Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 114
  1. #61  
    The PalmOne store website does not have any good mechanism for canceling an order. Had to fill out a form to contact customer service, and select 'Advanced Order Confirmation' as the topic. What I really wanted to say, and put in the body text, is 'Cancel Backorder'

    I stated that the 32mb is too big of an issue to overlook.
  2. #62  
    I just canceled my order, will stick with my treo 300 for now, I'm going to order a replacement battery for it off of Ebay, the 2-yr old one doesn't hold much charge anymore.
  3. #63  
    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!

    good question. i can still test this as i do have my t600.
    but i think the results are going to be similar to the 650.
    maybe ill do that later today, cause that will involve me uninstalling hotsync, a hard reset etc.

    its not exactly that the t650 file system in inefficient, its only inefficient when
    storing stuff not formated to the t650 file system. at least thats my theory ive come up with from reading and experimenting with my 650 and 600.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by Shazsta
    good question. i can still test this as i do have my t600.
    but i think the results are going to be similar to the 650.
    maybe ill do that later today, cause that will involve me uninstalling hotsync, a hard reset etc.

    its not exactly that the t650 file system in inefficient, its only inefficient when
    storing stuff not formated to the t650 file system. at least thats my theory ive come up with from reading and experimenting with my 650 and 600.

    I would be really interested to know. If the 22k+ contacts actually hog up 11meg on your 600 then there would be some reason to believe that the software vendors could fix the issue, but if not then it would clearly be the file system.
  5. #65  
    I agree with everyone that the large sectors on the 650, combined with the same physical memory, is a real decline in memory. However, the term "unusable" and "disaster" have been thrown around.

    If you have 3000 contacts, and if they all have enough data in them to waste an entire sector (just under 512 bytes wasted), then that still adds 1.5 megs to the amount of memory required. If apps aren't taking a lot of extra memory, are there other things as large as the contact database that could be wasting many more megabytes?

    Why are we hearing people say that their contacts database alone is taking up 3-4 times the memory usage?

    By the way, thanks to Shazsta and sxtg.

    Cluemeister
  6. #66  
    Ok, heres some interesting info. After looking around, I think palm is using the M-systems diskonchip. Here is a quote from their website:

    "SureFS is M-Systems' ruggedized, long filename file system that is SCANDISK-free and FAT-16 compatible. It works exclusively with M-Systems' DiskOnChip devices to ensure data integrity, even after power failures. SureFS should be used when: no file system is available in the OS, in an OS-less environment, the product application requires ruggedized file system support.
    "

    If I remember right, FAT16 is a 512 sector size. Dont know if palm used this FS or created their own.

    Just thought this was interesting..
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by treotim
    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.)
    Just don't think its that simple. Load 20,000 contacts with little information and assume everythings ok. I don't know too much about how the contact db is setup but it appears that P1 made attempts to normalize some of the data in the contacts. There is a seperate country,company,title,city,state and zip databases. So if you add a new company, a new record gets created in the companydb, which is most likely another 512 byte bite. Same with title,zip,state,country.

    So its not as straightforward as counting the # of bytes in the contact field. I have a feeling if the test contact list was a bit more random with more fields populated the memory issue would be more apparent. Just a guess
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by Shazsta
    good question. i can still test this as i do have my t600.
    but i think the results are going to be similar to the 650.
    maybe ill do that later today, cause that will involve me uninstalling hotsync, a hard reset etc.

    its not exactly that the t650 file system in inefficient, its only inefficient when
    storing stuff not formated to the t650 file system. at least thats my theory ive come up with from reading and experimenting with my 650 and 600.
    I think your "theory" is correct about improper formatting of 600 data onto the 650. Although I can't fathom how P1 designers could not see this as a problem! Baffling!
    I don't have a 650 yet and will upgrade tho'. I know the user's manual was posted here prior to 650's release and one would think there would be info on the new memory configuration and how to best port data from T6 to T650.
    It also FRIGHTENS me to read how many folk have cancelled or sent their phones back without official response/remedy from P1. It's like they were expecting and even hoping for failure! This is not a dealbreaker for me as I see a patch utility for smooth data
    transfers. I would've loved to have had more mem of course but I'm not a poweruser and that too if need be could be fixed. The guy that started the thread to inundate P1 with email complaints doesn't even have his yet and may even keep it if all is well! Geeez!! (what is this world coming to??)
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by carter437
    Just don't think its that simple. Load 20,000 contacts with little information and assume everythings ok. I don't know too much about how the contact db is setup but it appears that P1 made attempts to normalize some of the data in the contacts. There is a seperate country,company,title,city,state and zip databases. So if you add a new company, a new record gets created in the companydb, which is most likely another 512 byte bite. Same with title,zip,state,country.

    So its not as straightforward as counting the # of bytes in the contact field. I have a feeling if the test contact list was a bit more random with more fields populated the memory issue would be more apparent. Just a guess
    That is exactly correct. I looked in Filez and my program has 7 or 8 acutal db files so if each one is a hog, that would explain why my DB has increased by 7 to 8x its original size. I kept trying to figure out why it didn't just double or even only increase by 1/3. This makes sense now.
  10. #70  
    hmm im going to have to try it with more fields...
  11. #71  
    Shazsta,

    Perhaps you could start by creating a typical contact, i.e. creating a contact that has a home number, work number, cell number, fax number work address, maybe a home address, an email address or two, and a note attached.

    Then duplicate those addresses and see if you can fit 20,000 on the 650, and if not, how many could you fit, (5,000?) and how much space do they take up? Just a thought!

    Look forward to your research!

    Clue
  12. #72  
    yeah, i was going to do the same thing i did before, only with the fields completed.
  13. #73  
    ok got it done. results are interesting. i maxed out at 11380 contacts, with all fields full
    i still had like 5 mb left, and thats with all my apps too. pics soon.
  14. #75  
    nice work
    La Vie En Diaspora: Enfin, une émission qui raconte votre vie aux Etats-Unis

    Treo 600 in December '03, Treo 650 in February '05, HTC TyTN Pro in August '06, and back to Treo 750 in January '07, find me at MyTreo.net

    About me: story of the 100thMonkey
  15. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by 100thMonkey
    nice work
    So what does this mean? If you re-enter your contacts from scratch it takes up less memory?
    ELR
    >> Drop by! <<

    Avatar courtesy of ButtUglyJeff!
  16. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by Otter Emperor
    So what does this mean? If you re-enter your contacts from scratch it takes up less memory?
    If so, then we should have a solution soon. Either a patch from P1, or a resolution from some enterprising developer. Practically speaking, I think the contacts issue is the one that might make or break this phone. How many corp execs are going to return this phone because their thousands and thousands of contacts don't fit into their smartphone with 23MB RAM? That number could be substantial.
  17. #78  
    How about beaming the contacts over from your old palm to the 650. I assume then the 650 would write the data in the new format???
  18. #79  
    Memory issue is an absolute dealkiller. Cancelled my 2 pending at PalmOne store, and the 3 from Sprint are heading back within the return period.

    If PalmOne thinks I'm gonna cough up $650.99 for an Outlook port and .3 megapixel camera and "camcorder" (with little memory to save anyhow), then they've gotta get out of their Silicon Valley tower and walk over to Fry's and see their competition in the camera/camcorder, LED-centric phone, and hi-res PDA arenas. OH- this device does all 3? Then why-why-why does it have essentially the memory of my old M515 from a few years ago? Not EVERYTHING can be run off the card. Added features almost always require added resources. On a $600 device, shouldn't the most dense person at PalmOne understand this? They even went so far as to hard-code the #1 and #4 buttons and removed the dedicated "power" button - yeah, that's what I want - LESS usability, PalmOne. Geez.

    Maybe they will finally get the message as this "hottest phone in history" begin flowing back to them in droves over the next few weeks, and/or the calls to their nearly useless "tech support" in India jam up the international telephone satellites.

    Send 'em back - it's our only hope of getting through to them that an appropriate amount of internal memory is not simply a whim of "power users," it's expected of a high-end device at this price point and with the typical applications you are going to run. Palmsource should develop a rule similar to Micro$haft and make minimum memory requirements that licencees can give their hardware (adjusted for added devices like cameras, recording, email functions, etc). If it's not obvious to Palmone, then force it on them.
  19. #80  
    In round one, 22,000 contacts took up 11 megs of memory. In round two, 11,000 fully loaded contacts took up 11 megs of memory. So we're looking at between 500bytes to 1K per contact.

    Excellent research, Shazsta.

    So it stands to reason that others with 3-4000 contacts should be filling up 3-4 megs of space. Has anyone else who tried to transfer their real contacts come to this conclusion as well? And how much space did these take up on the 600?

    Clue
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions