11-16-2010, 06:00 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
How Much Storage Do You Need in your Windows Phone 7?
My last survey seemed to court some controversy because people wanted it to ask the question of why someone needed removable storage; I simply wanted to know if people basically bought a storage card and left it in the phone for long periods of time - taking it out only to upgrade to a bigger card - or if they needed to take it out regularly to achieve certain functionality/scenarios. This question is similarly focused: if you're planning on buying a Windows Phone 7, how much storage do you need/want in your phone?
|
| |
|
|
|
11-16-2010, 06:09 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,503
|
|
You know, we won't be in this mess if we have proper PANs by now...
__________________
Baka. Soku. Zan. - The justice behind the dysORDer.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-16-2010, 06:12 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 211
|
|
I bought the Focus specifically because of the expandable storage, knowing pretty much all of the shortcomings that the use of microSD entailed (except that some cards just flat out don't work - the details behind that surprised me somewhat). I have a lot of media that I like to just keep handy and 8GB isn't nearly enough. If I really start using this device for video and pictures, then I'm going to need enough storage to take my music (and OTR shows) with me as well as apps/games and pics/videos. 8 GB isn't nearly enough for that and 16 kind of cuts it close. The expansion helps a bunch once we get details on the correct cards to buy. I'll probably even replace my current 16GB card with an "approved" card once the details are finalized and confirmed working.
I'm good at the moment, but could definitely use more storage than the defaults right now.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-16-2010, 06:28 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 123
|
|
64gb and a sleek device would make it very difficult for me not to extend my contract with a WP7 device 
Personally, I'd rather the faster RAM be onboard, not on a card...
|
| |
|
|
|
11-16-2010, 07:51 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 740
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjimen
64gb and a sleek device would make it very difficult for me not to extend my contract with a WP7 device
Personally, I'd rather the faster RAM be onboard, not on a card... |
The problem is that MS tried to emulate the Apple concept (No expandable storage/ Apps available only through us...) in a cheap way therefore they used SD cards.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-16-2010, 09:31 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 33
|
|
I just wanted to remind everyone that you need to yell at the manufactures of the devices and not Microsoft for this lack of memory issue. Microsoft stated a minimum of 8g. They didn't tell them to only put 8g.
If the Samsung focus would have came out with 32g (or an epic 64g) of memory it would be the most epic device on the market. Nothing would be able to touch it.
The screen is incredible.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-16-2010, 09:33 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyCannon
I just wanted to remind everyone that you need to yell at the manufactures of the devices and not Microsoft for this lack of memory issue. Microsoft stated a minimum of 8g. They didn't tell them to only put 8g.
|
Excellent point - this is absolutely not on Microsoft, it's all on the OEMs. All the ire at the small memory sizes should be directed at HTC, Samsung, etc.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-17-2010, 12:37 AM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 740
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
Excellent point - this is absolutely not on Microsoft, it's all on the OEMs. All the ire at the small memory sizes should be directed at HTC, Samsung, etc.
|
Well, yes and not: considering that MS specified all the details for the phone, including the non removable storage requirement, they could, and considering the blunder that Vista minimum specs created should, have set the storage bar higher.
Again it is not flash memory so the added costs should not be exorbitant.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-17-2010, 12:59 AM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fritzly
Well, yes and not: considering that MS specified all the details for the phone, including the non removable storage requirement, they could, and considering the blunder that Vista minimum specs created should, have set the storage bar higher. Again it is not flash memory so the added costs should not be exorbitant.
|
Come now, surely you can't believe that EVERYONE needs a phone with 16 GB of storage? 8 GB is just fine for some people, and by setting the minimum at 16 GB, Microsoft would have made the phones more expensive for the end customer. I think 8 GB minimum is just fine; what I don't think is fine is how HTC, Samsung, and the other OEMs didn't release 16 GB and 32 GB versions of their phones beyond the 8 GB versions...
|
| |
|
|
|
11-17-2010, 01:46 AM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
ffice
></o
Linear Mode
