That Chino guy, when asked for actual data, vanished.
Typical of extreme claims.
Actually, it's typical of people who have said what they had to say and then moved on to other topics of interest to them. I hardly see the rationale of pointing that out in any case, as we tend to have a simple principle here - we attack problems and not other users. You seem to be new here, allow me to demonstrate how we do that:
Requiring agreement is not the right path to understanding this GPS issue. The right path might be to wonder why some people absolutely suffer this problem when others absolutely do not.
Samsung has flatly admitted, several times that this is a flaw they created (citations upon request).
Isn't it therefore counterintuitive or impossible for some to not suffer it?
No.
Following that set of observables, others have reasonably postulated that what seems to be at play here is inadequate cpu management of the gps services, especially in light of the servicing requirement for the gps chip used by your class of Samsung phones.
If true, then it's entirely possible and reasonable that no single gps-specific set of test conditions is going to expose this problem for those not suffering it - and that's because each user sets up their phone with apps uniquely, and the Linux process scheduler is stochastic, and therefore each user ends up with different execution profiles at the time of test from others.
This is a very common class of pernicious software defect and is usually the most difficult to isolate for correction. The validity of the observables that some do not suffer this tends to very strongly suggest that this isn't a hardware problem, per se.
The recent non-fix announced by Samsung for some models effectively cleared the gps caches. This seemed to work for some, or to work for a short while, or to work not at all.
A poster in another thread for another variant of your phone offered this during the dead of last night:
I downloaded GPS Status from the Android Market. This app allows you to delete the cached GPS data and reload the AGPS data manually at will.
This is what I do and it's so far worked for me consistently.
Before I use any GPS based app, I open up GPS Status and use TOOLS to delete the cached GPS data. Again under TOOLS, I then reload the AGPS data from the internet (AGPS data is info sent to your phone telling it approximately where you're located - your cell carrier can determine your general area by which cellsite you're connected to). It's giving the GPS a head start to which satellites to listen for. In simple terms, it's basic data telling the GPS "these satellites should be overhead right now". This headstart allows the GPS to start collecting the ephemeris and almanac data which is needed to calculate postion. Since I cleared the cached GPS data previously, it could take up to 30 secs for the new data to be received by the Captivate to be used as the new cached GPS data. For me, once I follow these steps, my GPS Status apps shows that I'm locked on to satellites within approximately 30-45 sec for the initial lock. I then exit out of GPS Status and start Google Maps. Google Maps consistently so far locks onto satellites within 10-15 sec and its dead-on.
He goes on to agree that this isn't an ideal solution and a bit of pain, but for those with this problem it might constitute an effective, temporary work-around.
Others in that forum haven't had time to see his post yet, much less test this out, but I'm offering this info for those that are desperate for some sort of relief from this issue until the time comes that Samsung ponies up a fix. If you're suffering from this defect, please test his claim and report back.
In the meantime, flashing a new rom may or may not solve the problem - if true that this is an execution-time mismanagement of the gps chip's operating requirements, then it's true that changing the execution profile - such as occurs when a new rom is installed or cache is cleared and another app introduced - _might_ alleviate this problem. I would NOT expect that to be an actual cure though, because it simply attacks an effect leading to the problem, not the problem itself.
I could be wrong, but thought you all here might have some interest in this.
