Well there's the question, why would you want Honeycomb on your fascinate? I mean, it looks nice from what I saw of the xoom demo but it really doesn't look like it would be nice on a phone just yet, so why ask/want it, why not wait until something actually meant for a phone is developed?
I just don't understand the want/"NEED" for honeycomb on my fascinate, can't we just keep it to actual phone OS's for now?
gabenoob said:
Well there's the question, why would you want Honeycomb on your fascinate? I mean, it looks nice from what I saw of the xoom demo but it really doesn't look like it would be nice on a phone just yet, so why ask/want it, why not wait until something actually meant for a phone is developed?
I just don't understand the want/"NEED" for honeycomb on my fascinate, can't we just keep it to actual phone OS's for now?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same reason everyone wanted DJ05, DL09 and DL30...they always want something new. Instead of optimizing what they have and being content, they rather complain and wish for something better to come along.
I get that, but whats with the wanting of this new thing if its not even meant for a phone; I mean I wouldn't want something clunky and literally designed for something bigger on a 'tiny' device. It would just be wrong. I fail to see how even those who continually ask for new shiny things would overlook the real incompatabiliteis with a phone. I can see asking for Gingerbread, but even that's a bit much. I mean, we have Froyo, and now my brother with his fancy incredible is actually jealous of my phone. I think things are great, and I understand the desire for new shiny things, but honeycomb really isn't for phones, so why be ignorant of that?
gabenoob said:
I get that, but whats with the wanting of this new thing if its not even meant for a phone; I mean I wouldn't want something clunky and literally designed for something bigger on a 'tiny' device. It would just be wrong. I fail to see how even those who continually ask for new shiny things would overlook the real incompatabiliteis with a phone. I can see asking for Gingerbread, but even that's a bit much. I mean, we have Froyo, and now my brother with his fancy incredible is actually jealous of my phone. I think things are great, and I understand the desire for new shiny things, but honeycomb really isn't for phones, so why be ignorant of that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
keep in mind though...froyo wasn't meant for our specific phones either...we're all running a leaked version. For all we know, after a year of addl development the next ota update may be honeycomb...
jenisiz said:
keep in mind though...froyo wasn't meant for our specific phones either...we're all running a leaked version. For all we know, after a year of addl development the next ota update may be honeycomb...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
honeycomb is for tablets!!
ace5198 said:
honeycomb is for tablets!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
3.0's UI is meant to be able to scale down to phone sizes. The current developer preview doesn't work exceptionally well when that's done to it (it's buggy, but obviously meant to), but it's not anywhere near a finished product (it's really meant to show the APIs).
Android also isn't being forked, there isn't going to be a Phone version and a Tablet version, future phones will be running the 3 series (they might wait for 3.1, but they will run 3). They will pretty much have to if any of them want to use the newer dual-core CPUs that should be just about to hit the phone segment.
Also, don't forget that Android 3.0 adds a fair bit of new APIs, not all of which are meant exclusively for tablets (there's a fair bit of HW acceleration stuff, IIRC).
KitsuneKnight said:
3.0's UI is meant to be able to scale down to phone sizes. The current developer preview doesn't work exceptionally well when that's done to it (it's buggy, but obviously meant to), but it's not anywhere near a finished product (it's really meant to show the APIs).
Android also isn't being forked, there isn't going to be a Phone version and a Tablet version, future phones will be running the 3 series (they might wait for 3.1, but they will run 3). They will pretty much have to if any of them want to use the newer dual-core CPUs that should be just about to hit the phone segment.
Also, don't forget that Android 3.0 adds a fair bit of new APIs, not all of which are meant exclusively for tablets (there's a fair bit of HW acceleration stuff, IIRC).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
im sure that it could be scaled down to use on a phone.. and actually i believe somewhere i seen that it was.. but everything ive read said its desinged specifically for tabs.. im sure there will be a 3.1 or 2.5,,6,7,8 or whatecer for the new apis.. but everything ive read says 3.0 is for tabs.. im not saying im right.. but thats just what ive read
ace5198 said:
im sure that it could be scaled down to use on a phone.. and actually i believe somewhere i seen that it was.. but everything ive read said its desinged specifically for tabs.. im sure there will be a 3.1 or 2.5,,6,7,8 or whatecer for the new apis.. but everything ive read says 3.0 is for tabs.. im not saying im right.. but thats just what ive read
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The new user interface is designed for tablets, as well as parts of the new APIs. Nothing prevents you from replacing the launcher, and hopefully by the time Honeycomb stabilizes, the new Launcher won't just force close at lower resolutions (but this isn't meant to be a preview of the new interface, but of the APIs).
I don't understand you question.
Honeycomb is simply the natural progression of Android. Hence why its 3.0. Eventually all Android devices will be on 3.x of some kind just as iOS was able to merge its variant it made for the iPad with the rest of the family.
Google had a separate team continue to small upgrades in the 2.x line while the AAA team worked on a tablet enahnced 3.0 Honeycomb variant.
I'm sure as this year moves (early next) on we'll see a 3.1 version come out that has the appropriate scaling features to handle screens of all sizes.
This is evidenced by the same Gmail app being used in both. Just different views based on overall screen size. Also, 3.0 and 2.3 have code to allow devs to make different views based on screen size. The base code is there, its just now gotta be merged to be one line again.
So, why do I want honeycomb? I don't. I want to continue to be using the latest version of Android, what its build version is is not important. (2.3, 2.4, 3.0, 3.1) As long as its made to work with the hardware I have and adds improvements, I want it.
Stop the debate:
http://www.bgr.com/2011/02/03/google-will-not-bring-honeycomb-to-smartphones/
mexiken said:
Stop the debate:
http://www.bgr.com/2011/02/03/google-will-not-bring-honeycomb-to-smartphones/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All that says is 3.0 i.e. Honeycomb won't be on phones. I am sure a later 3.x version will once the code has been merged from 2.x.
I thought 3.0 is where we finally get hardware accelerated UI, is this correct?
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
superchunkwii said:
All that says is 3.0 i.e. Honeycomb won't be on phones. I am sure a later 3.x version will once the code has been merged from 2.x.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And this thread is about Honeycomb... Not 3.x versions.
crookshanks said:
And this thread is about Honeycomb... Not 3.x versions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honeycomb is 3.0
gabenoob said:
Well there's the question, why would you want Honeycomb on your fascinate? I mean, it looks nice from what I saw of the xoom demo but it really doesn't look like it would be nice on a phone just yet, so why ask/want it, why not wait until something actually meant for a phone is developed?
I just don't understand the want/"NEED" for honeycomb on my fascinate, can't we just keep it to actual phone OS's for now?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd want the built-in data encryption features.
-deleted-
Misread somethin'
Hmm alright; what I was asking is that where it stands now it is a Tablet OS, why would anyone want something like that on a phone. As shown in the link, google does not mean for Honeycomb to be brought to phones (3.0) but maybe at a later date a later variant of the 3.1 series will.
The original question I had in mind was why would anyone want it, in its current state, on a phone, as I've seen threads asking for it; and for the life of me I can't find a good reason.
superchunkwii said:
Honeycomb is 3.0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was referring to your "later 3.x versions" comment. This thread was about why anyone wanted 3.0 specifically, not later versions.
crookshanks said:
I was referring to your "later 3.x versions" comment. This thread was about why anyone wanted 3.0 specifically, not later versions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Absolutely right, my post was to the validity of the entire discussion as its obvious 3.0 is just the initial tablet offering and as Android continues through 3.x it will be on phones as well.
Basically, I find the entire constant discussion here, BGR, other sites about Honeycomb being a Tablet OS and why is Google diverging Android to just be stupid. To me the version "3.0" should have been enough to satisfy everyone that eventually features you see in Honeycomb will be on phones. Like Google's going to lock themselves in 2.x for the rest of Android phone's life.
Honestly I don't understand it. Other than a very small number of users, myself not included, do people really see a big difference in the use of their phones? I use mine for calling, texting, e-mail and occasional web browsing. Other than flash support, I haven't noticed any ground breaking improvements over DJ05 with DL30. I can't imagine Gingerbread, Honeycomb, Lucky Charms or Poptart making a huge difference in the day to day use of my phone either.
Or maybe I'm wrong and Honeycomb cures cancer.
I was just browsing the dutch tweakers.net site and saw the article below.
Its telling about a CWM 3 ROM Honeycomb for the Desire HD phone.
For now they still have some hardware problems due to the lack of good drivers.
Now the HD2 community have way better devs with much more knownledge. So I was wondering if someone was already aware of or already busy with this. I and I think so much others would love to see HoneyComby running on our HD2.
http://t3hh4xx0r.com/?p=1353
Sent from my HTC HD2 using XDA App
Would be nice, really, why not.. but did you see how f***ed up the screen layout looks?
Ya we need that!!!!
we have to wait...
We do have much better devs and even a build with honeycomb themes and skins, but I still want one build that I don't have any complaints about. There's always one thing, ya know?
MAy I ask a simple question...why? Honeycomb is going to be tablet based. Watching the video, he even says practically nothing works. The touchscreen is barely functional, the buttons don't work...honeycomb is going to be pointless for a phone..
We have WP7 and Ubuntu, so why it is pointless and why they shouldn't be able to do it HD2 is always good for another OS
I would love Honeycomb on my HD2!
Android 2.4
I heard rumors about new smartphones (like the Xperia Arc) will have Android 2.4 which is based on Honeycomb for tablets.
Awassenaar said:
I would love Honeycomb on my HD2!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A barely functioning OS that you can't do anything on? Why? Just for the look? Try the Honeycomb theme for CM7.
..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.
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.
Hey guys!
I got an email today that firefox os has been released. It looks pretty amazing, but is it worth porting it to our device?
If it is worth porting, then anyone up for doing this job? anyone interested in doing this job?
I am not a developer myself, so I can't really port. That's why I am asking.
Or are we just going to keep our phones with android and try upgrading to the latest android?
I want your Opinions guys.
Thanks.
I'm all for choice and options. But from what I've seen, Firefox OS as a long way to go, it looks like android 2.1 right now.
Sent from my Huawei U8800
I would definitely use it over Android if our phone had a stable OS.
Then again, I would use literally anything over Android.
fjsferreira said:
I'm all for choice and options. But from what I've seen, Firefox OS as a long way to go, it looks like android 2.1 right now.
Sent from my Huawei U8800
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is a newly created OS, totally different UI and User experience and honestly don't think that come to the market looking and acting worst than a very old Android version (direct competitor) would be a clever attitude. If is its a shoot own its own feet and I think they have people with brains to know this quite well.
Firefox is Firefox and a new start fpor a company such as this should be, at least, at same level or better than their direct competition. Not worst!