Sony Ericsson / Sony : Symbian phones : Different RAM and ROM in different P990's
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
Symbian phones
> Different RAM and ROM in different P990's
Bookmark topic
Thanks @firetech. Quoted from the second thread linked above:
('real') ROM, which contains the most essential parts of the firmware ... and which is permanently copied to RAM ('shadowed').
Most probably the fixed amount of the above-mentioned shadow RAM is what SMP reports as "ROM size".
--
Posted: 2007-08-13 13:26:18
Edit :
Quote
On 2007-08-13 10:55:02, myth® wrote:
If we select UK English, we get UK English only, and if we select any other language, say Turkish, we get both, UK English + Turkish.
I think all the languages remain on the P990 unless you do a format. When I was setting up my phone, I just chose UK English, nowhere did I specify Turkish anywhere. Later on, after the setup was finished, I was able to add the Turkish language for writing SMS etc.
--
Posted: 2007-08-13 15:33:50
Edit :
Quote
On 2007-08-13 15:33:50, makbil wrote:
I think all the languages remain on the P990 unless you do a format. When I was setting up my phone, I just chose UK English, nowhere did I specify Turkish anywhere. Later on, after the setup was finished, I was able to add the Turkish language for writing SMS etc.
Yes, the language support for T9, letters and virtual keyboard remains, even after format, but the menu languages are being deleted during initial setup.
Otherwise they would appear in the list of available languages.
--
Posted: 2007-08-13 16:09:59
Edit :
Quote
guys, I have 61MB Nand
and drive Z: is Total Space 0,0MB
impossible?
edit: I remember that I did a master reset right after the reflash of R6E28, then I selected UK English, after that all other languages where gone. I had about 59MB of the 61MB free!!
[ This Message was edited by: mi2ke on 2007-08-13 16:59 ]
--
Posted: 2007-08-13 17:47:35
Edit :
Quote
guys, I have 61MB Nand and drive Z: is Total Space 0,0MB
You are making even bigger confusion
This thread is not about the size of the C: (Nand) and Z: drives, but instead about RAM, which is entirely different. You should look into the Memory dialog of SMP, not the Drives dialog.
BTW, the size of the Z: drive is surely not 0.0 MB, but the OS reports that value for a ROM drive, so SMP displays that. The correct value can be obtained by adding the sizes of individual directories on the Z: drive.
--
Posted: 2007-08-13 18:19:45
Edit :
Quote
On 2007-08-13 18:19:45,
Lisa@CPS wrote:
but the OS reports that value for a ROM drive, so SMP displays that. The correct value can be obtained by adding the sizes of individual directories on the Z: drive.
..whereas dedicated file managers like LCG X-plore show the correct value.
So, this might be rather a matter of false recognition, limited access or whatever, than the os, reporting a false value.
--
Posted: 2007-08-13 18:36:41
Edit :
Quote
dedicated file managers like LCG X-plore show the correct value.
Not exactly. X-plore can not do it either. In its detail window for drive Z: X-plore just sums up the sizes of directories and displays that. For the protected folders (Z:\\Sys and Z:\\private) it counts 0 bytes, which is incorrect, therefore the total occupied value is false as well. The true occupied size of the Z: drive is what X-plore reports plus the size of the two above-mentioned folders. The total size is not ever reported by X-plore to be other than 0 bytes. It's not their fault, that's all what can be done.
So, this might be rather a matter of false recognition, limited access or whatever, than the os, reporting a false value.
The OS does report zero for both the total and occupied size of the Z: drive, that is a fact. Programs can replace the latter value by some more realistic number, like X-plore does, but that's all.
--
Posted: 2007-08-13 18:51:53
Edit :
Quote
So only the sys and private folders are being reported as zero, not the entire drive.
Anyway, thanks for the info Lisa..
--
Posted: 2007-08-13 19:21:23
Edit :
Quote
On 2007-08-13 13:00:40,
Lisa@CPS wrote:
And, why does its value vary between phones? We know that even less. What really counts is the absolute (not percentage!) amount of free available RAM. It would be interesting to see if a firmware change, that results in a change of the "ROM size", results in a change of available RAM, under the very same conditions.
[ This Message was edited by:
Lisa@CPS on 2007-08-13 12:04 ]
Correct, it does change! I have stated that earlier in my posts! I did it and now the end result is that under all and indentical conditions, the newly flashed/changed phone has about 1.2 to 2 MB more RAM available, in SMP and TaskManager!
And it stays that way!
So for me, this change to Netherland was worth it.
However, we have to wait and see if the newest fw upgrade that is not yet available for Netherland, will change back to 59/5. Hope NOT
--
Posted: 2007-08-13 19:48:41
Edit :
Quote
So only the sys and private folders are being reported as zero, not the entire drive.
Not really. The total and free space of the entire Z: drive is indeed always reported by the OS as zero. Folder sizes are not reported by the OS at all, but a program can sum up their contents using a recursive method and report that. This is what X-plore (presumably) does. However, it can not add the size of the Sys and private folders, because those are completely blocked by the OS. Therefore, the reported value is less than the true value (although it surely represents more info than just showing zero). Hopefully it is clear now.
Back to the original topic:
the newly flashed/changed phone has about 1.2 to 2 MB more RAM available
That's indeed good news, although it is still a question how frequently this method can be used in practice to "produce" more available RAM.
--
Posted: 2007-08-13 20:09:34
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
