On Cell Phone Forums
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Jeff Johnson
    Guest
    I have been on sprint for some year and am considering cingular/att---there
    is a dead hole around my house with sprint I cant stand. It seems like all
    the phones on cingular have much better battery life than sprint. I have one
    of those huge Sanyo speakerphones that has 7 hour talk time with an extended
    battery---but I see that time on some of the small cingular phones?





    See More: GSM better batterly life than CDMA?




  2. #2
    Dogflyer
    Guest

    Re: GSM better batterly life than CDMA?

    Battery life is determined by the phone, not the carrier. FWIW, I
    tried switching from digital to GSM on ATT and the battery life on the
    phone was just awful! It was a Motorola V505 and I could barely get 1
    hour of talk time and 2 days of standby out of it. But at least the
    GSM coverage was also terrible! Nowhere near as good as digital here
    in Colorado. Needless to say, I went back to my original digital
    service and trusty Nokia.




  3. #3
    Evan Platt
    Guest

    Re: GSM better batterly life than CDMA?

    On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:32:03 -0800, Joseph <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >*Not* true. CDMA phones get much worse battery life than either GSM
    >or TDMA. CDMA phones are more active and are doing more than the
    >equivalent TDMA or GSM phones.


    The most important factor is coverage. I have a 7135 on Verizon. With
    a full signal, I can go 2-3 days with about an hour a day talk time.
    However a job site I was at for a few weeks, the coverage in the
    building was spotty. At 7 PM, the battery was almost dead.
    --
    To reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address.



  4. #4
    Klein
    Guest

    Re: GSM better batterly life than CDMA?

    On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:29:21 -0800, Evan Platt
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:32:03 -0800, Joseph <[email protected]>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>*Not* true. CDMA phones get much worse battery life than either GSM
    >>or TDMA. CDMA phones are more active and are doing more than the
    >>equivalent TDMA or GSM phones.

    >
    >The most important factor is coverage. I have a 7135 on Verizon. With
    >a full signal, I can go 2-3 days with about an hour a day talk time.
    >However a job site I was at for a few weeks, the coverage in the
    >building was spotty. At 7 PM, the battery was almost dead.


    Usually, the reason for this is that when the phone loses a digital
    signal it will drop back to analog and try to work there. Analog uses
    battery charge at a much higher rate than CDMA digital. Most dual or
    triple mode phones give you the option to use digital only which will
    pretty much eliminate this problem. In a decent coverage area, CDMA
    phones will use battery at a significantly lower rate than any other
    technology.

    Klein

    Klein's 1st law: "if you haven't tested it, it doesn't work."




  5. #5
    Jeff Johnson
    Guest

    Re: GSM better batterly life than CDMA?

    Wow,,,lots of different opinions on this one. I thought it would have been
    cut and dry. I don't think I use Analog at all on my sprint as I stay in the
    city. Of course I also know to take the manufacturers battery life with a
    grain of salt.

    Jeff Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >I have been on sprint for some year and am considering cingular/att---there
    >is a dead hole around my house with sprint I cant stand. It seems like all
    >the phones on cingular have much better battery life than sprint. I have
    >one of those huge Sanyo speakerphones that has 7 hour talk time with an
    >extended battery---but I see that time on some of the small cingular
    >phones?
    >






  6. #6
    Evan Platt
    Guest

    Re: GSM better batterly life than CDMA?

    On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:39:23 -0700, Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Usually, the reason for this is that when the phone loses a digital
    >signal it will drop back to analog and try to work there. Analog uses
    >battery charge at a much higher rate than CDMA digital. Most dual or
    >triple mode phones give you the option to use digital only which will
    >pretty much eliminate this problem. In a decent coverage area, CDMA
    >phones will use battery at a significantly lower rate than any other
    >technology.


    I had turned analog off.
    --
    To reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address.



  7. #7
    Tropical Haven
    Guest

    Re: GSM better batterly life than CDMA?

    >>>*Not* true. CDMA phones get much worse battery life than either GSM
    >>>or TDMA. CDMA phones are more active and are doing more than the
    >>>equivalent TDMA or GSM phones.

    >>
    >>The most important factor is coverage. I have a 7135 on Verizon. With
    >>a full signal, I can go 2-3 days with about an hour a day talk time.
    >>However a job site I was at for a few weeks, the coverage in the
    >>building was spotty. At 7 PM, the battery was almost dead.

    >
    > More than likely your unit wasn't receiving signal and tried to get an
    > analog signal. Analog signals will quickly drain the battery. Also
    > CDMA even by itself has much poorer battery life than either TDMA or
    > GSM if only because of the way that CDMA works.
    >
    > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


    I had once heard that CDMA requires more computing (or processing power)
    than TDMA based technologies.

    Not sure if it's true, but it would make sense because TDMA based
    technologies always have a constant communication rate, where CDMA is
    variable depending upon the amount of sound transmitted, the number of
    phones connected to the cell, and other factors.

    TH




  8. #8
    CharlesH
    Guest

    Re: GSM better batterly life than CDMA?

    Tropical Haven wrote:
    > I had once heard that CDMA requires more computing (or processing power)
    > than TDMA based technologies.


    I haven't heard of CDMA phones last more than a couple of days on
    standby, in contrast to GSM phones lasting weeks. The computation angle
    makes sense: TDMA phones (such as GSM) just listen on a particular
    frequency in a particular time slot. OTOH, CDMA phones are doing
    incredibly complex signal processing to extract the "interesting" data
    out of all the crud (from its perspective) on the 1.25 MHz carrier. This
    includes for the periodic listening (every second or so) for a page for
    an incoming call. CDMA-1xRTT is much better about this than the "old"
    CDMA-One, but I don't know what realistic standby times are up to on
    CDMA phones.



  • Similar Threads