Frankly, the number of different versions there's going to be of this phone is starting to worry me.
CPU/GPU: Samsung Exynos / Nvidia Tegra 2
Display: SAMOLED+ / SLCD
NFC: yes / no
Radio: GSM / whatever legacy system the US still insists on using
Carriers: regular international version / a gadzillion heavily branded and slightly but incompatibly modified vanity versions for the major US carriers
That's a lot of possible combinations, even if only a fraction actually come into existence. Probably each will require their own firmware variant as well, resulting in
customer confusion
slower and fewer official updates, with more bugs
fragmented ROM dev community, resulting in reduced ROM choice and maybe even quality
a lot more bricks due to flashing incompatible stuff
even incompatible apps, to viz Tegra optimised games
...
IMHO, this phone alone is worse for Android's dreaded 'fragmented' image than the core OS versions ever were.
Discuss.
(Yes, I like being provocative, no, this is not intended as a troll. Maybe even some good can come of it, like not splitting the XDA forums that much, this time.)
Well like most phones at minimum there will be 2 variants one for GSM other CMDA like the Korean version which includes NFC and also TV (lucky buggers!)
fallenguru said:
Frankly, the number of different versions there's going to be of this phone is starting to worry me.
CPU/GPU: Samsung Exynos / Nvidia Tegra 2
Display: SAMOLED+ / SLCD
NFC: yes / no
Radio: GSM / whatever legacy system the US still insists on using
Carriers: regular international version / a gadzillion heavily branded and slightly but incompatibly modified vanity versions for the major US carriers
That's a lot of possible combinations, even if only a fraction actually come into existence. Probably each will require their own firmware variant as well, resulting in
customer confusion
slower and fewer official updates, with more bugs
fragmented ROM dev community, resulting in reduced ROM choice and maybe even quality
a lot more bricks due to flashing incompatible stuff
even incompatible apps, to viz Tegra optimised games
...
IMHO, this phone alone is worse for Android's dreaded 'fragmented' image than the core OS versions ever were.
Discuss.
(Yes, I like being provocative, no, this is not intended as a troll. Maybe even some good can come of it, like not splitting the XDA forums that much, this time.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
SLCD Never confirmed. Rumor only. Tegra-version in Hong Kong gets Super Amoled +.
Agreed! Its going to be very confusing, Hopefully Samsung says to the various carriers this time around that they are not going to release different versions of the phone, but i dont see that happening. More Options= More Phones sold= More money for Samsung.
EleCtrOx666 said:
SLCD Never confirmed. Rumor only.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, but seeing as the SGS1 and the NS got an SLCD version, I find it to be credible, at least.
nikzDHD said:
version which includes NFC and also TV (lucky buggers!)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm rather relieved that there's no DVB-H receiver or the like in the phone - wouldn't want to have to pay the TV tax.
fallenguru said:
Frankly, the number of different versions there's going to be of this phone is starting to worry me.
CPU/GPU: Samsung Exynos / Nvidia Tegra 2
Display: SAMOLED+ / SLCD
NFC: yes / no
Radio: GSM / whatever legacy system the US still insists on using
Carriers: regular international version / a gadzillion heavily branded and slightly but incompatibly modified vanity versions for the major US carriers
That's a lot of possible combinations, even if only a fraction actually come into existence. Probably each will require their own firmware variant as well, resulting in
customer confusion
slower and fewer official updates, with more bugs
fragmented ROM dev community, resulting in reduced ROM choice and maybe even quality
a lot more bricks due to flashing incompatible stuff
even incompatible apps, to viz Tegra optimised games
...
IMHO, this phone alone is worse for Android's dreaded 'fragmented' image than the core OS versions ever were.
Discuss.
(Yes, I like being provocative, no, this is not intended as a troll. Maybe even some good can come of it, like not splitting the XDA forums that much, this time.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I disagree with you a lot...
1. The term "Android fragmentation" as it is used in the community has nothing at all to do about a single hardware manufacturer's different hw-configurations. Android fragmentation is about the problem for developers to make their apps compatible with different Android versions (API-levels) and different resolutions/display sizes. App compatibility is not affected by different base-band chips or different display types with same size and resolution.
2. Having different models for different markets has been common for many years, nothing new here. E g Korea has had TV as standard on high-end phones for years.
3. A modern smartphone platform is modular and similar to a PC (Android is Linux-based). There is probably no-one in the world who has exactly the same PC components in their PC as I have in my PC (e g exactly the same CPU, GPU, TV-card, sound card, mouse, memory etc), but stilll my PC works flawlessy. Removing a peripheral circuit as NFC in certain markets to save cost is a no-brainer for testing, integration, developing Custom ROM etc.
4. So far all rumours indicates that i9100 is with Super AMOLED+ and Exynos. So there will probably not be a Tegra 2 in i9100. Tegra 2 seems to be used in i9103 Otherwise it could be a bit confusing since Exynos & Tegra 2 are different SOC's with quite different GPU's.
5. All your stuff about different carriers etc is just strange, there is nothing new concerning Galaxy S2 here compared to other phones. Having different base-band chips in different market (I don't know if Galaxy S2 needs that) is not a problem and could even improve performance since it is easier to tune the antenna for fewer frequency bands.
6. I don't know if a versions with S-LCD will be called i9100 or not, I'd prefere not to have S-LCD with model name i9100, but we'll see what happens. HTC did this with Desire, and that is one of the most popular phones for modding at XDA. So nothing new here.
tjtj4444 said:
I disagree with you a lot...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you really think that app compatibility won't be affected in practice? The way I see it, if a developer wants to be able to say "compatible with / tested on Samsung Galaxy S 2" they'll have to a) know of and b) test on all variants, or at least the major ones. Take Skype as an example, which works from 2.1 on most phones but needs 2.2 on most / all versions of the SGS1. If you want to use the NDK it gets worse - every major game developer'll need a lengthy FAQ about which version of the game goes on which version of the SGS2.
A lot of apps needed fixes to work on low res devices like the original HTC Wildfire, etc.
On phones that are entirely different or at least perceived as such, this is less of a problem - devs can cope, but when technically near-identical phones are sold under different names (or quite different ones under the same name), there's bound to be a lot of consumer confusion atop of that.
Granted, maybe the other markets' models weren't as visible to me before Android. From a consumer perspective, the borders between markets are disappearing, though, thanks to the internet.
That would work, if there were, as for the PC, a common framework for the development of drivers, which are (also) distributed seperately from the hw. Sometimes drivers can be re-used on another phone with minimal modifications, but nowhere near all the time.
I agree with you insofar as I would love to be able to get just a phone, built to order (within limits), that I could install a variety of different Android distributions on. Sadly, that's not a reality yet.
Yes, we'll see.
Maybe it isn't new, but it's still absurd, at least from an European perspective. GSM vs. CDMA is one thing, but limiting specific models to certain frequency bands of the same standard is done purely for market seperation. It's even more stupid than the DVD region codes.
Again, we'll see.
I think having carrier specific versions with ultra minor changes is completely idiotic (looking at you America). It seems the networks there want to get you onto them because of the specific phone instead of having good plans/pricing.
I think the iPhone has it right, one model released worldwide, I wish every other company did that.
As an American, it irritates me, too, that there can't be one version that works in Europe, Asia, and US. Each unit might cost more to make, but it could save money by not having to mfr. 6 different phones instead of one.
I also wonder if Android will ever be truly compatible across multiple devices. Every pc is different, yet they can all run the same Windows or Linux versions, just with different drivers.
Scared27 said:
It seems the networks there want to get you onto them because of the specific phone instead of having good plans/pricing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good pricing/plans in not the philosophy of an american corporation, maximizing profits and keeping share holders happy at all costs is.
fallenguru said:
Do you really think that app compatibility won't be affected in practice? The way I see it, if a developer wants to be able to say "compatible with / tested on Samsung Galaxy S 2" they'll have to a) know of and b) test on all variants, or at least the major ones. Take Skype as an example, which works from 2.1 on most phones but needs 2.2 on most / all versions of the SGS1. If you want to use the NDK it gets worse - every major game developer'll need a lengthy FAQ about which version of the game goes on which version of the SGS2.
A lot of apps needed fixes to work on low res devices like the original HTC Wildfire, etc.
On phones that are entirely different or at least perceived as such, this is less of a problem - devs can cope, but when technically near-identical phones are sold under different names (or quite different ones under the same name), there's bound to be a lot of consumer confusion atop of that.
Granted, maybe the other markets' models weren't as visible to me before Android. From a consumer perspective, the borders between markets are disappearing, though, thanks to the internet.
That would work, if there were, as for the PC, a common framework for the development of drivers, which are (also) distributed seperately from the hw. Sometimes drivers can be re-used on another phone with minimal modifications, but nowhere near all the time.
I agree with you insofar as I would love to be able to get just a phone, built to order (within limits), that I could install a variety of different Android distributions on. Sadly, that's not a reality yet.
Yes, we'll see.
Maybe it isn't new, but it's still absurd, at least from an European perspective. GSM vs. CDMA is one thing, but limiting specific models to certain frequency bands of the same standard is done purely for market seperation. It's even more stupid than the DVD region codes.
Again, we'll see.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i think you're confusing optimization vs compatibility
ph00ny said:
i think you're confusing optimization vs compatibility
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope, even though the distinction isn't as clear-cut as you might think. Tegra 2 optimised games won't run on other SoCs at all, Firefox Mobile (a freaking browser) will only run on ARMv7+. Even if a lot of apps without low res support somewhat work on low res phones, from the perspective of a customer they "don't work properly" - and that's it.
The fact that different phones support different features is not the problem, the lack of a simple and easy to understand way to communicate these feature differences to the consumer, is. We read spec sheets, regular people as a rule do not. But they'll still want to know why their friend with a German SGS2 can pay the parking fee by touching his phone to a thingamajig, while they, with the UK version, cannot. (Just an example, I've no idea who gets NFC and who doesn't.)
how to know
When you see a retail package, how would you know which version it is? do they show on the box?
hazem77 said:
When you see a retail package, how would you know which version it is? do they show on the box?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess the model number would be printed somewhere in the area where the serial number / IMEI and barcodes are. What features that version has and doesn't have you'd have to know yourself.
EleCtrOx666 said:
SLCD Never confirmed. Rumor only. Tegra-version in Hong Kong gets Super Amoled +.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, Sammy announced the HK version as Tegra2/SA+, and then soon after corrected that, stating that HK would be Exynos/SA+
http://hktechnews.com/?p=327
Related
Hello everyone,
I was wondering if there is a way to upgrade certain parts of the phone, i.e. processor, camera, audio card, etc. I view my phone alot like a pc, and i built my own pc...so i thought to myself. Is there a way to build an android phone? or maybe upgrade existing parts? I think it would be awesome if we were able to pick and choose what we want in our phones! Personally id like a faster processor, and more internal memory. But i feel it'd be beneficial to all people who only use their phones to do certain things and may not want other "Stock" accesories. Maybe not, Let me know what you think/know about this! Id be interested in building my own android device!
Thanks!
Pascal Borner
Sorry but this would be really unrealistic. The battery is one thing, but phones are so compact and dense that parts aren't really made to take out and put in. I know what you mean, I build computers for a living.
But the parts in phones aren't socketed or use slots, so even just to start would require major unsoldering. I briefly tried to find out how many pins the ARM v6 processor of the Eris has. I'm sure it's a lot, perhaps not as many as the 940-pin AMD AM3 or the 1366-pin Intel Core i7, but it's probably in the hundreds.
And then we're dealing with compatibilities. In desktop processors, they keep the same pin architecture for at least a couple years (but you can find the same architecture for at least five). But they probably don't worry about that with phone processors since they're even more dense than laptops so each and every phone has to be made from scratch, so, for instance, the ARM v7 probably wouldn't fit where an ARM v6 was. There's also the software compatibility. I don't know if they make ARM v6's of different processor frequencies, but I doubt it. Even if they did, you'd still have to deal with the many, many pins.
It's doubtful that they have unused spots for RAM in these phones, and it's doubtful you could just remove the existing RAM and replace it with larger without having problems, but even if so, you're still dealing with all of the pins, procuring compatible RAM of a larger logical size...
You get the idea. I guess I'm just a big ray of sunshine!
The FCC probably would object to roll-your-own cell phones, too...
Thanks for your helpful info. I guess that makes sense. I saw a website (from a European country) that you can order a phone and pick parts from them, I.e. size of internal/external drive, different MP for the camera, flash/no flash(camera) , etc. I forget the company but if you like ill post a link to it when I find it. Once again, thanks for the explaination!
Sent from my Vanilla FroShedYo using XDA App
Sure, no problem. Back a while (maybe years now) there was a similar offering by some company for laptops where you could upgrade parts of it at a later time because it was more modular than most laptops at the time. You could almost always upgrade CPUs on laptops as long as they were socketed, and you still can now, it just requires downloading a service manual to find out what the best order of disassembly is in order to do so, so it's not for the everyday user.
But only laptops with discrete video cards have the possibility to upgrade them, although I have no experience with these kind of laptops so I don't know how easy that is.
but...
So i was checking out stuff on replacing screen etc on an samsung s3, and i also found a section where it shows how to replace camera and motherboard, this is to replace with the exact same one obviously. But i was wondering if maybe you could find a similar camera from a different phone that may fit? I know i cant really answer the question...sorry but just adding input. And another question came to mind with regard to the upgrading of hard ware, is if it were possible lets say to upgrade the camera to a better megapixel, would there be a conflict with the os etc, ie in the coding for the phone is it configured to only be able to process and capture a picture of megapixel of the stock camera. not sure if that makes any sense
this is the link with the replacements http://www.ifixit.com/Device/Samsung_Galaxy_S_III
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...
Which company do you think?
Samsung
Apple
Motorola
ZTE
LG
HTC
Kyocera
RIM
HP Palm
Sony
Pantech
Dell
Nokia
--------------
Also which chip manufacturing company will produce Tri-Core or Quad-Core First?
Qualcomm
Nvidia
Texas Instruments
Samsung
Apple
-------------
Submit your vote!
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
Nvidia already has the Kal-El near complete.
Sent from my Fascinate with MIUI Gingerbread
What's the point of this thread?
Technically, all the "dual core" phones have been tri-core all along... there's a tiny third arm core hidden inside, controlling the radio!
And yeah, nVidia is more than likely going to be the first to get tri and quad core processors, they appear to have by far the most aggressive roadmap. They'll likely also appear first in tablets, before phones (at least that's the sane thing to do!), but which manufacturer will be first out the door is a total crapshoot.
FDro said:
What's the point of this thread?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd imagine the same "point" as the "Who's going to be the first company to use THz Processors" (except slightly less insane- still pointless, though).
FDro said:
What's the point of this thread?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no point... just another general bs thread by enyo
Who cares? When somebody gets a hold of them everybody will, and they will be the next standard thing in high end phones. It will probably be a while before anything like that will be worth it though, some people need to spend less time on battery-consuming chips and more time on making batteries last longer.
Sent from my MIUI SCH-i500
End of this year. Most possibly a Google phone.
Sent from my ADR6350
While is sounds fun, I'm not sure people consider the power required. More processors requires more power, that's fairly obvious, and the performance benefit may not really be worthwhile. Android has a way to go in terms of performance compared to the iPhone.
I have to give the iPhone props in this dept. The interface is incredibly snappy in terms of responsiveness. Animations are simply smoother (think when pulling down the notification pane or flipping through app pages) (than 2.2 anyway) and there are fewer laggy moments, at least from what I've seen.
If the iPhone can do it on a 1GHz ARM processor, Android should be able to as well.
IMO there are lots of improvements that could be made with single (and I guess I have to include dual-core now) processors, and I would prefer to see them take that route first.
antigenx said:
While is sounds fun, I'm not sure people consider the power required. More processors requires more power, that's fairly obvious, and the performance benefit may not really be worthwhile. Android has a way to go in terms of performance compared to the iPhone.
I have to give the iPhone props in this dept. The interface is incredibly snappy in terms of responsiveness. Animations are simply smoother (think when pulling down the notification pane or flipping through app pages) (than 2.2 anyway) and there are fewer laggy moments, at least from what I've seen.
If the iPhone can do it on a 1GHz ARM processor, Android should be able to as well.
IMO there are lots of improvements that could be made with single (and I guess I have to include dual-core now) processors, and I would prefer to see them take that route first.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
they need to make batteries that are more efficient and last longer. If smartphones actually lasted more than a day of real usage of data and everything they would be much more appealing to the consumer market.
Sent from my MIUI SCH-i500
antigenx said:
IMO there are lots of improvements that could be made with single (and I guess I have to include dual-core now) processors, and I would prefer to see them take that route first.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's really a software issue (inc drivers).
Apple has a major advantage in this department. There's a grand total of four iPhones (5 if you count the CDMA iPhone 4), 4 iPod Touches, and 2 iPads, for a total of 11 devices, and only 7 of them (counting CDMA iPhone 4 as a separate device) are still supported in new OS updates.
Lets just take the Galaxy S to compare: How many variants of it are there? Every major carrier in the US has their own version, plus a second one on Verizon... that's five right there! And that's totally ignoring all the international variants (which usually stick much closer to the i9000)! And those are all from a single generation!
I kinda doubt Samsung has as many people working on hardware-software integration as Apple for their phones, and they quite stupidly spread them out far thinner, to countless different devices!
That is the reason that the iPhone's performance crushes Android's. The Android carriers put far less effort into the software side of all their devices, thinking that the specs are all that matters, totally forgetting that specs mean nothing if the software can't take advantage of them!
Compare the stock Fascinate software to MIUI/CM7/AOSP. The alternative ROMs have some reliability issues, but that's largely due to our devs having to figure out the hardware entirely on their own, with limited to no access to the actual documentation! And yet, Samsung's ROMs often have worse issues!
This is Android's fragmentation issue. Quantity (of models) over quality.
During a discussion about whether to get an iPad or an Android (I much prefer this) tablet for use in aviation, someone who is obviously drinking the Apple koolaid brought up the point that developing apps for Android is difficult because of the large number of different devices and hardware sets associated with the operating system, especially in an environment where it needs to work right every time like aviation. They said that this is a major reason the bulk of the apps for aviation are only available on Apple devices currently, and probably for the foreseeable future, despite the fact that there are quite a few good aviation apps out there for Android devices.
I'm hoping that someone with more experience working with app development can tell me whether the point this person brought up is true, or if its a myth perpetuated by Apple junkies. Personally, I feel like there has to be quite a high degree of commonality in the way the different devices behave with similar commands or else the operating system wouldn't be so easily adapted to each device and there would probably only be device specific apps because application developers probably don't want to develop 100 different versions of the same program just to be sure all devices are covered. Then again, I'm no dev, so my base assumptions could be 100% wrong.
Please enlighten me...
Reality. Every phone has different processors, GPUs, RAM, Screensize and even hardware buttons. In companies like Apple, their phones are limited to a few types, and their hardware, processors are similar. So app developers are more likely developing apps for Apple even though Android has much more users. And back to your question, your assumption is correct, and it is reality that there are too many devices running on Android and it is difficult to develop every single app to suit every single device's hardware properties0
Ronny927 said:
Reality. Every phone has different processors, GPUs, RAM, Screensize and even hardware buttons. In companies like Apple, their phones are limited to a few types, and their hardware, processors are similar. So app developers are more likely developing apps for Apple even though Android has much more users. And back to your question, your assumption is correct, and it is reality that there are too many devices running on Android and it is difficult to develop every single app to suit every single device's hardware properties0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you're saying that the other person is correct?
My assumption is that there is a high degree of commonality between the various Android devices, such that, even though there are a large variety, the same basic operating principles carry across most of them...
treblesum81 said:
So you're saying that the other person is correct?
My assumption is that there is a high degree of commonality between the various Android devices, such that, even though there are a large variety, the same basic operating principles carry across most of them...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Didnt read your full post. Sorry. But yes, Im saying the other person is correct.
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.