8 megapixel mega shootout: Picture this
BlackBerry Bold 9900 review: Business reimaginedBenQ U700 - user opinions and reviews
- Anonymous
- Report
- 0
27 mm? JESUS, i've seen bricks smaller than that :|
- Reply
- 2009-10-20 11:43
- p3yn
- C
- keys
- Report
- 0
Ugly phone.
and the punchline is it;s still coming soon.
haha.
- Reply
- 2008-12-22 03:37
- vj1g
- C
- brasil
- Report
- 0
> In reply to cclo @ 2005-06-22 01:13 from xmHU - click to readbealtiful..... and a very good
- Reply
- 2008-08-26 19:30
- Ln7%
- R
- BOLIVIA
- Report
- 0
this telephone is very nice and pretty but e thank is sooo big but e buy him
kisses
- Reply
- 2008-07-26 21:04
- P2dw
- U
- vikhyat
- Report
- 0
its classy .it is out of the wwwwwwwwwww oooooooooooooooooooo rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr lllllllllllll ddddddddddddddddddd
- Reply
- 2008-04-09 10:37
- 2@t8
- U
- Oli C
- Report
- 0
the phone is very good. i think that darren sullivan needs to learn about helping his stranded mates out though.
- Reply
- 2006-11-07 18:15
- Mx@E
- U
- Mirbahar
- Report
- 0
i have experienced the BenQ M-300 But it's sound qualilty is not good, it does'nt supports all kinds of music downloads. Now i want to ask you regarding U-700 does it supports all kinds of music and instruments.
- Reply
- 2006-07-26 12:02
- mivf
- U
- Anonymous
- Report
- 0
hmmm...doesn't it look like the nokia 6280 or nokia 6270?but its sort of good...
- Reply
- 2006-04-09 07:25
- Rxc3
- U
- andy burgin
- Report
- 0
BenQ as got to improve the phones they are going to make to attract the European public to purchase there mobiles Siemens lost out because off there cameras weren"t competing with the others so they better add bluetooth an better cameras or they will go down like Siemens an make a big cock up taking them over
- Reply
- 2005-11-26 15:47
- MSPE
- U
- Samed
- Report
- 0
i think that Benq phones r just off because i had one before i got sik and tired from it... it doesnt have any good features and so..... just buy samsung or Sony phone and trust me u will never get bored from it..... BYE BYE
- Reply
- 2005-11-20 10:29
- U2@3
- U
