Todd,

If you were to pick one of the current phones offered by AT&T now, which
one would you pick, if you were in a weak signal area? I never heard of the
Krazr K1. I appreciate all the responses I have received, but am still
having a difficult time picking one that is best for a weak signal area with
AT&T. Charles Ranheim


"Todd H." <t@toddh.net> wrote in message news:84y7i7s9tr.fsf@ripco.com...
> "Don R." <drennardnospam@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> If you do change phones, my experience has proven any Motorola to have
>> the
>> best reception. Slightly to much better than Nokia, Samsungand most of
>> the
>> LG phones. Some of the newer LG's can hold their own against
>> Motorla.
>
> My experience is quite the opposite, however. Comparing manufacturers
> like this seems frought with peril.
>
> I've had 2 GSM Motorola's that couldn't hold a candle to 2 of my GSM
> Nokias, and 1 Motorola that edges the Nokias out. Motorola makes some
> crap, and some good stuff in my experience.
>
> While, I've never had a Nokia I would say was "bad" (the 3 I've had--1
> tdma, 1 gait, 1 gsm--have all been solid and consistent) I have to
> admit my Krazr K1 does them all one better invox quality and rf
> stability. The other 2 Motorola phones I've used, however were utter
> shit. Razr v3 was terrible, and a 7somethin-something were poor in
> audio quality and the most fond of dropping calls of any phones I've
> had. Krazr K1 on the other hand is the best phone I've ever had.
>
> I've also worked for circle M and know from the inside that some
> designs and manufacturing lines manage to produce crap, others gold.
>
> Best Regards,
> --
> Todd H.
> http://toddh.net/