Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 99
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by JTREOB
    As I stated look for all fixs within 90 days.

    The problem announcing a memory increase now is that it will shut down virtually all 650 sales with 32. That is why P1 is talking a rom fix and not a memory increase at this stage.
    I would look for a short term rom fix very soon and a memory increase to follow. Any way you look at it, this going to hurt P1. My advise to them, write the quarter off and start thinking longer term. You put 128 or higher into the Treo and most will be forgotten, forgiven and this device will surface as the one to beat.

    Oh! Don't forget to axe the r and d team and market research firm as well.
    A fix within 90 days?

    I am willing to take a bet on that...by 3/2/05.

    Any wagers?
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by DaleReeck
    Of course, the third option that Mossberg says what he means and means what he says is impossible, right? The only possibilities are that it has to be a conspiracy or stupidity if he doesn't agree with your view of the 650, right? Well, the memory problem doesn't affect me to any great degree, so I guess "some users" is accurate after all.

    And don't kid yourselves that everyone would think that the Treo 650 would be "the smartphone to beat" if it didn't have the memory issue. The whiners would simply laser in on another problem and rage about that one. No one is happy around here unless they are b1tching about something.

    I have yet to see any major new phone or device released in the last three years that wasn't roasted in the forums. TC, Phonescoop, PDAPhoneHome, Howard's Phone forum, they are all littered with posts on how every new phone is crap. I am beginning to think it's more of a problem with the users and not the devices.
    Yes! It's a user problem that doesn't allow them to transfer their data in full from their 600 to the newly improved 650. Lets try to be reasonable here.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by finkkatz
    I agree with those of you who view Mossberg's words as a positive, not negative, for P1. either Mossberg is totally clueless about the memory implications because he isn't really knowledgable about the Treo's potential, or someone is getting paid something behind the scenes to get a sugar coated assessment from Mossberg. Only one of those two things could explain Mossberg's characterization of the memory problem as one affecting only "some users." Too bad the Moss man didn't get out accurate info to the pubilc on this one.
    Moss is doing a CYA on the problem, because he missed it in his initial review....and it was discovered on TC within 30 minutes of delivery of the first 650s (and speculated about before).

    Bad form, but it's his column.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by JigSawMan
    You DO know why ==I== have SV on my ignore list, right?...

    Giggle.

    Please people, don't quote SV, my life has become SO MUCH more pleasant since I have not read his drivel.
    Can you add an ignore link in you sig, Jig? Drivel runs out of both sides of the mouth... ;-)
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by dpuza
    Offering a 128MB SD card is not a solution to the problem. I already own a 1GB card. You can't do all the same things from a card that you can from memory. This is comparing apples and oranges. If there's not enough room for your core components and cache data on the ROM, you're screwed with or without an external card. How is speed affected when running from a card vs. from the ROM? Compatibility? :-/

    I agree with Walt's "should"'s and think P1's "most users won't be severely affected" excuse is totally lame.
    I think that this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding about how NVFS works. In a NVFS device there are two sets of RAM, the RAND flash and regular ROM. Thus in a T5, which is marketed as having "256MB of Storage" actually has 256MB of NAND Flash and 32MB of old-fashioned RAM. The RAM is used to buffer programs stored in NAND (which can't be run directly from NAND) and for actually running programs. Thus running programs on a NVFS device is fundamentally different than running then on a device with regular RAM. On a device with regular RAM (like the T600), the 32MB of internal RAM is used both for storing programs and for the heap from which programs are actually run. If you don't have enough space in internal RAM, and you store your program to DS, all or part of your program has to be cached in internal RAM for the program to run. That's why, with such devices, you are correct in saying "You can't do all the same things from a card that you can from memory." To analogize to a PC, the T600 internal RAM performs the functions of both your PC's internal RAM and its hard drive. Stuff stored on SD RAM is the equivalent to things stored on a CD-ROM and has somehow to be installed before it is useful to the PC.

    But NVFS is completely different: the 32MB of NVRAM (NAND) on the T650 is used SOLELY for storage (just like your SD card) and the 32MB of RAM that is part of NVFS is used solely for holding programs actually running, the system heap and a data buffer. Thus the NVFS memory functions like your hard drive, and the regular RAM functions like your PC's internal RAM. Even if P1 put 2GB of NVRAM (NAND) into the T650, it would still only be storage and the operating memory would be a separate bank of 32MB which is plenty of room for whatever you might need to run. Under NVFS, programs and data stored on the SD card are supposed to greated by the file system in exactly in the same way that programs that are stored in NVRAM are: they get buffered, cashed and run from the internal 32MB system RAM. Thus programs on SD should run seamlessly under NVFS without the kludges required to make them work under the old memory system.

    I can't verify that this is the case, because I've never used a T5 or a T650. If it doesn't work like that, then P1 has, indeed, created a problem. But if things are working as designed, then NVFS devices should actually have more available memory to run programs, not less, because the internal RAM is used only for supporting the application and not for storage of applications that aren't currently being used.
    Regards,

    Robert
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by DaleReeck
    Of course, the third option that Mossberg says what he means and means what he says is impossible, right? The only possibilities are that it has to be a conspiracy or stupidity if he doesn't agree with your view of the 650, right? Well, the memory problem doesn't affect me to any great degree, so I guess "some users" is accurate after all.

    And don't kid yourselves that everyone would think that the Treo 650 would be "the smartphone to beat" if it didn't have the memory issue. The whiners would simply laser in on another problem and rage about that one. No one is happy around here unless they are b1tching about something.

    I have yet to see any major new phone or device released in the last three years that wasn't roasted in the forums. TC, Phonescoop, PDAPhoneHome, Howard's Phone forum, they are all littered with posts on how every new phone is crap. I am beginning to think it's more of a problem with the users and not the devices.
    This is much worse than any other smartphone, because of the huge mistep.

    The 600 had build quality issues, and people complained about the lack of features, and the lying by P1 re: BT and Wi-fi. But very little on the memory.

    Now, a year later, P1 gets some of the requested features in the device, then cluster-effs the file system/memory.

    I say the uproar is much louder this time around.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by Otter Emperor
    I hate to be the bearer of bad news....but what exactly happens if they dont give you 128? I think you should start planning now. Maybe in the 700, but no 128mb solution before 4th quarter next year.*

    *in my opinion
    I can completely understand your scepticism, but if P1 is interested is selling Treos to near their forecasted levels, staying at 32 won't do it, rom fix or not. When the issue hits WSJ and brokerage level releases it has reached an albatross level.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by rbienstock
    I think that this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding about how NVFS works. In a NVFS device there are two sets of RAM, the RAND flash and regular ROM. Thus in a T5, which is marketed as having "256MB of Storage" actually has 256MB of NAND Flash and 32MB of old-fashioned RAM. The RAM is used to buffer programs stored in NAND (which can't be run directly from NAND) and for actually running programs. Thus running programs on a NVFS device is fundamentally different than running then on a device with regular RAM. On a device with regular RAM (like the T600), the 32MB of internal RAM is used both for storing programs and for the heap from which programs are actually run. If you don't have enough space in internal RAM, and you store your program to DS, all or part of your program has to be cached in internal RAM for the program to run. That's why, with such devices, you are correct in saying "You can't do all the same things from a card that you can from memory." To analogize to a PC, the T600 internal RAM performs the functions of both your PC's internal RAM and its hard drive. Stuff stored on SD RAM is the equivalent to things stored on a CD-ROM and has somehow to be installed before it is useful to the PC.

    But NVFS is completely different: the 32MB of NVRAM (NAND) on the T650 is used SOLELY for storage (just like your SD card) and the 32MB of RAM that is part of NVFS is used solely for holding programs actually running, the system heap and a data buffer. Thus the NVFS memory functions like your hard drive, and the regular RAM functions like your PC's internal RAM. Even if P1 put 2GB of NVRAM (NAND) into the T650, it would still only be storage and the operating memory would be a separate bank of 32MB which is plenty of room for whatever you might need to run. Under NVFS, programs and data stored on the SD card are supposed to greated by the file system in exactly in the same way that programs that are stored in NVRAM are: they get buffered, cashed and run from the internal 32MB system RAM. Thus programs on SD should run seamlessly under NVFS without the kludges required to make them work under the old memory system.

    I can't verify that this is the case, because I've never used a T5 or a T650. If it doesn't work like that, then P1 has, indeed, created a problem. But if things are working as designed, then NVFS devices should actually have more available memory to run programs, not less, because the internal RAM is used only for supporting the application and not for storage of applications that aren't currently being used.

    Nice explanation.

    But the bottom line: The only RAM that (really) matters in a PDA is USABLE memory.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec
    I'm also reading between the lines...I've been reading Mossberg's stuff for years. While he's doing a shield of P1 (to keep the love coming), but also says, if he knew this when he reviewed a couple month back (which means he didn't do a thorough review, by the way....think about it), he would have told people to stay away (until fixed, which will be in 2005 (maybe)).

    20/20 hindsight says avoid. WSJ readers see that.
    Idle chatter in the biz set says "oh, I heard there where memory problems"...leading to "well, I will wait, or buy something else; not going to drop $600 bucks for something like that".

    I guess we will see.
    I don't disagree with you that memory blunder will cost P1 overall. And I think you and others make excellent points how enterprise customers will definitely take a wait and see attitude as long as there is buzz about a problem. My point was simply that the memory blunder was already fairly well known, and that the Mossberg story from yesterday ends up acting as type of damage control (based on the tone of the article.) So while P1 is still going to lose sales over this my theory is that this report will have the effect of P1 losing less sales than if Mossberg hadn't published a story clarifying the memory issue for non-technical potential buyers who may have heard stuff they didn't understand and were worried.
    Oh, so they have internet on computers now!
    --Treo 650 unlocked/unbranded with Rogers
  10. #50  
    P1's bound to longterm contracts regarding suppliers.

    dont think they can change the memory just like that ... readjustments of assembly lines take their time and toll.

    if they could provide an upgraded i or s or 655 version in a few months it would be rather fast.
  11. alee's Avatar
    Posts
    410 Posts
    Global Posts
    805 Global Posts
    #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodNamesRTaken
    Who do you think buys the majority of the $600 smart phones out there?
    That would be anyone with a credit card. It doesn't take a genius to buy a $600 smartphone. Plenty of people out there buy it because it's en vogue.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by SeldomVisitor
    People who spend $600+ for a cellphone with a few extra features are either rich or power users.
    What about the Treo owners who spent about $100 after selling their old Treo (which was also essentially $50 after selling the first Treo) using Sprint's rebate, and selling the included bluetooth headset?
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by JTREOB
    I can completely understand your scepticism, but if P1 is interested is selling Treos to near their forecasted levels, staying at 32 won't do it, rom fix or not. When the issue hits WSJ and brokerage level releases it has reached an albatross level.
    And don't get me wrong, I sincerely HOPE it comes to pass the way you want it to. That would be great. In my experience, chaos theory rules.
    ELR
    >> Drop by! <<

    Avatar courtesy of ButtUglyJeff!
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by beelzebueb
    P1's bound to longterm contracts regarding suppliers.

    dont think they can change the memory just like that ... readjustments of assembly lines take their time and toll.

    if they could provide an upgraded i or s or 655 version in a few months it would be rather fast.
    I don't pretend to know their inner workings. I've seen numerous companies change components quickly.I believe any changes rest more on P1's perception and resulting strategy then ability.
  15. alee's Avatar
    Posts
    410 Posts
    Global Posts
    805 Global Posts
    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by JTREOB
    Two points.
    1. now that the memory issue is known, few enterprise buys will take place until its fixed.
    As I've said before, any enterprise that adopts the Treo 650 out of the gate has a fool for an IT manager. Enterprises should not be buying new technology out of the gate, whether the specs are good or not. I don't care of the Treo 650 came out with 1gb of space and a 5ghz processor. If you're actually investing in technology you plan on deploying in a real work scenario, you need more than just a spec sheet and a budget to pull the trigger on a device.
    2. Since each user is different, there is no way to know if the memory issue will affect ones self. Most who have kept informed will hold off as well.
    In the full text, Mossberg gives his power user profile of a thousand contacts, a thousand calendar entries and some additional 3rd party software. Users are left to make their own determination. There are people here that obviously are true power users, and I'm willing to bet there are plenty more that will look at Mossberg's letter and say "I don't have half the contacts he does".
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by alee
    As I've said before, any enterprise that adopts the Treo 650 out of the gate has a fool for an IT manager. Enterprises should not be buying new technology out of the gate, whether the specs are good or not. I don't care of the Treo 650 came out with 1gb of space and a 5ghz processor. If you're actually investing in technology you plan on deploying in a real work scenario, you need more than just a spec sheet and a budget to pull the trigger on a device.

    In the full text, Mossberg gives his power user profile of a thousand contacts, a thousand calendar entries and some additional 3rd party software. Users are left to make their own determination. There are people here that obviously are true power users, and I'm willing to bet there are plenty more that will look at Mossberg's letter and say "I don't have half the contacts he does".
    What Mosseburg clearly ignores as well as P1 is all else that uses memory. There are countless developers enhancing the use of the Treo daily. It is in fact that which makes palm os and the Treo a great device. Limiting a users choice due to memory, and cheap memory, in any way shape or form is not progress.
  17. alee's Avatar
    Posts
    410 Posts
    Global Posts
    805 Global Posts
    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by JTREOB
    What Mosseburg clearly ignores as well as P1 is all else that uses memory. There are countless developers enhancing the use of the Treo daily. It is in fact that which makes palm os and the Treo a great device. Limiting a users choice in any way shape or form is not progress.
    While I agree that there should have been more memory, I see no foul in what he said.

    The average WSJ reader also isn't dissecting Mossberg's letter like we are here on TC. I would summarize the overall impression it delivered as well-balanced.

    1. Mossberg says yes the memory is different. and you end up with effectively less space but you gain memory that doesn't get lost
    2. He says he agrees that most people will not have a problem
    3. He gives his own personal profile 1000+contacts/1000+calendar/+3rd party
    4. Says PalmOne could have handled it better
    5. Says PalmOne is planning to fix it

    We could sit around and nit-pick it to death, but I think reading it for the first time, it's certainly not tolling the bell. Mossberg does not candy-coat when he doesn't like something, and I maintain this is not his way of saying it sucks.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by alee
    That would be anyone with a credit card. It doesn't take a genius to buy a $600 smartphone. Plenty of people out there buy it because it's en vogue.
    I don't agree with you.

    I have plenty of geek associates, hipster associates, and know many run-of-the-mill soccermom's and dad's.

    The geeks carry the smarter phones. The hipsters carry the tiniest and shiniest phone they can possibly find, and the soccermom's usually get the $49-after-rebate plastic camera phones.

    Are there exceptions to the above? Of course.

    I got my mother a Treo 650 to upgrade from her cheap plastic camera phone. She would never have done it on her own, and she can't figure out how to use half of the things (I use it more than she does). So if a soccermom has a geek in the family ... she may end up with one. And because of that, i've been able to work with the 650 extensively, even though I personally own only a 300 and a 600.

    But, the rule is pretty much that more demanding users ("power users" if you will), shell out for mini-computer type devices, hipsters go for the smallest, and most others for the cheapest or a mid-range device.

    There aren't a whole lot of AOL users clamoring for a Treo device.

    Not saying that that is a good or bad thing, just reality from what I have observed.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by alee
    In the full text, Mossberg gives his power user profile of a thousand contacts, a thousand calendar entries and some additional 3rd party software. Users are left to make their own determination. There are people here that obviously are true power users, and I'm willing to bet there are plenty more that will look at Mossberg's letter and say "I don't have half the contacts he does".
    I'm only a psuedo-geek, and I have 1Mb left on my 600 (and yes, I run Zlauncher to 1Gb cad).

    Why? Well, I started using PALM in the late 90's, and I don't like to delete things. The memo I took in 1999 is still in the device, and it has actually helped me in 2004 to look back at it.

    It seems that the people who may have the most problems are long-time PALM OS users who like carrying all of their data with them, and expect memory to grow year after year so they don't have to clean out the device.

    I'm a long time PALM and Handspring user, and I *cannot* upgrade to the Treo 650 without deleting quite a bit of data and apps that need to run in onboard memory.

    The decision was more or less made for me, and that really shouldn't be the case. No?
  20. alee's Avatar
    Posts
    410 Posts
    Global Posts
    805 Global Posts
    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodNamesRTaken
    The geeks carry the smarter phones. The hipsters carry the tiniest and shiniest phone they can possibly find, and the soccermom's usually get the $49-after-rebate plastic camera phones.
    In some respects, you are right. However, it depends on who's selling to the consumer. I guess the way I see it is the price is in the disposable income range for the target consumer. It's not going to bankrupt any households, and on plastic, it's practically free (in the average consumer mindset). It'll never sell to the "I want a free phone" crowd; however, I think it will sell quite easily to the guy who has a PDA and wants to upgrade to something cooler.

    Going back to the original point though, a geek or hipster does not make a power user. Anyone can spend the money, but it takes some effort and actual device use to be able to fill it.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions