Good day all
I used to have a Captivate (Galaxy SI) then the Note I. Once I purchase a device, I instantly flash a CM rom. It's been a year of suffer with the not-fully-supported Note. Frequent reboots, Bluetooth and UI glitches, heat and charging problems. It's easier to live with theses issues instead of living with TouchWiz.
Long story short, I'm planning to purchase a new device. What do you think the best high-end device (other than f#$%ing Samsung) in terms of CM support.
I know, I know that the Nexuses are best bets ! But I wanna explorer other options (screen size, SD, resolution, camera, etc) :victory:
I've seen people give appraisals on Oppo Find 5.
You precious advices and suggestions brothers.
AhmadAlmousa said:
Good day all
I used to have a Captivate (Galaxy SI) then the Note I. Once I purchase a device, I instantly flash a CM rom. It's been a year of suffer with the not-fully-supported Note. Frequent reboots, Bluetooth and UI glitches, heat and charging problems. It's easier to live with theses issues instead of living with TouchWiz.
Long story short, I'm planning to purchase a new device. What do you think the best high-end device (other than f#$%ing Samsung) in terms of CM support.
I know, I know that the Nexuses are best bets ! But I wanna explorer other options (screen size, SD, resolution, camera, etc) :victory:
I've seen people give appraisals on Oppo Find 5.
You precious advices and suggestions brothers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well you can buy a nexus, some devices in sony are open sourced..or better you can buy a google play edition phone :good:
Where do you think CM would perform better... on Google Edition phones or the Open Source Sony ones.
AhmadAlmousa said:
Where do you think CM would perform better... on Google Edition phones or the Open Source Sony ones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that depends on the phones spec..:good:
AhmadAlmousa said:
Where do you think CM would perform better... on Google Edition phones or the Open Source Sony ones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
CM is developed as free and open source software based on the official releases of Android by Google, with added original and third-party code.
in conclusion phones like Nexus will always have a CM support.
Also visit HERE to see a list of supported devices.
Gens, I fully understand your inputs. For instance, my Note, which has been receiving its share of the nightlies and RCs. So far, I'm still getting heat problems, lags, bluetooth connectivity issues, battery drains.
I'm not looking for supported device. I'm trying to find almost(fully) supported high-end device. So far, I found that my best bet could be
1-Oppo Find 5
2-Xperia Z
3-Qualacomm-based Galaxy devices ?
What do you think the best of them could be ?
AhmadAlmousa said:
Gens, I fully understand your inputs. For instance, my Note, which has been receiving its share of the nightlies and RCs. So far, I'm still getting heat problems, lags, bluetooth connectivity issues, battery drains.
I'm not looking for supported device. I'm trying to find almost(fully) supported high-end device. So far, I found that my best bet could be
1-Oppo Find 5
2-Xperia Z
3-Qualacomm-based Galaxy devices ?
What do you think the best of them could be ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oppo FFInd 5 is the one.:good:
wonder if this will be a good thing for the true smart and any takes porting it across.
I'd like to know too!
mootmaina said:
wonder if this will be a good thing for the true smart and any takes porting it across.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my opinion is it they dont come with their own wifi chip to connect to other networks and run independantly from phone than its just a nicer interface and exact same thing as the galaxy gear which stinks in my opinion compared to the truesmart, callisto, and motoactv. which all can run independant of phone.
dragonfly1113 said:
my opinion is it they dont come with their own wifi chip to connect to other networks and run independantly from phone than its just a nicer interface and exact same thing as the galaxy gear which stinks in my opinion compared to the truesmart, callisto, and motoactv. which all can run independant of phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The question is not about the android wear devices but the operating system. I would also be interested in trying out the android wear version of Android on my Omate. From the videos it seems very similar to the Google Glass OS that runs on Glass. I used my Omate as my primary phone for a while but the microphone was not too good so I switched back to my main phone for a bit. I would love to see the ease and simpler screens of the Android Wear OS on my Omate.
It's basically Now as your UI. It requires a minimium of 4.3 on the host device and 4.4ish on the device it's running on.
mootmaina said:
wonder if this will be a good thing for the true smart and any takes porting it across.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually it wouldn't take any porting at all. Someone created an Android Wear launcher .apk, but it's only compatible with 4.4. Hurry up Omate! Or should I say Umeox?
I asked about Android Wear on their facebook. They said they have the SDK and the OS and are working to see if it's something to can make available to Omate users. But it's in the hands of mediatek mostly.
mortis2600 said:
I asked about Android Wear on their facebook. They said they have the SDK and the OS and are working to see if it's something to can make available to Omate users. But it's in the hands of mediatek mostly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is a longshot, but I don't know the details yet. What if it will all be built into the Google Search app, and we need some kind of xposed module to enable it? That would make sense if this was a year ago, but Google seemingly wants to making apps easier, lighter, and thinner so only general features are there. Who knows at this point.
Android wear needs a 4.3 firmware OE better. The TrueSmart is already eol at the shipped 4.2.2...right ?
Maybe they are planning another cheapass half-baked device to sell to their massive happy user base ? TrueSmart 2 ?
mortis2600 said:
I asked about Android Wear on their facebook. They said they have the SDK and the OS and are working to see if it's something to can make available to Omate users. But it's in the hands of mediatek mostly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Coming from the same guys with a development team that needed chown explained to them.
I completely agree. I'm pretty much done with the Omate at this point. I almost feel bad about selling it to someone.
Hi. Do you know after a few month of android wear if it's possible to put it on a TS ?
It's possible. It would be incredibly difficult.
[deleted]
GregBrimble said:
Just a quick question from a long time XDA post-reader, recently turned question-asker. I have done some development for Android, having created an app, and am aware of ROMs having flashed Cyanogenmod to my HTC Desire C and Kindle Fire HD 2012.
I love to tinker and really utilise a new device as much as I possibly can, and am considering buying the Samsung Galaxy Gear Fit. The only quam I have is the apparent lack of ability to create firmware and otherwise modify the Fit. I know the Fit runs an custom-built RTOS, and that it has a download mode where firmware updates can be flashed using ODIN or similar. Is there any way that a custom firmware could created, or modified from the original?
Furthermore, during my internet digging, I came across several sites proclaiming that Samsung have released an SDK for the Fit allowing rudimental custom notification pushes and similar basic functionality. Is there anyone that can vouch for this ability and support for the SDK?
P.S. As a new user I am unable to post external links. The SDK's are called Samsung mobile, and S Health SDK. A quick search on the Samsung developer site returns them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They released Samsung Mobile SDK, but libs for Gear Fit are still missing. IMHO I think that they will never release libs for Gear Fit. It's more then 4 months from publishing Gear Fit on market. I don't recommend use this gadget witn non-Samsung mobile. With Samsung mobile everything was working very well, but now I have LG G3 and I can't use Fitness functions and also there are problems with reconnection via BT.
[deleted]
GregBrimble said:
Even the Accessory and Remote Sensor?:crying:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know much about this, but what I know is that libs for Gear Fit are unavailable.
[deleted]
Much better choice is LG G Watch. I have Gear Fit, but with LG G3 are useless. So maybe I'll buy LG G Watch and sell Gear Fit.
[deleted]
GregBrimble said:
I prefer the band to a square face though, and the heart rate monitor looks useful.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Heartrate is the worst function that Gear Fit had. Because is inaccurate and useless at all. You can read a lot about this at the community G+.
Hi! This is my first post on XDA.
As a user of CM for more than a year ago on my i9300, and after enduring a lot of bugs, I wonder: What happens to CM?
It's a known fact that the Exynos platform is a headache for developers because there is no documentation or open sources from Samsung. So, things like the camera, the sound system, the HDMI output and the GPU do not work as they should.
However, here are many good developers who have fixed these bugs, or at least improve them a bit. And most of these fixes are open source and accessible by everyone on Github.
So, what is waiting CM to implement them? Giving credit to their authors, obviously.
CyanogenMod announces itself as an alternative to the stock firmware that lets you take full advantage of your smartphone, making it better and more stable. Now they are also a company: Cyanogen Inc. As a reputable brand, it should offer a higher quality firmware. ROMs like Nameless (I'm using it right now) works better even being "not official".
This is just an opinion as a user. I'm not criticizing or forcing anyone to do anything. But if there are hundreds of people using a ROM with bugs that were fixed, why not implement them? I would be the first to help, but my skills are just about webdev.
Respect and thanks for i9300 developers on XDA, and sorry about my bad English. When I use my native language I express myself MUCH better. Trust me. lol
Thanks for reading.
There's no i9300 maintainer, and they accept pull requests (on gerrit) when somebody sends them.
Also, the fact that there's no i9300 maintainer is directly connected with what you already said - lack of proper documentation. Nobody wants to fix the mess that has been created since whole this time. The amount of hacks required to make AOSP work on i9300 is too damn high. I'm slowly fixing this mess, making i9300 a bit better supported, but it's still a long way until it's done. Take a look at ArchiKernel for example, why I had to create my own kernel? Because smdk4412 sources were so much outdated that they finished around update7, right after sudden death fix. XXELLA, 4.1.2 Android times, hello. So first thing was to cleanup the kernel mess, use up-to-date samsung sources (used for stocks) and make them work with AOSP. Now, if I commit my work to CM, they'll deny this instantly because new kernel supports only i9300 and this commit would break all other exynos4 variants from compiling. Yes, together we COULD fix it, make it work with other devices. But I have better things to do than trying to fix whole exynos4 family, I focus on i9300.
This is one of the reasons why we won't see any official cm12 nightly for i9300. Because nobody is going to maintain that. Even if we can fix something, nobody is going to commit that, unless we put serious effort for making it universal across all supported devices.
That's a real shame the device is in such a mess.
Actually, to be fair, using Omnirom 4.4.4, I'm finding that the only thing that doesn't work properly is the notification led (no one seems to know why it only works 3 times out of 4).
I'll probably end up buying a new phone next year, anyway, since buy this time next year the i9300 will be almost 4 years old. In smartphone terms, that means it's getting along a bit.
(oh, and thanks for all your work on it, JustArchi!)
JustArchi said:
There's no i9300 maintainer, and they accept pull requests (on gerrit) when somebody sends them.
Also, the fact that there's no i9300 maintainer is directly connected with what you already said - lack of proper documentation. Nobody wants to fix the mess that has been created since whole this time. The amount of hacks required to make AOSP work on i9300 is too damn high. I'm slowly fixing this mess, making i9300 a bit better supported, but it's still a long way until it's done. Take a look at ArchiKernel for example, why I had to create my own kernel? Because smdk4412 sources were so much outdated that they finished around update7, right after sudden death fix. XXELLA, 4.1.2 Android times, hello. So first thing was to cleanup the kernel mess, use up-to-date samsung sources (used for stocks) and make them work with AOSP. Now, if I commit my work to CM, they'll deny this instantly because new kernel supports only i9300 and this commit would break all other exynos4 variants from compiling. Yes, together we COULD fix it, make it work with other devices. But I have better things to do than trying to fix whole exynos4 family, I focus on i9300.
This is one of the reasons why we won't see any official cm12 nightly for i9300. Because nobody is going to maintain that. Even if we can fix something, nobody is going to commit that, unless we put serious effort for making it universal across all supported devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for answering my topic. The opinion of a developer like you is very appreciated.
This situation only seems to give more reasons for not buy a Samsung phone again. This lack of support from the manufacturer is a disrespect to the user's investment. And fragmentation strikes again. Sad but true.
Thanks again for your great work of keeping this device alive for all of us.
StephenJSweeney said:
That's a real shame the device is in such a mess.
Actually, to be fair, using Omnirom 4.4.4, I'm finding that the only thing that doesn't work properly is the notification led (no one seems to know why it only works 3 times out of 4).
I'll probably end up buying a new phone next year, anyway, since buy this time next year the i9300 will be almost 4 years old. In smartphone terms, that means it's getting along a bit.
(oh, and thanks for all your work on it, JustArchi!)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried OmniROM few months ago, but it had some annoying bugs (like camera crashes) and I missed some customizations of CyanogenMod. Anyway, I'll try it again. My next buy might be a Motorola phone. The AOSP support is priceless.
ouch01 said:
I tried OmniROM few months ago, but it had some annoying bugs (like camera crashes) and I missed some customizations of CyanogenMod. Anyway, I'll try it again. My next buy might be a Motorola phone. The AOSP support is priceless.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had the camera crash on CM11 M11, and switched over to Omnirom shortly after that. I'm using Google Camera with an Omnirom nightly from November, and I've never had a camera crash.
Agree with you about getting a Motorola. I'd love it if the next Moto G refresh (if there is one) came with some more RAM, increased storage (16GB instead of 8), 4G, and a multicolour led. Being able to customize the colours to suit the category of app is something I love about custom ROMs. That should be baked into Android, to be honest (but at least there's LightFlow).
JustArchi said:
There's no i9300 maintainer, and they accept pull requests (on gerrit) when somebody sends them.
Also, the fact that there's no i9300 maintainer is directly connected with what you already said - lack of proper documentation. Nobody wants to fix the mess that has been created since whole this time. The amount of hacks required to make AOSP work on i9300 is too damn high. I'm slowly fixing this mess, making i9300 a bit better supported, but it's still a long way until it's done. Take a look at ArchiKernel for example, why I had to create my own kernel? Because smdk4412 sources were so much outdated that they finished around update7, right after sudden death fix. XXELLA, 4.1.2 Android times, hello. So first thing was to cleanup the kernel mess, use up-to-date samsung sources (used for stocks) and make them work with AOSP. Now, if I commit my work to CM, they'll deny this instantly because new kernel supports only i9300 and this commit would break all other exynos4 variants from compiling. Yes, together we COULD fix it, make it work with other devices. But I have better things to do than trying to fix whole exynos4 family, I focus on i9300.
This is one of the reasons why we won't see any official cm12 nightly for i9300. Because nobody is going to maintain that. Even if we can fix something, nobody is going to commit that, unless we put serious effort for making it universal across all supported devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i feel you
SlimRoms is the answer
unlike CM, Slim has a I9300 maintainer, has support, every weekly update works properly.
Devs should really take a look at Slim's Gerrit and Freenode/#SlimDev
StephenJSweeney said:
I had the camera crash on CM11 M11, and switched over to Omnirom shortly after that. I'm using Google Camera with an Omnirom nightly from November, and I've never had a camera crash.
Agree with you about getting a Motorola. I'd love it if the next Moto G refresh (if there is one) came with some more RAM, increased storage (16GB instead of 8), 4G, and a multicolour led. Being able to customize the colours to suit the category of app is something I love about custom ROMs. That should be baked into Android, to be honest (but at least there's LightFlow).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The thing with Motorola is that their stock roms are basically just stock android. No laggy touchwiz skins, just a google launcher. Bloatware is at a minimum. A low spec phone like the moto G still is great because of how vanilla its experience is.
Rumours have it that the galaxy S6 international variant will have an exynos processor. I found a thread comparing the leaked info of the snapdragon 810 vs the next exynos processor and it seems that the exynos is getting a lot of popularity from users on the thread and it ain't no slouch. As it is now, phone's are so fast, that it's very hard to find a way of improving them. Like who compares app opening times nowadays? That will be much the case for 2015's flagships as well. I doubt I'd be disappointed if I had the next Samsung release if I thought I'd be in for a laggy UI, it's just whether I can tolerate the touchwiz experience or if I wanna switch to a vanilla aosp rom. That's where the problem arises.
arashvenus said:
SlimRoms is the answer
unlike CM, Slim has a I9300 maintainer, has support, every weekly update works properly.
Devs should really take a look at Slim's Gerrit and Freenode/#SlimDev
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But only in your imagination. There is noone at slimrom. Just check their gerrit.
whatsgood said:
Rumours have it that the galaxy S6 international variant will have an exynos processor .... I found a thread comparing the leaked info of the snapdragon 810 vs the next exynos processor and it seems that the exynos is getting a lot of popularity from users on the thread and it ain't no slouch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Aren't the Exynos processors the cause of much grief in the open source community, though? Aren't Qualcomm processors, such as the Snapdragon, much more popular because they're easier to work with..?
StephenJSweeney said:
Aren't the Exynos processors the cause of much grief in the open source community, though? Aren't Qualcomm processors, such as the Snapdragon, much more popular because they're easier to work with..?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct.
Eleve11 said:
Correct.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then, no more Samsung phones for me, then. Not unless they use Qualcomm..!
StephenJSweeney said:
Aren't the Exynos processors the cause of much grief in the open source community, though? Aren't Qualcomm processors, such as the Snapdragon, much more popular because they're easier to work with..?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, that's what i thought but people are showing interests due to how powerful the processor is. I think they're saying it's more powerful than the snapdragon 810. I'm not that techy but they were mentioning that the new exynos will be smaller in size or something, whilst the snapdragon will be bigger. Apparently smaller is better, but yes the problem is open sourcing. If you want to install a stock android custom rom, it will be difficult for developers to build a rom that can push your phone to it's full potential. Snapdragon doesn't have this problem.
Basically if you love flashing different roms that are fully functional a snapdragon 810 phone is for you. If you like what Samsung offers in it's next flagship and won't be tempted to flash other roms then the exynos is for you
whatsgood said:
Yes, that's what i thought but people are showing interests due to how powerful the processor is. I think they're saying it's more powerful than the snapdragon 810. I'm not that techy but they were mentioning that the new exynos will be smaller in size or something, whilst the snapdragon will be bigger. Apparently smaller is better, but yes the problem is open sourcing. If you want to install a stock android custom rom, it will be difficult for developers to build a rom that can push your phone to it's full potential. Snapdragon doesn't have this problem.
Basically if you love flashing different roms that are fully functional a snapdragon 810 phone is for you. If you like what Samsung offers in it's next flagship and won't be tempted to flash other roms then the exynos is for you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I prefer to have less powerful processor, with full documentation how it works, rather than exynos and big giant hackish black box, which noone understands.
The problem is not with the exynos, but with Samsung. Judging from Exynos4, their kernel sources and own experience, exynos may look like it works, but amount of hacks and dirty workarounds to make it work, is too damn high. This could all be solved if Samsung changed their policy from "respect GPL, f*ck the rest" to "respect developers, show them that our SoC can be developer-friendly, too".
The problem is that we're not even 0.01% of Samsung sales, so why should they care. I'm not going to buy Samsung phone again, regardless if it has Snapdragon inside or not. The problem is not with the Exynos, the problem is in Samsung's policy.
JustArchi said:
I prefer to have less powerful processor, with full documentation how it works, rather than exynos and big giant hackish black box, which noone understands.
The problem is not with the exynos, but with Samsung. Judging from Exynos4, their kernel sources and own experience, exynos may look like it works, but amount of hacks and dirty workarounds to make it work, is too damn high. This could all be solved if Samsung changed their policy from "respect GPL, f*ck the rest" to "respect developers, show them that our SoC can be developer-friendly, too".
The problem is that we're not even 0.01% of Samsung sales, so why should they care. I'm not going to buy Samsung phone again, regardless if it has Snapdragon inside or not. The problem is not with the Exynos, the problem is in Samsung's policy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah +1 for that. My next Phone will be definitly a Sony or a One plus. I think both are the developer friendliest in android ...
what for get android with huge ram but still lag? i won't go for android for sure. just stick with ios better. with android 8gb & asop, cm etc still can't fix the bugs. android received update so slow than ios.
khanmein said:
what for get android with huge ram but still lag? i won't go for android for sure. just stick with ios better. with android 8gb & asop, cm etc still can't fix the bugs. android received update so slow than ios.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah you are right but i think the most decent phone is the htc one......i would buy a windows phone rather than an iPhone
http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/2qn8s4/new_impressive_lollipop_touchwiz_gives_nexus_line/
This is an interesting article on the new touchwiz that appears in android lollipop on the galaxy note 3. Surprisingly I can see nothing but praise from this person, apparently it seems to be running very well in comparison to touchwiz on KitKat. Is Samsung finally doing something good?
whatsgood said:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/2qn8s4/new_impressive_lollipop_touchwiz_gives_nexus_line/
This is an interesting article on the new touchwiz that appears in android lollipop on the galaxy note 3. Surprisingly I can see nothing but praise from this person, apparently it seems to be running very well in comparison to touchwiz on KitKat. Is Samsung finally doing something good?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
its useless even if they port it to our i9300..1gb of ram..maybe its time to upgrade to more stronger phone..
Hi,
I'm going to be buying a Samsung S2 for a family member as a backup phone but want to put CynanogenMod on it and change the pit size... but the variants of S2 are confusing, the family member currently has a Samsung S2 9100G and has http://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s2/development-derivatives/rom-cyanogenmod-12-t2955551 installed.
I have the option of buying a cheap working phone from someone I know but it is an 9100 model, one of their original batch, is this compatible with the ROM and pit files from above?
Or should I pass on buying it and instead get an 9100G? What other ones are ok and obviously work in the UK?
Hyflex said:
Hi,
I'm going to be buying a Samsung S2 for a family member as a backup phone but want to put CynanogenMod on it and change the pit size... but the variants of S2 are confusing, the family member currently has a Samsung S2 9100G and has http://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s2/development-derivatives/rom-cyanogenmod-12-t2955551 installed.
I have the option of buying a cheap working phone from someone I know but it is an 9100 model, one of their original batch, is this compatible with the ROM and pit files from above?
Or should I pass on buying it and instead get an 9100G? What other ones are ok and obviously work in the UK?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would go with the international version(i9100). It is more common, and there is more development for it. The "G" version has a different chipset, which makes it incompatible with roms from the i9100. From what I've heard the TI chip isn't as good overall as the exynos chip in performance either, although the numbers are the same(1.2ghz)
noppy22 said:
I would go with the international version(i9100). It is more common, and there is more development for it. The "G" version has a different chipset, which makes it incompatible with roms from the i9100. From what I've heard the TI chip isn't as good overall as the exynos chip in performance either, although the numbers are the same(1.2ghz)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your reply, it's more common really? Three other family members have had S2's and they were all i9100G.
I noticed you said:
international version (i9100)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which is going against what I read kind off... According to wikipedia:
Galaxy S II - Model GT-I9100G
The Samsung Galaxy S II GT-I9100G was released in late 2011, and is usually sold instead of the original GT-I9100 in certain markets (mostly Asia and some parts of Europe). An overview of the Samsung Galaxy S II GT-I9100G can be seen on Samsung's official website.[61] It features a Texas Instruments OMAP4430 SoC instead of the Exynos 4210 in the GT-I9100. It is visually identical to the GT-I9100, as well as having the same 1.2 GHz processor speed and dual-core ARM Cortex A9 processor technology. However, the SoC is of a different design and the Mali-400 GPU has been replaced by a PowerVR SGX 540 GPU. This difference in the SoC makes this variant incompatible with custom ROMs intended for the I9100, but it has been steadily gaining its own aftermarket support (such as from CyanogenMod[62]) due to the relative ease of development and the openness of the TI OMAP platform..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hyflex said:
Thanks for your reply, it's more common really? Three other family members have had S2's and they were all i9100G.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
More common worldwide, meaning it has more developers and variety of roms etc. Perhaps where you are the "G" is more common as it was only introduced into a limited market.
The difference in hardware is negligable though, I only meant to say they are incompatible between them. The TI is indeed open source, so if you want to develop your own rom/kernels and create your own device tree/kernel tree etc. it would be much easier from a purely aosp base.
I guess at the end of the day, if you just want to install a rom, then forget it, either one will do. And the fact you have the files already for the "G" it might be easier to get another. If you plan to update the rom in the future or try a few different ones to see which one you prefer, I would recommend the i9100
noppy22 said:
More common worldwide, meaning it has more developers and variety of roms etc. Perhaps where you are the "G" is more common as it was only introduced into a limited market.
The difference in hardware is negligable though, I only meant to say they are incompatible between them. The TI is indeed open source, so if you want to develop your own rom/kernels and create your own device tree/kernel tree etc. it would be much easier from a purely aosp base.
I guess at the end of the day, if you just want to install a rom, then forget it, either one will do. And the fact you have the files already for the "G" it might be easier to get another. If you plan to update the rom in the future or try a few different ones to see which one you prefer, I would recommend the i9100
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm rather confused now... I installed: http://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s2/development-derivatives/rom-cyanogenmod-12-t2955551 onto 2x i9100G phones and it works perfectly... but yet it isn't a G version of the ROM when I should have installed http://forum.xda-developers.com/gal...-2-unofficial-cyanogenmod-12-1s-os12-t3103494
How are they even working?!
Hyflex said:
I'm rather confused now... I installed: http://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s2/development-derivatives/rom-cyanogenmod-12-t2955551 onto 2x i9100G phones and it works perfectly... but yet it isn't a G version of the ROM when I should have installed http://forum.xda-developers.com/gal...-2-unofficial-cyanogenmod-12-1s-os12-t3103494
How are they even working?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have no idea!! I don't have a i9100g, but everthing I've read indicates it is not possible. Can you take a couple of screenshots in "About phone" in settings with rom build and device variant? The only thing I can think of is if they used the same chipset as i9100 for some of the i9100g's at some point?? I don't know
noppy22 said:
I have no idea!! I don't have a i9100g, but everthing I've read indicates it is not possible. Can you take a couple of screenshots in "About phone" in settings with rom build and device variant? The only thing I can think of is if they used the same chipset as i9100 for some of the i9100g's at some point?? I don't know
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I checked one and it was the i9100, I swear the other is an i9100G though, if it isn't then I'm seeing things and got incredibly lucky flashing that ROM lol, silly me.