Re: Not the best - are the 'most available'
sciottos said:
I really hate reading the ill-informed harp on MOT two-way radio.
You people think you 'own the best'. You're sadly mistaken.
They are the lowest quality in terms of performance there is, and I know because I did these tests myself.
So far this topic has centered on physical durability, not RF performance.
sciottos said:
At the factory development center where they were designed and built - as recently as three years ago - we used to bench test them head-to-head against Standard, EF Johnson, Kenwood and others.
The $600 Kenwood beats the $1800 Saber up 8 ways to Sunday, including the very critical intermod rejection spec.
The saber series of radios is 15-20 year old technology. If you were testing these against current Kenwoods then I would not be surprised in the least if the Kenwood model outperformed the Saber.
sciottos said:
New EF Johnson stuff is a virtual 'clone' of comparable Motorola stuff - and a lot less pricey.
Standard is about the same, and likewise much less costly.
My agency has a mix of HT1000's and Standard VX-180's. The display is nice on the Standard and they are a little smaller, although fatter, than the HT1000. Our radios get abused. After 2 years the standards are dropping like flies and the HT1000's (which are 7 years older than
the Standards) are still going strong.
sciottos said:
I really wish the 'Guns and Hoses' out there would do their jobs, and let us do ours.
I don't comment on what kind of guns the police use on their users' groups, and I don't tell the firefighters how to make coffee and sit on their ass eating doughnuts most of the day.
I am not even going to respond to that. I am sure some one else will be more than willing to flame you for it.
sciottos said:
Don't 'you people' spout off and tell the world what 'great quality' Motorola is until you've had to fight a Motorola manager or vice president tooth and nail to use the high spec parts you need to get your design to work.
They will fight you all day when you want to spend an extra penny a part or a total of maybe 15 - 25 cents more per radio, because they're so anal about 'profit'.
The product has to meet design specs. They want it made as cheap as they can get it made. The two goals are diametrically opposed.
Unfortunately, that is the nature of business and the bain of every engineer. This is not something that is unique to Motorola. I am sure if you talked to some one over at EF Johnson or Standard they will have the same complaints.
I know personally the frustration of trying to explain to some one who has absolutely no engineering background the importance of such things. Just as we are engineers they are businessmen and just as we must be concerned with engineering matters and they must be concerned with business matters. Yes, we are "diametrically opposed" as yu put it but that is not going to change and it is not just a problem that Motorola faces.
sciottos said:
Quality is last on their list of objectives, my friend. They operate that business on razor-thin margins, and haven't done anything 'new' with trunking in this country in almost 20 years.
I think that 10 years ago Motorola was by far superior to any other manufacturer. I believe that today they are still superior but the gap between Motorola and the rest of the competition has narrowed considerably.
Today, there are a half dozen manufactures that can produce a product that is 80% as good as Motorola and is 30% the cost. Motorola still makes radios that are far superior as far as durability is concerned. However, even this has taken a turn since the advent of the "snap together" radios.
That being said. I would still trust a Motorola product over some one elses any day. Ten years from now that might be a different story.
Mike
