What is it with the Sanyo's?

RexYBlue wrote:


>
> I snipped a lot of your post, but I wonder if you were using an earbud
> or headset when all this happened on the VGA 1000.

Nope, never used a headset jack on them.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

---

› See More: What is it with the Sanyo's?

Matt wrote:

> Sorry Isaiah, but if your Samsung VGA1000 was "cutting-out" underneath a
> sprint tower, then your phone was defective. Simple as that.

Considering that every Samsung phone I've tried has had some serious
problem with the way it functions or holds a signal, then Samsung must
have lousy quality control.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>> Isaiah Beard wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> Perhaps your trouble was that the particular phone you were using was
>> defective rather than Sanyo's being somehow magically superior.
>
> I find it highly unlikely that the Samsung N200, N400, A600, and
> VGA1000's that I've sampled at varies points in time would all just
> happen to be "defective."

I did say the recent Samsung's, the A600 and A620 in particular, right? The
N400 has well known troubles.


> And there s no "magically superior" about
> it. It's entirely explainable in that perhaps Sanyo just does a
> better job of designing their RF circuitry while Samsung is very
> willing to cut costs in order to increase profit margins and sell an
> inferior product, believing their users won't know the difference.
>

Most of what you refer to is in the CDMA chips, and Sanyo doesn't even make
them. Motorolla and Qualcomm are the big guys there. Samsung did not
always have the most modern chips, but apparently, now they do.

>
>> Granted,
>> historically, Sanyos have had better performance, mostly due to more
>> modern CDMA chipsets in them and probably better materials for the
>> case and antenna.
>
> There you go. You've just managed to explain, completely on your own,
> how a Sanyo can be "magically" superior.
>
Historically, not currently. Which is what I was referring to. You were
using a VGA1000 were you not?

>
> *shrug* I can definitely give you negative reports on both.

Yes you do, however, your trouble very clearly indicates a defective phone.

Tom Veldhouse

Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>
>> Sorry Isaiah, but if your Samsung VGA1000 was "cutting-out"
>> underneath a sprint tower, then your phone was defective. Simple as
>> that.
>
> Considering that every Samsung phone I've tried has had some serious
> problem with the way it functions or holds a signal, then Samsung must
> have lousy quality control.

I have had the A400 and the A500 and my wife has the A460 and we have no
trouble with any of our phones (I did have trouble with a bad software
version on my A500, but they fixed all issues I had with WD29).

Tom Veldhouse