Related
i tink that LG was waiting for cooking a stock rom based on android 2.4 (instead of the 2.3 promised) because of their similarities, in fact the gpu accelerations for 2D, rumored for the 2.4, can only help our P500 performance.
i hope this, and you?
Ps: i tink that a P500 at 150$ with 2.4 in the very next month can bring android for many doubtful people..
I'm not really keeping my hopes up. I bet the last official update we'll receive is Gingerbread. Most companies focus on their flagship phones, and despite the O1's popularity, I don't think it'll receive much.
Also, IMHO, Google is going too fast. Manufacturers are having a hard time catching up and stuff.
But if you ask me, I'm contented with Froyo. Unless, of course, there's a really badass killer feature available only to future releases.
And I think this should be in the General category
kpbotbot- It's more like manufacturers use the differente Android os'es for marketing uses . Look at samsung , they're waiting to release the native 2.3 devices and bearly then will they release gingerbread for their current flagship : Galaxy S . It's a dirty world .
Yeah. Here's a super thank-able screenshot I took weeks ago
LG and Samsung seem like very different companies. The Optimus line is a very good buy for most carriers. It will convert a lot of users to the Android world like me. LG seems to catter to their users too.
The manufacturers should understand Android devices should follow Googles releases. It seems like most manufacturers just barely make the software and communities like xda do the actual bug fixing and create a more robust system with the custom kernel & ROM releases.
Sent from my VM670 using XDA App
why would companies spend money and time in the software when
communities like xda do the actual bug fixing and create a more robust system with the custom kernel & ROM releases.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@orlox - Imagine buying a phone that doesn't come with an operating system.
I prefer if companies release only the lifeless phone, and xda would give life to it.
So androids will be much cheaper
ccdreadcc said:
I prefer if companies release only the lifeless phone, and xda would give life to it.
So androids will be much cheaper
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I like the idea!
Post delivered via piece of paper tied to a brick... sorry 'bout the window! XD
The reason I chose this phone is because, for me, it's a small portable computer. If only every bit of hardware of this phone had a corresponding device driver (that we can get hold of), I think there's nothing stopping us from using a full Linux desktop, or other operating systems capable of running on the ARM architecture.
Not so relevant note: Some say the bootloader is locked. True?
kpbotbot said:
The reason I chose this phone is because, for me, it's a small portable computer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So true!
I am very satisfied with my first Android experience, in spite of all the bugs and hardware limitations of this cheap phone. Almost anything I needed but couldn't do before on my "dumb" phone became possible with this micro computer. So I don't really care if it's running Eclair, Froyo, Gingerbread, Ice Cream or Milk & Toast & Honey.
You would care if it was running Cupcake.
P.S There really is a possibility for us to get 2.4 on our phones. It is still called Gingerbread but it will support Honeycomb apps.
Sent from my LG-P500 using XDA App
there are some questions to answer, why people buy a smartphone in general. We must see the differences between users who "use" the mobile as a daily instrument, users who use the mobile to play 3D games, users who read in the internet and communicate with it and users who are tweaking/hacking (not so sad as i write here). Most of users are using their device for communication, and so the manufacturers can say "why we should develop so fast as google? Our users doesn't need the new features like NFC or other". When communities like XDA, Cyanogen,CodeAurora,androidcentral or others develop their ROMs to their needs, they should do that - they are users who "want" the features. So, manufacturers can invest more time and money in new devices for more experience and for advanced users (like technical freaks). We (users who are lucky for while) can buy the "new" device at a later time, so we can save some money. Nothing other does LG,Samsung or HTC - they are developing for the feature. The money and time to invest in updates or bugfixes are too much for the most - this could be one reason for hold back updates or dont develop. As a developer i can say, the time to spend for Gingerbread development is not small - i have needed 3 monthes to develop a rom, that have just some bugs, and i've do that for fun. for a manufacturer this is not fun
kpbotbot said:
Yeah. Here's a super thank-able screenshot I took weeks ago
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This makes perfect sense from the carrier's perspective. If people had to pay to upgrade to the next version the carriers might have more incentive; as it is now they aren't seeing any more money so why bother investing time on something that could blow up in their face.
andy572 said:
there are some questions to answer, why people buy a smartphone in general. We must see the differences between users who "use" the mobile as a daily instrument, users who use the mobile to play 3D games, users who read in the internet and communicate with it and users who are tweaking/hacking (not so sad as i write here). Most of users are using their device for communication, and so the manufacturers can say "why we should develop so fast as google? Our users doesn't need the new features like NFC or other". When communities like XDA, Cyanogen,CodeAurora,androidcentral or others develop their ROMs to their needs, they should do that - they are users who "want" the features. So, manufacturers can invest more time and money in new devices for more experience and for advanced users (like technical freaks). We (users who are lucky for while) can buy the "new" device at a later time, so we can save some money. Nothing other does LG,Samsung or HTC - they are developing for the feature. The money and time to invest in updates or bugfixes are too much for the most - this could be one reason for hold back updates or dont develop. As a developer i can say, the time to spend for Gingerbread development is not small - i have needed 3 monthes to develop a rom, that have just some bugs, and i've do that for fun. for a manufacturer this is not fun
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah , bro , but you're one man fighting against the tides . It's bound that LG has at least a reminder of 5 man cell team working on getting gingerbread out . And besides they have other ways of getting info and ironing out bugs faster then you can .
Sad that they didn't place on the internet a god damn ETA by now .... thus I guess may or june might a realistic launch date
Oh and to be on-topic with the thread , I guess we'll see 2.4 by CM7 if any of the legendary devs still take interest in this phone ofc
+1 i second that...plus i heard that not all the code used is even OPEN..I mean mik somewhere mentioned that some libraries had no corresponding code in the source code archive....thats gotta stink plus porting of android is different than developiing Linux Distro..I mean no mailing lists and not such a big community of "porters"....but tahts just my take..
sarfaraz1989 said:
+1 i second that...plus i heard that not all the code used is even OPEN..I mean mik somewhere mentioned that some libraries had no corresponding code in the source code archive....thats gotta stink plus porting of android is different than developiing Linux Distro..I mean no mailing lists and not such a big community of "porters"....but tahts just my take..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you're right:
many libraries are closed source, it's like a driver from nvidia for Linux X.org.
The only way to port it to a new android version is to test if it works - if not, we have a problem. manufacturer does not support communities, so we have to build many workarounds or rewrite the code so that it works. i would wish, the manufacturers opens their drivers and codecs for playing audio and video - so we can develop faster, more stable and uncomplicated:/
back to topic:
i've readed the last days that gingerbread 2.4 is the internal 2.3.3 - let's check, if apps for honeycomb work on this version: in 2.4 there should be compatibility for the honeycomb apps^^
andy572 said:
you're right:
many libraries are closed source, it's like a driver from nvidia for Linux X.org.
The only way to port it to a new android version is to test if it works - if not, we have a problem. manufacturer does not support communities, so we have to build many workarounds or rewrite the code so that it works. i would wish, the manufacturers opens their drivers and codecs for playing audio and video - so we can develop faster, more stable and uncomplicated:/
back to topic:
i've readed the last days that gingerbread 2.4 is the internal 2.3.3 - let's check, if apps for honeycomb work on this version: in 2.4 there should be compatibility for the honeycomb apps^^
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
if everything's open then it is unlikely they make money. Then they close down and there won't be any phone.
Sent from my LG-P500 using XDA App
@yanuk... seems to be like u have not used linux before...Let me tell you how it works...Theres tons of companies (apart from thousands of enthusiasts) that write OPEN SOURCE DRIVERS for their hardware and submit it to the LINUX KERNEL maintainers(Linus torvalds included) example INTEL..If i m buying an ANDROID phone, i only want to pay for the hardware and not software..All drivers developed by the manufacturer shud be open source ..BUt instead its more like an abuse of the OPEN SOURCE community ..HOw CAn devs go ahead and hack the crap out of their phones, when they have trouble even porting newer OSes because of "some f****** proprietary driver" ...Screw the manufacturers ..I wish OPENMOKO had taken off when it had the chance..OPENMOKO = OPEN SOURCE OS +OPEN SOURCE HARDWARE with all datasheets, spec, circuit diagrams available..RUn whatever u possible can run on an it !!! My dream of having a completely Open (gtk runnin) geek device is still very distant..
sarfaraz1989 said:
@yanuk... seems to be like u have not used linux before...Let me tell you how it works...Theres tons of companies (apart from thousands of enthusiasts) that write OPEN SOURCE DRIVERS for their hardware and submit it to the LINUX KERNEL maintainers(Linus torvalds included) example INTEL..If i m buying an ANDROID phone, i only want to pay for the hardware and not software..All drivers developed by the manufacturer shud be open source ..BUt instead its more like an abuse of the OPEN SOURCE community ..HOw CAn devs go ahead and hack the crap out of their phones, when they have trouble even porting newer OSes because of "some f****** proprietary driver" ...Screw the manufacturers ..I wish OPENMOKO had taken off when it had the chance..OPENMOKO = OPEN SOURCE OS +OPEN SOURCE HARDWARE with all datasheets, spec, circuit diagrams available..RUn whatever u possible can run on an it !!! My dream of having a completely Open (gtk runnin) geek device is still very distant..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seems like you have not worked in and managed any technology firms before.
I'm sincerely hoping your dream come true where you will own a successful openmoko company develop cutting edge technology with over 100 staff and offer your sw and hw for free with no claims to patent rights. All the best!
Sent from my LG-P500 using XDA App
So my current understanding is that a kernel is essentially the software that connects android with the hardware of the phone. Somewhat of a driver in terms of Windows?
Now I understand that different versions of Android will require different kernels even if the phone is the same (is this true?). For instance ICS for say... Phone X will have a kernel of X.Y.Z while Gingerbread for Phone X will be A.B.C.
Now would the kernel be the same for say gingerbread 2.3.3 and 2.3.5 and 2.3.7?
Also... Would it be possible to take a "shotgun" approach so to speak with the kernels for the Android phones?
For instance write one kernel that covers all android phones. The kernel file itself would be HUGE, but would it be possible or is there too much variation within the hardware. I know a lot of people are currently waiting for the HTC Desire HD's ICS rom to be released by HTC in order to get that ICS Kernel Source code.
The reason I ask is because having one universal kernel could potentially solve a lot of problems especially for the less popular phones. With this combined with the Easy Development Studio (being developed: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1446233) this could be pretty beneficial in my opinion at least.
I'm not a programmer and recently got into Android so that's why I'm asking. I just figured ask and learn more. So any opinions and even teachings that you have that you guys are willing to share with me would be awesome.
I think there is to many problems with writing kernel for all hardware... This is just linux kernel compiled for Android platform... Linux kernel is free but hardware specification not always free, there is already two different ways to write code for this hardware:
1. Write some code which would works on your device (but it does not mean that it would works on all devices which the same model).
2. Or you can go to hardware manufacturer and tell something like 'Hi guys, could you give me specifications of Phone X?' - (as i know it is commercical secret...maybe i am mistaken here)
Linux kernel (~Android kernel) is commonly support a lot of devices (include TV, Routers etc), but i think that enhance code of this kernel for each group device or for each manufacturer it is only one way to get stable and fast work with your gadget...
wlfpck said:
So my current understanding is that a kernel is essentially the software that connects android with the hardware of the phone. Somewhat of a driver in terms of Windows?
Now I understand that different versions of Android will require different kernels even if the phone is the same (is this true?). For instance ICS for say... Phone X will have a kernel of X.Y.Z while Gingerbread for Phone X will be A.B.C.
Now would the kernel be the same for say gingerbread 2.3.3 and 2.3.5 and 2.3.7?
Also... Would it be possible to take a "shotgun" approach so to speak with the kernels for the Android phones?
For instance write one kernel that covers all android phones. The kernel file itself would be HUGE, but would it be possible or is there too much variation within the hardware. I know a lot of people are currently waiting for the HTC Desire HD's ICS rom to be released by HTC in order to get that ICS Kernel Source code.
The reason I ask is because having one universal kernel could potentially solve a lot of problems especially for the less popular phones. With this combined with the Easy Development Studio (being developed: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1446233) this could be pretty beneficial in my opinion at least.
I'm not a programmer and recently got into Android so that's why I'm asking. I just figured ask and learn more. So any opinions and even teachings that you have that you guys are willing to share with me would be awesome.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Now I understand that different versions of Android will require different kernels even if the phone is the same (is this true?). For instance ICS for say... Phone X will have a kernel of X.Y.Z while Gingerbread for Phone X will be A.B.C"
The kernel is basically a collection of device drivers and services which needs to be loaded to work as a mediator between the OS (ROM) and the phone hardware and it is off course device specific. And kernel does not depend on ROM rather ROM depends on kernel. The different kernel available for same device will have almost same structure excepts some specific drivers and services may be different . Same kernel may work with different roms if the rom is ported to or complied to work with that kernel. So even a GB kernel may work in ICS.
hm... I see.
I guess then that leads to another question of...
What about a universal kernel for each phone manufacturer? I believe that there is a way to find out the specific hardware within a phone. If that's the case, targeting just HTC or just Samsung, could allow for the shotgun approach to work since the overall target is smaller.
Wouldn't it also be possible to say to take a HTC Inspire 4G existing kernel and the rest of HTC's existing phones and consolidate the kernels?
I'm not a programmer so I'm just trying to learn but maybe I am over simplifying things.
@sos1g3: I see what you are saying as well but couldn't the hardware specifications be obtained from the existing kernels?
wlfpck said:
hm... I see.
I guess then that leads to another question of...
What about a universal kernel for each phone manufacturer? I believe that there is a way to find out the specific hardware within a phone. If that's the case, targeting just HTC or just Samsung, could allow for the shotgun approach to work since the overall target is smaller.
Wouldn't it also be possible to say to take a HTC Inspire 4G existing kernel and the rest of HTC's existing phones and consolidate the kernels?
I'm not a programmer so I'm just trying to learn but maybe I am over simplifying things.
@sos1g3: I see what you are saying as well but couldn't the hardware specifications be obtained from the existing kernels?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Wouldn't it also be possible to say to take a HTC Inspire 4G existing kernel and the rest of HTC's existing phones and consolidate the kernels?"
Not exactly, it is only possible if the hardware is same . But off course a part of it will be same.
hardware specification can be obtained from a kernel source only . Not from the compiled kernel.
musarraf172 said:
"Wouldn't it also be possible to say to take a HTC Inspire 4G existing kernel and the rest of HTC's existing phones and consolidate the kernels?"
Not exactly, it is only possible if the hardware is same . But off course a part of it will be same.
hardware specification can be obtained from a kernel source only . Not from the compiled kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If I am not mistaken, HTC and Samsung provide their source codes for their kernels.
"Not exactly, it is only possible if the hardware is same . But off course a part of it will be same. "
So then it's not possible to create a kernel that covers say a Snapdragon processor and a Nvidia Tegra 2?
I really wish the android world was more consolidated... of course that wouldn't do well for the phone manufacturers.
wlfpck said:
If I am not mistaken, HTC and Samsung provide their source codes for their kernels.
"Not exactly, it is only possible if the hardware is same . But off course a part of it will be same. "
So then it's not possible to create a kernel that covers say a Snapdragon processor and a Nvidia Tegra 2?
I really wish the android world was more consolidated... of course that wouldn't do well for the phone manufacturers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well , to make it more clear you should know that a full linux kernel ( desktp / server ) does have support for different hardware, peripherals, gpu etc, even for different cpu. Only limitation is that the processor architecture should be same i.e various x86 processor can be supported by a single kernel but a single kernel will not support both x86 , x64 or ppc , ARM architecture . (By the word architecture I mean the instruction sets on which they work). It is called a generic kernel.But for mobile devices the kernel is trimmed down to the specific set of hardwares and peripherals because of resource limitations. A full generic kernel will size will be much bigger approx 80 to 120 MB. But a kernel for mobile device is arround 5 to 6 MB. So make an universal kernel for all mobiles , the size will be bigger which won't fit in the current device setup. So theoretically we can write a kernel which will support both Snapdragon processor and Nvidia Tegra 2 as they both uses ARMv7 instruction set.
Please help me to understand this..........
If android runs on top of lunix
and all android versions eclair gb, ics etc start off as basically aosp then get maufacturer specific things like blur and sense.
Why is it so hard for CM9 and 10 to fully work on the E3D when CM7 worked perfectly on the Evo4g which are both htc phones?
Its a random question and even though I just recently became a member here, ive been with XDA since i hade the original moto click which was 2 yrs ago.
Also,
What do I need to do to create themes? Ive been wanting to for a while.
Thx in advance
Deep breath. It basically comes down to the huge variety of hardware. Linux has to support hardware in it's kernel (basically a software layer that tells the operating system how to use that hardware) and each new variant of the kernel is supposed to be backward compatible (though support for very old hardware is dropped so the kernel doesn't get out of control). Now Android is a completely different branch of linux (at the moment), and each manufacturer further branches aosp and creates a different kernel for every mobile phone with different hardware. The manufacturers have to release the kernel back to the community after they upgrade but this is slow and even when they do the kernel only supports the variant of android (in this case sense). Finally if they don't release an OS upgrade at all then the kernel becomes outdated and won't support features in the new OS.
Devs feel free to correct me...
Sent from my Evo 3D GSM using xda app-developers app
CM7 is by now quite old, meaning developers have had A LOT of time to test, modify, run and perfect it, even several years ago a lot of phones had perfect CM7 ports/builds.
Both CM9 and CM10 are still quite new, and thus developers have not had that much time to modify it to run as well as CM7, but in time it'll get there, no doubt about it.
And it also depends on which developers are actively working on developing for a specific phone. As for example we now have Agrabren working on a CM10 build (GSM side) doing amazing work, while other phones do not have such developers, thus it will take longer time for those phones to get perfected.
As for the themes, it depends on what ROM you're using. There are several different ways to theme something, and they're very different if you're running either Sense 3, Sense 3.6, Sense 4, CM7, CM9, CM10 or MIUI 2.3 or MIUI 4 (etc.), so you'll have to be more specific. But it would be a good start to look in the "Themes and Apps" sub forum.
grrratt said:
Deep breath. It basically comes down to the huge variety of hardware. Linux has to support hardware in it's kernel (basically a software layer that tells the operating system how to use that hardware) and each new variant of the kernel is supposed to be backward compatible (though support for very old hardware is dropped so the kernel doesn't get out of control). Now Android is a completely different branch of linux (at the moment), and each manufacturer further branches aosp and creates a different kernel for every mobile phone with different hardware. The manufacturers have to release the kernel back to the community after they upgrade but this is slow and even when they do the kernel only supports the variant of android (in this case sense). Finally if they don't release an OS upgrade at all then the kernel becomes outdated and won't support features in the new OS.
Devs feel free to correct me...
Sent from my Evo 3D GSM using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Moonbloom said:
CM7 is by now quite old, meaning developers have had A LOT of time to test, modify, run and perfect it, even several years ago a lot of phones had perfect CM7 ports/builds.
Both CM9 and CM10 are still quite new, and thus developers have not had that much time to modify it to run as well as CM7, but in time it'll get there, no doubt about it.
And it also depends on which developers are actively working on developing for a specific phone. As for example we now have Agrabren working on a CM10 build (GSM side) doing amazing work, while other phones do not have such developers, thus it will take longer time for those phones to get perfected.
As for the themes, it depends on what ROM you're using. There are several different ways to theme something, and they're very different if you're running either Sense 3, Sense 3.6, Sense 4, CM7, CM9, CM10 or MIUI 2.3 or MIUI 4 (etc.), so you'll have to be more specific. But it would be a good start to look in the "Themes and Apps" sub forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey thx guys, I got a better understanding now. I appreciate you taking the time to explain that to me.
As far as themes, i will look into that thread.
BTW this site is awesome. You guys have done a great job making all of this accessible for people who refuse to hampered by the limits of a locked s-on phone.
ION vs PMEM
What is the difference?
Google is your friend - http://lwn.net/Articles/480055/
In the case of the Rezound specifically, ION is generally faster and less laggy, but has a purple tinted camera, and no working front camera (for now).
To quote shrike (I hope that's alright)
Originally Posted by shrike1978 View Post
ION is the new unified memory management architecture that Google is advancing. Prior to ION, every SoC manufacturer had their own way of doing memory management. Qualcomm's was pmem, Nvidia's was nvram, etc. It made it's debut as an option in ICS and is preferred in JB. Being unified also means that it is a good candidate for integration into the Linux kernel mainline, which would mean that Android would no longer require it's own separate branch of Linux.
So I've read this but what would that mean in terms of developement? If Android didn't have to be a separate branch of Linux, would it be easier to spread ROMs to all the different phones?
regnsy pronounced
noo_too_droid said:
To quote shrike (I hope that's alright)
So I've read this but what would that mean in terms of developement? If Android didn't have to be a separate branch of Linux, would it be easier to spread ROMs to all the different phones?
regnsy pronounced
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not a dev, but in my understanding the biggest hurdle for porting ROMS is device drivers. It is relatively easy to port a ROM from the HTC One X to the HTC Rezound, because they are made by the same manufacturer, have the same system-on-a-chip manufacturer (Qualcomm) and have a similar stock kernel based on different versions of HTC Sense.
But porting a ROM from, let's say a Samsung Galaxy III is nigh impossible, because it uses a different system-on-a-chip exclusive to Samsung phones and its stock kernel is based on TouchWiz. And even though Android is based on Linux, each of the phone manufacturers have slightly different ways of organizing system files that set the various system options. So a kernel patch that works on one device probably won't work on another. (kernel level features such as GPU overclocking, two-way call recording etc. rely on these system setting files).
Even among phones made by the same company, you may have hardware differences such as different camera technologies, different screen resolutions, etc. that make porting harder.
That's why cyanogenmod, AOKP and MIUI are so valuable and appreciated, because they organize porting of a ROM that, as far as the kernel and GUI are concerned, vary little between devices. However those projects still have to rely on what manufacturers choose to release as open source to develop hardware device drivers to port the ROM to each device.
And then you have the problem of, what level of Android is officially supported by the manufacturer? The Droid Incredible 2, for example, is still waiting for an official ICS release it may never get, which means running Jellybean as it is meant to be run is that much harder. It's hard enough on the Rezound, where we have official ICS kernel source.
That's why I give lots of kudos to people who take custom ROMs like BAMF paradigm, paranoid android and the like that were developed for other devices and port them to the Rezound. And mega kudos to people like chad who can port/re-factor underlying hardware code originally developed for another device to work on the Rezound. We're talking crazy wizard-level stuff like memory management, camera, hardware graphics optimization (Project Butter).
It makes stuff awesomer
wildstang83 said:
It makes stuff awesomer
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
An answer i can understand.....thx!
Dcnovicky said:
An answer i can understand.....thx!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ha, anytime my friend
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
brenuga said:
I'm not a dev, but in my understanding the biggest hurdle for porting ROMS is device drivers. It is relatively easy to port a ROM from the HTC One X to the HTC Rezound, because they are made by the same manufacturer, have the same system-on-a-chip manufacturer (Qualcomm) and have a similar stock kernel based on different versions of HTC Sense.
But porting a ROM from, let's say a Samsung Galaxy III is nigh impossible, because it uses a different system-on-a-chip exclusive to Samsung phones and its stock kernel is based on TouchWiz. And even though Android is based on Linux, each of the phone manufacturers have slightly different ways of organizing system files that set the various system options. So a kernel patch that works on one device probably won't work on another. (kernel level features such as GPU overclocking, two-way call recording etc. rely on these system setting files).
Even among phones made by the same company, you may have hardware differences such as different camera technologies, different screen resolutions, etc. that make porting harder.
That's why cyanogenmod, AOKP and MIUI are so valuable and appreciated, because they organize porting of a ROM that, as far as the kernel and GUI are concerned, vary little between devices. However those projects still have to rely on what manufacturers choose to release as open source to develop hardware device drivers to port the ROM to each device.
And then you have the problem of, what level of Android is officially supported by the manufacturer? The Droid Incredible 2, for example, is still waiting for an official ICS release it may never get, which means running Jellybean as it is meant to be run is that much harder. It's hard enough on the Rezound, where we have official ICS kernel source.
That's why I give lots of kudos to people who take custom ROMs like BAMF paradigm, paranoid android and the like that were developed for other devices and port them to the Rezound. And mega kudos to people like chad who can port/re-factor underlying hardware code originally developed for another device to work on the Rezound. We're talking crazy wizard-level stuff like memory management, camera, hardware graphics optimization (Project Butter).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll hit that thanks button just for that essay you typed
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda app-developers app
so for several months now, my mother has been using the LG Vortex, a small Android phone with a 3.2 inch touchscreen. It originally ran Android 2.2, but I've since given it a good old custom ROM, Quattrimus ICS, bumping the OS to, you guessed it, ICS, specifically, CyanogenMod 9. She's used to the OS and the size, but as it is, there are few phones being made to accommodate those people, and as ICS is now legacy by Google, and the microphone appears to be choking on this device, we need a new one.
I have no problem modifying a device to run a newer version of Android if need be, but I'm looking for specific details.
It can not be anything above 4 inches.
It must work on Verizon or Page Plus, or can work with the bands and be flashed.
It must run Android 4.x, or be able to run such versions in a stable way through use of custom ROMs.
That's all that needs to be dealt with. If anyone can help in this case, I would love to see some.