900 MHz phones seem to perform better than the supposedly superior 2.4 GHz
models. And try to get a phone with NiMH or LiIon batteries rather than
NiCads. We've had surprisingly good luck with three of the el-cheapo GE
cordless phones (the kids started us off on those - I always avoid anything
cheap), after three successive failures with far more expensive models from
Panasonic, Sony, and AT&T.
Despite the claims that 2.4 has a far greater range, my experience with
several different 2.4GHz phones and my sister's and also a buddy's similar
experiences has kept me away from any more 2.4 GHz models. Besides the
microwave interference, they just don't have good range. Because of that,
I've never even tried a 5.8 GHZ model.
For over 30 years RC model airplane guys have known that NiCads require
special care, and yet to this day most less-expensive electronic equipment
with rechrageable batteries comes with NiCads. When you leave a NiCad on
charge (even a small trickle) all the time (like a cordless phone) it loses
its charge capacity. If you regularly use the (phone, radio, flashlight,
etc.) just a little while and then recharge it, the battery develops a
memory and "thinks" that that's all the capacity it has. On the other hand,
if you discharge a NiCad battery pack all the way, the first cells to drop
to zero voltage then become charged in reverse (because of the current from
the other cells flowing through them). A few reverse-charge cycles and
those weaker cells begin to break down.
Therefore, a phone with NiMH or LiIon cells would be far preferable. No
memory problems, and usually able to stand long-term trickle charging much
better than NiCads. But most manufacturers still ship NiCads in everything
less-expensive, like cordless phones.
Karl
|