i920 Owners Read This.

[Guest fire3element]

Snow02 how exactly did you come to that conclusion? I am asking a question, not saying you are wrong.

I actually find it hard to believe that the Omnia 2 does not have the 256mb of RAM that was originally advertised. Surely Samsung would not make that big of a mistake. But if they did, it is their responsibility to correct the problem. That means Samsung, not Verizon. But if it turns out to be Verizon's bad advertising, then it is their obligation to make it right.

And thank you to those that provided links and information. Keep up the good work. Let's get the word out. I just wish I had decided to take action earlier.

Edited August 12, 2010 by fire3element

[Guest Snow02]

It has ram that is tied up for the phone and camera, and not useable. So while that memory is technically ram, it should not be advertised. It is absolutely misleading. There's enough to make solid case to that effect.

[Guest fire3element]

@Snow02:That is what I believe to be true, but that would be 108mb of 256mb reserved for whatever. Seems a little much to me. But again the problem lies with the advertised specs of the phone.

Even if this is the case, Samsung should be able to solve it with a software update.

Here is my idea... If that RAM is truly reserved for graphics/camera, then make the phone to where all the RAM is available for use until the user opens the camera or a graphic intense program. Then let the phone auto-close programs at that point to free up the required RAM. The phone already closes programs at will, so they can't use that for an excuse not to implement the idea.

It probably can be fixed, but it is a little too late now. The phone is already older tech and I didn't get to enjoy the phone in its prime. Plus the reputation of the phone is already damaged, thus effecting resale value. Even if it were to be fixed, the above won't be affected enough to satisfy me. Especially the resale value.

If anyone from Samsung is reading this, BAD MOVE SAMSUNG!!!

You guys should have fixed the problem way back when the issue was brought to your attention.

[Guest fire3element]

I am sorry for double posting. I just want to make sure everyone knows that there is new info when they see the thread description in the main page.

I just got a response from the Verizon Corporate Service team. I spent another hour on the phone with a guy form their Corporate Tech Assistance team. He was very knowledgeable about the technical aspects that make up a phone. He told me that he was the lowest rank of the upper Corporate chain. Well it is a start. He assured me that the issue would not be shoved off like the bull Samsung is trying to pull. However, he did say that he can not promise anything yet. He wasn't exactly sure who he needed to contact, but he would try everyone that he could. I told him that immediate action was not demanded, but I would like a resolution as soon as possible.

He began to read off some internal spec documentation that claimed the RAM was allocated from the 512mb of ROM. So that would make the phone have 208mb RAM and 304mb ROM. I did not know that the RAM was shared off of the ROM. Is this true for HTC devices also? Anyway, there is still the discrepancy of the wrongful advertisement. According to his internal spec documents, the Verizon page only relays what Verizon was given. That would make Samsung the fault in this case. He also said that he gets to pre-test new hardware when it comes out. I told him about that last phone call to Samsung Level 3 tech support. The one where the guy told me that the carrier controls specs of new hardware development. Verizon guy said this was absolutely not true. They test new hardware, and if it meets Verizon's criteria, then they order the phone to sell it on their network. I imagine that Verizon is in the loop during the development phase of the the new hardware, but not like that Samsung tech tried to convince me of. I guess he thought I was a fool or something.

So we discussed other details of the phone, like the software issues. I told him about the problem with the OpenGL graphics driver and the petition that was sent to Samsung. You know the one sent loooong ago that never received any attention? He did not know what to say about that. He seemed to be stunned that Samsung would so boldly lie/deceive the customer. Not only does it anger the end-user of the device, but it also makes Verizon look like a fool. This is not limited to the i920. I think Verizon's Quality Control has been slaking for some time now, but I will deal with that issue later. For now lets focus on Samsung's behavior. I directed him to the Samsung spec page as well as the Microsoft page that azza6 posted a link to (thank you azza6). He compared the Verizon page to the other 2 and seemed to have more questions about the sheer confusion that complexed the 3 sites. I also told him about the Samsung page being changed since the release of the phone. He was intrigued how the information has been scrubbed.

The call ended with a cheerful note, and I am satisfied with the direction that things are headed. The proof of information that we have at this point sounds like grounds for a Class-Action Law Suit. I am not interested in taking Samsung to the dry cleaners just yet. Let them try to resolve the matter first. If they refuse, then it would be time to take a more serious approach.

For the sake of the involved people in this process, I will not be revealing any names or ID#s. The Verizon people seem to be very concerned, and I do not wish to endanger their jobs. I think everyone here would agree if they were in these peoples shoes. Please do not be angry at me, I am only trying to be fair to all sides.

Is anyone here with me?

Keep up the good work guys. We need to keep this train-a-rollin. Get the word out. Inform as many people as you can.

Thank you to all the dedicated people on this site for making this happen.

Edited August 13, 2010 by fire3element

[Guest azza6]

I directed him to the Samsung spec page as well as the Microsoft page that azza6 posted a link to (thank you azza6).

For the sake of the involved people in this process, I will not be revealing any names or ID#s.

Is anyone here with me?

No problem! :D (Just call me Azza, heh).

I think it's totally fair that these people remain annonymous.

Australia is with you!! (Haha sorry, we Aussies have a bit of a weird sense of humour :D)

Edited August 13, 2010 by azza6

[Guest micmac]

For the sake of the involved people in this process, I will not be revealing any names or ID#s. The Verizon people seem to be very concerned, and I do not wish to endanger their jobs. I think everyone here would agree if they were in these peoples shoes. Please do not be angry at me, I am only trying to be fair to all sides.

Is anyone here with me?

can't wait to see the outcome of this :D

[Guest maverick2127]

He began to read off some internal spec documentation that claimed the RAM was allocated from the 512mb of ROM. So that would make the phone have 208mb RAM and 304mb ROM.

I think it is interesting that on the verizon website the phone is listed with 512 Flash/208 RAM. If what the tech said is true that the ram is allocated from the rom memory, then again they are false advertising that the phone has 512 flash. From what the verizon site is showing and the tech saying that the ram and rom are a single memory unit, just allocated for different purposes, there should be 720Mb of memory, which we all know is not ture. In actuality the phone only has 304Mb rom, if there is supposedly 208Mb ram. Maybe i'm worng, but this is my two cents.

Edited August 13, 2010 by maverick2127

[Guest Del1701]

This is what samsung is showing on their uk website regarding memory......

User Memory 150Mbytes

SMS Memory Depend on Memory

Phone Book Entries Depend on Memory

External Memory MicroSD (upto 32GB)

Nand Memory 512MB

SDRAM Memory 256MB

[Guest fire3element]

Well I do agree that there is a conflict of information on the Verizon page, but it is still unclear where it originates from. Let's give them a bit of time and see what comes of it.

And for the record... Verizon is now aware of this thread, and they are following. Let's try to be nice.

Thank you again to everyone for the support.

[Guest amdzero]

Well I do agree that there is a conflict of information on the Verizon page, but it is still unclear where it originates from. Let's give them a bit of time and see what comes of it.

And for the record... Verizon is now aware of this thread, and they are following. Let's try to be nice.

Thank you again to everyone for the support.

I know there are a lot of numbers flying around, and I don't want to add to the confusion...

However, I did want to post this pic/vid to PROVE that the i920 has MORE than 108MB of ram. I mean come on samsung, didn't they do any tests at all? There HAS to be that ONE tech engineer going, but but but thats not the correct RAM. And I'll bet the marketing machine that is Samsung played the telephone game on these RAM specs (you know the one, where someone starts with a statement and passes to the next guy, then the next guy, then... etc. until it reaches the end and its all dorked up).

Here's my proof:

http://www.4shared.com/video/_SZMxgIG/Omnia2RAM.html

[Guest fire3element]

Yes amdzero, I agree 100%. Those values added together equal 448mb which gets us closer to the 512mb chip size. That would leave 64mb (512-448) left over. Hmmmm, I seem to have heard that number from somewhere before. So at this point it seems that the chip is 512mb and split into RAM and ROM. I always was under the impression that RAM and ROM had individual chips. Is this the same for all devices?

At this point, I am not sure Samsung even knows what specs this phone has. How sad is that? Either way, the phone was never as advertised. You can bet your last dollar that I, and many others would have never bought this phone if the specs had been listed correctly from the beginning. Seriously, a 2010 "high-end" phone with 148mb RAM?

It does sound like it could be fixed with a software update, but as I said before "a little too late now". I am not stepping down from my Droid X now. I might have taken a fix when I began this episode again 3 weeks ago. Now I either want my money back or an upgrade. May not seem fair to some, but Samsung was given the chance to fix the problem. I tried my best to get them to do so and they did not. Not even a much as an answer to the problem or if it was fixable. Tuff luck now Samsung. Hope you guys are happy with the mess you got yourself into.

[Guest dwallersv]

While the complaint subject of this thread is absolutely valid, and every frustration people have voiced are shared by many (including myself), there are some workarounds that can be employed in the mean time to improve the situation, while we wait (in vain, IMO) for Samsung and/or Verizon to address the issue.

Before I get to the ways to help this situation, a few comments on the technical details here. As some have discussed, the phone does indeed have a 256MB RAM chip in it. Also, as some have suggested, a portion of this is consumed by other operation "parts" of the device, and so are unavailable. Among them are the graphics hardware, the camera, the FM radio, and then a portion set aside by the WM kernel that is not a part of the free RAM pool for satisfying process memory requests. After all this is accounted for, the operating system is left with a residual amount of "free" RAM for running processes, around 148MB.

However, there are a set of essential processes that must run after the initial OS boot -- among them various drivers, for example -- and these eat up a chunk of that 148MB of working RAM as the device finishes booting. As a result, when fully booted, there will usually be only around 70-75MB RAM left. Then, from this the non-essential stuff starts up (like TouchWiz, for example), and when all is said and done, you're usually left with around 50MB to run your own optional programs in.

From here it only gets worse. Because of WM's primitive memory management system, it's quite possible (and easy) for free memory to become "trapped" in a way that makes it unusable by a new request from a running process. This is not the infamous WM6 memory leak... This is a by-design flaw in the way the memory system works in WM that dates back to when WM-based devices were much, much simpler, had far less processing power, RAM, ROM, and other resources, so this design actually served a real purpose, where code footprint was the design constraint more than anything else. Those old WM devices worked pretty well for what they were asked to do. Now we are asking these devices to, in essence, meet the performance, abilities, and flexibility of a desktop PC of just 5 years ago or so, without a sophisticated operating system underneath that has the capability to meet these demands (this is one reason why, running linux, droid phones can do so much of this so much better).

So, this is why 50MB of free RAM, which would seem to be more than enough to run a program only demanding 10MB, cleanly and with all the performance the hardware is capable of -- yet falls flat on its face in this circumstance.

It gets worse. Depressingly so. In order to deal with this shortcoming of WM, Samsung added a memory management subsytem that tries to keep free memory above about 40MB. It's a very crude and blunt instrument too -- as everyone has experienced, this memory monitor will, without notice, simply shut down applications, sometimes even the foreground application you are using right in front of your face, to get free memory back above this threshold. Apps will be closed without saving work, any warning or notice. To me, this is the single biggest "crime" Samsung has to answer for in this whole debacle, as the design as is is completely indefensible, harmful to the user, and most of all is the single easiest thing they could invest some effort into vastly improving. But they won't.

So, what can we do, given what we have, to maximize the utility, performance, and experience with this phone? Thankfully, there are several things that, some or all, will make things markedly better. Not as good as a true fix -- bump the RAM up to 512MB -- but have made a very significant difference for me:

1. Turn off TouchWiz.
   
2. Disable and don't use Today if you use a third-party shell, like SPB Mobile Shell (or any of a plethora of others). Most people don't need Today if they are using another shell. Even if you do need Today (as I do, for hosting WeatherPanel), get SecondToday and use that instead of the built-in Today; unlike the latter, SecondToday is a regular process that can be shutdown/closed while the built-in Today can't, so whe you need memory to run something else, you can get it by killing SecondToday, and then restarting it later when you want it. This works well with my scripts for freeing memory, discussed below.
   
   To disable Today, set the following value in the registry and reboot: HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Today\Enabled->0
   
   
3. Use Chainfire's AutoClose patch to improve Samsungs awful free-memory monitor. This one is essential -- it will nearly completely solve the annoying problem of things autoclosing all the time, and being virtually unable to run more than one or two applications at a time. Unfortunately, it doesn't fix the fundamental problems with the WM memory management system, so, depending on the app, performance will suffer (for example, apps like Opera which are memory pigs and do a lot of dynamic allocation/deallocation will be poor performers when free memory gets below 25-30MB). With this patch installed, and the "agressive" version of the registry settings, you will even bump up against WM6's native memory manager trying to close an app now and then, which is much more graceful than Samsungs (it gives you notice, and let's you choose what to close).
   
   
4. Use my mortscript process manager to free up memory for application memory hogs.
   
   I've attached zip with a set of scripts I use to launch the worst memory hogs, so that they can run with as much memory as possible, and therefore get as much performance out of the device as possible. It works well for me, the tradeoff being that app startup and shutdown are slower, but if you're willing to live with that little bit of a wait, you'll benefit.
   
   Basically what these scripts do is manage the whole app shutdown/restart aspect of memory management in a controlled way, rather than the crude "bull in a china shop" manner of Samsung's memory manager, and the somewhat better WM memory manager. Here's the concept: I usually have things running all the time that consume memory, that are of no consequence to stop and then restart later when I want to run a memory hog. Examples are SecondToday, hosting WeatherPanel, and SPB MS. Between these two processes, they usually eat up something like 20-25MB. So, when I want to use Opera, a memory pig, killing off these other two processes has a huge benefit. Opera runs fast and smooth with all that free memory. When I'm done with Opera, I can simply restart these other programs, and nothing's been lost in terms of my usage, except for a little wait time.
   
   The script "RunSpecial.mscr" automates this process, in tandem with a script for the target application that is used to start the app rather than the direct link. You create a script for each "pig_app" you want to maximize RAM for, then edit the shrtcut for it in \Windows\Start Menu\Programs to point to the customized script instead of the original executable.
   
   By way of example, for Opera, the original shortcut pointed to
   
   \My Storage\Program Files\Opera Mobile 10\Opera-armv4i.exe
   
   the location where I have Opera 10 installed.
   
   I modified this to point to
   
   \Scripts\Opera10.mscr
   
   then created a script of that name in that location with the following code:
   

   shell="\Program Files\SPB Mobile Shell\MobileShell.exe"
   
   today2="\Program Files\SecondToday\SecondToday.exe"
   
   target="\My Storage\Program Files\Opera Mobile 10\Opera10-armv4i.exe"
   
   
   CallScript("\Scripts\RunSpecial.mscr", target, shell, today2)

   
   
   The syntax for calling RunSpecial allows for as many "shutdown" processes as you want, ending with the target app to run.
   
   RunSpecial will kill off all the processes that you designate are "unnecessary", run the target app, and then when you exit the target app, the other programs are automatically restarted.
   
   Since I didn't develop these scripts with others in mind, they're not flexible in terms of location. You have to create a directory \scripts, and put them there. Feel free to modify them at will to meet your own needs.
   
   Also, they require Mortscript to work. You can get that here.
   

This all may be too much of a pain for some -- in which case, don't use it. As I said, it works well for me, makes my use of opera fast as without frustration (as well as some other apps I have employed this with). Finally, retargeting the shortcuts for apps will screw up your icons. There are a variety of ways to fix this, the cheapest (free) being more technically challenging. Easier is to get something like SK Shortcut Manager, which makes it easy to set the icon for a shortcut.

[Guest GunnarKarlsson]

Hi there

Great writeup of a solution.

I could also recommend the chainfire autoclosepatch.

Could you please add your scripts to the post?

I could not find the advertised zip... :-)

//Gunnar

[Guest fire3element]

Great information dwallersv. I was already aware of most of that info, but I am sure others will find it helpful. Problem is that the customer should not have to go through this nonsense to get a useable phone. Imagine all the people that don't know how to modify programs like you have listed here, or even know that they can be modded.

Then imagine if this phone was an iphone or android. There would be no way to modify the phone to make it bearable. You would be left in the dust and ashes as Samsung sweeps you under the rug.

Anyone want to see something interesting. If you would now kindly navigate your way to the Samsung spec page for the i920. Take a gander at the memory specs. Whoa!!! Does that say what I think it says? No, it can't be. Must still be early in the morning. It does look a though the RAM is 208mb. I could have sworn that the page showed 104mb just a few days ago. Hummmm... I wonder if... Naw can't be. Maybe Samsung just.... No they wouldn't.

Well there you have it my friends. Samsung at its finest. YES THEY JUST DID

Now anyone have those saved web pages and screenshots handy?

Lasts get them posted here now. Let's see screenshots and linked files for your saved pages.

Thank you to all the participants. Let's make something happen.

[Guest Snow02]

I have one. You can also google "samsung i920 specifications" and click the cached link in the samsung page search result. It should be the first hit. It still shows 104 MB.

You know, I almost would have been ok with just an apology of misrepresentation. But actively colluding to cover up this fraud is unacceptable.

You know how this went down:

Verizon: We're receiving a serious complaint regarding our falsification of the amount of ram in this handset. Do Something.

Samsung: We'll change ours to match yours.

Verizon: Thanks!

Edited August 17, 2010 by Snow02

[Guest fire3element]

No snow02 I do not believe this to be true. FWIW Verizon is also aware of the sudden change in Samsung's page .Not saying that it is not a possibility, but no one would have said something if that were the case. We do need those screenshots and saved web page files so Verizon can prove what is now in question.

[Guest livebig]

No snow02 I do not believe this to be true. FWIW Verizon is also aware of the sudden change in Samsung's page .Not saying that it is not a possibility, but no one would have said something if that were the case. We do need those screenshots and saved web page files so Verizon can prove what is now in question.

Don't forget to save/grab screenshots of this page - it is Samsung's FAQ page titled "What Are The Memory Specifications On My SCH-I920 (Omnia II) Phone?"

http://ars.samsung.com/customer/usa/jsp/fa...p;PROD_SUB_ID=0

It shows

PDA Memory

ROM: 512MB

RAM: 64MB

Phone Memory

ROM: 512MB

RAM: 64MB

[Guest Snow02]

No snow02 I do not believe this to be true. FWIW Verizon is also aware of the sudden change in Samsung's page .Not saying that it is not a possibility, but no one would have said something if that were the case. We do need those screenshots and saved web page files so Verizon can prove what is now in question.

So you're saying that Samsung lied to verizon? Maybe.... but ultimately verizon is responsible for its own advertisements. A company with revenue in the billions can afford to pay someone to make sure they are advertising correctly. Don't let em pass the buck. There's obvious collusion here. Samsung had no reason to raise their advertised level to 208 MB, other than to appease Verizon. These phones have 140 MB of useable ram, not 208 MB, anyway. So now they're both advertising inflated levels.

I will gladly show any verizon employees anything they'd like to see. But presently I don't have anything not currently available online that they can check for themselves.

[Guest livebig]

So you're saying that Samsung lied to verizon? Maybe.... but ultimately verizon is responsible for its own advertisements. A company with revenue in the billions can afford to pay someone to make sure they are advertising correctly. Don't let em pass the buck. There's obvious collusion here. Samsung had no reason to raise their advertised level to 208 MB, other than to appease Verizon. These phones have 140 MB of useable ram, not 208 MB, anyway. So now they're both advertising inflated levels.

I will gladly show any verizon employees anything they'd like to see. But presently I don't have anything not currently available online that they can check for themselves.

Well, unfortunately the 2 support reps, 2 support supervisors and one corporate manager I spoke to last week (all at Verizon) ALL say it is not their fault. If there is an issue than it is Samsung's 'fault'. They (verizon) only publish what Samsung tells them (ya right). :D <sigh> It is frustrating. To me, it just seems like common sense... Verizon is the one that sold me the phone and is the one that advertised it had 208MB of RAM... Verizon should take care of me (us - i920 owners). The reps I spoke to eventually would fall back on the fact that I've had the phone 8 months.... my response is that I just became aware that I was lied to and this is why I'm seeking action.

Snow02, I asked the corporate manager to look at the info online... and she refused. She was more interested in passing the buck on to Samsung.

Edited August 17, 2010 by livebig

[Guest Snow02]

Time to notify the FTC then.

[Guest livebig]

Does anyone have photos of the inside of the i920? I've seen images of the i8000, but we can't really use that as evidence since there are a few hardware differences between the two phones. If someone has pictures or is willing to take apart their i920 to take some photos, we may be able to find the laser etched part numbers on all the chips on the motherboard and hopefully identify the memory to find out exactly what this phone has.

[Guest fire3element]

Everyone here is right. No matter what, Verizon is the retailer and should be the one to make the problem right. If it does turn out to be Samsung that is at fault, then it is Version's job to handle the matter and deal with Samsung. My aim at the beginning of this process was to find out who was the culprit. All info leads to Samsung at this point. I will continue to communicate with Verizon until I have an answer.

In the mean time, I would greatly appreciate if everyone could post the info, screenshots, and saved web page files that you have. That way there will be no doubt what is and is not.

[Guest fire3element]

Please post your information. I'm not trying to be impatient, but I need the info you guys have to continue the case with Verizon. If you get a chance, please post eveything you have in a neat post. Thank you.

[Guest rpmm70]

Here is everything that I have. Saved pages of the phone specs from Verizon / Samsung and a screenshot from the Verizon specs.

Omnia_i920.zip

[Guest tanyasiapa]

Does anyone have photos of the inside of the i920? I've seen images of the i8000, but we can't really use that as evidence since there are a few hardware differences between the two phones. If someone has pictures or is willing to take apart their i920 to take some photos, we may be able to find the laser etched part numbers on all the chips on the motherboard and hopefully identify the memory to find out exactly what this phone has.

mm...sorry for the OOT..but what is the hardware differences between i920 and i8000?maybe you can provide me some links?

TIA..