Ask Slashdot: Getting Apps To Use Phones' Full Power? 184
First time accepted submitter MurukeshM writes "I have a 16 GB Nexus 4. I rarely manage to push the RAM usage above 1 GB (not counting cached processes). Yet I find it increasingly annoying when apps do stuff to save on RAM usage, such as having a browser reload a tab if I havent used it for a long time, instead of keeping it in memory or have an ebook reader load from storage instead of keeping the entire eBook in RAM. I know there are plenty of phones with far less memory, but when most of the RAM is unutilized, with more and more phones and tablets having 1GB+ RAM, isn't it time that apps check on available RAM and use optimizations accordingly? And it isn't only about RAM. Android by default only downloads one thing at a time, whether it be an app from Play Store or a file from a site. When connected to WiFi or 3G/LTE, there's no reason why multiple simultaneous downloads shouldn't be used. How do Slashdot readers with high-end phones get the most out of their device? Are there custom ROMs which act more sensibly?"
That phone has 2GB of RAM (Score:5, Informative)
The 16GB Nexus 4 doesn't have 16GB of RAM. It has 2GB. Your post reads like you think it has 16GB of RAM.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
exactly what I was just about to say.
The 16gb in your 16gb Nexus 4 is internal storage memory.
It has 2gb of Ram
Re:That phone has 2GB of RAM (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, my Nexus 7 certainly seems to download multiple files at once.
This. Certain apps (like the play store) download one at a time because they are trying to be nice on your phone (since the time saved from multiple downloads is negligible anyway, unless you have a really good 4G signal). How much time do you spend waiting on play store app downloads anyway? The OS at large has no such restriction, you can download things from the play store while you are downloading things from a web page, or things from a Torrent, or whatever; it is all up to the app. I have run a Torrent client with 32 connections across 5 file downloads and Android had no problem with it (it did make video playback skip occasionally). I agree that phones are generally more powerful than the software expects at this point, but the way the question was worded, this is a problem looking for a solution.
How about this: How can I get my phone/tablet to do compute work (folding @home, whatever) when it's plugged in and fully charged (like, most of the night)? These devices have multiple GB of ram, 2 to 4 CPU cores, and 4 to 8 GPU cores, why not put them to work if they are on-charger and full of juice (when the charger's role is done)?
I have better than 4G: I have Wi-Fi. (Score:2)
Certain apps (like the play store) download one at a time because they are trying to be nice on your phone (since the time saved from multiple downloads is negligible anyway, unless you have a really good 4G signal).
When I'm downloading a bunch of applications to my tablet, I have better than 4G: I have Wi-Fi with a wired upstream.
Re: (Score:2)
You have 50 megabit wired service? That's good, but most people don't have anywhere near that for their home/office, but can get it through 4G. That's what I was suggesting, since to save any time you basically need to saturate the google server sending you the app but not saturate the internet uplink, which is pretty damn hard to do.
Re: (Score:2)
You have 50 megabit wired service? That's good, but most people don't have anywhere near that for their home/office, but can get it through 4G. That's what I was suggesting, since to save any time you basically need to saturate the google server sending you the app but not saturate the internet uplink, which is pretty damn hard to do.
Do you really get 50 mbit sustained through 4G? My downloads always start fast, then quickly drop down to a much slower speed - I've always assumed that my carrier is throttling me on big downloads... i.e. small 1MB things like web pages load fast, sustained downloads are throttled. Do people really get fast 4G speeds for tens or hundreds of megabytes?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really get 50 mbit sustained through 4G? My downloads always start fast, then quickly drop down to a much slower speed - I've always assumed that my carrier is throttling me on big downloads... i.e. small 1MB things like web pages load fast, sustained downloads are throttled. Do people really get fast 4G speeds for tens or hundreds of megabytes?
I'm on Verizon and I have had a few sessions of 100MB+ downloads running at top speed all the way. Granted, I am not in a spot with a 10 Mbit+ signal very often but when I am, it is blazing. Of course take this with a grain of salt; Verizon is both creative and clandestine when it comes to service shaping, so they could very well use that tactic in certain congested areas.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on Verizon and I have had a few sessions of 100MB+ downloads running at top speed all the way. Granted, I am not in a spot with a 10 Mbit+ signal very often but when I am, it is blazing. Of course take this with a grain of salt; Verizon is both creative and clandestine when it comes to service shaping, so they could very well use that tactic in certain congested areas.
Interesting, I'm on Verizon too, but I'm in a pretty busy urban area, so maybe the cell tower is over subscribed enough to make them throttle my big downloads.
Single digit GB/mo cap (Score:4, Insightful)
most people don't have anywhere near [50 megabit per second wired service] for their home/office, but can get it through 4G.
A 50 Mbps downstream is fine for the first 800 seconds, after which it drops to 0 Mbps for the rest of the month because the customer has hit the 5 GB/mo cap. The advantage of wired is that the cap is 50 times as high: 250 GB/mo, not 5 GB/mo.
you basically need to saturate the google server sending you the app
It's not just Google Play Store. If I'm downloading a bunch of files through Chrome, I want to saturate multiple servers, most of which are not operated by Google.
Re: (Score:2)
100/40 megabit fiber.
Re: (Score:2)
If I use the 1.5A Samsung charger, or the 1.5A universal cigarette plug lighter, it holds well even under heavy load.
Now if I use say the iPad 2 USB adapter, even under modest load it will either just barely charge or slightly discharge.. you can tell that charger isn't putting out the 1 to 1.2 or whatever Amps it does if an iPad was plugged in.
And why do you think that is (Score:3)
you can tell that charger isn't putting out the 1 to 1.2 or whatever Amps it does if an iPad was plugged in.
And do you really think your Samsung charger would attempt to assassinate whatever was plugged into its USB port with way more amperage than the USB spec states will be delivered over the port?
This is exactly why I think it's so absurd that people complain about "custom" connectors (never mind USB itself has about five!), when in order to charge devices in a reasonable time over an ancient standard, w
Re: (Score:3)
This is exactly why I think it's so absurd that people complain about "custom" connectors (never mind USB itself has about five!), when in order to charge devices in a reasonable time over an ancient standard, we instead live in a world of custom chargers that just happen to PRETEND to use the same connector type when they really behave differently depending of what is plugged into them.
As long as they all default to a least-common-denominator "safe mode" that's compatible with whatever happens to be be plugged in, even if it's just at the standard 500mA rate, then what's the problem?
I know I can plug my phone into any microUSB charger I can find and it will charge.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I can plug my phone into any microUSB charger I can find and it will charge.
So can I (using an iPhone or an iPad) plug into any USB charger.
What you are saying is actually not true, in that if you plug into a standard USB port and have too many things going on with the device (like tethering or running a game or using a navigation app) the device may well still be losing power.
The problem, if there is one, is people claiming that the iPhone is any more proprietary than any other kind of device that c
Re: (Score:2)
I know I can plug my phone into any microUSB charger I can find and it will charge.
So can I (using an iPhone or an iPad) plug into any USB charger.
What you are saying is actually not true, in that if you plug into a standard USB port and have too many things going on with the device (like tethering or running a game or using a navigation app) the device may well still be losing power.
The problem, if there is one, is people claiming that the iPhone is any more proprietary than any other kind of device that charges over USB.
The iPhone is the only modern smartphone not lying to consumer by pretending to be something it's not really (a standard USB device).
So you agree that having a standard connector that supports a special high-speed charge mode is not absurd after all as long as it defaults to something that anyone can use as long as they have a compatible cable that can plug in to it? Any random USB port may not be able to do fast charging (and may not be able to keep up with a busy device's power demands), but when you're on the go and have to charge up, you can count on any USB port being compatible with your device. When you're at home or the office yo
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all devices use 1 of 4 connectors, and it's standardized to the point that few people have to think about it, especially as devices tend to use the largest kind that will fit:
-- Old 'A' rectangle port: computers, power adapters, other things you plug a device into
-- Old 'A' rectangle plug: anything connecting without a cable (flash drive, card reader, etc.)
-- Old 'B' squarish port: printers, scanners, full-scale external drives
-- 'Mini B' wavy trapezoid port: older e-readers/mp3/cameras, similar-size
Re: (Score:2)
If a USB cable breaks or we want an extra, we can easily just grab one of the same type from another device, left-overs from the past, or buy them quite cheaply.
All of those are MORE true of an iOS cable, especially the old style. It's easier to find a place that carries an iOS cable you need than one of the more obscure USB cable types. When I lost a MiniB cable I had no spares and had a hell of a time finding any shop that had one. This was for a modern camera that I had just bought, so it's not like i
Re: (Score:2)
There is an unofficial 1A charging over USB mode that is detected by shorting the data pins together. Normal PCs don't do that and neither do 500mA chargers. Only chargers that support 1A do and Samsung phones, like most, will pull 1A from them.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't work like that. The charger doesn't "push" amperage into the connected device, the connected device "pulls" however much current it wants/needs. A high-powered charger won't "assassinate" a connected device, unless its voltage is out of spec.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
At least *somebody* realizes that. With all the other posts about "defaulting to a low power state" and crap like that, I was beginning to think that technological progress would have to stop, because nobody understands a simple formula like I=V/R anymore....
Re: (Score:2)
It's not difficult to have a phone draw more than the capacity of a USB port (the official spec limits power usage to 500mA/port).
I remember when you put the Google/HTC G1 in wifi hotspot mode it would drain the battery, even when plugged in.
Most phones ship now with a 1000mA charger, which is enough to just about top out the CPU (the HTC G1 days are LONG gone). I suggested a safeguard anyway, that is to make sure the phone is done charging before starting an app like that. If the phone has to go back into charging mode (if it is outstripping the current limit on the charger) then the (currently just hypothetical) app will pause again while the battery charges. Same goes for heat, current phones all have temperature sensors to monitor for b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He also points out that it rarely goes above 1 GB ram, so it would seem he was actually checking the ram and not storage capacity. And that screen would inform him he has 2 gb ram, not 16. And 2 or 16, it still evidently doesn't use most of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I mentioned the 16GB because apps can use the storage to save data to something like a page file, instead of discarding it. Especially browsers. I'm not a moron.
Summary a bit confusing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just a note for future articles:
I have a 16 GB Nexus 4. I rarely manage to push the RAM usage above 1 GB
There is no need to include "16 GB". Both devices have 2 GB of RAM. To someone who doesn't know this, the summary might imply that they have some awesome 16 GB RAM model.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, (see my comment above) apps can use both RAM and storage. And there's no reason why they should discard data. When running use as much RAM as you can, when not running, save everything to storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong (Score:3)
When connected to WiFi or 3G/LTE, there's no reason why multiple simultaneous downloads shouldn't be used
If bandwidth is finite, serializing downloads means one finishes first, and can be used while the others download.
You're right on the RAM usage, however - particularly with eBook readers. It's reasonable to keep them in-RAM, or at least keep enough in-RAM so you can turn a few pages forward or back without loading.
Re: (Score:2)
Since storage devices are now solid state and so much faster than the old mechanical disks, does it really matter for practical purposes, whether a few megabytes of data are kept in RAM or fetched from fast solid-state storage? I have recently upgraded my computer with an SSD. Loading massive multi megabyte files used to take a definitely span of time noticeable to the user, but is now loaded almost instantaneously. Since phones are small ultraportable computers, this applies to them as well. I used to put
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is instead of swapping the application out to disk, Android kills it. This means the application has to be loaded back up and loses its state. This means the web browser will refresh a page, which it was just on if you switched to another memory intensive application since you last used the web browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... would you prefer the full memory allocation of the browser to be swapped out to disk each time?? If you've got the number of tabs open that I normally have, that's a substantial amount of disk space being taken up (and free space on my phone is generally at a premium, it being one of the non-SD-card-compliant nexii ...)
I'm sure you could write a browser that would do this, but I doubt many people would want to use it ...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I would. At a bare minimum the current active tab.
The correct solution is to get a phone with 128GB of disk.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'd take a phone with 128Gb storage, but I'm not sure it's going to happen any time soon. At least, not from Google while they're still pushing their stupid cloud storage concept ... :(
Re: (Score:2)
Then every android browser is a crap application.
All of them reload the page if they happen to get killed off.
The solution is to give me 128GB+ of storage and let me treat it like a full PC. That is what I want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. The browser is doing exactly what it should be- saving its state so it can be recreated upon relaunch.
Most people's phones do not have more than 16GB of storage. A few people on the cutting edge or that have too much money might have 64GB. Either way, you also have to account for pictures, music, vidoes, ebooks, apps, the OS itself, and all the other data that gets stored on these things. Sure, you could potentially create your own browser (and I encourage you to do this if you feel so strongly)
Re: (Score:2)
It does not save its state, that would include the current open pages.
I have 32GB of storage, surely enough to show the last couple tabs, if I could buy a phone with 128GB of disk I would.
The issue is not 4G or wifi, the issue is when I have a recipe open in the grocery store and no service. If I leave the app I have to reload and can't.
I have no interest in waiting 5 seconds, nor 5 minutes when I am in a store.
Re: (Score:2)
and besides all this, my old win xp desktop had 256MB ram. browsers running on it didnt forget all tabs when you started using the music player. the basic truth is that android is too aggressive with memory management. 2GB of ram should be enough to hold a couple of webpages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, most flash is considerably slower than even a slow hard drive - SSDs get their performance by operating many flash chips in parallel. The seek time is usually incredible which is great for reading tiny files or searching through a database, but a "suspend to disk" on an app that's consuming 500MB of RAM could easily take the better part of a minute to "wake up", and even longer to suspend in the first place.
It would be nice to see the RAM getting more effectively used, but it's quite possibl
Re: (Score:2)
No. If you run all of the downloads in parallel then one of them still finishes first and can be used while the others finish off.
Also, when the available bandwidth per-stream is lower than the available bandwidth per-link it is quicker to run the downloads in parallel. Lastly, when the total bandwidth across all the streams is still less than the link (which is frequently true) then the sequent
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for not harping on the "N4 has 2GB RAM" thing. Waiting for one app to finish download first is agonizing if the app is huge (> 100 MB). And then this forces other smaller apps to wait for the large humongous app to finish installing. Even if each download proceeds slower, wouldn't the smaller apps be installed quicker?
On the other side (Score:2)
I only use that phone about 9 days per month, but it is becoming less and less useful as time goes by because of this memory usage issue.
A few months ago I moved the Dalvik cache onto an Ext3 partition and it helped somewhat. I still have over half of my apps moved to the SD card because everything will not fit.
Developers, please continue to try to optimize yo
Re:On the other side (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. The problem with Android is that for every flagship nexus or SGS4 sold, dozens more crappy low end ones are sold.
The free phones. The ones with crap screens, crap processors, and/or diddly squat for RAM (though for Android these days, that applies for anything smaller than 4.5" screen, annoyingly). After all, Google claims about 1.3M daily Android activations, while the most popular Android flagship phone, the SGS3, has sold around 40M units in all its various combinations. That's barely a month's worth of Android phone sales.
And possibly, ancient OS versions (heads up - Gingerbread is no longer the majority! Though it is by far the largest slice). So you can have apps that use all the power of the device (I've seen special edition apps restricted to certain devices), but most devs don't have the resources to maintain and test two or three separate sets of code bases and/or assets. Especially as a lot of the exclusives are often comissioned by the manufacturer who just pays for the port and no maintenance.
So devs have to keep in mind the vast majority of phones out there don't have 2GB, or even 1GB of RAM, and have 1GHz processors if they're lucky. And maybe 320x480 screens. Or 5" 480x800 screens.
Yes, Android has basically wiped out featurephones (more profitable, and carriers get to sell a very profitable data plan to someone who probably will be lucky to use 1MB out of their 100MB). (And stats show this - despite Android outselling iOS 3+:1, iOS data usage still beats Android 2+:1).
It's like PCs these days - you can get a top notch PC with the latest graphics, but end up finding most PC games assume an Intel graphics accellerator or are ported from consoles. It just isn't that big a market.
Then again, there's something to be said that the people who buy the flagship phones tend to be the heavier users, so ignoring the low end isn't that bad a strategy either. Why go for the 80% market when fewer than 10% of those probably would even see your app, but go after the 20% when 50% or more will probably buy it? (Generally speaking, it's the reasoning behind developing for iOS first).
Re: (Score:2)
I think that will actually continue with the iOS trend. People that buy iPhones are buying appliances, appliances used mostly for media consumption on the move that also happen to be phones.
I bought a Samsung Note II because I needed to do work with it, and the stylus and large screen are bloody fantastic for my work.
Re: (Score:2)
Google claims about 1.3M daily Android activations
It's possible. While trying out different ROMs for my phone, I've connected it to google like eight times in one day...
Re: (Score:2)
A few months ago I moved the Dalvik cache onto an Ext3 partition and it helped somewhat. I still have over half of my apps moved to the SD card because everything will not fit.
That's storage space, not RAM. Your Nexus One may suffer from memory constraints as well, but they'll have nothing to do with the number of applications you store on your SD card, or where you put your Dalvik cache ...
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with ram (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with ram is that you can't do that. Unfortunately traditional apps live in a world where memory can't be "taken back". By taken back I mean that precisely as you request, an app could have a minimum requirement of 10MB, but maybe it could cache stuff for 1GB. However, there is no easy way to the OS to tell the app politely "hey, may you please give back as much memory as you can because something else needs it?". The problem is two fold for mobile apps: they may be "thawed", so they are not really executing to save CPU, so they can only be asked if they are currently running. And second, the memory another app is asking, is it because it requires that memory to work, or it also wants to create a big cache of discardable stuff? You see, malloc et all don't have an option to say "I want this much memory but I don't really need it, so don't purge other processes form memory if there is none available".
The end result is OSes have to deal with killing apps to free memory because they end up over allocating memory. And especially if you consider all of the above to be for well behaved apps, you can surely understand apps could DOS your OS if they could get away with hogging available memory for themselves...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's just disk caching. I don't know to what extent Android does it, but most modern operating systems do as much disk caching as they can afford. It's often reported as free RAM, though, because it essentially is.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we have SWAP.
The OS should just swap the application out to disk and bring it back in when needed. Killing the app should only be done when you are out of SWAP and RAM.
Modern OS's figured this out long ago, why must we reinvent the computer with new hardware it runs on?
Re: (Score:2)
Two reasons.
FIrst, because flash chips have a limited number of write cycles. Repeatedly writing to swap files kills them more rapidly. For sure more recently desktop OSs use swap on SSDs, But they are expensive, and large compared to the flash chips in mobiles. So whilst swap is slowly killing them too, their life expectancy is longer.
Secondly, desktop OSs have to keep many apps running, because of their multi-window nature, users can see multiple apps. Smartphones are essentially single app UI devices, so
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
5 year lifespan. Funny how that's become acceptable.
And if it's more than 165 times? We've all experienced too many apps on a desktop OS, with the resultant slow down, and the hard disk being thrashed constantly. Hopefully that's mostly reads. But not necessarily.
And of course the no swap design for smartphones dates back years, to times when wear was more of a problem for flash.
Oh, and I thought of a 3rd reason. When the smartphone only has a few GB flash, a swap drive would take a big chunk out of it that
Re: (Score:2)
No one keeps a smartphone that long.
1 GB of swap would easily hold all the browser tabs.
Re: (Score:2)
1 GB of swap would easily hold all the browser tabs.
That's not how a swap file works. It works at the level of memory requests. It has no idea of applications, let alone a specific app or purpose for the memory.
Besides, 1GB of storage can be an enormous amount for a smartphone. The Samsung Galaxy Ace is a still shipping Android smartphone with only 0.5GB of flash storage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_Ace [wikipedia.org]
Of course it can get more storage with microSD. Which is far slower, allocated to Application storage, rather than system, and liable to be rem
Re: (Score:2)
I am not keeping the device that long, feel free to kill the flash. I would rather replace it yearly than have to reload a webpage i was just looking at.
Re: (Score:2)
Android does have this feature. It is part of ashmem (Android shared memory) which is a patch to the Linux kernel. Under memory pressure the kernel can discard the pages and when the application goes back for them it is notified that they are gone.
Re: (Score:3)
In addition to the system-level stuff, Android's SDK also provides a callback that apps should implement for exactly that reason.
http://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/Activity.html#onLowMemory() [android.com]
The system calls it when it needs to reclaim some memory and apps are supposed to discard whatever they can in order to return memory to the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IOS does, through the NSCache interface. You can allocate as much as you like, and the OS will automatically get rid of it if it needs to. Also, your app can respond to low memory warnings so it can free up memory before being forced to quit completely.
I'm pretty sure "it does" (Score:2)
I recently upgraded from a very old Android(300M of RAM) phone to a Nexus 4 and it amazes me how long it will keep an application at the same point. On my old phone, it recycled memory so quickly that going from an app, to home, and then launching calculator or something and going back to the app, it would be a fresh session. On the Nexus though I've launched an app in the evening with it keeping the same state that it had in the morning when I launched it without reloading anything.
That being said, YES i
cyanogenmod (Score:4, Interesting)
I run Cyanogenmod [cyanogenmod.org] on all of my Android devices (currently Galaxy Nexus for my main phone, Nexus 7 tablet, and an older HTC G2 phone for playing around with), and have never looked back.
As others have mentioned here, though, sounds like you may not fully understand what's going on, since the Nexus 4 doesn't have 16GB of RAM, and we all seem to be able to do multiple downloads at once.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh that's good to know. I wish I had mod points. I always thought swiping the app away meant "I am not going to use that, you can unload it" which would be a nicer version of force stop.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, swiping away does exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
hysterical raisins (Score:2)
The problem is that about Froyo, when app2sd functionality was rolled into the OS, onboard memory was EXPENSIVE and SD was cheap, so there was a deliberate design decision to avoid letting non-system apps take over program memory. Even back then, this was a less than acceptable idea, as there were different ROM and RAM totals (okay, onboard storage and program memory, yeah, the're not QUITE ROM/RAM) even then, so a given app could use all RAM when running and still have a very small footprint in ROM, putti
Ask Slashdot? (Score:3)
There is an 'Ask Slashdot' section for a reason. Please use it!
Thanks.
Fnord666
Are you sure ? (Score:2)
I agree with you (and MS) that Free RAM is wasted RAM. Probably upcoming versions of apps will check if they need to swap/release before doing so ?
As for "When connected to WiFi or 3G/LTE, there's no reason why multiple simultaneous downloads shouldn't be used." Yes there is: whatever is limiting the speed of your download/install (it(s not instantaneous yet, is it) will also impact simultaneous downloads. Plus thrashing.
What about OS for those apps (Score:2)
Not the app, the OS is to blame (Score:2)
In the mentioned situations I believe it's mostly the OS that's to blame, more so than the app.
If I were to develop an e-reader app, that reads a book from a file on disk, I would just open the file, and start reading the needed parts from it. Most modern OSes will then cache the file in RAM, or at least start reading ahead as much as possible, after all if the first bytes of a file are read, it's likely the following bytes will be read in the near future, and if not this memory can easily enough be overwri
To get "full power"... (Score:2)
[ My vote for dumbest line in the last Star Trek movie. ]
Cripe (Score:2)
Could we just give the OP the benefit of the doubt that he simply just misspoke? It seems like he has a legitimate question, and instead the discussion is getting lost in a bunch of crap posts all saying the same thing about the 16GB. Jeebus, people.
Chrome Android caching/reload (Score:2)
Maybe this is the right place to ask this question:
Is there any way to force Chrome on my Galaxy Nexus to either fully cache the current page so it can display it instantly upon browser startup, or to not reload it when I start the browser and show me a blank screen?
It's annoying to start up the browser when I last was viewing a large, complicated page, and then I have to wait while the browser tries to reload and display that page, even though I want to go to a new page. Even if I hit the stop button, I h
Conserve battery life (Score:2)
Is not much of what the OP complaining about an attempt to preserve the phones battery life?
Wouldn't mind swapping to an external SD card (Score:2)
On those Android phones which have user SD card slots, I wouldn't mind allowing the phone to page memory to the card at all if it saves on bandwidth. For internal flash... definitely not.
I already cycle about a gigabyte a day through my 16G microSD card just from DogCatcher. Another few hundred megabytes wouldn't make a dent and those cards are pretty cheap anyway.
However, allowing paging on any machine can lead to big trouble in the form of thrashing. It probably isn't reasonable to implement that sort
Pathetically crippled. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or "ramifications of bad marketing week" -- because I wouldn't be surprised if those companies are advertising it as having 16GB of memory and not differentiating between 'storage' and 'RAM'.
A phone with 16GB of RAM would be kinda crazy just yet.
Re: (Score:3)
Two things:
1: The poster is fully aware of the proper lyrics. It's a copypasta troll, and you just swallowed the hook down to your kidneys.
2: Of course Betty's next. She's the last one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad example. That's actually what Freddie sang.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ferrari (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Slashdot:
I bought this Ferrari and I live in a suburban part of the US. I can't drive it over 70mph on the highways and I'm constantly in stop and go traffic in the city. It's so frustrating!
Can anyone of you tell me how to get the most out of my car?
Sure, Dress in a flashy suit then drive slowly (20mph or less) past a hangout of hot babes. Then go in and ask "anyone fancy a ride?".
Re: (Score:2)
Technically that'll be getting the most IN the car, not necessarily out of it -- especially if you have a shitty apartment. Blonde or not, they'll see thru the ruse.
Re: (Score:3)
Open several pages in tabs to read later (Score:2)
Minimizing ram usage is the regular method for programs. I don't know which programs you are using, but most of my phone's apps are 50mb or less.
I want to open a bunch of web pages in tabs while connected to Wi-Fi, hit the road, and then being able to display each page without having the device purge the page from the cache and try to reload it from a data connection that doesn't exist. There's no Wi-Fi on city buses. One reason I carry a 10" laptop instead of a tablet is because web browsers designed for laptop operating systems are historically better at this use case.
As for multiple downloads, you could download two at 50kb/s or one at 100kb/s. Does it really even matter?
It does when the one download is failing to saturate your downstream because the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Offline Browser by NiKoDroid70
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll try it on my Nexus 7.
Re: (Score:2)
It does it poorly.
Android far too aggressively swaps apps out. It made sense when phones had 256MB of ram, it does not today.
Re: (Score:2)
Not worth the power gained. I would rather waste it than wait for the page to reload.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is a platform that was not designed to have a scheduler carving up resources.
What?
It's a genersl purpose CPU which supportes full memory paging. It is *exactly* designed to support multitasking and have a scheduler carve up resources.
Case in point: it runs Linux which on a GNU/Linux system does a very good job.
In fact given that Linux ran on some even pretty early Archimedes machines it seems that ARM has had the appropriate hardware to run proper operating systems since not all that long after its inc
Re:Read up on ARM (Score:5, Informative)
This is a platform that was not designed to have a scheduler carving up resources
Uh, what? The ARM architecture was designed for Acorn's line of 32-bit desktop computers, which shipped with a multitasking OS from the start. Now, it wasn't preemptively multitasking, but the only difference between cooperative multitasking and preemptive from a hardware perspective is that you need (relatively) cheap timer interrupts to enable preemptive multitasking, and ARM has always had this.
The cost of context switching boils down to a small number of things:
In summary, the orifice that you are talking out of is not your mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
no, the B10 with the physical keyboard is the superior product.
Re: (Score:2)
i dunno about iphone but this problem is extremely apparent on the 4g ipad. load up a couple of tabs, go to the music player, go back to safari. reload all webpages.