Related
Alright lets get the record straight. Has anyone tried the kernal patch that puts your mem on a partition on the sd card. Supposidly this boosts performance out of this world. Please post here if you have tried this.
Secondly, we need to attract some developers. I'm willing to donate if anyone wants to code for us. We got a great user base and a really good product. Im conviced the captivate is by far one of the better phones from the galaxy s lineup. If any one knows some developers, introduce them tot his godly beast and let them know there are people out here willing to pay for good quality fixes and roms.
I was thinkin about asking for help from the guys running international s. We could post and ask in the xda area and also modaco and androidforums which have big communities as well.
Any other ideas on how to attract developers? Post here.
systoxity said:
Alright lets get the record straight. Has anyone tried the kernal patch that puts your mem on a partition on the sd card. Supposidly this boosts performance out of this world. Please post here if you have tried this.
Secondly, we need to attract some developers. I'm willing to donate if anyone wants to code for us. We got a great user base and a really good product. Im conviced the captivate is by far one of the better phones from the galaxy s lineup. If any one knows some developers, introduce them tot his godly beast and let them know there are people out here willing to pay for good quality fixes and roms.
I was thinkin about asking for help from the guys running international s. We could post and ask in the xda area and also modaco and androidforums which have big communities as well.
Any other ideas on how to attract developers? Post here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm down to donate as well and do anything I can to add to the cause. I really hope this phone takes off cause it is great. I think we have a good chance that a lot of the N1 devs might just come over to this phone and if not they should be getting the Vibrant and I doubt that it will be much trouble to port over to Captivate.
Err why is it better lol? all the samsung galaxy S phones are exacly the same internaly...none its better than the other, the only difrence is the lack of flash/camera and keyboard from the other variants.
rafyvitto said:
Err why is it better lol? all the samsung galaxy S phones are exacly the same internaly...none its better than the other, the only difrence is the lack of flash/camera and keyboard from the other variants.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Image, Image, Image. If the galaxy lineup were real life siblings, the captivate would be the only one going to the prom. It also sports fewer gps issues than the vibrant and galaxy s. Ive also seen way less people complain about lag in these forums than the ones for the vibrant and galaxy s (and we have more viewers here than on the vibrant page).
When devs see this device they should be seeing potential.
systoxity said:
Image, Image, Image. If the galaxy lineup were real life siblings, the captivate would be the only one going to the prom. It also sports fewer gps issues than the vibrant and galaxy s. Ive also seen way less people complain about lag in these forums than the ones for the vibrant and galaxy s (and we have more viewers here than on the vibrant page).
When devs see this device they should be seeing potential.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All of these so called "issues' are software based, its samsung ****ty touchwiz UI that lags like ****ing hell, not the device hardware, and yes i do agree that the captivate is the sexiest of them all.
Im pretty sure it would be painless to port over Vibrant or Galaxy S fixes to the Captivate. Internally they are the same except for a few minor differences like rafyvitto said which wouldn't be that hard to fix. I'm brushing up on my Java skills and learning about the internals of Android right now. Ive been a iPhone person for a while. Hopefully soon I can be of some help and get hacking on Captivate. From what I've seen and read we have a good phone to develop for because its easily rooted and has an unlocked bootloader. I've also heard that the drivers for the Galaxy S lineup are encrypted, but I haven't seen any confirmation of that. What we need is a dump of the current ROM and also we need a better recovery system like Amon_RA's recovery. The source for his recovery system is on GitHub so we could try and port it over to the Galaxy S lineup.
shouldnt samsung be releasing source for drivers any day now? I thought the word around town was that they were being open with the community on this jazz.
systoxity said:
shouldnt samsung be releasing source for drivers any day now? I thought the word around town was that they were being open with the community on this jazz.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They have already released the source code for the Galaxy S here. They don't have to release the source for the drivers because they are proprietary, but from what ive read the binaries for the drivers are in that download so all someone would have to do in link them in. I just don't know if the drivers are encrypted meaning that it has to be an official samsung ROM for them to work. Hopefully not because that would make cooking new ROMs a hell of alot easier.
we should ask the modaco guys for help and info. I dont think we can use the source or drivers from the galaxy s international. I think someone tried doing stuff that way and bricked.
i could be wrong tho
Would also be willing to donate to the cause. The only reason I didn't buy an iPhone 4 is the developers for this phone.
@wesgarner is on the CyanogenMod team / TeamDouche and has ordered a Vibrant.
We might be able to encourage him to port the latest CyanogenMod build once he has the Vibrant's build completed.
He purchased a Vibrant and I think a laptop to do the work. I've already sent him an email about being a beta tester for the Captivate.
Just remember the devs have a life outside of working on phones! Don't ask for timelines - whether you donate or not!
Wes is working on a port for the slide and then he'll be working on the Vibrant.
While the hardware is similar - the software isn't exactly the same. I was messing around with the MMS.apk today and tried to replace my corrupted one with the one from the Vibrant - did NOT work.
Also, the device is capable of having a REAL FMRadio. The Euro versions have an FMradio.apk. I pushed it to the Captivate - but, the Captivate will need the drivers (to build into a kernal) for the FMRadio to work. But, this is entirely possible.
So, yes the hardware is basically the same or similar - it won't necessarily easy. If any of you remember, LOL - this will be akin to porting the N1 build over to the Desire - I think.
The first thing to go should be that awful samsung UI lol. I think the challenge will be porting ROMs for all these different Galaxy S models. I saw this coming when I read the device would make it to all four major carriers in the US plus.
thanks shane, i also heard another dev recently purchased a captivate, do you know anything about this? i'd like to support his endeavors.
Yea I read over in the Vibrant forums that a dev just got a captivate and is working on a recovery. They also have wes working on the Vibrant so hopefully they get cookin on some ROMs. It won't be that much of a hassle to port them over to the captivate. I would advise not fooling around too much with your phone because someone has already messed up his/her phone. They will either have to take it into ATT store and replace it or wait for a dump of the original ROM to come out.
I have tired the MoDaCo rom and it does (kinda - not brick) work with the SGH-I897 (captivate model), I was able to use it to remove the ATT crapware and nearly everything seems to be working. Phone reports its self as Model Number: GT-I9000 in the about phone tab.
One very IMPORTANT problem - I am having difficulty making outgoing phone calls.
Things that I can confirm work:
Bluetooth file transfer
3g data
GSM phone calls (incoming calls work)
Camera
Audible app, pandora ect.
SMS outgoing and incoming messages
Pretty much everything I have tested on the phone except making outgoing phone calls (important as it is a phone after all). So DON'T use this ROM yet, and if you do make a backup.
Hope this helps.
Hello,
This was brought up in another thread that is now locked.This post asked the question.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=11287492&postcount=40
and this is the blog post by Cyanogen
http://www.cyanogenmod.com/home/a-note-on-unofficial-ports-and-how-to-get-it-right
From what I can make from the blog post that Cyanogen put up on the CM website the Epic 4g as well as the other Galaxy S CM ports are not backed by Cyanogen because they do not go through the normal chain of how they add their code into their source code tree.The Galaxy S CM github has many changes to the stock android code that could possible and probably does break the code from being compiled for other phones. The framework is modified to work with the Samsung RIL that our phones use. The CM team will make additions to the stock android code not modifiy the stock code itself. So from my understanding of thing this is why Cyanogen does not consider what the CMSGS team has done as a part of the mainline CM code base. I believe this goes for all the Galaxy S phones not just the Epic.
Does being backed by the CM team make it get done any quicker? If so....
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Being backed by the Cm team would definitely speed up the porting process, Cyanogen had the Evo Release Client up and running in a little over a month without source
So its a matter of pulling the source together and prperly placing it into their source control so their build bot can properly dov what build bots do...build...then CM helps with the port process?
If I think I'm following that right...somone better start uploading code to Cyanogens t&c's(terms and conditions) so we can have some epic awesomesauce.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Most importantly, no major hardware functionality should be broken.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What this statement implies is that no Cyanogenmod port is ever gonna be official right away; there's always an in-progress period where major functions are broken. Regardless of other issues, that's where our Epic port is at right now and part of the reason why it's not official.
Poryhack said:
What this statement implies is that no Cyanogenmod port is ever gonna be official right away; there's always an in-progress period where major functions are broken. Regardless of other issues, that's where our Epic port is at right now and part of the reason why it's not official.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True but there is code that is changed in the Galaxy S port that doesn't get changed at all in other CM ports as far as I know.
If we had HTC Epic's instead of Samsung Epic's and still identical devices... CM would officially support the Epic.
Period. They can say whatever they want but we all know this to be the case. You can't tell me Samsung changes their code that much more then HTC... last I checked Sense was a much more in depth overall to the underlying OS then Touchwiz is.. but maybe not.
The thing is, HTC uses the same hardware across the board (snapdragon processors, same camera etc.) which makes Rom ports much much easier to pull off, whereas the Hummingbird in the Galaxy S is only in the Galaxy S and only the Unlocked Galaxies and Gsm have froyo source so far.
Thanks for osting this skeeter
Android Creative Syndicate- From spontaneous ingenuity, comes creative brilliance
063_XOBX said:
The thing is, HTC uses the same hardware across the board (snapdragon processors, same camera etc.) which makes Rom ports much much easier to pull off, whereas the Hummingbird in the Galaxy S is only in the Galaxy S and only the Unlocked Galaxies and Gsm have froyo source so far.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The changes in the code have nothing at all to do with the cpu its all for the radio which even having froyo source will not help a bit with.Its all in the way the code changes were done. Rather then adding to the base code in CM the code was directly changed which is what Cyanogen has an issue with doing so basically could and probably has broken the radio code for other cdma phones, I don't know what or if any of the code in the frameworks was changed for the gsm Galaxy S phones so I can't say for sure that it the source from the CMSGS github wouldn't work on another GSM phone I only know that changes were made to get it working on the Epic and Fascinate.I don't think what the CMSGS team did was wrong they did what they had to do to get things working and from the time I spent working on it it didn't seem like there was much input from the CM team at all but that was probably happening in another irc channel that I was not invited into if they were involved.I was hoping that the Galaxy S would have had more interest from the CM team as a whole I know a phone or two was collected and donated to at least one dev and i also heard that Koush was supposed to take over the Captivate port of CM I am not sure if that ever happened or not but the Epic and Fascinate were from the beginning the red headed step children of the Galaxy S line it really is too bad that there wasn't for developers around to help work on it and make an offical Cyanogen backed CM port.I blame it all on the Evo personally if the Epic came out first it would be the Epic sporting all the kernel and roms that you can find in the Evo forum instead we are left with a handful or less of devs and a phone that is far from the potential that it has.
This statement brings up one of my biggest questions I have for the epic forums that I have yet to understand. If a lack of devs are the biggest problem for the epic why is it they are not attempting to train anyone else. Here's my point. I have cataloged every bit (and still am) of info I know about themeing android and the samsung epic. I wrote guides breaking down every part of installing the tools necessary and using them so anyone just sitting down with a fresh windows and their first android phone would understand. Where are our dev guides besides "read developer.android.com". I've read it, I've set everything up. I've downloaded source, I've even ran make with success. But it does nothing without proprietary files. How do you plug them in. extract files.sh dont work without cm6 running on my phone. Where do we learn how to edit our build.prop, init.rc, compile drivers and modules. Joey krimm it's a great beginners source but what about updates since the stall between ubuntu 10 64 support, and 64 becoming the default. I feel like not only it's sammy and sprint at fault, but so are devs that arent open with their knowledge. The best gift this community could have gotten in all of this "down time"waiting was time spent learning. Devs stuck waiting on modems and source, start writing and teaching so when you get that source, you'll have a team behind you. That's the spirit of linux and it dont exist on xda's Samsung Epic Development section!
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
dreamsforgotten said:
This statement brings up one of my biggest questions I have for the epic forums that I have yet to understand. If a lack of devs are the biggest problem for the epic why is it they are not attempting to train anyone else. Here's my point. I have cataloged every bit (and still am) of info I know about themeing android and the samsung epic. I wrote guides breaking down every part of installing the tools necessary and using them so anyone just sitting down with a fresh windows and their first android phone would understand. Where are our dev guides besides "read developer.android.com". I've read it, I've set everything up. I've downloaded source, I've even ran make with success. But it does nothing without proprietary files. How do you plug them in. extract files.sh dont work without cm6 running on my phone. Where do we learn how to edit our build.prop, init.rc, compile drivers and modules. Joey krimm it's a great beginners source but what about updates since the stall between ubuntu 10 64 support, and 64 becoming the default. I feel like not only it's sammy and sprint at fault, but so are devs that arent open with their knowledge. The best gift this community could have gotten in all of this "down time"waiting was time spent learning. Devs stuck waiting on modems and source, start writing and teaching so when you get that source, you'll have a team behind you. That's the spirit of linux and it dont exist on xda's Samsung Epic Development section!
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where's the thank spam? hah.
I've slowly been dipping myself into the Developer 'pool' for the epic if you will..and at first when I started working nobody really ever helped out..they just threw me a link and was like..start reading blah blah blah..
Reading only gets you so far; Imho you learn better when you've got the experience of working first hand with the material you're trying to learn.
dreamsforgotten said:
This statement brings up one of my biggest questions I have for the epic forums that I have yet to understand. If a lack of devs are the biggest problem for the epic why is it they are not attempting to train anyone else. Here's my point. I have cataloged every bit (and still am) of info I know about themeing android and the samsung epic. I wrote guides breaking down every part of installing the tools necessary and using them so anyone just sitting down with a fresh windows and their first android phone would understand. Where are our dev guides besides "read developer.android.com". I've read it, I've set everything up. I've downloaded source, I've even ran make with success. But it does nothing without proprietary files. How do you plug them in. extract files.sh dont work without cm6 running on my phone. Where do we learn how to edit our build.prop, init.rc, compile drivers and modules. Joey krimm it's a great beginners source but what about updates since the stall between ubuntu 10 64 support, and 64 becoming the default. I feel like not only it's sammy and sprint at fault, but so are devs that arent open with their knowledge. The best gift this community could have gotten in all of this "down time"waiting was time spent learning. Devs stuck waiting on modems and source, start writing and teaching so when you get that source, you'll have a team behind you. That's the spirit of linux and it dont exist on xda's Samsung Epic Development section!
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When it comes to working on CM most of the work that needs to be done is all coding which we have very few if anyone java coders. Also you can use extract-files.sh on a phone running straight DK28 to get the propietary files needed to build CM with.When it comes to everything else most of the devs have taught themselves how to do the things they so by trial and error and alot of reading the internet. I know I have little coding skill so its would be hard to teach someone something you don't know how to do yourself and alot of the other things like putting togther device files to build android even on the google site has no real information on how to do it at all the best way I think is to just compare what the other phones use and piece it together from that.
Yet it still makes me wonder; why no epic/galaxy s support? Virtually every other phone, and even some tablets like the gtab, have CM support and even CM7 support. Even the HTC Hero, with obviously no source code for 2.2 or 2.3 and no official 2.2 ever to be released, has a working build of CM7. Is it pure incompetence of Epic developers? Is it a lack of interest? Is it simply cyanogen not wanting to support galaxy s devices? I really don't know, but I'd really like to.
theimpaler747 said:
Yet it still makes me wonder; why no epic/galaxy s support? Virtually every other phone, and even some tablets like the gtab, have CM support and even CM7 support. Even the HTC Hero, with obviously no source code for 2.2 or 2.3 and no official 2.2 ever to be released, has a working build of CM7. Is it pure incompetence of Epic developers? Is it a lack of interest? Is it simply cyanogen not wanting to support galaxy s devices? I really don't know, but I'd really like to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I can see its not that Cyanogen doesn't want to support the galaxy s devices its that it seems they don't give any input to the devs that are working on CM for the galaxy s. They have basically split off from the main CM source tree itself and run their own source tree. It seemed like (and this is from the limited amount I saw on irc) that there was no input from the CM team they just let them work on their own. CM has ways to setup the code so the source tree remains workable across the board on all the devices it supports, the cmsgs team has just taken a different route on things and gone their own route thus making it not backed by cyanogen, was it the right way to do it who knows but it has made all the galaxy s devices redheaded step children in the eyes of Cyanogen and the CM team as a whole by the looks of it. I know from the point of view of having an Epic the major hold up to it is having coders with the proper skills to do the coding in general we had one coder working on it I don't know if he is still involved or not at this point. All I know is to make is a backed by Cyanogen CM port the coding that has been done so far would have to be completely redone in the ways that the rest of the CM team adds code to the CM source tree with as little to no modification of the stock CM code as possible.
Also I would like to add that I am not trying to put anyone down that is working on the CMSGS team they have done CM working on these devices and am in no way bad mouthing the work that has been done. This is just my view on things and why Cyanogen doesn't back the galaxy s CM ports.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
theimpaler747 said:
Yet it still makes me wonder; why no epic/galaxy s support? Virtually every other phone, and even some tablets like the gtab, have CM support and even CM7 support. Even the HTC Hero, with obviously no source code for 2.2 or 2.3 and no official 2.2 ever to be released, has a working build of CM7. Is it pure incompetence of Epic developers? Is it a lack of interest? Is it simply cyanogen not wanting to support galaxy s devices? I really don't know, but I'd really like to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, trying to comprehend everything that is going on here, I feel like the CMTeam does not feel the Epic is worth porting to CM7 due to it's delay on a FroYo source, which I am positive would make the Epic's porting much easier.
However, it still makes me wonder why they could not have used 2.1 to port to CM7, as like you said, the Hero has been able to do.
It also confuses me that the Captivate has even been able to run a Gingerbread port (I believe cyanogen) then. I realize that the Captivate has no 4G or a slide or anything, but the fact that they were willing to work off of 2.1 I assume gets me wondering why no one has tried making a CM port for the Epic's 2.1
I am trying to understand this as best as I can, so please forgive me if I seem to be giving false input on this conversation.
Its the time taken to port a phone, combined with the number of phones above yours on their list. The fact is they have a list of other phones they feel like investing their time in over the galaxy s line in general which is even more of a reason all knowledge of development on the Epic should be layed out even in pieces like the rest of the information here. Honestly thinking "leak it to noobnl, then we'll get all the goods" isn't going to cut it. Java coders, ubuntu fanatics who have compiled a few apps, and new people willing to learn should be putting heads together compiling new ****. If we dont start a group effort of making a bone stock aosp froyo altering the existing drivers were not going to be much further with source code. And it should be layed out here irc dont work for everyone.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
acer1096xxx said:
Well, trying to comprehend everything that is going on here, I feel like the CMTeam does not feel the Epic is worth porting to CM7 due to it's delay on a FroYo source, which I am positive would make the Epic's porting much easier.
However, it still makes me wonder why they could not have used 2.1 to port to CM7, as like you said, the Hero has been able to do.
It also confuses me that the Captivate has even been able to run a Gingerbread port (I believe cyanogen) then. I realize that the Captivate has no 4G or a slide or anything, but the fact that they were willing to work off of 2.1 I assume gets me wondering why no one has tried making a CM port for the Epic's 2.1
I am trying to understand this as best as I can, so please forgive me if I seem to be giving false input on this conversation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But like I said, there's CM7 (Android 2.3 if you don't know) for the HTC hero, with no 2.2 or 2.3 source code. So why not us?
theimpaler747 said:
But like I said, there's CM7 (Android 2.3 if you don't know) for the HTC hero, with no 2.2 or 2.3 source code. So why not us?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Alright, this is what I believe.
The Hero does not have 4G, or a QWERTY keyboard, two things the Epic does have that could make a pure AOSP port more difficult without a source. Also, HTC runs Snapdragon throughout the whole system, making tweaks a lot more simpler than SGS's Hummingbird Processor, which uses something else (I can't remember) with their system as well.
The last part I'm not sure if that makes a big deal or not, since I have seen a (what I think) CM7 port for the Samsung Captivate, so it may simply be because of 4G and the QWERTY keyboard.
I see what you're saying though. I guess the CMTeam should have no problem making a CM7 port based off of the Epic's 2.1 source...maybe they're just waiting because 2.2 might make it easier and supposedly 2.2 is coming soon so there'd be no point in starting now...otherwise I have no clue.
acer1096xxx said:
Alright, this is what I believe.
The Hero does not have 4G, or a QWERTY keyboard, two things the Epic does have that could make a pure AOSP port more difficult without a source. Also, HTC runs Snapdragon throughout the whole system, making tweaks a lot more simpler than SGS's Hummingbird Processor, which uses something else (I can't remember) with their system as well.
The last part I'm not sure if that makes a big deal or not, since I have seen a (what I think) CM7 port for the Samsung Captivate, so it may simply be because of 4G and the QWERTY keyboard.
I see what you're saying though. I guess the CMTeam should have no problem making a CM7 port based off of the Epic's 2.1 source...maybe they're just waiting because 2.2 might make it easier and supposedly 2.2 is coming soon so there'd be no point in starting now...otherwise I have no clue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think we also have 'limited functionality' w/ 2.1 as far as the phone's full capability.
2.2 will unlock some hidden potential IMO. Could be the reason why all the hubbub to 'wait for 2.2'.. again, just speculating.
I've done a search with no luck. Where can I find the most comprehensive instructions for installing Honeycomb to the original Galaxy Tab?
Thanks!
Over in the development forum in this very section. I think both CDMA and GSM variants only ever managed to get WiFi working and that was it. Now that the full source of Honeycomb and ICS are out, there might be something new coming, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Ok. Thanks for the info.
do you still have the honeycomb files? oldmacnut pulled them i never gotta check it out if you do can u post a link or pm me
I havent been able to find anything regarding honeycomb on the 7" SGT as well. I read that Honeycomb was geared towards dual core devices though. I wouldnt expect great performance if someone was able to develop it for the SGT. Just mu $0.02.
Sent from my SCH-I800 using XDA App
SuperDave1685 said:
I havent been able to find anything regarding honeycomb on the 7" SGT as well. I read that Honeycomb was geared towards dual core devices though. I wouldnt expect great performance if someone was able to develop it for the SGT. Just mu $0.02.
Sent from my SCH-I800 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was running the Alpha/RC1 build for a couple of days on my GSM P-1000T and it wasn't bad. Only problems were a few graphical glitches (notification area quick toggles didn't appear) and the major ones were that I couldn't get my 3G service to work and I couldn't access the internal SD card. Other than that, not a bad OS, but probably not a daily driver level just yet.
agc93 said:
I was running the Alpha/RC1 build for a couple of days on my GSM P-1000T and it wasn't bad. Only problems were a few graphical glitches (notification area quick toggles didn't appear) and the major ones were that I couldn't get my 3G service to work and I couldn't access the internal SD card. Other than that, not a bad OS, but probably not a daily driver level just yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have been using the same RC1 build for the last week. I have major battery issues, takes forever to charge.
What did you go to after this? The time it takes me to charge my battery alone is enough reason for me to change ROM's.
Back to the original topic:
There is a thread in the general section 4th one down for the RC1 build if you want to test it out.
"http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1296330"
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1367418
cdma honeycomb beta 1.0
i'm wondering what would be the best choice of CM9 from other devices to get the port from?
SGSII? NOTE?
please advice.
Seems note has the near the same hardware spec with 7.7, but s2 has the official 4.03 from samsung
Sent from my GT-P6800 using XDA Premium HD app
I started from the s2 source (see the thread in the dev-section), unfortunately I have gotten really busy with work so I won't really be able to put much time into it right now. If you are interested in working on it, go look at the repos I posted in that thread. I've most recently been trying to get the touch to work properly, however, the driver for it in the 7.7 source code is a complete mess, and more complicated than other drivers that have been fixed for ics.
I have GT-P6800, does same repository apply to it?
All but the android_device_samsung_p6810 should, and that last one should be easy to convert. If you are interested in working on it, I would suggest forking the common ones so that we can share our work easily.
I'm interested in working on a P6800 too.
Hey all, new Tab 4 7.0 owner here. I've only ever owned HTC EVO devices, which have a wide selection of custom everything to choose from, so empty Android/Original Development sections are a new concept for me.
From what I read, development hasn't started because we don't have a stable recovery environment yet, but assuming we get that down, what would be the main hinderances (device-specifc issues) of getting AOSP on this tablet? What can we non-developers do to help?
Thanks for all your answers!
Lacedaemon said:
Hey all, new Tab 4 7.0 owner here. I've only ever owned HTC EVO devices, which have a wide selection of custom everything to choose from, so empty Android/Original Development sections are a new concept for me.
From what I read, development hasn't started because we don't have a stable recovery environment yet, but assuming we get that down, what would be the main hinderances (device-specifc issues) of getting AOSP on this tablet? What can we non-developers do to help?
Thanks for all your answers!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I know, we have a bit of lack of support fro Devs. We do have great Devs however some (if not most) of them don't actually own the device so they are trying to work from other devices including the Tab 3 series. Another thing is lack of tools and information from Samsung. Even though they do provide Devs with tools and info, they are a bit secretive when it comes to development of the actual OS. So that's that. What you can do is to offer to test new methods but you must accept the risks which involves Hard Bricking of the the tab. Other than that just be patient and privide any information you can give
Sent from my SM-T230NU using XDA Free mobile app
As a contributor that works with the Tab 3 7in version, I can tell you that the Marvel cpu/board set that Samsung used on our (and your) 7in wifi versions is the main problem.
We have managed to get a version of CM 11 working, but some essentials such as wifi, bluetooth, and hardware composer are not easy with Marvel. We still have a lot of work to do and very little time to spend trying.
And the previous answer is also correct, you need more devs for the Tab 4.
Sent from my SCH-I605