Welcome to MSDN Blogs Sign in | Join | Help

Windows Mobile Team Blog

The Official Windows Mobile Team Blog
Why Persistent Storage Is A Good Thing

Here's a quick primer on why you want Persistent Storage on your Pocket PCs.

Persistent Storage (PS) on PocketPC is new for Windows Mobile 5.0.  (All Smartphones since the original 2002 release have had PS.)

Previously, your user data (email, contacts, calendar, settings, apps you installed, etc) were stored in RAM.  RAM has the advantage of being really fast, but the significant disadvantage of needing a constant source of power for it to hold its data.  Leave your device unplugged for long enough, and you'll lose all your data.  Fixing that was the primary reason for moving PocketPCs to Persistent Storage. 

PS gives you a nice sense of certainty about your data.  Batteries running low?  No problem.  Worst case, the device shuts off and you can't use it again until you get to a power supply.  But when you get there, it'll boot back up and all your data will still be there.

But PS has a number of other effects that might not be quite so obvious.

Would you believe that moving to PS can double your battery life and enable devices with significantly more storage than were previously possible?

Here's why.  Remember that RAM requires power to keep its data.  The amount of power needed is linear with the amount of RAM.  That is to say, 64M of RAM needs twice as much power to keep it running as 32M does.  128M needs four times as much power as 32, etc.  And this power drain is constant.  The RAM is sucking your batteries dry while the device is in use and while it's suspended. It even continues to drain your batteries when they are "critically low" and the system won't let you turn it on.  Also, people didn't buy 128M RAM devices for the program space.  They bought them to store stuff in.  And those devices had lousy battery lives as a result.

Flash ROM, on the other hand, burns pretty much the same amount of power regardless of how much you have.  A 32M flash part burns about the same amount of power as a 128M flash part does.  And a 1G flash part is pretty much the same as well.  So, by moving to a system where I store my stuff in flash, not RAM, I can put more storage in without requiring a bigger battery to compensate.

But wait, there's more.  Pre-Persistent Storage, Windows Mobile had what we called "the 72 hour rule."  If you've ever seen a PocketPC run low on batteries, at some point it pops up a dialog that says something like, "You're running out of power, you should stop now."  If you keep using it, it'll come back a little later with a more dire warning saying something to the effect of, "You'd better save your data now, because you're on the verge of losing it."  Then, a bit after that it comes on and says, "That's it, I'm shutting you down."  At that point, you can't use the device again until you plug it in.  How much battery charge do you think you have then?  5% maybe? 

Try half.

Yes, when we shut you down because your batteries were "critically low," they were still 1/4 to 1/2 full.  Why?  Because, if the batteries ever fully died, it would be catastrophic.  You'd lose your data, and that's, in our opinion, one of the worst things that can happen.  So we made a requirement and held our OEMs to it.  The requirement was that, at the point where we decided the batteries were "critically low," they had to still have enough power to keep the RAM charged for 72 hours.  The idea there was that you could discover that you were out of power on Friday on the way home and you'd still have your data on Monday when you got back to your charger.

A typical battery holds 1000mAh of charge.  128M of RAM takes about 500mAh to stay resident for 72 hours.  64M takes about 250.  This is why you never saw a 256M WM 2003 device.  It would have run for a minute then decided its batteries were critically low.

This is why switching to Persistent Storage can radically improve your battery life.  With PS, we removed the 72 hour requirement.  We'll let you run your batteries completely dry, because we know your data will still be safe.  Right off the bat, that buys you a significant chuck of time.  It also means that no one ever has to make a 128M RAM device again.  They can fall back to 64M devices, which burn less power, and store the user data in tons and tons of flash.  You'll definitely see 128M flash devices.  And there's no barrier to keeping you from seeing 256M, 1G, etc devices.  That couldn't have been done with RAM.

Downsides?  Yes, nothing is free.  Flash is much slower than RAM.  Reading and writing large amounts of data will take longer on a PS device than it did on a RAM device.  That initial sync that pulls down 400 contacts and 5000 emails will take longer.  Some write operations will seem a bit more sluggish.  But I believe you'll find that the upsides significantly outweigh the downsides. 

Mike Calligaro

Posted: Thursday, July 14, 2005 3:15 PM by windowsmobile
Filed under:

Comments

John Walker said:

Mike,

Excellent post. I never realized the implications of RAM storage regarding battery life. Looking forward to the next gen of devices. My SMT5600 has been awesome.

How much slower for write operations with PS? Are we talking double the time to write, or something more like 10% slower?
# July 15, 2005 12:32 AM

steven said:

i just bought the samsung i730 - the battery life is HORRIBLE on it. It sounds like a switch to WM05 will have a huge impact. It also appears that the device was designed for WM05 - so how can we force Verizon/Samsung to release an upgrade to WM05?
# July 15, 2005 7:28 AM

garyhu said:

PS is a good idea, but how about the risk of flash damage? For end-user, it might increase the probability of repair by writable flash insteading of read-only flash.

I don't understand why the WM2005 will writeback a lot of data when booting, but it gives me vexation undoubtedly.
# July 15, 2005 8:03 AM

RPF said:

So for those of us who have our own PPCs instead of work ones and it gets put in the cradle every night, WM5 would appear to be a net loss in this regard.

-I can't remember when I last had battery problems
-Flash is A LOT slower than RAM.

Also I think you're overselling the point somewhat on flash capacity. Persistant Storage in no way allows for 1GB Flash - OEMs could still do that anyway - they just haven't. Also out of interest, my old iPAQ 2210 allowed me to change that 72 hours down to 12, in 12hr increments.

I just hope the speed effect of putting all your data into flash isn't too devestating.
# July 15, 2005 9:28 AM

JMG said:

What I would prefer is a more intelligent degradation of low battery life scenarios, much like laptops have. The low batteyr warning is not configurable...it should not start warning me at 50% especially if there is backup battery life at that level. (Worst case would be a registry hack for those of us confortable with that, best case would be a full panel of options as part of the power applet.

You could also go a long way to helping that panel out by explaining this as part of the documentation under help for power settings. Should it not be the power user's call on how low they want to take their device?

(Which also goes to Voice Command...the only way to avoid the incessant verbal warnings for low battery are to kill the volume...)
# July 15, 2005 1:09 PM

Cliff said:

That is really awesome. I can't wait until Windows Mobile 5.0 is released.

Do you know if devices which receive the Windows Mobile 5.0 upgrade will now let us drain the full battery or will it just be new devices?
# July 15, 2005 1:36 PM

windowsmobile said:

(Responding to a bunch of comments at once.)

John note that your SMT5600 is a Smartphone, so it's already using Persistent Storage. PS is new for Pocket PC, but has been in use for a number of years on Smartphone. The same answer applies to Gary's question too. Modern flash parts can be written hundreds of thousands of times, and we haven't been seeing trouble with this over the last years on smartphone. And RPF as well. We're comfortable with the speeds we've been seeing on Smartphone and feel the tradeoff is worth it. As for the raw read and write speeds of flash vs RAM, the differences are significant. But it should be rare that the diffrences are human perceptible.

To your other point, RPF, yes an OEM could have put 1G of flash into a WM 2003 device. But they couldn't have used that space to store your contacts and email in it. So it wouldn't have been as effective as PS. If you were saying that they could have put 1G of RAM in, I disagree. Doing so would have required a battery 10 times as large as you see now.

JMG, some of the IPAQ devices have a control panel to let you do what you're describing.

Steven, regarding upgrades. Don't underestimate the power you wield as a customer. If you'd like Verizon to provide an upgrade, tell them. If they hear that message from their customers, they'll probably work with Samsung to provide it. (Note that I don't speak for either Verizon or Samsung.)

Mike
# July 15, 2005 2:17 PM

Nino.Mobile said:

Happy Happy Joy Joy – I had the distinct pleasure of having VS2005 go south on me yesterday.  At...
# July 15, 2005 2:56 PM

joedoe said:

But guys who upgraded their JAM PPC RAM from 64Mb to 128Mb have not reported any noticeable decrease in battery life. How you can explain that?
# July 15, 2005 6:07 PM

Jelp said:

Quote: "haven't been seeing trouble with this over the last years on smartphone."
Smartphones are hardly a power user device. PPCs ARE power users devices for some.

Quote: "As for the raw read and write speeds of flash vs RAM, the differences are significant. But it should be rare that the diffrences are human perceptible."

I beg to differ significantly: I heard that Tweaks2k2 was able to move some large dlls from programs; that's sorely needed on 64MB RAM only devices in power users' hands. But program lags were so important that I quickly reverted the process and uninstalled Tweak2k2!!

According to some reports (PDAgold or Mobile-Review don't remember which) ROM is about 10 TIMES slower than RAM !!!!!

More than enough for everybody to notice obvious slowdowns!!!

But these are only one aspect of many WM5 bugness nature :-(
# July 15, 2005 6:39 PM

Rob said:

So, how do I disable the 72hr rule on my WM 2003 SE device? I would like to have better battery life now please. Sprite backup will get me back up and running if I kill my data.
# July 16, 2005 1:41 AM

AacidusX said:

to the person that spoke about their samsung 1730 having "horrible" battery life... it is also do to the CDMA technology that verizon wireless uses, CDMA consumes more battery than a GSM device.
# July 16, 2005 7:17 PM

soccrnj80 said:

Again windows mobile playing catch up to palm.
# July 17, 2005 9:29 PM

Sudman1 said:

Why not have both RAM and flash? Have the system run in RAM as it does now, then on suspend, or critically low power, write the contents of memory to flash. Then you would have the speed benefits of the RAM in your running system and the persistence for long time spans without power.
# July 18, 2005 5:51 AM

Rico said:

PocketPCs will have both RAM and flash like you suggest. And yes, I think it will be a good idea to use the RAM as a cache for your contacts on your pocketpc and write back changes directly to flash if they are made. I am not amazed if this is already happening on current PS powered devices, it is just logical enough to do it that way. So with this in mind, I doubt you will ever notice any speed differences anyway or at most a decrease of 10%.
# July 18, 2005 7:51 AM

Konrad said:

When I was using an iPaq 4150 with Pocket Hack Master 2004 (excellent piece of software btw) I noticed that whenever I underclocked my system prior to switching off the ipaq the battery always seemed to last longer. When I say underclock system I mean lowering the bus speed and multipliers - effectively running the cpu at 50mhz.

Perhaps a more intelligent way of using ram and ps, is to use the ram as a temp storage. Or another way as a fast storage whose contents are uploaded (or whose fs transactions are uploaded) to ps when the power goes off, then downloaded when the power comes back on? Or perhaps we just make ps faster :-) Don't SanDisk have 30mb/s UltraIV's now?
# July 18, 2005 9:40 AM

Dan said:

....which moving of data from RAM to PS would have never been feasable (would have meant a decay of performance which most users to buy a 624Mhz processor would have not understood) until the release of much faster ROM. in new devices from HP one can find "High Speed File Store"!
I haven't run any tests to check for improvements in speed, but initial specs show that the new ROM is a lot faster.

So, with this in mind, an upgrade to say h2750 from WM2003SE to Magnito is imperative. happier would be the hx4700 users who have in their devices only 64 MB of RAM which is absolutelly enaugh to run most programs. furthermore, the 64MB consumes less than h2750's 128MB in active use, therefore more battery life!

alas, moving data from RAM to PS everytime the device suspends would take some time (the device would not suspend instantly) and it would make no sense because it would require 2 operations: write&read! whereas, at power on, the device only needs to read the data and reload the application. it's exactly the same operation as reading cached RAM from PS. so why bother?? Devices with Magnito installed would STILL have RAM, but in lower amounts and not under electrical charge while suspended. it would only consume power when in operation, aka device on.
# July 18, 2005 9:50 AM

Dan said:

"Or perhaps we just make ps faster :-) Don't SanDisk have 30mb/s UltraIV's now?"

PS speed is not fully altered by the quality of the ROM, but by the system too. it's exactly as a PC which runs RAM at only 133Mhz even if one installs 400Mhz RAM! The 133x SD from Kingston i saw released is very fast indeed. but that speed can only be taken advantage of at this point by one single professional still camera and USB 2.0 card readers.
I believe that faster PS by say 133x factor would mean higher bus speeds and more demanding hardware in a PPC. alas, less battery life..etc
# July 18, 2005 10:02 AM

Gleb Dolgich said:

Congratulations, finally you are about to implement a feature Apple Newton had since 1993. So much for innovation...
# July 18, 2005 11:04 AM

Luis said:

Wow, really? ... really?.. That's amazing.. really?

It's 2005 and we *just* figured that out.. Wow.. Hurray! Great job!

You are now an Embedded programmer, welcome to the 1970's.

# July 18, 2005 12:20 PM

Dan said:

guys, guys! PS might go back in early '90s, yes. i've been a keen Palm and i've gone through Symbian until i reached Pocket PC. I'm not a fan of Microsoft either. But let's all face the fact that the massive resources Windows Mobile applications require would have rendered a Permanent Storage kind of technology too sluggish to send devices to the market. The PS system is somehow implemented in the new PalmOne Lifedrive which in my oppinion, instead of making use and improve the edge Palm had up until now, goes back to the problems PPC is now getting rid of.
yes, yes, why did they not think of it until now?? pointless questions, please excuse my determination, as so many of you had plenty of good things to say about your PPC's. I now use an Ipaq h6340 which will not make use of PS as there's no Magnito release on the way for it. I'll have to reinvest in technology, alas go for a hx4700. does that put a smile on my face? no! definitely not.
when improvement is being made, i do say "it was about time".
# July 18, 2005 1:56 PM

Cornerstone said:

>the massive resources Windows Mobile applications require would have rendered a Permanent Storage kind of technology too sluggish

You got to be kidding me.
You know that Windows PPC2003 only requires 7 MBs of program memory as a minimum, right? Yes, PalmOS 5 only requires about 4, however, everything is relative in this world. Linux with Qtopia/Opie requires 11 MBs and OpenZaurus with GPE (which is based on X11 and GTK) requires... 33 MBs of RAM. So yeah, everything is relative when you say "massive resources".
# July 18, 2005 2:36 PM

Windows Mobile Team Blog said:

There have been a lot of comments to my "Why Persistent Storage Is A Good Thing" entry, as well as a...
# July 18, 2005 4:20 PM

Windows Mobile Team Blog said:

A continuation of my "More Persistent Storage Stuff" entry, which is a follow up to "Why Persistent Storage...
# July 18, 2005 6:08 PM

Dan said:

Cornerstone, indeed. try, for instance and load Skpe from an SD. it's not about the amount of memory one given program needs, but about the time it needs to load its resources from ROM to RAM. which is relatively long.
# July 19, 2005 11:26 AM

Windows Mobile Team Blog said:

A continuation of my "More Persistent Storage Stuff" entry, which is a follow up to "Why Persistent Storage...
# July 19, 2005 4:12 PM

MobileRead said:

With Windows Mobile 2005 coming to our cell phones and PDAs soon, you may want to become accustomed to the idea of "persistent storage", which means that in future all of your personal data, user-installed applications, and updates are stored in...
# July 19, 2005 4:30 PM

Fra said:

Well, during a Dell event i could test a version of their new axim with WM 5.0,,,,i found it incredibly slow...i asked the person who gave it to me and he said it was a non stable version....strange....right now i fear it was a stable version but with PS on....
# July 21, 2005 2:34 AM

FooBar said:

Why PS is a bad thing:
1. Sluggish performance: slow flash brings PPC performance back to about year 2000 and introduces 2-20 seconds delays for flash updates. That may be rectified by new hardware, but do not expect good performance on existing devices.
2. Reduces memory capacity: instead of having 64M RAM plus 64MB flash storage, now you have 64MB of “NV RAM”.
3.Reduces device live span – flash can only be updated so many times, then it will fail.

How it should’ve been done:
Storage and RAM should be separated. Flash should be used as storage to store files, RAM should be used as program memory only. That would not preserve running programs state if battery runs out like PS would, but we’re used to it on desktop. All settings and data would be safe which is the point.
# July 31, 2005 2:36 PM

Windows Mobile for Partners said:

This is a question I've found myself answering several times over the years - why dosn;t a Pocket PC...
# August 4, 2005 10:40 AM

Luca said:

I'd like to know :

- When is Microsoft going to enable Virtual Memory (swapfile for virtual memory management) on SD, CF memory cards ? Why hasn't yet been implemented on WinCE ? So that current devices with 64MB SDRAM or 128MB SDRAM could actually run larger programs. Recently announced Microsoft Automotive 5.0 based on the same WinCE 5.0 is going to have virtual memory enabled up to 96MB .. why is this going to be disabled in WinCE 5.0 for standard PDAs ?

- Couldn't you use some buffer caching on RAM to improve read/write operations on FlashROM that is going to be used as Persistent Storage ? Is WM2003SE currently performing any buffer caching on storage cards ?

I am going to buy an IPAQ HX2750 because I don't want to wait Q2 '06 and such to see new WM2005 PDAs with more RAM and because I need TomTom5 in my car. As soon as HP releases the WM2005/WinCE5.0 upgrade for the unit I should be getting full 128MB SDRAM available to run programs but how much is it going to be used on the 128MB Flash ROM by the new OS ? I hope no new restrictions have been put on installing programs/drivers on CF/SD cards.
# August 6, 2005 8:57 AM

Luca said:

Foobar: Maybe you didn't understand what Persistent Storage is about because you just described how it works (thinking that it's not going to do that) ...
# August 6, 2005 9:03 AM

windowsmobile said:

Luca, I've really got to do a blog entry on the trials and tribulations of virtual memory. The description is too long to get into here, but the issue with VM on CE isn't about a page file. It doesn't work that way. I'll try to do a full description in a future entry. That's going to be a contentious one...

Regarding buffer caching using RAM, yes, we do that.

Mike Calligaro
# August 8, 2005 12:43 PM

Pedro-G said:

"It also means that no one ever has to make a 128M RAM device again."

Ever? Just like "no one will ever need more than 640kB of memory on a PC" ?

"Ever" refers to a longer time than three or five years.
# August 9, 2005 8:25 AM

windowsmobile said:

Pedro, we didn't do anything to stop OEMs from putting more than 64M in their devices. If there comes a time when it makes sense to have more RAM, they'll be able to do it.

Mike Calligaro

# August 10, 2005 5:25 PM

Derald Grimwood said:

I too thought Persistant Storage was cool until my IPAQ File Store became corrupted on my h5555. IPAQ backup underestimated the space I needed for a backup then maxed out the storage and corrupted the file sysstem in the file store. I can't delete the files, and I can't format the File Store. There is no format utility provided by IPAQ nor can I seem to find one on the internet.

I found that some of the newer IPAQs include a format utility. Any suggestions?

Oh, an aside. I wish Microsoft would enforce a policy with its vendors to provide a minimum of two OS life cycles for a device. I bought my h5555 this year with WM2003 and found that no upgrade was to be made available for SE or WM05. Not nice for a device that costs more than some desktops.
# August 17, 2005 3:24 AM

Windows Mobile Team Blog said:

I had a request that I do an entry on the differences between RAM, ROM, NAND, and NOR.  Because...
# August 19, 2005 3:29 PM

Windows Mobile for Partners said:

Mike Calligaro wrote a great blog entry on Persitent Store recently and why it's so cool. His latest...
# August 20, 2005 2:53 PM

Jason Langridge's WebLog - MR Mobile! said:

There are a huge number of benefits that Windows Mobile 5.0 brings to customers, partners, operators...
# August 22, 2005 3:24 PM

Jason Langridge's WebLog - MR Mobile! said:

There are a huge number of benefits that Windows Mobile 5.0 brings to customers, partners, operators...
# August 23, 2005 9:18 AM

Jason Langridge's WebLog - MR Mobile! said:

There are a huge number of benefits that Windows Mobile 5.0 brings to customers, partners, operators...
# August 23, 2005 9:20 AM

Ryan said:

I have never seen my battery go less than 50%. I charge it every night as well... so why would I want to make my system slower for extra battery life that I'll never really need. It would be nice to be able to select how your PDA stores information, but I'm not even sure thats physically possible (I don't know too much about how they work inside).

I have two questions.

How much slower?
Can I revert back to WM2003 if I don't like it?
# September 7, 2005 3:08 AM

windowsmobile said:

Ryan, it's always a challenge developing software for large groups of people. For every one of you who charges every night, there are ten who don't like needing to bring chargers on the road with them, and twenty who lost their data and rightfully complained that we weren't reliable enough.

When choosing which features to implement, we need to find the right balance between all of you. And I think we did here.

To answer your "how much slower" please see the two "More Persistent Storage" entries.

Regarding reverting back to WM2003, that will be up to the OEM. If you have a device that the OEM chooses to upgrade, then you should check before upgrading whether or not they'll have a mechanism for reverting. If you buy a new device that comes with WM5 on it, there definitely will not be a way to downgrade.

Mike Calligaro
# September 7, 2005 12:20 PM

Hands said:

What about Ram... Ijust bought an I-mate Jasjar, 64MB of memory, with WM 5 and all the pre installed applications, it remains 22/23 MB, with all the application closed, when I installed few sw, on the ram, and the rest in the SD card, I checked, and I had left 3 MB, WM 5, if you close an application, still rember it, so the memory keep reserved for that, at the end of the day, or you have minimum 128MB of ram, or you won't be able to do nothing at all with persistent storage, not even take a picture with the built in camera!!!!!!!!
# October 7, 2005 10:04 AM

hrb said:

Have a question which is only marginaly related to PS. With WM2K3se, it was possible to determine/change the ration between Storage Memory and Program Memory. With WM5, this is not possible anymore. In my case (JASJAR), I installed ALL Programs on the SD Card. Now I am left with approx. 23 megs of Program Memory and 33 megs of Storage Memory. Is there any way to change this hardcoded split ? e.g. assign much more megs to Program Memory ?
Cheers
hrb
# October 19, 2005 8:02 AM

windowsmobile said:

Hrb, no you can't change it anymore. The reason you could in the past was that both the storage and the program memory were in RAM. So the slider was just partitioning the RAM between those two places. Now they are in different physical media. Storage is in Flash ROM and Program Memory is in RAM. There's no good way to use ROM as RAM, so there's no longer a way to change the partitioning on the fly.

Mike Calligaro
# October 19, 2005 11:57 AM

Quantum Flux said:

Wow! I love the exaggerations on postbacks like this.

The Newton did SOME persistence storage work and was not good at it at all. Its always funny to see people endlessly attribute more and more innovation to the Newton. Did any of you even use the thing? I did. Sony Magic Link as well. ALL of the "proto PDAs". And Ill tell you what; that era was NOT as great as you seem to think (or your memory is clouded over by MS hatred and Apple fanaticism). The Newton was NEITHER a complete persistent store device, NOR a good one. There are endless engineering discussions on this.

And the Palm? Please. I've had more catastrophic losses of data thanks to Palm OS than any other computing device. Palm OS 5 actually increased the possible size of the dynamic heap to give developers some freedom to get better performance since the persistent heap access APIs are too slow.

You cant dumb down a complex discussion by saying "big deal! Palm and Newton have had PS since 1910!" The Pocket PC has had PS for a long while now also. It was handled as Program Storage. The change in WM5 is that core system databases (contacts, calendar, mail) have migrated to flash. Thats the real difference and its too subtle for the zealots of other platforms to really attack intelligently unless they have experience with both platforms.

As for the person with the "friend who upgraded his Jam to 128MB and saw no battery life decrease", you are arguing against basic logic.

Are you trying to argue that powering double the amount of RAM DOESNT drain the battery more? Just use common sense. It's MORE transistors, MORE electronic components that HAVE to be kept refreshed. Of course its a bigger battery hit! He probably charges his device every night and doesnt notice.

A little common sense, some clear thinking, a little less bias and a little use of a search engine would make these discussions less like root canal.
# October 19, 2005 11:57 AM

Marc F. said:

I tried to read as many of the comments as I could and I have a few questions.

1. Why hasn't the standby feature been updated or changed to give a user more options? While some users may want to have the 72 hour reserve, others may want to make it available for longer operating time.

Currently I can only reduce the standby period to 24 hours. There is not an option or method to disable it entirely that I am aware of.

2. What is the realistic possibility to have more advanced power schemes? For example: When battery reaches 50% reduce brightness to (x) When battery reaches 25% reduce brightness to lowest setting that still illuminates the screen.

3. Now that we have persistent storage wouldnt it make sense to include an option similar to laptops - when I press the power button I want to (a) power off the device (b) initiate standby mode

4. Is it the vender's responsibility to implement such features or changes?

Thanks and regards,
Marc
# December 29, 2005 6:28 AM

Marc F. said:

I tried to read as many of the comments as I could and I have a few questions.

1. Why hasn't the standby feature been updated or changed to give a user more options? While some users may want to have the 72 hour reserve, others may want to make it available for longer operating time.

Currently I can only reduce the standby period to 24 hours. There is not an option or method to disable it entirely that I am aware of.

2. What is the realistic possibility to have more advanced power schemes? For example: When battery reaches 50% reduce brightness to (x) When battery reaches 25% reduce brightness to lowest setting that still illuminates the screen.

3. Now that we have persistent storage wouldnt it make sense to include an option similar to laptops - when I press the power button I want to (a) power off the device (b) initiate standby mode

4. Is it the vender's responsibility to implement such features or changes?

Thanks and regards,
Marc
# December 29, 2005 6:30 AM

jlingo said:

I would like to contribute to some of the experiences that I have. I bought Dopod 900 with Windows Mobile 2005, I find that the synchronization took so much slower. It's unbelievable. Synchronizing 5000 contacts used to take me only few minutes with PocketPC 2003 and now it's few hours.
After synchronization complete, my Dopod 900 runs very-very slow which is unacceptable.
When I cut down the contact to less than 1000. The Sluggishness disappeared. I assume that this is due to Persistent Storage. Which is not a good thing IMO. Any workarounds to speed up and keep the contact 5000?
# January 13, 2006 1:07 AM

Zapman62 said:

I am a hardcore Pocket PC fan - I use the Calendar and Contacts functions to run my whole life. Recently I upgraded to a Dell Axim X51v. Cadillac - 624mhz processor, monster memory, persistent storage - it looked like the answer. At first it did seem a little slower to access some things, but not a real problem. I was expecting that from what I read on the Windows Mobile 5 forums and reviews. However, I then changed the ActiveSync setting to sych all Calendar items, instead of the prior 2 weeks it defaults to. I really like having the history available for the last year or 2. Immediately, my Calendar became nearly unusable - where I had been used to instant switching between days, weeks, months, etc., it took 20 seconds to switch - completely unacceptable. Check your calendar for Monday - 20 seconds. Look at Tuesday - another 20 seconds, etc. etc. I called Dell support - did a hard reset, upgraded the ROM to the newest release (A05) but nothing changed. It's not a Dell problem - it's a WM5 problem. Dell allowed me to return the X51v and I just bought a used X50v running Windows Mobile 2003. Keep in mind, I have thousands of items in my Calendar - if you don't use your Calendar like that, WM5 will probably be fine. If they don't fix this down the road and I can't get another old unit running something prior to WM5, I'll probably switch to Palm.
# January 16, 2006 2:19 AM

Ivo said:

I'm using h6340.
How can I format, reset data or do other manipulations with the "iPAQ File Store" storage?
Hard reset not helps.
ReFlashing BIOS not helps too.

Thanks.
ivo2k5@gmail.com
# February 18, 2006 3:17 AM

Windows Mobile Team Blog said:

I've received a few questions from users who have said that their WM5 device seems to slow down and speed...
# March 16, 2006 12:51 PM

Inspector Gadget said:

Yes, WM2005 with it's persistent storage runs like a dog on many 2003 designed pocketPCs such as the iPaq 4700 range.
How a machine with a 600MHz+ processor can run so slowly is astonishing, and this problem appears when the device has been hard-reset, so it's unrelated to any third-party software.

Fortunately HP allow you to downgrade to WM2003, but not until you've bought the WM2005 CD :/

I wonder if the newer native 2005 machines have a different hardware architecture to make them run better with the newer OS? I know that the 200MHz i-Mate starts up and switches callendar modes much better than my 4700, which is very odd. Or perhaps the problem is related to the VGA screen? Is persistent storage related to video usage?

Cheers,
 Gadget
# March 26, 2006 9:29 PM

Pod said:

How do i perform hard reset in dopod 900!
# March 27, 2006 6:59 PM

Frrankosuave said:

I upgraded my x50v to WM2005 last weekend and thankfully found a file on the Dell page that allows me to revert it back to 2003.  Everything was much slower.  Like some individuals above, I like to have tons of stuff in my calendar, past and present, as i sync between home and work, so maybe that had something to do with it.  I definately am not a fan of the WM2005 on this unit.  Outside of being slow, it had some appeal, seemed crisper, but I will not have enough time to fully experience it before I put the old OS back on.
# March 31, 2006 2:22 PM

Ron Cole said:

If we downgrade to WM2003, can we keep the newer versions of Excel, Word and Powerpoint?  Alternatively, is there upgrade to those applications available for WM2003?

(It should be free for those of us who bought WM5...)
# April 14, 2006 4:10 AM

sharpmind said:

Based on the article, is it safe to say that if there are lots of running program on RAM, the battery will run out faster?  Therefore, it is better close off all the programs to save RAM and battery.  The reason why I ask is that I do not close off all the program because it is much faster to start the program if they stay resident in ram.  Please advice.
Thanks in advance
# April 18, 2006 5:00 AM

Justin T Ho - www.justinho.com said:

# April 18, 2006 5:52 AM

MikeCal said:

Sharpmind, no RAM burns the same amount of power whether it's being actively used or not.  So shutting down programs won't make the RAM use less power.  The way to make the RAM use less power is for the OEM to put less of it into the system in the first place.  Persistent Storage allows them to do that.

Now, another source of power drain is the CPU, and it DOES burn more power when it's active than when it's not.  So, if one of the programs you have running is running the CPU a lot, shutting it down can save battery life.  But that's not related to the RAM.

Mike
# April 18, 2006 2:32 PM

lue said:

for me wm 5 it is a nightmare it just much to slow on my hx4700. i wanted a ppc to look up somthing fast if i want to wait i can run my notebook with windows xp. so a big NO
# April 24, 2006 9:00 PM

vespaburuk said:

After upgraded to WM5, it seems that my 4700 is a lot faster. Just remember, never to RESTORE your previous programs using your backup software but REINSTALL it. Try this link: http://www.mobiletopsoft.com/board/view.php?newsid=388
# April 26, 2006 9:31 PM

simpsonweb said:

Can someone please explain to me why I lost all my data (including that on my CF Card) last night simply by switching my iPAQ 4700 on and off. I upgraded to WM5 a couple of days ago. Yes - it is slower and I was prepared to live with that. But how can all my programs and settings and music etc etc just dissapear and I have to start from scratch again. So much for persistant memory.
# May 10, 2006 12:48 AM

dualfuel said:

I have an original I-mate Jam with PPC 2003.  64Mb RAM is not enough on this and I am going to upgrade.  I was going to get the 128Mb RAM Jam, but after reading this I am not sure what to do!  Maybe I should go for a newer I-mate device with WM5 and 64Mb RAM instead?  I am not fussed about battery life too much, but want to run Tomtom 5, traffic plug in, IE for traffic info plus other bits and pieces of software.  I think I may still be better off with the 128Mb RAM JAM as I am not convinced the extra RAM freed up by WM5 will be enough.
# May 11, 2006 1:02 PM

Shawn said:

RAM use syncs very well with the Microsoft philosophy of reboot. PS is a different ball game. While there are significant advantages of using PS (that's why Nokia, Motorola, Samsung use flash memory),  it needs a very mature storage software. With Microsoft's penchant for leaving bugs, it may lead to another PC like experience.

Hope, they design properly and do some testing before release

# May 14, 2006 1:05 AM

jim said:

I don't know if it is the PS or what but WM5 is just too slow. My new hx2490 looks nice but is very frustrating to try to use. It often takes a very long time to start up. I had PocketBreeze on it but removed it as it made the device much too slow - sometime minutes before I could check today's appointments.
# May 15, 2006 10:35 PM

ben said:

The amount of RAM is linear to the power consumption is only correct for the case of the device uses 2 slots for the RAM module.

eg. RAM power consumption;

128MB x 1 < 64MB x 2

64MB x 1 < 32MB x 2

In fact, 32MB x 2 modules might consume more than 128MB x 1 module. Hence, 128MB not necessarily consume more power than 64MB. Please take note.
# May 24, 2006 8:51 AM

MikeCal said:

Yes, if you compare different hardware technologies, all bets are off.  Similarly, 3.3V RAM uses less power than 5V RAM does.  But OEMs don't choose between putting in a little bit of high power RAM or a lot of low power RAM.  They almost always use the lowest power RAM available to them at the time they're designing the device.  And, for any given technology, more RAM burns more power than less RAM.

Mike
# May 24, 2006 12:09 PM

Moses3d said:

Dear Mike,

I quite understand the concept of PS and compaction. But please can someone explain how to use it all inreal life? In the WM5-upgraded devices like my hx4700, the less you install into PS, the less compaction you get. But what should I do with the PS space which is free now because I use an SD card to install apps there in order to minimize compaction? I have 64 free megabytes of PS which I do wish to use, but dare not! Otherwise I will end up with a slow brick. This is not to say "MS doesn't care", not at all. I'm just looking for a sort of guidance here, how to best balance the two extremes - either have a free PS and ALMOST useable PPC with ALMOST no lock-ups, or use the PS concept and store all my data and apps in it, but be frustrated every time I switch the device on...

Thanks.
# June 2, 2006 4:35 PM

Seth said:

I understand the miniSD access is slower than the XV6700's native memory can hold and I would like to, somehow, get the Windows Mobile 5 to route the contacts on to the expansion card.  As slow as it would be, it's nowhere near as slow as the XV6700 gets when the native storage memory is 99.8 used!  How many lines of code would it have taken Microsoft to allow users to route their contacts this way?  20?  How stupid not to give people that flexibility.  
# June 26, 2006 5:05 AM

MikeCal said:

Seth, we've done 6 major releases since 2000, and in every one of them we had to make tough choices on which features we could get done in the time alotted.  Every feature we've done has come at the expense of 5 other features we also wanted to do, but prioritized lower.

It's certainly possible that we made the wrong priority choices and that some contacts feature that we did is less important than externally stored contacts.  We're certainly falible.  However, we generally make our feature lists based on feedback and requirements from our OEMs and Mobile Operators.  So, at least, we don't make our decisions in a vacuum.

The biggest issue with storing contacts on an SD card is that you can remove the card and not have your contacts anymore.  It's further complicated by us syncing them when they're not there.  We'd also need to create some mechanism for saying, "I lost that card that I put the contacts on, start putting them on this new card instead."  If you wanted some contacts to be stored on a storage card and others to be stored in internal flash, it would get even more complicated.  There would need to be some way to migrate contacts back and forth, as well as some way to easilly migrate large numbers of them at a time (imagine if you had to go through a multiple step process per contact for 1000 contacts).  It would get extremely messy if you wanted some contacts on one card, and others on another.  Maybe you don't want that flexibility, but maybe others do.

Every one of these things is a solveable problem.  Each of them is considerably more than 20 lines of code, though.  When we weigh the need vs the cost and compare to other features, we've chosen to do the other features instead.  

There may be some radically better approach to designing software when you don't have enough people to do everything you want to do.  If so, maybe we're stupid for not knowing it.  But we're doing the best that our limited intelligence allows us to.

Mike
# June 26, 2006 1:47 PM

Jason Langridge's WebLog - MR Mobile! said:

One of my colleagues Reed Robison published an internal summary of the great articles that Mike Calligaro...
# July 3, 2006 4:11 AM

Spuds said:

Not always a good thing.  When doing a BIOS update even flash ram is erased, and poof all data is lost.  Further, persistet storage has lulled maufactures to stop including a backup application on many Pocket PC's.  So ironically the BIOS upgrade that I had to do to fix a problem with battery drain send all data to the dumster.   Spuds
# July 7, 2006 1:12 PM

Erich said:

Just ran across this post, and having both a Dell X50v and X51v, I can tell you without a doubt that the MS Mobile team screwed up with this whole PS thing.

Why?  Because in terms of performance, my older 50v wipes the floor with the newer 51v.  The difference?  WM5.  There are HUGE threads on Aximsite devoted just to getting the X51v to perform within an order of magnitude of the older machine.  And, at least for me, there is very little advantage to the new OS other than better built-in apps which I never use anyway (there being vastly superior equivalents made by 3rd parties).

This is progress?

PS -- Please don't insult my intelligence by attempting to blame Dell's implementation.  I'll be happy to drag a lot of other WM5 devices into the argument otherwise :-)
# July 14, 2006 3:19 PM

NS said:

Hi Mike,

I really like your blog... If now data is stored in Persistent Storage (I assume which uses ROM of NOR type) so that it can be recovered after reset. Why do we require RAM at all? What is RAM used for ?
# July 28, 2006 9:19 PM

MikeCal said:

Hi NS.  RAM is used by running programs while they're running.  Programs usually load things out of persistent storage into RAM, do work on them there, and then store them back into the persistent storage.  It's pretty similar to desktop PCs, except that PCs use hard drives instead of NAND/NOR ROM.  

Mike
# July 31, 2006 12:23 PM

David said:

This page is the #1 Google hit for the query:

"Windows Mobile 2005" slow

Mike, you and your team and stuffed up big time with this 'feature'. You should just admit that it was a wrong decision and get working on SP1 ASAP. I'm printing this page out to justify returning my iMate Jamin today.

I had an XphoneII running WM2003 and it was fantastic. It synced ALL my calendar appointsments back to 1996 (thousands of records), all my contacts, etc and is very snappy performance wise.

I 'upgraded' to a Jamin running WM2005 and it is ludicrously slow. If I try and jump around through various days in my calendar it locks up for 10-20 seconds. I sent it in for a repair and they reflashed it and erased all the data on it and told me it runs fine now ... well of course it does because there is no bloody data on it.

You should be ashamed at the lack of scalability testing your team did in this release. It's not like I doing anything unreasonable with my Jamin - just using it the same way I have every other PDA/phone i have ever used.

And don't even get me started on the Tasks application. It locks up BIG TIME and I only have 300 tasks in the tasks folder.

The initial sync took over half an hour to do.

I have since gone back to my WM2003 xphone II and it syncs all of the above in a couple of minutes and is very responsive.

This is a monumental step backwards. YOu need to get rid of this feature or at least allow it to be turned off.

In future - why don't you get one of the devices and put 5000 appts, 5000 tasks, 5000 e-mails in it and ACTUALLY USE IT before releasing it. YOu know ... a really advanced use case like skipping forward day by day for 10 days.

# August 8, 2006 9:14 PM

MikeCal said:

David, I'm sorry that the device isn't meeting your needs.  We do want to be scalable, but, in the end, it will always take ten times as long to write your 5000 contacts as it takes to write my 500.  That'll be true if we're writing into flash, RAM, a hard drive, a network share, or holographic storage.  

We do know that for every one of our users with > 1000 contacts there are literally twenty with less.  Everything anyone can do in a constrained system involves tradeoffs.  We knew that persistent storage had great benefit for the twenty and that it would make life worse for the one.  But the benefit to the twenty was high enough that we decided it was the best way for us to go.  

We're always working to improve things, and I can imagine us making things better for >1000 contact people in some future version.  But 5000 contacts is really extreme.  I'm afraid that you're going to continue to be angry with us for a while.  I wish I had a better answer for you, but we won't be going back to the days of limited storage and lost data.

Mike
# August 16, 2006 12:34 PM

MikeB said:

Mike,

Great Blog.  We have a data critical application and had to store data in RAM and ROM before WM5.0  Great improvement.  Couple of questions: 1) Is there a registry setting that controls when a low battery warning will appear? (percentage?)
2) What would be the biggest battery consumption activities?  This is a field application and we have to take out spare batteries currently.

Mike.
# August 17, 2006 2:20 PM

MikeCal said:

Mike, to answer your battery consumption questions, check out these two entries.

"Power to the Smartphone"
http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsmobile/archive/2006/08/04/689069.aspx

"Power to the PocketPC"
http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsmobile/archive/2006/08/16/702833.aspx

Mike
# August 18, 2006 2:36 PM

greg said:

I'm a medical resident and am using an iPaq running Windows Mobile 5.0 for several reference programs.  From day one, I have had daily problems with the device either locking up, taking 1-2 minutes to be responsive to inputs, or simply not turning on at all.  When it doesn't turn on, I remove the SD card and then it'll start but apparently the lock up uses a lot of energy since the battery will have lost a noticable amount of charge.  I have removed all medical programs and still have similar problems.  Other residents using the same iPaq have the same problems.  Our hospital tech guru says he has had the same problems on ALL PPCs running WM5.  Any suggestions other than going back to my old trusty iPaq running WM2003?
# August 18, 2006 11:33 PM

MikeCal said:

If you're talking about the iPaq 4700, HP has recently released an update that makes the device work better.  

We've had many reports of the experieces you're describing on two WM2003 PPCs that were updated to WM5 (see my various "Compaction Thread" posts here).  On non-upgrade devices, we've had reports that devices are slow when they have thousands of contacts, but people with < 1000 contacts are generally pretty happy with them.

The only other major issue I've been hearing about is that some devices have had problems in their OEM SD drivers (they sometimes crash when there's an SD card in it).  

I've regularly used 8 different WM5 devices without seeing these problems, so it's definitely not all of them that act this way.

Mike
# August 21, 2006 11:52 AM

Pawel said:

So, is there any chance that WM5 use RAM instead of ROM ? Any kind of switch?
# August 29, 2006 6:13 AM

MikeCal said:

Upgrade devices that didn't have enough flash memory to do persistent storage were allowed to keep their storage in RAM.  And some vertical market devices (hardened industrial devices) have been allowed to be RAM based.  But no commercial WM5 native device is allowed to store its data in RAM.  

Mike
# August 30, 2006 1:14 PM

jpmahala said:

I would like to echo the feelings of Seth and David.  There is really no excuse for a handheld device to be crippled to the point where you have to unload appointments/contacts/etc. in order to get acceptable performance.

Unfortunately, I did not have prior exposure to WM2003, but with all of the PalmOS based devices I have had, 5000 contacts has never been an issue.

I have had a nightmare of a time in trying to pacify all of our salesmen who opted to get WM5 based smartphones.  Every one has had issues with loading their respective territory into their contact list.  This should in NOT be a problem.

For an OS that is trying to target business users, you have missed the mark.  We need devices to manage our information and data.  Yes, persistant storage is a noble and attractive feature, but at the expense of our necessary data, it is not welcome.

My intention is not to merely bash the developers, but if I knew then what I know now, nobody in my company would have a WM5 device.  The inclusion of persistant storage was just too premature.  Let me know when you have an usable solution.
# September 7, 2006 1:45 PM

boytse said:

I think speed is utmost important for handheld device, how can one afford to wait almost two mins for wm5 loaded after reset to make a call! PDA data should normally backed-up in desktop, any lost of data in the device can be restored soon from pc.
# September 8, 2006 4:03 AM

Plato Guerra said:

I store > 2,000 contacts on a database & export them regularly to Outlook, to be ActiveSync'd with my PPC. Since upgrading to Windows Mobile 5.0, I've not been able to store these contacts in a miniSD storage card.

Unfortunately having this data stored in PS isn't good, as it slows down all the PPC / Smart phone.

Frankly, I don't care if the contacts are volatile & are all lost / erased on the Mini SD, since my data repository is the database.
Is there a way to ActiveSync directly to the Storage Card?, or do I have to purchase 3rd party software?
Thank you
# September 8, 2006 8:58 PM

JD said:

My utstarcom 6700 pda phone is slow as a dog with anything network related.  I get the hour glass for minutes at a time while it's figuring out what to do.  The task switching in this thing is slower than a 286. I can't believe they tested this thing in a real environment.  

It's a device with everything.. except it isn't good at anything! For something that cost me over 400 I would think it would work better.  It locks up all the time. Because of it's poor task switching it isn't a good phone either.  Forget browsing your email and having someone call you.. if I'm online my phone almost never rings.  

# September 22, 2006 12:57 AM

Michael said:

I have an HP iPaq rxl955 running WM 5 (in fact I'm using it now to write this) and it runs fine until internal storage memory is low (software, not contacts). When storage memory is reduced to about 1 MB, performance goes to hell. This prompted me to buy a 1 GB high speed SD card from SanDisk, and I have made minimal use of my device's PS since then.

Slow downs are far beyond obvious when I am downloading a file with Windows Media Player running. Eventually I get an error message saying something like "Storage memo