[doogoshly]

while processor may not be such a big deal (and i agree it isn't), RIM needs to at least upgrade the internal memory OR allow apps to be run from the sd card. it's pathetic that we have to work with memory in the megabyte range.

[nullpointer]

Can RIM allow us to run apps from our microSD cards with a software update ?

[papped]

while processor may not be such a big deal (and i agree it isn't), RIM needs to at least upgrade the internal memory OR allow apps to be run from the sd card. it's pathetic that we have to work with memory in the megabyte range.

Yeah, this they need to do. It's very much improved with 256mb though. They don't really need the 8-32gb range that other phones need right now because the apps aren't nearly the same size. Otherwise you end up with stupid hardware decisions like the Nokia N97, where the 32gb internal storage is unnecessary and jacks the phone price up.

But 512mb would help. It's already been stated why they probably won't let apps run off the sd card.

[axe50]

You're talking about new software/OS. What's the point in a 1ghz cpu to run java apps...
And if you're talking about hw specs "not being up to par", what are the HW specs on the Touch Pro 2 (the current WM standard high end phone) which isn't even released yet?

A re-housed TP1 basically. If you look at overseas phones you can find phones that outdate the current top US phones over a year ago.

Take a look back at every major advancement in mobile tech you will find your "what's the point" reference..and for the record, hardware advancement needs to be met with software advancement. They go hand in hand unless you're running windows 3.1 on a quad core?

You don't always need top of the line hardware, its about using it to its potential.

When you continually push (pun intended) out new phones that only have marginally better specs than previous generations and the so-called "dumb-phone" makers are pushing out devices with equal or better, it makes one wonder.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[papped]

Take a look back at every major advancement in mobile tech you will find your "what's the point" reference..and for the record, hardware advancement needs to be met with software advancement. They go hand in hand unless you're running windows 3.1 on a quad core?

Ok, then lets look at Samsung, since people like to say that's "par".

WM 6.1/6.5. Same crap. Much higher specs. Software advancement and hardware advancement did not go hand in hand.

So it's a waste of hardware specs... It's almost like they're trying to make you think their phones are better, purely because they jack up all their specs *gasp*.

Last I checked people still run XP on dual or quad core's. What were the hw standards when XP released? Let's leave the PC arguments at home. They're not even relevant.

And before anyone even tries, WM6.5 is not an advancement over 6.1. It's basically a shelled re-hash of 6.1..

[dwaynewilliams#WN]

You should be careful when looking at specs only. Specs can be deceiving. If you look at a lot of the HTC and Samsung devices you may be floored by the vast capabilities on paper, but the sad reality is that they never perform the way the specs suggest. I believe a part of the reason is that the features are problematic and eat up memory and battery. BBs aren't in that business they impress consumers with their functionality not on paper bravado. Don't get suckered in with the specs. There is a reason that four of the top six smartphones sold in the US are BBs - the other two slots belong to the iphone. Notice, no Samsung phones on the list. I would also like to add that many of the feature rich phones sold are to consumers who don't use have of features offered. It becomes a big waste.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[owadkelly]

yeh well rim targets a different market

[mekmek86]

I think that OS optimization is more important than speed. I can think of computers running leopard OS at 867Mhz that still do a find job with a decent amount of RAM. Speedy processors, allow lazy coding, the result, crappy battery life.

[axe50]

Ok, then lets look at Samsung, since people like to say that's "par".

WM 6.1/6.5. Same crap. Much higher specs. Software advancement and hardware advancement did not go hand in hand.

So it's a waste of hardware specs... It's almost like they're trying to make you think their phones are better, purely because they jack up all their specs *gasp*.

Last I checked people still run XP on dual or quad core's. What were the hw standards when XP released? Let's leave the PC arguments at home. They're not even relevant.

And before anyone even tries, WM6.5 is not an advancement over 6.1. It's basically a shelled re-hash of 6.1..

So then 6.1 to 6.5 would be like... 4.2-4.5-4.6-4.7-5x? See my point? With the exception of 5x (which I haven't played around with yet) all we have in ways of features are OTA updates, different looking icons, and a memory cleaner. I'm not counting bug fixes as those aren't features All enhancements can be done via third party apps and themes. Does this justify several releases and move ahead of the curve? (Pun intended)

And btw, Xp was updated to be 64-bit. When it was released (32-bit) it was a large jump up in requirements / compatibility as it was again for Vista. In both cases it fuelled development advancement as the newer specs allowed for additional items to be developed.

My point is, RIM has to push it to the next level both from a hardware and software point, they've been releasing the same thing re-labelled for over a year now.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Rakien]

So then 6.1 to 6.5 would be like... 4.2-4.5-4.6-4.7-5x? See my point? With the exception of 5x (which I haven't played around with yet) all we have in ways of features are OTA updates, different looking icons, and a memory cleaner. I'm not counting bug fixes as those aren't features All enhancements can be done via third party apps and themes. Does this justify several releases and move ahead of the curve? (Pun intended)

And btw, Xp was updated to be 64-bit. When it was released (32-bit) it was a large jump up in requirements / compatibility as it was again for Vista. In both cases it fuelled development advancement as the newer specs allowed for additional items to be developed.

My point is, RIM has to push it to the next level both from a hardware and software point, they've been releasing the same thing re-labelled for over a year now.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

You can't put too much blame on RIM, after all, they're a business company first before a consumer mobile market. But I agree with your pont on the matter

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com