There doesn't seem to be an Android phone for me.

[IOWA]

I want a phone that lasts 5 days under heavy use!

/sarcasm

Your expecting way too much man.

Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.

 

[mkglobal]

I want a phone that lasts 5 days under heavy use!

/sarcasm

Your expecting way too much man.

Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.

I'm expecting a phone that runs 2 days under heavy use. The iPhone 4 does it. The Samsung Galaxy does it. My Bold 2 does it.

Also, CDMA blows.

 

[EmoTonyB]

I want a phone that lasts 5 days under heavy use!

/sarcasm

Your expecting way too much man.

Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.

but really... is remote charging via satellite too much to ask? like should i really ever HAVE to charge my phone???

 

[IOWA]

I'm expecting a phone that runs 2 days under heavy use. The iPhone 4 does it. The Samsung Galaxy does it. My Bold 2 does it.

Also, CDMA blows.

No they don't. Apparently your version heavy use doesn't fit the standard version of heavy use, as there is no smartphone in existence that lasts two days under heavy use.


And cdma > gsm detail in link in sig, with pure facts. If cdmasucks so bad, maybe you shouldn't get a 3g phone as gsm carriers use a cdma technology for their 3g service.

*class dismissed*

 

[mkglobal]

No they don't. Apparently your version heavy use doesn't fit the standard version of heavy use, as there is no smartphone in existence that lasts two days under heavy use.

iPhone 4 review -- Engadget

This is a big one for many people, and we have some fairly surprising news to report. The battery life on the iPhone 4 has been outstanding thus far, exceeding our expectations for longevity during testing. We've only had a short time to use the phone, but in the week or so we've been carrying the device as our main phone, we've had pretty amazing results under normal to heavy use. In fact, we managed to squeeze more than 38 hours -- yes, 38 hours -- of life out of a single charge using the phone as we normally would. We're talking calls, some gaming, lots of push email and calendar invites, playing music over Bluetooth in the car, and just general testing (like downloading new apps, rearranging icons, tweaking settings). We went from 10:30AM on a Saturday morning till 1:00AM on Monday without needing to charge the phone. Of course, it switched itself off just after the clock struck 1, but it was thrilling -- like that episode of Seinfeld where Kramer and the car salesman see how far they can get in a car with the tank on E. Sitcom references aside, the battery life seems markedly improved in the iPhone 4, and why not? It's got a much larger battery coupled with that iPad-powering A4, which has already shown that it can sip rather than gulp power.

*cough*

And cdma > gsm detail in link in sig, with pure facts. If cdmasucks so bad, maybe you shouldn't get a 3g phone as gsm carriers use a cdma technology for their 3g service.

I was more on about Verizon & Sprint sucky system. I like having a phone and popping whichever SIM card I want in it.

 

[opticalshadow]

well that review aside the deffinition i go by with heavy use, and from what i understood standered, didnt have my friends ip4 last all that long, certianlyl not one day. idk, maybe they got lucky, maybe my standereds are diffrent then theirs.

but again i have to ask, why is it importnet you need the phone to last 2 days without charge? do you stay up for 48 hrs often? i mean, its just as easy as plugging it in when you sleep. hell it only takes my nexus one the time it takes me to shower to go from 30% to full (roughly 30 minutes when counting in shaving dressing and all)

 

[lunatic59]

iPhone 4 review -- Engadget



*cough*



I was more on about Verizon & Sprint sucky system. I like having a phone and popping whichever SIM card I want in it.

Unless they've changed the manner it which the passage of time is measured, 38 hours is 10 hours short of 2 days. That's similar to the charge times i get on my N1 under similar usage.

 

[Zardos]

I've never had any phone, EVER, than has lasted more than a day. Be it dumb phone, feature phone or a smart phone. I'm a heavy user. Even the blackberrys I have owned had to be slapped on the charger when I hit the sack at night.

I don't see how people get more than a day out of a phone. I was able to squeeze 14 hours out of my Evo, and I was thrilled.

 

[IOWA]

iPhone 4 review -- Engadget



*cough*



I was more on about Verizon & Sprint sucky system. I like having a phone and popping whichever SIM card I want in it.

Just because you like something, doesn't make it better.

"Here's rock solid facts, on why x is better than y"

"But I like y, so it must be better!"

I prefer having signal reliability thank you very much, and virtually no dropped calls. You can have your SIM.


And posting an engadget article for iphone defense? That's like saying the crap posted on oszcarsguide is true.. wtf? Everyone knows engadget dangles on steve jobs'... the thing you "hold different".

 

[mkglobal]

Iowa:

You can read every review you want on the Internet, they all praise the iPhone 4 's battery life. To me it doesn't make up for the odd signal issues but it's still a thing competion's forgotten about, especially with phones like the EVO.
Also, dropped calls and poor signal reliability is caused more by some carrier's shitty network than GSM itself. I've been to France more than once and they get 3G coverage everywhere + never any dropped call. And they use GSM. It's a smaller country indeed but hey, it's also somewhat poorer?

Zardos:

My BlackBerry lasts a good two days under my use, which includes 2 hours of music a day, some browsing, 200-400 text messages, 50-100 e-mails and waving the phone around with the LED flash on because I dropped food in the couch.

lunatic59:

38 hours means that you can take it on Monday morning and basically not charge it until the next evening. That's all I'm asking. Of course I'll charge it every night, but I also happen not to sleep at my place everyday and even (wow!) forget to charge it.

 

[IOWA]

Iowa:

You can read every review you want on the Internet, they all praise the iPhone 4 's battery life. To me it doesn't make up for the odd signal issues but it's still a thing competion's forgotten about, especially with phones like the EVO.
Also, dropped calls and poor signal reliability is caused more by some carrier's shitty network than GSM itself. I've been to France more than once and they get 3G coverage everywhere + never any dropped call. And they use GSM. It's a smaller country indeed but hey, it's also somewhat poorer?

Zardos:

My BlackBerry lasts a good two days under my use, which includes 2 hours of music a day, some browsing, 200-400 text messages, 50-100 e-mails and waving the phone around with the LED flash on because I dropped food in the couch.

lunatic59:

38 hours means that you can take it on Monday morning and basically not charge it until the next evening. That's all I'm asking. Of course I'll charge it every night, but I also happen not to sleep at my place everyday and even (wow!) forget to charge it.

I think your over exaggerating a bit here chief. a minimum of 250 texts/emails per day huh? Assuming your awake for 16 hours per day, that would mean your sending a text/email EVERY 4 MINUTES, for 16 HOURS STRAIGHT. Seriously? So you don't eat, commute, or are just to plain busy to send a message every 4 Minutes? Not to mention the time it takes to compose said messages? Please.

Most of these reviewers aren't heavy users. My moment battery lasts 30 some odd hours under "average" use. Now on a daily basis? I'm lucky if it lasts 6 hours, as I AM a heavy user. I have 8 email accounts attached, syncing every hour, constantly browsing, and FTP'ing shit back and forth, and always on the phone with clients. That doesn't even describe half of my use. And if you really want to think about it, given I have a replaceable battery, (which I use extensively), My battery power is unlimited.

And have you ever heard of a car charger? They are very handy. Even with my heavy use, I almost never have battery problems, due to spare batteries/car charger.

And the CDMA vs GSM argument still stands. CDMA is simply a superior technology. It's like Blu-Ray vs DVD.

And your really comparing a Blackberry to a modern day Smartphone? Really? Blackberry now fits more into the featurephone category.

 

[mkglobal]

Wow, you suck so much at trolling that it's painful to read. If you want it so bad I probably have some of my old phone bills to prove what I'm saying. But that's irrelevant, isn't it?

My original thread was meant to ask which Android phone could fit my requirements, requirements that a Desire with decent battery life and something that deserves to be called a "video camera" would fit perfectly.

What are you gonna do if you fly to say, Europe for some weeks and don't want to pay hefty roaming charges? Buy a local SIM card? Oh, that's right. You can't. Your mate's phone ran out of battery and he really needs to place a call? He can't use your phone.
Enjoy the complete absence of flexibility. Please don't fall into the usual US behavior, the one that consists in saying "I don't care if we're the only ones to do it, it's better!".
There's a reason why GSM is used everywhere and has over 85% of the global market:

- better battery life
- portability of phones across different providers and country
- better coverage (because it uses repeaters and doesn't depend on how many people are on one cell tower)
- no interference between cell towers
- less expensive to maintain and build

CDMA needs to die. It sucks and basically represents a threat to freedom. Until recently CDMA phones couldn't even roam, and even today most of them can't.

FLEXIBILITY.

About the BlackBerry part... Handles e-mail better than any other device out there? Check. Takes pictures and shoots videos? Check. Has a browser? Check. Can have applications not made by RIM? Check. Just because BlackBerries don't have a shiny 12" display doesn't mean they're not smartphones. And for corporate use, they remain the lesser evil.

Back to my phone?

 

[IOWA]

Wow, you suck so much at trolling that it's painful to read. If you want it so bad I probably have some of my old phone bills to prove what I'm saying. But that's irrelevant, isn't it?

My original thread was meant to ask which Android phone could fit my requirements, requirements that a Desire with decent battery life and something that deserves to be called a "video camera" would fit perfectly.

What are you gonna do if you fly to say, Europe for some weeks and don't want to pay hefty roaming charges? Buy a local SIM card? Oh, that's right. You can't. Your mate's phone ran out of battery and he really needs to place a call? He can't use your phone.
Enjoy the complete absence of flexibility. Please don't fall into the usual US behavior, the one that consists in saying "I don't care if we're the only ones to do it, it's better!".
There's a reason why GSM is used everywhere and has over 85% of the global market:

- better battery life
- portability of phones across different providers and country
- better coverage (because it uses repeaters and doesn't depend on how many people are on one cell tower)
- no interference between cell towers
- less expensive to maintain and build

CDMA needs to die. It sucks and basically represents a threat to freedom. Until recently CDMA phones couldn't even roam, and even today most of them can't.

FLEXIBILITY.

About the BlackBerry part... Handles e-mail better than any other device out there? Check. Takes pictures and shoots videos? Check. Has a browser? Check. Can have applications not made by RIM? Check. Just because BlackBerries don't have a shiny 12" display doesn't mean they're not smartphones. And for corporate use, they remain the lesser evil.

Back to my phone?

Wow dude your Clueless.

1.) CMDA technology is deployed worldwide. It is what the GSM networks use for 3G. Ever hear of 3G?

2.) GSM is deployed in Europe due to the Europeans arrogantly banning deploying any other kind of mobile technology, not because of some artificial superiority.

3.) Really? I mean really? GSM towers get overcrowded a lot easier than CMDA towers, and guess what, CDMA has repeaters too. This just proves how clueless you are about mobile technology.

4.) CDMA has more capacity per tower(Around 3x the capacity, actually), better call quality, and better range.


5.) Your really going to compare that PoS blackberry browser to an Android browser? Or even the iPhone browser? Sick.

6.) My Samsung Moment does e-mail just fine. So does every other Android phone.

Maybe you should read this thread:

http://androidforums.com/lounge/82363-why-cdma-better-than-gsm.html

Here, I'll even make it easier for you.

Well here's something that I posted hidden in another thread, with a few edits. I think it deserves more attention.

Just because something is more widely adopted, doesn't mean it's better. Asian countries use CDMA, and they are the best of the best when it comes to all things cellular/mobile. Also, want to know the real reason GSM became the world standard? In Europe, various governments decided that they (the Europeans) had designed the ultimate digital cellular system, and they passed laws making it illegal to deploy anything except GSM, whose primary supporters/suppliers were Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens and Alcatel.


Let's expand upon this.

The original cell phones were analog, using fairly straightforward FM for voice communication. When your phone was in a call, it was granted a frequency by the cell and used it exclusively for the entire duration of the call. FM encoding is extremely inefficient in use of bandwidth, and spectrum was scarce and expensive, and it rapidly became clear that FM wasn't able to handle the traffic which was expected and which was really needed to make cellular telephony a profitable business. One obvious approach was to use digital communications, and to take advantage of advances in microprocessor and digital IC technology to compress the voice traffic going both directions, and thus you saw deployment of the first Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) digital systems. What they do is to take a single channel and timeshare it among several phones, who digitize and compress their voice traffic and transceive it during their timeslice. With IS-136, a 30 KHz channel which had carried only one voice call with AMPS could now carry three digitized calls.

GSM went further than that, and abandoned the old channel size entirely. It allocated 200 KHz channels and divided them into 8 slices, giving each phone somewhat less than 25 KHz effective bandwidth. (There are some losses due to time guardbands and protocol overhead.)

GSM also included a very powerful set of features above that, and included some interesting features not directly associated with the RF link, such as a personality module which contained a customer's phone number and billing information that could be moved to another phone any time the customer wished to. (That particular featured turned out to be a decidedly mixed blessing. While that ability was very convenient for legitimate customers, it was also a magnet for thieves and frauds.)

GSM was clearly superior to IS-136 or such abortions as IDEN (a Motorola design which never became an industry standard because Moto was never willing to license it, which meant that systems which adopted it could only get infrastructure and handsets from Motorola).

In the computer industry we talk about the "ISO seven layer model", where the process of communication is modularized and each layer uses the one below it without worrying how the lower layer actually works. TCP works whether the physical layer is 802.11b or ethernet or something else entirely, and TCP itself doesn't change based on that. TCP uses IP, and IP uses the datalink layer, and the problems of the physical layer are dealt with by the datalink layer. But if the physical layer is a 56 KBaud modem, then there are things which won't be possible, which might be possible with 100 megabit ethernet. No amount of work at higher levels can compensate for the fundamental superiority of ethernet over a telephone modem.

Cell phone protocols do the same kind of thing. There's an RF layer and protocols above that, some of which can be very high level and quite abstract, such as the one which controls sending of text messages. However, the change from analog to TDMA was a change at the RF layer. CDMA was yet another approach to the RF layer, which was radically different again. (IS-95 is a specification for a complete protocol stack which includes CDMA as its RF layer.)

In fact, CDMA was so revolutionary that when it was first discussed, many thought it couldn't be made to work. Indeed, at least one European company deeply involved with GSM, Ericsson, went through the three classic stages of Not Invented Here syndrome:

1. It's impossible.
2. It's infeasible.
3. Actually, we thought of it first.

In IS-95 CDMA, a single carrier frequency has a bandwidth of 1.2288 MHz, and up to 40 cell phones in a given sector can all be transmitting chips at that rate on the same carrier frequency, which seemed on first examination to assume that it was possible to send fifty million bits through a one-and-a-quarter MHz band, which would indeed violate Shannon. The mistake they made was that chips aren't "information" based on Shannon's definition, and though those phones were sending chips that fast, they were actually sending bits (real data) at no more than 14,400 bits per second each. (I'll try not to get too bogged down in technical details here, but to some extent it's unavoidable.)

Unfortunately, Qualcomm did a field test in New York City where several prototype phones mounted in vans were able to operate at once on the same frequency talking to multiple cells all of which also operated on the same frequency.

The next argument was that though it seemed technically possible, it would be too expensive. Everyone knew that the electronics required to make CDMA work was a lot more complicated than what TDMA used, and Ericsson's loud voices claimed that it could never be reduced in price enough to make it competitive. And shortly thereafter Qualcomm proved that wrong, too, by beginning to produce both infrastructure and phones at very competitive prices. (Qualcomm did this to bootstrap the industry. It's no longer in either business.)

After which Ericsson suddenly decided that it had applicable patents and took Qualcomm to court. Over the long drawn out process of litigation, every single preliminary court judgment went in favor of Qualcomm, and it became obvious that Ericsson didn't have a case and that Qualcomm wasn't going to be intimidated. Ultimately, the entire case was settled in a massive omnibus agreement where Ericsson became the last of the large companies in the industry to license Qualcomm's patents (on the same royalty terms as everyone else) while taking a large money-losing division off Qualcomm's hands and assuming all the liabilities associated with it, and granting Qualcomm a full license for GSM technology. The industry consensus was that this represented a full scale surrender by Ericsson.

Nokia wasn't anything like as foolish and had licensed several years before. (Just in passing, the fools at Ericsson are in the front office. Their engineers are as good as anyone else's.)

Still, in the years of apparent chaos in the US, when loud voices in Europe proclaimed the clear advantage of a single continental standard, order began to appear out of the chaos here. Small companies using the same standards set up roaming agreements, and then started merging into larger companies, which merged into yet larger ones. One company (Sprint) started from scratch to build nationwide coverage. Bell Atlantic Mobile acquired GTE Mobile (who had been a joint partner in PrimeCo), and eventually merged with Airtouch to form Verizon, all of which was based on IS-95 CDMA, mostly on 800 MHz. Sprint eventually implemented a reasonable nationwide system also based on CDMA. The last major nationwide system to form was Cingular, after the various GSM carriers in the US realized they were in big trouble competing against Verizon and Sprint and AT&T (which uses IS-136).

Once the existence and commercial feasibility of CDMA were established beyond doubt, other aspects of it began to become clear. At the RF layer, CDMA was obviously drastically superior to any kind of TDMA. For one thing, in any cellular system which had three or more cells, CDMA could carry far more traffic within a given allocation of spectrum than any form of TDMA. (Depending on the physical circumstances, it's usually three times as much but it can be as much as five times.) For another, CDMA was designed from the very beginning to dynamically allocate spectrum.

In TDMA, a given phone in a given voice call is allocated a certain fixed amount of bandwidth whether it needs it or not. In IS-136 that's a bit less than 10 KHz, in GSM it's somewhat less than 25 KHz. (Going each direction; the total is twice that.) But humans don't use bandwidth that way; when you're talking, I'm mostly listening. So your 25 KHz channel to me is carrying your voice, and my 25 KHz channel to you is carrying the sound of me listening to you silently.

In CDMA, the amount of bandwidth that a given phone uses changes 50 times per second, and can vary over a scale of 8:1. When I'm silent, I'm only use 1/8th of the peak bandwidth I use when I'm talking. (But I don't actually send full rate most of the time even when I'm speaking.) That's very useful for voice but it's essential for data which tends to be extremely bursty, and CDMA was born able to do this. It's always had that capability. It's also always had the ability for different phones to be given different overall allocations of bandwidth, because the initial standard included both 8K and 13K codecs (which respectively use 9600 baud and 14,400 baud). So when higher data rates were desired, it was possible to augment the cell and create new cell phones which could transmit 56 kilobits per second using the same frequency as existing handsets.

When GSM wanted to do that (send data at a rate faster than the existing voice channel supported), they ended up having to allocate an entirely new carrier just for that job, which handled nothing except data, and to deploy entirely new infrastructure for it. The resulting system is called GPRS, and in many ways it turned out to be very unsatisfactory for the operating companies because it's really expensive to deploy and because it cuts down on the bandwidth they have available for voice. A given chunk of spectrum must be permanently assigned to one or the other; it can't be reallocated dynamically. Data and voice in CDMA, on the other hand, both use the same carrier and bandwidth is reallocated between the two 50 times per second automatically, and you can implement high speed data without having to install new transmitters in all the cells.

With the push to greater and greater data rates, everyone recognized that a new generation of cellular equipment would be needed, the legendary 3G.

And for the reasons given above, and several others, it was equally clear that it had to use a CDMA air interface. GSM was the very best propeller-driven fighter money could buy, but CDMA was a jet engine, and ultimately TDMA could not compete. The fundamental weakness of TDMA at the RF layer could not be compensated for at any layer higher than that, no matter how well designed it was. GSM/TDMA was a dead end, and to create 3G, Europe's electronics companies were going to have to swallow their pride and admit that Qualcomm had been right all along.

This article in the Economist (old, but relevant) says that it's not going well. When Qualcomm and its partners designed a new 3G system with new capabilities, they were able to make it backward compatible with IS-95. The new standard is called CDMA 2000, and a CDMA2K handset can work with IS-95 infrastructure, and an IS-95 handset can work with CDMA2K infrastructure, and CDMA2K cells can sit next to IS-95 cells and use the same frequencies. Thus existing operating companies using IS-95 can upgrade incrementally replacing individual cells as budget allows and selling new handsets without having to wholesale replace all existing ones at once. Most important of all, it means that you can take an existing system using an existing spectrum license, and phase it over without acquiring any new spectrum.

None of that is true for GSM. CDMA and TDMA are fundamentally incompatible and there's no way to create a new system (which they're calling WCDMA) which can support existing TDMA handsets. It's technically impossible for the new standard to be backward compatible. Worse is that there's no easy way to phase existing spectrum over. In practice, when WCDMA appears, existing GSM systems will have to install it all, issue new handsets to all customers, and then one day throw a switch -- or, what they did, is license new spectrum for WCDMA while continuing to run GSM on the existing spectrum for legacy customers.

Couple of other keynotes? Dropped calls on att? Ring a bell? Wouldn't have happened on sprint/vzw. Want to know why? Cdma towers have about 3x the call capacity per tower vs gsm towers. That's a lot... also, with cdma, your call is routed to two three towers that are in range, if one tower drops off, (I.e. driving or on a train) the other towers seamlessly pick it up and your good to go. With gsm, your call only gets routed to one tower at a time, thus making tower handoff much more difficult to say the least. Especially when your on the fringe of two or more towers with equal or fluctuating signal. Dropped call city!

Also the better data management with cdma allows for clearer calls, more reliability, and as mentioned, more capacity.

Those things add up to be a much better option than gsm. Gsm does have a few pro's, but are far outwieghed by the con's, vs it's cdma counterpart. And what most people don't know, is gsm now uses wcdma(a cdma varient) for their 3g networks. That is why gsm can do voice + data, because it is receiving two signals instead of one.

So if you want CDMA to die so badly, then maybe you should give up any/all 3G handsets you own, because guess what pal, your using CDMA Technology with ANY 3G device.

Sit down son, you just got owned.

 

[mkglobal]

Could you quickly explain why CDMA is an advantage from the end-user's point of view? Because as far as my experience goes, I don't need Verizon's authorization to use my phone with another carrier.

 

[IOWA]

Hope you're getting a good e-boner from this, because writing a thread this long about something nobody cares about (and basically, even if CDMA were better than GSM in general nobody gives a crap because SIM cards rule) points how sad you must be.

Let me translate that for the forum to understand.

Me: "Here's pure facts, backing my position"

You: "Well all that science and crap is wrong, because I like SIM cards, and I made up a bunch of crap that you proved wrong, and everybody has to agree with me now! Because I sayz so! And now I'm going to call you names!"

Just like the Apple fanboys...

Android user: "Android is better because of x"

Apple fanboy: "Nobody cares about x anyways"

(6 months later)

Apple: " Introducing.... x!"

Fanboys: " Whoa x rules! It's the best thing ever!"

Android user: ""

Oh and BTW, maybe you should look up RUIM cards, the CDMA version of a SIM card.

 

[mkglobal]

Let me translate that for the forum to understand.

Like I pointed out, nobody cares. And even if anyone did, here's what's actually happening:

Me: "I don't care if I can have a micro-bit of additional voice more when I talk to my Verizon customer rep because I can't place calls anymore, what really matters to me is that I can do whatever the **** I want with my phone."

You: "You don't get this, you dumb twat, CDMA is the best because technically it pwns!!!!!!!!!!!! Now STFU because I has e-lead."

See?

 

[IOWA]

Like I pointed out, nobody cares. And even if anyone did, here's what's actually happening:

Me: "I don't care if I can have a micro-bit of additional voice more when I talk to my Verizon customer rep because I can't place calls anymore, what really matters to me is that I can do whatever the **** I want with my phone."

You: "You don't get this, you dumb twat, CDMA is the best because technically it pwns!!!!!!!!!!!! Now STFU because I has e-lead."

See?

The people in my rather lengthy CDMA vs GSM thread disagree with you. Call quality, more capacity per tower(a huge advantage in big cities), and better range does matter to the end consumer.

People across the internet, who ask about things like this, it matters to them.

Face it son, you got smacked down and now your trying to worm out of it.

I can do whatever I want with any of my CDMA phones, and it takes me all of 5 minutes to switch handsets. The average person doesn't change handsets often, but they do make calls =) So guess which is more important to THEM?

Keep trying though. The roast is funny.

EDIT:

And I just have to throw this in. When people get proved wrong it's amazing how many of them resort to saying things like "Well nobody cares".

Well, if nobody cares, why'd you mention it in the first place? Unless you think of yourself as a nobody..

 

[mkglobal]

What I said was "CDMA blows" and in terms of ease of use it does. Bear in mind that I'm referring to the sucky Verizon-like system. But the fact that you keep trying to e-stomp doesn't make me sad as much as it makes me sad for you.

Here

 

[IOWA]

What I said was "CDMA blows" and in terms of ease of use it does. Bear in mind that I'm referring to the sucky Verizon-like system. But the fact that you keep trying to e-stomp doesn't make me sad as much as it makes me sad for you.

Here

Here:

YouTube - iPhone4 vs HTC Evo

You remind me of the nice person looking for the iP4.

Guess what, your on a tech forum. Guess what we care about?

What's sad here is you thinking people need to conform to your line of thinking, and if they don't, you consider them "sad". So who's the vain one here?

e-stomp, IRL stomp, I don't care what you say. I wasn't going to let you post false informations that may or may not confuse people while a simple post of mine can clear all that up.

Call it a pet peeve, but I dislike mis-informations.

But call me some more names. You might just take the cake for fastest person banned on AF.

And to fully re-address your OP, there isn't a fully featured smartphone on the planet(yet) that can meet your needs. Your expecting too much.

 

[mkglobal]

Call it a pet peeve but I dislike arrogant people who try to force their beliefs onto other people. You're no better than religious activists.

YouTube - the bloodhound gang -I hope you die

 

[IOWA]

Call it a pet peeve but I dislike arrogant people who try to force their beliefs onto other people. You're no better than religious activists.

YouTube - the bloodhound gang -I hope you die

Yes, because being knowledgeable about certain things, and then proving you wrong, makes me arrogant.

 

[mkglobal]

Yes, because being knowledgeable about certain things, and then proving you wrong, makes me arrogant.

Being oblivious to my reasonable arguments is. Also, comparing the iPhone 4 to the EVO 4G is stupid. They're two different phones targeted to very different people.

 

[IOWA]

Being oblivious to my reasonable arguments is. Also, comparing the iPhone 4 to the EVO 4G is stupid. They're two different phones targeted to very different people.

Reasonable argument? Where? All I've seen was name calling from you, and stuff it looks like you made up that got quickly countered and hurt your pride, so you call more names.

This still won't help your OP, as there is still not a phone in existence that can accomplish what you seek.

And last time I checked, the EVO4G and iP4 were in the same sales category.

EDIT: Anyways, since I've answered your OP, and cleared up misconceptions, I've leave it to the mods to deal with your breaking of the forum policies. I'm done with this thread, with this particular subject, because it seems you like to argue with gravity.

Good day.

 

[mkglobal]

Reasonable argument? Where? All I've seen was name calling from you, and stuff it looks like you made up that got quickly countered and hurt your pride, so you call more names.

There was an opportunity for debate but you blew it and started patronizing me. What do you expect? Shoeshine?

This still won't help your OP, as there is still not a phone in existence that can accomplish what you seek.

Finally you're back on topic.

And last time I checked, the EVO4G and iP4 were in the same sales category.

Are they? The EVO is a fat-ass kitchen counter and the iP4 is a dumb-fanboy magnet.

 

[macprv]

on the sound quality issue... i just bought the vibrant, and i have to admit it.. sound quality is much better than the N1's