disappointing LG 8350!!

Looked closely at the LG 8350 today. Very disappointed. First of
all, the screen is lousy compared to the 8300. Saw that on 2
different phones, so it wasn't just a bad phone. The screen is
absolutely better on the old 8300. Also - the keypad buttons are much
worse on the 8350. The 8300 had excellent buttons - big, easy to push
the correct one every time. The new 8350 has smaller buttons that
feel much less "pressable" to me. All in all - except that it's
great to lose the external antenna of the 8300 (assuming reception
doesn't' degenerate because of the internal antenna - I definitely
prefer the old 8300 to the new 8350. A step backwards, I think. I
was very surprised, disappointed, and expected better.

something tells me that you're biased on 8300 because get this:
new 8350 actually has stronger singal than the 8300 did. You need to
understand that.. all phone for LG are going to be made differently.. so
you had your expectation set so high.. that if you compared i phone to your
8300 u would still say 8300 would be better than i phone.. thats called "
biased"
<zwerl1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189916724.263953.171240@n39g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> Looked closely at the LG 8350 today. Very disappointed. First of
> all, the screen is lousy compared to the 8300. Saw that on 2
> different phones, so it wasn't just a bad phone. The screen is
> absolutely better on the old 8300. Also - the keypad buttons are much
> worse on the 8350. The 8300 had excellent buttons - big, easy to push
> the correct one every time. The new 8350 has smaller buttons that
> feel much less "pressable" to me. All in all - except that it's
> great to lose the external antenna of the 8300 (assuming reception
> doesn't' degenerate because of the internal antenna - I definitely
> prefer the old 8300 to the new 8350. A step backwards, I think. I
> was very surprised, disappointed, and expected better.
>

He never claimed the signal was weaker, He's simply comparing features on an
existing model that work well to similar features on the replacement model
that don't work as well, in his opinion. I happen to agree with him. The
VX8300 is a great phone, which is going to be hard to improve upon


"Nobody you want to meet...." <silky_mez@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FtWdnc7Bjf8VKnHbnZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> something tells me that you're biased on 8300 because get this:
> new 8350 actually has stronger singal than the 8300 did. You need to
> understand that.. all phone for LG are going to be made differently.. so
> you had your expectation set so high.. that if you compared i phone to
> your 8300 u would still say 8300 would be better than i phone.. thats
> called " biased"
> <zwerl1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1189916724.263953.171240@n39g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>> Looked closely at the LG 8350 today. Very disappointed. First of
>> all, the screen is lousy compared to the 8300. Saw that on 2
>> different phones, so it wasn't just a bad phone. The screen is
>> absolutely better on the old 8300. Also - the keypad buttons are much
>> worse on the 8350. The 8300 had excellent buttons - big, easy to push
>> the correct one every time. The new 8350 has smaller buttons that
>> feel much less "pressable" to me. All in all - except that it's
>> great to lose the external antenna of the 8300 (assuming reception
>> doesn't' degenerate because of the internal antenna - I definitely
>> prefer the old 8300 to the new 8350. A step backwards, I think. I
>> was very surprised, disappointed, and expected better.
>>
>
>

You say that the 8350 "actually has a stonger signal than the 8300
did". I hope you are correct, but I have no idea if you are or are
not. Where did you get this information?


On Sep 16, 12:57 am, "Nobody you want to meet...."
<silky_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> something tells me that you're biased on 8300 because get this:
> new 8350 actually has stronger singal than the 8300 did. You need to
> understand that.. all phone for LG are going to be made differently.. so
> you had your expectation set so high.. that if you compared i phone to your
> 8300 u would still say 8300 would be better than i phone.. thats called "
> biased"<zwe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1189916724.263953.171240@n39g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>

well I am corrected based on the website I've read. I'm not trying to say
I know it all, but from what I've been reading, it does implies that it had
better signal.. but to make sure, I'll stop by verizon store tomrorow and
test it out and compare that with 8300 and see if that guy is corrected
based on that. in my heart, I do agree with him on some of his comment but
is till think 8350 singal was improved though that's the only thing i
disagreed on. if i am wrong, please let me know. I dont want to start an
agrugment or anything.

http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/use...php?phone=1286
http://www.phonearena.com/htmls/LG-V...le-a_2008.html

<zwerl1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189951021.123422.68450@w3g2000hsg.googlegrou ps.com...
> You say that the 8350 "actually has a stonger signal than the 8300
> did". I hope you are correct, but I have no idea if you are or are
> not. Where did you get this information?
>
>
> On Sep 16, 12:57 am, "Nobody you want to meet...."
> <silky_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> something tells me that you're biased on 8300 because get this:
>> new 8350 actually has stronger singal than the 8300 did. You need to
>> understand that.. all phone for LG are going to be made differently..
>> so
>> you had your expectation set so high.. that if you compared i phone to
>> your
>> 8300 u would still say 8300 would be better than i phone.. thats called "
>> biased"<zwe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1189916724.263953.171240@n39g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>