I really want one ... BUT so many issues!?

[amdybg40]

Unfortunately, mine has every one of these issues except for the heat thing. It gets warm, but not hot. Keyboard is ok for me but autocorrect is terribly slow and thus unusable (this is probably a WP8.1 issue, though).

The screen just plain sucks on mine - lousy viewing angles, purple tint, unsharp while scrolling.

That said - I've had the Galaxy S5 and compared to that one (which is extremely slow), I still prefer the 930. The HTC M8 is a much better device, though, but I've grown tired of Google / Android. I'll be switching to the iPhone 6 if Microsoft isn't able to fix the issues.

I've just ordered the Galaxy S5 with the new QHD screen, 805 processor and 3GB ram, so be interesting to see how that compares to the stock version.

 

[MrWhiteman]

I've just ordered the Galaxy S5 with the new QHD screen, 805 processor and 3GB ram, so be interesting to see how that compares to the stock version.

I added a turbo into my 930 and now it goes 200 mph. Seriously though, you can add anything to a Galaxy and it will still fall apart. And since mobile OSs are small and apps don't use much RAM, most of that 3GB RAM will stay empty all it's life. Hell, this laptop which I'm supposed to be working on runs Windows 7 Ultimate with Office 2013 and only has 2GB RAM and a dual core AMD Turion 2.1Ghz.

People don't know anything about technology, they just buy it because the advert says it has more RAM and a better CPU.

 

[anony_mouse]

I added a turbo into my 930 and now it goes 200 mph. Seriously though, you can add anything to a Galaxy and it will still fall apart. And since mobile OSs are small and apps don't use much RAM, most of that 3GB RAM will stay empty all it's life. Hell, this laptop which I'm supposed to be working on runs Windows 7 Ultimate with Office 2013 and only has 2GB RAM and a dual core AMD Turion 2.1Ghz.

People don't know anything about technology, they just buy it because the advert says it has more RAM and a better CPU.

No. Access to storage is slow - the hard disk on the computer is very slow, and flash memory is still quite slow compared to RAM. The 'empty RAM' (i.e. not used by apps) on your PC and your phone is used by the OS as a disk cache, which can dramatically improve performance.

To be fair, I'm not sure 3GB is really necessary in a smart phone yet, but it will still bring some benefits and of course it makes the phone more future proof. However, 2GB is pretty tight for a modern desktop OS and apps. My work laptop with a fresh Windows 7 install and 4GB RAM struggles badly with Outlook, Office and a couple of web browsers running.

 

[amdybg40]

I added a turbo into my 930 and now it goes 200 mph. Seriously though, you can add anything to a Galaxy and it will still fall apart. And since mobile OSs are small and apps don't use much RAM, most of that 3GB RAM will stay empty all it's life. Hell, this laptop which I'm supposed to be working on runs Windows 7 Ultimate with Office 2013 and only has 2GB RAM and a dual core AMD Turion 2.1Ghz.

People don't know anything about technology, they just buy it because the advert says it has more RAM and a better CPU.

Well, I'll let you know what the processing times are like between pictures with the camera, as with the wasted extra RAM, i'm sure it wont make any difference!

In all fairness, I've never had a phone fall apart on me sure i've chipped a few on dropping them, but never totaled one, so I don't see why the S5 should fall apart on me?

 

[a5cent]

Well, I'll let you know what the processing times are like between pictures with the camera, as with the wasted extra RAM, i'm sure it wont make any difference!

Well, he's right that extra RAM capacity will make zero difference. Other things might..

The 'empty RAM' (i.e. not used by apps) on your PC and your phone is used by the OS as a disk cache, which can dramatically improve performance.

That RAM on your smartphone is used as a disk cache is incorrect. The OS simply holds as many running processes in memory as it possibly can, terminating them to make room for new processes as necessary... unless people manually close apps, which can leave RAM empty and useless.

 

[amdybg40]

Well, he's right that extra RAM capacity will make zero difference. Other things might..

That RAM is used as a disk cache is incorrect.

So you don't think it will help processing time between shots on the camera? Especially with HDR? You can run two apps side by side on most flagship androids too, so that will help.

To be honest, like someone mentioned about future proofing, the extra RAM may be for Android L which is due soon. A lot of the new flagship droid devices are coming with 3GB.

 

[a5cent]

So you don't think it will help processing time between shots on the camera? Especially with HDR? You can run two apps side by side on most flagship androids too, so that will help.

I know for a fact it will do absolutely nothing for processing time.

If the device can't write images to storage fast enough, then extra RAM capacity could help on that front. It would allow you to make more pictures before encountering that bottleneck, but the bottleneck would still be there all the same. But if that is the problem, then even a 2GB device should easily be able to make half a dozen shots before that becomes noticeable.

I'm not saying there won't be a difference, there might be, but if there is one it won't be due to RAM capacity.

Of course RAM capacity can improve ?perceived? performance in some specific situations, like start up times, because on devices with more RAM many apps can just sit in memory and never need actually be relaunched. That just isn't really an example of faster processing however. It's an example of a device with less RAM having to do more work.

 

[Squachy]

So you don't think it will help processing time between shots on the camera? Especially with HDR? You can run two apps side by side on most flagship androids too, so that will help.

To be honest, like someone mentioned about future proofing, the extra RAM may be for Android L which is due soon. A lot of the new flagship droid devices are coming with 3GB.

The flagship droid stuff are trying to outdo each other. When all the devices have the same specs they need something 'different' to differentiate. At this point in time the only thing they can really do is throw more specs at it and/or introduce gimmicky features because its at a saturation point where the processing power is starting to overtake the software.

Just like in the PC world it gets to a point where only the highest end items make the biggest differences, and even then those differences only occur in benchmarks where every number counts and/or the most intensive 3d games because they need the most fps. Specs are getting close (rather quickly) to PC's which have slowed down progress considerably in recent years because no one needs millions of gigabytes of ram and millions of gigahertz of speed. That and the competition between Intel and AMD has pretty much ended with Intel destroying AMD and AMD just trying to survive.
A standard PC nowadays doesn't really need more than 4gb of ram and we have smartphones already getting 3gb....

 

[jm4cc]

well, before i let you all know how i like the Lumia 930 and what issues it may / may not have...
Have a look at these pics..
One is my 930 - black arrived today and the other is my partners 930 - black that she bought today!
Here is a side by side pic with both phones on high brightness...

one perfect black, the other not so much...

 

[AJE1]

I received my L930 yesterday from TESCO direct. So far, touch wood, absolutely no issues whatsoever. It did get very warm when first activated and was both charging and downloading a load of stuff. But since then nothing hotter than my retired Lumia 800. Everything else (except an issue with my network provider - Three) has been fine.

So, in answer to OP, from my perspective there are no issues.

 

[anony_mouse]

Of course RAM capacity can improve •perceived• performance in some specific situations, like start up times, because on devices with more RAM many apps can just sit in memory and never need actually be relaunched. That just isn't really an example of faster processing however. It's an example of a device with less RAM having to do more work.

If adding RAM improves performance in a perceivable way, isn't that a good thing? Of course, the processor runs at the same speed whether it has 3MB or 3GB of RAM, but a smart phone with 3GB will be considerably, and certainly perceivably, faster.

PS fair point above about disk caches on mobile OSs. I had a long day yesterday...

 

[a5cent]

If adding RAM improves performance in a perceivable way, isn't that a good thing? Of course, the processor runs at the same speed whether it has 3MB or 3GB of RAM, but a smart phone with 3GB will be considerably, and certainly perceivably, faster.

PS fair point above about disk caches on mobile OSs. I had a long day yesterday...

You are of course correct that perceivable performance improvements are a good thing. The point I'm trying to make is that the performance improvements derived from higher RAM capacities are very specific and far between. It's not that difficult to tally up the situations in which having more RAM on a mobile OS actually contributes to performance improvements, and HDR image processing or image capture time (what was being discussed) isn't on that list.

I suspect this misconception stems from experiences with PCs, where opening a lot of applications and not having enough RAM will cause a desktop OS to swap memory pages out to storage, which really will slow any PC to a crawl. But that just isn't how mobile OSes work. Mobile OSes just terminate the least often used app, which ensures everything always fits nicely into memory, hence no general or across the board performance improvements from more memory.

BTW:
People who manually close apps on principle, are killing one of the few performance benefits devices with more RAM provide, because it will force an app to relaunch, instead of potentially being able to just switch to the app that is already in memory.

 

[anony_mouse]

You are of course correct that perceivable performance improvements are a good thing. The point I'm trying to make is that the performance improvements derived from higher RAM capacities are very specific and far between. It's not that difficult to tally up the situations in which having more RAM on a mobile OS actually contributes to performance improvements, and HDR image processing or image capture time (what was being discussed) isn't on that list.

I suspect this misconception stems from from experiences with PCs, where opening a lot of applications and not having enough RAM will cause a desktop OS to swap memory pages out to storage, which really will slow any PC to a crawl. But that just isn't how mobile OSes work. Mobile OSes just terminate the least often used app, which ensures everything always fits nicely into memory, hence no general or across the board performance improvements from more memory.

BTW:
People who manually close apps on principle, are killing one of the few performance benefits devices with more RAM provide, because it will force an app to relaunch, instead of potentially being able to just switch to the app that is already in memory.

Increasing the number of "running" apps held in memory isn't the only benefit of more RAM (for Android - I can't speak for other mobile OSs). On devices with more RAM, Android may allow an app extra space, which the app can use for more caching, etc. This page has some details - Managing Your App's Memory | Android Developers . So an app written to take advantage of this may run faster on a device with more RAM than an equivalent device with less. There may also be cases where the garbage collector can be less aggressive, which may also help. This is a complex area.

I generally agree with you about closing apps on principle. I guess you could think of situations where it will help a little (by saving the small amount of time this takes when the OS does it because memory is under pressure) but in general it's best to leave it to the OS.

 

[a5cent]

Increasing the number of "running" apps held in memory isn't the only benefit of more RAM (for Android - I can't speak for other mobile OSs). On devices with more RAM, Android may allow an app extra space, which the app can use for more caching, etc. This page has some details - Managing Your App's Memory | Android Developers . So an app written to take advantage of this may run faster on a device with more RAM than an equivalent device with less. There may also be cases where the garbage collector can be less aggressive, which may also help. This is a complex area.

On a device with more RAM, WP can also afford apps more memory. No difference.

However, while you are theoretically correct that apps could use some of that extra space for more caching (assuming that even makes sense for an app, which for most it just wouldn't), the real question is not what apps could do, but what they actually do. I'm not aware of a single app that uses memory in that way. Most senior developers would frown on such an approach, because software that behaves differently based on how much memory it can allocate, which on Android can change between sessions, is notoriously hard to test. Particularly on Android you'd also risk causing your users endless frustration, as your app will sometimes perform better, based on one set of caching rules, while another time it will perform worse, based on another set of caching rules. Most users will think your app is just out of control and behaving arbitrarily.

What do apps then use that extra memory for? Typically it's more along the lines of higher resolution textures in games, or buffering a larger segment of an audio/video stream. Stuff like that. Not dynamic caching schemes.

So, while you are correct in theory, it doesn't make a difference in practice.

Anyway, I'll let you have the last word. It's an interesting topic, but this isn't the right thread.

 

[anony_mouse]

However, while you are theoretically correct that apps could use some of that extra space for more caching (assuming that even makes sense for an app, which for most it just wouldn't), the real question is not what apps could do, but what they actually do.

What do apps then use that extra memory for? Typically it's more along the lines of higher resolution textures in games, or buffering a larger segment of an audio/video stream. Stuff like that. Not dynamic caching schemes.

I did say "caching, etc", and I was thinking of a fairly broad definition of caching. As you say, a good example would be extra buffering of audio/video streams. A browser might keep extra tabs in memory rather than having to reload them (I'm fairly sure Chrome and Opera on Android do this).

Improved graphics quality in games is another good example. This is particularly important as we move beyond HD resolutions - although I can't remember if this is relevant to whatever phone we were actually discussing in this thread.

So, while you are correct in theory, it doesn't make a difference in practice.

Anyway, I'll let you have the last word. It's an interesting topic, but this isn't the right thread.

I'm not looking for the last word, but don't your excellent examples demonstrate that extra memory may bring real improvements in practice?

 

[a5cent]

I'm not looking for the last word, but don't your excellent examples demonstrate that extra memory may bring real improvements in practice?

Yes, it's just that so far we were not discussing improvements in general that result from having more RAM (of which there are many), but only and specifically runtime performance improvements (of which there are few).

 

[Br1anK]

Interesting reading,

I am expecting delivery of 15 Lumia 930's this afternoon, so I should get a good idea of what problems could be considered common, and which are just "Monday Morning" handsets.

 

[AJE1]

Interesting reading,

I am expecting delivery of 15 Lumia 930's this afternoon, so I should get a good idea of what problems could be considered common, and which are just "Monday Morning" handsets.

That's just greedy!!

 

[envio]

I've had my 930 almost 1 week and so far, I don't have single complaint with the handset. It's by far, the best smartphone I've ever had, I'm so happy with it. A revelation over my 8X. Still awaiting my Nokia bundle which will just be the icing on the cake.

If I had a small niggling complaint, it's the round charging plate that comes included in the box. Because of it's relatively small diameter, it's sometimes hit and miss when you set the phone down to charge. There's a tiny indicator but that's tricky to spot beneath the 5" phone. Although the screen does initially light up (along with the charging icon), the screen then disappears, naturally. If you subsequently nudge the phone off the charging sweet-spot, you won't notice that it's no longer charging anymore which can be annoying if you faithfully put it on charge before going to sleep and find in the morning that it's dead or still not charged much further. But even that will be moot as soon as my free bundle arrives.

 

[dengwinters]

Before I gave up on the small wireless charger I was putting my phone horizontally to see the indicator
With DT-900 - no issues at all.