Talk:Droid Incredible

Where are all the sources? (76.89.112.26 (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC))

ROM available to user?

If ROM is read only how can some be allocated to user? Is it only partially writable, what? Why is this even necessary? What is on the RAM at purchase that makes it important? Is the use of ROM just another meaning for solid state hard drive? --72.64.105.184 (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really ROM per se, just Read Only to the OS

The ROM is where the operating system is installed -- Its only available to be written to when the device is being installed, its Read Only to the OS. More ROM means newer (and larger) versions of Android are supported. Earlier phones (specifically the G1 and G2) have issues because they don't have enough ROM for later versions of Android (the 2.* version).

RAM is storage for applications. More RAM = more apps. The SD card is only for media.

ChrisKurtz (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone please upload a picture

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.112.26 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

GIF Format

A minor gripe, but I'd like to see a mention of whether Animated GIF is supported. It's been poorly supported in some previous Android phones. It's a tough thing to categorize, the Android framework plays them as video. There are basically 2 issues, how they are treated in pages viewed in the browser, and how they are treated by native apps. If they are treated as static images, only displaying the first frame, that does not count as supporting the format. 74.115.216.130 (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Motorola Droid

Is this phone the same as the Motorola Droid? If not, what is the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.15 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

NO, it's not the same. The Motorola is made by Motorola. The HTC is made by HTC. Different hardware entirely. They both have the name "Droid" because they were licensed under that name by Verizon, who is using it to describe their Google Android Operating System phones.205.161.26.48 (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Tricks and Guide

Sorry but this section is very unwikipedian. The content belongs on a forum somewhere, or on a fan site or help site, not wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree This is unneeded. See Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal.  A p3rson ‽ 03:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Normally an edit comment doesn't make a serious claim on the neutrality of an article, but it this case, I think the anonymous editor has a point: (1) The large "Problems" section seems to give undue weight to what appears to be transient problems in the first week or two of its introduction. That section needs to be edited with some insight into what has some permanent significance to the product. (2) The product has been positively reviewed and some of them can be summarized and referenced in the article. patsw (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Problems" section is a mess

The last section is full of uncited statements, weasel words, and bias. It needs to be heavily rewritten and cited or outright removed. Slinky317 (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Problems just became "critical reception". I'm still looking for a mixed or negative review. patsw (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)