First things first:
There is a new "add-on" feature for models prs505: it's another alternative keyboard layout (suggested by
spooky69).
With this one letters are organized in an A-Z order (abc/def/ghi/...) which may suit 505-owners better, I assume. It wasn't much work, so I just post it here as a "Service Pack 1" for 505ers!
But be aware that this totally different layout needs an (only marginally) changed "autorun.js" file (included); whenever you decide to swap layouts (back) you'll have to swap "autoruns", too...
Quote:
Originally Posted by spooky69
I left the program open on a full charge and when I did something on the screen again it had drained my battery by half! It was only sitting there for 3 to 4 hours, and I assume this means it was actively reading off of the SD card the whole time.
|
I noticed very soon when I had bought my prs500 that even READING from SD cards draws hard on battery power.
Functions in my app actually only run when called by some input (keys pressed).
BUT it may well be that there are some system routines that now and then look what's happening; so I'd suggest that you switch off (MENU) the app while not needing it.
Quote:
|
When going to the next/previous definition, it's significantly faster toward the beginning of the file than toward the end[...]
|
... as search functions work line-by-line: the sooner found the faster displayed. (I am thinking about some sort of "cacheing", though.)
Quote:
|
... there's a "return back" curved arrow over the title and there are some strange evenly-spaced "dotted lines" running right under the black bar [...]
|
This funny "arrow" is absolutely new to me; hmmm, could be some different display "mode" from my prs500...
I am aware of these dotted lines; these will no longer be visible in 0.8/9...
And one more thing:
I made a little test with a 5MB file. Only
reading the lines without actively searching took more than 30 seconds. So 15MB would be nearly 2 minutes!
Comparing a search word to "read" lines actually takes less time than reading them; I am afraid this does not leave
much room for more efficient search algorithms in simple txt files...