[stevew]

Initial thoughts -

1) Great screen, amazing scrolling and precision; same for trackpad!
2) OS7 is REALLY JUST OS6 with a few MINOR tweaks...
3) Volume (earpiece) lower than 9780, not good
4) Bluetooth will not pair with some of my existing handsfree units, big negative.
5) 70MB Less free memory than my 9780 with same (2)apps - not impressed
6) Very fast, very fast browsing - fonts now come up in nice big format and easy to read.
7) While scrolling on trackpad...sometimes you hit the screen and open a link or app unintentionally.
8) Very poor battery life and will never improve IMO
9) Some things on screen are almost impossible to click on or off; eg, connections screen...bluetooth option.


All in all, not bad, but as per RIM's usual hardware releases, device not ready primetime IMO.

[Dubdub]

OS 7 was called OS 6.1 at one time.

Thanks for the quick review.

[stevew]

Update - the Bluetooth pairing issue was a result of 2 of my devices having reached the paired device storage limit. I cleared them out and it now pairs successfully.

2nd, after reactivating the device on the BES, I am no longer to use the search function under the options tab, but this I feel is due to data corruption only, which I will clean and fix.

3rd, the word substitution module only backs up 6 entries via a wired backup, something I'd seen in a few releases of OS6 on my 9780, until it was corrected in a later release.

4th, after a reload of the latest OS posted here, with no data no the device, I am left with only 254 MB of free space, much less than my 9780...so this new OS is somewhat more of a memory hog than OS6 on my 9780.

[Akito]

have you noticed the lack of alerts compared to your older devices? Still trying to get the old ones somehow on my new 9900.

[Shaolin]

Can you be more specific about the battery life? I'm thinking of going back to a Blackberry and am pretty excited about the 9900.

[DaveTheA]

Originally Posted by Dubdub

OS 7 was called OS 6.1 at one time.

I believe the reason for the name change is not that it's a whole lot different from OS6 but rather that OS7 can't be run on earlier devices [like the 9700 etc]. This can reasonably justify a major upgrade, IMO, tho' I can understand views to the contrary...

[Howard S.]

Steve, thanks for your updates. I have no idea when it will come available from AT&T, so reading about it is as good as it going to get right now.

[stevew]

Update: above I stated that I thought it was data/profile corruption that was giving me issues with the search window in the "Options" screen, but it's not. I deleted my BES account and started with a new one. As soon as I activate the unit on our BES, I lose the search function in the "Options" screen. When I type, I get "Search Results (0)" with an empty list below. Battery life has improved dramatically however. I love this device. Best BB yet!

[2dfx]

Originally Posted by stevew

4th, after a reload of the latest OS posted here, with no data no the device, I am left with only 254 MB of free space, much less than my 9780...so this new OS is somewhat more of a memory hog than OS6 on my 9780.

Aww muffin, 254 megs...WHAT EVER WILL YOU DO?

Seriously, this is a complaint? Did you ever use all of those precious megabytes on your 9780?

I will gladly trade the speed, look and feel, and better browsing experience over the 9780 anyday. And know that I will have PLENTY of space for the apps I need.
Posted via BlackBerryForums.com Mobile

[stevew]

254 MB, if you're lucky. Got a new BB today on .261...out of the box, 224 MB. Not the point. It is a complaint and do you know why? Because with every new generation of hardware and OS, like a PC, you need more memory, because the OS hogs more and more each time a new OS happens...

RIM should have increased the available app memory, instead of putting a 6.2GB (referred to as 8GB) internal chip. Who needs onboard RAM? What, so I can install things in it only to lose it to device failure down the road?

That was just plain stupid...

[the-economist]

Originally Posted by stevew

Who needs onboard RAM?

Marketing reasons among other things. When the competition (call me Apple Inc) releases a new handset every year on the dot with the smallest of the models being a 8G device and in the case of iphone4 16 you can't possibly release your flagship handset with some mere 250MB on the spec sheet.

Play lame and visit a couple stores. Ask them how much memory the 9900 comes with. I bet you a boxed Bold that all of them would say 8GB and less than half of them would clarify that this storage memory cannot be used for apps.

[Jagga]

Originally Posted by stevew

254 MB, if you're lucky. Got a new BB today on .261...out of the box, 224 MB. Not the point. It is a complaint and do you know why? Because with every new generation of hardware and OS, like a PC, you need more memory, because the OS hogs more and more each time a new OS happens...

RIM should have increased the available app memory, instead of putting a 6.2GB (referred to as 8GB) internal chip. Who needs onboard RAM? What, so I can install things in it only to lose it to device failure down the road?

That was just plain stupid...

Dude EVERY one of us smartphone/PC device users NEED more RAM - it runs the OS and most likely the apps. That 6.2GB (referred to as 8GB) is storage - storage you're complaining about.

I'll agree 1GB RAM with current carrier builds should've been the standard. We're using more apps daily than the average iOS/Android user does and RIM should take notice. Either give us more RAM, build 1 firmware with radio stacks for (H+/3G/EDGE/GPRS/GSM/CDMA/EVDO and LTE upcoming) that work with ALL carriers - better algorithms, or allow apps to be downloaded, installed and run from storage cards (internal or external) - save the RAM for the main JVM and processes.

[stevew]

Whatever - you obviously got my point. If I was mistaken in term, I'll be clear. We didn't need more memory on-board for storage...we need more available application memory - and FWIW, both are actually RAM...just partitioned or segregated for different applications.

[the-economist]

Originally Posted by stevew

- and FWIW, both are actually RAM...just partitioned or segregated for different applications.

If you want to be pedantic about it at least get it right. It's NVRAM. RAM is volatile, you lose everything in the first batt pull.

[stevew]

Wow...yet another world re-known professor without the facts...don't you all have anything to do besides attempting to correct other's posts? I guess you have too much free time on your hands.

What...did you just Google the term "RAM" just so you could post up here and troll?

By the way, you should read more before you post your version of a correction. RAM is NOT always volatile. Google that and maybe you'll learn something useful. Then, Google the word "troll".

You might also want to look up "pedantic" before you use that term in the future.

I guess a few too many Starbuxx'll do that to you...

[NJBlackBerry]

re-known?

[Dubdub]

WoW

[the-economist]

Originally Posted by stevew

Wow...yet another world re-known professor without the facts...don't you all have anything to do besides attempting to correct other's posts? I guess you have too much free time on your hands.

What...did you just Google the term "RAM" just so you could post up here and troll?

By the way, you should read more before you post your version of a correction. RAM is NOT always volatile. Google that and maybe you'll learn something useful. Then, Google the word "troll".

You might also want to look up "pedantic" before you use that term in the future.

I guess a few too many Starbuxx'll do that to you...

You're using a technical support forum. If you disagree with someone address the technical details related. Your ad-hominem attacks don't serve any purpose other than demonstrating the obvious. Have a nice day.

[ZombieBerry]

renowned? Maybe?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by the-economist

You're using a technical support forum. If you disagree with someone address the technical details related. Your ad-hominem attacks don't serve any purpose other than demonstrating the obvious. Have a nice day.

What's obvious is that I'm dealing with a troll, who's possibly somewhat technically inclined. What I'd really like to say to you just won't fly here...but I'm sure you get the point. I'll simply refer to you as our "friendly neighborhood troll". Am I grammatically correct, or did I write and/or spell something not living up to your satisfaction?