MobileInfocenter

Comments on: Palm Expands Internal RAM Capabilities

Palm Solutions Group has announced it has overcome the 16MB internal memory limit. Palm Solutions and PalmSource engineers collaborated to develop memory technology that extends the amount of RAM possible on a Palm OS handheld from the current 16MB to 128MB.
Return to Story - Permalink

Article Comments

 (181 comments)

The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. PalmInfocenter is not responsible for them in any way.
Please Login or register here to add your comments.

Comments Closed Comments Closed
This article is no longer accepting new comments.

Down

Very cool!

MV-Jon @ 4/17/2003 2:30:55 PM #
Now only if more PalmOS handhelds would have at least 32mb :)



Jon Niola
President/CEO
Media Vortex, Inc.

RE: Very cool!
RAMd®d @ 4/18/2003 9:46:54 AM #
Now only if more PalmOS handhelds would have at least 32mb

Well, that would seem to be the reason for Palm to break their 16MB internal memory limit, now wouldn't it?

______________________________
An armed society is a polite society.

cool

madmaxmedia @ 4/17/2003 2:40:17 PM #
This is great news of course, but I'm suprised that OS 5 was originally designed and released with this 16 MB limitation. Since it's a new OS, I imagine they could have had larger memory in mind from the start.

At least this is WAY better than those chintzy (sp) Memory Stick Selects. Good think I don't own a 5 MP Sony digicam, otherwise I'd be pissed.

RE: cool
Altema @ 4/17/2003 6:46:26 PM #
I'm surprised also... had been thinking that the capability was already there and we were waiting on the hardware. I guess what had me going was the early info on 32Mb devices.

RE: cool
jmlg @ 4/18/2003 1:13:36 AM #
As an owner of a 5MP sony camera (DSC-F717) I am not pissed at sony. How much effort does it take to flip a switch. I think that the fact that Sony made an attempt to increase capacity for those non MS PRO enabled products is great. Even if you do have to flip a switch.

My camera supports MS Pro and I think I will stick with regular MS (for now) because they can be had cheaper ($36 for a 128) and I can swap em between my clie and my camera (or have one in each)



jmlg
(trying to think of a clever signature line)

RE: cool
DaveyDave @ 4/18/2003 11:43:05 AM #
I thought that switch flip thing was great for storing lots of small files, but for movies, not so good. I'm looking to get a 512MB SD card for my 300MB Kinoma movies soon. Not even a 256MB switchable card would do.

RE: cool
Altema @ 4/18/2003 5:10:54 PM #
"...for my 300MB Kinoma movies ..."

I take it that's a full 2 hour movie. What frame rate and data rate did you use? Just curious, as I plan on doing the same thing once I get a device with decent audio. Well, decent audio AND video! The video is real good on my 515, and the audio is really good on my PPC.

Good for sales

arnstein @ 4/17/2003 2:43:18 PM #
I've been a PalmOS user since the first Palm Pilot was released. I've upgraded many times. Each time, the reason I spent the money to buy a new PDA was that I needed or wanted more memory. I don't think that I'm alone in this. Good for Palm!

USB 2.0 or FireWire needed

mikecane @ 4/17/2003 2:53:01 PM #
Who is really going to sit there and wait wait wait (which is all you can DO!) for a PalmOS device with 128MB of RAM to HotSync via USB 1.0?

USB 2.0 or Firewire interfaces are needed as RAM increases.

It's hell HSing my lowly mono CLIE S320 -- because I have over 500 files on it. With 128MB -- I could have, say, TEN THOUSAND?

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
abosco @ 4/17/2003 3:02:44 PM #
Always so negative. I should start calling you mom now. ;)

Cheer up, take this as good news. I'm sure they'll switch to USB 2.0 soon. But as it is, when I'm installing large applications, I don't sync them. I use MSImport to bring them to the MS and then move the file to RAM. Putting a 50 MB file on the card takes a few minutes on MSImport, while it'll take maybe an hour during HotSync. As long as this MSImport solution is available to me, I could care less about Hotsync.

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
IanJD @ 4/17/2003 3:02:51 PM #
I agree with the desire for speedier syncing, but with USB1 my T|T syncs 490 files in 30s - a couple of minutes for a 64Mb machine wouldn't be unusable. Restoring a hard-reset machine would be a game for the patient, though.

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
popko @ 4/17/2003 3:19:43 PM #
Lets just say that if people can live with the sync speed of PPCs, most of which have well over 16MB of RAM, via USB 1.0 connection, I'm sure we can as well.

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
Lowrez @ 4/17/2003 3:46:00 PM #
I'd agree that USB 2.0 or Firewire (preferable for Mac users) is really necessary now. While you can work around the slow USB 1.1 speeds, why should I have a work around? That's just a nice term for kludge. Keeping the sync time under 30 seconds seems pretty critical if you want users to sync on a regular basis. As is, I tend to hit the hot sync button right before I grab my coat so that the Palm is ready to go just as I'm walking away from my desk. If it took a minute or two, it wouldn't be very convienent to sync right before leaving or just before an impromptu meeting. God forbid I attend a meeting without the very latest updates to my schedule.

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
RiddlerG4 @ 4/17/2003 4:17:10 PM #
Another advantage to a FireWire connection - no need for an AC adapter, the PDA could pull plently of power off the FW bus, it would be nice to see Palm innovating in this kind of way.

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
Puppy @ 4/17/2003 4:57:28 PM #
Actually USB 1.1 isn't the speed limitation on Palms or PocketPCs-it's some sort of hardware/software issue with the device. Think about it. USB 1.1 allows for over a MB/s transfer rate. Even with a 64MB device, that's WAY more than fast enough. Just slapping on a "USB 2.0" connection wouldn't make it any faster, because that's not where the bottleneck is.
RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 6:56:01 PM #
*30* seconds for a sync?! I haven't seen that since, what?, Day Two of owning the CLIE?! It takes me as much as 15-20 minutes to sync my files.

And MSImport is *not* on the lowly mono S320. Sony was so nice to create class warfare among their users by putting it on the more expensive units. So, I see you are one of these Rich Fat Pigs we must deal with Come the Revolution! (HA!)

USB 2.0 and Firewire -- NOW!

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
IanJD @ 4/17/2003 7:29:52 PM #
> *30* seconds for a sync?!

Just took 33 seconds to go through a RAM sync of 387 files totalling 8.14Mb including PocketMirror & Docs2Go conduits. The backupbuddy 256Mb SD card sync takes another minute, though. Not a lot has changed between syncs, but if you had a Palm with 64Mb presumably most of the RAM contents wouldn't change between syncs, so 2 mins is probably a valid upscale unless you have apps that will alter vast files between syncs.

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
Galley_SimRacer @ 4/17/2003 7:31:57 PM #
My vote goes for Firewire

--
"Life is what you experience between racing games"
Galley
RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 7:34:59 PM #
Given that Intel has a financial stake in USB 2.0, I doubt we'll be seeing Firewire built into Wintel PCs...

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
Beavis @ 4/17/2003 7:45:25 PM #
"Given that Intel has a financial stake in USB 2.0, I doubt we'll be seeing Firewire built into Wintel PCs"

My Compaq Laptop has both Usb 2.0 and Firewire built in. Sony Desktops and laptops hae firewire built in.

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 8:09:34 PM #
Well, duh for me! I didn't know about the Compaqs, but did know about the Sony -- but obviously forgot. Bad brain! Bad memory! Bad! Bad! I am properly chastised...

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
He||Raiser @ 4/17/2003 9:43:41 PM #
Although these computers have the Firewire ports, I'll have to check whether the capability for the ports is because these OEMs are adding in PCI cards for them or if the capability is enabled through the Intel North or South bridges, which would indicate whether Intel is supporting this technology or not.

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 9:54:34 PM #
I'm sure if HP, Compaq, et al, came and told Intel, "We want motherboards with Firewire built-in," Intel would look at them and say, "How many can we sell you?" Ignore my earliest comment. Sleep deprivation...

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
RAMd®d @ 4/18/2003 9:51:44 AM #
If taking a few extra minutes to sync 128MB of memory is a "penalty" for having 128MB of memory, sign me up.

At some point Palm will switch from 1.1 to 2.0 or (doubtfully) FW (my preference). But if they don't by say, tomorrow, I don't care. I'd rather have the space than the sync speed.

Or maybe they should just not produce any units with 32MB, 64MB, or even 17MB internal memory until they increase the sync speed. Afterall, it's not like anybody really needs more than that for built-in memory. Or more than 640k.

I'm sure it *never* occurred to Palm that with a lot more memory could probably use a boost in sync speed. If they ever figure it out, I'm sure they'll produce.



______________________________
An armed society is a polite society.

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
JKingGrim @ 4/18/2003 10:12:20 AM #
Lets hope the Tungsten|c is speedier. Will it's 400mhz processor help, or is it some other component that needs to speed up?

Just like other licensees get free run on thier innovations for a period of time, I think Palm should too. Palm did all the dirty work.

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
Rolando @ 4/18/2003 10:17:54 AM #
>> *30* seconds for a sync?! I haven't seen that since, what?, Day Two of owning the CLIE?! It takes me as much as 15-20 minutes to sync my files.

Personally, I think somethings wrong. Mine takes only about 30-60 seconds unless I am also syncing AvantGo or my Mail. Mail is really slow and AvantGo sometimes takes time if it finds a lot of updates.

I've got other conduits running (Bonsai, TimeSync, etc), too. Unless I've made a lot of changes, it's very fast. ...and I'm using serial to sync!

Another thing to check is if you've ever run a program like BackupUpAll. It sets the backup bit on all files in memory. Not a huge issue, except with the big AvantGo file. Since it changes every time you sync, it will then get backed up every time you sync. I had that issue once and had to disable the backup bit manually.

15-20 minutes sounds like the time it took me to sync via Infrared. Gave that up fast!

Rolando

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
mikecane @ 4/18/2003 1:13:29 PM #
You probably do not have as many little files as I do. Also, you probably have a speedier PC than the one I have to use. Both are factors, you know. You're probably sitting there with a freaking GHz-speed CPU -- not me!

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
Rolando @ 4/18/2003 1:41:28 PM #
True, I have a 1.3 Ghz laptop, but it's still a serial port.

But, my last PC was a 200 Mhz laptop and it was still really fast to sync.

I have about 300 files on my T665.

I still say that there's something else up with your configuration.

Roland

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
mikecane @ 4/18/2003 2:15:16 PM #
What sort of files are these? Mine are primarily SmartDOC (.doc) files.

it's NOT a bandwith problem of USB 1.1
phatfarm @ 4/18/2003 5:17:13 PM #
The throughput on USB 1.1 is 11mbit/sec.

The slow hotsyncing is not because of USB, theres a bottleneck somewhere on the Palm. I think its slow at copying multiple small files

(think DOS ... copy vs xcopy)

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
Altema @ 4/18/2003 5:17:51 PM #
Hey Mike, are those smartdoc files on the expansion card? Just wondering because I keep almost all of my docs on the card because I have about 11Mb of my RAM full, and it really slows down the sync process with DTG. Still, with DTG set to sync, my sync time is less than 60 seconds. Without DTG it take 12 seconds. I have 297 files in RAM, and close to a thousand on the card.

It would be interesting to see which conduit takes the longest. I do see your point though... I'd hate to restore a full 128Mb device that had beeen wiped out :)

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
mikecane @ 4/19/2003 3:07:18 PM #
On the lowly mono CLIE S320, you can only HS internal RAM. The MStick is hidden from HS's view. (Later and more expensive CLIEs have MSmount and such -- the S320 does not!)

It is probably a combo of three things:

1) SmartDoc

2) HS software

3) the s-l-o-w sub-GHz PC I have to use

SmartDoc, BTW, is obsoleteware, but it's the best DOC editor I've ever used and perfect for my current use.

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
mikecane @ 4/19/2003 3:09:56 PM #
Oh, and I must mentioned that I am using Palm's HS software. Others use Backup Buddy and such and get faster results. I can't use BB -- I've had it screw up things for me.

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
Calroth @ 4/21/2003 7:45:31 PM #
I think people are missing the sheer possibility of what could be possible.

Remove the bottleneck and allow a Palm device to communicate at the full bandwidth of USB 1.0: a sync takes as little as ten seconds.

Allow a Palm device to sync at USB 2.0 or FireWire: a sync takes as little as two seconds.

Allow a Palm device to sync at FireWire 800 (or whatever): a sync takes as little as one second. Instantaneous.

OK, these numbers are a little wild. But there's possibility there! I think people are too used to waiting minutes at a time for their Palm device to finish syncing.

RE: USB 2.0 or FireWire needed
Puppy @ 4/22/2003 10:21:49 PM #
I should point out that for the brief time I had a Tungsten T (hated the crappy screen), that thing synced FAST. Like several times faster than my Visor (which is also fast, as far as that goes). Of course the slowest part for me is always going to be grabing updated websites off of Avantgo.

Without Avantgo, my 8MB Visor takes 17 seconds to sync (just timed it), and that's dealing with a dozen documents in Docs to Go, connecting with my mail server, etc. There's something very wrong if someone's waiting MINUTES for a hotsync, baring stuff like Avantgo (or slow mail servers, etc.) where you're waiting on external data. And I don't think your computer's speed matters much. When I used a Pentium 1 200 that was fast too. So even with USB NOT being the bottleneck, it's still plenty fast, since most of the time you're not changing that much on it.

What?

ray00pal @ 4/17/2003 3:44:10 PM #
I thought the reason that we all have 16MB RAM is due to the cost consideration. I can not believe it is due to OS limitation. If that is the case, they should have worked on it 2 years ago! This should have been fixed before the OS 5! What the... Now I completely lost repect for the Marketing guys in Palm. I just can not believe all these suffer is because they will spend time on OS5, which has no real impact to most of the users, then increase the memory limit! I am so outraged!

RE: What?
ZekeSulastin @ 4/17/2003 5:11:33 PM #
Be outraged at Motorola: the DragonBall processors used as the basis of the v. 4 and lower PDAs only had a 12-bit RAM address bus - the CPU couldn't access any more than 16 megabytes of RAM! At the time OS5 and the T|T were released, the emulation code for the 68k programs probably couldn't handle the RAM, and they waited until it all worked before releasing it.

RE: What?
ZekeSulastin @ 4/17/2003 5:15:26 PM #
rrgg - misinterpreted my enter ...

Palm needed to release a faster PDA when it did. People were buying PPCs in droves because they didn't understand that the Palms were more capable ... all they saw were big numbers ... remember, the processors used in the OS5 units won't run OS4 ... also, OS5 added capabilities ...

RE: What?
mj6798 @ 4/18/2003 12:48:01 AM #
Be outraged at Motorola: the DragonBall processors used as the basis of the v. 4 and lower PDAs only had a 12-bit RAM address bus - the CPU couldn't access any more than 16 megabytes of RAM!

That argument is bogus. Yes, some DragonBall processors did have limitations in the amount of physical memory they could address. So what? They were still full 32bit processors. The number of address lines coming out of one version of a CPU doesn't have anything to do with the OS architecture. Palm didn't have to code any memory limitations into their OS, and the fact that they did shows a lack of foresight.

RE: What?
ZekeSulastin @ 4/18/2003 9:31:09 PM #
Touché ...

But, if the CPUs hadn't had the limitation, the OS never would have been written that way - OS programmers, working in *LOW*-level code like they do, used to tend to write for what was available. Now, of course that's changed ...

There is, however, a better example of the principle I stated above - does anyone remember the 640k barrier of the DOS of yore >:)

When MS-DOS 1.0 (Seattle Comnputing's QDOS) was bought, PCs didn't have more than 1 MB of RAM - we were saddled with that bottleneck for years ...

Either way, Palm has finally fixed it ...

128M is not good enough!!!

I_M_Anonymous @ 4/17/2003 4:07:11 PM #
I think Palm is making another mistake here. 128M seems big for now, but in one or two years it will become another limiting factor for PalmOS devices. They should have at least expanded the support to 512M or 1GB.


RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
Lucky Bob @ 4/17/2003 4:21:36 PM #
Only a couple Pocket PC's have a 128mb, and I haven't heard of anything larger. And the Pocket PC's need that kind of space, let alone a Palm OS handheld...

(Why do some people say you can kill two birds with one stone when it's hard enough killing one bird with two stones?)
RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
hkklife @ 4/17/2003 4:36:32 PM #
First of all, from 16mb to 128mb is a rather drastic (and for right now) unnecessary jump. I wish that Palm had been working 2-3 years ago on getting the OS5 units to at least 16 megs of usable ram, with an option for 32mb from day one. Secondly, I hope Palm does not become complacent and think that 128 is "so" much that it's like the mythical 1gig HD capacity of the early 90s...look at how quickly that milestone was reached without anyone ever looking back or taking time to celebrate. To be perfectly frank, no Palm device for the next several years should have a hugely pressing need for >64mb IF someone will take some serious steps to address OS limitations of external storage and launching apps from a storage card. Both PalmSource and 3rd party app. programmers should be held responsible for this. For example, I thought I had a pretty good handle on the contents of my T|T's ram. Just in January I wiped it clean and started from scratch. Last week I noticed quite a bit of missing space and try as I might to clear any lingering remnants of deleted apps, I still was about 1.2 megs short. I wiped the Palm again and manually reinstalled every app & util. Lo and behold, my space was reclaimed! Of course, I spent all of last night do this, so if I had 32mb or more, I'd just say heck with it and leave the clutter in therem just like I do with the 120 gigs of HD space now on my PC...

P.S. I am all for some new licensee (*ahem, Apple,ahem*) bringing out a Palm device with a firewire cradle. I cannot stand cable clutter and this would nicely do away with one of them. I remember being so dismayed when I got my Vx that I had to shoehorn yet another AC adaptor brick onto my powerstrip.

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
Fammy @ 4/17/2003 4:39:12 PM #
By the time the "need" for memory outgrows 128MB, we will likely be onto OS6, if not beyond.

_____
Fammy
RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
jbeedham @ 4/17/2003 4:44:40 PM #
I think 128M is good enough. I think this is designed to hold us over until OS6 which won't have any memory limitations like this.

-------------------------------------------------------
currently using Palm m125 and waiting for Garmin iQue.
RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 6:58:42 PM #
FYI: The Toshiba GENIO GD has 128MB of RAM. But guess what? The PPC OS can only address a max of *64*. So those extra 64 are nothing more than backup. Palm has leapfrogged MS here.

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
BlueAnon @ 4/17/2003 8:05:54 PM #
PPC OS has 64MB limitation??

From the description CE3.0 can address 2GB to me, CE4.0 can go to 2T

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
url=/library/en-us/dnce30/html/threads30.asp

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
BlueAnon @ 4/17/2003 8:27:47 PM #
for the guy with the bright idea about PPC has 64MB mem limitation. here is a screenshoot of memory set up of Genio550GD.
http://akiba.sorobangeeks.com/news/130303/2.jpg

http://forum.sorobangeeks.com/viewtopic.php?t=1910


RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 8:34:19 PM #
Nah, nah, nah. That screensnap does not impress me. Look closely: it is split into THREEs. Program RAM, Storage RAM, BACKUP RAM.

As for the terrabytes of RAM... that may be so for industrial-strength CE, but I am certain that PPC OS's version of CE stops at 64MB of direct RAM addressing. I just can't find the bloody cite at the moment!

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 8:46:56 PM #
Hmmm... I'm wrong about the 64MB, but I was sure I'd read that somewhere -- and that the GENIO does indeed split its 128 MBs in Program, Storage, and Backup (just as the Toshiba e755 does with its 96MB; but not in equal thirds ffor either machine).

Anyway, here is what a trusted authority site on WinCE says:

=======

http://www.cewindows.net/faqs/storage.htm

Internal Ram - Limitations

There are some limitations to using internal ram for storage. Prior to Windows CE 3.0, the internal ram for storage was limited to 16 MB. In Windows CE 3.0, this limit has been increase to 256 MB. In Windows CE 1.0 and 2.0, the largest file was limited to 4 MB in size. In Windows CE 2.1 and later, the largest file is limited to 16 Mb. So if you need to use really large files, you should consider using external storage.

==========

256MB max, it says. More than the 64MB I thought.

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
BlueAnon @ 4/17/2003 8:59:07 PM #
You know, how about try using PPC first before actually start blabering what it can and cannot do.

the 3 lines with numbers you are talking about are
allocated:
in use:
Free:
left side is for storage allocation and the right sides are for Programs allocation.
the fourth line are the total main memory :127.29MB, which indicates the total 128mem you said PPC cannot managed.

the 64MB limit myth is from old strong ARM iPAQ which requires special driver for 128/256MB mod.

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
gfunkmagic @ 4/17/2003 9:05:43 PM #
Blueanon,

I don't you of all people have a right to complain about people not knowing what they're talking about! Sheesh...

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
BlueAnon @ 4/17/2003 9:05:47 PM #
the 256MB limit has long been raised with the updated CE3.0. you are quoting a doc released in 2001. By summer CE3.0 spec is pretty much a moot with the release of 4.2.


RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 9:10:21 PM #
BlueAnon: Try being a little civil. It was a mistake, not a slander. And since you are so gung-ho to defend Gates & Co, I have to wonder what you are doing here. What PPC or Palm do *you* have?

And I've tried PPCs. Just tried the e755. Just saw the GENIO GD (PXA255 with 128MB RAM) too (alas, battery not charged!).

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 9:14:30 PM #
Aha! BlueAnon provided the tip that led me to something about 64MB max:

http://www.the-gadgeteer.com/times-2-tech-upgraded-ipaq-review.html

or

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P66312144

=============

An early question on all of the iPAQ bulletin boards had been that if it was possible to upgrade the iPAQ to 64MB, then why not 128MB, or even 256MB? Unfortunately, it soon became evident that there was a limitation in the iPAQ that kept it from being able to recognize anything larger than an internal 64MB.

For those of you that aren't aware of this quirk, let me try to explain it in layman's terms: When you have a 32MB iPAQ, there are actually 16MB set aside for Program Memory, and 16MB set aside for Storage Space. Storage Space is where the programs reside, and the Program Memory is the memory needed to actually run, or execute the programs. Likewise on a 64MB iPAQ, 32MB is set aside for Program Memory, and 32MB for Storage Space.

For whatever reason, the iPAQ is set up to be able to recognize no more than a total of 64MB of Program Memory and Storage Space..

===============

Yes, that was an *older* limitation. I hadn't kept pace.

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
MSTCrowT @ 4/17/2003 9:18:25 PM #
A 4GB limit would work for maybe four or five years, perhaps should build this into OS 6, as the older 68k Palm OS lasted for about 7 years, with one year of overlap.

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
BlueAnon @ 4/17/2003 9:19:53 PM #
hadn't kept pace would be a pretty good general description. It seems to be a common problem in Palm world, even Palm inc is still fondly comparing T|T with 3800 iPAQ and think T|T is the king of the PDA hill.
RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 9:30:05 PM #
I've just had the shocking experience of reading several of your prior posts, BlueAnon, in the Forums here. I see things degraded so much that Pepper had to lock the thread! Aiming for a second shot at such notoriety?

You seem to tout the hp 2200 series as The Messiah of PDAs. Have you actually USED one, or are you basing everything simply on what you've read online? The ViewSonic V35 is a superior PDA to the hp 1910, so I wouldn't count ViewSonic or any other PPC licensee as out of the miniaturization picture.

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
BlueAnon @ 4/17/2003 9:37:11 PM #
ah finally you kept pace with the get go.

and no, 128MB still won't make the top of PDA hill even if it is being released today since it's already been done somehwere else.

and yes, h2200 will have the smallest dual slot PDA ever to come out after US version of G550. I am sorry to informed you h2200 will have better spec and flexibility than T|C for the same price.

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 9:56:04 PM #
I have not mentioned the Tungsten C here. And when I have mentioned it elsewhere, it has been with a curl of contempt on my lips.

hp 2200 isn't out yet. Just because it will be small with two slots doesn't mean it will be GOOD. 1910 has no SDIO or serial I/O in its bottom connector -- so, no WiFi, no keyboard. Duuuuuuuuh.

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
BlueAnon @ 4/17/2003 10:02:32 PM #
*yawn*

yeah h2200 won't be 'good' without whip cream and caramel. But it will make smallest dual slot capable yummy PDA with optional models of internal 128MB and BT.

Also can you show me any WiFi capable ARM POS models that can use folding size keyboard? (uhmm...there is none)

but since you only want to talk about current model. I suppose $399 T|T's sliding d-pad is all one needs, and $299 h1910 sucks toe. hooray, POS is the best.

PS. you do realize E750 has occasionally been offered for $400 after rebate approaching current T|T's price right?

PSS. there is no english version of G 550GD that you can/have tried. Try making up better story next time.


RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 10:50:21 PM #
"PSS. there is no english version of G 550GD that you can/have tried. Try making up better story next time."

Dolt! I never said it was an ENGLISH version GD. Your reading comprehension is on par with your grammatical skills. It was a JAPANESE version GD, you whingeing git!

Learn English. NOW --

http://www.americakokki.com/english/english.html

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
abosco @ 4/17/2003 10:56:23 PM #
"Also can you show me any WiFi capable ARM POS models that can use folding size keyboard? (uhmm...there is none)"

For the slow (ska), please do research before posting. The XT keyboard works with the T|T.

Oh, and Mike, you were right. There IS a 64 MB limit in PPC. That's why they are usually partitioned, such as 64 MB RAM for storage, 32 MB ROM for backup, and another 32 for the OS. Hey look, it's 128 MB. That counts, right? Wrong. Even PPCT was talking about this in their latest article... about the new PPC with 96 MB RAM.

Anyway, don't waste your time. Either of you.

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
abosco @ 4/17/2003 11:06:48 PM #
Gah! Forget that post! Your sentences are such garbage and so messed up I can't even read it right!

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications
RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
BlueAnon @ 4/17/2003 11:07:25 PM #
...oh now he claims he can read "Japanese" but totally confused when given Japanese screenshot, claiming built in memory allocation as "storage card" status.

lol....

good job mike. I am proud of ya!

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
abosco @ 4/17/2003 11:08:02 PM #
Wait, forget THAT post. You can use an IR or Bluetooth keyboard with the TT. Same with IR keyboard on the NX. TT can use Wifi with the case, NX can use Wifi with the card.

...Silly ska.

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 11:13:06 PM #
"...oh now he claims he can read "Japanese" but totally confused when given Japanese screenshot, claiming built in memory allocation as "storage card" status."

God Almighgty, man! Go take that English lesson!! You obviously have hallucinations when confronting English!! WHERE did I say I READ Japanese? Just because the GENIO GD was from freaking Japan, what does that say about ME and Japan? That I've been there? That I've had Geishas? That you should commit seppuku? Hey, I *like* that last one...

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
BlueAnon @ 4/17/2003 11:13:29 PM #
ok I believe you Bosco. can you read Japanese too? Mike says he can.

lol.

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 11:15:53 PM #
"Even PPCT was talking about this in their latest article... about the new PPC with 96 MB RAM."

-- Bosco, I just slogged through PPCT on their Toshi e750 coverage. Saw nothing of what you said. URL?

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
abosco @ 4/17/2003 11:17:33 PM #
Gimme a minute to find it. I'm laughing WAY too hard at you making fun of ska's.... typing impediment.

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications
RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 11:18:42 PM #
WHERE did this lunatic escape from? Was he raised on Ed Wood Jr. movies as a distorted child? Did they feed him, instead of make him wear, Pampers? What is it with this... this... I don't know!

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
BlueAnon @ 4/17/2003 11:19:54 PM #
oh right sorry, you didn't say you "can read Japanese" but you sure act like you know the content of a screenshot.

(I wonder who claims to not be impressed by a screenshot content in foreign language without needing to read it. anybody remember? anybody...? )

anyway... you are in deeper hole than when you begin. I suggest you stop now. LOL.


RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
abosco @ 4/17/2003 11:22:59 PM #
He's a troll (read "idiot"). It's not worth it, trust me. That is, until Ryan finds out about this thread!

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications
RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
BlueAnon @ 4/17/2003 11:27:59 PM #
... lol.. so mister mike there claims he has tried the E750, but doesn't even know it has 96MB of user accessible memory.

you know, at least if you pretend to have tried all those devices, get to know the basic fact first before doing the "acting". It's kinda embarrashing getting cought making up story.

64MB limitation my foot.

RE: Ed Wood rolls in his grave!!
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 11:30:25 PM #
BlueAnon, you get out of here now. You are insulting the memory of the Most Holy and Sainted Ed Wood Jr. and his Sacred Pronouncements (aka dialogue). We have a cult, you know. We can hurt you!!

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Boulevard/9565/

-- take off your shoes before you click that, you unwashed heathen pig!

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
abosco @ 4/17/2003 11:31:42 PM #
You see, the e750 has 64 MB RAM, and 32 MB NAND Flash ROM. That 32 MB ROM is for doing backups. There's also another 32 MB ROM (forget what kind) to store the OS in. They say it's 96 MB because they're including the NAND for backup. I thought you knew about PPC's???

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications
RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 11:32:48 PM #
"lol.. so mister mike there claims he has tried the E750, but doesn't even know it has 96MB of user accessible memory.

you know, at least if you pretend to have tried all those devices, get to know the basic fact first before doing the "acting". It's kinda embarrashing getting cought making up story."

--- aieee!!! This guy just gets worse as the night progresses! You inspid berk! Of course I knew the e750/755 have 96MB of memory -- 64 of which is dynamic RAM and 32 of which is NAND ROM for user-backup purposes! We were talking about WinCE having a 64MB limit, you numnut! I swear, I'll need a Valium if this goes on!

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
abosco @ 4/17/2003 11:36:06 PM #
http://www.brighthand.com/article/Toshiba_Unveils_e750

64 MB RAM (probably half will be needed to run programs anyway), 32 MB NAND Flash ROM for backups, and 32 MB CMOS ROM for the OS.

Happy now? What else are you going to laugh out loud at now? I'll bet you're laughing at you're English teacher's poor attempts to teach your sentence structure and grammar. ;)

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 11:36:39 PM #
It's 11:30PM EDST. I'm bailing for the night. Bosco, if he goes on, call in reinforcements! Good luck, Marine!

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
BlueAnon @ 4/17/2003 11:36:58 PM #
really?

so what is this "user backup" purposes you are referring to can you explain that bit to me?

(man I am having such a big chuckle right now)

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
abosco @ 4/17/2003 11:38:25 PM #
NO!!! I can't go one on one against ska! I can't take looking at those sentences another minute!

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications
RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
BlueAnon @ 4/17/2003 11:38:49 PM #
oh noo..he is scarred and running away.....

mommy...! there some meanie person calling me a liar. sniff sniff...
(Oh well, happy hour is over for me. thanks for the entertainment)


RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 11:38:54 PM #
"so what is this "user backup" purposes you are referring to can you explain that bit to me?"

It's to BACK UP the data in the APPLICATIONS! I'm outta here, Bosco! You take him/it/that on!

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
abosco @ 4/17/2003 11:39:06 PM #
"so what is this "user backup" purposes you are referring to can you explain that bit to me"

Point is, if you can use it or not is not what we're talking about. The PPC OS is limited to 64 MB RAM. RAM! RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY! You can throw in all the other useful ROM you want, we're talking about RAM! The Palm OS is now expanded to 128 MB RAM (no need for that much, really), while there is a 64 MB RAM limit on the PPC. Do you get this much?

Mike, man, you wuss. Ahh well, it's 11:30 here and I'm not going to bail for another hour at least. Spring break, for ya. Hell, this thread was so fast it felt like a chatroom. And ska's poor sentence structures made it authentic, too.

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
BlueAnon @ 4/17/2003 11:44:10 PM #
Bosco: cute explanation, but not very bright. look at the 550 screenie again.
RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 11:49:33 PM #
Bosco, I'm back. I remembered I have to stay online til 12:30AM EDST tonight. Oh, the pain!

BlueAnon, you blitering idiot, if you know so much about PPCs, then you know the same damned NAND ROM in the e570 is in the V35 too -- ViewSonic set aside about 5MB for user backup of data. The diff being that the NAND ROM on the V35 also stores the OS and apps (unlike the e750/55, where the OS and apps are in "normal" ROM).

Ed Wood, Jr -- save us!!

Educating BlueAnon
mikecane @ 4/18/2003 12:02:06 AM #
"In addition, the V35 has an additional 5.2 MB of storage in Flash ROM. This appears in the File Explorer as "My Flash Disk". Any files stored in here will survive a hard reset so it's a great place to store important files."

http://www.brighthand.com/article/ViewSonic_V35_Review

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
abosco @ 4/18/2003 12:02:54 AM #
Alright, ska. I'm looking at the 550 "screenie". I see a bunch of Japanese characters I don't understand. I see it partitioned into three separate spaces.

Hey, isn't it a bit odd that 128 MB RAM are in a JAPANESE model, which has to run a differnet version of the PPC OS? I mean, after all, an NR70v/U runs a different version of OS 4.1 than an NR70v/J. Could it be that the limitation isn't in the Japanese version? Hmm, interesting. You have still yet to provide proof that any PPC model available to the US market has 128 MB RAM. There is a 64 MB RAM limitation and you know it. Come on. You can do it. Just admit it. It's not hard.

Mike, you might want to take a nap before rushing into *battle* again. Sleep deprivation is the last thing you want here. I should be able to hold down the PIC FORT from here. That is, until Ryan logs on and bans us all.

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
hotpaw4 @ 4/18/2003 12:08:26 AM #
Before you say 128M is not enough, remember that the typical PalmOS application (most ones that run on an m515) use less than half a megabyte of DRAM memory. Even the monster NZ70 apps use less that 5 MB (combined RAM heap and flash).

And there is a serious trade-off between the amount of DRAM and the stand-by battery life. Most people certainly don't want a handheld where they would lose all their data just by going on one week trip and barely turning it on.

Because of the battery life issue, I think the future is with more built-in flash memory, not more DRAM.

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/18/2003 12:10:12 AM #
I'm already sleep deprived. I'm calling in Babelfish, dammit.

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
abosco @ 4/18/2003 12:26:25 AM #
Looks like ska's the one who cried himself to sleep. Score one for the ?SonyTeam?

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications
RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/18/2003 12:27:37 AM #
Babel was of no help. You guys have fled anyway. Time for me to call it a night. Ryan, leave this thread alone as a monument to a brave battle...

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
abosco @ 4/18/2003 12:29:39 AM #
BS! I'm right here! Ska's the one who left!

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications
RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
gfunkmagic @ 4/18/2003 1:10:45 AM #
Whoa!! Well done mikecane and abosco!! It looks like you guys scared the trolls away!! :)

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
abosco @ 4/18/2003 1:16:46 AM #
We must be born with it. ;)

I'm still here, waiting for ska to reply so I can jump on him.

Eh, this victory will be short-lived anyway. But I'm living in the moment!

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
Wiggd @ 4/18/2003 5:13:50 AM #
I use a palm device, but here is a PPC that after having the ram upgraded, can natively use the 128mb of ram.

http://www.pocketpctechs.com/detail.asp?Product_ID=I39-064-128RAM

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/18/2003 8:14:27 AM #
Thanks for that link. As much as I detest saying it, BlueAnon was most likely correct that the GENIO GD can address all of its 128MB of RAM in one fat glob. Apparently, I had old or bad information.

This still does not excuse him from being a ... ah, let it be.

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
BlueAnon @ 4/18/2003 8:19:04 AM #
what? you think I am going to pull a "Bush" on you spinning non existance evidence and stuff ... lol

I told you it was StrongARM limitation (the chipset) not the OS. The CE3.0 can go up to 2Gig, and 4.2 is going up to 2T

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/18/2003 9:29:16 AM #
Don't pull a Bush. Don't pull a Clinton, either. Don't even pull a Monica.

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
JKingGrim @ 4/18/2003 10:30:05 AM #
Ska please leave and join a PPC site. You turn every discussion into a valliant battle to defend PPCs.

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
robrecht @ 4/18/2003 11:29:39 AM #
I'm still amazed at mikecane saying, "Try being a little civil." Mike, it does seem as if you haven't been as "cranky" lately. I'm proud of you.

Thanks, Robrecht
RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
abosco @ 4/18/2003 11:46:55 AM #
Thing is, we're talking with ska here. I got tired of being civil with him back in October.

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications
RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/19/2003 4:27:41 PM #
It begins again!

http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10213&start=10

or

http://tinyurl.com/9vk1

-- see? I wasn't the only bleedin' person who thought PPC maxed out at 64MB RAM! Even some *PPCers* thought so. I pass wind in your general direction, BlueAnon! (I don't dare type "fart" with Ryan's censorware going -- we might get Matsu****a!)

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
mikecane @ 4/19/2003 4:30:45 PM #
Hahahaha! I still get "Matsu****a" instead of the company name! Ryan, where's your Exception List?!

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
dominick @ 4/19/2003 4:58:08 PM #
why do so many people complain about sync time; usually when i sync my palm(frequently a few times a day) i'm in front of my computer working anyway. i remember 5 3/4 disks that's slow.

"i've always wanted to be famous because i've always thought i'd be very quotable...see..."
RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
stupidnewpolicy @ 4/19/2003 5:30:26 PM #
I think the point being made is that people would like more RAM on-board not only for applications, but also for media/books/data of various types. As fast as add-in cards may be, there's always some sort of lag over running/accessing directly from internal memory.

I had a buddy back in the early 90's who loaded a RAM disk each time his system booted. A 200MB RAM disk, which was loaded with the entire contents of his 200MB hard disk. He preferred the performance boost. I won't go into how stupid I thought this sounded, but let's just say he had one of the SLOWEST booting systems around, but once it was booted, it FLEW!

Until Windows GPFed, that is...


Ick

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
Patrick @ 4/19/2003 7:50:26 PM #
If history has shown us anything it is that today's notion of what is enough memory is usually looked back upon a couple years later as quaint.

More memory will drive the development of memory-hungry applications that we either cannot think of right now or can think of but nobody is willing to work on them cause there just isn't enough memory.

Last I checked, 32 bits gives a 4GB address limit. Anything less built into the OS should have a very, very good reason for it.


RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
apple_orange @ 4/22/2003 1:50:30 AM #
I must agree, just remember, we will be reading directly from Microsoft Office document, and these documents are very big in size!!
Just think of the attachments we are receiving nowadays thru our emails, and are you goin to tell us that after paying so much, we cannot use it to open out attachement?
What about net surffing? Don't tell me they are require that very little RAM....
And if Music listening and picture taking is goin to be the norm than I am saying that we will definitely need much more.
Just be honest to yourself, when you look at a pocket PC, they are about the same price with a palm, and just look at the spec. If Palm is goin to be the winner, they must allow big memeory capacity or at least have the option to expand their RAM capacity.
The Palm we are using, I have so many documents in my wordsmith and they almost fill up my 62MB Memeory Stick. If I am goin to read all my emails in my palm How much RAM do you think I would need, since the program and the Data share the same RAM??

RE: 128M is not good enough!!!
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 7/31/2005 6:34:40 PM #
When will people ever learn...


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

ZEN of Palm?

jamesgood72 @ 4/17/2003 4:27:56 PM #
I don't understand all the fuss about this. I would consider myself a pretty heavy user of my Palm (TG-50, with a T68i, much web browsing, emailing, try out lots of apps, etc), and never have memory problems. I have a memory stick which I can share with my cameras, install MP3's onto, watch movies from, save web pages, etc, so it's not like I'm limited to 16MB.

Are we missing the point of the Palm here, it's long battery life (I've never seen my TG-50 go below 50% yet, although I haven't done a week long business trip with it yet), small and fast apps that get the job done? How will 128MB of internal RAM affect battery life (even when the device is off)?

I am all for progress (blue tooth is the best thing I've seen in ages, hi-res colour screens are wonderful); I just don't want to end up with my next Palm being a PocketPC!

Cheers,

-James.

RE: ZEN of Palm?
robrecht @ 4/17/2003 5:23:12 PM #
If I understand it correctly, even when off a device needs a small amount of current to maintain data in RAM.

Thanks, Robrecht
RE: ZEN of Palm?
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 7:00:12 PM #
With my lowly mono S320, I've actually gone down to the battery warning! But this is after not charging for a few days and using the backlight heavily. (Oh, look at how jealous all of you with hi-res color screens are now! Hahaha!)

RE: ZEN of Palm?
carioca76 @ 4/17/2003 7:26:08 PM #
TG50 with T68i. I keep hearing you can do this but how does it work? Do you dial up an isp with the phone & use the bluetooth for connection to isp or is the phone always connected & thus are always on the internet on your tg50. Sorry a little of topic but I been thinking about this whole bluetooth phone thing & wondered how it worked.

RE: ZEN of Palm?
ray00pal @ 4/17/2003 8:29:37 PM #
You will not be able to meaningfully get on line with 16MB. You can not view a city map you have in jpg. You can not view a pdf file with more then a few pages.

I am not saying EVERYONE needs 128M. When NO ONE can have 128MB, that suck.

RE: ZEN of Palm?
jamesgood72 @ 4/18/2003 1:37:59 AM #
"You will not be able to meaningfully get on line with 16MB. You can not view a city map you have in jpg. You can not view a pdf file with more then a few pages"

when was the last time you tried the above things?! this here tg-50 with a lowly 14000K free is very useful on the web (i'm typing this on the pda right now) and it nicely displays the 5mp jpegs (and its mpegs) from my camera. pdfs and word docs are usually perfect (not 100pct). well written software does not always need as much ram as m.s. make us believe... madbe thats my point here.

RE: ZEN of Palm?
jamesgood72 @ 4/18/2003 9:00:18 AM #
carioca76, the bluetooth thing for Internet access works very well. I have an AT&T T68is. I have GPRS data on my phone plan, which means that whenever my web browser or email client need Internet access, the TG-50 talks to the phone, and in about 5 seconds, it's online. The speed is variable, but I would say it's usually about the speed of a dialup 56K connection. Work pays for this account, so I'm not sure of the cost.

Sony are shipping the Netfront 3.0 browser on their OS5 machines, which I believe is the same browser that comes with the Tungsten T (different name, though?). It handles 90% of what I need a web browser to do. Certainly, well designed sites are fine, it's when they rely a little too much on IE features that it falls down.

-James.

RE: ZEN of Palm?
carioca76 @ 4/18/2003 11:01:22 AM #
Thank you!!!
Sounds really cool!

Funny timing

coppit @ 4/17/2003 4:41:57 PM #
You'd think that they would have announced this sooner, not less than a week before a device supporting 64 MB is released... Still, it's nice to see confirmation of the 5.2.1 OS and 64 MB memory both in the T|C.

RE: Funny timing
JKingGrim @ 4/18/2003 10:36:32 AM #
Maybe they just wanted to make sure that they were the first. After all, they did do all the dirty work.

how much ram ... 1 gb?

carioca76 @ 4/17/2003 4:46:28 PM #
Why are several companies developing devices a little larger than a pda that house a 20 gb drive with 256 mb ram that run win xp, last 8 hours on battery, have built in bluetooth, sometimes wifi, usb, sometimes firewire 800mhz+ processor
but ...
palm os & pocket pc are limited to 200 - 400 mhz processor, limited os, 16 - 64 mb ram ...
i don't think my next carry with me pc will be a pda ... i want my whole pc in my pocket!
no more look its got 128 mb ram ... imagine what you could do with 20 gb

RE: how much ram ... 1 gb?
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 7:01:51 PM #
"Last 8 hours on battery" -- is that like the way Toshiba has claimed long battery life for their PPCs: it just sits there *idle* with the backlight *off*? I doubt very much these microPCs will have batteries that last through 4 showings of The Matrix in MPEG format.

RE: how much ram ... 1 gb?
NocTurnerV @ 4/17/2003 7:39:49 PM #
Yeah, but a hard drive, for instance, eliminates the whole basic point of a PDA; that it's an always-on, readily available organizer.

I don't know about you, but I'd hate to have to wait 30 seconds for my address book to boot up, just to write down a bloody phone number...

RE: how much ram ... 1 gb?
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 8:06:34 PM #
I think you stretch the point. The HD would be mainly for multimedia: photos, video, sound, and gigantic reference DBs. I could see the four core Palm apps still residing in RAM, with easy backups made to HD.

Maybe *this* HD...

http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/wcs/leaf?CID=onair/asabt/news/237219

or

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z4B152144


RE: how much ram ... 1 gb?
carioca76 @ 4/17/2003 11:42:15 PM #
I guess I was planning on running the thing in standby mode. I also love the instant on but I can certainly wait for standby to kick back on for several thousand more mb.
I just don't get why there is such a huge gap between the 2. instant on can't be the determining factor.
i do love my clie. but the difference is amazing to me!

RE: how much ram ... 1 gb?
mikecane @ 4/17/2003 11:52:36 PM #
The HD has to spin up to speed, that accounts for the delay. It's not that much. Ask an iPod owner. Don't get fooled by HDs in notebooks or -- shudder! -- desktops! I know, starting up Windoze has traumatized everyone (although Mac OSX is now doing a good job of that too!).

RE: how much ram ... 1 gb?
JKingGrim @ 4/18/2003 10:43:07 AM #
Why would I want gigabites of memory that can only store .prc and .pdb files? Internal memory in Palm OS devices can only hold those types of data.

128 MB in PalmOS pda = 256 MB in PPC?

gfunkmagic @ 4/17/2003 7:53:04 PM #
I remember reading a discussion about this earlier. PalmOS pdas utilize execute-in-place technology for more efficent RAM usage. This is not the case for PPC's AFAIK. PPC must copy app-executibles in Ram to active state thereby effectively halving the available amount of accessible Ram. Thus assuming a fully accesible 128 MB of Ram on a PalmOS pda would eqaul 256 MB Ram on PPC for equivalent functionality!? Combine that with PalmOS pdas having a much smaller average program size, and differences are even larger! Anyhoo thats what I understand. If anyone disagrees and wants to totally disprove this, please go ahead...

RE: 128 MB in PalmOS pda = 256 MB in PPC?
dorelse @ 4/18/2003 11:52:51 AM #
That's only in the low end PPC's released more recently. Higher end PPC's use XIP. The iPaq 1910 & Viewsonic V35 use NAND and must copy it over to Ram before executing.

RE: 128 MB in PalmOS pda = 256 MB in PPC?
abosco @ 4/19/2003 12:39:08 PM #
Hmm, but isn't NAND for apps in ROM? We're talking about apps in RAM. You can only have 32 MB of storage on a PPC with 64 MB RAM because the other 32 MB have to be used to actually run the programs.

In essence, PPC apps are still 50-100% larger than Palm OS apps. With these sort of numbers, 16 MB on Palm OS comes awfully close to the same storage 64 MB on PPC.

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications

RE: 128 MB in PalmOS pda = 256 MB in PPC?
BlueAnon @ 4/19/2003 12:54:43 PM #
Educate yourself Bosco:

for Flash memory generally there are two types of popular design, NAND and NOR. high end iPAQ currently use 40MB NOR. NAND has different circuit design making it a much smaller package and cheaper because of less cabling. But this at the cost of access speed making it unsuitable to execute code directly from it, that's why codes need to be transfered to DRAM before running them. NAND size will keep growing, notice how E755 can spare 32MB of it's ROM for user access out of the 64MB, while NOR will pretty much settle around 40MB for a while.

storage space in PPC is just that, storage space. wherever there is memory the os can manage, be it ROM, RAM, or external storage, program can be kept in there.

don't get too desparate explaining how 16MB in Palm is superior than 64 or 128MB of RAM in PPC. It's embarrassing. It's like trying to explain how station wagon is that much more usefull than a pick up truck because your mom can put more groceries in it.

It's irrelevant in general situation.


RE: 128 MB in PalmOS pda = 256 MB in PPC?
abosco @ 4/19/2003 1:57:43 PM #
So basically, you're saying how much RAM you have is irrelevant because there is a little something called EXTERNAL STORAGE? Well gee, I've been trying to tell you this for a while now, but you always love to talk about how much stuff you can fit into an H1910's RAM, meanwhile, 128 MB SD cards are $25.

Meanwhile, I'm sitting here with 7/11 MB RAM free on my NX with a full 128 MB MS. This should be proof enough that RAM is insignificant, although 32 MB RAM would be nice so I wouldn't have to be stingy with my RAM.

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications

RE: 128 MB in PalmOS pda = 256 MB in PPC?
BlueAnon @ 4/19/2003 6:32:05 PM #
no I am saying you have 32MB worth of BS.

come one people

benixau @ 4/17/2003 10:29:22 PM #
please - who cares that it took them this long. It has happened. As long as they release an update soon enough (i.e. within the next year) that will allow us up to 512MB we should be ok. If palm could create a device with similar battery life as we have now and 256MB of RAM on board - imagine what the PPC market would say: why are we limited to 128?

BTW - from what i understand PPCs use a sort of extended memory to use that extra 64. like 486's and accessing larger amounts of RAM (sorry i dont know the limit, i use mac's and they have never had these limits)

RE: come one people
JKingGrim @ 4/18/2003 10:48:59 AM #
Why do I want 512mb of .prc and .pdb files? Internal ram can only hold these types! Plus this will drain battery. Even if advances were made that allows more ram with less power, I would prefer that tech be used to prolong battery, not add ram!

................Wow

Lucky Bob @ 4/18/2003 12:44:54 AM #
When I saw the headline, I thought that they'd say they had increased the memory limitation to 32mb...not 128mb! Wowee! I don't think we'll be seing too many Palm OS handhelds with 128mb RAM for a while...hey, we haven't even really seen any Pocket PC's with 128mb, and they need it!

(Why do some people say you can kill two birds with one stone when it's hard enough killing one bird with two stones?)
RE: ................Wow
mikecane @ 4/18/2003 8:16:33 AM #
The Toshiba GENIO GD has 128MB of RAM. And it's a damned nice piece of hardware too.

RE: ................Wow
Altema @ 4/18/2003 11:21:33 PM #
Of course, we need to keep this in perspective here. A 16Mb Palm is still generous for all but power users, but a 16Mb PPC is nearly useless. My old Jornada could handle 3 or 4 apps and that was it. TextMaker is certainly cool (I installed it over a month ago), but it is 5.7Mb for just one application. It's the first PPC WP application that surpasses WordSmith in capability (certainly welcome over the lame Pocket Word), but at over 10 times the RAM requirements..?

Following suit of most apps which are only 5 times the size (TextMaker excluded) of their roughly equivalent Palm counterparts, we should look at a 128 Mb Palm being equal in function to a 640Mb PPC.

RE: ................Wow
BlueAnon @ 4/19/2003 12:08:57 PM #
If you installed all the dictionaries yes it will be 6-8 MB, specially the pan european dictionary.

but US dictionary only, not installing the pan european or the british will bring down the wordprocessor to 3 MB. not installing any dictionary will bring it to 2MB or so.

and no, it is not even in the same class as wordsmith since it is a ture wordprocessor instead of a conduit client like wordsmith.

RE: ................Wow
BlueAnon @ 4/19/2003 12:18:18 PM #
and of course the jornada will be plenty happy with a discounted (<$180) 1Gig CF card mounted on it. Even the textmaker can go into the CF without going bonker. Try that with "wordsmith" and any Palm models.

What apps must be installed in the 16MB RAM? almost none, except very few startup items and agenda.

RE: ................Wow
abosco @ 4/19/2003 2:58:41 PM #
What are you talking about? What is this big deal about internal RAM? Like I said, I've got every app imaginable on my NX, and I've still got 7 MB RAM free! It's all on my 128 MB MS!

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications
RE: ................Wow
Altema @ 4/19/2003 4:07:10 PM #
"and no, it is not even in the same class as wordsmith since it is a ture wordprocessor instead of a conduit client like wordsmith.

and of course the jornada will be plenty happy with a discounted (<$180) 1Gig CF card mounted on it. Even the textmaker can go into the CF without going bonker. Try that with "wordsmith" and any Palm models."

Hate to interrupt your fantasy, but Wordsmith works fine all by itself. Been there, done that dozens of times. I've transcribed books, written articles, done reports and printed them there on the spot, and emailed documents directly without touching my laptop. Matter of fact I can print directly to our corporate printers using the ip address. If I was into graphic arts or had to incorporate photos, then I would lean more towards Textmaker, but I don't see how that justifies the excess baggage for the 0.001% of the time I'd need it. I also don't see why not having one feature disqualifies Wordsmith as a wordprocessor. I've written internationally published articles way back when AppleWorks was considered a word processor, and I can tell you firsthand that it fell way short of Textmaker OR Wordsmith.

In regards to application location; you imply that Wordsmith goes 'bonkers' unless it is in RAM. I did not know that the Enquirer had a technology section, but just to set the record straight, Wordsmith works fine in RAM, ROM, or the expansion card. I've run it from ROM beginning with version 1.0 on a Palm IIIe.


RE: ................Wow
BlueAnon @ 4/19/2003 6:35:56 PM #
It's amazing how palmie heads like to skirt the issue.
1. true enough PPC apps is bigger, but in context of space available it has better ratio than Palm.

2. all the big apps can be installed in external memory. DTG cannot, wordsmith cannot, reducing option what the main RAM can be used for.

3.so HOW did you connect to corporate network may I ask? (ooops, conduit)

4.yeah really, why would anybody need anything. (creating pictured doc? watching .mpeg? .mp3? ... )

5.Wordsmith fits in ROM? (yeah and I can installed Textmaker directly to my brain too)

RE: ................Wow
abosco @ 4/19/2003 7:44:07 PM #
Hate to tell you that companies have plenty of ROM available. Take Sony. It has 16 MB ROM, 8 MB of which you can see. Delete the tour app, and you've freed up a few megs. Use JackFlash/Jacksprat, and you can delete apps you don't use and install apps you want in ROM.

I really don't know what you're talking about. I put every one of my Docs To Go apps on the card except for the main app, which is about 150K, and Word To Go Fontpackage, which is a little over 200K. So that's about 350K for a full Office in RAM. The rest of the components are on the card, which is about 1500K.

Again with the MP3 and MPG stuff? MP3, AT3, MPG1, MPG4, MOV, MQV, etc can already be done. Enough with that. It's EXTREMELY old.

Yeah, PPC has a better ratio if you count all of the RAM as storable RAM. That is, unless you actually want to RUN any apps. Then it's going to be halved. Hmm, how nice.

Please, for the love of God, if you're going to troll, at the very least be RIGHT.

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications

RE: ................Wow
BlueAnon @ 4/19/2003 7:59:32 PM #
Every apps need run time space and data storage space, does it mean it's 50% like you claim? I have no idea where you get the number or what appliction you are talking about.

if your claim is true:
a. 65kb ftx browser will only need 30kb, instead of up to several MB depending on browser cache set aside.
b. pMVP will need 2MB space instead of less than 1-200kb for .mp3 or 1 to whaever freespace for .AVI video chace if you turn it on.
c. BugLord will need 40MB run time space instead of 10-20MB for a 5MB app (data files included)
d. Texmaker, the mother of all big productivity apps, will need 12 MB instead of 2-3MB run time
e. dragon voice recognition will need only 5 MB instead of the required 64MB runtime.

...there I even help you prove how bloated PPC apps can be.... (ooo palmie rejoice.. lol )

(but of course your brain will explode in disbelieve if told that 5MB spare memory is more than enough for almost all apps runtime, except the biggest of the biggest, which is a moot point since POS don't even come near to be able to ovver such class of applications. But try harder, you might even believe your own BS.)

RE: ................Wow
mikecane @ 4/20/2003 12:39:08 PM #
Can anyone understand *any* of BlueAnon's above posting?! Did he type it while in Lobotomy Mode? (Oh, sorry, that's his *native* mode...)

RE: ................Wow
abosco @ 4/20/2003 1:11:40 PM #
Ohhh it all makes sense now. His language is so screwed up that he can only understand a screwed up UI like PPC2002! Palm is too simple for him! He needs something that makes you sweat to check on your datebook. It all coming together now.

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications
RE: ................Wow
BlueAnon @ 4/20/2003 5:00:05 PM #
lol.

yeah simpleton organizer, that's more like it.

RE: ................Wow
Altema @ 4/21/2003 2:43:24 PM #
"1. true enough PPC apps is bigger, but in context of space available it has better ratio than Palm."

Percentage wise?

"2. all the big apps can be installed in external memory. DTG cannot, wordsmith cannot, reducing option what the main RAM can be used for."

DTG requires a core module in RAM or ROM which occupies 145K, all the other modules run fine from expansion. WS, like has already been stated, runs from RAM, ROM, or expansion.

"3.so HOW did you connect to corporate network may I ask? (ooops, conduit)"

WiFi, Bluetooth, or RAS. RAS connection is my most common method.

"4.yeah really, why would anybody need anything. (creating pictured doc? watching .mpeg? .mp3? ... )"

Illogical conclusion. If I don't need imbedded pictures of the Sphinx, then I don't need to brush my teeth... right?

"5.Wordsmith fits in ROM? (yeah and I can installed Textmaker directly to my brain too)"

WordSmith is installed in ROM right now, and DTG, and DualDate, and FileZ, and LauncherX, and McFile, and MobileDB, plus a few others and I still have 144k left over.

part of the problem

mj6798 @ 4/18/2003 1:00:26 AM #
Adding more memory to Palm hardware and making it accessible via some mechanism addresses part of the problem. The other part is that doing anything with large chunks of memory under PalmOS 4/5 is a big pain, and that's a problem with the OS.


Until people can port library code (image processing, etc.) from Windows or UNIX systems to Palms without jumping through hoops, the Palm isn't a serious platform for anything other than basic calendaring and little applets.

RE: part of the problem
bcombee @ 4/18/2003 4:42:45 AM #
Palm OS 5.2.1 and the new SDK addresses some of these issues.

First, with larger memory devices now possible, more devices will have large dynamic heaps. While the Sony NX and NZ devices only had 11MB of storage RAM, they had huge (4MB) dynamic heaps.

Second, the new SDK has a MemGluePtrNew call that can allocate >64K chunks on the dynamic heap, joining the existing FtrPtrNew call for allocating >64K chunks in storage memory.

--
Ben Combee, CodeWarrior for Palm OS technical lead
Programming help at www.palmoswerks.com

This reminds me the old days of DOS breaking 640KB!

asiayeah @ 4/18/2003 7:31:33 AM #
This certainly reminds me the old days of DOS breaking 640KB, while MS Windows is providing GUI, multitasking, 32-bit capabilities on the desktop...

--
With great power comes great responsiblity.

This is a huge mistake

robman @ 4/18/2003 12:50:47 PM #
Palm shouldn't be focusing on delivering more memory in their base devices. This would only be the case if it looked like there would be applications in the near future that would be larger than 16MB.

Instead, Palm should be updating their management of external storage to be totally seamless. When you put in a 256MB card into a 16MB Palm, you should have 272MB of memory, not a 256MB expansion card in a 16MB Palm.

Hopefully Palm won't be releasing huge devices with tons of battery-and-wallet-draining RAM. Personally I'd rather have better (and possibly dual) expansion than devices with bigger internal memory.

Palm Researcher at the University of Texas at Austin
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/petrosino/pda

RE: This is a huge mistake
mikecane @ 4/18/2003 1:17:23 PM #
You make a very good point. God, I *despise* VFS (I like the way there's an F in that!). File handling on PPC is so much better; can't Palm see that and do likewise?

RE: This is a huge mistake
bcombee @ 4/18/2003 2:09:31 PM #
I disagree that external storage should be treated the same as RAM. There are fundamental usability reasons why this is a problem. In order for devices to work reliably, you need to provide separate mechanisms for storage that will always be with the device and storage that can and will change at any time. While users may be using cards in a "hard drive" model, the OS has to be able to use them follwing a "floppy drive" model, where cards aren't guaranteed to be there.

Yes, PalmSource should have done a better job making analogues to the internal database system for VFS files, but using VFS from a program isn't too difficult. Having a system like PiDirect II built into the OS would have been bad, IMO -- what happens if a user loads an app off the card, goes to the first form, switches cards, and then tries to go to another form -- the app crashes because the second form hadn't been loaded off the card yet.

--
Ben Combee, CodeWarrior for Palm OS technical lead
Programming help at www.palmoswerks.com

RE: This is a huge mistake
gfunkmagic @ 4/18/2003 2:33:28 PM #
bcombee,

Do you know of any PiDirect alternative for OS 5.x besides PowerRun? This is the most serious misgiving I have with OS 5.x right now...

thanks

RE: This is a huge mistake
mikecane @ 4/18/2003 2:45:53 PM #
bcombee -- Have you used PPPC's file system? Isn't that clearly superior to VFS? The kuldge Palm has now is akin to a Mac shipping without the Finder included!

RE: This is a huge mistake
MSTCrowT @ 4/18/2003 2:49:31 PM #
If the software handled the internal memory and external memory as one block, that would create chaos. Can you imagine closing a file, removing the external memory, and then finding out you have to juggle multiple SD cards, similiar to the ancient two-floppy setup? Latency would also be very disparate, as internal RAM is much faster than SD cards.

RE: This is a huge mistake
mikecane @ 4/18/2003 3:07:19 PM #
How does PPC manage it? That is the kind of system I would rather have. VFS as it is now is just pathetic.

RE: This is a huge mistake
bcombee @ 4/18/2003 5:02:10 PM #
Palm designed the VFS setup so that people wouldn't have to think about files. This is intentional -- the whole database scheme on Palm OS is also an anti-file idea. The big problem isn't that there's no standard file browser, it is that there's a concept clash between the Palm OS method of managing data, and the rest of the world. You can see this philosophy at work in the standard launcher -- the card is treated as a separate category since the programs on the card are ephemeral.

The justification for not having a standard file browser is that

1) each program should manage its own data and provide a UI for handling items
2) a general purpose browser would allow users to get confused by the internals of the system, and potentially break things
3) Programs can do a richer representation of the data they have on a card that can be shown in a directory structure.

If Palm OS had provided a standard "File Open" dialog, then programmers (who are naturally lazy) would have just used it and not thought about how they could more effectively show data that could be in internal memory or could be on external storage.

As for PiDirect for Palm OS 5 -- it is not possible to implement this kind of function on OS 5, since programs cannot override the database calls in the OS. It might be possible to make a OS 5 hack that did this, but it would be very fragile, and may fail on new versions of OS 5, since the internals aren't stable from release to release.

--
Ben Combee, CodeWarrior for Palm OS technical lead
Programming help at www.palmoswerks.com

RE: This is a huge mistake
robman @ 4/18/2003 8:12:07 PM #
To reply en masse:

Ben Combee: Right now memory cards *present* a huge usability problem, that's why I want Palm to focus
on addressing this issue and not just adding more
internal memory. In my capacity as a technology
trainer, this is one of the more frustrating areas in introducting Palms to new users. They expect the Palm to behave like a digital camera ("Great, now I have more memory!"). Instead I spend a great deal of time training people on how to copy applications to cards("Why can't I *move* them?") and other "file" management issues.

MSTCrowT: I don't mean to imply that Palm should allow users address all memory as one contigious block, rather, that there should be a memory manager which understands expansion cards.

mikecane: IANAPPCD, but my understanding is that the PPC uses it's internal memory to maintain a file allocation table that can reference either memory bank. The PPC memory manager tries to keep files "in their place". Regardless of how it works internally, this is one of the few areas where PPC blows the doors of Palm in usability and simplicity. Put in a card, you get more memory.

Ben Combee (again): I am not proposing that Palm OS become yet another file-based operating system, or that Palm implement a file dialog, require saving, or any of the other asanine requirements from the desktop world. I just want adding an expansion card into my Palm to give me more memory, no questions asked.

PiDirect is something that Palm should have built into the operating system. It acts as a sort of memory manager, and it's frustrating to realize that there will probably never be a PiDirect for OS5. Hopefully Palm will ship better memory management in OS6.


Palm Researcher at the University of Texas at Austin
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/petrosino/pda

RE: This is a huge mistake
BlueAnon @ 4/19/2003 12:28:35 PM #
one casualty of not having transparent file system is stunted option of complex and big application. Nobody has a realiable system of installing large apps and data into storage card. Eg. for enterprise and multimedia. Palm Inc themselves admits grudgingly in their press release.

that's the reason why Palm OS currently cannot match the high end PPC softwares and almost all apps have remians the same with slight permutation since the day of m505.


RE: This is a huge mistake
abosco @ 4/19/2003 3:00:21 PM #
Umm, huh? Once again, NX. Palm/Programs/MSAudio/ stores MP3's. DCIM/101MSDCF/ stores pictures. MQ_ROOT/100MQV01/ stores Quicktime videos. MSSony/MOML0001/ stores MPEG1&4. Palm/Programs/MMFlash stores Flash 5 content. Palm/Programs/MSSound/ stores voice memos. Palm/Launcher/ stores all apps on the card. And of course, the Palm does this for you when you specify in the install tool you want to install these to the card. It'll make the folders for you.

Gee, that was tough. And it's all neat and in order, too. Guess I can store all those multimedia and enterprise apps pretty easily, huh?

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications

RE: This is a huge mistake
mikecane @ 4/19/2003 3:17:11 PM #
abosco wrote:

"Umm, huh? Once again, NX. Palm/Programs/MSAudio/ stores MP3's. DCIM/101MSDCF/ stores pictures. MQ_ROOT/100MQV01/ stores Quicktime videos. MSSony/MOML0001/ stores MPEG1&4. Palm/Programs/MMFlash stores Flash 5 content. Palm/Programs/MSSound/ stores voice memos. Palm/Launcher/ stores all apps on the card. And of course, the Palm does this for you when you specify in the install tool you want to install these to the card. It'll make the folders for you."

-- bosco, I don't *want* to remember something like "DCIM/101MSDCF/" !! I'd rather have a folder called Pictures and sub-folders below that for category of pictures. On the unadorned PalmOS, no can do. And it's only the *OS* that knows about "DCIM/101MSDCF/" -- a user can't find that without much headache. I must side with the PPCers on this issue...

...and let's not forget that Hawkins was inspired by the Mac way of doing things. But while the Mac can easily manage gobs of RAM through Finder, PalmOS users are left with zilch. They must scramble for 3rd party stuff, which not only adds expense, but frustration too. (I am a former Mac person, who abandoned the platform after asking "Is there a Mac version of that?" for like the one billionth time...)

RE: This is a huge mistake
abosco @ 4/19/2003 3:41:40 PM #
I completely understand. This is why I like ZLauncher so much, for image viewing, at least. When I take a picture with the NX, it is automatically saved in DCIM/101MSDCF/. I pop my MS into a Sony camera, take a picture, and it'll save those images to DCIM/100MSDCF/. Now, I can then make a folder called Pictures, or rename the DCIM folder, and then rename those sub-folders with whatever I want. Beauty of it is, AcidImage will pick these different image folders up and display them to enter and view.

Now, while this applies to picture viewing and third-party applications, I'm trying to show you that the Palm OS is capable of a reasonable file system on the card. VFS, if you will. In RAM, it's anything goes, and I'd love it much more if you could organize files in it like the card. Or... if you could store regular JPG's in it, at least, or any other file than PRC and PDB. God that's annoying. Let's hope Palm OS 6 clears this up.

-Bosco
Proud Member of the Top Non-Mods
Members: abosco and ImpReza M3
Now accepting new applications

How the Palm Should Manage Memory

robman @ 4/18/2003 8:30:23 PM #
1) The number one thing that has to go is the freedom to remove a memory card at anytime. As much as many of us may have despised having to drag a floppy disk to the trash to get it out of our Macintosh, this interface design *ensured* that the system was done with the disk before the user could ever touch it. SD cards ought to work the same way, with a button that ASKS the OS to finish or abort any changes, prepared itself and the user for the card to be gone, and then "let go" of the card.

2) A complete implementation of Run-in-place and copy-rewriteable-databases services, a-la PiDirect II, must be NATIVE to the Palm OS. This will allow you enjoy that 35 MB Kinoma file of your child's live birth with only an 8 MB Palm.

3) Smart management of databases, so that less frequently used databases are archived away on your cards and more frequently used ones are fresh in your RAM. Obviously REQUESTING to remove a card would need to inform you and give you the option to undo.

4) The Palm Launcher should let users manage card applications the same way they handle those in RAM---by being able to assign them to any category. Once the card is removed the reference would remain but the icon would gray or vanish (based on your preference). None of this "you get one category" junk.

These ideas are just what I came up with in five minutes time, and while I don't feel that they represent a perfect system, they seem leaps and bounds better than Palms current approach to memory and external storage. Feel free to improve upon them (or tell me why they won't work.) My point is---that there is a better way!

Best,
Robby



Palm Researcher at the University of Texas at Austin
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/petrosino/pda

RE: How the Palm Should Manage Memory
asiayeah @ 4/18/2003 8:56:40 PM #
The ideas are good. I hope Palm or PalmSource is reading this. Otherwise let's sugggest to them!

--
With great power comes great responsiblity.
RE: How the Palm Should Manage Memory
JKingGrim @ 4/18/2003 10:52:10 PM #
3) Smart management of databases, so that less frequently used databases are archived away on your cards and more frequently used ones are fresh in your RAM. Obviously REQUESTING to remove a card would need to inform you and give you the option to undo.

Terrible idea. You do not know which application needs what database, and you shouldn't. When you remove the card, the files are gone, and apps won't run.

4) The Palm Launcher should let users manage card applications the same way they handle those in RAM---by being able to assign them to any category.
Once the card is removed the reference would remain but the icon would gray or vanish (based on your preference). None of this "you get one category" junk.

Fine, its possible, but bells and whistles should be left up to third party solutions. This idea consumes extra memory, and is complicated to do.

RE: How the Palm Should Manage Memory
Edward Green @ 4/19/2003 11:36:32 AM #
Sorry don't agree.

I think (as BC explained it) Palm has got the approach to memory cards right. What annoys the heck out of me is applications that won't run off the Memory Card because they don't look on the card for extra databases. So we end up using apps like Power Run.

My aged n770c has 3Mb of Ram spare, which is plenty to run the software and files I have on various MS. However I have to use Powerrun for most my games.

Some software like Biblereader works with the card great. I put the 16Mb stick in and I have multiple translations read off the stick without a hitch.

PalmOS should stick with the VFS model, because its internal memory simplicity is what has made it so nippy and memory efficient.

Edward Green
--
http://www.khite.co.uk

RE: How the Palm Should Manage Memory
mikecane @ 4/19/2003 3:24:56 PM #
"What annoys the heck out of me is applications that won't run off the Memory Card because they don't look on the card for extra databases. So we end up using apps like Power Run."

-- POWER users end up using apps like that. The average Joe gets confused as hell over why something like that doesn't work, is shown a PPC that *can* do such things very easily... and Palm loses another customer.

I'm a power user of PalmOS, but I gave up long ago having to sort through the various Power Run-like apps to get the functionality that is *built-into* PPC. Why should I have to turn myself into a Software Testing Lab to get functionality that should be *built-in*? This is akin to my frutration when owning a Mac and having to go around to software companies like a damned beggar, asking "Is there a Mac version of that?" Jobs can continue to live in his dream world of 2-3% market share; he's a billionaire. I switched to the Win platform. And Palm, through its similar blindness, is pushing me to switch to the PPC platform.

RE: How the Palm Should Manage Memory
Edward Green @ 4/19/2003 4:04:40 PM #
But it's the application developers fault not Palms as far as I am concerned. The answer is to boycott applications that won't run off a card without using a third party utility.

Edward Green
--
http://www.khite.co.uk
RE: How the Palm Should Manage Memory
mikecane @ 4/19/2003 4:26:07 PM #
"But it's the application developers fault not Palms as far as I am concerned. The answer is to boycott applications that won't run off a card without using a third party utility."

-- great. So I can sit there with a PalmOS PDA and NO APPS ON IT -- or go to PPC and *fully* boycott *all* PalmOS apps. I'll take the latter choice...

RE: How the Palm Should Manage Memory
Edward Green @ 4/19/2003 6:17:07 PM #
No, I'd go for a Sony/E P800. Built in phone and costs less than a Tungsten.

I just don't understand why applications aren't written to work off a card. I have emailed some developers asking why software I bought from them didn't run off an expansion card, and the answer was pretty much 'gee hadn't thought of that'.

However non power users don't seem to be using the 16Mb that they have. Only as more new applications take up more than 1 mb (games . . .) are the average consumers going to need either POS devices with 32 - 128 Mb of internal Ram or 100% of Applications to run straight off a card if 'installed to card' thru the hotsync manager.

Edward Green
--
http://www.khite.co.uk

RE: How the Palm Should Manage Memory
robman @ 4/19/2003 8:13:20 PM #
Regarding my suggestion about "smart" management of databases, JKingGrim points out: "Terrible idea. You do not know which application needs what database, and you shouldn't. When you remove the card, the files are gone, and apps won't run."

My first argument would be: Sure you do. That's why Palm has CreatorID's. But this isn't entirely true; some applications access other databases (like datebook replacements). This may mean a stronger system than CreatorID's is needed to handle memory management properly.

I think we're comfortable with the message "Please Insert Disk to Continue" and I'm not unwilling to see this on my Palm. Anyone else have thoughts here?

Edward Green points out: "What annoys the heck out of me is applications that won't run off the Memory Card because they don't look on the card for extra databases." I don't have the docs in front of me but I don't really think that even following Palms recommedations exactly would eliminate this issue. Applications shouldn't have to "know" that they are on the card; when they search for a database cards should be automatically searched for them. That's why the OS provides APIs to look for databases.

Mike Cane responded to this point more elegantly, and I believe we're making the same overriding argument: Palm's usability is sorely lacking in this area. Maybe, as asiayeah suggested, they are listening and take this information into account in the future.



Palm Researcher at the University of Texas at Austin
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/petrosino/pda

RE: How the Palm Should Manage Memory
JKingGrim @ 4/19/2003 11:02:24 PM #
My first argument would be: Sure you do. That's why Palm has CreatorID's. But this isn't entirely true; some applications access other databases (like datebook replacements). This may mean a stronger system than CreatorID's is needed to handle memory management properly.

I am just saying that you should not need to know about creator IDs, and so on. You turn your PDA on and it works. The systems in place are fine. They work.


I think we're comfortable with the message "Please Insert Disk to Continue" and I'm not unwilling to see this on my Palm. Anyone else have thoughts here?

This message is for your PC. A handheld should be quick, snappy easy and simple. When you need info on the fly, its there, and you don't need to search for notebooks or memory cards.

RAM or ROM?

Altema @ 4/18/2003 11:17:57 PM #
"As of today, the most amount of ROM a Palm Powered device has shipped with is 16MB."

Which one is it?

RE: RAM or ROM?
BlueAnon @ 4/19/2003 12:45:53 PM #
Is there any difference between all models? It's all IIIxe/m515 but with different buttons design.
RE: RAM or ROM?
Altema @ 4/19/2003 4:00:10 PM #
The question was which type of memory, not which type of handheld. RTP

RE: RAM or ROM?
ozz @ 4/20/2003 12:36:11 PM #
The function of RAM is to give us guys a way of deciding whose computer has the biggest, studliest, most tumescent MEMORY. This is important, because with today's complex software, the more memory a computer has, the faster it can produce error messages. So the bottom line is, if you're a guy, you cannot have enough RAM.


RE: RAM or ROM?
mikecane @ 4/20/2003 12:42:25 PM #
"whose computer has the biggest, studliest, most tumescent"

-- and if they don't, is there Viagra for Palm? (Sorry, I couldn't resist! Great sentence, that!)

RE: RAM or ROM?
Altema @ 4/21/2003 2:10:17 PM #
"-- and if they don't, is there Viagra for Palm? (Sorry, I couldn't resist! Great sentence, that!)"

Silly you, everyone knows Palms can usually stay up longer...

RE: RAM or ROM?
jjjj @ 4/21/2003 4:37:50 PM #
i think is rom memory...because i already have 32m on my clie 760 of ram (upgraded)....but i cannot get more than 16 of ROM.
Top

Account

Register Register | Login Log in
user:
pass: