WirelessAdvisor.com

DaveInPhilly · 05-30-2008, 2:54 PM

Sorry, for all the questions, I think this is my last one.

I was looking at the Q since it is currently on sale for only $30. I noticed that on the sprint website, that if you compare the two phones it says that the Q does not have broadband, but if you select the Q and then look under the feature's listing, it lists Sprint Mobile Broadband as one of the features.

Can anyone tell me if the Ace has faster Web/emal then the Q? That would be a big deal for me.

Are there any other features lacking on the Q that makes the Ace worth $170 more, besides the coolness factor?

treotosh · 05-30-2008, 4:33 PM

lol, keep the question's coming thats what WA is for

But answering your question, i would pick the ace, just mainly because of it's Blackjack like form. But whats your current service provider? Also the ace is one of the newest phones, but thats just me.

Mobile Mike · 05-30-2008, 11:20 PM

If you''re talking about the first Moto Q, avoid it. The newer Q is much better (and EV-DO capable). The Ace is probably one of the better Samsung phones, since it mirrors the Blackjack so much.

If it were me, I'd pick the Motorola, only because I will never buy another Samsung again.

You may have already done this, but here's a great site for you to check out a comparison of the two models:

Samsung Ace/Motorola Q Comparison from Phonescoop.

This should answer your questions.

DaveInPhilly · 05-31-2008, 12:52 PM

Thanks Mike. I was referring to the original Q. I only started to look at that phone because of the price point. According to the site that you provided, the two (Ace and and original Q) seem pretty evenly matched. I suspect that there are certain intangibles that make the Ace more appealing than the Q, but I am wondering if they are worth the $170 premium.

Sprint CS confirmed that the website is mistaken, and that all three phones (old Q, new Q, and Ace) run on the same broadband network at the same speeds.

Charlyee · 05-31-2008, 2:07 PM

Wirelessly posted (Treo 750: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.6) UP.Link/6.3.1.17.06.3.1.17.0)

Unlike Mike, I would not choose the Q just because it is a Motorola. Having had the Blacjack & being very happy with it, I would highly recommend the ACE.

I don't know if it is of any importance to you but I believe the ACE is a dual technology device. It has Euroasian GSM 900/1800 as well as CDMA 850/1900, so you could travel overseas with it.

Mobile Mike · 05-31-2008, 6:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlyee

Wirelessly posted (Treo 750: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.6) UP.Link/6.3.1.17.06.3.1.17.0)

Unlike Mike, I would not choose the Q just because it is a Motorola. Having had the Blacjack & being very happy with it, I would highly recommend the ACE.

I don't know if it is of any importance to you but I believe the ACE is a dual technology device. It has Euroasian GSM 900/1800 as well as CDMA 850/1900, so you could travel overseas with it.

I have to admit, Charlyee, that I'm negating the Ace because it's a Samsung, which isn't really fair because they did well with the Blackjack. My experiences with Samsung have not been good, to the point that I'd rather not get one at all, even if it's the best phone on the market.

And as for picking the Q, for me it's the lesser of two evils. I probably won't ever buy a Moto smartphone again. My experiences with the Q were not all that great. I'd rather go with HTC phones than either Samsung or Moto, but that's just me...

SmArTeStChIlD421 · 06-01-2008, 9:13 AM

well heres my clincher........the thing I always hated about WM devices was that the software produced significant lag times.........and my experiences with Motorola have always been slow no matter the platform.........the Samsing ACE was the first device besides its Blackjack successors that handled Windows Mobile with little lag time

05-30-2008, 2:54 PM	#1 (permalink)
DaveInPhilly Fresh Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Philly Posts: 11 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Moto Q vs. Samsung Ace (I325) Sorry, for all the questions, I think this is my last one. I was looking at the Q since it is currently on sale for only $30. I noticed that on the sprint website, that if you compare the two phones it says that the Q does not have broadband, but if you select the Q and then look under the feature's listing, it lists Sprint Mobile Broadband as one of the features. Can anyone tell me if the Ace has faster Web/emal then the Q? That would be a big deal for me. Are there any other features lacking on the Q that makes the Ace worth $170 more, besides the coolness factor?

05-30-2008, 4:33 PM	#2 (permalink)
treotosh Junior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Orlando area Posts: 161 Phone(s): Palm Treo 750, White Iphone 3G, T-mobile Blackberry, T-mobile blackberry perl Provider(s): Cingular/At&t Devices: tomtom, imac, samsung tv (34inch) and XM Thanks: 11 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: Moto Q vs. Samsung Ace (I325) lol, keep the question's coming thats what WA is for But answering your question, i would pick the ace, just mainly because of it's Blackjack like form. But whats your current service provider? Also the ace is one of the newest phones, but thats just me. __________________ AT&T BLUE ROOM MUSIC, NOW OPEN!

05-30-2008, 11:20 PM	#3 (permalink)
Mobile Mike 4 years and counting... Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 4,655 Phone(s): LG Voyager, Nokia 6555, 6263 Provider(s): Verizon Wireless, AT&T, T-Mobile Thanks: 40 Thanked 18 Times in 18 Posts	Re: Moto Q vs. Samsung Ace (I325) If you''re talking about the first Moto Q, avoid it. The newer Q is much better (and EV-DO capable). The Ace is probably one of the better Samsung phones, since it mirrors the Blackjack so much. If it were me, I'd pick the Motorola, only because I will never buy another Samsung again. You may have already done this, but here's a great site for you to check out a comparison of the two models: Samsung Ace/Motorola Q Comparison from Phonescoop. This should answer your questions. __________________ (1994-Present) LG Voyager at&t (2004-2005, 2006-Present) Nokia 6555 3G -T---Mobile- (2004-Present) Nokia 6263 3G

05-31-2008, 12:52 PM	#4 (permalink)
DaveInPhilly Fresh Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Philly Posts: 11 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Moto Q vs. Samsung Ace (I325) Thanks Mike. I was referring to the original Q. I only started to look at that phone because of the price point. According to the site that you provided, the two (Ace and and original Q) seem pretty evenly matched. I suspect that there are certain intangibles that make the Ace more appealing than the Q, but I am wondering if they are worth the $170 premium. Sprint CS confirmed that the website is mistaken, and that all three phones (old Q, new Q, and Ace) run on the same broadband network at the same speeds.

05-31-2008, 2:07 PM	#5 (permalink)
Charlyee Luv My Treo !!!!! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: SE Wisconsin Posts: 5,401 Phone(s): Treo Pro, Nokia 6131, Moto i325 IS Provider(s): at&t/at&t/Nextel Devices: Assorted handheld & installed GPS Thanks: 26 Thanked 23 Times in 19 Posts Images: 167 My Auctions	Wirelessly posted (Treo 750: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.6) UP.Link/6.3.1.17.06.3.1.17.0) Unlike Mike, I would not choose the Q just because it is a Motorola. Having had the Blacjack & being very happy with it, I would highly recommend the ACE. I don't know if it is of any importance to you but I believe the ACE is a dual technology device. It has Euroasian GSM 900/1800 as well as CDMA 850/1900, so you could travel overseas with it. __________________ The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made. Jean Giraudoux (1882-1944)

06-01-2008, 9:13 AM	#7 (permalink)
SmArTeStChIlD421 Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Reading, PA Posts: 3,639 Phone(s): Motorola RAZR V3m (Red) Provider(s): Sprint Thanks: 4 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	Re: Moto Q vs. Samsung Ace (I325) well heres my clincher........the thing I always hated about WM devices was that the software produced significant lag times.........and my experiences with Motorola have always been slow no matter the platform.........the Samsing ACE was the first device besides its Blackjack successors that handled Windows Mobile with little lag time __________________ SERO F&F 500: 500 Flexible Anytime Minutes, UNLIMITED Nights and Weekends (7PM), UNLIMITED Mobile to Mobile, UNLIMITED Power Vision, UNLIMITED Messaging (Text/Picture/Video), Pick 3

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads for: Moto Q vs. Samsung Ace (I325)
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What do you think of SPRINT SAMSUNG i325 SPH-i325 Ace?	Steven R	Sprint PCS Users	0	05-19-2008 12:28 AM
FS: T-Mobile BB perl, Moto Rizr(Z3), Samsung T809, and Pink Tattoo moto Razr	Myfaves4me	Buy and Sell	1	08-26-2007 10:44 PM
Wanted: Motorola i315 or i325 for MIKE (like Nextel) in Vancouver, BC	express-mail	Buy and Sell	0	01-02-2005 11:35 PM
Samsung SCHA530 vs. Moto T730	JRS	MOTOROLA	2	08-20-2003 10:32 AM
Samsung S105 v. Moto T720i	crave1wave	Northeastern US Wireless Forum	1	11-24-2002 8:58 PM

WirelessAdvisor.com

Clearing the static since 1998.

WirelessAdvisor.com