| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
msmobiles.com_robot
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 16777215
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:12 am Post subject: Do not buy Orange SPV C500, because... |
|
|
Well, Orange SPV C500 is a fantastic phone - it's tiny, very fast, with good quality of voice phone calls and generally, so apart from the lack of GSM850 band (that is used anyway only in USA), it seems to be perfe...
Read more at http://msmobiles.com/news.php/2984.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The PocketTV Team
Joined: 28 Mar 2004 Posts: 51 Location: San Francisco, CA
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well apparently the good news is that Orange is aware of the problem and working on a fix.
The bad news is that the fix will probably require a firmware upgrade (I doubt they will be able to fix that OTA with provisionning).
OTA = Over The Air (i.e. remotely, without any user interaction)
provisionning = some "magic" XML code used to change the configuration of Smartphones remotely
Last edited by The PocketTV Team on Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
schriss
Joined: 07 Apr 2004 Posts: 93 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OK, they will fix GAPI, but cursor keys that are hardly usable for gaming AND SD card hidden under the battery (eliminating hot swap, something I do all the time, swapping SD between Mio8390 and Axim X30) disqualifies this phone in my eyes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The PocketTV Team
Joined: 28 Mar 2004 Posts: 51 Location: San Francisco, CA
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| schriss wrote: | | SD card hidden under the battery |
WHAT ???
That's really something stupid!
Who could take such an idiotic design decision ???
I always keep exchanging SD cards between Smartphone's and Pocket PC's (and sometimes, camera).
It much worse that the x30's speaker totally covered when the device is in the cradle.
I can't believe how big and reputable companies sometimes make so poor design choices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
schriss
Joined: 07 Apr 2004 Posts: 93 Location: Poland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TANKERx

Joined: 10 Aug 2004 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh dear oh dear! That was kept nice and quiet wasn't it! And after Nokia getting absolutely slated for making such a dumb decision, no wonder the Microsoft Village wanted to keep it quiet.
Says it all really.
 _________________ ________________________
HELLO KITTY! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The PocketTV Team
Joined: 28 Mar 2004 Posts: 51 Location: San Francisco, CA
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
> Someone was even praising this solution "you can't loose your SD this way"
Then a clever little lock would have been a better idea! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
iraqigeek
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When are the people in this site going to make their minds???
First, the MPx220 was the smartphone to buy, then the C500 was the one, and now the C500 the first item on your "not to buy" list.
Can the writers for this site make their minds, or stop making such allegations???
Since when was a buggy firmware (for which a fix is a work in progress) a primary factor on which to decide which phone to buy? The AT&T MPx200 had firmware problems, but that didn't seem to matter to a lot of people when deciding which phone to use.
I don't know how you people think. All the specifications and capabilites (like camera resolution, screen type/quality/size, expandability, other integrated features like bluetooth) of a given device don't seem to make a difference, only the tiny meaning less things seem to be the major factors when deciding which product is better than which.
The MPx220 was disqualified from your list because of the flashROM it used, even though that wouldn't mean any noticable difference in real life (did anyone on this site made a benchmark, real test on which the C500 was noticably faster than the C500? I doubt they did). The C500 was not the smartphone to buy because of some bugs in its GAPIs (Even though the phone has been released just about one week ago).
As long as the manufacturer or operator/distributor is aware of the problem, and publicly statng that they are working on a fix, I don't see where the big problem is. Also, is it an Orange specific problem? or a problem in the generic HTC firmware of smartphone OS? No one seems to mention that  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The PocketTV Team
Joined: 28 Mar 2004 Posts: 51 Location: San Francisco, CA
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even if they comeup with a firmware fix, how many users will install it ? 3% ? 5% ? at best...
If they already have zillion devices in boxes that have been chipped, you can bet that the vast majority of them won't get the fix.
The fix will improve things when they start shipping a new batch with the fixed firmware.
Only a few hackers, gamers, and power-users will install the fix, unless the bug is a total show-stopper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
schriss
Joined: 07 Apr 2004 Posts: 93 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agree. By the way, I'm not associated with msmobiles.
and who's talking about ROM? I said: "they will fix GAPI" because I believe they will, sooner or later, just like it was possible to fix GAPI for Mio8390 and it will be up to the user - install or not.
I personally don't like C500 because of its hardly usable cursor keys and SD slot hidden under the battery.
Not to mention I prefer clamshell design, especially silver  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The PocketTV Team
Joined: 28 Mar 2004 Posts: 51 Location: San Francisco, CA
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
> I personally don't like C500 because of its hardly usable cursor keys and SD slot hidden under the battery.
Not SD. Mini-SD! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
schriss
Joined: 07 Apr 2004 Posts: 93 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
> Not SD. Mini-SD!
Yes, I know. It makes it even worse. Like AGP 8x - useless, just to make us throw more money away.
By the way, SPV C500 users could evaluate usefulness of Picard's GAPI2GDI wrapper... might be temporary solution for C500 as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The PocketTV Team
Joined: 28 Mar 2004 Posts: 51 Location: San Francisco, CA
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| schriss wrote: | > Not SD. Mini-SD!
Yes, I know. It makes it even worse. Like AGP 8x - useless, just to make us throw more money away.
By the way, SPV C500 users could evaluate usefulness of Picard's GAPI2GDI wrapper... might be temporary solution for C500 as well. |
No need, the workaround is simpler.
Requires apps to be slightly modified, unfortunately...
see
http://www.modaco.com/viewtopic.php?p=438404#438404 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
schriss
Joined: 07 Apr 2004 Posts: 93 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cool.
Now if only someone cares to make a gx.dll that does that on the fly for existing software... Or still, GAPI2GDI could be used for not patched, existing software.
This is crazy, special ver for Mio, special ver for C500...
where is this all heading?? Nobody learns on Mitac's mistakes...
Lets hope the C500 is the last Smartphone with broken GAPI. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The PocketTV Team
Joined: 28 Mar 2004 Posts: 51 Location: San Francisco, CA
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| schriss wrote: | Cool.
Now if only someone cares to make a gx.dll that does that on the fly for existing software... Or still, GAPI2GDI could be used for not patched, existing software.
This is crazy, special ver for Mio, special ver for C500...
where is this all heading?? Nobody learns on Mitac's mistakes...
Lets hope the C500 is the last Smartphone with broken GAPI. |
No, it won't be the last, I'me ready to bet on that!
GAPI2GDI would not be a good idea in this case. Why revert to DGI when you can use the real raw frame buffer ? It would be much better to make a patched gx.dll that does just the right thing. The raw frame buffer is not protected, so it should be possible to make a patched gx.dll. I'm sure Picard can do that. On the mio 8390, the situation was different, you cannot access the raw frame buffer without the provilege cert. Not the case with the C500.
As for us, since the workaround was so simple to implement, we don't need a patched gx.dll! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|