His claim was that instead of taking 25-30b per record, the Treo 650 was now taking 512b per record. This is a lie. The addresses book included on PalmOne devices does NOT create an individual DB for each entry. If this numbskull on the forums had actually transferred his addresses the way he claimed he had, his addressbook PDB would have been, at most, only 511b larger than it was on the Treo 600.
Sorry to disagree, but you're wrong!;-)
You should know that indeed the PalmOS Address Book program doesn't create an individual DB for each entry, as you judiciously wrote, but what it does is create an individual record in the (unique) AddressDB.pdb database. And the problem is that EVERY RECORD in a database needs its own 512 bytes memory space. That's why a database with, say, 2000 contacts of each 140 bytes would require approximately 300KB of RAM on a device with volatile memory, and around 1 MB on a device with non-volatile memory... Of course, the smaller each individual record, the bigger the loss when transfering the file to NVFS. The DateBook database has smaller records (in the 10 to 30 bytes, I'd say) than the Address Book, so the impact will be greater on the DateBook than on the AddressBook.
On the other hand, the problem is less crucial for applications with resources, for which the typical "bloat" when switching to the NVFS is "only" around 35%.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to disagree, but you're wrong! ;-)
You should know that indeed the PalmOS Address Book program doesn't create an individual DB for each entry, as you judiciously wrote, but what it does is create an individual record in the (unique) AddressDB.pdb database. And the problem is that EVERY RECORD in a database needs its own 512 bytes memory space. That's why a database with, say, 2000 contacts of each 140 bytes would require approximately 300KB of RAM on a device with volatile memory, and around 1 MB on a device with non-volatile memory... Of course, the smaller each individual record, the bigger the loss when transfering the file to NVFS. The DateBook database has smaller records (in the 10 to 30 bytes, I'd say) than the Address Book, so the impact will be greater on the DateBook than on the AddressBook.
On the other hand, the problem is less crucial for applications with resources, for which the typical "bloat" when switching to the NVFS is "only" around 35%.
Anyway, it's already been answered by PalmOne here: http://kb.palmone.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE?New, Kb=PalmSupportKB,ts=Palm_External2001,case=obj(352 22)