VZ Navigator and Backup Assistant

[clangschultz]

I am very aggrevated that Verizon will not let you uninstall these Apps!  I do not subscribe to VZ Nav so why should I have to have this service constantly starting up on my phone?  Same with Backup Assistant.  Google Sync does the job for backing up my phone, and I have no need for this program either. 

Yet both of these services are constantly starting and running in the background of my phone!  Wasting precious battery life on nothing!!!  WHYYYYY cant I just remove these? 

Your just begging for people to {edit for TOS violation}


their phones, which I don't care to do.  But c'mon this is rediculous!!  If your going to try to push your programs off on people, then maybe you outta pay part of their phone bills...  I paid for this phone, so I should have a say on what you force me to use to take up its memory and battery life.  The OS is not dependent on these apps, so they should not be forced upon us. 

This is MY phone, and an open source OS thats running on it.  Why am I forced to let verizon rent space on my phone and not pay me for it.

FIX THIS!

[dirkbonn]

Sounds like maybe you should talk to someone from the legal profession.

With all the harm you've been subjected to, you could come out of this a multi-millionaire.

[demmo86rt]

I know it's frustrating, but those apps aren't hurting anything or even using resources:

http://geekfor.me/faq/you-shouldnt-be-using-a-task-killer-with-android/

But, they do help pay for your phone. Do you think these things really only cost $200 retail?

[djtonic]

---

demmo86rt wrote:
I know it's frustrating, but those apps aren't hurting anything or even using resources:

http://geekfor.me/faq/you-shouldnt-be-using-a-task-killer-with-android/

But, they do help pay for your phone. Do you think these things really only cost $200 retail?

---

Hey demmo...you keep linking to geekfor.me.  I don't trust their anti-task killer data any more than i would trust Pro task killer data from multiple other sources. 

And the point about the apps paying for my phone is just flat out wrong.  I pay for my phone.  I pay for my phone through a 2 year contract extension, through a premium price for data monthly and through a very profitable text messag and data plan that verizon charges me for.

No one will disagree that the X is not a 200.00 retail device, and many people chose to purchase at full retail of $550.00 or more to own it outright.

I do agree with you that the apps really aren't hurting anything and I personally just ignore them as best i can.  I do have some set to autokill, because contrary to geekfor.me's assertion that just because another application isnt actively requesting the memory used by these apps that I should just let them run.

Dj.

[demmo86rt]

Really, did I suddenly become THAT guy? That article, for me, explains my side of the task killler argument and saves me a lot of typing. In this case, I was trying to point out that, if you ignore the bloatware long enough, the system will need the memory allocation for something and they will go away. Guess I didn't do a very good job at it.

[djtonic]

---

demmo86rt wrote:
Really, did I suddenly become THAT guy? That article, for me, explains my side of the task killler argument and saves me a lot of typing. In this case, I was trying to point out that, if you ignore the bloatware long enough, the system will need the memory allocation for something and they will go away. Guess I didn't do a very good job at it.

---

  HUH??  Demmo...it's obvious you aren't THAT guy based on your contributions here. 

You made your point well but I just disagreed with it.  Some people don't like to ignore stuff if they don't need to.

Dj.

[clangschultz]

all i know is i have no need for either app and there is no reason why i shouldn't have the ability to uninstall it, if its not a system file.

[clangschultz]

i would imagine one app requesting more memory from the system, and then the system shutting down another app must take up time.  maybe even a longer time if that new app that needs the memory is a resource hog like the video camera.  and now this process takes a little bit longer like a bottleneck because the systems handling multiple things at the same time.  sometimes its not even a fast enough process, or the process itself becomes fails because the new app failed to launch completely so the request for memory didn't follow through

i can't think of any other reason why sometimes i can't bring up my video camera or google goggles if too many tasks are running.  but then i use task killer and it works?  why else would this happen.

[djtonic]

---

clangschultz wrote:

i would imagine one app requesting more memory from the system, and then the system shutting down another app must take up time.  maybe even a longer time if that new app that needs the memory is a resource hog like the video camera.  and now this process takes a little bit longer like a bottleneck because the systems handling multiple things at the same time.  sometimes its not even a fast enough process, or the process itself becomes fails because the new app failed to launch completely so the request for memory didn't follow through

i can't think of any other reason why sometimes i can't bring up my video camera or google goggles if too many tasks are running.  but then i use task killer and it works?  why else would this happen.

---

I think that the apps in question just have the memory allocated.  It doesnt necessarily mean the application is running. 

I would still assert that the X has more than enough RAM to handle what you need without causing the camcorder to fail.

My first thought is if running your task killer DID allow your camcorder to launch you should take a look at what applications you have installed and start there.  It's just NOT a memory issue.

Plus, about memory usage...we're talking milliseconds, basically instantaneous when an application requests resources.  That is assuming the CPU has at least  L1 cache(not sure about the processor architecture in the X)

dj.

[demmo86rt · Accepted solution]

Do you use the home button to "close" your apps, and do these things start back up after you kill them? But I do agree with you about being able to uninstall them.

[djtonic]

---

demmo86rt wrote:
Do you use the home button to "close" your apps, and do these things start back up after you kill them? But I do agree with you about being able to uninstall them.

---

I have a question about "closing" apps Demmo.  There's a lot of apps that don't have an option to close it so the only way is to hit "home".

When I hit "home" do you know if the app will actually close or just sit there running in the background?  I never really thought about it because i do use task killer.  But, not everyone does.

Dj.

[clangschultz]

i usually try to click back until it brings me back to the menu, rather than pressing the menu key...

[clangschultz]

how the hell is this issue fixed?  these programs still continue to run in the background!

[demmo86rt]

@dj, when you leave an app, the app, if written properly, goes into pause mode. This leaves the app in memory until that memory is needed. As that memory is needed, android removes the oldest apps first, under the assumption that you may be coming back to an app later. This doesn't use battery or cause lag unless an app is using cpu cycles. Some of the better task killers can show you which apps are using the cpu, or you can install cpu monitor from the market. The problem with task killers comes in, especially when using an aggressive auto-kill or kill all as android tries to keep apps that it thinks you will use in memory. Holding an app doesn't use battery, but loading one does. This is also why you hear so many complaints that some apps keep "running" no matter how many times they are killed. If you want a little more technical explanation, look here: http://mobworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/memory-management-in-android/. Probably more detail than you were looking for, but hope it answers your question.