WM5 is here to stay! - WM5 Tips... - Page 3

maflynn · 11-09-05, 02:54 PM

I too want to move forward, so I updated my X50 with WM2003,

The Downgrade WM5 was wasting my time. I want to move forward but that dog of an OS was preventing me from doing that. Unstable, sluggish and buggy. Just because its new doesn't mean its an improvement. A02 may be better but as people already mentioned the jury is out as to whether it will be offered to people who've upgraded.

I spent the better part of a day trying to get it to work, then I came in the following day and it wouldn't even sync, two days down the drain.

While I'm sure the tweaks and updates you provided help, clearly the OS is not ready for primetime and I'm not willing to beta test for Dell/MS.

For me the X50 is a tool not a toy and I have little time (or patience) to play with the settings trying to get it work, when clealy it should have worked from the start.

I'm happy you have your's configured nicely and the stuff you posted will certainly help others, but one this is for sure the OS (or just the upgrade - not sure) should not have been released just based upon the level and volume of people complaining.

Mike

11-09-05, 04:01 PM

Let me repeat what I just said in another thread before it's too late...

------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Munk

I've been goofing around with registry values in WM5 now that I have upgraded. I could be completely crazy, but it seems that hickups that I was having are now gone after I made these changes. Anyone else who has upgraded want to try these changes out and see if things are any better?

You're going to need a registry editor. Here is a link to a free editor PHM Registry Editor.

Here are the locations and the values that I set:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\StorageManager\FATFS\Cac heSize=0x1FA0(8096)

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\StorageManager\FATFS\Ena bleCache=0x1(1)

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\StorageManager\Filters\f sreplxfilt\ReplStoreCacheSize=0x1FA0(8096)

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\StorageManager\Profiles\ MSFlash\FATFS\Filters\DataCacheSize=0x1FA0(8096)

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\StorageManager\Profiles\ MSFlash\FATFS\Flags=0x28(40)

Please post what you find. :approve:

Have you ran any benchmark before and after this tests to see if they really work?

For example...
By default the EnableCache key under

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\StorageManager\FATFS

It's 1 which means that it's enabled. And by default under the same key the CacheSize is 0 which means use a variable cache size. So, I wonder how this change will help :rolling:

The optimal cachesize can be calculated using the formula posted here

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...esmbserver.asp

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...rySettings.asp

As you can see, it depends of the size of the card that you are using.

Please, let's do a little bit of research before we start to change registry keys values ;)

SolSie · 11-09-05, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by ctitanic

Let me repeat what I just said in another thread before it's too late...

------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you ran any benchmark before and after this tests to see if they really work?

For example...
By default the EnableCache key under

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\StorageManager\FATFS

It's 1 which means that it's enabled. And by default under the same key the CacheSize is 0 which means use a variable cache size. So, I wonder how this change will help :rolling:

The optimal cachesize can be calculated using the formula posted here

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...esmbserver.asp

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...rySettings.asp

As you can see, it depends of the size of the card that you are using.

Please, let's do a little bit of research before we start to change registry keys values ;)

Citanic, Lot of users report positive results (Just by the feel not by benchmarking) with these changes, including myself. But we certainly appreciate your expertises. Please visit here again and share your findings.
Tweats2K2 rocks! :approve:

11-09-05, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by SolSie

Citanic, Lot of users report positive results (Just by the feel not by benchmarking) with these changes, including myself. But we certainly appreciate your expertises. Please visit here again and share your findings.
Tweats2K2 rocks! :approve:

Did you really read my post?

Let me repeat again what I just said in another thread ;)

================================================== ===============

Originally Posted by jhennig

does anyone know whether or not it is worth my while to make these changes on my X51v?

If you want to know my honest opinion... I do not think so, I just posted the information that I have on one of those keys and as you can see/read there, that change wont help in anything.

Those changes with cache could speed up your device or make it slower. In either way, you can check them by doing some easy to do tests/benchmark. The words "it seems to me" is not enough evidence.

May be this is not what many want to hear but come on guys... the registry is not a place to go and play around.

11-09-05, 04:24 PM

BTW, I have not read any "report of positive results". Numbers... where are the numbers ;)

To change a CacheSize from an Automatic size, that is the way that it's supposed to be due to the fact that the SD/CF card size are variable to a fix number does not show me any "Scientific" evidence of "positive results". Come on guys... I repeat this again... The registry is to be treated with respect, it's not a place to go and play there changing numbers around. ;)

I know that this is not what you guys want to hear, specially from me, but... I'm here not to lie but to help if anything I can.

SolSie · 11-09-05, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by ctitanic

BTW, I have not read any "report of positive results". Numbers... where are the numbers ;)

To change a CacheSize from an Automatic size, that is the way that it's supposed to be due to the fact that the SD/CF card size are variable to a fix number does not show me any "Scientific" evidence of "positive results". Come on guys... I repeat this again... The registry is to be treated with respect, it's not a place to go and play there changing numbers around. ;)

I know that this is not what you guys want to hear, specially from me, but... I'm here not to lie but to help if anything I can.

Citanic,

We are just bunch of enthousiast users here, we are not developers who know how to perform scientific benchmarks..only thing we know is when the device is sluggish to be useful and when the response time is acceptable to us...Perception is pretty much how we go by.
Sorry for my ignorance!

xgrunt · 11-09-05, 05:25 PM

My upgrade went smoothly. Having a few problems here and there but still working them. The biggest, that I know of, is that ActiveSync turns itself on while I am using the Axim. It is not in it's cradle nor syncing with a cable. Any suggestions as to why this is happening?

Thanks in advance!
Bob

dennisma · 11-09-05, 05:48 PM

Hey deleted, I am a developer with a MSDN Universal subscription. I get betas from Microsoft long before you probably ever see them. Please spare me the banter about how bleeding edge you are, ok? Just stop it.

Originally Posted by deleted

to the punchcard guy- i bet the neanderthals were in the same boat you're in now, guess how that turned out? haha

10thelement · 11-09-05, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by xgrunt

My upgrade went smoothly. Having a few problems here and there but still working them. The biggest, that I know of, is that ActiveSync turns itself on while I am using the Axim. It is not in it's cradle nor syncing with a cable. Any suggestions as to why this is happening?

Thanks in advance!
Bob

I was having the same problem and found it was draining my battery overnight if uncradled.

http://www.aximsite.com/boards/showthread.php?t=104392

this worked for me

**Rishad** · 11-09-05, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by deleted

the only problem i have after it was done is with MS reader, that isnt updated yet, the left and right arrows are numbers instead of arrows..

OOOOH NOOOE'S!!!!! whatever shall I do?

move the font "bkdings.ttf" from MS Reader folder to windows/fonts folder.. that should solve the problem. :)

SolSie.. thanks for the post.. really useful info for ppl who are on WM5.. hope you maintain this by updating with the latest info/tricks.

11-09-05, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by SolSie

BTW Tweak2k2 (www.tweaks2k2.com) just released the 3.15 version, whichs allows you to customize the 2 soft-buttons to your liking.

hey solsie, the latest is 3.13 @ tweaks2k2.com. can u change that? well, unless 3.15 is hidden somewhere that i can't find

11-09-05, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by SolSie

Citanic,

We are just bunch of enthousiast users here, we are not developers who know how to perform scientific benchmarks..only thing we know is when the device is sluggish to be useful and when the response time is acceptable to us...Perception is pretty much how we go by.
Sorry for my ignorance!

I understand that, this is why I have posted some clarifications about these registry keys. So far I do not believe that these Cache keys are going to do any good. They wont damage your device but they just wont work.

speedmax · 11-09-05, 06:22 PM

ActiveSync 4.0 turns on automatically FIX

Please include the Battery Drain/Device keep turning on Fix for those who don't know, i wonder what will turn me on now :love:

---------:approve: :approve: :approve: ----------
Go to activeSync
1 .[In ActiveSync Menu]Add server source(Type space or anything in the server address)
2 .then go next next nest
3. [In ActiveSync Menu]Schedule - change both peak/off peak value to "Manually"

smirks · 11-09-05, 06:24 PM

After a long upgrade and tweaking period, I'm going to rollback to WM2003SE. Bottom line, my navteq GPS doesn't work with WM2005 and I don't want to be down for the 3 weeks it'll take for me to order it and take delivery. I'm pretty pissed about this but what ya gonna do!!!

Originally Posted by jdog_12345

I'm going back to WM2003. I don't think the few small benefits make up for the absolute headache. If my device crashes on WM2003 I always have a back-up instead of soft resetting this crap hole WM2005 every 5 minutes. I finally got a full sync in after dinking with it for 3 days. I also don't like regressing but enough is enough!

speedmax · 11-09-05, 06:35 PM

ctitanic

One thing need to point out.

Larger Cache ( predefined )
------------------
1. Less overhead - less than determine cache size dynamically (static memory allocation, vs dynamic
2. Frequent access program/data will stay in cache
3. Higher interactive responsiveness, (High cache hit rate of frequent access data, instead of populate the cache again)
4. Optimal value is critical - Similar idea to Window Xp page file optimization/ or General caching, sometime predefined value out perform the system default in terms of performance. same could goes for WM5.

However.
um... somehow....
------------------------------
Result in benchmark
may not be possitive, since interactive responsiveness and benchmarking is completely different story.

High Memory Useage - i am counting 24Mb of memory goes to cache. where is my program going to execute. well we need to determine which one of the cache is critical which one does hardly anything.. set them into more reasonable value