Sorry if this is the wrong place; I'm just hoping for some general advice.
I've tried a good few of the ROMs compatible with VS985 around here, but everything not based off of stock has the same issue where the speakerphone microphone doesn't work in calls and I can barely be heard. It's not a hardware issue as it only happens when I have an AOSP based ROM installed--I've also seen others around the forums report this same issue.
Obviously the issue lies with the source rather than each individual ROM I've tried, so who should this even get reported to? I really love the flexibility I get from moving away from stock, but this is a pretty big issue for me to just deal with. Knowing that the appropriate people were aware of this would mean a lot to me--otherwise I might consider just going back to stock.
Just a guess here, but the issue is probably with CyanogenMod, or at least CyanogenMod for the VS985. As far as I know, these days all non-stock ROMs are CM-based to one degree or another. Other than looking for wherever is the proper place to see if it's already reported, and reporting it there if it hasn't already, the only other suggestion I have is to try older builds of the ROMs, if available. I don't actually fool with CM-based ROMs any more, so I'm sorry I can't direct you to a specific place but if you do some digging on CyanogenMod's website, you might find the proper place.
roirraW "edor" ehT said:
Just a guess here, but the issue is probably with CyanogenMod, or at least CyanogenMod for the VS985. As far as I know, these days all non-stock ROMs are CM-based to one degree or another. Other than looking for wherever is the proper place to see if it's already reported, and reporting it there if it hasn't already, the only other suggestion I have is to try older builds of the ROMs, if available. I don't actually fool with CM-based ROMs any more, so I'm sorry I can't direct you to a specific place but if you do some digging on CyanogenMod's website, you might find the proper place.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the reply. That's what I was thinking until I flashed XenonHD and had the issue pop up there. I was under the impression that ROM is built straight from AOSP, no CM involved.
joosegoose said:
Thanks for the reply. That's what I was thinking until I flashed XenonHD and had the issue pop up there. I was under the impression that ROM is built straight from AOSP, no CM involved.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I've read, nothing is strictly AOSP these days. There may be some ROMs that are more AOSP than others, but I was under the impression that in order to get things working with as little effort as possible, that they use at least selective code from CM as well. I could be off, and if you find out the truth let me know.
roirraW "edor" ehT said:
From what I've read, nothing is strictly AOSP these days. There may be some ROMs that are more AOSP than others, but I was under the impression that in order to get things working with as little effort as possible, that they use at least selective code from CM as well. I could be off, and if you find out the truth let me know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll ask the devs if any code from CM is used. Thanks!
roirraW "edor" ehT said:
Just a guess here, but the issue is probably with CyanogenMod, or at least CyanogenMod for the VS985. As far as I know, these days all non-stock ROMs are CM-based to one degree or another. Other than looking for wherever is the proper place to see if it's already reported, and reporting it there if it hasn't already, the only other suggestion I have is to try older builds of the ROMs, if available. I don't actually fool with CM-based ROMs any more, so I'm sorry I can't direct you to a specific place but if you do some digging on CyanogenMod's website, you might find the proper place.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I been dealing with the same thing on every non-stock/stock Marshmallow Rom that has been modified. I didn't notice it on any of the lollipop Roms.
It's not as noticeable on Roms with the speaker volume so low, that all the way up, you have to put the phone to your ear to hear it on speakerphone.
So were you able to figure anything out?
Thanks for taking the time...
Related
I had started a thread I just got the official ICS Upgrade
In that thread some had indicated that a custom ROM should
be used and not the the official ICS Upgrade from AT&T.
In an effort to not get that thread of track i will ask here:
What is the real difference with the AT&T Official ICS ROM and the Custom ROMs?
I am fully aware AT&T has loaded a bunch of junk in,
and I went through and disables and deleted much of it.
But what truly is so awful about it?
And if it truly is so bad, what is the "Correct" ROM to use?
Thank you
No such thing as correct or incorrect, it is all personal taste. Some might like one ROM over another. Does that make it better than another? Nope.
Take cars for example. Some people like to leave it stock. Some might like to increase its performance and add engine modifications. Some might like it to handle the roads better so they might upgrade its suspension. Others might like to change its appearance and paint it and add body-kits. Is one car better than the other? Depends on who you ask.
Harry_Y said:
I had started a thread I just got the official ICS Upgrade
In that thread some had indicated that a custom ROM should
be used and not the the official ICS Upgrade from AT&T.
In an effort to not get that thread of track i will ask here:
What is the real difference with the AT&T Official ICS ROM and the Custom ROMs?
I am fully aware AT&T has loaded a bunch of junk in,
and I went through and disables and deleted much of it.
But what truly is so awful about it?
And if it truly is so bad, what is the "Correct" ROM to use?
Thank you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This thread will get real out of hand.
But before it dissapears. the main reason most of us say its bad, is with the history of At&t's releases. They mess stuff up, have issues within the kernals, and a big BIG issue with them right now that w/o source, we dont know if its fixed.
---------- Post added at 03:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 PM ----------
gsrrr said:
No such thing as correct or incorrect, it is all personal taste. Some might like one ROM over another. Does that make it better than another? Nope. .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not taste/opinion in the fact(from their history) that the coding is a mess. and broken everywhere.
You come to a developer forum to run fully stock?
That's what goes through my head when I see people afraid of flashing.
If you want the AT&T firmware at least wait for somebody to post a debloated version since your going to disable them anyways or actually learn how to do it yourself. Since you have access to the forum with so much information.
Maybe take it 1 step further and grab the AT&T firmware and customize it to your liking, you don't even have to post it just use it.
This isn't a great thread cause Versus threads go nowhere...
MotoMudder77 said:
This thread will get real out of hand.
But before it dissapears. the main reason most of us say its bad, is with the history of At&t's releases.
They mess stuff up, have issues within the kernals, and a big BIG issue with them right now that w/o source, we dont know if its fixed.
........
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you
Harry_Y said:
I had started a thread I just got the official ICS Upgrade
In that thread some had indicated that a custom ROM should
be used and not the the official ICS Upgrade from AT&T.
In an effort to not get that thread of track i will ask here:
What is the real difference with the AT&T Official ICS ROM and the Custom ROMs?
I am fully aware AT&T has loaded a bunch of junk in,
and I went through and disables and deleted much of it.
But what truly is so awful about it?
And if it truly is so bad, what is the "Correct" ROM to use?
Thank you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude. Do the math. You're posting in a development forum that strives on customizing, building, and creating custom sh$t for our devices. Why would you think that 90% of the people here are looking for and using custom roms?
gsrrr said:
No such thing as correct or incorrect, it is all personal taste.
Some might like one ROM over another. Does that make it better than another? Nope.
- Snip -
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can appreciate people wanting to customize their devices.
That being said customizing just for the sake of customizing is not really
of interest to me; Increased functionality or an issue being corrected is.
So the real question for me would be what real issues with the
Stock ROM get corrected? and what Real features get added.
Thank you
task650 said:
Dude. Do the math. You're posting in a development forum that strives on customizing, building, and creating custom sh$t for our devices. Why would you think that 90% of the people here are looking for and using custom roms?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I fully understand that, I also realize people get emotionally attached to things.
What I'm trying to learn is what is the Real advantage with the custom ROM.
Thank you
Harry_Y said:
I fully understand that, I also realize people get emotionally attached to things.
What I'm trying to learn is what is the Real advantage with the custom ROM.
Thank you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Go to the dev section, pick a random rom thread and look at the features.
That is just an example of what is beneficial.
Harry_Y said:
I fully understand that, I also realize people get emotionally attached to things.
What I'm trying to learn is what is the Real advantage with the custom ROM.
Thank you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are many different things. Mods add to the functionality of the phone. Take the 14 toggle mod for instance, no need to enter settings to change common things. Skip tracks with volume buttons. You can also increase battery life with various kernels by UV/uc. It allows you to make your phone function and do what you want it to. The stock firmware is too limiting in this ability
Sent from my SGH-I777 using xda premium
Harry_Y said:
I can appreciate people wanting to customize their devices.
That being said customizing just for the sake of customizing is not really
of interest to me; Increased functionality or an issue being corrected is.
So the real question for me would be what real issues with the
Stock ROM get corrected? and what Real features get added.
Thank you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course there is an increase in functionality or else why would devs create custom ROMs. What each ROM has that differs from others are listed in their respective threads. Check it out and see if any interest you. If you are satisfied with stock, stay stock. Not a big deal.
LiLChris06 said:
You come to a developer forum to run fully stock?
That's what goes through my head when I see people afraid of flashing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly, I used to hang around here for the community - but that's quickly turning me into a simple lurker.
I'm extremely interested in the developers work. However, I find that the stock factory firmwares are every bit as good or stable as anything that gets turned out in the dev areas. The stock ROMs also do everything I need and want. Plus, I don't like AOSP Android, and that seems to be what everybody is focusing on these days. Also, the 3rd party roms generally have too much changed, removed or added for my tastes.
Edit: Oh, and while I generally like the OEMs code, I have no problem using a good 3rd party kernel.
AT&T releases are typically buggy. The developers here either fix those bugs, or use firmware bases from the international version that are more robust and stable. It is too early to know what bugs this UCLE5 release may contain, but the original AT&T UCKH7 firmware had lockscreen security issues, the official AT&T update UCKK6 broken bluetooth hid and serious power management issues. The AT&T ICS leaks leading up to this version, UCLD3 and UCLD4 had a very serious flaw in the kernel which caused several people with the I777 to lose their device due to eMMC chip damage. Since the kernel source code for the current official AT&T UCLE5 has not been released yet, it is not possible to confirm that the kernel supplied with the UCLE5 release is free of this serious issue. Therefore, it would be advisable to either not run this firmware, or use a modified rooted version in which the kernel is replaced with a known safe kernel.
creepyncrawly said:
AT&T releases are typically buggy. The developers here either fix those bugs, or use firmware bases from the international version that are more robust and stable. It is too early to know what bugs this UCLE5 release may contain, but the original AT&T UCKH7 firmware had lockscreen security issues, the official AT&T update UCKK6 broken bluetooth hid and serious power management issues. The AT&T ICS leaks leading up to this version, UCLD3 and UCLD4 had a very serious flaw in the kernel which caused several people with the I777 to lose their device due to eMMC chip damage. Since the kernel source code for the current official AT&T UCLE5 has not been released yet, it is not possible to confirm that the kernel supplied with the UCLE5 release is free of this serious issue. Therefore, it would be advisable to either not run this firmware, or use a modified rooted version in which the kernel is replaced with a known safe kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for a very clear explanation.
raduque said:
Honestly, I used to hang around here for the community - but that's quickly turning me into a simple lurker.
I'm extremely interested in the developers work. However, I find that the stock factory firmwares are every bit as good or stable as anything that gets turned out in the dev areas. The stock ROMs also do everything I need and want. Plus, I don't like AOSP Android, and that seems to be what everybody is focusing on these days. Also, the 3rd party roms generally have too much changed, removed or added for my tastes.
Edit: Oh, and while I generally like the OEMs code, I have no problem using a good 3rd party kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you definitely haven't been running an android device if you say this (marked in BOLD). Considering the fact that for our device in particular, they have released BS that is not only buggy as hell, but has bricked a ton of devices. I think you should probably do a little research before making such bold comments. :laugh:
I got board enough to try the full LE5 including kernel. So far better than D4 and previous ics. Tegrak works as it does on the 9100 base kernels so that tells me i777 is catching up or has caught up. Could be just odex, but all benchmarks higher than on any of the aokp or 9100 sammy roms I've tried.
I'd like to see someone customize this if it remains stable. I've added 15 toggle from other roms, but I jusy like having firmware meant for device.
I-777 UCLE5
Tegrak oc/uv 1.452 ghz
Stable & Fast
task650 said:
you definitely haven't been running an android device if you say this (marked in BOLD). Considering the fact that for our device in particular, they have released BS that is not only buggy as hell, but has bricked a ton of devices. I think you should probably do a little research before making such bold comments. :laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol
I've been running Android devices and flashing firmwares since 2009.
I also haven't seen any of the bugs or issues mentioned on this forum. Doesn't mean they don't exist. The stock 2.3 rom that came with my GS2 from AT&T was amazingly, impressively stable compared to what came with my Vibrant, or even ANY of the community roms for it.
UCLE5 bug:
unable to use wide image for wallpaper, so you can only get a fixed wallpaper, not a scrolling wallpaper. This bug was present in the leaks, and has not been fixed in the official release.
creepyncrawly said:
UCLE5 bug:
unable to use wide image for wallpaper, so you can only get a fixed wallpaper, not a scrolling wallpaper. This bug was present in the leaks, and has not been fixed in the official release.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
IMO, non issue.
raduque said:
IMO, non issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, many would not care. Many would. Ask AT&T or Samsung, and they will probably say it is a feature.
This might be a silly question, but what exactly are the differences between the three Jellybean ROMs I see in the dev section (Paranoid, CM10, AOKP)?
None of these seem to have any kind of "feature log" or changelog.
Anyone have any insights?
tehkingo said:
This might be a silly question, but what exactly are the differences between the three Jellybean ROMs I see in the dev section (Paranoid, CM10, AOKP)?
None of these seem to have any kind of "feature log" or changelog.
Anyone have any insights?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Paranoid Android Is Jellybean
AOKP....not going there with that one
CMX, Pure build from code. Great rom.
differences, not exactly sure, but most will have a twitter to keep up with changes if possible
leo72793 said:
Paranoid Android Is Jellybean
AOKP....not going there with that one
CMX, Pure build from code. Great rom.
differences, not exactly sure, but most will have a twitter to keep up with changes if possible
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not trying to be a ****, but you kind of didn't answer my question in any way.
a) What's wrong with AOKP?
b) I know Paranoid is JB, that's why I mentioned it. Are you saying it's stock JB? Kinda confused on the wording here.
c) Obviously, you're a fan of CM10 (aka CMX). What makes it so good compared to the other two? I see the thread for it has more posts (and thus seems to be more popular), but why?
Again, I'm not trying to be difficult. Just hoping to get an answer without having to flash 3 different ROMs.
Each ROM has different features.
CM isnt just straight AOSP
Rxpert said:
Each ROM has different features.
CM isnt just straight AOSP
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As much as I am grateful that people are paying attention to this thread and attempting to answer, this is the 2nd non-answer I've received so far.
I know each ROM has different features, that's why I made this thread.
I know CM isn't just straight AOSP.
My issue is that unlike most of the Sense ROMs, these JB ROMs have no feature list at all, and don't even cite any sort of changelog. Thus, I can't make an informed decision on which ROM to flash.
leo72793 said:
Paranoid Android Is Jellybean
AOKP....not going there with that one
CMX, Pure build from code. Great rom.
differences, not exactly sure, but most will have a twitter to keep up with changes if possible
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's like.. not even fully correct.
Please make sure you know what you're talking about before you answer questions, as not knowing the answer will only cause more confusion.
To OP,
Paranoid: Paranoid Android is an AOSP JB ROM that focuses on the fusion of phone mode and tablet mode. Typically putting a phone into tablet mode would be cool, but some features of tablet mode just don't work that well on a phone. So they've worked on making the tablet mode experience work better on a phone. You can read more about it here.
AOKP: AOKP (Android Open Kang Project) is a highly customized AOSP build that is somewhat similar to CM in that it has a lot of tweaks available to it. AOKP actually has a bit more customization than CM, allowing you to center the clock, add the day of the week to the clock, weather in your notification menu, and a few other neat tricks. You can read more about it here.
CM10: CyanogenMod is the most popular custom Android ROM around, with a very large user base. It supports many different devices. We just recently received official support, meaning we will get official releases and nightlies on a daily basis. This is a plus for CM, because we don't have official support for AOKP and Paranoid, which means we might not always get the newest updates. While it has less ability for customization than AOKP, CM is still a very solid AOSP ROM. You can read more about it here.
All three are great ROMs, and at this point they have mostly the same bugs. I would personally suggest CM10 because the development for it is a bit more active and I've noticed better battery life and less buggyness while running that over AOKP.
SoraX64 said:
That's like.. not even fully correct.
Please make sure you know what you're talking about before you answer questions, as not knowing the answer will only cause more confusion.
To OP,
Paranoid: Paranoid Android is an AOSP JB ROM that focuses on the fusion of phone mode and tablet mode. Typically putting a phone into tablet mode would be cool, but some features of tablet mode just don't work that well on a phone. So they've worked on making the tablet mode experience work better on a phone. You can read more about it here.
AOKP: AOKP (Android Open Kang Project) is a highly customized AOSP build that is somewhat similar to CM in that it has a lot of tweaks available to it. AOKP actually has a bit more customization than CM, allowing you to center the clock, add the day of the week to the clock, weather in your notification menu, and a few other neat tricks. You can read more about it here.
CM10: CyanogenMod is the most popular custom Android ROM around, with a very large user base. It supports many different devices. We just recently received official support, meaning we will get official releases and nightlies on a daily basis. This is a plus for CM, because we don't have official support for AOKP and Paranoid, which means we might not always get the newest updates. While it has less ability for customization than AOKP, CM is still a very solid AOSP ROM. You can read more about it here.
All three are great ROMs, and at this point they have mostly the same bugs. I would personally suggest CM10 because the development for it is a bit more active and I've noticed better battery life and less buggyness while running that over AOKP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks you so much for your in-depth answer.
I'll do some more research with the provided links, and will probably flash something tonight.
Thanks again.
tehkingo said:
Thanks you so much for your in-depth answer.
I'll do some more research with the provided links, and will probably flash something tonight.
Thanks again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No problem. I would suggest trying them all, since there are differences between each of them.
tehkingo said:
As much as I am grateful that people are paying attention to this thread and attempting to answer, this is the 2nd non-answer I've received so far.
I know each ROM has different features, that's why I made this thread.
I know CM isn't just straight AOSP.
My issue is that unlike most of the Sense ROMs, these JB ROMs have no feature list at all, and don't even cite any sort of changelog. Thus, I can't make an informed decision on which ROM to flash.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was directed more twards the poster above me. My pizza got delivered in the middle of typing so I had to go let the guy in. Sorry my post was so short and abrupt.
SoraX did a great job of explaining the main goals/differences between the ROMS>
The reason there isnt a changelog is because at this point the developers are more focused on getting things working 100%. Its the nature of the beast.
Rxpert said:
It was directed more twards the poster above me. My pizza got delivered in the middle of typing so I had to go let the guy in. Sorry my post was so short and abrupt.
SoraX did a great job of explaining the main goals/differences between the ROMS>
The reason there isnt a changelog is because at this point the developers are more focused on getting things working 100%. Its the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, gotcha. Sorry for the attitude.
I realize this is the age-old question everytime a new milestone comes out, but I'm eating lunch and it's kind of quiet around here. :laugh:
Quiet indeed.
If Lollipop makes it to the i9100, then I will do my best to make sure that it makes it to the i777.
The i9100 has a MASSIVE following, but a lot of the devs have moved on to newer devices that are better supported by the manufacturers.
Either way, my fingers are crossed, and hopefully we'll have some code-savvy help if I get stuck. (I'm looking at you @rogersb11 and @TheGeekyNimrod )
desteele said:
I realize this is the age-old question everytime a new milestone comes out, but I'm eating lunch and it's kind of quiet around here. :laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If it gets Lollipop I'll be shocked as it didn't get kitkat officially. In fact, it didn't even get a jelly bean 4.2.x update from at&t. Now if you mean custom lollipop roms, then I am sure the sgh-i777 will get at least a few.
cyril279 said:
Quiet indeed.
If Lollipop makes it to the i9100, then I will do my best to make sure that it makes it to the i777.
The i9100 has a MASSIVE following, but a lot of the devs have moved on to newer devices that are better supported by the manufacturers.
Either way, my fingers are crossed, and hopefully we'll have some code-savvy help if I get stuck. (I'm looking at you @rogersb11 and @TheGeekyNimrod )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm still hanging around lol. I know CyanideMod isn't updated super frequently but I wanted to try and bring this old dog something that had, well basically everything lol. So many additions that I've really even shocked myself. From shifted cm where I stated the changes I deleted my branches and started over for CyanideMod. I plan to as I mentioned bring at least one Lollipop build to the i777 and of course will give @cyril279 and @TheGeekyNimrod any useful advice that I can in aiding them bring it as well. I'm quite content with CyanideMod at this point so probably won't myself be focused on Lollipop for awhile as I just dumped at least 2 straight months into it LOL. BUT to answer the OP it will indeed see the i777
rogersb11 said:
I'm still hanging around lol. I know CyanideMod isn't updated super frequently but I wanted to try and bring this old dog something that had, well basically everything lol. So many additions that I've really even shocked myself. From shifted cm where I stated the changes I deleted my branches and started over for CyanideMod. I plan to as I mentioned bring at least one Lollipop build to the i777 and of course will give @cyril279 and @TheGeekyNimrod any useful advice that I can in aiding them bring it as well. I'm quite content with CyanideMod at this point so probably won't myself be focused on Lollipop for awhile as I just dumped at least 2 straight months into it LOL. BUT to answer the OP it will indeed see the i777
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The biggest thing I think we will face is updates needed for the device trees. I'm sure there will be a few other snags along the way, but the device tree is a must in order for anything to work. I know CM, Carbon, Slim, Omni, and all the rest will eventually update to Lollipop, and when they do, I plan on updating my builds as well. There's not a lot of us maintaining anything for this device, but I think the general consensus is that we will stick around and try to keep this never dying device on par with the rest of em.
i just want to put out a thanks to you guys for keeping it alive. it was a pleasant surprise to end up back on my gs2 and see that there are still great roms to run my 360 on. it was also a great reminder as to why i don't really need the latest and greatest phone to enjoy owning one.
-patrick
Hopefully you have all seen it by now, but through alpha builds and the genius work of @rogersb11 there are Lollipop builds in the development section now.
phermey said:
i just want to put out a thanks to you guys for keeping it alive. it was a pleasant surprise to end up back on my gs2 and see that there are still great roms to run my 360 on. it was also a great reminder as to why i don't really need the latest and greatest phone to enjoy owning one.
-patrick
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree 100% with you
Most of the official ROMS are still in alpha, beta or nightly with no milestone version. Why is that?
Because most people don't rely on roms....xposed framework has greatly impacted my usage of roms.
I dunno why. Most of what I have used certainly didn't feel like a beta.
I am pretty gosh darn thankful we have what we have considering the limited number of newer devices with Verizon that can be tinkered with.
Exactly,
You should be thankful for what you have and not question what you don't.
A lot of devs and myself have jumped to the nexus 6, yet we still come here and build for you guys.
jfriend33 said:
Because most people don't rely on roms....xposed framework has greatly impacted my usage of roms.
I dunno why. Most of what I have used certainly didn't feel like a beta.
I am pretty gosh darn thankful we have what we have considering the limited number of newer devices with Verizon that can be tinkered with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm only curious because it's over a year old and they are still in this stage. That's all.
bweN diorD said:
Exactly,
You should be thankful for what you have and not question what you don't.
A lot of devs and myself have jumped to the nexus 6, yet we still come here and build for you guys.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What was the purpose of your reply?
digitallure said:
What was the purpose of your reply?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What was the purpose of your question? To piss of the few devs that still build for the g3?
Because thats how it came off, as ungrateful.
bweN diorD said:
What was the purpose of your question? To piss of the few devs that still build for the g3?
Because thats how it came off, as ungrateful.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well you need some perspective glasses. My question was just that, a question. If you have a problem with my question, maybe you should've asked someone else what they thought I'd the question instead of jumping to the conclusion that my question was other than a question. Don't be a troll.
Why would you insult someone who is contributing to the community? He was just saying that you shouldn't worry about the state of the roms here just be thankful that there is something for you to flash since a lot of developers have moved on from this device. I don't think your original question was wrong but the way you handled the responses were. Again just be thankful you have what you have or install Linux and compile the roms yourself.
Wow... His question didn't seem too insulting to me, just a bit ignorant and curious.
Most 'Unofficial' ROMs are work that someone has ported to the device; they are not supported by the teams that made the original.
Official ROMs are created by and most supported by the team on the specific device; the download is usually a link to the team's website. However, in many cases, they may only have one device among them and have not tested everything to the extent that either a test group or the public at large would, naturally. Development is always a WIP, so the BETA indicator is almost universal in custom ROMs where there is not major funding. More often, stock-based ROMs are called stable, because they are working with the base of a stable product that includes all the proprietary drivers and frameworks, vetted by a commissioned dev team at the OEM and another at the carrier.
Some devs/teams here are able to do more testing than others, but the BETA is often an exemption for anything that might not have been found in limited testing. In short, a ROM is often in beta because it has not been thoroughly tested by numerous testers on a specific device, providing detailed feedback and some debugging to the dev team. The more that users here dig in and try to help as opposed to saying "Does this work on this?" or "Why this don't workee??", the more stable those Beta ROMs tend to be--and some are rock solid or only have a few niggles.
Also, if the codebase that a dev starts with is a beta or nightly release (e.g. CM or PA), the child/forked ROM will most always carry over the alpha or beta label.
smartguy044 said:
Why would you insult someone who is contributing to the community? He was just saying that you shouldn't worry about the state of the roms here just be thankful that there is something for you to flash since a lot of developers have moved on from this device. I don't think your original question was wrong but the way you handled the responses were. Again just be thankful you have what you have or install Linux and compile the roms yourself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But I wasn't complaining. Simply asking a question about alpha and beta ROMs for the device. How is that insulting? If that was insulting, then every post made should be insulting. Why go any deeper? I just asked a question.
epidenimus said:
Wow... His question didn't seem too insulting to me, just a bit ignorant and curious.
Most 'Unofficial' ROMs are work that someone has ported to the device; they are not supported by the teams that made the original.
Official ROMs are created by and most supported by the team on the specific device; the download is usually a link to the team's website. However, in many cases, they may only have one device among them and have not tested everything to the extent that either a test group or the public at large would, naturally. Development is always a WIP, so the BETA indicator is almost universal in custom ROMs where there is not major funding. More often, stock-based ROMs are called stable, because they are working with the base of a stable product that includes all the proprietary drivers and frameworks, vetted by a commissioned dev team at the OEM and another at the carrier.
Some devs/teams here are able to do more testing than others, but the BETA is often an exemption for anything that might not have been found in limited testing. In short, a ROM is often in beta because it has not been thoroughly tested by numerous testers on a specific device, providing detailed feedback and some debugging to the dev team. The more that users here dig in and try to help as opposed to saying "Does this work on this?" or "Why this don't workee??", the more stable those Beta ROMs tend to be--and some are rock solid or only have a few niggles.
Also, if the codebase that a dev starts with is a beta or nightly release (e.g. CM or PA), the child/forked ROM will most always carry over the alpha or beta label.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you! Ignorant, yes. Curious yes, that's all. Ignorant because I don't know. Curious because I want to know why.
digitallure said:
Thank you! Ignorant, yes. Curious yes, that's all. Ignorant because I don't know. Curious because I want to know why.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get it, but you have to know your audience a little. Here, it's a bunch of developers and enthusiasts who freely give their time, skills, and work. While your question was about labels and versioning, the way that it is written, some may take it as "Why isn't your contribution further along and/or more stable than it is? Hell, it's been a year! How do you account for this?"
That BS isn't right when it's coming from someone who is paying you thousands for your work.
I've been using a flashed stock modem with the removed bands for about a month now.
Using the official CM marshmellow builds with Chriszuma's overclocking (underclocking) kernel.
And so far it has been rock solid stable (I had a reboot once before I flashed the modem while using Chriszuma's kernel on CM13)
and none so far in over a month.
Has anyone actually had issues with updated CM builds and using one of the initial modems?
I've had absolutely none.
XT1527.
dreyeth said:
I've been using a flashed stock modem with the removed bands for about a month now.
Using the official CM marshmellow builds with Chriszuma's overclocking (underclocking) kernel.
And so far it has been rock solid stable (I had a reboot once before I flashed the modem while using Chriszuma's kernel on CM13)
and none so far in over a month.
Has anyone actually had issues with updated CM builds and using one of the initial modems?
I've had absolutely none.
XT1527.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's interesting that you have had success with this, but it is confusing to know why you made a thread about it by asking if anyone had a problem with something you did not have.
Anyway, I believe no one should have this problem, since no one answered anything, thanks for sharing this information, and have your doubt as settled now.
EsromG5 said:
It's interesting that you have had success with this, but it is confusing to know why you made a thread about it by asking if anyone had a problem with something you did not have.
Anyway, I believe no one should have this problem, since no one answered anything, thanks for sharing this information, and have your doubt as settled now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a known problem with Marshmallow ROMs or greater to the point were it is a don't do it sort of thing, or at least anyone reading the multiple modem firmware threads would
pick that up if they read enough of them.
It's kinda spread a crossed multiple threads though, people giving advice that 5.0.2 modems cause reboots in CM13+ ROMs related to WiFi and cellular connections.
I was curious to see if anyone else would post 'did work' or 'did not work' and especially if other people found that the current state is does work with CM13 ROMs,
whether my phone + regional firmware is a exception or updates to CM13 based builds have removed the issue.
Or maybe someone would post only happens under certain conditions which I haven't had happen, or isn't triggered in the way I use a phone.
My intent was to make this a small feedback thread, with people posting did work, did not work.
And collecting some feedback on it in one place.
Oh I posted this in the trouble shooting forums. I see why you asked that question now.
I'm usually on here late at night when I'm on here, and usually very tired.
Though I suppose it also says Q&A on there as well, guess it could have been on the general forums.