Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

If trading up to a newer phone, how much signal quaility i..

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 1:16:09 PM

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

I have had my best reception with the Sanyo 4700 phone. Reception and
holding the signal is my primary concern.
The newer phones seem to be conceded, but the in store Sprint
representatives as being of lesser holding quality than the classic
4700.
However the improved capacity to download contact information and the
fact of the offering of the new phone rebate to those, such as I, who
have been with Sprint for years (and am not under any binding
contract) - leads me to consider a Sanyo (only) Sanyo, 4920 or
7200/RL2000 or 8200 or the new 7400.

It would seem inevitable that I would have a lesser quality signal
reception and holding than with the 4700, particularly with the small
clamshell phones, but if not too great a reduction, I might be willing
and able to live with it, in exchange for the USB contact transfer and
quantity of contact entries, which the 4700, obviously does not have

Could anyone comment on the degree or reduction of quality of signal
holding that would be the case with one of the newer, above, phones ?
December 18, 2004 11:53:13 AM

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

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:16:09 GMT, J. Bernie J. < - no spam --
jbb4545@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I have had my best reception with the Sanyo 4700 phone. Reception and
>holding the signal is my primary concern.
>The newer phones seem to be conceded, but the in store Sprint
>representatives as being of lesser holding quality than the classic
>4700.
>However the improved capacity to download contact information and the
>fact of the offering of the new phone rebate to those, such as I, who
>have been with Sprint for years (and am not under any binding
>contract) - leads me to consider a Sanyo (only) Sanyo, 4920 or
>7200/RL2000 or 8200 or the new 7400.
>
>It would seem inevitable that I would have a lesser quality signal
>reception and holding than with the 4700, particularly with the small
>clamshell phones, but if not too great a reduction, I might be willing
>and able to live with it, in exchange for the USB contact transfer and
>quantity of contact entries, which the 4700, obviously does not have
>
>Could anyone comment on the degree or reduction of quality of signal
>holding that would be the case with one of the newer, above, phones ?

This definitely is aligned with my own concerns, at this time. I would
be very interested in intelligent responses to this question.
Mary
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 4:09:09 PM

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

> I have had my best reception with the Sanyo 4700 phone. Reception and
> holding the signal is my primary concern.
> The newer phones seem to be conceded, but the in store Sprint
> representatives as being of lesser holding quality than the classic
> 4700.
> However the improved capacity to download contact information and the
> fact of the offering of the new phone rebate to those, such as I, who
> have been with Sprint for years (and am not under any binding
> contract) - leads me to consider a Sanyo (only) Sanyo, 4920 or
> 7200/RL2000 or 8200 or the new 7400.
>
> It would seem inevitable that I would have a lesser quality signal
> reception and holding than with the 4700, particularly with the small
> clamshell phones, but if not too great a reduction, I might be
willing
> and able to live with it, in exchange for the USB contact transfer
and
> quantity of contact entries, which the 4700, obviously does not have


I've not tried the 4700. But out of about 10 phones used the 7400
seems to be pretty good. Although I've not been anywhere that is
usually problematic though.

Eric
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 3:33:12 PM

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

On 20 Dec 2004 13:09:09 -0800, ewitte@hotmail.com wrote:

>> I have had my best reception with the Sanyo 4700 phone. Reception and
>> holding the signal is my primary concern.
>> The newer phones seem to be conceded, but the in store Sprint
>> representatives as being of lesser holding quality than the classic
>> 4700.
>> However the improved capacity to download contact information and the
>> fact of the offering of the new phone rebate to those, such as I, who
>> have been with Sprint for years (and am not under any binding
>> contract) - leads me to consider a Sanyo (only) Sanyo, 4920 or
>> 7200/RL2000 or 8200 or the new 7400.
>>
>> It would seem inevitable that I would have a lesser quality signal
>> reception and holding than with the 4700, particularly with the small
>> clamshell phones, but if not too great a reduction, I might be
>willing
>> and able to live with it, in exchange for the USB contact transfer
>and
>> quantity of contact entries, which the 4700, obviously does not have
>
>
>I've not tried the 4700. But out of about 10 phones used the 7400
>seems to be pretty good. Although I've not been anywhere that is
>usually problematic though.
>
>Eric

Thanks, Eric. The 7400 is the newest Sprint phone, apparently. Do you
think that chip, firmware and other refinements by Sprint engineers
have particularly improved the signal holding ability of the phone ?
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 6:29:29 PM

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

"J. Bernie J." < - no spam -- jbb4545@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:st5gs09drnnl11nvtsi9465gd0f8b196ht@4ax.com...
> On 20 Dec 2004 13:09:09 -0800, ewitte@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> I have had my best reception with the Sanyo 4700 phone. Reception and
> >> holding the signal is my primary concern.
> >> The newer phones seem to be conceded, but the in store Sprint
> >> representatives as being of lesser holding quality than the classic
> >> 4700.
> >> However the improved capacity to download contact information and the
> >> fact of the offering of the new phone rebate to those, such as I, who
> >> have been with Sprint for years (and am not under any binding
> >> contract) - leads me to consider a Sanyo (only) Sanyo, 4920 or
> >> 7200/RL2000 or 8200 or the new 7400.
> >>
> >> It would seem inevitable that I would have a lesser quality signal
> >> reception and holding than with the 4700, particularly with the small
> >> clamshell phones, but if not too great a reduction, I might be
> >willing
> >> and able to live with it, in exchange for the USB contact transfer
> >and
> >> quantity of contact entries, which the 4700, obviously does not have
> >
> >
> >I've not tried the 4700. But out of about 10 phones used the 7400
> >seems to be pretty good. Although I've not been anywhere that is
> >usually problematic though.
> >
> >Eric
>
> Thanks, Eric. The 7400 is the newest Sprint phone, apparently. Do you
> think that chip, firmware and other refinements by Sprint engineers
> have particularly improved the signal holding ability of the phone ?

I can't say whether it's improved, but my Sanyo 5300, which is two years old
now, is just as good or better than my wife's 4700 ...

Bob
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 8:18:05 PM

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

"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tjXxd.5757$Z47.748@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "J. Bernie J." < - no spam -- jbb4545@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:st5gs09drnnl11nvtsi9465gd0f8b196ht@4ax.com...
> > On 20 Dec 2004 13:09:09 -0800, ewitte@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >> I have had my best reception with the Sanyo 4700 phone. Reception and
> > >> holding the signal is my primary concern.
> > >> The newer phones seem to be conceded, but the in store Sprint
> > >> representatives as being of lesser holding quality than the classic
> > >> 4700.
> > >> However the improved capacity to download contact information and the
> > >> fact of the offering of the new phone rebate to those, such as I, who
> > >> have been with Sprint for years (and am not under any binding
> > >> contract) - leads me to consider a Sanyo (only) Sanyo, 4920 or
> > >> 7200/RL2000 or 8200 or the new 7400.
> > >>
> > >> It would seem inevitable that I would have a lesser quality signal
> > >> reception and holding than with the 4700, particularly with the small
> > >> clamshell phones, but if not too great a reduction, I might be
> > >willing
> > >> and able to live with it, in exchange for the USB contact transfer
> > >and
> > >> quantity of contact entries, which the 4700, obviously does not have
> > >
> > >
> > >I've not tried the 4700. But out of about 10 phones used the 7400
> > >seems to be pretty good. Although I've not been anywhere that is
> > >usually problematic though.
> > >
> > >Eric
> >
> > Thanks, Eric. The 7400 is the newest Sprint phone, apparently. Do you
> > think that chip, firmware and other refinements by Sprint engineers
> > have particularly improved the signal holding ability of the phone ?
>
> I can't say whether it's improved, but my Sanyo 5300, which is two years
old
> now, is just as good or better than my wife's 4700 ...
>
> Bob
>

I can say better/worse, but I think the 5300 is a GREAT phone. I researched
it quite a bit before buying..
If you can find the Sanyo that comes close to that one.. Go for it... I
never knew how good it could be, until I had the 5300..
(But also, to be honest, I immediately updated the firmware to the current
level!)
The 5300 phone sold me on Sanyo....
I had a Samsung 3500 before,, couldn't hold a call in all sorts of areas ...
yadda yadda yadda.. blamed on location, tower , being inside, etc.
Funny thing Sanyo works first time, every time!
!