Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44
  1.    #1  
    I have a unlock treo 680 and loaded tomtom 6 after using the hex editor in other forum to make it compatible.

    Now I have used treo 650 with tomtom 5 and it was great. With this new device and tomtom 6 it is real terrible for me. I have a 2GB (133x corsair- same card used with treo 650 and tomtom5) . It is so slow to navigate and write routes I feel something really wrong.

    I also defrag my sd card with no noticeable change. it takes few mins to route and write. it takes few seconds to navigate from one screen to other. response is real slow dragging.

    Please advice our experts.
  2. #2  
    Are you using one big map (USA & Canada)? I used the DVD to load regions I used most. So I have New England, NY, etc. (Northeast) and then another map DB for West coast. The program routes and performs much faster since the database is 1/3 or less of the overall USA database. I kept the full DB on my 2GB card though for drives up to Canada (I hate having to change DB's at the border) but otherwise use the divide and conquer method to improve performance.
  3. #3  
    In my case, TT6 works absolutely fine and snappy with my RiData 1GB miniSD 150X (w/SD adapter) and Route 66 BT GPS receiver.

    My problem is with the Kingston 2GB SD Elite 50X I recently got. Performance is like night and day. TT6 is horrendously slow to do anything when using the 2GB SD 50X card, but when I use the RiData 1GB card, it's normal and snappy, just like TT5 was.

    I am so bewildered. The point of getting the 2GB card was so that I would have one big card that held TT6, backups, photos, songs and so forth, because TT6 takes up about 930MB of my 1GB card. I have the whole USA and Canada on it.

    Reformatting the 2GB card has produced no effect. I guess the 2GB card is the problem, even though it works fine in other uses.
    I have resorted to just popping in my 1GB RiData card when I need to use TT6 and when done, switch to the 2GB card.

    Next time, i'm definitely only buying RiData cards from now on.

    I think some SD cards do not run at advertised speeds or are just too slow in performance.
    .....Life is But Such Sweet Sorrow.....
  4.    #4  
    This card was fine with my treo 650. I have a full detail map for north america (version 665) 1.4gb.
  5. treoluv's Avatar
    Posts
    254 Posts
    Global Posts
    259 Global Posts
    #5  
    Yeah. But it is only slow if you compare to TT5, however; TT5 has regional maps only. I recommend that you should try the same TT6 full details map on Treo 650. Voilą! Just name some: "not enough dynamic memory", "not enough DB cache", and "freezing in the middle of the road when it needed" etc....

    I did experiments on 1GB Kodak, 2GB Sandisk Ultra, 4GB Transcend 150x. I used to give up the 4GB transcend running TT6 full details map on Treo 650. Now I'm happy to get it back on 680 and I'm also relief from listed pain in the @ss, too.

    Here are some tips for speeding up:
    1/ The bigger the card, the slower TT6 runs, hence
    2/ Install it onto 1GB card, or
    3/ Install regional maps.

    Happy navigation.
    Treo Maniac?
  6.    #6  
    I have two other friends and we bought together. They also hav etreo 680 and it works fine with them using 1gb sd card. It also works fine on my treo 650. So is it my 2GB Sd card?
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by treoluv View Post
    Yeah. But it is only slow if you compare to TT5, however; TT5 has regional maps only. I recommend that you should try the same TT6 full details map on Treo 650. Voilą! Just name some: "not enough dynamic memory", "not enough DB cache", and "freezing in the middle of the road when it needed" etc....

    I did experiments on 1GB Kodak, 2GB Sandisk Ultra, 4GB Transcend 150x. I used to give up the 4GB transcend running TT6 full details map on Treo 650. Now I'm happy to get it back on 680 and I'm also relief from listed pain in the @ss, too.

    Here are some tips for speeding up:
    1/ The bigger the card, the slower TT6 runs, hence
    2/ Install it onto 1GB card, or
    3/ Install regional maps.

    Happy navigation.
    I concur with your observation, the bigger the memory card, the slower TT6 runs. I now just use a 1GB card with all USA and Canada maps installed (over 930MB) with absolutely no problems at all, as opposed to using a 2GB card which is slow as hell.
    .....Life is But Such Sweet Sorrow.....
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by Merovingian View Post
    I concur with your observation, the bigger the memory card, the slower TT6 runs. I now just use a 1GB card with all USA and Canada maps installed (over 930MB) with absolutely no problems at all, as opposed to using a 2GB card which is slow as hell.

    Very important is the cluster size of your card. You will get the best results with the following cluster sizes. Use the DOS box for formatting your card. I`m using a Transcend 4 GB / 150x with best results (16K), even with big Western Europe map.

    Less than 4 GB (FAT16):
    2 GB SD (SanDisk) FAT16 mit 32K: format X: /FS:FAT /A:32K

    4 GB and more (FAT32):
    4 GB SD or SDHC (Transcend) FAT32 mit 16K: format X: /FS:FAT32 /A:16K


    "X" is the drive letter.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by Barnel View Post
    Very important is the cluster size of your card. You will get the best results with the following cluster sizes. Use the DOS box for formatting your card. I`m using a Transcend 4 GB / 150x with best results (16K), even with big Western Europe map.

    Less than 4 GB (FAT16):
    2 GB SD (SanDisk) FAT16 mit 32K: format X: /FS:FAT /A:32K

    4 GB and more (FAT32):
    4 GB SD or SDHC (Transcend) FAT32 mit 16K: format X: /FS:FAT32 /A:16K


    "X" is the drive letter.
    Interesting suggestion. I assume your directions for formatting relate to Windows.
    How do i do this on a Mac? (via Terminal, maybe?)
    .....Life is But Such Sweet Sorrow.....
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by Merovingian View Post
    Interesting suggestion. I assume your directions for formatting relate to Windows.
    How do i do this on a Mac? (via Terminal, maybe?)
    Sorry, I have no idea.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by Barnel View Post
    Sorry, I have no idea.
    Well, your formatting directions did the trick. I did as you suggested using my work PC and TT6 now performs snappy.

    Kudos.
    .....Life is But Such Sweet Sorrow.....
  12. vebix's Avatar
    Posts
    313 Posts
    Global Posts
    324 Global Posts
    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by Merovingian View Post
    Well, your formatting directions did the trick. I did as you suggested using my work PC and TT6 now performs snappy.

    Kudos.
    Just curious - which filesystem and cluster size did you end up using? I've got a 2GB card with TT6 on the way, and I'd like to make sure it's as snappy as possible.
  13. #13  
    I've formatted my 2G card with 32k, it won't go any smaller... If I try 16k it says it's too small for FAT16. FAT32 seemed to be even slower.

    Maybe I'll try Fat32 again for kicks.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by mportune View Post
    Just curious - which filesystem and cluster size did you end up using? I've got a 2GB card with TT6 on the way, and I'd like to make sure it's as snappy as possible.
    I used this one:

    Less than 4 GB (FAT16):
    2 GB SD (SanDisk) FAT16 mit 32K: format X: /FS:FAT /A:32K

    and TT6 is back to normal. I have a 2GB Kingston Elite 50x card, by the way.
    .....Life is But Such Sweet Sorrow.....
  15. vebix's Avatar
    Posts
    313 Posts
    Global Posts
    324 Global Posts
    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by Merovingian View Post
    I used this one:

    Less than 4 GB (FAT16):
    2 GB SD (SanDisk) FAT16 mit 32K: format X: /FS:FAT /A:32K

    and TT6 is back to normal. I have a 2GB Kingston Elite 50x card, by the way.
    Interesting. On my 2GB Transcend 150x, if I format with 32K FAT16, it slows *way* down from the default Windows FAT format...

    VFSMark at normal FAT16 - 785
    VFSMark at FAT16 @ 32K - 484

    The main change is in the File Create and File Delete tests:

    FAT16:
    File Create: 1561%
    File Delete: 1416%

    FAT16 @ 32K:
    File Create: 75%
    File Delete: 59%

    I'm still not sure if I have a problem card, or if PalmOS just hates cards larger than 2GB. My 1GB card (which was supposed to be only 32x) just *flies* past this Transcend 150x card.
  16. jfme's Avatar
    Posts
    79 Posts
    Global Posts
    82 Global Posts
    #16  
    Is there a way to check the current SD card cluster size?
  17. vebix's Avatar
    Posts
    313 Posts
    Global Posts
    324 Global Posts
    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by jfme View Post
    Is there a way to check the current SD card cluster size?
    hmm, that I don't know. It would be interesting to see was the default PalmOS format is doing, vs. others.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by jfme View Post
    Is there a way to check the current SD card cluster size?
    you can check the parameters of formating with the following command. Use the DOS box. X is the drive letter.

    chkdsk X:
  19. #19  
    Also try lowering the amount of POIs. Btw anybody got a copy of tom tom speed camera POIs for Switzerland? I had them but the data got corrupted and I lost my backup.
  20. vebix's Avatar
    Posts
    313 Posts
    Global Posts
    324 Global Posts
    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by Barnel View Post
    you can check the parameters of formating with the following command. Use the DOS box. X is the drive letter.

    chkdsk X:
    Can somebody run this on a 1GB card formatted from a Treo 650? (standard ROM, no FAT32) I have a 680 now but I'd like to know what cluster size my 650 used to use, since it had fabulous SD performance.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions