05-17-09 05:25 AM
70 123
tools
  1. remps's Avatar
    Whoa, I've never seen that kind of app memory. I top out around 52 and from what I've seen around here that's awful darn good.

    If you're getting that kind of memory kindly send a pic. And yes, credible people have reported no problem running the Storm with as low as 1mb off app memory.
    I think you may have misunderstood - when you're topping out at 52 (or whatever), that's the amount of free app memory you have remaining. 128mb is the total amount on the Storm
    04-29-09 03:24 PM
  2. RevGreg's Avatar
    Okay, people seem to be VERY confused as to the memory present in the Storm and how it is used. I keep seeing people talk about "partitioning" more app memory which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the device is constructed and why they see the numbers they do when checking the free memory. I also keep seeing the Storm compared to the iPhone in this respect when they BOTH have the same amount of "application memory"...and it's the same amount that virtually EVERY high-end smart phone has.

    The Storm has two kinds of memory built in: a 128mb DRAM (Dynamic RAM) and a 1gb SRAM (Static RAM). I'll make it easier to understand by relating them to your desktop or laptop computer...it is after all simply a small, low-powered computing device. I'll do this mainly for grifter who is an "old computer guy". My first computing experience was programming WATFIV Fortran on an IBM 1130 using punch cards so I can sympathize.

    I'll start with the SRAM because it's the part that most people aren't complaining about. The Static RAM is merely a storage area and could be seen as having the same function as the hard drive in your computer (the microSD card in your phone is also SRAM and is like adding a second hard drive.) SRAM maintains it's memory even when not powered and only needs to be powered up when it's being read or written so it uses far less power than DRAM but it is also far slower to access and is generally not suitable for executing code. Also, most likely, the SRAM is not directly accessible by the processor and therefor code CANNOT be run from it. The reason you only see about 850mb max of SRAM on your phone is because the OS and system files are stored in the SRAM in a partition you cannot access directly through the file system. This memory can be fairly large without much impact on battery life because it is powered down when not in use. If you want to sit around watching the little watch icon spin all day, go ahead and try to run apps from SRAM. It's like doing "virtual memory" on a desktop using the hard drive...it's slower than molasses and it sucks. It involves copying code not being used in DRAM to SRAM (RAM to hard drive), then copying code needed from SRAM to DRAM (hard drive to RAM) so it can be executed...you end up spending a lot of time swapping and little time running. Learn to CLOSE apps when done using them and hopefully RIM patches the memory leak issues...otherwise you're just making things worse IMHO.

    The Dynamic RAM is what keeps getting referred to as "application memory" and is the same as the RAM in your home computer. DRAM is the memory that is directly accessed by the microprocessor and it is the ONLY memory in the device where code can be executed from. The drawback to DRAM is that it must be "refreshed" constantly to maintain the information stored there so it consumes much more power than SRAM. The reason you only see about 50mb max of this memory is because the rest is taken up by the OS and other low-level processes which make up the basic functions. I have yet to see ANY phone size device employ more than 128mb-256mb of DRAM...this includes Windows Mobile devices and the iPhone (which has only 128mb but which does NOT multitask.) To increase the dynamic memory you would need to increase the battery capacity and, in turn, the device size. The memory size being used seems to be the "sweet spot" for current DRAM power consumption and battery capacities since everyone seems to be sticking with it.

    Much faster processors can be made but smart phones seem to hover around the 300-500ghz region for exactly the same reason - power consumption. Power consumption is the ENTIRE issue here. You have to balance the consumption of the processor, the radio, the memory and the screen. I saw somebody mention the 8900 as having 256mb of memory, yeah, and a screen that's significantly smaller and a 512mhz processor compared to the Storm's 624mhz...it comes down to what you have the power for without turning the device into a small brick like my old HTC Apache. I used to run mine with the extended battery which made it quite a chunk to tote around, RIM has made some good choices in creating the Storm.

    Do you think the iPhone didn't raise these same complaints when it first came out? Give RIM a few iterations on the code to deal with the memory leak issues. The lack of multitasking on the iPhone makes their job much easier in this respect and yet I still can't send an iPhone user an MMS message directly and it's got plenty of problems. I've been an Apple user since 1981 and I prefer the Storm over the iPhone, big deal if there aren't a bunch of useless applications out there...it's a better PHONE! If you're trying to replace a laptop with it, give it up for now.
    04-30-09 05:22 AM
  3. icebox93's Avatar
    SRAM maintains it's memory even when not powered and only needs to be powered up when it's being read or written so it uses far less power than DRAM but it is also far slower to access and is generally not suitable for executing code. Also, most likely, the SRAM is not directly accessible by the processor and therefor code CANNOT be run from it. . . . If you want to sit around watching the little watch icon spin all day, go ahead and try to run apps from SRAM. It's like doing "virtual memory" on a desktop using the hard drive...it's slower than molasses and it sucks. It involves copying code not being used in DRAM to SRAM (RAM to hard drive), then copying code needed from SRAM to DRAM (hard drive to RAM) so it can be executed...you end up spending a lot of time swapping and little time running.
    I've got experience running apps off a card on the Palm TX. That device uses what it calls 128 MB "flash memory" which I assume means SRAM because the device retains info in RAM when the power dies. Programs run at reasonable speeds, so I don't believe that SRAM is inherently bad for code. You can run apps off of the card or from system memory, and of course since both are SRAM, it's not noticably slower. But as you state, the TX takes the program from the card and loads it into system memory, which causes a small delay in starting the program, but after that the programs I have on the card run normal speed. The programs on the TX are certainly usable; my calendar program, the only thing I still use regularly on the TX, definitely is snappy. Why would there need to be a constant back and forth between DRAM and SRAM on the storm? Couldn't a program be temporarily loaded into DRAM and then deleted when closed? That's how the TX manages this.

    Someone else mentioned what would happen if the card was removed while an app was running? If the program is loaded into DRAM and running from there, nothing. I removed the SD card from my TX while programs launched from the card were running and they didn't have problems as the whole program was in the device's RAM. I tried a bunch, all were fine. On the storm, it's not anywhere near as easy to remove the card as on the TX, (the TX's SD slot is on top of the device any easily available when using the device; whereas the Storm's is in the battery compartment and if you're using a case or skin it's not easily available at all) so the chances of this happening are lower. But in any case, how hard would it be for the OS to be coded to end any program running off a card when a card is removed? That would eliminate any chance of a problem.

    So it doesn't seem to be a very difficult problem from the reliability side; and as far as security goes, I don't see a big issue, because if someone wants to download a program that contains malicious code, right now it's going straight to app memory, so where's the protection? If they download to DRAM or SRAM there's no difference; the bad code is on the device. True, the current system protects against viruses and trojans that spread via memory cards, but given that most malicious code enters machines through people's voluntary behavior (even if the malicious code is inadvertently loaded), I don't see how restricting apps on cards is a big security plus.
    04-30-09 11:21 AM
  4. badmonkey#WN's Avatar
    ...The Storm has two kinds of memory built in: a 128mb DRAM (Dynamic RAM) and a 1gb SRAM (Static RAM). ...
    I'm no expert but I don't think your statement is correct. Many have confirmed that the 128MB 'application memory' is a partition on the 1GB internal memory. The fact that the internal device memory is listed as ~879 MB total is further evidence of this fact. 879 MB (device memory) + 128 MB (application memory) = 1007 MB or approximately 1 GB.

    That the internal memory is partitioned to achieve these values seems to be generally accepted as fact. That would mean the memory is of the same physical type and, therefore, can be repartitioned to make more memory available to applications.

    Again, I'm no expert in this but it seems that my description above has been the most widely accepted.
    04-30-09 11:44 AM
  5. paulmike3's Avatar
    I'm no expert but I don't think your statement is correct. Many have confirmed that the 128MB 'application memory' is a partition on the 1GB internal memory. The fact that the internal device memory is listed as ~879 MB total is further evidence of this fact. 879 MB (device memory) + 128 MB (application memory) = 1007 MB or approximately 1 GB.

    That the internal memory is partitioned to achieve these values seems to be generally accepted as fact. That would mean the memory is of the same physical type and, therefore, can be repartitioned to make more memory available to applications.

    Again, I'm no expert in this but it seems that my description above has been the most widely accepted.
    Taking the idea further, if the device memory and application memory are partitions of the same chip, the device memory remains powered and therefore would not consume more power to use part of it as app memory.

    If the above is the case, then the OS files can't currently be housed in the 879MB. I have all 879MB free on my phone, which means the OS is housed elsewhere when not in app memory.
    04-30-09 11:52 AM
  6. badmonkey#WN's Avatar
    Taking the idea further, if the device memory and application memory are partitions of the same chip, the device memory remains powered and therefore would not consume more power to use part of it as app memory.

    If the above is the case, then the OS files can't currently be housed in the 879MB. I have all 879MB free on my phone, which means the OS is housed elsewhere when not in app memory.
    Actually, I think the OS is housed in the 128MB 'application memory.' That would make sense since the slimmed down OS's that people run seem to directly result in more free application memory.

    Hopefully someone with a better understanding of BB architectures will chime in and correct me if I'm wrong.
    04-30-09 11:59 AM
  7. RevGreg's Avatar
    I'm no expert but I don't think your statement is correct. Many have confirmed that the 128MB 'application memory' is a partition on the 1GB internal memory. The fact that the internal device memory is listed as ~879 MB total is further evidence of this fact. 879 MB (device memory) + 128 MB (application memory) = 1007 MB or approximately 1 GB.

    That the internal memory is partitioned to achieve these values seems to be generally accepted as fact. That would mean the memory is of the same physical type and, therefore, can be repartitioned to make more memory available to applications.

    Again, I'm no expert in this but it seems that my description above has been the most widely accepted.
    Well, maybe they should start quoting RIM's specs instead of what was likely pre-release speculation. I'm just quoting the Storm hardware specification page from the RIM website...what is "generally accepted as fact" on the internet many times turns out to be bunk...this is one of those times. If they don't total 1024mb which would be a gig of memory, I'd have to wonder where the rest is. I have little doubt that what I said is basically true...since it's what a device tear down reveals...the physical chips don't lie.

    Can't post links 'cause I'm a newb...goto na.blackberry.com/eng/devices/blackberrystorm/storm_specifications.jsp ... BlackBerry Storm Specifications

    Also... phonewreck.com/2008/11/21/blackberry-storm-review-and-teardown/ Storm Tear Down
    Last edited by RevGreg; 04-30-09 at 12:07 PM.
    04-30-09 12:00 PM
  8. badmonkey#WN's Avatar
    Well, maybe they should start quoting RIM's specs instead of what was likely pre-release speculation. I'm just quoting the Storm hardware specification page from the RIM website...what is "generally accepted as fact" on the internet many times turns out to be bunk...this is one of those times.

    Can't post links 'cause I'm a newb...goto na.blackberry.com/eng/devices/blackberrystorm/storm_specifications.jsp ... BlackBerry Storm Specifications
    It sure does appear that there are two memory types according to that link. Early on some courageous Stormers took their devices apart. I'm trying to dig up those pictures to see if any further detail is available.
    04-30-09 12:08 PM
  9. grifter rc's Avatar
    Ok but.... does / can programs work the same way they do on a pc.. meaning install / save to the SRAM, where it lays sleeping until it is loaded.. then it loads into the DRAM and you can run it?

    Is this already what's happening and I'm just completely lost here?
    04-30-09 12:17 PM
  10. paulmike3's Avatar
    It sure does appear that there are two memory types according to that link. Early on some courageous Stormers took their devices apart. I'm trying to dig up those pictures to see if any further detail is available.
    Actually, they descibe it as 3: MoviNAND + OneNAND + Mobile DDR.

    App memory, OS memory, device memory perhaps?
    04-30-09 12:18 PM
  11. martinerwin's Avatar
    I have yet to see ANY phone size device employ more than 128mb-256mb of DRAM...this includes Windows Mobile devices and the iPhone (which has only 128mb but which does NOT multitask.)
    Then you haven't looked very hard. There are 3 HTC phones I can think of off the top of my head that use 512MB Flash ROMs with additional RAM chipsets.

    HTC - Products - HTC Touch Pro (Verizon) - Specification

    HTC - Products - HTC Magic - Specification

    HTC - Products - HTC Touch HD - Specification

    All the new phones coming from HTC will have a 512mb Flash with a 192-288mb separate ram.
    04-30-09 12:19 PM
  12. badmonkey#WN's Avatar
    Thanks for posting the teardown link. That's what I was looking for. It seems that the single enclosure may house more the one type of physical memory. That said, many have also stated that the 8900 and the Storm are the same internals. The 8900 has 256MB of application memory but, unfortunately, the memory specs are not listed on the blackberry web site.

    BlackBerry - Specifications - BlackBerry Curve 8900 Specs

    It would be interesting to know if the 8900 shows 751MB of 'device memory.' That would be the same 1007 MB minus 256 MB for application memory.
    04-30-09 12:23 PM
  13. paulmike3's Avatar
    Thanks for posting the teardown link. That's what I was looking for. It seems that the single enclosure may house more the one type of physical memory. That said, many have also stated that the 8900 and the Storm are the same internals. The 8900 has 256MB of application memory but, unfortunately, the memory specs are not listed on the blackberry web site.

    BlackBerry - Specifications - BlackBerry Curve 8900 Specs

    It would be interesting to know if the 8900 shows 751MB of 'device memory.' That would be the same 1007 MB minus 256 MB for application memory.
    Searched and it looks like the 8900 does not have 'device memory' like the Storm (see the responses to this question). Everything runs from the 256MB app memory.

    If there is no other memory in the 8900 other than the 256MB, then the OS has to stay housed there (even with no power). Very interesting....
    04-30-09 12:47 PM
  14. martinerwin's Avatar
    Searched and it looks like the 8900 does not have 'device memory' like the Storm (see the responses to this question). Everything runs from the 256MB app memory.

    If there is no other memory in the 8900 other than the 256MB, then the OS has to stay housed there (even with no power). Very interesting....
    That has been the Achilles heel of RIM ever since they started trying to get into the consumer market. They are trying to do things business as usual.

    My hope is that they learn from the mistakes of applying this to their first media machine and improve, otherwise they will go the way of Palm and have to make a last ditch effort to stay afloat by partnering with a dying cell company.
    04-30-09 12:58 PM
  15. badmonkey#WN's Avatar
    Searched and it looks like the 8900 does not have 'device memory' like the Storm (see the responses to this question). Everything runs from the 256MB app memory.

    If there is no other memory in the 8900 other than the 256MB, then the OS has to stay housed there (even with no power). Very interesting....
    Sorry... It appears that my feeble brain combined the specs of the Bold and the 8900. My mistake.
    04-30-09 01:01 PM
  16. martinerwin's Avatar
    Also, don't ever expect RIM to admit any sort of mistake in creating a great phone concept and failing to anticipate the ramifications of using too little a Flash in it. It would open them up to criticism and possibly lawsuits from the carriers and public.

    The thing that bothers me the most is that even seeing how the device handles when you actually use it as intended, they went with the same philosophy of only using the 128mb Flash for storage in the next iteration of their software as well.
    04-30-09 01:02 PM
  17. kdubBB's Avatar
    Okay, I'll answer this one again. This is a hardware issue, not a software issue. I have yet to see any phone sized device use more than 128mb for app memory...that includes Windows Mobile and iPhone. The problem is that you're talking about two different kinds of memory...static and dynamic RAM. Applications run in dynamic RAM which has much higher access speeds but which also consume more power and must be kept powered constantly. Static RAM is used for storage and only needs power when accessed but is too slow to cute code.

    Hence, if you increase app memory you decrease battery life...in a phone it would decrease your standby time greatly as refreshing DRAM and running background apps to monitor radio and interface inputs is the major drain.

    Barring a breakthrough in battery tech or DRAM power usage, don't expect app memory increases without battery and device size increases.
    Seems like they could utilize a portion of static memory as swap space like pc/server would. Swap pages of "under utilized" memory to static, and keep a pointer to it in DRAM. If that page is referenced by the OS, it can be swapped back in to be used.
    04-30-09 01:08 PM
  18. paulmike3's Avatar
    Sorry... It appears that my feeble brain combined the specs of the Bold and the 8900. My mistake.
    No biggie. I just think it's interesting that the 8900 apparently has non-volatile memory that is uses as app memory, yet we're told that the non-volatile memory on the Storm can't be partitioned to be used as app memory.

    The 8900 teardown shows that it uses OneNAND + Mobile DDR as well.
    04-30-09 01:09 PM
  19. JRSCCivic98's Avatar
    raidioguinea is right. There is a security question and one of system relaibility.

    The security question is simply that if RIM keeps all the apps in Device Memory then it is hard to access that piece of memory.

    The reliability question relates to having running app on a removable mediia card. What will the phone do if you remove the card while the app is running?

    The rest of the memory is there as secure data storage but you can access that via Mass Media Mode so it ain't secure.

    I cannot see this ever changing with the current RIM OSs.
    Moot point. Take the Bold and Storm and strip the 1GB of onboard media memory in favor of app memory. Take away the mass storage mode accessiblity from it and you no longer have any issues. It's not rocket science...

    (And no, I didn't read the full thread to see if anyone suggested this. )
    04-30-09 03:49 PM
  20. JRSCCivic98's Avatar
    Okay, people seem to be VERY confused as to the memory present in the Storm and how it is used. I keep seeing people talk about "partitioning" more app memory which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the device is constructed and why they see the numbers they do when checking the free memory. I also keep seeing the Storm compared to the iPhone in this respect when they BOTH have the same amount of "application memory"...and it's the same amount that virtually EVERY high-end smart phone has.

    The Storm has two kinds of memory built in: a 128mb DRAM (Dynamic RAM) and a 1gb SRAM (Static RAM). I'll make it easier to understand by relating them to your desktop or laptop computer...it is after all simply a small, low-powered computing device. I'll do this mainly for grifter who is an "old computer guy". My first computing experience was programming WATFIV Fortran on an IBM 1130 using punch cards so I can sympathize.

    I'll start with the SRAM because it's the part that most people aren't complaining about. The Static RAM is merely a storage area and could be seen as having the same function as the hard drive in your computer (the microSD card in your phone is also SRAM and is like adding a second hard drive.) SRAM maintains it's memory even when not powered and only needs to be powered up when it's being read or written so it uses far less power than DRAM but it is also far slower to access and is generally not suitable for executing code. Also, most likely, the SRAM is not directly accessible by the processor and therefor code CANNOT be run from it. The reason you only see about 850mb max of SRAM on your phone is because the OS and system files are stored in the SRAM in a partition you cannot access directly through the file system. This memory can be fairly large without much impact on battery life because it is powered down when not in use. If you want to sit around watching the little watch icon spin all day, go ahead and try to run apps from SRAM. It's like doing "virtual memory" on a desktop using the hard drive...it's slower than molasses and it sucks. It involves copying code not being used in DRAM to SRAM (RAM to hard drive), then copying code needed from SRAM to DRAM (hard drive to RAM) so it can be executed...you end up spending a lot of time swapping and little time running. Learn to CLOSE apps when done using them and hopefully RIM patches the memory leak issues...otherwise you're just making things worse IMHO.

    The Dynamic RAM is what keeps getting referred to as "application memory" and is the same as the RAM in your home computer. DRAM is the memory that is directly accessed by the microprocessor and it is the ONLY memory in the device where code can be executed from. The drawback to DRAM is that it must be "refreshed" constantly to maintain the information stored there so it consumes much more power than SRAM. The reason you only see about 50mb max of this memory is because the rest is taken up by the OS and other low-level processes which make up the basic functions. I have yet to see ANY phone size device employ more than 128mb-256mb of DRAM...this includes Windows Mobile devices and the iPhone (which has only 128mb but which does NOT multitask.) To increase the dynamic memory you would need to increase the battery capacity and, in turn, the device size. The memory size being used seems to be the "sweet spot" for current DRAM power consumption and battery capacities since everyone seems to be sticking with it.

    Much faster processors can be made but smart phones seem to hover around the 300-500ghz region for exactly the same reason - power consumption. Power consumption is the ENTIRE issue here. You have to balance the consumption of the processor, the radio, the memory and the screen. I saw somebody mention the 8900 as having 256mb of memory, yeah, and a screen that's significantly smaller and a 512mhz processor compared to the Storm's 624mhz...it comes down to what you have the power for without turning the device into a small brick like my old HTC Apache. I used to run mine with the extended battery which made it quite a chunk to tote around, RIM has made some good choices in creating the Storm.

    Do you think the iPhone didn't raise these same complaints when it first came out? Give RIM a few iterations on the code to deal with the memory leak issues. The lack of multitasking on the iPhone makes their job much easier in this respect and yet I still can't send an iPhone user an MMS message directly and it's got plenty of problems. I've been an Apple user since 1981 and I prefer the Storm over the iPhone, big deal if there aren't a bunch of useless applications out there...it's a better PHONE! If you're trying to replace a laptop with it, give it up for now.
    Say what? I think it's you that's misunderstanding the memory stucture here. The iPhone has 128MB of RAM, but 8GB or 16GB of usable application memory. No RIM product can touch this. Also, the Storm supposedly has 128MB of OS/App memory and 192MB of RAM (if you believe the VZW docs). So ummm, yeah... you're not even in the same ballpark here. I find it funny that you think the iPhone can install 7 pages of apps in only 128MB of app memory.
    04-30-09 04:11 PM
  21. DeliriousGA's Avatar
    My question is why do they need to consider it? Many people report no problem with their phone with 1mb of app memory.
    You've got to be kidding. I've only had mine for 5 days and it's already full and I can't add anymore apps.

    I had the same problem with our Wii and Nintendo finally gave in and let us start running programs from the SD card. RIM needs to do the same if they want to keep up with the iPhone, etc. Limiting us to so few apps is really unacceptable.
    04-30-09 06:59 PM
  22. RevGreg's Avatar
    Then you haven't looked very hard. There are 3 HTC phones I can think of off the top of my head that use 512MB Flash ROMs with additional RAM chipsets.

    ...

    All the new phones coming from HTC will have a 512mb Flash with a 192-288mb separate ram.
    Hmmm...and the Storm has a 1024mb Flash and 128mb RAM...they're being pretty lean on the storage side. I cited 128mb-256mb as the general range for most smartphones and ONE of the phones you cited has more than that (the Touch HD has 288mb)...kinda splitting hairs there, eh?
    04-30-09 07:30 PM
  23. RevGreg's Avatar
    Seems like they could utilize a portion of static memory as swap space like pc/server would. Swap pages of "under utilized" memory to static, and keep a pointer to it in DRAM. If that page is referenced by the OS, it can be swapped back in to be used.
    Always possible but you take a BIG hit in execution speed...plus certain apps would have to be immune to caching, especially anything to do with message or phone functions. Also, a lot of software (games especially) does not play well on systems like that and designing around such a caching system would greatly increase development times for the OS and for applications...likely in the end for little gain.

    Remember, you're dealing with a relatively slow processor also...giving it more to do is not a great idea.

    Back when I had an HTC Apache the WinMobile guys were doing a lot of tricks to run apps from the miniSD card slot and had HUGE problems with lockups when the SD slot powered down and the swap program tried to access it...the lag time caused a lot of software to hang and most games were unplayable. Not sure of the architecture and OS on the Storm but I doubt results would be much different.
    04-30-09 07:39 PM
  24. RevGreg's Avatar
    Say what? I think it's you that's misunderstanding the memory stucture here. The iPhone has 128MB of RAM, but 8GB or 16GB of usable application memory. No RIM product can touch this. Also, the Storm supposedly has 128MB of OS/App memory and 192MB of RAM (if you believe the VZW docs). So ummm, yeah... you're not even in the same ballpark here. I find it funny that you think the iPhone can install 7 pages of apps in only 128MB of app memory.
    1. 128mb/192mb - since the memory above 128mb is dedicated to video and not used by the OS or apps, I'll stand by what I stated.

    2. Please point out where I ever claimed the iPhone STORED apps in the 128mb of RAM...I referenced executable memory. Apps on the iPhone are not executed ANYWHERE other than the 128mb of RAM located on the DDR/Processor IC...the iPhone also does not do true multitasking and uses a virtual memory system to accomplish what it does. I never once said they weren't ahead of RIM in that respect, I just personally don't think it's a big deal. I don't need 7 pages of crap on my phone...YMMV (your mileage may vary.)


    Look, what RIM is doing is kinda screwy and I'd bet Verizon pushing them to market is a big part of it. It's an OS issue and we can all just hope they don't decide to orphan us and do the right thing with the Storm 2...I'll join the class action lawsuit on that one if it happens and VZ doesn't cough up a new handset.

    I was specifically addressing the "partitioning" talk and pointing out how the that's not what is going on...don't read other crap into what I'm saying please.
    Last edited by RevGreg; 04-30-09 at 08:06 PM.
    04-30-09 07:59 PM
  25. AllanRosen's Avatar
    My question is why do they need to consider it? Many people report no problem with their phone with 1mb of app memory.
    You've got to be kidding. Lack of app memory is a huge problem for many people-- including me. And app memory is not 1mb on any BB.
    Last edited by AllanRosen; 05-03-09 at 08:50 PM.
    05-03-09 08:46 PM
70 123
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD