I have the same feeling Henk. My one question is, "Why not just implement a larger dynamic heap?" We are no longer in the "Everybody will only need 640k or RAM" age anymore. I will claim ignorance on how this whole process works, but I just find it odd that my older 64 MB (actually 52MB) T3 has 3 times the amount of dynamic heap as my 128 MB (100 MB) T|X. If I guess correctly, the OS addresses the first X size of memory to dynamic heap. Why didn't they just increase it on the T|X? Just a question I have always wanted to ask a Palm employee.
And, to go back on topic, thank you for pointing me to the file Ben. Off to the PluggedIn site!! -Donald "Henk Jonas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Ben Combee wrote: > > > At 04:49 PM 1/10/2006, you wrote: > > > >> So, do they meet for breakfast or not? :P > >> > >> I also think making stuff available for just one device is weird. We > >> needed someone to hack a PRC to be able to use 4GB cards (for example). > > > > > > Updates for previous devices are planned as their own releases with > > resources to develop, integrate, and test. Sometimes we do spot > > updates, but we prefer to do a bunch of changes at one time to avoid the > > expense of system requalification. We don't have the bandwidth to > > continually update and test changes on all of our previous devices, and > > some devices cannot be updated easily because they don't store the > > system software in flash memory, but instead use masked ROM. Also, > > often the developers that worked on a device are now working on new > > tasks, so getting changes made requires bring on new developers and > > getting them up to speed or delaying new projects. > > > > Ben, that's ok. No problem, but we mostly speak about devices which came > out after the one with the broader software features. Where the software > which makes the feature, actually runs without problems on it. Why does > it happen? The TX hasn't an internal drive, but the drive mode runs fine > with the SD-card. Isn't it a advertisable feature? Doesn't make it the > device unique compared with low-prize PoPC's? > I'm not speaking about high-end here, Palm doesn't make high-end anymore > (proc, RAM, display) . That's something for another post :-) > > FAT32, tsss, runs on many older devices now, if I remember correctly, > but not because Palm released the driver... People go and destroy there > devices to have the last cool stuff on it, just because, Palm doesn't > act, isn't going to release stuff for devices where it would be ok, and > warn for all the others. Dmitry increases the available dyn. RAM. What > about Palm, why aren't the go to do it official, and then hopefully more > safe? The could explicit check for every tested device... FHR, does the > same, and uses memory which wasn't used at all before. Without patching > things. > > If Palm doesn't act, people go and install hacks. Hacks which might make > certain devices unusable. Palm will have to fix it, as they are can't > prove forbidden user actions. This might become expensive... > > I know, you have probably no power to change the decisions of Palm, but > I still wonder about people who make such ones... > > Regards > Henk > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Henk Jonas [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Palm OS ® certified developer > > Please contact me, if you need an off-site contract worker. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- For information on using the PalmSource Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see http://www.palmos.com/dev/support/forums/
