yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] kcab87:
Hello everyone,

I have a problem with my HD2 that is annoying the heck out of me! Whenever I receive an sms/mms or email, my HD2 lags and completely freezes whatever program/app/game/browser i am running until the sms/mms or email actually is displayed on the phone. in some cases, ill have to remove the battery and reboot since the phone hasnt recovered after freezing.

Is anyone else experiencing this problem? if so, is there a solution? Im in dire need of a fix to this messaging "bug". it would make life sooo much easier

btw im using the stock t-mo us rom 2.13.531.1 WWE, 2.10.xx.xx radio, and manila 2.5.2012
[Nexus One Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] flamechamp:
I just want to ask whether the available themes in the APP and THEME part is going to replace my Launcher pro or not. Any idea?

Thanks before
[Nexus One Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] diversificationied:
Themes modify the system files, they aren't independent.

If you get a theme for a rom, it will modify things all around the rom.

If you get a theme for a program (adw) it will modify things inside the program only.
[Nexus One Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] flamechamp:
for example, I'm interested in using the ZEN theme or the minimalist theme. Can I use my LauncherPro after I flash the theme?
[Windows Mobile Software Development] dront78:
New VZOmobile 1.4.0 has been released

- VZO VideoChat PC2PC, PC2WinMo, WinMo2WinMo

- new conference interface

- chat mode improved

- Samsung front camera supported

- added Buzz option to buzz-vibrate your partner

- added orientation support Auto/Portrait/Landscape mode

- improved Windows Mobile 6.5 support

- bugfixes

- incompatible with VZOmobile 1.3.2

Official update

If camera does not work - download

Samsung - Official Camera SDK

Eten - CameraPlus DLL

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] shivankit:
Does the froyo update make the full 512 mb ram available? I had heard earlier that only a part of it was available due to 2.1 limitations.
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Sputnik.:
They were always available, ~300Mb for Programs and the rest for the system files... Why should that change?
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] satta:
I think what the OP meant was whether one had more memory for apps as ht tp:// developer.android.com/sdk/android-2.2-highlights.html claims that the 2.6.32 kernel upgrade would bring "HIGHMEM support for RAM >256MB".

At the moment, we do not have the full memory available in the Linux system:

$ adb shell
* daemon not running. starting it now *
* daemon started successfully *
$ free
total used free shared buffers
Mem: 333420 329988 3432 0 34724
Swap: 0 0 0
Total: 333420 329988 3432

I do not know whether that is related to the graphics hardware taking some of the memory, or to the kernel version:

$ uname -r
2.6.29

Edit: What do you mean by 'system files'? The OS is stored on mass storage, right? And Dalvik and friends should appear as userspace processes taking up regular memory.
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] buddy01:
You do understand that this does not compute, since there has always been more than 256MB available ;)

Or has there? :D
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] waaahsabi:
I was wondering about the same thing, kernel 2.6.32.9 (JP3) also shows a little more than 300mb...
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] satta:
Hey, I'm just quoting from an official AOSP site ;)
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] shivankit:
Mine shows 30 mb available under advanced task killer. What am I missing?
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] shivankit:
@satta yeah that's what I meant and that's what I had read. Cheers
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] rkantos:
I've seen Desire have over 400MB of memory available for applications in a video with a some sort of task manager on..
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] jaapschaap:
Are you sure, max i got on my nexus one was 312MB in some rare cases, using it without closing apps at all, never got below 100MB... But my Galaxy's max is 170MB, is almost half what my nexus gave me, that kinda suck (don't know if it matter bu tit feels bad in my head :P)
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] rkantos:
Desire has 576MB memory.. N1 has 512MB
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Qazz~:
Maximum free RAM i got from my sgs is 210mb, easily achieved by using Astro's process manager and killing all non-essential services.
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] FadeFx:
why t.f. do you guys always want to have lots of fre ram? please read a little about android memory management... free ram is wasted ram!
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] ed10000:
So? We all still want our phones to be as future proof as we hoped they would be when we bought them. And we want the extra RAM simply because it's supposed to be there.
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] GuestX0057:
As long as it doesn't go below that ~70mb when the phones actually start lagging ;)

Might also want to take into consideration that the counterpart Desire used in this thread is also an android phone, sure too much free memory is wasted memory but too little usable memory = lag and if there isn't a lot to use in the first place then it won't take much for the phone to start lagging.

Some help in JG and onward firmwares but it's still quite funny that a simple user can make a fix to create a solution for the entire problem and Samsung hasn't either thought about this or taken it into consideration. (Mimocan is my hero <3)

edit: WOO my first post after actually following these forums for almost half a year, just registered recently :)
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] dplate07:
Hey,

Actually you do not need that much RAM. Im running on JG5, which IMO is the most stable and usable firmware out there. Has been running the phone for 3 days straight without any ATK like apps, and has not experience any lags.

Another thing is that, IMHO ATKs slow down the system.
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] dalingrin:
The current Samsung froyo builds do not support highmem. It is a kernel compile time config option. Samsung will hopefully enable it in later builds.

Highmem made a noticeable difference in performance on my nexus one.
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] tomtor:
Nonsense. You are not entitled to more free ram in any way.

Every os uses a part of the ram for the kernel code and its buffers.

In addition the advanced graphics will need memory for its texture storage and graphic representation.

A froyo kernel will not make a major difference.

The sg has 512 memory today and it is using it as it should...
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] FadeFx:
lagging is actually not caused by to less free ram, in android there is no such. the used ram is caused by apps that you opened and then exited again. if you open a new app that needs more ram than aviailable (actually with a little gap of some mb) the system will close apps that are not used anymore and only kept in ram for faster opening. the lag comes from bad i/o speeds of the nand (internal memory) where apps data is stored. on i7500 there is 192mb of ram and it works ok with froyo (thanx to drakaz and gaosp team!) only thing is that every app you open forces the app you opened before to be kicked out of ram what makes switching between apps makes somewhat a pain.

also free memory and usable memory is apples and pears, useable is all memory that contains no actually running in foreground app or service. and free memory is the rest that contains absolutely no information and thus WASTED

edit: btw i7500 is running well with 20mb free ram.
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] borchgrevink:
I often have no more than 30 MBs free, and not running THAT many apps. What is strange is that sometimes there is 70-80 MB free, and I have not done anyting. What happens in the background is a mystery... Any suggestions?
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] cheetah2k:
I agree the speed difference with himem enabled on my N1 was at least a noticeable 25% speed increase.

While google might say spare ram is wasted ram, they dont tell you about the CPU cycles these idle programs take up. Having your ram loaded, then bringing your phone out of stand-by is noticeably slower than when the ram is maximised using ATK.

If you can't see that, then you're friggin blind.
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] FadeFx:
why should it be needed to load your ram when coming from sleep? the ram stays loaded all the time during sleep. sure there may be some cpu cycles to keep the "recent apps list" but the apps themselves dont use any cpu, they are just like free ram but actually containig info in form of an app. sure some cycles are used by the systems memory manager but for sure this actually is much less resources than to have to start an app from nand, load into ram, do all the initialization stuff and load the gui.

this is a good article to read about android and ram: http://www.droidbase.de/?p=35

however i remember there was a youtubevideo that eaven describes it better, but i didnt find it to link here.
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] xfox:
doesnt Froyo fix this?
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] borchgrevink:
Well, that is the BIG question...
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] lijgame:
if sgs has 512mb ram, then it should *be able to* use all of them.

Is there any doubt?
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] FadeFx:
it should, but not only for system and apps, but also for graphics processing. also dont worry, i´m pretty sure the official froyo build will get access to all the ram that is there.

edit: i just wanted to point out that the lagging has nothing to do with too less free ram.
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] shivankit:
If that is the case then why does freeing up ram fix the lagging?
[Galaxy S I9000 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Mynx:
If you go in Quadrant and push on system information , @memory it says :

Total : 333796 kB

Free : 9744 Kb

Inactive : 127872 kB

Is the inactive part , the part we are missing ?
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] thenewguy821:
With the recent legal decision making it legal for users to "jailbreak" their iPhones (still at the risk of losing warranty, I assume), wouldn't that also carry over to ALL cell phones? Wouldn't it then be illegal for Sprint (or Verizon, Att, etc...) to develop code that would block or remove Root? I would assume, that just as in most parts of the legal system, once precedence is set, it should carry over all carriers.
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] phealy:
It does carry over that you're allowed to root your phone... but nothing in the ruling said the carrier can't put code in to prevent it. They just can't sue you for cracking their protection.
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] thenewguy821:
Ok, Makes sense, but lends another question...

If a law is passed allowing something, and someone takes measures to prevent people from doing what has already been deemed legal, they can be sued for infringing on that person's rights. Wouldn't that, in effect, be the same thing as a carrier writing code to block Root? I understand if they put in a "Safety" feature, so people can't just accidently Root, but anything beyond, would technically be a violation of our rights as the owners of the phones....
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] thenewguy821:
And before it gets said, I am not saying we should all run out and Sue Sprint or our individual carriers, for "Breaking Root" on our phones. I am just putting a thought out there for conversations sake. Sometimes getting other peoples opinions on a subject helps put things in perspective.
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] phobos512:
The ruling was that jailbreaking / rooting a phone does not fall under bypassing encryption through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That's all. They didn't say that companies can't protect their IP.

Realistically you can expect that cellular providers will start entering provisions in their contracts that make it a violation to modify your phone's software (just as it's, for example, illegal to modify pollution controls on a motor vehicle).
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] thenewguy821:
I understand what you are saying, but your examples don't apply. By modifying your vehicles pollution controls, you are finding a way around a law, therefore making it illegal. By adding provisions in their contracts, the company would be making their own laws, stricter than the ones the courts have already allowed.

A better example, In Chicago, it was recently decided (At the Supreme Court level) that the 2nd amendment applies to the entire country, not just the government. Any laws made by the states/cities trying to block the 2nd amendment rights, would be unconstitutional, and could not be enforced.

By the Courts deciding that Jailbreaking/Rooting the phones is Legal, any action by the carriers to block the unlocking of the phones, would be a violation of that court decision.
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Veritas06:
My 2 cents worth:

They can choose to block it if they want to, but they cannot penalize you for seeing that your device is rooted or jailbroken.

That's just my take on it.
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] gx1400:
They cannot sue you for violating DMCA since it is now an exception.

They can still:

- void your warranty

- add an verse in contract that you can be penalized for modifying to gain root

- do pretty much anything they want beyond sue you for violating DMCA until there is a lawsuit or court ruling to decide otherwise.
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] omegasun18:
I think you have to remember that rooting is basically bypassing encryption the encryption. There is no where that says that Sprint/AT&T etc cant change there encryption or fix holes in it. By changing the encryption and fixing holes this often "breaks root" however you are not forced to update so i don't think you can say they are taking away your "right" to root.

Even if they put out a stealth patch that fixed the current root methods and put your phone back at stock and unrooted. They still havent infringed on your right to root your phone. You can always re root once a new method is found. While it can make it difficult for you or take away your root access they haven't actually taken away your right to root... they just arent making it easy for you which is an entirely different thing.
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] gx1400:
It would be a PR nightmare and would possibly lose some customers, but they really don't have any legal reason not to add a section in the contract to say that in order to run a phone on their network, you must you a phone with software APPROVED by them. By rooting you would lose approval.

It wouldn't be that difficult from a their perspective to allow them to cut service or even penalize you for doing so.
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] MCL1981:
No. They can write their software to be whatever they want. They are under no obligation to make it easy for you to hack. The law just makes it lawful for you to hack it. It does not make it unlawful for the companies to make it difficult or impossible. The law allows you to try, it does not gaurantee you success.
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Sirchuk:
Someday they'll have an easy method to remotely determine if a phone is rooted and instantly void all our warranties, saving the company money.

If we want to run their software updates then we agree to lose root, since they were intended to run on non-rooted devices.

Posted via XDA Android app from Evo
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] ViViDboarder:
You're misunderstanding the concept of something being legal and something being your right...

No law was made saying that companies have to allow you to bypass their protections. The only thing that happened was that you can now not be prosecuted for bypassing protections to install 3rd party applications or remove bundled software.

I thought of an analogy... If you wanted to post on a forum like this one, you are allowed to. If the owner of the forum doesn't want you here, they can do all kinds of things to stop you. Ban your account, ban your IP, etc. If you go to a new computer at some wifi hotspot you can create a new account and sign up. That is not illegal. It's also not illegal for them to ban you again. It's not your RIGHT to go on the site but it is still LEGAL for you to do so.
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] thenewguy821:
I am not trying to say We have a right to do this... What I meant, was by the courts decision to allow jailbreaking/rooting of phones, we now have that right. I don't think that is a misunderstanding at all.

BTW, I hope the rest of your post wasn't to imply that I should be banned from posting here, just because I started this thread. I just thought it might be an interesting topic, and to get different views on it. I could have just made another thread about Froyo coming out next week... lol :p
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Cayniarb:
So, it sounds like not too many people here understand the recent decision. First, it was, in no way, a new law or a change to an existing law. The Library of Congress (who oversees the DMCA) issued a ruling, pretty much on a whim. That sharply distinguishes it from a court decision (that would set any kind of legal precedent).

What this means for us:

According to the Library of Congress, it is not a violation of the manufacturer's (copy)rights for users to bypass protections (rooting/jailbreaking) for the purpose of installing legally obtained software. Hence, rooting your phone to install something you legally obtained, like an app that requires root (SetCPU, Root Explorer, etc.) or a completely open-sourced ROM (CyanogenMod) is perfectly acceptable. This means that HTC cannot sue you over it AND they may not automatically brick rooted phones (Disclaimer: the process of rooting may brick your phone due to the nature of the process, I am not telling you that rooting is 100% risk-free. I am only saying that HTC may not brick your phone for that specific reason. This applies a little bit more directly to Apple and their absurd anti-jailbreaking practices). HTC can, and will, void your warranty if they discover that you rooted your phone. Likewise, Sprint may not refuse to provide network coverage to people who root for the purpose of installing legally obtained software. However, they can, and likely will, refuse to provide any warranty-style services for your phone (i.e. that $7 per month Total Equipment Protection Plan).

However, rooting your phone to install illegally obtained software is still illegal. This applies to the vast majority of ROMs available that reuse Sprint or HTC code without the express permission of those companies. CyanogenMod uses the same open-source code for Android that Google freely provides to anyone who wants it (like HTC). The CM team then works to use the open-source code provided by Google and the manufacturer (HTC's kernel is open-source and publicly released (eventually) according to the open-licensing terms that Google forces them to accept) and make that into a working ROM for your phone. Most other ROM developers take the closed-source code provided by the manufacturer (e.g. the code from the recent OTA) and manipulate or modify it to become a new ROM for your phone.

Although, while that practice is, technically, illegal, it is also very similar to a foul/penalty in sports -- it's only against the rules if you get caught. And, in this case, manufacturers have not cry foul because the developer community that is, basically, stealing their code is also driving their profit (and they are too smart to bite the hand that feeds them, unlike Apple).

So, I hope that this helps people better understand the decision and the fact that it really does not change anything in terms of the actual risks of rooting -- it only removes the extraordinarily unlikely risk of HTC suing you just for rooting. But, given their ongoing legal battles with Apple, I'd say that HTC is not worried about you or me right now anyway.
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] jeffeulogy:
the decision doesn't specifically make root/jailbreaking legal or illegal, it just ruled that it's not a violation of the DMCA. the swat team won't be kicking down any htc execs doors just because you jumped the gun and lost root by applying an OTA
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Systemfraud:
So in all reality, which ROMs aren't illegal software? Example: CM?
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] ViViDboarder:
Haha, no. I wasn't implying that. Sorry. It was just the only example I could think of at the time.
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] bluebeast213:
How would this apply to the Moto Droid X? Not 100% sure.......but isn't that what Moto is doing?......bricking your phone if you try to root? Will they have to change that?
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Cayniarb:
No. Motorola has put together some clever programing that makes the process of attempting to root the Droid X result in bricking your phone (but only sort of -- you can reinstall the stock, unrooted ROM and be all good, without root). They aren't bricking phones that are successfully rooted, they are just making it impossible (so far...) to root it in the first place.

Again, the process of rooting your phone may cause it to not work/get bricked. That is very different than being able to root, then the manufacturer bricking it after the fact (like, say, a jailbroken iPhone that you accidentally connect to iTunes -- nice, expensive paperweight).

So, no, Motorola will not have to change that for any legal reason. They may change it though because the developer community that largely drives the android platform will not be too happy with them, and that could affect their bottom line.
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] MCL1981:
You are completely misunderstanding it, just based on how you keep wording this.

Like I said before, all this ruling means is you can try to "jailbreak" without fear of civil lawsuit by the manufacturers. It is in no way implying or expressing a right to do do that. You can try without getting sued. You can succeed without getting sued. But they are not required to make it possible or easy. They can make it totally impossible. They can make the phone melt if you try. They can make it so it blows up if you even think about it by way of brain scans. This ruling does not make it your right to be able to do it. It just means you can't be sued for trying.
[EVO 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Cayniarb:
While I would agree that the LoC's decision does not grant consumers any specific right to root/jailbreak, I'm not sure that you have a complete understanding here either. The ruling absolutely was about rights, just not yours and mine. It was about the rights of manufacturers and whether or not rooting/jailbreaking a device infringed on their rights (which, now, it officially does not). It's a subtle, but important legal distinction.

That said, you are, ultimately, correct -- consumers cannot be sued for rooting/jailbreaking their devices, and manufacturers can continue to do everything in their power to prevent users from doing so. The key there is prevent, not retaliate.