yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] vapotrini:
3 scratches here.

I'm tired of hearing people say even gorilla glass will scratch blah blah blah. Gorilla glass has proven to me to be infinitely more scratch proof than the glass on the Nexus. Like 100 fold over. After a while I was treating my Vibrant like it was bullet proof. Throwing it across the room, dropping it scores of times, putting it into my pocket with keys, etc etc... and to this day - "not one scratch on it", not one! For those who think sand in your pocket would scratch gorilla glass, you better think again. Obviously there will be rare occassions where it would happen but for the most part, it'll survive without any issues.

My nexus on the hand has been babied to death and less than a week into owning it, 3 scratches.

I will never, EVER buy a phone without gorilla glass again.
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] rabaker07:
I've been rocking my Incredible since day one without screen protection and it's still mint. (besides a complete crack in upper right corner (in an area that is beyond the display) from one of the worse drops, which was more of a drunken throw). I really hope that the Nexus can handle my lifestyle, but sounds like this thread is reporting mixed reviews. I refuse to wear a condom so I hope I get one of the good ones...

p.s. I surf alot in the summer and sand all over but still no scratches. I guess it has to hit with the right angle and friction???
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] ericshmerick:
One grain of sand or salt + friction (i.e. pocket) and even the Gorilla Glass 2 on the RAZR gets scratched.

You can run a key across the screen all day long, but it only take a granule of something to etch a deep scratch.
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] catpunt:
If u get a decent screen protector and install it well (I know it ain't easy) it will look/feel as good as the naked glass, and then u dont have to worry - and in a year when u pull it off, the glass will be PERFECT. Small price to pay. The Galaxy Nexus is so thin that with a slim TPU case it's still crazy thin, and you will keep it in perfect condition
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] kojaraty:
I agree Gorilla is scratchable but much harder to get scratched than other glass.

Does anyone have suggestion of good screen protector? And from where to get?
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] AfroCreame:
I'm currently using the Verizon ones, but just ordered some SGP Olephobic ones:

http://www.sgpstore.com/cell-phone/...-nexus-screen-protector-steinheil-series.html
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] Niksko:
I'm sorry to say, but you should have ordered the SGP Flex instead. The Ultra Oleophobic ones don't extend to the edge of the screen, because they use the dry adhesive method, and if they went right to the edge of the curved screen they would peel.

Frankly, it looks pretty ugly having a band around the edge that's not covered. Plus, because they don't extend to the edges, it's much more noticeable if you get it off centre.
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] Dr Doom:
As mentioned in the other thread i have a couple of tiny scratches after 3 weeks of use and never ever putting anything else in my pocket with it. Disappointing.
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] Lodingi:
Couldn't agree more. I was the same way with both my Fascinate and now my charge. Neither device has gotten a single scratch.
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] s.m.knipe:
Sand will scratch sand will scratch sand will scratch sand. What do I mean by that? ALL glass (including Gorilla Glass and its differently arranged superficial crystalline structure) is the same molecule- SiO2 or "silica." Is there variation within silica? - yes, but minutely.

[good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness Geology and Mineralogy have huge unrealized relevancy in everyday life- just like under-appreciated physics] The variation will not give silica the hardness of say, "topaz" (at 8 on the scale), but rather is usually due to impurities (additional minerals) that weaken it down to ~ 6 or so. Gorilla Glass seems to be a purified silica, maxing out at 7 hardness. Quartz crystals (what we call "sand") also usually sits at 7 (chemical weathering can both purify and contaminate depending upon the situation), and do not have to be just "sand" like beach/desert sand. Sand is a size classification, you also have "silt" which is just smaller (down to microscopic) quartz crystals, and is "aerial saltating" (airborne- carried by the air but not in solution with it). Many other minerals may be present in the "cloud" that hovers about <50' from the earth's surface due to weathering that will scratch just about anything, so "grit" is a huge issue for ANY screen. Gorilla Glass is nicer than other glass types (although according to the Vickers scale Corning uses, not by much), but it is not invincible and items that can/will scratch are much too common to be flippantly dismissed. Also good reads in these comments: http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/mfskn/galaxy_nexus_no_gorilla_glass_no_problem/

Buy a screen protector, even if you have Gorilla Glass...
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] troubleshot:
Just get a high end screen protector like xoskins on there. They fill in scratches. Their video shows it pretty well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoMRO4OiXw4
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] mohitrocks:
Hey everyone I just got my Galaxy Nexus from Bell and it isn nothing short of amazing. Screen is amazing compared to my milestone which is basically the international version of the Droid. So far, I have experienced lag only after loading up approximately 10-15 apps which I never do on a daily basis, so lag isn't an issue with this phone. Now, I do have a few issues.

1.) The wifi keeps disconnecting while I try to download the files for shadowgun

2.) The speakers are REALLY quiet.

3.) When I use advanced task killer the ram available is always under 300mb even if i kill all apps (is it optimized for ICS?)

4.) The multi touch barely works?? (Download a multitouch tester app... when you have one finger on the left side, the bottom right side wont detect your other finger?? Noticable in shadowgun, if you are moving, you can't look around via the bottom left of the screen...
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] Chrono_Tata:
1) Samsung phones tend not to have as good wifi reception as others. See if you can move closer to the router.

2) You can use an app like Volume+ to boost it a bit.

3) The available RAM should be about 600+ MB. The app is probably not optimised for ICS. Anyway there really should be no reason to clear apps from RAM unless it is actively using CPU.

4) Multitouch is fine for me using "Multitouch Test" app from the market.
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] phazerorg:
People worry too much about free RAM. As a professional programmer (though not Android), power user, and hacker of almost any device or computer I use, I can tell you that free RAM is wasted RAM. Does the device work well for you? Unless you have a specific reason to believe that lack of available memory is affecting your experience, you shouldn't worry about it.

I expect any device I use (computer, phone, tablet, server, anything) to be making as much use of the RAM available to it as possible. The operating system should be caching as much as it can in memory to increase performance and enhance your user experience. Caching will normally show up as unavailable RAM, but any decent operating system (even Windows, haha) will dump cache and make it available for applications as needed.

Please don't take this the wrong way... I only ever comment on such things try to be informative. I honestly wouldn't worry about it, unless you're experiencing a problem directly related to available memory, such as an app (or worse, the OS!) leaking memory and causing lags or the inability to open new apps, etc.

There's also the whole thing about how you shouldn't even be using a task killer... but there are already enough threads on XDA about that topic, so I won't get into that here ;)

And finally I will say... I'm jealous! I haven't pre-ordered, because I want to bargin with Bell a bit, but I'll be heading to Bell tomorrow and I hope they have a Galaxy Nexus in stock! :D
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] BootsSiR:
lol @ wanting to have free RAM
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] fish0729:
that was very informative!. I bought mine from virgin in Toronto Eaton Centre,with $50 off because I told him I don't want the case.(They give free case on the pre-launched date,don't know about tomorrow tho.)gl with your bargin!
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] martonikaj:
Haha seriously.

Uninstall that task killer. Jesus do people not learn?
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] foxehkins:
From everything I have read it seems that task killers only really interfere with Androids OS. I've never used one and the system seems to run fine =]
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] jabberwocky127:
Glad to see I am not the only one coming from a Milestone, haha. Leaps and bounds are the words that come to mind.
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] Chirality:
Maybe he wants to have free RAM to run something else that consumes a lot of RAM? Did you ever think of that?

It's like making fun of someone who is trying to make money and asking them "why do you want money? You can't eat it! LOL..."

Well, no duh. The point of making money is to exchange it for things you want...
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] martonikaj:
You also don't understand then I suppose. If he wants free RAM to run something else, that foreground app will take the RAM away from anything else in the background that is unnecessary (obviously the foreground app is more important). But this isn't something he has to do (or think about doing). The process is not like: working with app X, then deallocating memory manually, then starting app Y. Rather, it's using app X, then starting app Y and if Y needs memory that X is using, X disappears automatically and Y continues to run with its necessary resources.

As stated above, free RAM is wasted RAM. His (and many other's) quest to have as much free RAM as possible is a terrible goal to have that overall hurts the user experience. Freeing RAM for the sake of looking at a screen that tells you a certain number (omg higher # is better!!!!) isn't the proper way to be managing your device.

Anyways, this isn't a task killer thread. Several other topics were raised by OP.
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] Chirality:
Ugh...I guess I'll have to keep using the analogy to get through to you...

So you ask the guy why he wants to make money, because "extra money is wasted money" since you can't eat the money, right? He tells you "so I can use the money to buy other things I need." Then you ask him, "why do you need to make more money to buy other things you need? Your house is worth a lot of money, if you ever need other things, just sell your house!"

Do you understand it now? The house is some background process that's important to the user, which the user wants to keep resident in memory. The other things are other apps that the user might run. If the user keeps running other apps, eventually Android will need to reclaim memory. But the user doesn't want to lose his house (i.e. doesn't want that important background process closed)! How to make sure Android doesn't do that? Here's an idea: why not have some extra money to spend on things (i.e. free up memory by killing the non-important apps so the important one doesn't get killed)?

This...really isn't that difficult of a concept to understand. I don't get why you feel the need to bash everyone who wants to kill processes. Sure, a lot of people use task killers for stupid reasons. But you can't always assume the worst in people. How do you know that he's killing processes just to stare at the free memory graph? You don't know that. You are just assuming it. You can't rule out this legitimate use for manual process management.
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] martonikaj:
Your analogy is completely flawed. The analogy of getting more money in terms of RAM is by opening the phone and putting another RAM chip in the phone, not by freeing RAM through a task killer. Freeing RAM with a killer is just shifting money around. You're not creating more RAM by killing apps, you're just moving it around.

He has a

limited income

in this case. He can't open his phone and put more RAM in it. If you're on a limited income and can't just "make more money" then if you want to buy a new car and don't have money, you have

to sell something

. The thing is, he's trying to do it manually. The phone will handle it automatically. It will choose what will be killed in order to free RAM for the front-facing process.

So you're getting the same amount of RAM either way. You have 1GB in the entire system to use. Whether you manage it manually or let the phone do it automatically, you still have 1GB of RAM. The difference is, when you do it manually, you are less efficient than letting the phone handle it. You kill things unnecessarily, kill things you shouldn't, and you spend extra time doing it.
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] Chirality:
Yes, I know it's not a perfect analogy. But how about you point out the flaw in my use case, rather than the flaw in my analogy?

The problem is exactly that the phone "will choose what will be killed in order to free RAM". What if you want to choose what gets killed and what doesn't, and not let Android decide? What if you know exactly what you want to keep resident in memory and what's unimportant and can be killed?
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] gdap:
Just out of curiosity, wanted to know how the	OP got his bell GN so fast?

Preordered mine and waiting impatiently!

:D
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] mysterioustko:
Basically he's saying that he's not gaining anything by rearranging his RAM. The system will free up RAM from background processes if need be. Him freeing up RAM and having available RAM doing nothing is not beneficial.
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] martonikaj:
You analogy is flawed because you have no idea what you're talking about. Your use case makes no sense. If the background app staying in RAM is more important than the foreground app, why are you using the foreground app? It should be in the background because its less important apparently.

Whether you manage things manually or not, if you are using the foreground app actively (ahem, its in the foreground) and it needs more RAM, then the other apps

will be killed

.

Everything but the foreground app will be 100% wiped from RAM if it needs to

. You can't tell it not to. If you want things to act differently, you'll have to write your own OS that never kills a background process sitting in RAM. And it'll suck.

What you want, and what a task killer offers, are 2 completely different things.

I'll go ahead and set this link right here just in case you want some more learnin'.

---------- Post added at 11:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 PM ----------

Are they not available in-store to pickup? Maybe he did that rather than order for delivery.
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] Chirality:
Oh for crying out loud, how is this not getting through to you.

I'm not talking about killing the foreground app to make room for the background app. I'm talking about how to choose amongst the different background apps which one to kill.

Let's say that in order to make room for a foreground, Android has to kill one of two background apps. Most of the time you probably don't care which one it kills. But what if in this case the user cares very much, and want one to be killed but the other to stay in memory? Why not use a task killer to kill the unimportant one so the important one stays in memory? Is this seriously a hard concept for you to grasp?

Let's not get into personal attacks about knowledge here. I can assure you, I know more about memory management than you do, since I've seen the stuff you post around here. I've written my own garbage collectors, my own implementation of malloc/free/realloc that beats the glibc implementation in both performance and utilization. I know the pros and cons of most of the major memory allocator implementations out there, I know which allocator data structures are better at utilizing TLB cache and which ones have better worst-case performance. I know when to use compacting GC and when to use simple generational mark and sweep GC. You want to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about?
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] martonikaj:
You realize that a task manager doesn't offer you this utility. Killing something manually means that it will simply re-open and be there right after you're done killing it. If it wants to run,

it will run

.

If its that important, you won't put it in the background. Again Task Killers don't offer you this functionality actively. Killing something then quickly opening your foreground app is the most inefficient way to operate this, and still doesn't accomplish what you want with frequency. As I said above, the app will simply re-open in the background and take up the RAM again if it is supposed to be running (we're always talking about well-performing and properly formed apps). If you never want it running in the background, you need to uninstall it.

No, I'm sorry sir. Most respectfully as possible, you are wrong on this topic. Really. I'm not gonna argue with you on any of these things anymore. Anyone who runs Android or has written apps or mods or ROMs will agree with me.

Your crazy-ass examples of apps running in the background that you MUST have open is not the real-world case for what we're discussing, and should never be considered a reason for anyone to ever install a task killer. People are not using them for these reasons, and they're aimlessly installing them for the wrong reason. It is 100% ruining the experience of Android to install an Auto Task Killer.
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] Chirality:
Where the hell are you getting this nonsense? If it's just a normal app, how the hell is it going to run again after you kill it? Do you even understand how Android activities, intents, and services work?

Do you really have no idea how Android works? Any app that is not currently visible on screen are in the background. How are you going to prevent apps from being put into the background? Is it really too much to ask in today's multitasking operating systems to have two things that you care about running at the same time, one in the foreground and one in the background?

And that, then, just shows you have no understanding of how memory management works at all. The use case I described is the one of the most usual case there is in any multiprocessing environment. You think somehow Android is special with its ability to automatically manage memory? No, it's not. It's not radically different from any modern operating system with virtual memory. The main difference is that instead of swapping memory to disk, it just kills processes. The use case I describe is a straightforward case of multitasking on a virtual memory system. It's so basic that frankly I'm amazed you don't understand it. When you are running multiple processes at once, you want to be able to choose which ones are resident in memory and which ones are swapped (or, in Android's case, killed). The best way to do it under a memory constraint is simply to kill processes you don't care about. Really, really basic stuff. And you are supposed to be a computer science student?

Maybe this is all to abstract for you. Let me describe a simple real world case. You are traveling and you rely on Google Maps to get around. You want to keep it resident in memory so that you can always instantly open up Maps. But you also run a lot of other apps during your journey. Looking up stuff on the Internet, reading restaurant reviews, checking news and weather, etc. The thing is, these apps aren't all that important. You might open them once and never need them again that day. But if you open a certain number of these apps, say, 5, then Maps will get killed since it was the least recently used. How to prevent this? Simple. Everytime you are done with one of these non-essential apps, you just kill it. It's not important to have this app be instantly accessible the next time. Or you kill them after opening 2 or 3 or them. Whatever. The point is, by manually closing these apps, you ensure Android never runs low enough on memory to kill Maps, so Maps will always be resident in memory and can be pulled up at a moment's notice, which is what you want.

Is this such a crazy-ass thing to ask for? Is this not something normal that we do on our computers all the time?
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] magicman0:
This is almost a non issue. Maps will save its state before it gets killed.

Also, if you're using maps throughout your journey multiple times, and these other apps are being used only once, the other apps will be killed first. But you do have a point in the case where if you open maps, use a bunch of apps, and fill up your ram to the point where android starts killing your oldest processes first(maps in this case). But as I mentioned before, maps, along with many other apps, will save their state so its not a big deal.

Overall, you are correct in saying a user might want control over which apps are never killed, which is why they would use a task manager, but there are probably many people who use task managers for the wrong reasons.
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] Chirality:
Even though Maps saves its state, having to reload a program that you'd prefer keeping resident in memory is not a good experience. This is not all that different from a desktop operating system swapping out something to disk. Sure, that swapped out process can be swapped back in, but if it's something you want to access quickly when needed, having it swap in and out all the time is not a good experience. Most of us naturally close programs that we are done using so that there's sufficient physical memory to keep resident the programs that we want to stay in memory, and this naturally extends to Android. It amazes me how people like martonikaj don't understand this.

I'm not denying that there are many people who use task managers for the wrong reasons. But take a look at what's happening here: did the OP at any point explain why he is using the task killer? No, he didn't say anything before these people jumped out of the woodwork and started bashing him for what an idiot he was for installing a task killer. This is why I jump into these debates, because this thing is getting out of hand. These people who attack everyone who uses task killers are bandwagoners, and they are as bad as the people who jumped on the task killer bandwagon initially. First everyone jumped on the task killer bandwagon because they thought it helps their performance or battery life or whatever. Then a bunch of blogs started telling people how Android doesn't need task killers anymore. And now these people have jumped on the anti-task killer bandwagon. Without a semblance of understanding of memory management, armed with the words of these bloggers as gospel, and spouting things like "free memory is wasted memory" as their mantra, they leap at the first opportunity to attack anyone who has the temerity to mention the words "task killer." This is ridiculous and needs to stop. Claiming that there is no use for task killers is as terribly misinformed as misusing task killers. There are legitimate uses for them as well as illegitimate uses, and these people need to realize this and get off the bandwagon.

Oh by the way martonikaj, I see you are doing that thing again where you have nothing factual to back up your claims and refute my arguments so you just lurk the thread and thank everyone who argues against me. Unfortunately for you magicman's post was mostly in line with what I was arguing so you accidentally thanked someone who refutes your argument.
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] martonikaj:
Just tired of arguing, as I said before. I made my point and its the right one. Not gonna bash my head on the wall. And he made a really good point (he doesn't refute my argument at all...). Quit being a f*cking ****.