In the event that you happen to find the leak, just be sure you don't plug it up ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by scattaman
Printable View
In the event that you happen to find the leak, just be sure you don't plug it up ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by scattaman
Try to score us BBM .19 =)Quote:
Originally Posted by jlevy73
Wirelessly posted
A 5.0 os that I compatible on Telus would be really nice
Is it the browser that is the main issue with 5.0 and Telus?Quote:
Originally Posted by SFEdward
Well it's good to hear that they did fix the camera/video camera.
.191 does have other issues though. Finicky unlocking, a very odd bug with the bottom 1/5 of the screen. The pandora 26 second issue. Hopefully these are addressed too.
I know the problem with Telus is that they can only use the browser in WAP mode and only with a workaround fix.
count me in!
anticipaaation is making me wait....like a bad recurring heinz commercial in here
come on...someone leak some "working" 5.0.0.xxx goodness
Wow... is RIM ever going to get this right??
Yes. These are only beta versions. They aren't intended for the general public so it's not surprising that there are some problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kill3r.Conc3ptz
These are internal developments, meaning not meant to be used by the general consumer. Take 191 for example, they may have been trying to maximize memory and purposely disabled the camera for those tests. So it's not will RIM ever get it right, its finding the right Beta to leak as they will have some issue or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kill3r.Conc3ptz
See, it's things like this that reinforce the idea that leaks are not necessarily a good thing. For those of us savvy enough to understand the differences between alpha/beta/release candidate/production software, the leaks are awesome, as very few of us would expect anything other than an RC or RTM to actually be fully functional.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlevy73
However, for those of us that may be a little bit less savvy, some of these builds would make it appear that RIM is doing something incorrectly.
Basically, if the leaked OS was meant to actually be tested with a carrier for release, it will be basically fully functional. Otherwise, features are likely to be missing or not work correctly.
Thanks for the clarification on that J. I appreciate that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlevy73
Well said Dave, I agree with you 100%
Oh, I understand fully. I think my comment was more out of frustration than anything else. I just feel that one year into product development, the OS should be optimized. But I do know how these things work; that was a pretty silly comment from me. I'm glad you guys were pretty clear on that though, as many people do not understand. On another note, I thought carrier's were the only one's that tested the software?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlevy73
i don"t know all the details but RIM has internal testers that work on the os's before they are released to the carriers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kill3r.Conc3ptz
Yes, the browser is the main issue with the 5.0 builds. On .140 I had to do the AT&T service books to fix it. But that caused media player problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlevy73
On .191 the AT&T service books do not fix the issue, but at least my WAP browser works.
No problem, I am in the same boat you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kill3r.Conc3ptz
As Cat stated, RIM does their own internal testing it's not something only the carriers do.
Cat - starting a thread like this is just cruel. Now I back to the watch and wait. :laugh2:
Kill3r, the thing is there will never be a 100% optimized OS for ANY device. OSes by nature are constantly being upgraded. A leaked OS such as 5.0.0.191 is an example of an OS build that was never meant to make it anywheres outside of RIM's testing labs. Most likely, they are fooling with something internally which required the camera to be disabled. So it's not so much that the OS isn't "optimized", it's more the case that it was never meant to be a fully functioning OS. It's all about the need to occasionally "break" things to make an improvement. Perhaps my previous post about a possibility of a change to the video "driver" inside of the SFI is the reason for the camera being disabled. Perhaps the method the camera app uses to display the preview is incompatible with the new video "driver" and thus the camera was simply disabled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kill3r.Conc3ptz
A higher build that is in fact meant to be released to carriers for their own testing would likely be "fixed" and feature complete. I think the problem is our expectations being set too high by the 4.7.0.x leaks that were all more or less feature complete, as they all leaked from a carrier testing phase for the most part; or were official releases by some obscure carrier. The game seems to have changed with 5.0.0.x; as out of 3 releases for the 9530, none are suitable for actual carrier testing.
5.0.0.140 has the alarm bug
5.0.0.154 has the browser text field bug
5.0.0.191 has the camera bug
Any software problems are the result of the app not being updated yet; but the three examples above are all complete showstoppers, as they all significantly affect usage in a negative way.
that one has a fix and a workaround. IMO it is the most stable of the threeQuote:
Originally Posted by Dave12308