A RIM employee emailed me this morning because my Protect portal app wasn't working (got a fix for it pending approval with App World).
He told me he was on 2.0.1 (I asked for support reasons), but couldn't give me any details about it other than
"Sorry, I can’t comment on any unreleased products, but I can say it’s a good thing coming. :-)"
A RIM employee emailed me this morning because my Protect portal app wasn't working (got a fix for it pending approval with App World).
He told me he was on 2.0.1 (I asked for support reasons), but couldn't give me any details about it other than
"Sorry, I can’t comment on any unreleased products, but I can say it’s a good thing coming. :-)"
Firefox: 1,232,456K - just a few bytes and one or 50 tabs too many open I guess!
Howarmat also made a valid point about memory management.
The issue is not about how badly the browser is sucking up memory. Of course, being a 2.0.0 version, you expect the browser (and everything else) are leaking memory like mad --- that's why they have 2.0.1 fixes.
This issue is that RIM has made a desktop browser --- now what can RIM do to make memory usage comfortable for most users. Let me have the option to easily pick one tab to display the mobile version of one website and another tab to display a second website with the full desktop website.
There's another thread suggesting that an imminent update to the Playbook OS will disable the developer-mode settings that allow us to sideload Android apps, so perhaps people need to be wary before taking an update if that matters to you. No one is sure if it's 2.0.x that will do this or if it will be something more like 2.1.
but a x.x.1 revision is for minor functionality improvements and bug fixes.. if major work is required to fix bugs, that does not mean it is a major revision.
While I welcome bug fixes I sure hope they fix the slow downs that has come along with 2.0
It makes me worried that the phone will be brutal if a tablet can't run the OS. I don't restart often but I would hate to see a phone taking longer to boot up, app world, browser issues, and so on.
The folks at rim know more than me so hopefully they pull it off.
Interesting. I wonder how they did an HTML 5 test on BB 10 when there are no BB 10 devices yet, let alone a working OS ? I'm guessing the score is low because it's a very raw OS using an older version of browser and will be greatly improved once it's released.
You cannot build an OS without a device. Therefore.........