Rom developers... the BT stack on the Touch works-

[jph8tr]

Originally Posted by winmobilelawyer

The WM6 Memory system is not a bug nor an issue. It's the fact that HTC released a WM6 device with only 64mb of RAM. You'll notice the touch is doing absolutely FINE with the "WM6 Memory Leak."

As for the new ROM, hopefully you guys won't have to add stuff from the new rom to this fix it up ROM! Maybe the new ROM will actually solve the problems without adding new ones!

Then why don't we make a WM device without a screen...end of battery life issues! The memory leak IS an issue. No previous WinCE/WM release that I'm aware of has ever had this issue. From the end users point of view, the differences between WM5 and WM6 is not that great (a bit more lipstick on the pig) and WM5 has no memory leak. I would expect the graphical enhancements of WM6 to use more ram but that's not an excuse for the OS to bleed out ram over time. Unless there's some absolute bottom limit that I'm unaware of, the devices with more memory will not run out of ram as fast, but without reboot will eventually run out. Personally, I would have no problem if my WM6 Mogul after loading had ~15mb to play in. The problem is that that number will continue to diminish over time till the OS can't shut down any more processes itself. Then it's "poke the hole" time.

I've gone over to the WM5 camp, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't hope (or even expect) that WM6's memory management can be fixed to function at least as well as previous WinCE releases.

[dishe]

Originally Posted by jph8tr

Then why don't we make a WM device without a screen...end of battery life issues! The memory leak IS an issue. No previous WinCE/WM release that I'm aware of has ever had this issue. From the end users point of view, the differences between WM5 and WM6 is not that great (a bit more lipstick on the pig) and WM5 has no memory leak. I would expect the graphical enhancements of WM6 to use more ram but that's not an excuse for the OS to bleed out ram over time. Unless there's some absolute bottom limit that I'm unaware of, the devices with more memory will not run out of ram as fast, but without reboot will eventually run out. Personally, I would have no problem if my WM6 Mogul after loading had ~15mb to play in. The problem is that that number will continue to diminish over time till the OS can't shut down any more processes itself. Then it's "poke the hole" time.

I've gone over to the WM5 camp, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't hope (or even expect) that WM6's memory management can be fixed to function at least as well as previous WinCE releases.

LOL- see this is why we have so many angry mogul users... jph8tr, that's not how the "memory leak", as you call it, works. I don't know how many more times we can discuss this... there have been countless threads dedicated to it, yet I'm a sucker and I'll just say it again and again...

You're wrong- It does not just suck more memory over time for no reason! It caches a certain amount of information, so the "problem" is more apparent when you close a bunch of apps and notice that your memory hasn't been reclaimed yet.
However, if left to its own devices, I've seen my ram go from 11mb free to 18mb free, without doing anything other than just leaving it alone for an hour (eventually, it WILL give up the cached ram when it realizes it doesn't need it for anything at the moment).
So why will the ram drop when you're not running anything at all?
Well, whether you're aware of it or not, WM6 does have some tasks running in the background which use some memory (activesync, battery managment, tower negotiating, data connection, Bluetooth, alarms, etc), and the caching system will start to eat a bit of memory to make those processes run smoother.
It will NOT eat all your memory like a black hole over time as you describe it! The reason some of us have issues is that the 64MB that the mogul has leaves less than half available to the user in the end for applications. However, with 128mb, situations that would normally leave us with 3-4mb running would now leave us with 68mb.

[markgamber]

Originally Posted by dishe

LOL- see this is why we have so many angry mogul users... jph8tr, that's not how the "memory leak", as you call it, works. I don't know how many more times we can discuss this... there have been countless threads dedicated to it, yet I'm a sucker and I'll just say it again and again...

You're wrong- It does not just suck more memory over time for no reason! It caches a certain amount of information, so the "problem" is more apparent when you close a bunch of apps and notice that your memory hasn't been reclaimed yet.
However, if left to its own devices, I've seen my ram go from 11mb free to 18mb free, without doing anything other than just leaving it alone for an hour (eventually, it WILL give up the cached ram when it realizes it doesn't need it for anything at the moment).
So why will the ram drop when you're not running anything at all?
Well, whether you're aware of it or not, WM6 does have some tasks running in the background which use some memory (activesync, battery managment, tower negotiating, data connection, Bluetooth, alarms, etc), and the caching system will start to eat a bit of memory to make those processes run smoother.
It will NOT eat all your memory like a black hole over time as you describe it! The reason some of us have issues is that the 64MB that the mogul has leaves less than half available to the user in the end for applications. However, with 128mb, situations that would normally leave us with 3-4mb running would now leave us with 68mb.

To second this, the Mogul is NO different in this aspect than the T-Mobile MDA, which I had for well over a year. It exhibited the exact same behavior and that was mostly with WM5 which, despite popular misconceptions, is more or less the same as WM6. Further, if you set specific max cache values, as opposed to the default dynamic cache, memory usage appears more predictable. You don't do the system any favors by setting those values, however, and they can easily become counterproductive. This takes me back to the early Windows NT betas. Technically, you should have NO memory free at all times. Did you buy ram to not be used? Those first task managers showed no (or almost no) memory free. But people freaked out when they put 256mb of ram in their computer and saw zero bytes free, so Microsoft would omit cache values from the "free memory" count. That made people happy and today we're still stuck with some nearly meaningless, arbitrary value called "free memory". Sure, the Mogul could probably have done better with another 64mb, but I have yet to get a low memory warning and between iGuidance and Slingplayer, it's not for a lack of trying.