the Li-Ion
battery lasts longer if it is charged at a lower rate.

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> My, how time flies. Time again for the whingeing gits to reappear.

Where did you buy your dictionary?

WHAT THE ****?? What electronic manufacturing sting did you have? The
only sting you had is banging Mij.

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:44:55 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
> >Dave wrote:
> >> Yes, but even $1 per phone adds up. Now you know why they did it. Just
> >> donb't buy a Motorola phone.
> >
> >They didn't save $1 per phone, he made that number up, as well as
> >admitting that he has no idea how much they saved, if anything.
>
> That's actually based on experience in electronic manufacturing.
>
> >In reality, Motorola chose to ship a charger with a smaller physical
> >size. Most people charge their phones overnight, and the 375mA rate of
> >charge is fine, and lengthens battery life. With cellular, people like
> >small, even when there are trade-offs.
>
> In fact quite a few people have been unhappy about the lackluster
> performance of Motorola chargers. The difference in size is too small
> to matter (and could easily be reduced to zero), and the low charging
> rate actually serves to decrease battery life, especially through
> insufficient/partial charging.
>
> >Not buying a Motorola phone may be acceptable for GSM, but for CDMA,
> >there are some very good reasons to select Motorola over other brands.
>
> In fact Motorola makes some very good and very successful CDMA phones;
> e.g., V325i, RAZR V3m, KRZR K1m.

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 05:27:46 -0800, Randall Ainsworth
<[email protected]> wrote this with the utmost thought:

>In article <[email protected]>,
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> My, how time flies. Time again for the whingeing gits to reappear.
>
>Where did you buy your dictionary?

Nokia.com of course!

:-)

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:44:55 -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
: Dave wrote:
: Not buying a Motorola phone may be acceptable for GSM, but for CDMA,
: there are some very good reasons to select Motorola over other brands.

And some equally compelling reasons not to. The LG VX8300 may be the best
phone Verizon offers at the moment. It competes very effectively against the
CDMA version of the RAZR. Other LG CDMA phones are also popular.

Bob