Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Compare V551 to RAZR

Tags:
  • Cingular
  • Internet Service Providers
Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:13:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

John N. (and others),

I just picked up a RAZR and, although it's cool looking, I don't know if
it's $500.00 worth of COOL. I'm not particularly impressed with the manual
or availability of accessories, software, etc. I thought I saw a recent
post that indicated you had both handsets. Your thoughts?

More about : compare v551 razr

Anonymous
December 2, 2004 4:19:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <7xErd.83134$jE2.24974@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
"Joe Fabeitz" <jf@hotmail.com> wrote:

> John N. (and others),
>
> I just picked up a RAZR and, although it's cool looking, I don't know if
> it's $500.00 worth of COOL. I'm not particularly impressed with the manual
> or availability of accessories, software, etc. I thought I saw a recent
> post that indicated you had both handsets. Your thoughts?

You're paying the price of being on the BLEEDING EDGE of technology.

However I see folks on eBay selling a genuine Motorola Car charger
for the V3, SYN0768 for reasonable prices.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 7:08:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <7xErd.83134$jE2.24974@bignews4.bellsouth.net> on Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:13:37
-0500, "Joe Fabeitz" <jf@hotmail.com> wrote:

>John N. (and others),
>
>I just picked up a RAZR and, although it's cool looking, I don't know if
>it's $500.00 worth of COOL. I'm not particularly impressed with the manual
>or availability of accessories, software, etc. I thought I saw a recent
>post that indicated you had both handsets. Your thoughts?

I have used the V551 extensively. I've seen the RAZR, but haven't actually
used it. My big objection to the RAZR (other than price) is the lack of EDGE.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 7:09:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-9E5F11.07194102122004@news1.east.earthlink.net> on Thu, 02 Dec
2004 13:19:41 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <7xErd.83134$jE2.24974@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> "Joe Fabeitz" <jf@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John N. (and others),
>>
>> I just picked up a RAZR and, although it's cool looking, I don't know if
>> it's $500.00 worth of COOL. I'm not particularly impressed with the manual
>> or availability of accessories, software, etc. I thought I saw a recent
>> post that indicated you had both handsets. Your thoughts?
>
>You're paying the price of being on the BLEEDING EDGE of technology.

Except you don't get EDGE (high-speed data), an unfortunate omission in a
bleeding edge product.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:37:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <_6Hrd.8977$_3.106034@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-9E5F11.07194102122004@news1.east.earthlink.net> on Thu, 02 Dec
> 2004 13:19:41 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <7xErd.83134$jE2.24974@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Joe Fabeitz" <jf@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John N. (and others),
> >>
> >> I just picked up a RAZR and, although it's cool looking, I don't know if
> >> it's $500.00 worth of COOL. I'm not particularly impressed with the manual
> >> or availability of accessories, software, etc. I thought I saw a recent
> >> post that indicated you had both handsets. Your thoughts?
> >
> >You're paying the price of being on the BLEEDING EDGE of technology.
>
> Except you don't get EDGE (high-speed data), an unfortunate omission in a
> bleeding edge product.

You get GPRS which in real world tests is at least half as fast as EDGE,
and falls within "high-Speed data" definitions.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:54:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-F1522E.14370502122004@news1.east.earthlink.net> on Thu, 02 Dec
2004 20:37:05 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <_6Hrd.8977$_3.106034@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> Except you don't get EDGE (high-speed data), an unfortunate omission in a
>> bleeding edge product.
>
>You get GPRS which in real world tests is at least half as fast as EDGE,
>and falls within "high-Speed data" definitions.

Wrong (as usual) on both counts:

1. In extensive real-world testing (see my posts), GPRS is 40-50 Kbps,
whereas EDGE is 110-180 Kbps, typically 2.5-3x faster than GPRS.

2. GPRS is about the same as a V.90 modem, which doesn't really qualify as
"high-speed data," whereas EDGE is roughly comparable to (and often better
than) ISDN.

I doubt that you have much (if any) experience with either, which helps to
explain your ignorance.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:54:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

======================================================================
* Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <jackru$$ell2@notmail.com>
* Newsgroup alt.cellular.cingular
* Reply to: All; "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
* Date:Thu, 2 Dec 2004 16:32:43 -0500
* Subj:Re: Re: Compare V551 to RAZR
======================================================================

JN>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

JN>In <jzwick3-F1522E.14370502122004@news1.east.earthlink.net> on
JN>Thu, 02 Dec
JN>2004 20:37:05 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
JN>Wrong (as usual) on both counts:

JN>1. In extensive real-world testing (see my posts), GPRS is 40-50
Kbps,
JN>whereas EDGE is 110-180 Kbps, typically 2.5-3x faster than GPRS.

JN>2. GPRS is about the same as a V.90 modem, which doesn't really
JN>qualify as "high-speed data," whereas EDGE is roughly comparable to
(and
JN>often better than) ISDN.

JN>I doubt that you have much (if any) experience with either,
JN>which helps to explain your ignorance.

While that would explain Phillipe's ignorance of cellular data
technology, what explains his ignorance of everything else? ;) 

--
Jack
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 7:13:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 16:36:42 -0500, "Jack D. Russell, Sr."
<jackru$$ell2@notmail.com> said in alt.cellular.cingular:

>JN>I doubt that you have much (if any) experience with either,
>JN>which helps to explain your ignorance.

>While that would explain Phillipe's ignorance of cellular data
>technology, what explains his ignorance of everything else? ;) 

Lack of experience with everything else?
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 7:15:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:13:37 -0500, "Joe Fabeitz" <jf@hotmail.com> said
in alt.cellular.cingular:

>I just picked up a RAZR and, although it's cool looking, I don't know if
>it's $500.00 worth of COOL.

Someone's ripping someone off. Or are you talking about buying one
outright?

>I'm not particularly impressed with the manual
>or availability of accessories

Most aftermarket manufacturers won't tool up for a new phone until
they see how it sells.

>software

Takes time to write.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 7:15:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Al Klein wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:13:37 -0500, "Joe Fabeitz" <jf@hotmail.com> said
> in alt.cellular.cingular:
>
>> I just picked up a RAZR and, although it's cool looking, I don't
>> know if it's $500.00 worth of COOL.
>
> Someone's ripping someone off. Or are you talking about buying one
> outright?
>

That's what they cost. Have you seen them advertised more cheaply?


--
David G.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 5:00:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:23:42 -0500, "David G."
<david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> said in
alt.cellular.cingular:

>Al Klein wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:13:37 -0500, "Joe Fabeitz" <jf@hotmail.com> said
>> in alt.cellular.cingular:
>>
>>> I just picked up a RAZR and, although it's cool looking, I don't
>>> know if it's $500.00 worth of COOL.
>>
>> Someone's ripping someone off. Or are you talking about buying one
>> outright?
>>
>
>That's what they cost. Have you seen them advertised more cheaply?

I'm a dealer, so I know what I can afford to sell them for. $500 with
one year? Two years?
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 5:00:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Al Klein wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:23:42 -0500, "David G."
> <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> said in
> alt.cellular.cingular:
>
>> Al Klein wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:13:37 -0500, "Joe Fabeitz" <jf@hotmail.com>
>>> said in alt.cellular.cingular:
>>>
>>>> I just picked up a RAZR and, although it's cool looking, I don't
>>>> know if it's $500.00 worth of COOL.
>>>
>>> Someone's ripping someone off. Or are you talking about buying one
>>> outright?
>>>
>>
>> That's what they cost. Have you seen them advertised more cheaply?
>
> I'm a dealer, so I know what I can afford to sell them for. $500 with
> one year? Two years?

I don't understand your answer. All I'm saying is all the ads for the
phone I've seen are for a 2-year contract at $499 (which supposedly is
$100 off). What are you saying?

--
David G.
December 4, 2004 9:14:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Joe Fabeitz" <jf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7xErd.83134$jE2.24974@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> John N. (and others),
>
> I just picked up a RAZR and, although it's cool looking, I don't know if
> it's $500.00 worth of COOL. I'm not particularly impressed with the manual
> or availability of accessories, software, etc. I thought I saw a recent
> post that indicated you had both handsets. Your thoughts?
>
>

You paid $500 for a cell phone? Have you lost your mind? What is it going to
do that your present phone doesn't? It probably cost $75 to get it made
overseas.
December 4, 2004 10:21:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 01:35:37 -0500, "David G."
<david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> wrote:

>Al Klein wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:23:42 -0500, "David G."
>> <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> said in
>> alt.cellular.cingular:
>>
>>> Al Klein wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:13:37 -0500, "Joe Fabeitz" <jf@hotmail.com>
>>>> said in alt.cellular.cingular:
>>>>
>>>>> I just picked up a RAZR and, although it's cool looking, I don't
>>>>> know if it's $500.00 worth of COOL.
>>>>
>>>> Someone's ripping someone off. Or are you talking about buying one
>>>> outright?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's what they cost. Have you seen them advertised more cheaply?
>>
>> I'm a dealer, so I know what I can afford to sell them for. $500 with
>> one year? Two years?
>
>I don't understand your answer. All I'm saying is all the ads for the
>phone I've seen are for a 2-year contract at $499 (which supposedly is
>$100 off). What are you saying?

The V3 is currently $369.99 after rebate on Amazon. Also, free
shipping.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 12:35:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <QoOdnVz9rcApxyzcRVn-3g@comcast.com>,
"David G." <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> wrote:

> Al Klein wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:23:42 -0500, "David G."
> > <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> said in
> > alt.cellular.cingular:
> >
> >> Al Klein wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:13:37 -0500, "Joe Fabeitz" <jf@hotmail.com>
> >>> said in alt.cellular.cingular:
> >>>
> >>>> I just picked up a RAZR and, although it's cool looking, I don't
> >>>> know if it's $500.00 worth of COOL.
> >>>
> >>> Someone's ripping someone off. Or are you talking about buying one
> >>> outright?
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's what they cost. Have you seen them advertised more cheaply?
> >
> > I'm a dealer, so I know what I can afford to sell them for. $500 with
> > one year? Two years?
>
> I don't understand your answer. All I'm saying is all the ads for the
> phone I've seen are for a 2-year contract at $499 (which supposedly is
> $100 off). What are you saying?

It's hard to tell with any phone. V600's were going for $400 when they
first came out, and for Free at the end of their run.

Cingular is entitled to sell a new "hot" phone for whatever they want.
If the price seems too high to you, fine, you're entitled not to buy it.
You're entitled to buy a T-Mobile phone instead to use on T-Mobile, or
an unlocked phone from Hong-Kong via eBay. That's how the free market
works, you have choices. There are long lines and shortages for things
where prices are kept artificially low, and major surpluses where prices
are too high. If you don't see boxes of v3 piled up in the corner of the
store, the price is not too high at this point in time. In a Communist
state, the one state cellular company might have one model phone at one
price, and that would be it.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 12:52:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <pf62r054h6tpp278ffmvi3hvl7031dmp8j@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:23:42 -0500, "David G."
> <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> said in
> alt.cellular.cingular:
>
> >Al Klein wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:13:37 -0500, "Joe Fabeitz" <jf@hotmail.com> said
> >> in alt.cellular.cingular:
> >>
> >>> I just picked up a RAZR and, although it's cool looking, I don't
> >>> know if it's $500.00 worth of COOL.
> >>
> >> Someone's ripping someone off. Or are you talking about buying one
> >> outright?
> >>
> >
> >That's what they cost. Have you seen them advertised more cheaply?
>
> I'm a dealer, so I know what I can afford to sell them for. $500 with
> one year? Two years?

The price was $499.99, now its $499.99 reduced from $599.99.

"Offer for MOTOROLA RAZR V3 is only valid for orders placed on
Cingular.com. $100 savings is based on discount from Motorola Razr V3
suggested retail price of $599.99. Retail pricing of Motorola Razr V3
may vary by market.

California customers: Sales tax is calculated based on the retail price
of the Motorola Razr V3 phone."
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:38:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Rock wrote:
>
> You paid $500 for a cell phone? Have you lost your mind? What is it going to
> do that your present phone doesn't?

Chicks dig the RAZR!
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 6:21:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <5IXMNC9F38324.3111226852@anonymous.poster> on 3 Dec 2004 06:28:01 -0000,
nobody@See.Comments.Header (Italy Anonymous Remailer) wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:09:30 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Except you don't get EDGE (high-speed data), an unfortunate omission in a
>>bleeding edge product.
>
>Most people could care less?
>
>We're talking a little dinky screen on a cellphone, not a 22" monitor.
>
>A cellphone does not need high bandwidth. Cellphones aren't used to view
>DivX movies, bittorrent LINUX ISOs or run FTP servers. They are used to
>transfer text messages and grab NFL scores.
>
>GPRS is more than most people will ever need in 2004 and 2005.

Having used both GRPS and EDGE (actually EGPRS) extensively, I respectfully
disagree -- EGPRS makes a substantial difference with WAP and/or email on a
handset.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 8:11:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <mradnfRZpJxieizcRVn-3Q@comcast.com> on Sat, 04 Dec 2004 10:38:58 -0600,
Bob Horvath <usenet@horvath.com> wrote:

>Rock wrote:
>>
>> You paid $500 for a cell phone? Have you lost your mind? What is it going to
>> do that your present phone doesn't?
>
>Chicks dig the RAZR!

Now there's a good reason. Not.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 8:41:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Jack Zwick wrote:
> It's hard to tell with any phone. V600's were going for $400 when they
> first came out, and for Free at the end of their run.
>
> Cingular is entitled to sell a new "hot" phone for whatever they want.
> If the price seems too high to you, fine, you're entitled not to buy
> it. You're entitled to buy a T-Mobile phone instead to use on
> T-Mobile, or an unlocked phone from Hong-Kong via eBay. That's how
> the free market works, you have choices. There are long lines and
> shortages for things where prices are kept artificially low, and
> major surpluses where prices are too high. If you don't see boxes of
> v3 piled up in the corner of the store, the price is not too high at
> this point in time. In a Communist state, the one state cellular
> company might have one model phone at one price, and that would be it.

Who said I was saying the price was high?

--
David G.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 6:16:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 01:35:37 -0500, "David G."
<david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> said in
alt.cellular.cingular:

>Al Klein wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:23:42 -0500, "David G."
>> <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> said in
>> alt.cellular.cingular:
>>
>>> Al Klein wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:13:37 -0500, "Joe Fabeitz" <jf@hotmail.com>
>>>> said in alt.cellular.cingular:
>>>>
>>>>> I just picked up a RAZR and, although it's cool looking, I don't
>>>>> know if it's $500.00 worth of COOL.
>>>>
>>>> Someone's ripping someone off. Or are you talking about buying one
>>>> outright?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's what they cost. Have you seen them advertised more cheaply?
>>
>> I'm a dealer, so I know what I can afford to sell them for. $500 with
>> one year? Two years?
>
>I don't understand your answer. All I'm saying is all the ads for the
>phone I've seen are for a 2-year contract at $499 (which supposedly is
>$100 off).

That's what Cingular is selling them for.

> What are you saying?

I sell them for less ($400 or less, depending on the plan). And, no,
that wasn't an offer to sell you one.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 7:16:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 10:38:58 -0600, Bob Horvath <usenet@horvath.com>
said in alt.cellular.cingular:

>Rock wrote:

>> You paid $500 for a cell phone? Have you lost your mind? What is it going to
>> do that your present phone doesn't?

>Chicks dig the RAZR!

It's the single most uncomfortable cell phone I've ever held.
December 5, 2004 7:16:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 04:16:04 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 10:38:58 -0600, Bob Horvath <usenet@horvath.com>
>said in alt.cellular.cingular:
>
>>Rock wrote:
>
>>> You paid $500 for a cell phone? Have you lost your mind? What is it going to
>>> do that your present phone doesn't?
>
>>Chicks dig the RAZR!
>
>It's the single most uncomfortable cell phone I've ever held.

Apparently, you have never held the Motorola DynaTAC, circa 1984,
weighing 28 ounces. Compared to that, the RAZR is a dream to hold.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 12:23:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Dick wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 04:16:04 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 10:38:58 -0600, Bob Horvath <usenet@horvath.com>
>>said in alt.cellular.cingular:
>>
>>
>>>Rock wrote:
>>
>>>>You paid $500 for a cell phone? Have you lost your mind? What is it going to
>>>>do that your present phone doesn't?
>>
>>>Chicks dig the RAZR!
>>
>>It's the single most uncomfortable cell phone I've ever held.
>
>
> Apparently, you have never held the Motorola DynaTAC, circa 1984,
> weighing 28 ounces. Compared to that, the RAZR is a dream to hold.

Actually, the old brick phones gave you a lot to wrap your hands around.
Plus you could cradle them on your shoulder if you had to. Sure, they
were a little heavy, but back then minutes were expensive, so you didn't
talk long :-).
December 5, 2004 5:07:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:23:39 -0600, Bob Horvath <usenet@horvath.com>
wrote:

>Dick wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 04:16:04 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 10:38:58 -0600, Bob Horvath <usenet@horvath.com>
>>>said in alt.cellular.cingular:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rock wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You paid $500 for a cell phone? Have you lost your mind? What is it going to
>>>>>do that your present phone doesn't?
>>>
>>>>Chicks dig the RAZR!
>>>
>>>It's the single most uncomfortable cell phone I've ever held.
>>
>>
>> Apparently, you have never held the Motorola DynaTAC, circa 1984,
>> weighing 28 ounces. Compared to that, the RAZR is a dream to hold.
>
>Actually, the old brick phones gave you a lot to wrap your hands around.
> Plus you could cradle them on your shoulder if you had to. Sure, they
>were a little heavy, but back then minutes were expensive, so you didn't
>talk long :-).

No kidding. Back in around 1990, I was driving down Hwy 99 in
California talking to my boss in New York. We talked twice for about
15 minutes total. In those days, every time you passed into another
cel, it seems like you were connected to another provider. That 15
minutes cost the company about $100 in roaming and connect charges.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 9:35:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

>>I just picked up a RAZR and, although it's cool looking, I don't know if
>>it's $500.00 worth of COOL.
>

Motorola Junk shouldn't cost that much!

However, going back many years the old saying - You can ALWASY buy better tham
Motorola, you just can't pay more! - seems to be true once again!


--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 7:14:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:04:30 -0700, Dick <LeadWinger> said in
alt.cellular.cingular:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 04:16:04 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 10:38:58 -0600, Bob Horvath <usenet@horvath.com>
>>said in alt.cellular.cingular:
>>
>>>Rock wrote:
>>
>>>> You paid $500 for a cell phone? Have you lost your mind? What is it going to
>>>> do that your present phone doesn't?
>>
>>>Chicks dig the RAZR!
>>
>>It's the single most uncomfortable cell phone I've ever held.
>
>Apparently, you have never held the Motorola DynaTAC, circa 1984,
>weighing 28 ounces.

I keep a brick in my safe. It still works, although the battery
doesn't hold a charge too long these days.

The Razr is less comfortable.
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 7:15:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:23:39 -0600, Bob Horvath <usenet@horvath.com>
said in alt.cellular.cingular:

>Actually, the old brick phones gave you a lot to wrap your hands around.
> Plus you could cradle them on your shoulder if you had to.

Compared to the Razr, which gives you a crick in your neck after about
3 seconds.
December 6, 2004 6:23:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 04:14:27 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:04:30 -0700, Dick <LeadWinger> said in
>alt.cellular.cingular:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 04:16:04 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 10:38:58 -0600, Bob Horvath <usenet@horvath.com>
>>>said in alt.cellular.cingular:
>>>
>>>>Rock wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You paid $500 for a cell phone? Have you lost your mind? What is it going to
>>>>> do that your present phone doesn't?
>>>
>>>>Chicks dig the RAZR!
>>>
>>>It's the single most uncomfortable cell phone I've ever held.
>>
>>Apparently, you have never held the Motorola DynaTAC, circa 1984,
>>weighing 28 ounces.
>
>I keep a brick in my safe. It still works, although the battery
>doesn't hold a charge too long these days.
>
>The Razr is less comfortable.


Actually you can get the V3 for 399.00 with a one year contract from
A1wireless in NY.
December 6, 2004 8:53:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Craven Morehead wrote:

> But can you buy TWO?


Two RAZRs or two chicks? Oh, never mind, my question is irrelevant,
because the answer is the same for both. Yes, you can, you can buy
whatever you want. It's all available and the only question is how much.


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 3:48:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Al Klein wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:23:39 -0600, Bob Horvath <usenet@horvath.com>
> said in alt.cellular.cingular:
>
>
>>Actually, the old brick phones gave you a lot to wrap your hands around.
>> Plus you could cradle them on your shoulder if you had to.
>
>
> Compared to the Razr, which gives you a crick in your neck after about
> 3 seconds.

Bluetooth headsets are the best thing to happen to cellphones.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 6:39:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:23:11 -0500, Bobbo <tongue@bellsouth.net> said
in alt.cellular.cingular:

>Actually you can get the V3 for 399.00 with a one year contract from
>A1wireless in NY.

I get considerably less than that.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 5:24:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <06mdnSYVcdKWzyjcRVn-3g@comcast.com> on Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:48:29 -0600,
Bob Horvath <usenet@horvath.com> wrote:

>Al Klein wrote:

>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:23:39 -0600, Bob Horvath <usenet@horvath.com>
>> said in alt.cellular.cingular:
>>
>>>Actually, the old brick phones gave you a lot to wrap your hands around.
>>> Plus you could cradle them on your shoulder if you had to.
>>
>> Compared to the Razr, which gives you a crick in your neck after about
>> 3 seconds.
>
>Bluetooth headsets are the best thing to happen to cellphones.

Agreed!

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 5:53:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:48:29 -0600, Bob Horvath <usenet@horvath.com>
said in alt.cellular.cingular:

>Al Klein wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:23:39 -0600, Bob Horvath <usenet@horvath.com>
>> said in alt.cellular.cingular:
>>
>>
>>>Actually, the old brick phones gave you a lot to wrap your hands around.
>>> Plus you could cradle them on your shoulder if you had to.
>>
>>
>> Compared to the Razr, which gives you a crick in your neck after about
>> 3 seconds.
>
>Bluetooth headsets are the best thing to happen to cellphones.

When I'm holding the phone and just have to use my hands for a few
seconds, I want a phone with thickness - I don't want to have to take
10 seconds putting on and taking off a headset.
!