Kindle doesn't have enough memory??

[geekmaster]

Originally Posted by ThomasC

Same goes for web-browsing since it clears the memory cache. You can clear the browser cache in settings, but it does not seem to work as well as a reboot. So, in some large memory intensive pdf's it might be worth a try.

Actually, the browser cache is stored in the mmc memory, not in RAM memory. Rebooting clears up things that were allocated in RAM memory and not freed, either because the app was still running, or because it was a kindlet and the RAM it used really belongs to the JVM and not the kindlet, and some of it never gets freed until restarting the desktop framework (and rebooting is the easiest way).

Clearing the browser cache would also free some virtual memory address space (cached files mapped into RAM) when those files are deleted, so freeing RAM is just a side-effect of clearing the "on-disk" browser cache.

[ThomasC]

Originally Posted by geekmaster

Oops, I used those confusing technical hacker words again. Darn! I just thought that describing what REALLY happens using scientific facts and accurate technical terminology could help dispell some of the empirical superstitious opinions that seem to be a way of life in some corners of mobileread... Sorry if I confused you with the facts.

So, in simple non-geek-speak, rebooting can help. However, it will not always help with 'very' complex pdf's or websites. Still, always worth a try imho.

[geekmaster]

Originally Posted by ThomasC

So, in simple non-geek-speak, rebooting can help. However, it will not always help with 'very' complex pdf's or websites. Still, always worth a try imho.

Rebooting almost always helps, even on non-kindle devices. All complex systems have a certain amount of acceptable "resource leakage" that makes them get slower until apps start to fail. Rebooting makes it all fresh again. It is just that for kindles, rebooting is not "normal" (but probably should be). At least they provided a menu item to do that, instead of a little hole in the back you would poke a paper clip into to reboot some devices.

[ThomasC]

Nice simple explanation, thanks.

[wastelander]

Yep, thank's guys.

[geekmaster]

Originally Posted by Jessica Lares

WHO CARES?! Obviously you do, of course.

Another thing, Wikipedia is user-generated content, anyone can edit it. Anyone who studied in this decade will know that it's not accepted as a single credible source.

I have moderator priveleges at Wikipedia. I can create new threads. There are actually some pretty strict guidelines. Non-accurate content does not last long there. It is MUCH more reliable than it was a few years ago. There are literally thousands of unpublished threads dating back mulitple years waiting for moderator approval. I can approve them. And the content I referenced matches decades of experience in the field that defined these words. Here is another source that calls RAM "storage": http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...latile+storage

When I started using computers, we did not have hard drives. Programs were in nonvolatile core memory, and just stayed there. And it did its job, much like embedded computers in a microwave oven or automobile. You could mount a magnetic tape and change the programming, if you needed to upgrade your program (or if you needed to run a different job, like month-end processing).

Data was stored in "core storage" (also called core memory). Synonyms. You can distinguish internal and external storage, or volatile and nonvolatile, but they are still storage and memory. And future computers are going back to having only one kind of memory storage device.

Saying that memory and storage are not the same thing is like saying that water and hydrogen hydroxide (H2O) are not the same thing. If you do not understand how technical words are used correctly, then please do not mis-correct people who do understand how to use them in their proper context.

[ThomasC]

Sorry mate but I think you need a Forum-Break.

[geekmaster]

Originally Posted by ThomasC

Sorry mate but I think you need a Forum-Break.

This thread asked about "enough memory" which is a TECHNICAL matter. Perhaps this thread should be moved to the Dev Corner forum where people not only care about technical accuracy, but they try to HELP people instead of just guessing and criticizing those who do attempt to be technically accurate.

[geoffwood]

Originally Posted by geekmaster

This thread asked about "enough memory" which is a TECHNICAL matter. Perhaps this thread should be moved to the Dev Corner forum where people not only care about technical accuracy, but they try to HELP people instead of just guessing and criticizing those who do attempt to be technically accurate.

Perhaps if this thread stuck to helping people, instead of mud throwing about terminology, the OP would be able to work with his file by now. Just saying.

[geekmaster]

The K5 has a LOT less free memory than previous kindle models (even those that have less total memory to begin with). Much more of its memory is used up by the built-in software. Early on when it was first released, several developers (including myself) bricked their kindles just by doing rather simple "ordinary" commands at the command prompt. Even now, developers routinely debrick their kindles. A significant amount of the problem is caused by running out of resources when you have extra programs running along with the kindle framework.

So it is not at all surprising that a large or complex PDF file could cause the K5 to run out of free RAM needed to display it, especially when the kindle has been running a long time since the last restart.

EDIT: On earlier kindle models you could shutdown the framework before running a large custom app, such as a custom PDF reader. On the K5, the system reboots when it notices that the framework (cvm and Xorg) is not in memory. You can pause and resume the framework, but you cannot unload it from memory, as far as I know. Perhaps there is a yet-undiscovered (or unpublished) way to do it. That would let you view large complex PDF files using a third-party PDF viewer program, like you can do now on a K3 or DX.

[geekmaster]

Originally Posted by geoffwood

Perhaps if this thread stuck to helping people, instead of mud throwing about terminology, the OP would be able to work with his file by now. Just saying.

That seems to happen every time people accuse me of getting my facts wrong without any supporting evidence other than their own personal opinion, and I feel a need to provide details and references to support my argument. Perceived attacks against my personal credibility have always been a "hot button" of mine. Sorry about that...

Some of my posts also attempted to supply helpful information. I have helped a LOT of people here (and especially in the dev corner forum). That seems to rub some people the wrong way, it seems -- ESPECIALLY when I try to help people who ask technical questions in THIS forum.

[QuantumIguana]

As far as how the English language is used, yes there is a difference between memory and storage. In a certain context, they are the same. But as most people use the term, they are not. If you do a search of "memory vs. storage" there is quite a lot of disagreement that they are the same thing.

[geekmaster]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

As far as how the English language is used, yes there is a difference between memory and storage. In a certain context [computer hardware], they are the same. But as most [nontechnical] people use the term, they are not. If you do a search of "memory vs. storage" there is quite a lot of disagreement that they are the same thing.

They are not always used the same. I did not claim that they were. But they are often used the same. I can use them the same in certain contexts, and be correct. You can use them to mean different things, but unless you add extra keywords to tell them apart, they can be confused that way. Those words are not clear distinguishing features of different kinds of devices. We are both right. But the problem is that certain self-proclaimed "language police" insist that I am wrong, and that my way will confuse people.

The point is, I am saying that "memory" and "storage" CAN be used as synonyms, and people are telling me that they CANNOT be used that way (despite a world full of evidence that supports both my usage and your usage).

Extra descriptive words like I used are needed to avoid confusion. That is how English works. You cannot just leave out the extra words and ASSUME that "memory" and "storage" have unique specific and distinctive meanings when used in a computer hardware context (especially when they are commonly used as synonyms).

Claiming that these words each mean ONLY different things, the way "most" people use them, does not make that the only correct usage, and in fact that way is much more confusing for people who understand the technology with all its history, variations, and overlap, and the evolution of new devices that completely blur these distinctions. Early computers typically used only one kind of "memory storage" device (except when a different "job" needed to be run). Even the CPU registers were stored on drum memory at one time, and core memory was permanent storage (programs rarely reloaded or changed). Future computers are going back to that (RAM and hard drives replaced by large quantities of very fast memory that never forgets, even with the power turned off -- no need for external memory storage devices).

[WT Sharpe]

To who it may concern:

When placing users on ignore, please don't announce it publicly.

Thank you.

— Moderator

[geekmaster]

If we look at the definition of "memory" from a non-technical point of view, memory is long-term storage in the human brain of information not being processed now (like hard disk storage). "Storage" refers to how and where information is stored in a memory device, such as in register storage, variable storage, database storage, flat file storage, archival storage, etc. It may also refer to information storage and retrieval hardware, such as core memory storage devices, ROM storage devices, flash memory storage devices, etc.

Because the non-technical term of "memory" generally refers to long-term permanent storage and not information currently being processed in your thoughts, this definition is also commonly used in computer documentation as well. However, the OTHER definition (of memory containing what is currently being processed) is also common, which makes memory understood when referring to any storage device (RAM, disk, or otherwise). Which means they are pretty much interchangeable in technical documentation (as can be seen in wikipedia and other places).

You cannot say that I have them backwards and I will confuse people, because I used it the way non-technical people understand human memory, and the way it is commonly used in technical documentation as well. Saying that general use should be the opposite of the human memory usage is what is confusing.