Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 47 of 47
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by gex
    Not that I know of.. here is the pdf where I got the internal photos from. Maybe someone can make out the numbers on the Samsung chip.

    http://www.wmphones.com/files/700wInternalPhotos.pdf
    I can't....what seems interesting is that so many of the pictures are sharp, with several close ups of chips on the board. And the only one with the picture of the memory is low res and no close ups.
  2. #42  
    See if this helps to read the numbers...I zoomed int, tweaked the tone range, inverted, remove moire, etc....:
    Attached Images Attached Images
  3. #43  
    they are two big, so I can only upload one per post:
    Attached Images Attached Images
  4. #44  
    last one:
    Attached Images Attached Images
  5. jstpa's Avatar
    Posts
    218 Posts
    Global Posts
    220 Global Posts
       #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by oalvarez
    seems to me that a lot of non-users/non-owners need to worry less about what they don't own and what they absolutely can't change. i know, you're probably interested in helping out the general public not make such gruesome mistakes in their PDA decision making process and that is quite humane of you. but let me ask: do you even utilize a Treo 700 today? ...

    regards
    That's a little unfair. The phone only came out last week and a lot of people are trying to make a decision. I frankly agree with you that a hypothetical conclusion that the phone is bad just because of the RAM size is probably unfair and conclusory. The real conclusion should be based on actual results from real owners. You have weighed in on your approval of the device. I'm giving that heavy weight, but I still want to know whether this 32/64 debate has any merit. Besides, once people got over the hypothetical debating and got down to actually figuring out what's going on, it got sort of interesting.
  6. slinky's Avatar
    Posts
    578 Posts
    Global Posts
    592 Global Posts
    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by jstpa
    That's a little unfair. The phone only came out last week and a lot of people are trying to make a decision. I frankly agree with you that a hypothetical conclusion that the phone is bad just because of the RAM size is probably unfair and conclusory. The real conclusion should be based on actual results from real owners. You have weighed in on your approval of the device. I'm giving that heavy weight, but I still want to know whether this 32/64 debate has any merit. Besides, once people got over the hypothetical debating and got down to actually figuring out what's going on, it got sort of interesting.
    OK. The phone sucks because it lacks built-in WiFi, lol.

    What I'd really like to know is why the chip was replaced by the pctechs people if it allegedly had 64MB or RAM to begin -- or 128. These guys would know the answer better than any Palm phone rep who has never seen the innards of a 700w.
  7. Cartman's Avatar
    Posts
    700 Posts
    Global Posts
    879 Global Posts
    #47  
    Thanks for the pics Hobbes...

    I tried looking it up but could still not make out the numbers. Have forwarded it to some people in the DRAM industry so well see if they can come up with anything...

    Here are the spec sheet for Samsung SDRAM:

    http://www.samsung.com/Products/Semi...berDecoder.htm

    Notice on the Mobile SDR/DDR SDRAM that they dont have a designation for 32M. Smallest is 64. I think the first S in the pics might be a 6.

    Looks like SP1508 to me but that dosnt match the DRAM spec sheet.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions