| Review of the UTStarcom 860 |
 |
The UTStarcom 860 is a low-end phone offered by Telus PCS. Despite lack of familiarity with the manufacturer, I found the 860 to be one of the better-performing models offered by Telus. Last Updated: 04-May-2006 |
Before reading this review, please read Some Thoughts on Phone Reviewing.
RF Performance
RF Sensitivity: My tests at Square One revealed
that the 860 is a very competent performer. It handily out-performed my old
Motorola ST-7868W, which is common for all
CDMA phones with excellent RF sensitivity. Unfortunately I didn’t have any of
the other CDMA phones that have shown to have top-notch RF to compare against,
but my guess is that based upon how much it beat out my Startac, it would most
certain rate as one of the better CDMA phones out there.
Over-the-road Performance: It also backs up the great RF sensitivity with
excellent over-the-road performance. Oddly it seems to do a far better job of
taming the almost-constant frame errors on Telus PCS better than any other phone
based on the Qualcomm chipset. Only Nokia CDMA phones seem to do better at
taming frame errors, but they sound scratchy.
Click on this link for a full description of
RF Performance, and how to interpret it.
Audio Performance
Tonal Balance: The phone sounded pretty good on the
native earpiece, but it leaned just a bit too much toward the tinny side for my
liking. It also had a rather harsh nature to it, but overall it was one of the
nicer-sounding Telus PCS phones I’d tested of late. When I plugged in my trusty
Samsung earbud however, the results were nothing short of terrific. The tonal
balance through the earbud was about as good as I’ve ever heard on a CDMA model.
Sound Reproduction: The overall quality of the
sound was good, but nothing special. Like most Qualcomm chipset phones it
sounded way better than the current crop of Nokia CDMA phones, but I’ve tested a
number of other models that have sounded cleaner than this one. Just the same,
don’t take this as a huge criticism, because the 860 does sound fairly decent.
Outgoing sound quality is above average for a CDMA phone, but it still punishes
your callers with mediocre sound whenever there is background noise present. It
just doesn’t do it quite as badly as other CDMA models.
Click on this link for a full description of
Audio Performance, and how to interpret it.
Support Features
Ringer Volume: For a phone that uses musical
ringtones, this one is about the loudest I’ve ever heard. The sounder (which is
right next to the camera lens) pumps out a surprising number of decibels, so
long as you don’t obstruct the opening. That same sounder probably would have
made a kick-ass speakerphone, but for whatever reason the 860 does not include
this feature.
Keypad Design: I wasn’t all that happy with the
keypad, which was both too cramped and too indistinct to use well without
looking at what you’d typed. In fact, the main number keys weren’t ever separate
keys at all, but rather just big bumps on an amorphous piece of plastic. The
feel of the keys was cheap; tactile feedback was lackluster; and key spacing was
too tight. Given how well the phone performs otherwise, this is a glaring piece
of poor engineering on an otherwise well-conceived model.
Display: The color display on the 860 is definitely
of good quality, though like many current phones I felt that the programmers
made too little use of the screen real estate. Color clarity and brightness were
great for day-to-day stuff, like menus and messaging, but the phone didn’t
display pictures particularly well, but this is hardly a multimedia phone.
Conclusions
Why is it that I continually find that the better-performing CDMA phones are
usually the inexpensive entry models like the UTStarcom 860? You’d think that as
price went up, the quality would go up with it, but that never seems to be the
case. For those of you not interested in spending a boatload of cash on a phone
however, this is great news. The 860 is one of those entry-level phones you’re
going to love BECAUSE it does what it does so well.
The only thing I can’t comment on based on a short test is the durability of the
phone. The overall construction quality seemed solid, but that doesn’t
necessarily mean it can back it up with real sturdiness. You can’t really make
any judgments based on appearance, because I’ve seen phones that look rugged but
break easily, and phones that look fragile and hold up to immense punishment.
