Database Users

Android 2.3 out

So now that Android 2.3 is out, what would it take to get it on the Gtab?

wiredmonkey said:
So now that Android 2.3 is out, what would it take to get it on the Gtab?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 I would also like to move my gtab from 2.2.0 to 2.3.0.

+1
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA App

My guess, since ViewSonic hasn't released source is that it will be some time. Perhaps the Vega or Zpad devs will get to it first.
Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

I think there is supposed to be a official update of the 20th.
I bet it will be Android 2.3 plus whatever app store Viewsonic managed to dig up.

The best thing about 2.3 for tablets like this without 3G is the VoIP phone calling.

Android 2.3 SDK is out. There's no OTA update for Nexus One yet. Nexus S release was announced for December 16th, so there will be something out by then for N1 presumably.
Not sure how much luck we'll have rolling our own Gingerbread build quite yet. We still have no kernel source or any other source code from Viewsonic for that matter. Basically, I'm pretty sure I'll have Gingerbread on my Nexus One well before my G Tablet.
BTW, there is some explicit stuff surrounding large screen support in the Gingerbread SDK. Sort of a recognition that there are now tablet devices out there even though they won't be blessed until the 3.0 release.

popezaphod said:
My guess, since ViewSonic hasn't released source is that it will be some time. Perhaps the Vega or Zpad devs will get to it first.
Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm new to Android, but why do we have to wait for Viewsonic? Can't the standard Android 2.3 source be compiled for the Gtab?

I'd recommend everyone calling Viewsonic support and asking them, if they get enough questions they may find some type of answer so we can guage their actions.
I do know that 2.3 has been worked on for this specific OEM device by Malata(zpad). The Woow! device is supposed to be released fairly soon with it. There are nvidia engineers working for Malata who will be on top of this, and I doubt it will take over a month to get it on our device one way or another.

wiredmonkey said:
I'm new to Android, but why do we have to wait for Viewsonic? Can't the standard Android 2.3 source be compiled for the Gtab?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android 2.3 "source" hasn't been released, only the SDK (Software Developers Kit).
You can download the SDK and start coding applications for OS 2.3 but you can't start building 2.3 ROM's until the source is released.

rothnic said:
I'd recommend everyone calling Viewsonic support and asking them, if they get enough questions they may find some type of answer so we can guage their actions.
I do know that 2.3 has been worked on for this specific OEM device by Malata(zpad). The Woow! device is supposed to be released fairly soon with it. There are nvidia engineers working for Malata who will be on top of this, and I doubt it will take over a month to get it on our device one way or another.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One month is better than six. With what we've seen so far, I wouldn't expect 2.3 any time soon, at least from VS. I know you Devs will get it to us way sooner.
Everyone excited about this VS "update" coming this month, I wouldn't get too terribly excited. Definitely wouldn't expect more than Flash for the Stock ROM. If VS is smart they'll pay Roebeet for his efforts and make TnT Lite the "update"

tcrews said:
Android 2.3 "source" hasn't been released, only the SDK (Software Developers Kit).
You can download the SDK and start coding applications for OS 2.3 but you can't start building 2.3 ROM's until the source is released.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, gotcha.

Umm, I wouldn't expect anything but 2.2 from Viewsonic. Looking at the quality of their release software, besides bugfixes to make the stock ROM "usable" I doubt they will care about supporting this thing.
Once the source is released your time would be better spent thanking whichever dev decides to take this massive undertaking of porting 2.3.

tcrews said:
Android 2.3 "source" hasn't been released, only the SDK (Software Developers Kit).
You can download the SDK and start coding applications for OS 2.3 but you can't start building 2.3 ROM's until the source is released.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not quite. you can use the sdk to build a rom.
its very hard and time consuming. but it can be done.
just look at what punk.kaos has done with the eris. there is already a (Very Buggy) gingerbread rom for the eris.

No, you can't use the SDK to build a rom but you can use the crippled system.img they provide in it and try to hack something together. Hacking that and using an older kernel isn't really the way to go. Compiling a rom is going to require source.
Building a rom, to me, is compiling from source. Otherwise you are tweaking someone else's rom or worse...trying to use an image created for the emulator.
Not to downplay his efforts or skill...but that is not a rom to use other than for experimenting or "learning" from.
babybacon said:
not quite. you can use the sdk to build a rom.
its very hard and time consuming. but it can be done.
just look at what punk.kaos has done with the eris. there is already a (Very Buggy) gingerbread rom for the eris.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my Viewsonic 10" GTab...

tcrews said:
No, you can't use the SDK to build a rom but you can use the crippled system.img they provide in it and try to hack something together. Hacking that and using an older kernel isn't really the way to go. Compiling a rom is going to require source.
Building a rom, to me, is compiling from source. Otherwise you are tweaking someone else's rom or worse...trying to use an image created for the emulator.
Not to downplay his efforts or skill...but that is not a rom to use other than for experimenting or "learning" from.
Sent from my Viewsonic 10" GTab...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Idk man. kaosfroyo on my eris has been wonderfully fast and stable (especially for as slow as the eris is) ever since v22. these things take some tweaking.

[Q] Will the Nook ever get a..

..fully working Honeycomb? What do you think? Is a fully working Honecomb ROM possible? May it be 3.0 or 3.1 with all those nice honeycomb-native-apps working?

fattymcdirty said:
..fully working Honeycomb? What do you think? Is a fully working Honecomb ROM possible? May it be 3.0 or 3.1 with all those nice honeycomb-native-apps working?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ha? We have two out already and only zoom has it out really...for the new version. Everybody is working with the prerelease sdk. Those in the development section ARE honeycomb and it cannot yet be full driver ready till the release of source or until new release gets ported over. If you mean from Barnes and noble, I do not know. I am running leaked transformer version and it is smooth as it can be.

life64x said:
I am running leaked transformer version and it is smooth as it can be.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which one is that? I thought that all those Honeycomb images out yet for the Nook aren't smooth at all and have compatibility issues with many apps. And The tablet versions from some apps (like GMail) aren't even working...

fattymcdirty said:
Which one is that? I thought that all those Honeycomb images out yet for the Nook aren't smooth at all and have compatibility issues with many apps. And The tablet versions from some apps (like GMail) aren't even working...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I forgot to mention it is on my transformer...not nook I was running leaked 3.1. I found that both of the nook honeycombs where semi solid with for me just to test honeycomb. I knew off the bat they are pre-production HC and I treated them as such. Cm 7 for nook is solid and been very content with it. The reason why a lot of apps have fc is the simple fact there was really no production sdk for development till recently. And how do you develop when you dont have the right environment. I want honeycomb bad...but if it is not there, it is not there...what I want is the new kor-el chip tablet...but I gotta wait till end of year for that. For now, honeycomb is just a toy on the nook and I would not really depend on it...that is my opinion, there are others whose it daily and more power to them. It will take a developer to port it for the nook most likely and that will be off in the near, medium or far future...I do not know.

Android 4.0? VegaCream?

Just curious, once 4.0 is released are we likely to see it on the Vega?
Assumably, 4.0 will be open sourced as everything pre-3.0 was and would be a breeze in comparison to porting 3.2.
What say you, oh wise devs of Vega?
Sent from my VegaComb using Tapatalk

We can only hope, ICS is being marketed as the android for everything, and that includes high and low spec devices, this suggests that it may change dynamically to suit the spec of he device it is running on.
Hopefully if we got it on the vega it would help with the low ram issue that vegacomb currently has.
I think we have two things to look out for, the first being the release date of ICS, slowly less people will be interested in the vega.
Another is how similar it is to honeycomb, a lot of work has gone into getting honeycomb onto the vega, if ICS needs all of that work done again, it is less likely that we will get ICS.

Interesting views, thanks!
My understanding is that given the closed nature of honeycomb, it wads a lot more difficult to port than ICS would be, which is supposed to be open source.
Sent from my VegaComb using Tapatalk

Well, Cyanogenmod will be using ICS when the source comes out and Cyanogenmod supports the Vega, so we can reasonably assume we will get ICS.

last CM7 update for Vega was on August 31st and it still doesn't support internal 3G and GPS. I don't think anybody is working on the CM7 for Vega anymore.

If CM do get around to progressing beyond GB for the Vega I will be impressed.
I understand their buildbot went down a short while ago, so nothing is updating for Vega at the moment..
I'd much rather see dedicated ROMs from the awesome Devs who know the vega intimately to be honest though!
Sent from my VegaComb using Tapatalk

Please people stop posting questions in the development section.
Mods please move to general.
Take it easy

Sounds interesting.
Sent from my ViewPad 10S running ViewCOMB 3.2

vujke025 said:
Sounds interesting.
Sent from my ViewPad 10S running ViewCOMB 3.2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just in case someone stumbles on this thread and is not yet aware of it, ICS for the Vaga and similar devices has been out since 31 December 2011 as VagaICS. The latest version is VegaICS Beta1 originally developed by Cass67 and ejtange, but now being further developed by a whole number od devs simulataniously. Seach for VegaICS Beta1 on XDA.

I think Cass and co are working on 4.04 too, been a bit quiet on vega development, looks like alot of people have moved onto other devices

Check the last couple of pages of this thread on Modaco to see how they are all getting on with ICS - http://android.modaco.com/topic/330834-advent-vega-kernel-source-code-now-available/page__st__1700

[Q] Honeycomb on KF? Vs ICS

Ahoy mateys. I've been a longtime Android user (October 2009) and have never been much for running the stock OS on my devices.
Currently I've been running CM7 and loving it on the KF. Been keeping tabs on the ICS port over, just waiting for the sound issues to be hammered out as I use the device mostly for watching videos via RockPlayer.
Lately I've been thinking about trying to port over Honeycomb to the KF, as it might be simpler given that it's been around longer. I know that it's somewhat futile given the state of the 3.0 kernel being needed for HW acceleration. But it seems like it could be worthwhile just to test it and see what might happen. Give it more tablety goodness if anything!
I'm a programmer by trade and am majoring in CS. Not much dev experience on Android aside from writing games. But I've built Gentoo for my machines, so I've got some kernel knowledge. What do you guys think?
Regards,
-Free
P.S. I don't have 10 posts so this is in General.

freeqaz said:
Ahoy mateys. I've been a longtime Android user (October 2009) and have never been much for running the stock OS on my devices.
Currently I've been running CM7 and loving it on the KF. Been keeping tabs on the ICS port over, just waiting for the sound issues to be hammered out as I use the device mostly for watching videos via RockPlayer.
Lately I've been thinking about trying to port over Honeycomb to the KF, as it might be simpler given that it's been around longer. I know that it's somewhat futile given the state of the 3.0 kernel being needed for HW acceleration. But it seems like it could be worthwhile just to test it and see what might happen. Give it more tablety goodness if anything!
I'm a programmer by trade and am majoring in CS. Not much dev experience on Android aside from writing games. But I've built Gentoo for my machines, so I've got some kernel knowledge. What do you guys think?
Regards,
-Free
P.S. I don't have 10 posts so this is in General.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Personally, I think it's a good idea, and that you should do it. You'll probably get a lot of people saying there's no point cause ICS is what honeycomb should've been. I've never used honeycomb before, so I don't know how different it is from ICS but I'm sure there are some.
I think you should do it to give this device and its users another ROM choice, with a different android version. Or even just for the fact that you might want to use it, do it for yourself and post it here just to see if people want it. I'd try it out, even if ICS is out and stable haha
Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk

Personally, I think it's a good idea, .... I've never used honeycomb before...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huh?
Why would you encourage someone to work on something when you yourself don't know what the differences are between them??
ICS is Honeycomb just taking to what was its planned completion. With many Honeycomb devices moving to ICS I don't see the point.
That would be doing a lot of work, just to end up with an in between OS with all the new support going to ICS which is what everyone that can get it wants.
Also, for someone with no Android programming experience, you most likely would be a lot better of working with apps before tackling a whole OS.

krelvinaz said:
Huh?
Why would you encourage someone to work on something when you yourself don't know what the differences are between them??
ICS is Honeycomb just taking to what was its planned completion. With many Honeycomb devices moving to ICS I don't see the point.
That would be doing a lot of work, just to end up with an in between OS with all the new support going to ICS which is what everyone that can get it wants.
Also, for someone with no Android programming experience, you most likely would be a lot better of working with apps before tackling a whole OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd like to check it out. It's not like I'm telling him that he needs to do this, he asked what people thought of the idea because he was interested in doing it, and I voiced my opinion.
Though I do agree that it might be easier to work with apps and then maybe work on a ROM, but hey, if he's willing to attempt it and learn how everything works, why stop him? The more devs, the merrier lol

Isn't the problem with porting honeycomb is that it was never truly open source?

My understanding is there was never a source release for honeycomb
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium

[email protected] said:
Isn't the problem with porting honeycomb is that it was never truly open source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, that is, AFAIK, why there was never a CM8. I don't think it would be worth OP's time to try to reverse-engineer a Honeycomb tablet and shoehorning it into the KF.
However, the OP might want to donate some of their time to the ICS port
It is open source after all...

[email protected] said:
Isn't the problem with porting honeycomb is that it was never truly open source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe Google released the source for Honeycomb when they released the source for ICS
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk

Hit up this Google announcement, they did indeed release the source.
This release includes the full history of the Android source code
tree, which naturally includes all the source code for the Honeycomb
releases. However, since Honeycomb was a little incomplete, we want
everyone to focus on Ice Cream Sandwich. So, we haven't created any
tags that correspond to the Honeycomb releases (even though the
changes are present in the history.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
groups.google dot com/forum/#!topic/android-building/T4XZJCZnqF8
The only thing that I really want to know is if there is a significant driver difference between ICS and Honeycomb. If there is, then there is a reason to try to port 3.0 over because it would have more driver support. There are 3.0 devices out in the wild. If there isn't a driver difference between 3.0 and 4.0, then it's futile and all efforts should be spent on 4.0.

theholyfork said:
I believe Google released the source for Honeycomb when they released the source for ICS
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed.
And when they released the source for ICS, they elaborated on why they included Honeycomb in the Source tree: To essentially display the hacks they were forced to use to push Honeycomb to market. Honeycomb was never AOSP'd because it wasn't reliable for wider use.
Based upon the fact that Google was basically too ashamed to release Honeycomb to AOSP, I don't think it would make much sense to target a broken platform (Honeycomb).
IMO, if you're going to spend time trying to work on getting a more tablet-oriented version of Android running, it's probably going to be *easier* to work with ICS than Honeycomb. Moreover your contributions could assist the greater KF community in getting a stable base of ICS for all.

The ways to get full ICS on Atrix

There is a great description of the ways to get ICS on Atrix from crnkoj:
crnkoj said:
So lets try to get some light into it, the issue about hw acceleration for the atrix is that, even now that nvidia released proper ICS binaries, those are made for recent kernel versions (post 2.6.39 and 3.x versions), those libs are floating around and are accessible to most people who would want to build stuff with hw acceleration, the problem on the atrix however is we only have 2.6.32 kernel sources from motorola, which in term means all the libs floating around are incompatible and useless. Now there would be two general ways of fixing this: 1. get libs that work with 2.6.32 kernels but are ics compatible (most improbable, except if moto leaks them and is still to lazy to move on from the 2.6.32 kernel) 2. get or make post 2.6.39 kernel sources that have the atrix's proprietary drivers including or rewritten (actually more probable, but still quite low chances, except if moto releases and ICS build for the photon/atrix or someone knows, has the time and will to write these code from scratch for the newer kernel versions). So as you can see this is quite a grim outlook, its still being worked on by community devs as far as my information are up-to-date, but i dont know which aproach they are choosing. There is however a minor glimpse of hope, since the move to integrate android drivers in the mainline/mainstream linux kernel is happening in the 3.3 kernel version (there are 3.2.x versions as of now), so this might be actually the best bet, hoping that most of the atrix proprietary drivers will be supported in it, one could just use the "nvidia libs floating around", another thing is nvidia is maintaining their own tegra2/3 kernel sources, so combined with the 3.3 move to android drivers and nvidia implementing support for tegra into their sources, it might not look so grim for us anymore, but this is all a developing story.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also, there is another comment from one of the CM developers:
OK, since so many people are asking: The reason I'm doing the OMAP devices first is because the fine folks at Texas Instruments have, as before, published their reference code. (and Google's current reference device, the SGN, is an OMAP4, which also helps considerably).
The Optimus 2X (and its TMoUS brother, the G2x) is a Tegra2, and nVidia has, as always, published a total amount of zero useful lines of code; at this point, my time is better employed at getting CM9 off the ground with devices in which I can write code than it would be at figuring out how the hell to support old tegra binaries. It'll happen, but not in the near future.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
According to this, there are some plans of CM-developers to make some kind of wrapper to use GB tegra binaries for ICS on GB kernel. Great!
Also, a question from me. LG has announced ICS on O2X. Will this release help us? I saw that some developers used O2X GB binaries for Atrix, and it worked even better Can we do the same trick with ICS binaries and get fully working ICS on ICS kernel?

v.k said:
Also, a question from me. LG has announced ICS on O2X. Will this release help us? I saw that some developers used O2X GB binaries for Atrix, and it worked even better Can we do the same trick with ICS binaries and get fully working ICS on ICS kernel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can never be sure on the software world, but I hope so. A Motorola ICS release would definitely be better though.

Interesting information, thank you!

Easier said than done...
But thanks for sharing the info.
Sent from my Atrix 4G using Tapatalk

Hopefully something will get worked out. I have no plans on leaving this phone as I love the FP scanner too much

if i'm correct, samsung's galaxy r and captivate glide are both tegra 2 phones and they run on the 2.6.36 kernel, which supports hw acceleration to a certain degree, does this help us?