Database Users

Android: will it work on current devices ?

Hi !
Does anyone actually know if android can be installed / flashed on current devices ? Or it's only for certain devices that come with it preinstalled ?
Please don't post things like: "i would love it if it did" or "omg, android is great"...
I'm looking for an answer from someone who actually knows or someone who knows exactly how this stuff works...
Thanks
PS: Menneisyys, i hope you'll post something

I don't think that you'll be getting your answer any time soon as nobody has seen the thing yet.
But i would speculate that as HTC is one of the partners, it might be possible. HTC probably wont reinvent their phones again for the android.

Not a programmer...
but i was listening to leo laport yesterday and it seems that ggls world domination strategy would be all including. so it seems very likely that they would allow some version of it for use on other phones.
http://techguylabs.com/radio/ShowNotes/Show403#toc5

At this point, since there there is no release yet and nobody has/can play with it, it's probably hard to say. However, knowing Google, there is a good possibility they will come out with an app that allows you to use your current phone (speculation).

I heard that Android based on some Java-sintacsys - maybe it is good for us?

Well, the SDK has been released, get it here: http://code.google.com/android/. A demo video is available on the page to show you what it's capable of thus far--looks promising. I'm no coder, but I wish someone would develop this for current HTC devices. As an incentive, Google launched an Android Developer Challenge (http://code.google.com/android/adc.html), where developers of "innovative, useful apps" can win up to $275,000.

leetsauce said:
Well, the SDK has been released, get it here: http://code.google.com/android/. A demo video is available on the page to show you what it's capable of thus far--looks promising. I'm no coder, but I wish someone would develop this for current HTC devices. As an incentive, Google launched an Android Developer Challenge (http://code.google.com/android/adc.html), where developers of "innovative, useful apps" can win up to $275,000.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I grabbed the SDk and got a basic hello world up and running. From what the video said and what I can glean from various sites. The Android OS is designed to run on existing hardware. I would imagine that includes HTC machines. Its a complete OS though not an app so I would imagine you have to blow away WM6 and put android on in order to take advantage of its functionality. The actual coding appears to be extremely easy.

I can see google or the community releasing a "shell" of Android.
The more people with it the more money for them. If you watched the video they are really trying to push the location based services from GPS, cell towers, IP address... can anyone say more cash for ads.
I wouldn't mind having it on WM and its open source so there a good chance we will see it.

Alpine would be perfect for Android
Alpine would be a perfect phone if recycled with android !!
Good processor, lots of mem and a big screen for touch sensasions!!
Is it a dream or could that become reality?

Is Android compatible with HTC Touch-style hardware or does it require the numberpad?

There is a linux-2.6.23-android-m3-rc20.tar.gz kernel file on the android google code project site, there is also ADB utility - Android Debug Bridge (comes with SDK), it has an option of flashing a device (over usb) or an emulator (which is also included in the package)...the question is how to compile that kernel and make it run on our HTCs, and what kindof boot loader does it require? Maybe guys from Xanadux know better
It's also interesting how JAVA is being used after becoming open source, it appears that android is mostly independent from the JAVA API, the only relevance I found was only basic stuff like java.util, java.io and etc (included in the android.jar)...

i think that android will work on htc devices because pretty much they are the ones that will be releasing the first devices preloaded with android and i think that white device was made from htc. I see a potential here so i ask some one to make a thread on porting android to any or a specific device. good luck and may the force be with you.
ps. i hope its a htc wizard

I'd say we'd be waiting to see the HDK come out before we can put it on our own devices, can't wait though.

A dream
The Android SDK includes an emulator, see here http://www.ohadev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15
Quote: "It seems that the main binary is emulator; this includes a qemu-0.8.2, which runs (in system mode) the ARM kernel image at lib/images/kernel-qemu.
Two more images are mounted from lib/images : the system.img (which appears to be the rootfs, and userdata.img, which gets replicated (and mounted from there) at $HOME/.android/userdata.img."
This guy (http://mamaich.uni.cc/fr_pocket.htm) got Qemu compiled for ARM, buggy/crashing, no visible update for several years, see also here http://www.pocketpcmag.com/blogs/in...e_to_running_ms_dos_8_12&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Question: Anyone have any more recent news/experiences about Qemu on ARM/HTC?
So, theoretically one could try running the Android Kernel image from the SDK emulator on Qemu on PocketPC.
Even if it works (highly unlikely), this megasandwich AndroidImage->Qemu->PocketPC would probably be fantastically slow, with dodgy/absent I/O support.
Real solution is to wait for a modifyable Kernel which can run natively on the HTC ARM processor.

Did not someone from google mentioned at the day of the release that android will run on any ARM9 based device?

dirac said:
Real solution is to wait for a modifyable Kernel which can run natively on the HTC ARM processor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no such thing as "HTC ARM processor". All major ARM-based CPUs
are supported by Linux, it's the device drivers for external hardware that are
often missing because of the missing documentation.

cr2 said:
There is no such thing as "HTC ARM processor". All major ARM-based CPUs
are supported by Linux, it's the device drivers for external hardware that are
often missing because of the missing documentation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im sure that HTC will release drivers for all their devices since they are partners in the Open Handset Alliance..

prodinho said:
Im sure that HTC will release drivers for all their devices since they are partners in the Open Handset Alliance..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are some doubts that the (future) drivers will be released as free software, and not some binary blobs like nvidia, ati and m-systems did it in the past.
Binary linux kernel drivers are evil

OpenSource drivers

I can't believe how much HTC is screwing us. Ok, I guess I totally get it. I wrote a post about this but I wanted to get everyone's opinion.
Does anyone else want HTC to opensource the drivers for the Hero? I think it would breath new life into the phone and send a sign that HTC supports their hardcore users.

giovannizero said:
I can't believe how much HTC is screwing us. Ok, I guess I totally get it. I wrote a post about this but I wanted to get everyone's opinion.
Does anyone else want HTC to opensource the drivers for the Hero? I think it would breath new life into the phone and send a sign that HTC supports their hardcore users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i completely agree. the hero has only been out 8 months and they just completely abandoned it. i vote... hell yes!!

cp0020 said:
the hero has only been out 8 months and they just completely abandoned it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HTC only writes the software that Sprint pays it to write. All direction and control of development on single-carrier devices comes from that carrier. Its a business decision, basic cost/benefit analysis. There's not enough financial incentive for Sprint to pay for any more updates to the Hero. If people would stop shelling out cash for the latest and greatest (Evo 4G) each time it comes out and stop tolerating oppressive contracts with ETF fees, then devices wouldn't get abandoned so quickly.

cmccracken said:
HTC only writes the software that Sprint pays it to write. All direction and control of development on single-carrier devices comes from that carrier. Its a business decision, basic cost/benefit analysis. There's not enough financial incentive for Sprint to pay for any more updates to the Hero.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
glad your on board.....

cp0020 said:
glad your on board.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its irrelevant if people think HTC should or should not "opensource the drivers". Since HTC uses a monolithic kernel in the Hero (except for the wifi), they are required to release the source code for all components of the shipping kernel (including all "drivers") under terms of the GPL. Even if they do so, it will be the code for the kernel used in the 2.1 Android release, not for the kernel in the 2.2 release. It may still be useful, but is not a guaranteed slam dunk.
They have repeatedly chosen to stall and delay the source code release process and violate the copyright policy on the software they are using for their devices. Until an actual author of Linux kernel code sues them for violating his/her intellectual property's copyright, they will likely continue to do this. If you have a problem with the way they do business, stop giving them money. They've been doing this since far before the Hero was released.
My original comment was in response to the "hero has only been out 8 months and they just completely abandoned it" comment. I'll add a quotation before it for context.

cmccracken said:
Its irrelevant if people think HTC should or should not "opensource the drivers". Since HTC uses a monolithic kernel in the Hero (except for the wifi), they are required to release the source code for all components of the shipping kernel (including all "drivers") under terms of the GPL. Even if they do so, it will be the code for the kernel used in the 2.1 Android release, not for the kernel in the 2.2 release. It may still be useful, but is not a guaranteed slam dunk.
They have repeatedly chosen to stall and delay the source code release process and violate the copyright policy on the software they are using for their devices. Until an actual author of Linux kernel code sues them for violating his/her intellectual property's copyright, they will likely continue to do this. If you have a problem with the way they do business, stop giving them money. They've been doing this since far before the Hero was released.
My original comment was in response to the "hero has only been out 8 months and they just completely abandoned it" comment. I'll add a quotation before it for context.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
just letting you know i wasnt trying to be a smartass before. sorry if it came off like that. your probably right but we can still dream lol

cp0020 said:
just letting you know i wasnt trying to be a smartass before. sorry if it came off like that. your probably right but we can still dream lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You were being a smart-ass, but I wasn't offended. I would have done the same.

cmccracken said:
You were being a smart-ass, but I wasn't offended. I would have done the same.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol now that were best friends again let me buy you a beer lolol
Sent from my HERO200 using XDA App

cmccracken said:
Its irrelevant if people think HTC should or should not "opensource the drivers". Since HTC uses a monolithic kernel in the Hero (except for the wifi), they are required to release the source code for all components of the shipping kernel (including all "drivers") under terms of the GPL. Even if they do so, it will be the code for the kernel used in the 2.1 Android release, not for the kernel in the 2.2 release. It may still be useful, but is not a guaranteed slam dunk.
They have repeatedly chosen to stall and delay the source code release process and violate the copyright policy on the software they are using for their devices. Until an actual author of Linux kernel code sues them for violating his/her intellectual property's copyright, they will likely continue to do this. If you have a problem with the way they do business, stop giving them money. They've been doing this since far before the Hero was released.
My original comment was in response to the "hero has only been out 8 months and they just completely abandoned it" comment. I'll add a quotation before it for context.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not true at all. Drivers do not have to be open source. Drivers do not have to be released under the GPL just because the kernel is released under the GPL, if they did, then why are so many linux drivers just binary blobs and not source?

liquidtenmillion said:
That's not true at all. Drivers do not have to be open source. Drivers do not have to be released under the GPL just because the kernel is released under the GPL, if they did, then why are so many linux drivers just binary blobs and not source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're thinking of drivers that are distributed via loadable kernel modules. On the Hero, there is only one module (wlan.ko, for the wifi chipset). Everything else is built into the GPL'ed kernel. The entire kernel from GPL sources is the "binary blob" distributed by HTC.

liquidtenmillion said:
That's not true at all. Drivers do not have to be open source. Drivers do not have to be released under the GPL just because the kernel is released under the GPL, if they did, then why are so many linux drivers just binary blobs and not source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The justification is that the HTC drivers are included in a monolithic compilation of the kernel and therefore fall under the GPL as a modification to the kernel. The binary blobs you are referring to are not distributing a modified kernel with the drivers such as HTC did, therefore do not fall under GPL. You do not have to distribute your code if you work alongside GPL software, only if you modify it.

I posted up your blog post on digg, link.
Also I tweeted a link to the article, link; please retweet.

gu1dry said:
I posted up your blog post on digg, link.
Also I tweeted a link to the article, link; please retweet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Retweet'd because I agree that they should be open, but I am not entirely inclined to believe they are required to open the drivers. Similar to their power control software, its their code - it just lives next door to the kernel.
I am however really ticked that they haven't released Kernel Code even though they have obviously used that...they where quick with Legend and Desire.
I know we already have "Kernel Code that works" from the eris - but it's still not OURS and toast had to do a hell of a lot of work to get that. Work that shouldn't have even needed to be done. Compiled Code ships...source should ship as well.

Retweet'd because I agree that they should be open, but I am not entirely inclined to believe they are required to open the drivers. Similar to their power control software, its their code - it just lives next door to the kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it would live "next door" to the kernel if they were .ko loadable kernel modules. HTC compiled it straight into the kernel. Thus, under GPL2, they *are* part of the kernel, and therefore must be released as open source as well.
.ko binary drivers were a practical real-world compromise to allow proprietary binaries to coexist without screwing up the efforts of others to independently build their own kernels that make use of them. That's the key contention here. A .ko module allows you to treat it as a black box with a well-defined interface, and rewrite everything else around it. A monolithic binary blob is the software equivalent of a circuit board with bare, carrier-free chips soldered directly to it, then sealed in a blob of epoxy like a big IC that can't be meaningfully modified without breaking the whole thing.

Will there ever be ports to ___? No!

There won't be ports to say, the Motorola Xoom or the HP TouchPad. Let me explain:
1. In it's current state, Windows 8 doesn't support ARM architecture, although it will later, so I suppose this is only a semi-valid point.
2. and 3. Windows 8 isn't open source, so any ports would be illegal and without source, it's basically impossible.
Please don't fill this subsection with questions concerning if it'll ever come to your tablet/phone/etc., because it won't.

your right,I almost forgot about legal stuff! +1 for pointing this out!

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4811/windows-8-tablets-running-on-ti-qualcomm-nvidia-amd-intel-silicon
???????
i guess we can be confident that 1. will happen

NikolaiT said:
There won't be ports to say, the Motorola Xoom or the HP TouchPad. Let me explain:
1. In it's current state, Windows 8 doesn't support ARM architecture, although it will later, so I suppose this is only a semi-valid point.
2. and 3. Windows 8 isn't open source, so any ports would be illegal and without source, it's basically impossible.
Please don't fill this subsection with questions concerning if it'll ever come to your tablet/phone/etc., because it won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Microsoft does have Windows 8 running on ARM, the only thing they haven't done is release a dev build. We'll either get it at a later date or we'll have to wait for the beta.

NikolaiT said:
There won't be ports to say, the Motorola Xoom or the HP TouchPad. Let me explain:
1. In it's current state, Windows 8 doesn't support ARM architecture, although it will later, so I suppose this is only a semi-valid point.
2. and 3. Windows 8 isn't open source, so any ports would be illegal and without source, it's basically impossible.
Please don't fill this subsection with questions concerning if it'll ever come to your tablet/phone/etc., because it won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not being open source didn't stop the HTC HD2 from recieving Windows Phone 7

Saljen said:
Not being open source didn't stop the HTC HD2 from recieving Windows Phone 7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mobile OSes are less work than a full fledged operating system, plus, you need to consider legality.

Nitro_123 said:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4811/windows-8-tablets-running-on-ti-qualcomm-nvidia-amd-intel-silicon
???????
i guess we can be confident that 1. will happen
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While it will support ARM, I'd say it's doubtful that it would be released on a disk that you could just load onto your existing device, it will probably only come preloaded on devices by OEMs.
Saljen said:
Not being open source didn't stop the HTC HD2 from recieving Windows Phone 7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Traditionally MS haven't been worried about piracy of their mobile OS's. Their mobile OS efforts have mainly been about keeping people in the Windows eco-system, and to a much lesser degree selling licenses for CE to OEMs making embedded devices. In most cases of mobile OS roms being posted, they've just been updated/enhanced roms for existing Windows mobile devices and so haven't really cost sales and have possibly enhanced the ecosystem.
They're generally much much more concerned about piracy of their main OS. It remains to be seen how they will react to people trying port the ARM version of Windows 8, but they could easily react as strongly as they would for a normal x86 windows.

NikolaiT said:
Mobile OSes are less work than a full fledged operating system, plus, you need to consider legality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's never stopped developers from porting anything before...
I think at this point the largest hurdle is getting a build from an ARM dump. And drivers...can't forget about drivers.

NikolaiT said:
Mobile OSes are less work than a full fledged operating system, plus, you need to consider legality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would the legality be an issue? As long as you have a valid licence and key, when it officially becomes for sale, wouldn't it be ok?

dhiral.v said:
Why would the legality be an issue? As long as you have a valid licence and key, when it officially becomes for sale, wouldn't it be ok?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It most likely won't.

ugothakd said:
It most likely won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why not?
If you've paid for the license, I am free to put it on which ever device I own be it my laptop, desktop or tablet.

dhiral.v said:
Why not?
If you've paid for the license, I am free to put it on which ever device I own be it my laptop, desktop or tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I mean the arm copy...it'll most likely never be sold as a seperate product. Just built in

1. WinMo wasn’t open source either. Unlike WinMo, Windows licenses can be purchased.
2. Considering the fact that Intel and Google are now working together, the likelihood of cross compatible hardware specs are high for both Arm and Intel chips
3. This OS if it stays in close to current form will be a sort of hybrid of mobile/desktop OS. The mobile side will create a need for sideloaded apps, tweaks, reg hacks etc.
4. It is almost certain that Windows Phone will converge with this os down the line and I would argue that this forum has potential to be the most used forum of the site so the earlier the devs get started the better!

TechJunkiesCA said:
4. It is almost certain that Windows Phone will converge with this os down the line and I would argue that this forum has potential to be the most used forum of the site so the earlier the devs get started the better!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This porting work will indeed happen. Just not on this forum aparently/unfortunately. Discussions about illegal software is a far cry from hosting illegal software. Developers often experiment with breaking laws for learning about a system. exe - tutorials about changing esn # with specific notes that you should not do it. It's just an experiment.
My question is it against the rules to discuss or link to other sites that house these ports? It used to be at least overlooked. See example below and there are countless others in the older stuff.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=362344&page=3
In the past XDA was much more loose about this type of stuff and was my first place to look for the dream goal of putting a desktop class OS on a PDA.

ugothakd said:
It most likely won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But do you honestly think anyone will care much about it?
Take Mac OS X for instance. It clearly states in the EULA that installing the software on unapproved/non-Mac hardware are illegal, and yet there are tons of people with dedicated forums hacking away at it to make it run on various PC hardwares, and still ongoing for years.

eXecuter.bin said:
But do you honestly think anyone will care much about it?
Take Mac OS X for instance. It clearly states in the EULA that installing the software on unapproved/non-Mac hardware are illegal, and yet there are tons of people with dedicated forums hacking away at it to make it run on various PC hardwares, and still ongoing for years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good point...people will try. But the bootloaders are most likely different. Maybe devices with hacked bootloaders (captivate) would be possible.
sent from my epic 4g. with the key skips.

You are 100% right NikolaiT...

If you own a valid license it can't be illegal anyways be it ARM version or not.
We'll see how microsoft releases the product and how many different versions there are in what form.

Indeed, i think we need to leave the legalities aside, and use the assumption of....
You have your Legal and valid licence key, this is how you can get it working on x y and Z
Of course, if it is only Sold as OEM then legally you dont have leg to stand on, OEM copies are for the sole use on the hardware in which is was purchased with, i think the licence says it allows a number of hardware upgrades but you are not intitled to rip it off one PC and dump it on another one. (assuming its the same as a Win 7 Licence), yes people do do it, but that doesnt make it legal or condonable, so if thats the case the XDA couldnt allow anything to do with it
But lets say it can be brought as a retail package, then there is nothing to stop us from attempting to install it on anything we like, infact it may even be easier than we think given that MS usually gives a shed load of drivers, the tricky bit will be getting the bootloaders to allow it.

eXecuter.bin said:
But do you honestly think anyone will care much about it?
Take Mac OS X for instance. It clearly states in the EULA that installing the software on unapproved/non-Mac hardware are illegal, and yet there are tons of people with dedicated forums hacking away at it to make it run on various PC hardwares, and still ongoing for years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Forbidden, not illegal. The EULA doesn't really have any legal basis whatsoever. Apple can deny you support on your product if you break the EULA though.

Couldn't Google release updates instead??

I was thinking, can't google just release a open-sourced release that can be used for ALL android phones? I understand why Samsung would want its Touchwiz in it, and tmobile would want their apps in the phone, but if Google started doing that, would it work? Like they put out a few versions of the next Android, and it just starts working? The different versions could be that theres one for small screens, bigger screens etc.
I'm just thinking, couldn't they just eliminate fragmentation with that?

What about drivers for the phone? Those are closed sourced most of the time, They release them for the nexus though.
Google can definitely release the rom, or the aosp as they do but can't be fully functional with drivers. Like cm7 early on for our phone but I believe they reversed engineered the drivers
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App

xriderx66 said:
I was thinking, can't google just release a open-sourced release that can be used for ALL android phones? I understand why Samsung would want its Touchwiz in it, and tmobile would want their apps in the phone, but if Google started doing that, would it work? Like they put out a few versions of the next Android, and it just starts working? The different versions could be that theres one for small screens, bigger screens etc.
I'm just thinking, couldn't they just eliminate fragmentation with that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They already do.
That's what AOSP is.

I agree, Google should handle OS updates the same way Windows/Linux operate. Google should release the OS with compatible drivers for all devices.
As long as your phone has the specs to run the latest OS fast enough, great!

SamsungVibrant said:
I agree, Google should handle OS updates the same way Windows/Linux operate. Google should release the OS with compatible drivers for all devices.
As long as your phone has the specs to run the latest OS fast enough, great!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since when has Linux or Windows come with all the drivers? Have you ever done a fresh install of Windows or Linux before?

This is known as Fragmentation.
You have many choices/options of hardware but it's up to manufactures & carriers to provide compatible drivers.
Hence, iPhone & Nexus phones are so stable. I think Samsung is skating on thin ice by offering their Galaxy S to too many carriers with too many variables.
My next phone will be Nexus Prime/Galaxy Nexus!!!!

Sigh
I realize that everyone has differing opinions on this, but this isn't "fragmentation" in the same manner that Google refers to "fragmentation". I'm not picking, but it's the most misused phrase in the Android world. Fragmentation isn't about different devices with different drivers and individual frameworks like TouchWiz, Sense and Motoblur. Fragmentation is about companies doing things like installing Android on hardware that doesn't meet minimum specs (yes, Google has minimum/recommended hardware specifications), and running devices that are cut off from the Market altogether.
The reason why that's called "fragmentation" is because it's a poor representation of Android. It may be open source, but it's still being used in a manner not intended.

But then people would just expect their"old"phones to do new things. Why upgrade software when Tmobile wants you to buy new hardware.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using xda premium

reuthermonkey said:
Since when has Linux or Windows come with all the drivers? Have you ever done a fresh install of Windows or Linux before?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I've done a fresh install of win 7 and Kubuntu, and both find all the drivers I need flawlessly. Took Kubuntu/Ubuntu a while to be as easy as windows, but it's there now.
Really don't know what you meant either, Windows 7 goes and finds all the drivers you need if it doesn't already have a compatible one. It is a flawless easy install.

SamsungVibrant said:
Yes I've done a fresh install of win 7 and Kubuntu, and both find all the drivers I need flawlessly. Took Kubuntu/Ubuntu a while to be as easy as windows, but it's there now.
Really don't know what you meant either, Windows 7 goes and finds all the drivers you need if it doesn't already have a compatible one. It is a flawless easy install.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The key words are "find drivers." Windows automatically finds what driver you need by downloading them from the net. Google would have to create a program that lets you update while getting required drivers..
I think that why ima go with the Nexus Prime. Its basically a GS2 but you get the android updates (I think)

dunkerya said:
What about drivers for the phone? Those are closed sourced most of the time, They release them for the nexus though.
Google can definitely release the rom, or the aosp as they do but can't be fully functional with drivers. Like cm7 early on for our phone but I believe they reversed engineered the drivers
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
False. Google gets the device first, loads Android on it the way they would like it loaded, drivers and all, and then hands it back to the manufacturer. The manufacturer then changes the source as they choose.

They make drivers for parts they didn't manufacturer? That makes no sense.
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App

dunkerya said:
They make drivers for parts they didn't manufacturer? That makes no sense.
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know but it wouldn't be too hard to get drivers from part/chip manufacturers.
Doesn't Microsoft make drivers to parts they didn't manufacturer?

SamsungVibrant said:
I don't know but it wouldn't be too hard to get drivers from part/chip manufacturers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apparently it is. See: Vibrant GPS.
Doesn't Microsoft make drivers to parts they didn't manufacturer?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. There are generic drivers based upon standards, like NDIS, VGA, etc... that are freely available to distribute and provide very basic functionality. Non-standards drivers (that is, most drivers used since about 1994) are proprietary and must be obtained from the manufacturer.
Or do you not recall having to go out and search for hours to find the right drivers for windows 95, 98, NT, 2000, and Me (uggh)? Ever use linux before the likes of apt-get/yum and automated gui installs? Install printers over parallel ports? Serial mice?
I'm gonna guess no.

reuthermonkey said:
Apparently it is. See: Vibrant GPS.
No. There are generic drivers based upon standards, like NDIS, VGA, etc... that are freely available to distribute and provide very basic functionality. Non-standards drivers (that is, most drivers used since about 1994) are proprietary and must be obtained from the manufacturer.
Or do you not recall having to go out and search for hours to find the right drivers for windows 95, 98, NT, 2000, and Me (uggh)? Ever use linux before the likes of apt-get/yum and automated gui installs? Install printers over parallel ports? Serial mice?
I'm gonna guess no.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
god thats a pain in the ass.

xriderx66 said:
god thats a pain in the ass.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do not miss those days. Not a single bit.

reuthermonkey said:
Apparently it is. See: Vibrant GPS.
No. There are generic drivers based upon standards, like NDIS, VGA, etc... that are freely available to distribute and provide very basic functionality. Non-standards drivers (that is, most drivers used since about 1994) are proprietary and must be obtained from the manufacturer.
Or do you not recall having to go out and search for hours to find the right drivers for windows 95, 98, NT, 2000, and Me (uggh)? Ever use linux before the likes of apt-get/yum and automated gui installs? Install printers over parallel ports? Serial mice?
I'm gonna guess no.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who cares about windows 95, it's almost 2012 and Win 7 has practically all the compatible drivers you need upon install, and if it doesn't it searches and finds it for you. Not to mention windows update notifies you of new updated drivers also.
There is no reason Google can't direct Android in the same direction to make everything easier. They just have to work out deals probably with hardware/chip manufacturers for drivers or something. I think it would also help end fragmentation if Google just handled the OS release and updates and took the control away from phone manufacturers and carriers.

SamsungVibrant said:
Who cares about windows 95, it's almost 2012 and Win 7 has practically all the compatible drivers you need upon install, and if it doesn't it searches and finds it for you. Not to mention windows update notifies you of new updated drivers also.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So that answers that.
It helps to know a tiny bit of history to understand why things are the way they are. How old are you? 14?
There is no reason Google can't direct Android in the same direction to make everything easier.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except for that whole "open source" thing.
They just have to work out deals probably with hardware/chip manufacturers for drivers or something.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"or something" being the important part here. How, exactly is google going to "work out deals" with driver manufacturers, when they don't have any control over what hardware each phone uses? Moreover, unlike Android (which is distributed under the GPL) drivers are proprietary and don't fall under the same GPL license. Different driver manufacturers may have different licensing models with different handset makers as well. What microsoft does is quite different. But since you don't know anything about the history, I'm really not going to waste my time detailing Microsoft's approach, or the fact that it took them about 20 years to get there.
I think it would also help end fragmentation if Google just handled the OS release and updates and took the control away from phone manufacturers and carriers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would end fragmentation a whole lot, because phone manufacturers and carriers would no longer sell Android devices, and we'd go back to iOS and Blackberry (or WP7). Chances are, manufacturer profit margins would go up if they did that, since there'd be less competition, and less room for hardware innovation too. That sure would be easier though.

A simple fix
a simple fix to this whole fragmentation problem would be:
1. Android Release all OS Updates
2. Each device manufacturer uploads individual device drivers to google just like github maintainers take care of each device like cyanogenmod
3. Service Providers like T-Mobile/AT&T/Verizon could issue updates and customizations to the market. Just like T-Mobile does, they have their own T-Mobile Market Section. This would allow them to add customizations to the launcher, and certain apps. Google could have an Agreement with each provider that when your phone updates, it could either WGet updates, or have the market auto download and install them.
This is a simple fix. Stupid Simple, because it would make all manufacturers device maintainers, updates are central organized, and everyone can get their updates, manually or automatically.

Thank you reuthermonkey.
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App

Omni Rom For MTK Devices

Many rom projects like Cyanogen mod, Paranoid droid rom and many others were released only for renowned company phones like Galaxy Series, Nexus series etc etc, where as millions & billions of MTK soc phones that contribute alot to the daily millions of Android activations are left out. Many MTK phones developers started request threads for cyanogen mod and other rom communities to build/release a rom for MTK phones but those request were neglected till date.
Now with the start of new rom project "Omni", MTK phone devs are hoping that this rom will also be compiled & released for MTK phones. We want Omni pioneers to release this rom for millions & billions of MTK phones.
We are willing to help you guys making Omni rom project better & grow.
Regards

Wouldn't have it been easier to read some posts in the forum?

This will happen. When you're able to watch the presentation video (which will be up in the next few days) you'll notice that @XpLoDWilD shows Omni running on the Oppo R819, a quad-core MTK device.

jerdog said:
This will happen. When you're able to watch the presentation video (which will be up in the next few days) you'll notice that @XpLoDWilD shows Omni running on the Oppo R819, a quad-core MTK device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are a lot of things in the way. Also, any MTK devices that ship without kernel sources (there are a lot of them) are still out of luck.
The R819 is a game changer here - Oppo really wants it to receive community firmware support and has been EXTREMELY cooperative with us in terms of getting us documentation.

Entropy512 said:
The R819 is a game changer here - Oppo really wants it to receive community firmware support and has been EXTREMELY cooperative with us in terms of getting us documentation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So they are giving you access to the MTK framework sources? Or do you have to reimplement the dual sim support (I have never seen any open source ROM with dual sim support)? I'd really love to help a bit, having some MTK6577 phones lying around here.

I too have two MTK phones .....they are a powerful if it got development projects like this ...it will be the no.1 vendor in chip set marketing and ...I support for OMNI PROJECT
Sent from my Fly IQ451 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app

C-o-M said:
So they are giving you access to the MTK framework sources? Or do you have to reimplement the dual sim support (I have never seen any open source ROM with dual sim support)? I'd really love to help a bit, having some MTK6577 phones lying around here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure about the state of dsim support. We do have access to quite a bit, however some items even the OEM we're working with doesn't have access to source for, and it's also a nasty licensing minefield.
There's much better potential than there has been previously, however there are still some nasty technical and legal challenges. For example, MTK's 4.2 firmware appears to be using all sorts of hwcomposer backcompat hacks to use what is effectively a 4.0 (ICS) HWC.

Entropy512 said:
I'm not sure about the state of dsim support. We do have access to quite a bit, however some items even the OEM we're working with doesn't have access to source for, and it's also a nasty licensing minefield.
There's much better potential than there has been previously, however there are still some nasty technical and legal challenges. For example, MTK's 4.2 firmware appears to be using all sorts of hwcomposer backcompat hacks to use what is effectively a 4.0 (ICS) HWC.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With this I assume device will not receive 4.4 barely 4.3 but can I ask how is to work with OEM?
Sent from my Xperia U using xda app-developers app

XperianPro said:
With this I assume device will not receive 4.4 barely 4.3 but can I ask how is to work with OEM?
Sent from my Xperia U using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nobody can predict what happens in the future.
In terms of working with OEMs, not sure what your question is, but one thing we do bring to the table with Omni is considerable experience in working with OEMs. And that should be rather beneficial for everyone

Will you be allowed to release all sources needed to build the ROM?

There are sources for various MTK devices (MT6577/MT6575) that can be used already. I assume it would be no problem for the omni team to integrate them into their builds.

darkguy2008 said:
There are sources for various MTK devices (MT6577/MT6575) that can be used already. I assume it would be no problem for the omni team to integrate them into their builds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We have more recent ones that are being used to bring up MTK devices.
At the BBQ, Xplod demonstrated an Oppo r819 running Omni, which is an MT6589

pulser_g2 said:
We have more recent ones that are being used to bring up MTK devices.
At the BBQ, Xplod demonstrated an Oppo r819 running Omni, which is an MT6589
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So with this you mean that those sources work for MT6577 devices?

I wish you guys the best of luck, but conserning MTK and their closed sources policy, i really don't believe those sources (and im talking about the framework /RIL) will be Open Source.
If we are lucky enought we may get some working builds for some of the phones (if an brand gives you support), but concerning the MTK licenses, well its an MINE FIELD.
An good example is the on-going Cyanogen project by FAEA for the F2S (MT6589), they got the green light from MTK, BUT the project will remain Closed Source, so no one will get those sources...
B.Regards

superdragonpt said:
An good example is the on-going Cyanogen project by FAEA for the F2S (MT6589), they got the green light from MTK, BUT the project will remain Closed Source, so no one will get those sources...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AFAIK, you are wrong:
chasepoes said:
Well I know of one dev. who is develloping CM port voor MTK658x devices (usinf Faea mobile). For now he has to operate under a NDA agreement, but once finished his source will be come available.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

darkguy2008 said:
So with this you mean that those sources work for MT6577 devices?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unknown. And as I've said, it's a licensing nightmare.
It may be that certain components will have to be developed in a "some people have the source but can only release blobs" - I would prefer to avoid this if at all possible. The issue is if any of those "files with nasty license" are in things that can't be cleanly separated, it will present a MAJOR issue.

Entropy512 said:
Unknown. And as I've said, it's a licensing nightmare.
It may be that certain components will have to be developed in a "some people have the source but can only release blobs" - I would prefer to avoid this if at all possible. The issue is if any of those "files with nasty license" are in things that can't be cleanly separated, it will present a MAJOR issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I assume something like the HTC Magic or the Defy can be done. They don't have the sources for the hardware GPU but they managed to enable hardware compositing after some work somehow. I don't think that MTK will oppose to the project using the libs and such instead of having full access to the code, usually that feels less restrictive for both the company and the devs, imho.
I may be talking rubbish though, I'd just like the MT6577 devices to get some lovin', because we've been fighting for quite some time against ZTE for them to release the kernel sources so we can develop ROMs for the V970M and more =/

darkguy2008 said:
Well I assume something like the HTC Magic or the Defy can be done. They don't have the sources for the hardware GPU but they managed to enable hardware compositing after some work somehow. I don't think that MTK will oppose to the project using the libs and such instead of having full access to the code, usually that feels less restrictive for both the company and the devs, imho.
I may be talking rubbish though, I'd just like the MT6577 devices to get some lovin', because we've been fighting for quite some time against ZTE for them to release the kernel sources so we can develop ROMs for the V970M and more =/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ZTE,I dont know much about this company but its worse than Sony I think...
Why not release kernel sources,what are developers doing at their company...

XperianPro said:
ZTE,I dont know much about this company but its worse than Sony I think...
Why not release kernel sources,what are developers doing at their company...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pretty much most Chinese companies are like this. Oppo is VERY non-typical of a Chinese company, which is why they have a FAR better chance of global success than any other Chinese mobile OEM right now.

Entropy512 said:
Pretty much most Chinese companies are like this. Oppo is VERY non-typical of a Chinese company, which is why they have a FAR better chance of global success than any other Chinese mobile OEM right now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How very true. I have high hopes for this project as my current device is an OPPO R819. I chose OPPO because exactly they try to be open with the developers, having the experience of Motorola and their locked bootloaders the past years while the Motorola DEFY was my main device. It took a long time for the DEFY to get its first custom kernel and it only happened thanks to some very persistent people. It shouldn't be like this, so as long I have a choice I'll opt for unlocked (and cheap...) devices.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app