Seperate internal memory

[Trimac20]

I always seem to be running out of memory for 'Program' functions, which got me wondering my Pocket PC manufacturers decided to have a single memory base available to RAM or system memory and internal storage memory. To put it simple, most Pocket PCs these days have 64MB of internal RAM or which say 55MB is usable (the rest is used for the ROM). This is divided into storage memory (like a hardrive) and the RAM. There is no seperate RAM system drive like in desktops and laptops.

In my opinion there should be a seperate internal memory. Currently, instead of actually having 64MB of RAM available most users will have perhaps 20MB available or about 30% for running the OS, all the apps.etc: an appaling rate in comparison with the usual 95% or so (low peak) to 75% (peak) on IBM Windows systems. Although this is usually not a major problem, I still think it would be better to equipt Pocket PCs with at least 128MB of internal memory, and 64MB+ RAM entirely seperate. Any ideas on this? Thoughts?

[Pony99CA]

I always seem to be running out of memory for 'Program' functions, which got me wondering my Pocket PC manufacturers decided to have a single memory base available to RAM or system memory and internal storage memory. To put it simple, most Pocket PCs these days have 64MB of internal RAM or which say 55MB is usable (the rest is used for the ROM). This is divided into storage memory (like a hardrive) and the RAM. There is no seperate RAM system drive like in desktops and laptops.

In my opinion there should be a seperate internal memory. Currently, instead of actually having 64MB of RAM available most users will have perhaps 20MB available or about 30% for running the OS, all the apps.etc: an appaling rate in comparison with the usual 95% or so (low peak) to 75% (peak) on IBM Windows systems. Although this is usually not a major problem, I still think it would be better to equipt Pocket PCs with at least 128MB of internal memory, and 64MB+ RAM entirely seperate. Any ideas on this? Thoughts?
Sure, I'll give you my thoughts. :D While I agree that 128 MB is great (it's one of the reasons I bought my iPAQ 5550), remember that RAM for these devices is expensive. That's the reason most Pocket PCs come with 64 MB RAM (and back in the early days, many came with much less; my iPAQ 3650 only had 32 MB).

As for separating program and storage memory, I think that would just be silly. That would actually be less flexible than the current system, which allocates memory as needed from one big pool.

If you had two pools, you know someone would run out of memory in one while still having plenty of memory in the other and be complaining about why the pools couldn't be combined. :roll:

Steve

[portnoy]

Well, you could install a memory card and install programs to that. Normally I install data (ebooks, pocket excel files etc) to the card so they can survive a cold reboot but you could easily install programs there to save internal memory.

[Kevin C. Tofel]

That's the reason most Pocket PCs come with 64 MB RAM (and back in the early days, many came with much less; my iPAQ 3650 only had 32 MB).
Steve

Got ya beat.....16MB on my Compaq Aero 2130! :wink:

I'm curious though: why is memory for the devices considered expensive? Are they Flash based or some other architecture?

Thanks!
KCT

[Pony99CA]

That's the reason most Pocket PCs come with 64 MB RAM (and back in the early days, many came with much less; my iPAQ 3650 only had 32 MB).
Got ya beat.....16MB on my Compaq Aero 2130! :wink:

Well, I wasn't claiming that 32 MB was the minimum. However, if you count any Windows CE devices, I've got you beat -- my Hitachi HPW-10 Handheld PC had only 4 MB RAM. :-D See my history page (http://history.svpocketpc.com) for more details about the Hitachi and other devices I've had.

I'm curious though: why is memory for the devices considered expensive? Are they Flash based or some other architecture?
I don't know for sure, but I doubt it's flash memory; it still needs battery power to keep from losing its data. It's probably some sort of low-power RAM, maybe static RAM that doesn't need constant refreshing.

At least it's getting less expensive, though. In 2001, I bought my iPAQ 3650 with 32 MB RAM instead of the 3670 with 64 MB RAM (which was the machine I really wanted) because the 3670 cost over $100 more. Imagine, $100 for 32 MB RAM!
:jawdrop:
(Yes, I'm old enough to remember when PC RAM cost that much....)

Steve

[Kevin C. Tofel]

You do win with the 4MB Hitachi. I guess my Timex Sinclair with 2k of RAM doesn't count even thought it was roughly the same size as your Hitachi!!!! :D If it only had a small screen.......

I'm still curious about the on-board memory architecture. Even regular PC RAM has dropped tremendously in price....perhaps the higher price for PPC RAM is due to the smaller size \ form factor of the memory chips???

KCT

[Falstaff]

Some PPCs do contain additional internal memory. My e755 (and other Toshibas, the 805 I know) has 32MB of non-volatile flash memory in it. I recently started using it to install all my apps to, it really frees up my program memory and is faster (I think) than SD. I believe some iPaqs have similar extra internal memory.

[Trimac20]

Doesn't it seem odd that the most expensive Sony Clie and Palm OS-based handheld, the infamous Sony Clie PEG NZ-90 has a mere 16MB of internal RAM! That is lower than any PPC model currently on the market, and almost all Palm models (about on par with the old Palm Zire). I would assume it would be a different sort of RAM like DR-RAM, but anyway, this is a Pocket PC forum. And by the way, it also runs a 200 MHz processor half the speed of the 400 MHz in most new ipaqs.

I can understand why Pocket PC include memory useable for both storage and the RAM, but if you ask me if this was the case they should add more memory because 64MB is hardly sufficient. Although I'm not prepared to fork out for an ipaq 5550 or a Toshiba e800. And yes, although I do store most of my programs and data on Memory card, I want basic programs: like RealOnePlayer or Image Editor on my internal memory for reasons you can probably figure out for yourself.

[Wiggster]

More ram? (http://www.pocketpctechs.com/)

[Pony99CA]

Doesn't it seem odd that the most expensive Sony Clie and Palm OS-based handheld, the infamous Sony Clie PEG NZ-90 has a mere 16MB of internal RAM! That is lower than any PPC model currently on the market, and almost all Palm models (about on par with the old Palm Zire). I would assume it would be a different sort of RAM like DR-RAM, but anyway, this is a Pocket PC forum. And by the way, it also runs a 200 MHz processor half the speed of the 400 MHz in most new ipaqs.
The Palm OS is (was?) more efficient. It was built back in 1995 or so when there weren't 200 MHz processors. Back in September 2001 (well after Pocket PCs were using 206 MHz StrongARM processors), Palm was announcing (http://pcworld.shopping.yahoo.com/yahoo/article/0,aid,62764,00.asp) its first PDA that used a 33 MHz Dragonball processor!

All your comparison does is indicate that Palm applications may be more memory-efficient.

I can understand why Pocket PC include memory useable for both storage and the RAM, but if you ask me if this was the case they should add more memory because 64MB is hardly sufficient. Although I'm not prepared to fork out for an ipaq 5550 or a Toshiba e800. And yes, although I do store most of my programs and data on Memory card, I want basic programs: like RealOnePlayer or Image Editor on my internal memory for reasons you can probably figure out for yourself.
"Hardly sufficient"? I got along with an iPAQ 3870 with 64 MB RAM for almost two years, and I had lots of programs installed on it. I used a 256 MB SD card to store applications that I didn't use much and for storage of many of my data files (eBooks, Pocket Streets maps, etc.). I also had a 512 MB CF card, but that only had my GPS software and maps on it, along with a lot of MP3 files.

We'd all like more memory, but, like most in things in life, we can't always afford what we want. If you can't afford a Pocket PC with more memory, try to find a way to live with 64 MB or wait until prices drop. I didn't buy my 5550 until I found a refurbished one for $472 because I couldn't justify spending $650 for a new one. That's life, get used to it.

It's beginning to sound like this thread wasn't so much about separating memory as griping about not having 128 MB RAM. As I've said previously, PDA memory is expensive and Pocket PCs with more memory will be more expensive. The Pocket PC manufacturers aren't about to give you more memory just because you want it at the expense of their profits.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

More ram? (http://www.pocketpctechs.com/)
Yeah, but that's a very expensive way to get more memory. True it may be cheaper than buying a new Pocket PC, but getting a larger SD card may be cheaper. For example, I bought a 512 MB SD card for $100 (after rebate); a 64 MB upgrade from Pocket PC Techs is $130! In addition, you have to be without your PDA for a few days.

In many cases, though, the extra RAM is separate from the base RAM, being treated like an internal storage card, so that might work for Trimac20. He could put his programs there and leave the base memory free for program memory.

Steve

[Sven Johannsen]

More ram? (http://www.pocketpctechs.com/)
Yeah, but that's a very expensive way to get more memory.

Steve

It's not all that bad for the convenience IMHO. It certainly has made my 4155 more friendly. It is true that the extra RAM, in most cases is treated as an additional drive/flash card, not additional internal RAM. What I have done is used that 64M to load programs, that will run off external RAM. There are still things like Calligrapher and Today Screen apps that don't like it. These apps restart at reset and often the driver for the extra RAM isn't up to speed just as the CF or SD driver isn't when they try to load. In most cases though, apps run fine from there.

This allows me to have a significant amount of internal RAM available for program operation and keep nothing but data files on my SD cards. That allows me to switch SD memory and peripherals out without worrying abut what program is on there, that I might need. With a two slot device, that was easily remedied by using one for memory, program storage and such, and the other slot for peripherals. With the slimmer single slot 4155, and the PPCTechs RAM disk, I can pretty much achieve the same usability. I can even use an SD camera and have some place to store the shots temporarily till I can put a big SD card back in the slot.

While the RAM upgrade cost me more than a couple of SD cards, I think I get more benefit from it.

Of course that is not to say I wouldn't want twice of four times the base RAM. ;)

[PetiteFlower]

Whine whine whine. I have a 32m Axim and I've had it for a year and it's doing just fine for me. Sure, more memory might be nice, but I would definitely NOT say that 32 isn't enough. It's plenty for most uses for most people. I don't think it's slow either. The only thing it's slow at is loading books from MS Reader, but I think that's the program not the hardware. 64 megs would be like a mansion after what I have now, y'all are just spoiled.

[Trimac20]

I don't really need extra storage memory, except, perhaps for MP3s and maybe a few short video clips, but mainly memory for program operations. I have cleared out about 10MB of my internal memory, and while it is working better I find I have to constantly close programs because they keep piling up. I need an app that actually CLOSES program...the problem is most decent ones are not free, maybe its time to start thinking about forking out the cash...(if I had a credit card).

Anyway, I've always wondered why Pocket PCs and Windows Mobile 2003 are so damn RAM-hungry. Often, when running several programs they can use up to 20MB of internal RAM. Back about 5-6 years ago when 64MB was probably the standard in most (desktop) PCs, they (obviously) handled programs far more advanced than today's PPCs. But of course, the whole system is completely different. Its strange to think my new 400MHz Pocket PC the size of a scientific calculator has more powerful specs (well, the processor and RAM anyway) than my 'first' PC (well the first one I owned) 6 years ago which had a 300MHz processor and 32MB of RAM (which I upgraded to 64MB), yet I could play Graphics-accelerated games (such as Quake II) for example, at a reasonable speed. I'm just wondering what is so different about these minaturised RAM chips and CPUs in Pocket PCs. Its pretty obvious the developers/manufacturing companies.etc had the purpose of designing fast chips which could complete simple tasks (such as word processing, PIM functions) at lightning-fast rates. Perhaps, given the range for PPC software on the market it could be slated as overkill? Ah, but I'm not complaining about my 400MHz chip :-).

[Squirrel]

^^ I'm not sure, but I don't think XScale processors have floating point processing ability, so it has to be software emulated. And most if not all 3d games use floating points quite frequently.

[Pony99CA]

I need an app that actually CLOSES program...the problem is most decent ones are not free, maybe its time to start thinking about forking out the cash...(if I had a credit card).
Since nobody's answered this, I thought I would, even though it's a bit late. Have you tried Scott Seligman's Pocket Nav (http://www.scottandmichelle.net/scott/cestuff.html)? It's pretty decent and free.

Anyway, I've always wondered why Pocket PCs and Windows Mobile 2003 are so damn RAM-hungry. Often, when running several programs they can use up to 20MB of internal RAM. Back about 5-6 years ago when 64MB was probably the standard in most (desktop) PCs, they (obviously) handled programs far more advanced than today's PPCs. But of course, the whole system is completely different. Its strange to think my new 400MHz Pocket PC the size of a scientific calculator has more powerful specs (well, the processor and RAM anyway) than my 'first' PC (well the first one I owned) 6 years ago which had a 300MHz processor and 32MB of RAM (which I upgraded to 64MB), yet I could play Graphics-accelerated games (such as Quake II) for example, at a reasonable speed. I'm just wondering what is so different about these minaturised RAM chips and CPUs in Pocket PCs. Its pretty obvious the developers/manufacturing companies.etc had the purpose of designing fast chips which could complete simple tasks (such as word processing, PIM functions) at lightning-fast rates.
There are several reasons you can't run programs as complex as older PCs. First, even older PCs had hard disks, which allowed a lot of virtual memory; Pocket PCs use the RAM they have for virtual memory.

Second, in general, the more powerful the processor, the more power it requires and the more heat it gives off. The former is obviously critical to a PDA's battery life; the latter is also very important in a device the size of a PDA, which doesn't have massive heat sinks or cooling fans.

Steve

[Fishie]

Back to memory.

Microsoft themselves are urging OEMs to lower the RAM memory available in PPCs(RAM draws power even while non active just to keep the things stored in it from dissapearing) to 64 or 32mb(with 128mb becoming the standard for most mid and high end machines right now and people asking for more still thats a downgrade).

What MS would want is machines with large flash disks(say like 256mb) and smaller RAM(like32mb) and programs wouldnt be able to be installed in RAM(just like a PC really, ya have the RAM and HD), in order to maximise batterylife.