| InterceptRadio.com Forums http://interceptradio.com/bbs/ |
|
| eham about icom http://interceptradio.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=493 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | STEVE F. [ Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
RADIONUT, I Have to disagree i'm also a deadacated ICOM NUT I'VE USED THEIR RADIOS FOR MY COMPANY I HAVE MANY FRIENDS WHOM ALSO HAVE THE 746 with no problems, with a little T L C as we used to say treat the radios like you would a good WOMAN! MY TWO CENTS GOOD LUCK 73s STEVE F. |
|
| Author: | Mr Pfister [ Mon Dec 27, 2004 10:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | hey radionut... |
Looks like 'radionut' has a beef with ICOM :( |
|
| Author: | Mr Pfister [ Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Radionut fails to tell the real story. MRT Magazine later retracted the article he posted, printing a correction to what radionut has posted. Notice 'radionut' didn't include that part. Obviously he has a beef with ICOM. Must be a disgruntled employee or something. |
|
| Author: | icom1020 [ Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Fister wrote: "Notice 'radionut' didn't include that part. Obviously he has a beef with ICOM. Must be a disgruntled (Motorola) employee or something. What a sore loser!!! " If he is a disgruntled Motorola employee, why would he be bashing Icom and not Motorola..? He only reprinted an article which anyone could of figured out at the top of this thread, now by calling him a name which he didn't call you, "sore loser", it's now turned into a pissing contest. Frankly, I think all of the mfgs have problems including some of the Yaesu 'junk' I own in which the reprint notes, it also relates a personal experience that one had with a particular product (Icom) |
|
| Author: | Rich [ Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Interesting comments so far... According to the first article the complaint was "unsatisfactory range". Considering the military obviously tested the units before deploying them, its probably a training issue because the people in the field were attempting to use a short-range squad radio for long-range communications. This is not the fault of the manufacturer. Aside from this incident, almost all major manufacturers have suffered an occasional black-eye. The Yaesu FT-100 is a great example. The usual cause of this is an eager marketing department wanting to push a product before the engineering folks have a reasonable period of time to work out the bugs. This applies equally to software. Remember Windows 95 ??? |
|
| Author: | N7QOR [ Wed Dec 29, 2004 12:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: please understand |
radionut wrote: Where is the other article that was talked about? Please let me know!
http://mrtmag.com/mag/radio_clarification_2/ |
|
| Author: | BigMikey26 [ Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Icom |
Sounds to me ICOM gave the Army what they ask for, so why blame ICOM for anything they did their job. The fire department I belong to bought radios for the local national guard unit from our area, One of their members is also belongs to our department. I ask him why he needed diffrent radios, were the issue ones really crappy. Nope he said they just do not have any range. They are great back at base, but in the field the just do not have any range or power, but they are well built and hold up ok. So ICOM DID Deliever, sounds like decisions were made by people with no understanding of what actual field needs are. Mike |
|
| Author: | Sean [ Wed Dec 29, 2004 3:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You get what you pay for. If you buy a $ 300 radio, that's what you get. If you buy a $ 3000, chances are, it's going to function better. Just like cars. Do you want the KIA SUV or the Hummer ? Both have 4 wheels, but they are not the same. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours |
| Copyright © 2013 Interceptradio.com |
|