Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 114
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by Shazsta
    from what i gather, the old 600 contacts take up more space on the 650 than they do
    on the 600. i think it is because of the file system.i dont think hot sync compensates for this. i think it just transfers your old databases from the treo 600 onto the 650, with no conversion. This is the reason that there are all these memory problems. correct me if i'm wrong
    While I do hope you find a solution that works for you....
    In my situation, you are definately wrong! My contacts are not in the Palm PIM.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by IsLNdbOi
    Wow. Try putting in 2200 contacts one by one.
    You think that is hard. That is only about a hundred a year. You want a hard problem? Try deciding which one's to take out. To accomodate an "upgrade."
  3. RobM's Avatar
    Posts
    477 Posts
    Global Posts
    478 Global Posts
    #43  
    I for one do not have Sprint as a carrier so therefore I do not have a T650 as of yet. But knowing full well that memory now adays is cheap, I can not fathom how Palm could change the memory system and not change the memory (ie adding an appropriate amount for use).

    It kinda reminds me of the movie Poltergeist...the Line in the movie from Craig T Nelson "You moved the headstones but didnt move the bodies"...just think about it.

    rob
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by RobM
    I for one do not have Sprint as a carrier so therefore I do not have a T650 as of yet. But knowing full well that memory now adays is cheap, I can not fathom how Palm could change the memory system and not change the memory (ie adding an appropriate amount for use).

    It kinda reminds me of the movie Poltergeist...the Line in the movie from Craig T Nelson "You moved the headstones but didnt move the bodies"...just think about it.

    rob
    You too.

    Try this. I remember when a gigabyte would not fit in a boxcar and could not be read in a year.
  5. #45  
    im going to post some pics of what i did

    summary: i made 22433 contacts in palm desktop, then transfered them to my 650.
    i got some before and after pics. Apparently, we need the second option that i stated before, namely software that will convert our data to better fit the file system that the 650 uses. like i said before( and data proves it) its not really a matter of not having enough memory, its just need for some type of conversion utility. pictures as soon as i load them up.
  6. #47  
    Very interesting Shaszta. What was in each contact field, i.e. any notes, multiple phone numbers, etc? Would that have any impact?

    Your pics certainly add a new twist to this memory dilemma.

    Clue
  7. #48  
    a good point, i only had basic contact info for each contact. ill post a pic
  8. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cluemeister
    Very interesting Shaszta. What was in each contact field, i.e. any notes, multiple phone numbers, etc? Would that have any impact?

    Your pics certainly add a new twist to this memory dilemma.

    Clue
    They don't add a new twist. Do the math!! They only confirm what people are complaining about. 11,600,000bytes / 22,433records equals 517bytes per record!

    That is exactly the point!

    IT DOESN'T MATTER what the contacts had in them! EACH record will take up 512 bytes rather they need it or not.

    My 2400 contacts have tons of stuff associated with them (properties and stats, notes from most conversations, birthdays, wants and wishes, copies of all corespondences, etc..) and they took up 14meg.

    So if Shazsta name and number take up the same space as a few years of records of my contact that is definately a problem!

    While the new file system is probably great, they should have sized it accordingly!

    as far as the software developers rushing to change thier software to manage data better...... Is this even possible? I think data is data and it needs to have break points between contacts. this "break point" then starts eating its own 512 chunks of mem. I dont think programers can change it. I do hope that palm can create a flash upgrade to change the block size. But I don't know if that is possible either.
  9. #51  
    So Shazsta's contacts had 4 fields each, (first name, last name, phone, email) so 4 fields times 22,433 contacts = 90,000 fields that take up 512 bytes each? Wouldn't that total 46,000,000 bytes or 46,000 kilobytes or 4.6 megabytes? But his contacts actually totalled about 11 megs?!

    OK, somebody who knows this crap much better than me please step in and help me out here!

    Clue
  10. #52  
    I've decided to cancel my order... Hopefully these issues will be squared away soon.
  11. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cluemeister
    So Shazsta's contacts had 4 fields each, (first name, last name, phone, email) so 4 fields times 22,433 contacts = 90,000 fields that take up 512 bytes each? Wouldn't that total 46,000,000 bytes or 46,000 kilobytes or 4.6 megabytes? But his contacts actually totalled about 11 megs?!

    OK, somebody who knows this crap much better than me please step in and help me out here!

    Clue
    Each contact will use (or should I say WASTE) the same amount of ram. It doesnt matter if you just put the first name and leave it at that, or if you list every single number they have ever had, or even every single number they have ever called someone. The complaint is that there is no justifying why Shazsta's records should get the same amount of elbow room that my data intense contacts get.
  12. #54  
    sxtg,

    The way I read your math is that each contact consumes 512bytes, no matter what actual space they take up. But Shazsta's contacts had very little information connected to them, so wouldn't they tend to hog more memory they didn't need, because each of his contacts contained about 50 bytes but used 512?

    So I would think that contacts with more additional info would optimize that memory better, as each contact would come closer to filling the 512 bytes.

    I'm not trying to defend the memory situation, but just trying to understand it better.

    Clue
  13. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Each contact will use (or should I say WASTE) the same amount of ram. It doesnt matter if you just put the first name and leave it at that, or if you list every single number they have ever had, or even every single number they have ever called someone. The complaint is that there is no justifying why Shazsta's records should get the same amount of elbow room that my data intense contacts get.
    Some people are saying they can't get their 3,000 contacts on their 650. If each one takes 512 bytes, wouldn't that be 1.5 megs?

    I'm missing something.

    Clue
  14. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cluemeister
    Some people are saying they can't get their 3,000 contacts on their 650. If each one takes 512 bytes, wouldn't that be 1.5 megs?

    I'm missing something.

    Clue

    Memory is divided into what are called sectors. (if you have ever watched your hard drive defrag... those little blocks that change colors, represent a sector.) All data no matter how small will occupy at least one sector if it is larger it will just take two sectors or three what ever it needs. The important part is that if it uses a sector at all, it will use the entire sector. Large apps that would use the same amount of space equivalent to 10.2 sectors will only use 11 sectors so they are not as affected. The problem with contacts and smaller apps is that what would take 550 (slightly larger than 512) will now take up 1024. If the individual sectors were only 20 that same 550 would only take 560 instead of almost doubling. Since this device is supposed to be an appointment and contact manager first and formost, it should at least do that effectively. That type of data can not be put on an SD card so you cant even work around it.

    I hope that makes some sense.
  15. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    They don't add a new twist. Do the math!! They only confirm what people are complaining about. 11,600,000bytes / 22,433records equals 517bytes per record!

    That is exactly the point!

    IT DOESN'T MATTER what the contacts had in them! EACH record will take up 512 bytes rather they need it or not.

    My 2400 contacts have tons of stuff associated with them (properties and stats, notes from most conversations, birthdays, wants and wishes, copies of all corespondences, etc..) and they took up 14meg.
    So if Shazsta name and number take up the same space as a few years of records of my contact that is definately a problem!

    While the new file system is probably great, they should have sized it accordingly!

    as far as the software developers rushing to change thier software to manage data better...... Is this even possible? I think data is data and it needs to have break points between contacts. this "break point" then starts eating its own 512 chunks of mem. I dont think programers can change it. I do hope that palm can create a flash upgrade to change the block size. But I don't know if that is possible either.
    but we are talking 22433 contacts as appossed to 2400. Like i have been saying, im pretty sure the problem is when transfering non-treo650 data onto the 650. like its not converting it right or summin. i can do the 22433 contacts with all the fields filled in too. Personally i dont think it is that much of the problem, unless hot syncing is the only way you can enter your data.
    here is what i suggest:
    turn your 2400 contacts into vcards, use palm desktop to install them on your 650. I think your contacts would transfer fine. But hey, if palmone wants to improve on its deisgn, im all for it!
  16. #58  
    oh and i think the main gripe is that people are trying to sync their treo600 data onto the treo650. in my head, im thinking its like fat32 vs ntfs. I dont think its gonna transfer correctly. Somebody needs to find another way to transfer the data instead
    of doing it rigorously one by one. I suggest people do what i suggested earlier before they decide not to get the treo650. Its a excellent upgrade!
  17. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by Shazsta
    but we are talking 22433 contacts as appossed to 2400. Like i have been saying, im pretty sure the problem is when transfering non-treo650 data onto the 650. like its not converting it right or summin. i can do the 22433 contacts with all the fields filled in too. Personally i dont think it is that much of the problem, unless hot syncing is the only way you can enter your data.
    here is what i suggest:
    turn your 2400 contacts into vcards, use palm desktop to install them on your 650. I think your contacts would transfer fine. But hey, if palmone wants to improve on its deisgn, im all for it!

    I know, but how much would the same 22,433 contacts use on the 600? My guess is about 2 meg. Thats a huge defficiency!
  18. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    I know, but how much would the same 22,433 contacts use on the 600? My guess is about 2 meg. Thats a huge defficiency!
    Huge defficiency, but not crippling - like it would be if you couldn't get 2,000 contacts loaded on the 650 - as originally thought. My guess is this will get figured out by palmOne within a month and we'll have a firmware/software fix to resolve (the hotsynching/transfer/conversion issue - not better utilization of memory).

    Great analysis to all of you on this....

    (BTW, I do agree that it's insanely amazing that P1 didn't increase memory from 32 to at least 64 mb knowing how memory would be utilized in the 650.)
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions