Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35
  1. #16
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    On Mon, 28 May 2007 05:17:25 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
    <[email protected]>:

    >I live in a pretty marginal area for Cingular signal.
    >I upgraded from a Motorola V551 to a Razr V3xx about a week ago.
    >So far, I am unimpressed with the receive sensitivity.
    >
    >The V551 would occasionally show no signal strength when I pulled it out of
    >my pocket, but I would almost always be able to make calls.
    >
    >The V3xx shows no signal, and call attempts fail, in the same places
    >around the house. The web browser is almost useless, rarely able to
    >display a page in places where the V551 would work.
    >
    >I think I'm going to return the V3xx and get something else.
    >What would be a good model?
    >
    >I thought 3G was good, but I don't have 3G near me.
    >I like EDGE and Bluetooth. The camera doesn't matter.


    You might want to try a different phone before giving up on the V3xx --
    my own V3xx has significantly better reception than any of several
    V551's I've compared it to, both on voice and on data.

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



    See More: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity




  2. #17
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    On Mon, 28 May 2007 17:32:49 +0200, Andreas Wenzel <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >[email protected] schrieb:
    >> [...]
    >> I thought 3G was good, but I don't have 3G near me.
    >> I like EDGE and Bluetooth. The camera doesn't matter.

    >
    >UMTS works on different frequency bands than GSM. That means, that a 3G
    >phone needs to accomodate more antennas than a 2G phone. The more
    >antennas the engineers need to integrate into the phone housing, the
    >less freedom they have to optimize their design for each frequency band.
    >Therefore, 3G phones tend to be less sensitive, and put out less power
    >on GSM bands, than good GSM phones.


    Not the ones I've tested.

    I haven't taken the V3xx apart, but I'd be willing to bet it uses only
    one antenna.

    The real antenna issue is that it's hard to optimize an antenna for
    multiple frequency bands, but that's a minor issue for 3G since the
    frequency difference is so small as compared to the difference between
    850 and 1900.

    That said, there are several other factors at work, and it's not a given
    that a 3G phone will be worse (or better) than a 2G or 2.5G phone.

    >I've set a follow up to alt.cellular.motorola.


    OK to add a cross-post, but not to hijack the thread.
    alt.cellular.cingular restored.

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



  3. #18
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    On Mon, 28 May 2007 16:41:08 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
    <[email protected]> wrote in
    <[email protected]>:

    >On 2007-05-28, Andreas Wenzel <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> [email protected] schrieb:
    >>> [...]
    >>> I thought 3G was good, but I don't have 3G near me.
    >>> I like EDGE and Bluetooth. The camera doesn't matter.

    >>
    >> UMTS works on different frequency bands than GSM. That means, that a 3G
    >> phone needs to accomodate more antennas than a 2G phone. The more
    >> antennas the engineers need to integrate into the phone housing, the
    >> less freedom they have to optimize their design for each frequency band.
    >> Therefore, 3G phones tend to be less sensitive, and put out less power
    >> on GSM bands, than good GSM phones.

    >
    >Actually Cingular in the US runs UMTS in the same frequency bands as
    >GSM. They have no other spectrum. The US V3xx has no support for
    >2100 MHz at all; they are triband 850/1800/1900 MHz phones, i.e. less
    >frequency coverage than a V3.


    But the same frequency spread, 850-1900, which is the issue in antenna
    design.

    >You are right that antenna performance is a problem when space is limited,
    >but the compromises generally show up in the low frequency bands where
    >efficient antennas need to be big (and hence the space which can be saved
    >is largest). The fact that the two V3xx models support either 850 or 900
    >MHz, but not both, is a likely consequence of being space-constrained
    >for the antenna.


    Actually cost.

    >I'm not sure the performance in the higher frequency
    >bands necessarily needs to be impaired.


    It doesn't.

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



  4. #19
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Moto V3xx sensitivity verses Nokia 6126

    On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:50:05 -0700, XS11E <[email protected]> wrote
    in <[email protected]>:

    >SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> It would be hard for any software to be worse than the flaky
    >> Motorola Phone Tools.

    >
    >I run MPT on my laptop with Windows XP Home, on my desktop with Windows
    >XP Pro and Vista Ultimate 64, I've never had any problem with
    >installing, connecting to my E815, synchronizing or transferring files.
    >MPT has been solid and trouble free for me.
    >
    >I'm wondering what kind of problems you've had?


    Distaste for anything GSM in general, and Cingular in particular; i.e.,
    guilt by association.

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



  5. #20
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Dissappointed with V3xx sensitivity

    On Mon, 28 May 2007 05:17:25 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
    <[email protected]>:

    >I live in a pretty marginal area for Cingular signal.
    >I upgraded from a Motorola V551 to a Razr V3xx about a week ago.
    >So far, I am unimpressed with the receive sensitivity.
    >
    >The V551 would occasionally show no signal strength when I pulled it out of
    >my pocket, but I would almost always be able to make calls.
    >
    >The V3xx shows no signal, and call attempts fail, in the same places
    >around the house. The web browser is almost useless, rarely able to
    >display a page in places where the V551 would work.


    I'm doing some work today in the Danville Public Library
    <http://tinyurl.com/2n5rbe>, and I happen to have with me both a V3xx
    and a V551, so I decided to give them a quick comparison.

    The V3xx gets a fairly good signal inside the library, both listening to
    611 on voice and data connections.

    The V551 (with the same SIM) gets such a poor signal that I have to go
    outside to use it reliably.

    This results is consistent with my past experience. For me the V3xx is
    clearly superior to the V551.

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



  6. #21

    Re: Moto V3xx sensitivity verses Nokia 6126

    In alt.cellular.cingular SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    > But no HSDPA, only Edge.


    I thought 3G (does HSDPA always follow?) would be cool, but the nearest 3G
    is quite a ways away from me.

    The 6126 has an icon that shows a G with a slash, a G, or a G with a box,
    for poor network, GPRS and EDGE. It varies when the signal varies. I
    didn't see that with the V3xx. It would show E all the time if the tower
    had EDGE, even if a browse attempt failed.

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



  7. #22

    Re: Moto V3xx sensitivity verses Nokia 6126

    In alt.cellular.cingular XS11E <[email protected]> wrote:
    > I run MPT on my laptop with Windows XP Home, on my desktop with Windows
    > XP Pro and Vista Ultimate 64, I've never had any problem with
    > installing, connecting to my E815, synchronizing or transferring files.
    > MPT has been solid and trouble free for me.


    > I'm wondering what kind of problems you've had?


    A search of this group, or a perusal of the BVRP forums, would give you an
    inkling of how much trouble lots of people have with the software.

    I had no trouble with it and my V3xx, although I would occasionally have
    trouble with other phones.

    My V551 was officially abandoned, supposedly at Motorola's request, and
    would not operate with MPT later than 4.04b.

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



  8. #23
    XS11E
    Guest

    Re: Moto V3xx sensitivity verses Nokia 6126

    [email protected] wrote:

    > In alt.cellular.cingular XS11E <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> I run MPT on my laptop with Windows XP Home, on my desktop with
    >> Windows XP Pro and Vista Ultimate 64, I've never had any problem
    >> with installing, connecting to my E815, synchronizing or
    >> transferring files. MPT has been solid and trouble free for me.

    >
    >> I'm wondering what kind of problems you've had?

    >
    > A search of this group, or a perusal of the BVRP forums, would
    > give you an inkling of how much trouble lots of people have with
    > the software.


    Thanks but that does NOT answer the question I asked.


    --
    XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html



  9. #24
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Moto V3xx sensitivity verses Nokia 6126

    On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:20:51 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
    <[email protected]>:

    >In alt.cellular.cingular XS11E <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> I run MPT on my laptop with Windows XP Home, on my desktop with Windows
    >> XP Pro and Vista Ultimate 64, I've never had any problem with
    >> installing, connecting to my E815, synchronizing or transferring files.
    >> MPT has been solid and trouble free for me.

    >
    >> I'm wondering what kind of problems you've had?

    >
    >A search of this group, or a perusal of the BVRP forums, would give you an
    >inkling of how much trouble lots of people have with the software.


    Actually a relative few people.

    >My V551 was officially abandoned, supposedly at Motorola's request, and
    >would not operate with MPT later than 4.04b.


    No biggie -- just stick with the version that works, as I did.

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



  10. #25
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Moto V3xx sensitivity verses Nokia 6126

    On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:14:49 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
    <[email protected]>:

    >In alt.cellular.cingular SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> But no HSDPA, only Edge.

    >
    >I thought 3G (does HSDPA always follow?) would be cool, but the nearest 3G
    >is quite a ways away from me.


    3G is UMTS. HSDPA is UMTS on steroids.

    >The 6126 has an icon that shows a G with a slash, a G, or a G with a box,
    >for poor network, GPRS and EDGE. It varies when the signal varies. I
    >didn't see that with the V3xx. It would show E all the time if the tower
    >had EDGE, even if a browse attempt failed.


    EDGE is actually EGPRS, which is simply a more advanced form of GPRS.
    Pretty much all AT&T/Cingular towers are now EGPRS. The signal quality
    on the V3xx is shown with bars, so a symbol isn't really necessary.

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



  11. #26

    Re: Moto V3xx sensitivity verses Nokia 6126

    In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:20:51 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
    > >A search of this group, or a perusal of the BVRP forums, would give you an
    > >inkling of how much trouble lots of people have with the software.


    > Actually a relative few people.


    Between this group and the BVRP forums, it seems to number in excess of
    100. That might be relatively few in comparison to the number of installed
    clients, or not. The recurrence of common themes makes me believe that
    many people would give up if they encountered some of the common problems.

    > >My V551 was officially abandoned, supposedly at Motorola's request, and
    > >would not operate with MPT later than 4.04b.


    > No biggie -- just stick with the version that works, as I did.


    Do you maintain the old version on a separate PC?
    If not a biggie, it at least seems irregular to drop support for a very
    popular phone that is less than two years old, the length of time some
    people are indirectly tied to owning the phone due to contracts.

    Or maybe my reaction was the one Motorola hoped for. I bought a new phone.

    Oh, wait, it's a Nokia, and I like their sync program better than MPT.
    That's probably not what Motorola wanted.

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



  12. #27
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Moto V3xx sensitivity verses Nokia 6126

    On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:27:02 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
    <[email protected]>:

    >In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:20:51 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
    >> >A search of this group, or a perusal of the BVRP forums, would give you an
    >> >inkling of how much trouble lots of people have with the software.

    >
    >> Actually a relative few people.

    >
    >Between this group and the BVRP forums, it seems to number in excess of
    >100.


    I'd say it's only a fraction of that.

    >That might be relatively few in comparison to the number of installed
    >clients, or not.


    It's clearly a small fraction of the total user base.

    >The recurrence of common themes makes me believe that
    >many people would give up if they encountered some of the common problems.


    By that standard you condemn virtually all products.

    >> >My V551 was officially abandoned, supposedly at Motorola's request, and
    >> >would not operate with MPT later than 4.04b.

    >
    >> 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.

    >If not a biggie, it at least seems irregular to drop support for a very
    >popular phone that is less than two years old, the length of time some
    >people are indirectly tied to owning the phone due to contracts.


    Any other examples, or are you basing this entirely on a single phone?

    >Or maybe my reaction was the one Motorola hoped for. I bought a new phone.
    >
    >Oh, wait, it's a Nokia, and I like their sync program better than MPT.
    >That's probably not what Motorola wanted.


    There's no real evidence that "Motorola wanted" anything.

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



  13. #28
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Moto V3xx sensitivity verses Nokia 6126

    [email protected] wrote:
    > In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:20:51 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
    >>> A search of this group, or a perusal of the BVRP forums, would give you an
    >>> inkling of how much trouble lots of people have with the software.

    >
    >> Actually a relative few people.

    >
    > Between this group and the BVRP forums, it seems to number in excess of
    > 100. That might be relatively few in comparison to the number of installed
    > clients, or not.


    LOL, of course the number of people reporting their problems on these
    forums is only a tiny tiny percentage of people with problems.

    The biggest problem with MPT appears to be that whether or not the
    program connects with the phone each time you connect seems to be random.



  14. #29
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Moto V3xx sensitivity verses Nokia 6126

    On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:52:45 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >> In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:20:51 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
    >>>> A search of this group, or a perusal of the BVRP forums, would give you an
    >>>> inkling of how much trouble lots of people have with the software.

    >>
    >>> Actually a relative few people.

    >>
    >> Between this group and the BVRP forums, it seems to number in excess of
    >> 100. That might be relatively few in comparison to the number of installed
    >> clients, or not.

    >
    >LOL, of course the number of people reporting their problems on these
    >forums is only a tiny tiny percentage of people with problems.
    >
    >The biggest problem with MPT appears to be that whether or not the
    >program connects with the phone each time you connect seems to be random.


    When MPT and the phone are properly installed, connection is reliable.

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



  15. #30

    Re: Moto V3xx sensitivity verses Nokia 6126

    In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:27:02 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
    > <[email protected]>:


    > >In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:20:51 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote in
    > >> >A search of this group, or a perusal of the BVRP forums, would give
    > >> >you an inkling of how much trouble lots of people have with the
    > >> >software.


    > >> Actually a relative few people.


    > >Between this group and the BVRP forums, it seems to number in excess of
    > >100.


    > I'd say it's only a fraction of that.


    I respectfully disagree. I would guess that the number of individual
    threads is 100, with many "me too" posters chiming in. Within the last six
    months, it certainly exceeds a "fraction" of 100.

    > >That might be relatively few in comparison to the number of installed
    > >clients, or not.


    > It's clearly a small fraction of the total user base.


    What do you think the installed user base is?

    > >The recurrence of common themes makes me believe that
    > >many people would give up if they encountered some of the common problems.


    > By that standard you condemn virtually all products.


    There are many products that are tried and abandoned if they don't seem to
    work.

    > >> >My V551 was officially abandoned, supposedly at Motorola's request, and
    > >> >would not operate with MPT later than 4.04b.

    > >
    > >> 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.


    How do you interface with the V3xx, then, that needs 4.51c?

    > >If not a biggie, it at least seems irregular to drop support for a very
    > >popular phone that is less than two years old, the length of time some
    > >people are indirectly tied to owning the phone due to contracts.


    > Any other examples, or are you basing this entirely on a single phone?


    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.

    > >Or maybe my reaction was the one Motorola hoped for. I bought a new phone.
    > >
    > >Oh, wait, it's a Nokia, and I like their sync program better than MPT.
    > >That's probably not what Motorola wanted.


    > There's no real evidence that "Motorola wanted" anything.


    Does your V551 work with MPT 4.51c? I recall that it is about the same age
    as mine. Tech support from BVRP-USA told me that support was dropped at
    the request of Motorola.

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



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast