Related
With the source code now released how long do you guys think it will be before one of these mad catz works through it and optimizes it for the HTC Titan?
http://source.android.com/projects
I'm guessing we will see something within a month. I'm hoping sooner than that because I can't wait to try this out, I've been messing around with the SDK for a while and I'm looking forward to what is to come!
What do you guys think? Will we see one by Friday? By Nov? In one month?? By Christmas??
I hope something soon. I too want to see all the G1 goddiness on my Titan. Who knows. it might even have a working hardware acceleration driver!
my bet is by Christmas... I am planning on keeping an eye on the Vogue android thread by dzo He is the one that was able to get the SDK releases of android running via Haret... and to my understanding the Vogue and Titan are similar enough that most progress that they can make on the vogue will be relevant to the Titan...
I am not going to be getting a new phone anytime soon, so the idea that I might be able to have a new OS to play with on my phone is very enticing
I am excited about this whole android thing! I am not a devoleper, but I do like to modify, and tinker.... I would love to play with android when it gets close to ready, but I am wondering... is it / would it be possible to dual boot an OS with such limited resources? (i am afraid I don't realy understand how the ROM / OS thing works...) Or would it be more of a second device kinda thing untill all of the kinks are worked out?
I would say a hell of a lot sooner if we all stopped waiting and got to work.
I was surprised to receive a call while running it for the first time today. Need alignment and button mappings for a start.
The Titan doesn't meet the minimum system requirements for Android. Android requires 256MB flash memory and 128MB RAM. The Titan has 256MB of flash memory (which means you wouldn't be able to add anything to the phone), but it only has 64MB RAM (which means you're out of luck).
Don't get your hopes up, people.
dumpydooby said:
The Titan doesn't meet the minimum system requirements for Android. Android requires 256MB flash memory and 128MB RAM. The Titan has 256MB of flash memory (which means you wouldn't be able to add anything to the phone), but it only has 64MB RAM (which means you're out of luck).
Don't get your hopes up, people.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my hopes aren't up too high, I don't think we will be dual booting, or completely replacing the WM rom with an android rom really, but I don't see any reason why we wouldn't be able to get android running via haret like we have been doing for the past 3 months...
but I am curious, do you have a link to the minimum android requirements?
From my understanding Android was developed to be able to run on just about any device. In an interview with Googles Director of Mobile Platforms, Andy Rubin
Q: What were the primary development challenges for Android? Did you design it with high-end or mainstream hardware in mind, and what are the system requirements?
Rubin: When we built the system, we wanted it to be as flexible as possible. We did a lot of work to write our own library, and it's 250 kilobytes, not 3.4 megabytes.
We took a lot of those types of considerations when we were developing the platform. The platform is capable of running, as I said, on kind of mid- to lower-end devices as well.
We feel that one of the platform's distinguishing features is how it handles access to data. I talked about the mashups on the Internet and everything else. So, although the platform can run in a stripped-down fashion on mass-market phones, we think that the initial devices will be mid- to higher-end phones just because of the data access capabilities of the platform.
The minimal requirements are 32 megabytes of RAM, 32 megabytes of flash, and a 200-megahertz online processor. There are companies within the alliance working to bring that to even lower-power phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am aware that this interview is nearly a year old, so things may have changed, but since I cannot find a recent comment on the minimum requirements I have to assume that they still intend for Android to be able to run on a wide variety of hardware, which would include the Titan
But then again, I could be wrong, I might be missing a very obvious link to the minimum requirements for android.
Thanks in advance for the link
It seems that some people here don't understand that we can already run Android on the Titan. Just go here: http://it029000.massey.ac.nz/vogue/ , get the latest version, extract it to \Storage Card\, and then run the haret.exe.
Of course, we still need a lot of work to be done to make it fully usable. The touchscreen needs a bit of fine-tuning, in my opinion (though it's debatable). Another big issue is the keyboard. I think that some are working on it right now, though.
Recently ive been wondering why android is so different compared to windows?
I mean, although android 2.2, 2.3, (2.4) is out and running, only a small percentage of the phones actually got the upgrade, and most of em are still running 2.1 or lower for the time being, so what is the point in having a new firmware available if you cant run it on your phone anyway ?
Android is just a firmware right ? So why cant it be like windows, when there is a new version, no matter what specs or brand of PC, you just install and your up and running... And phones are just like small computers right ?
So why doenst google make android just as compatible as windows, and as soon as a new version comes out, we just install it and were good to go ? I know this is sort or less the whole point of it being open source, but there has to be a solution to this.
This would actually make so much more sense than it is right now! I know all phone-brands want to add there personal touch to there android phones like SE did with timescape and mediascape etc, but its all just based on the same firmware right ? So why cant these things like timescape and mediascape be seen like an update ? rather than fully integrated in the firmware ?
In my opinion, phone brands should go back to what they are actually good at.. manufacturing phones, and google should go back to what they are good at, designing new android versions, this shouldn't be the other way around.
Could one of you pls explain this to me ?
As a master student in economics, IF android could actually be compared like windows as I just explained, this would only have positive effects on the android/phone market, instead of all these angry and disappointed customers...
http://gizmodo.com/5733556/the-complete-state-of-android-froyo-upgrades
this threat is what made me write this, it is clear we are not the only ones stuck with 2.1 (but the gods at XDA are doing their best to fix this!)
I understand your point. My take on it is about the fragmentation. I'm not commenting whether it is good or not, but here's what I think. Windows machine have a much higher memory where they can store drivers, settings, etc. Just Windows XP alone took approx 6GB? I don't think phones can have that much internal memory at the moment. Also, PC's have interfaces where everything comes out to the correct machine language (PCI, SATA, etc) While these lacks on phones. They have different architectures and peripherals that supports only that architecture. Therefore, to keep it lightweight, it is the manufacturer's responsibility that if they are using OS such as Android, that the OS works with their hardware, while on PC, it's more hardware to work with the OS.
I'm sure if there's a universal hardware interface for mobile devices and enough internal memory, your wish will come true
unknown13x said:
I understand your point. My take on it is about the fragmentation. I'm not commenting whether it is good or not, but here's what I think. Windows machine have a much higher memory where they can store drivers, settings, etc. Just Windows XP alone took approx 6GB? I don't think phones can have that much internal memory at the moment. Also, PC's have interfaces where everything comes out to the correct machine language (PCI, SATA, etc) While these lacks on phones. They have different architectures and peripherals that supports only that architecture. Therefore, to keep it lightweight, it is the manufacturer's responsibility that if they are using OS such as Android, that the OS works with their hardware, while on PC, it's more hardware to work with the OS.
I'm sure if there's a universal hardware interface for mobile devices and enough internal memory, your wish will come true
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand what you are saying, but then again, why dont we just manufacture android phones based on the same architecture ? So they will all be compatible with every version of android ?
If this could be accomplished in some way, manufacturers wont have to deal with the lack of compatibility of newer versions anymore, and every phone will run optimal with any given firmware.
Android is at the same development stage as windows when it was win.dos, effectively; the future development was not foreseen. The aggressive marketing by ms changed that, obviously, but pcs from that era are hopelessly outdated. Mobile manufacturers are keeping up with Google rather than being dictated to by them. Eventually, a physical threshold will result in Android updates being software instead of hardware.
I think...
Sent from my X10i using XDA App
android is a fairly new n young operating system... its hardly 2 yrs old....
give it time... the way its goin now it headed in the right direction (same as windows)... compatibility issues will be sorted as time progresses... bare in mind that android devices span vast array of price ranges (and thus diff hardware as suited for that price) so compatibility will be an issue which will be sorted out in time...
clintax said:
I understand what you are saying, but then again, why dont we just manufacture android phones based on the same architecture ? So they will all be compatible with every version of android ?
If this could be accomplished in some way, manufacturers wont have to deal with the lack of compatibility of newer versions anymore, and every phone will run optimal with any given firmware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem is there's too many architecture to go for. A universal architecture means we're eliminating many companies. For example, say we choose snapdragon as our universal. That means ARM, NVIDIA, will all be taken out the competition. Of course ARM cannot build a microcontroller based on snapdragon's design either, this is due to licensing and such. I'm sure manufacturer wants something like you said, it will be much easier to manage, but chip makers are doing things their own way. Also, you have to consider how much new technology is being introduced to phones in just one year. It is massive. Even if phones have the same architecture, the problem that comes about is the memory size to store all the drivers. Either way, it will have to go through the manufacturer to strip it out, which would be back to where we start again. So it will not work out anytime soon...However I did heard Google is aiming to make a flexible Android where it can do something like you said, but looking at the hardware change, it's impossible for now
FWIW - I think that it's more to do with USP's - Each manufacturer could, quickly and fairly easily just bung stock android onto their hardware, and therefore make it extremely easy for us all to upgrade to the latest OS.. but they think.. "hang on, if we do that then all the phones will look and work in the same way.. why would anyone want to buy ours, over xxx competitors phone... no that simply won't do.. we must make our phones special, different and more appealing to XYXY subset of the market... that way we'll sell more phones than our competitors and eventually.. if we're lucky, we might just compete with Apple"..
Or something along those lines!
Gawd - I thought for a minute you actually wanted Android to be "like" Windows...
I nearly pooped myself.
k1sr said:
Gawd - I thought for a minute you actually wanted Android to be "like" Windows...
I nearly pooped myself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was thinking the same way! Windows? Nah! Windows itself is a bloatware OS...
Deleted...
What are the chances we'll see the new Ubuntu for phones os running on our hardware anytime soon?
As far as I understand it it should be just a matter of compiling for our specific soc, making a flashable rom and then flashing, right? They say it can run on android kernels so there shouldn't have to be any hardware interface work that needs to be done, right?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda app-developers app
If you don't mind me asking, how would this make any difference to us?
rangercaptain said:
If you don't mind me asking, how would this make any difference to us?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would enable us an alternative operating system choice, allowing application developers to create processor native applications (rather than using a java virtual machine that's quite resource intensive than running apps on the bare metal) thus using less system resources, enabling faster multitasking, greater compatibility with preexisting applications, enhanced security, and the desktop mode that they are touting is quite nice as well. connect an hdmi dongle and use a bluetooth keyboard and mouse to turn the phone into a desktop computer... there are lots of uses for a bare metal operating system on a hardware platform with restrictive system resources.
there's really nothing wrong with android per se, she's a great OS, but there are a wide number of other approaches to building os's and user experiences. I would consider this pretty similar to choosing to install ubuntu on a PC, or windows on a mac for that matter. it's a matter of widening the variety of application approaches and compatibility. a matter of choice.
I really want to know if this is possible after seeing the demo of it on engadget this morning I'm convinced that this is one os I'd be willing to flash and possibly leave on over android, as amazing as Android is this just better though out in terms of where everything is and speed of access
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk 2
It may take off, if someone is able to best the entire android community as a whole, but the odds of that are "0"...
We would be better served if google took it over, and incorporated the OS into a handful of smart phones. Beyond that prospect, a port for us would be nothing more than a pet project.
This idea is not new, and mention of it can be found in virtually ever forum on this site, and a few devs have met with success on getting a bootable Android device running Ubuntu, but it was a short lived event, as support for the OS is simply not there ATM.
I do agree that a different OS is a good idea, but as a dedicated Android user, I would not be willing to switch at this point, as a stable, functional OS is months or even years away.
Likely the OS would fall the way of RIM, and other OS platforms, albeit, ahead of it's time.....g
gregsarg said:
It may take off, if someone is able to best the entire android community as a whole, but the odds of that are "0"...
We would be better served if google took it over, and incorporated the OS into a handful of smart phones. Beyond that prospect, a port for us would be nothing more than a pet project.
This idea is not new, and mention of it can be found in virtually ever forum on this site, and a few devs have met with success on getting a bootable Android device running Ubuntu, but it was a short lived event, as support for the OS is simply not there ATM.
I do agree that a different OS is a good idea, but as a dedicated Android user, I would not be willing to switch at this point, as a stable, functional OS is months or even years away.
Likely the OS would fall the way of RIM, and other OS platforms, albeit, ahead of it's time.....g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I strongly believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, the fact of the matter is that it's already running on the quintessential android test bed for the current generation of phones (the galaxy nexus) which means that it should be very easily ported to other, similar hardware (which is most of the android devices out there right now.). if they made this completely open source (which i'm pretty sure they'd have to given that most of the components of the OS are built on open-source licenses), and allowed the already very good and very diverse linux community expand it's functionality, write good apps for it, I think it has some pretty great promise.
my personal standpoint however, is that operating systems for mobile should work exactly like they do for PC's (and macs for that matter). you should be able to install whatever, whenever, without the approval of the company that happens to make the hardware, and without the approval of the company who provides the data and telephone services for the device... it's a pocket computer, not a dumb phone designed for one thing.
I thought Android was Linux and Ubuntu was Linux. Why is one type better than the other? And to run native, wouldn't hardware manufacturers have to write a butt load of drivers? Like the fiasco of upgrading from win2000 to win7.
Ubuntu won't be released til 2014, will older phones like our note1 be supported?
Keep in mind that by 2014 the note1 would be considered old in mobile years.
rangercaptain said:
I thought Android was Linux and Ubuntu was Linux. Why is one type better than the other? And to run native, wouldn't hardware manufacturers have to write a butt load of drivers? Like the fiasco of upgrading from win2000 to win7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hardware drivers always run on the bare metal anyway (usually as part of the kernel, or occasionally as a background daemon service). the point is that android applications are built on top of the java environment which is a virtual machine - it's processes are abstracted and emulated which requires much more system resources than writing in something like c++ for the underlaying hardware. the only compatibility that this would break is that binaries don't work across cpu platforms. if something is compiled for the arm9 architecture for example (what most modern smartphones use, including our note), it wouldn't run on android for x86 or another java virtual machine like bluestacks. in order to get it to run on a different hardware platform you'd either have to emulate a complete device (like the iphone and android sdk simulators), or recompile it for the platform you want to run it on (only useful if you have the source code). the latter method is how linux distributions have been doing things for years. there are virtually identical linux distributions that can run on intel, arm, powerpc, sparc, motorola 68k, etc. etc. they can all run pretty much the same applications (because of the hardware abstraction layer present in the kernel), but in order for it to work, those applications must be recompiled for the appropriate underlaying processor architecture, as the output of a c(++,#) compiler is code that is cpu architecture specific.
also, windows 2000 and windows 7 were designed for the same (or similar) underlaying hardware problems. windows 2000 to windows 7 was mostly a piece of cake. whereas the move from windows 98 to windows 2000 or windows 98 to windows xp was difficult because windows 9x and windows 2000/xp use a different variety of hardware abstraction layer and thus different drivers must be written as drivers designed for one HAL won't work with another. (same thing for major linux revisions. the HAL in the 2.4 series of kernels is different from the one in 2.6 series of kernels which means one has to rewrite device drivers in order to get some less-than-standard hardware working.
So cp....
your a smart guy...
Get it going for us.....
you've got the skills we need to pull it off....g
gregsarg said:
So cp....
your a smart guy...
Get it going for us.....
you've got the skills we need to pull it off....g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, If i had access to the sources (that by all rights should be open thanks to the way the gpl is designed), I'd be happy to build a rom and help with the development efforts. I'm pretty decent at optimizing linux distributions for arm hardware. we should all petition canonical to release the code post haste.
I would love to see ubuntu ported over to phones. I almost fell off my chair when I heard of the idea that your phone could just connect to a monitor/keyboard/mouse to become a fully fledged desktop computer. This would literally replace almost all of my gadgets into one device. I wouldn't need a laptop, an ipod, a dvd player, or even a gaming console possibly as well.
I've been using ubuntu for a number of years and would be overjoyed to see almost all of my electronics and computing essentially made into one pocket sized device. The possibilities are so great for this kind of leap in technology and it almost seems to be the inevitable succession in personal computer technology. This could possibly be the beginning of the end for laptops, desktops, tablets, and netbooks/ultrabooks. All data would be transmitted using flash memory or transmitted OTA instead of spinning disks or other media.
If the source code is released, and I'm sure it will since Canonical has done a decent job of running Ubuntu lately, I hope someone brings it to the i717 because then I would probably sell a lot of electronic equipment
The release will never happen to allow a single, all inclusive device.
Ubuntu or not, there are too many hands in the pie, and billions of dollars on the table.
The apples, and Samsungs of the world will go at it until the day we die.
They all want the biggest piece, and will squash anyone that gets in their way.
Ubuntu would need a home run piece of code that emulates a magic carpet if they ever hope to slay the beast.
And if they did, I'm not so sure that people would embrace the one stop shop mentality for a single device anyway.
It simply stinks of yet another apple type monopoly in the making.
I support the idea, but it's the logistics that kill the deal, money driven logistics of course.....g
gregsarg said:
The release will never happen to allow a single, all inclusive device.
Ubuntu or not, there are too many hands in the pie, and billions of dollars on the table.
The apples, and Samsungs of the world will go at it until the day we die.
They all want the biggest piece, and will squash anyone that gets in their way.
Ubuntu would need a home run piece of code that emulates a magic carpet if they ever hope to slay the beast.
And if they did, I'm not so sure that people would embrace the one stop shop mentality for a single device anyway.
It simply stinks of yet another apple type monopoly in the making.
I support the idea, but it's the logistics that kill the deal, money driven logistics of course.....g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Too true, it's all about the money in the end, even with free stuff.
Now that you mention it, it does sound a lot like some sort of Apple type ploy to get you to buy their things... either way I hope it happens someday
Finally Ubuntu for the tablets is here. That's Right!!! This Thursday for the nexus7 and 10. Here goes the official video http://youtu.be/h384z7Ph0gU
hit the thanks... been a while
Almost here ,.....
Sent from my HTC Droid Dna Venom Rom using Tapatalk 2
horatiob said:
Finally Ubuntu for the tablets is here. That's Right!!! This Thursday for the nexus7 and 10. Here goes the official video http://youtu.be/h384z7Ph0gU
hit the thanks... been a while
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just the developer preview right now it looks like, I thought it was the full release for some reason. Anyone planning to jump in head first just for fun?
I think I'm going to wait a little bit, conceptually it seems great but I would initially like to "dual-boot" if that is in any way possible - does it actually install a grub like pre-loader where I could choose to boot to my SentinalROM instead? How about Google Play store integration, any news on that? The biggest hurdle for myself would be losing access to all my Play Store games/books.
Astriaal said:
Just the developer preview right now it looks like, I thought it was the full release for some reason. Anyone planning to jump in head first just for fun?
I think I'm going to wait a little bit, conceptually it seems great but I would initially like to "dual-boot" if that is in any way possible - does it actually install a grub like pre-loader where I could choose to boot to my SentinalROM instead? How about Google Play store integration, any news on that? The biggest hurdle for myself would be losing access to all my Play Store games/books.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh absolutely. I plan on downloading it as soon as it goes live.
Sent from my GT-N7100
Astriaal said:
Just the developer preview right now it looks like, I thought it was the full release for some reason. Anyone planning to jump in head first just for fun?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep
Astriaal said:
Just the developer preview right now it looks like, I thought it was the full release for some reason. Anyone planning to jump in head first just for fun?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm going to give it a try on my Nexus 7.. That's my entertainment/screw around with my own builds tablet.. I'm really not privvy to testing "development previews" of an alternate OS on a $500 tablet.. I'll at minimum wait a bit to feel it out on the Nexus 7 first and hear back from those who did try it on the Nexus 10.
Can this be dual booted?
I already backed up my tablet's data on pc. Ready to install it on both nexus 7 and 10!
tawfiqmp said:
Can this be dual booted?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I haven't read detail on it yet, but I did see a note indicating that it can be set up with dual boot -- needs a custom recovery, but it appeared pretty straightforward when I glanced at the description. Dual boot would certainly make me more receptive to giving it a try.
I'm not much of a developer but I'm all over this. Been waiting for over a year for this.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda app-developers app
Dual boot is mandatory for me to do this
SayWhat10 said:
Dual boot is mandatory for me to do this
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agreed. dual boot or no go!
if there is ubuntu for android where you have access to your android apps. Why cant we do that with our nexus 10?
I dont care for dualbooting if I can have access to android apps from within ubuntu.
horatiob said:
if there is ubuntu for android where you have access to your android apps. Why cant we do that with our nexus 10?
I dont care for dualbooting if I can have access to android apps from within ubuntu.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I know you do not have access to your android applications you simply have ubuntu.
Sent from a SGS3 GT-i9305
Loving this. You know they're turning this loose for the imaginative dev/hacker community to get great ideas for a full release on their own devices. It will benefit all in the long run. Google better embrace this as the future, I hope.
Sent from my LT28at using XDA Premium HD app
fredphoesh said:
As far as I know you do not have access to your android applications you simply have ubuntu.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well that sounds like............it sucks. smh
i mean all these people happy to that ubuntu is about here, that they would give up all their android apps? really????????????????
Recon Freak said:
Loving this. You know they're turning this loose for the imaginative dev/hacker community to get great ideas for a full release on their own devices. It will benefit all in the long run. Google better embrace this as the future, I hope.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's great seeing this kind of development, but I'm not yet clear that it's something that would help Google or necessarily benefit the majority of the user community...at least not in the near term. Google's been working hard at gaining market acceptance for Android, and a significant component of this will likely be, increasingly, the availability of Android as an internally consistent ecosystem that spans phone and tablets. Ubuntu is pushing the same idea, i.e., a single ecosystem that encompasses phones, tablets and PC's -- and that's great. But unless there's interoperability between OS's, it may be a while before the consumer market is ready to embrace yet another mobile OS in a big way, as appealing as Ubuntu may be.
My Android phone (Galaxy Nexus) and tablets (N10 and N7) work so well together these days that I really wouldn't want to replace any of them with a device running an OS and aps that didn't "connect" with my other devices as well and seamlessly as they all work together now. I'm also not about to replace all 3 devices right away, and start fresh finding apps that mimic the functionality of the 100+ Android apps that I have installed.
Android and Ubuntu are both based on Linux at the lowest levels, so they can take advantage of common hardware drivers. But at the app level, they're based on different languages and runtime systems - so far. At the moment, Android apps can't run on Ubuntu in any kind of native mode and vice versa. While Google is working to gain broad acceptance of Android, what incentive would they have to throw another OS in the mix at this stage of the game?
jonstrong said:
Android and Ubuntu are both based on Linux at the lowest levels, so they can take advantage of common hardware drivers. But at the app level, they're based on different languages and runtime systems - so far. At the moment, Android apps can't run on Ubuntu in any kind of native mode and vice versa. While Google is working to gain broad acceptance of Android, what incentive would they have to throw another OS in the mix at this stage of the game?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I meant to quote and managed to thank you - While they are based on different levels I do recall hearing that there would be a dalvik vm built into ubuntu to allow for android applications to run inside the system as well - as long as you have the apk and such. Similar to BlueStacks for W8 and Windows desktop.
omac_ranger said:
Well I meant to quote and managed to thank you - While they are based on different levels I do recall hearing that there would be a dalvik vm built into ubuntu to allow for android applications to run inside the system as well - as long as you have the apk and such. Similar to BlueStacks for W8 and Windows desktop.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the thanks, however inadvertent
As far as I've read, Canonical doesn't plan on creating a Dalvik JVM for Ubuntu any time soon. The statement from them suggested that they recognize that native compiled apps (the dev ecosystem on Ubuntu is primarily HTML5, QML, C++) will run faster and more efficiently than code running within a JVM -- this was part of the comment when asked if they were planning to incorporate a Dalvik emulator in Ubuntu. There's nothing to prevent someone from developing one, but making this work properly will also require cooperation between the Dalvik implementation and the security framework in Ubuntu -- certainly possible, but I'm guessing it could be a year before anything comprehensive along those lines is likely to make it to market.
There's also another question nagging at me: how will Google evolve Android over the next couple of years? With an increasing number of apps rolling out for Android, it's conceivable that multiple windows (such as Samsung already offers) may become a regular feature, apps will become increasingly powerful -- and the distinction, at least for many people and many applications -- between PC and Android device -- will become vanishingly small for many purposes. If that happens, my guess is that this would further reduce any incentive for Google to somehow tie Ubuntu in with Android.
Of course I could be 100% wrong, and this just be the kind of thinking that happens after a 12 hour day without enough coffee... I personally love the evolution of hardware and software, and look forward to seeing how this all pans out. Fun to speculate in the meantime.
jonstrong said:
Thanks for the thanks, however inadvertent
As far as I've read, Canonical doesn't plan on creating a Dalvik JVM for Ubuntu any time soon. The statement from them suggested that they recognize that native compiled apps (the dev ecosystem on Ubuntu is primarily HTML5, QML, C++) will run faster and more efficiently than code running within a JVM -- this was part of the comment when asked if they were planning to incorporate a Dalvik emulator in Ubuntu. There's nothing to prevent someone from developing one, but making this work properly will also require cooperation between the Dalvik implementation and the security framework in Ubuntu -- certainly possible, but I'm guessing it could be a year before anything comprehensive along those lines is likely to make it to market.
There's also another question nagging at me: how will Google evolve Android over the next couple of years? With an increasing number of apps rolling out for Android, it's conceivable that multiple windows (such as Samsung already offers) may become a regular feature, apps will become increasingly powerful -- and the distinction, at least for many people and many applications -- between PC and Android device -- will become vanishingly small for many purposes. If that happens, my guess is that this would further reduce any incentive for Google to somehow tie Ubuntu in with Android.
Of course I could be 100% wrong, and this just be the kind of thinking that happens after a 12 hour day without enough coffee... I personally love the evolution of hardware and software, and look forward to seeing how this all pans out. Fun to speculate in the meantime.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why does Ubuntu have to do anything with Google?
The developer preview is being made for Nexus devices but that's only because they are readily available and open to hacking.
I don't think Canonical realistically thinks Ubuntu will be the lead platform for Phones and Tablets but that's okay. They're currently trying to fill a niche with their tablet OS which is the enterprise market. This is one place where Android hasn't made a ton of inroads and it happens to be where Canonical makes their money(albeit still not profitable).
Dear wizards!
As you know Samsung quietly released a "new" S4 (I9506) based on the same hardware as their current "flagship" Note 3.(SM-N9005).
That they are the same I got verified from Samsung in US (YES! They DOES sometimes answer) and on some other place as well.
It does make sense since that is a cost-cutter, the S4 sales are falling. Closing one whole production line seems like the logical way to go.
The "new" S4 is on pair with Note 3 in Antutu (actually a little faster) and I know that does say much but it gives a rough estimate
(they both are around a bit over 35k fresh but the latest Note 3 update slowed it down to 28k (plain vanilla except for Antutu and a hardware info).
It's shipped with 4.2.2 with Knox turned off and I must say that it feels like a "test-bench"-version.
It would not surprise me if the shipped rom was the that they where using on their ref.
So with that in mind I postulated that there should be a 1:1 interchangeability between those phones.
I share a few files for you, most important PIT-files in readable form and recovery images, all Philz.
(A working I9506, from N9005 (oldest and newest found) and a I9505 as a reference)
As you can see they are exactly partitioned the same with the exact addresses and all (except for the current loaded content).
Well, it made me very happy and confident (doh).
I started to test the simplest(?) or easiest and that was to see if a custom recovery would work. We have a "mended" Philz that is working
but I thought that the N9005 should work as well, but of course, it didn't.
Had some funny results (like the first "BSOD"! BLUE! and a "melting screen" that was really scary before I realized that it was corrupting the video mem).
So the question is Why? What am I doing wrong?
I don't recall where I got the "mended" from and I have no way of getting in touch with Philz and ask him so I turn to you for guidance?
Looking at them they seem to at least have the same structure (same preamble, not stripped etc) and are much closer then if I compare with the
one from I9505 that I included. I have not disassembled it and I don't know what good that would do, and the question is if all have to be compiled
from scratch but then the other question comes, why?
You who have read my posts know that I worked with this before and that I am ATM rusty in my "Carbon memory and 3-bit year counters
on old DECs (not THAT old but seen them!) and I HAVE trouble to find any documentation since all who have it (if there is) sit on it tightly.
So it's a lot of Googling and T&E here, but I feel like there is something fundamental missing here so I turn to you
Am I doing some basic stupid error here?
What I have understood the recovery.img like the usual "rescue" that bootstrap itself and bypass the rest just like you use to when you build
something with hardware, so you can read the parameters, dump mem etc or am I wrong here?
Does it go through the bootloader etc? If so, is there any correlation between the bl and the recovery? Unfortunately Philz have removed older
versions so I can't try them, and I don't know what he did to make it work but since it DOES work, there must be something that was not that
hard to fix but I have no idea why the same basic hardware doesn't play well with each other?
I know that 96% of my posts and PM's are about Knox and all the tish (I didn't ask to be thrown into that and the more I've found out the worse it is...).
Each phone have it's unique certificate so there must be some PROM they use to burn it in and it must be readable since the bootloader
compares the X.509 cert you have against its own when you get into the Knox-trap.
So could that be something that is different? I don't know how it bootstraps from the beginning since I lack mentioned docs and I tried with
Samsung but here they have not bulged here. Let's hope they do. They need to get transparent else this will kill them (There I go...Sorry.).
So have any of you gurus some idea what could the cause of this incompatibility?
If everything has to be built from source, ok, we will try to do that for the roms that have them as OS, but if this is something stupid that I am
missing it would be so great if we could just use that, since the only things that are obvious is the screen, mem, internal size and the useless pen.
Else is just the same even if I take those progs that just list EVERYTHING or go into the service menus with different *# commands and they are
like twins but not just right?
Any help would be appreciated since this is our serious try to get it harmonized, and I really really hope we can here?
Because If my assumption is wrong then we are indeed a sad bunch in the I9506 corner...
All the best,
Abs
Too many words, too many false assumptions
The reason for I9506/E330 is LTE-A. Currently, only Snapdragon 800 supports LTE-A. It's not a test bench for Note 3 and it haven't been developed with Note 3 compatibility in the mind.
Because Snapdragon 800 is highly integrated SoC (unlike SD600 or Exynos) they are very similar in architecture. Very similar but NOT the same.
There are still notable differences such as:
- 3GB RAM instead on 2GB. You may think, it's minor difference, but it doesn't. Snapdragon actually can access up to 2GB RAM. Adding 1GB more RAM is a bit tricky. According to kernel source it uses ARM PAE interface. I didn't explore it much, but should be like page addressing like on old x86 computers with DOS and >640kb RAM.
- different digitizers and S-Pen in Note 3. So, kernel driver for wrong digitizer may fail/panic.
- Different GPIO definitions. Even the same components may be connected to different pins of SoC (they are configurable).
- Qualcomm uses its own microOS called RPM for low-level access to CPU and GPU functions. It's closed source, signed by per-model key and thus not inter-changable. RPC commands between linux and RPM may have slightly different strictures/ids making linux kernel from I9005 not compatible with I9506 phone.
- modem firmwares of these 2 models use different commands to communicate making i9005 ROM fail too boot and go to infinite booting cycles. Modem (as RPM) firmware is signed by per-model key and not-interchangeable. I want to note: even fully compatible by hardware E330 and I9506 models cannot accept modems from each other (because per-model signature), but thanks to fully compatible interfaces to modem and RPM firmwares you can use boot.img and system.img from each other.
These difference should be already enough to say these 2 models are not 100% compatible. I've tried to use kernel from I9005 on my E330S. Even compiled from source and using I9506/E330S defconfig i couldn't make it work correctly. Thus, even in Samsung R&D these 2 models are developing completely separate.
Having up to date ROMs for i9506 why care about I9005 compatibility?
Thank you for taking time to answer! :good:
But then you have to postulate things so someone can prove you wrong! :victory:
There is an ongoing battle between two "big" microbiologists. About where a certain bacteria should be in the taxonomy.
IIRC it's like 2 branches away. And a useless one. Not even killing us! What? Just 15 years? Baaah. Nothing!
"The bean looks like a kidney" & "The kidney looks like a bean" as written by Linné
I know I write too long and I was unclear. Sorry about that. Written too many "papers" where they loooove muchos pages.
And finished I see it's long again... kcuF, I'm incapable to write short. It really IS a occupational injury...
I don't look for the similarity with I9505. I know it's a Snapdragon 600, only mentioned it as a reference.
What I meant is the "new S4", I9506 and Note 3 (SM-N9005), both "international" and LTE that are Snapdragon 800.
I got information from Samsung that it was built on the same board. Can they still have totally different solutions in the end?
Because if it is the same board then I could avoid that Qualcomm proprietary tish you scare me with and try to look at the "Samsung level"?
In the I9506 shipped Rom there is a lot "S-pen things", but maybe that is in every one?
The download mode looks like this: I9506 and N9005.
Guess "Secure boot" is Knox but I don't know what "Write protection" stands for?
And I don't like "Write protection". For what? I use only protection for one thing! Blood! (Colorblind + Scalpel = Oops, hope he don't need that so much.)
Do you mean that they have not implemented a full 32-bit memory-bus? Not the usual 4 GB limit?
Just before CES, thay announced they are going for x64. I guess it's just easier to widen the bus then to have that banking and the
"640 kb is enough for everybody" and QEMM hell. Both where quite bad. Not to mention LBA... Or the 4 tb disks! (can't they learn?)
Is the microcode accessible as on Intel/Amd?
When I boot my x86 Linux machines the kernel reads the /etc/firmware that contains the latest version of the CPU microcode since it
doesn't "stick" but is updated - (Link to Arch wiki about it).
Is there some way to explore this further? To see what is similar and differ? JTAG?
I'll root my Note 3 if I have too. The shipped Rom is REALLY bad and buggy and I don't want to go to 4.3 since that leads to Knox-hell
and I don't want to be there either.
I hope that tech is right. I talked to a few, and he is one of the two that doesn't treat customers like cows but but where you can have a
meaningful dialog, held in a friendly and helpful way and not being a jerk. Seems unique at Samsung... Or am I just spoiled getting any at all?
What do you propose I shall go from here, мастер?
Thank you again,
Abs
I got information from Samsung that it was built on the same board. Can they still have totally different solutions in the end?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't relay on Samsung words too much. There are many people working in many Samsung branches and most of them are far from R&D knowledge. These 2 devices built on the same SoC (SD800), not the same board. It cannot be the same board for very obvious reasons.
In the I9506 shipped Rom there is a lot "S-pen things", but maybe that is in every one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All Samsung devices i have (I9100, I9300, E210K, E330S, I9506) - have many S-pen things inside. That's why you can find Note(1,2,3) mods for almost any Samsung device like ink effect on lockscreen. There is dead Note code inside all Samsung devices, because at some earlier stage code was taken from similar device and then started to develop for specific device by removing/disabling unneeded code and adding some device specific code.
Do you mean that they have not implemented a full 32-bit memory-bus? Not the usual 4 GB limit?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ARM appeared when RAM was enumerated in KB or MB. At that time, 640kb seamed to be enough for everyone forever
And with new trend of migrating to 64bit, i doubt there will be much effort to make 32bit ARM fully utilize 32bit RAM addressing mode.
Is the microcode accessible as on Intel/Amd?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not microcode, it's CPU code. Modern SoC like SD800 has many ARM cores inside besides 4 main cores. RPM is working on one of additional small cores. You may find rpm.mbn in official ROM update package. RPM is loaded at earlier stage by bootloader before linux kernel. It's signed and thus cannot be modified (and it's easy to hard-brick the device if you will manage to flash modified RPM).
but I don't know what "Write protection" stands for?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it's protection for bootloader, modem and all additional firmware parts loaded before kernel. Thus, you cannot flash modified versions of these parts.
Well, at least we have freedom to modify both Linux and Android parts.
Is there some way to explore this further? To see what is similar and differ? JTAG?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't have JTAG.
Qualcomm has Q-Fuses, so i don't expect possibility to boot Note 3 bootloader on I9506 after force-flashing it through JTAG.
Actually, i don't need JTAG to know that nothing useful will be done because N9005 is very different from I9506 from low-level point of view.
What do you propose I shall go from here, мастер?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It depends on you. You can get source code of i9506 kernel and compile your own kernel. Then get kernel source code from N9005 and try to compile working kernel for I9506 That will be very challenging work. While doing this you will understand the differences between these models. Probably, this knowledge will help to transform the code of existing (if any) N9005 CM/AOSP ROMs.