Related
Can i put the eris rom on my hero?
thanks
ANYONE?!?!?!?!?!?!??!
what's the difference?
It would have to be ported over since it is for Verizon. And it may or may not have different hardware. I'll check it out and see what I can do with it.
alright it might work because verizon is cdma also
the only reason it wont work out of the box is prl/apn that kind of thing. There is no reason to as far as i know, they are the same rom just a tad bit customized per provider. Same reason you cant just swap roms on winmo phones between carriers
Man, I'm so frustrated.
On other forums some people have mistakenly thought I'm against flashing custom ROMs. I'm not. I'd flash a custom ROM in a heartbeat. In fact, the reason I hang out here is I'm watching for "That ROM". I'm just not comfortable with the state of things on the Captivate. Here's the deal... it seems every single ROM is a compromise. I'm not talking about differences in themes, or what apps are included, etc... I'm talking basic functionality. Sometimes it's little things, sometimes it's big things... but always, you need to give stuff up. And I'll get the response, "yeah well stock is buggy too, so what's your point?". You know... sometimes the little things count. The details add to the experience. Maybe we want all the little things to actually work. Maybe you don't care about bluetooth, but I do. Etc.
Bluetooth. Haptic feedback. Battery life. Cell reception. GPS. Stability. Performance. Voice quality/Audience support. Pick the 3 you don't care about and are willing to give up.
Frustrating.
And a lot of it seems to come down to these "modem" files. Dozens floating about... everyone has their favorite like they have a favorite color. And they themselves come with compromises... use one, and A B and C work but X Y and Z don't. Use another, and it's the other way around... or maybe there's D E and F now. What works for one person doesn't work for another... and yet these are the same model phones. Oh, but wait... now it's passe to say "every phone is different". Like they are? They're the same hardware. But now we just accept for some reason that every Captivate is some random assembly of different chips and so using a ROM is an assumed matter of modem-roulette and deciding what features you want and what ones you're willing to sacrifice.
Why is this "ok"?
It's important to mention at this point that this is absolutely nothing against the hard-working developers here. I don't doubt for a moment that they are doing their absolute best with what they have available to them. It's not that, it's the culture... the community... the mindset. Are we being hypocrites? I mean, if we're just accepting now that every Captivate is unique hardware and no one ROM/modem will work ideal on all of them, why do we hold Samsung to a higher-standard like they themselves could ever produce an official and universal 2.2 firmware for the Captivate where everything actually works for everyone?
Something's not right here. I don't doubt that people get different results with different files... but these are different environments, and the testing not done consistently or scientifically. I don't think it's appropriate to act like the differences come from varying hardware when it's far more-likely that it's differences in other more-random things. Some people are in a primarily 1900 MHz area, some primarily in an 850MHz area. GPS is also environment-specific and someone with a modem that offers below-average GPS performance might report that the GPS is "amazing" simply because they're in an ideal spot. The hardware is the least likely aspect to vary. Surely there must be a solution... a better answer... a potential for a modem that actually works amazing for everyone. Where all bands are supported, GPS works amazing, Audience chip is supported, etc etc.
I just felt the need to vent. I'm not sure what the solution here is... I just feel we've gotten to casual just "accepting" a situation as something it's not, and shouldn't be. One shouldn't have to play modem-lotto just to get basic decent performance from their ROM, or decide what basic features they're willing to sacrifice. I know this is a huge discouragement for me, and why I'm still on stock. I want to flash so badly... but every ROM thread I read through I eventually hit at least one (if not several) deal-breakers, and the casual acceptance of them is just frustrating.
Anyone feel the same way? Thoughts?
I think your over analyizing.....im a flash junkie and I've flashed everything on the forums....I don't use my phone for business so almost every rom I use has everything I need functional...haptic feedback is not a reason for me not to use a rom but camera is.....along with flashing roms I mix matched different kernels and modems.....its all preference.....with the modem situation I just flash one and test it out until I have an issue then move onto the next...I thought jk4 was the best for me until I decided to try jk3. I've noticed I get reception in areas where I didn't with jk4....so ill test this one out for awhile....you can't sit and read until u read that u found the best......u just have to test it out for yourself...it sucks but that's what u get. I feel things wont get better for us until we get our official froyo release by att. Well have our noise cancellation chip working as well as a modem built for att usa. I had better cell service with captivate roms n modems then I do with i9000 ones but the i9000 roms are leagues ahead of any captivate ones
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
Did you try Serendipity? It seems to do quite well on every item in your list.
I have not flashed for mostly the same reasons as you. It seems that every combination has different things that work and things that do not work. I want every function of my phone to work properly. That includes hardware noise cancellation and proper bluetooth support, which seem to be a major issue on i9000 ROMs/kernels/modems. My biggest issue with Captivate ROMs/kernels/modems is the apparent lack of support for bluetooth voice dialing. Now it is a fair argument that bluetooth voice dialing does not work on the AT&T 2.1 ROM, but it is not a supported feature of 2.1. It is a supported features of 2.2, so why shouldn't I (we) expect it to work? If a feature that is supposed to work in 2.2 does not work, that doesn't give me the best feeling about flashing the ROM.
I came over from the Windows Mobile side and I flashed custom ROMs on my Fuze without thinking twice, but there were never core or standard features of the phone or OS missing in the ROMs I flashed. I had bluetooth + voice dialing, good battery life, good cell reception, good working GPS, extremely good stability, great performance (for the hardware), and good voice quality with working noise cancellation in all the ROMs I ran.
I think that overall the devs here are doing a good job, and I think things will improve after the release of 2.2 sources for the captivate, but it seems that right now, there is a compromise involved in any of the custom ROMs.
I can accept the fact that the current ROMs don't meet my expectations, but when people say, "just start flashing" to people like myself who have higher expectations, it gets a little old. The attitude that only people willing to accept these compromises should be reading/contributing to the xda-developers forum is also annoying. I think it is great that there are people working on custom ROMs and there are people willing to run them with the compromises they have to make, but that does not mean that everyone should just be willing to make those compromises and if they are not willing they should not post.
I have made very few posts in the Captivate forum, I guess it could be said that I have been lurking and reading up on each new custom ROM as it comes out, waiting for one that seems to meet my expectations. I have not been vocal, or complained about the fact that we need to make compromises. But others that ask questions about whether certain things work, seem to get flamed and told to just accept the way things currently are, or they are completely ignored. If the devs don't want to answer questions such as, "does bluetooth voice dialing work," or "how is bluetooth voice quality in this ROM," then they should put this type of information directly in the first couple of posts. The newest Cognition ROM thread has this type of information and I greatly appreciate that DG included it. For most ROMs you can't find out if certain items work properly without reading the first 10-20 pages of posts.
Maybe the main issue for people like me (with higher expectations from my phone) is that good information about what works and what does not work often does not float to the top of the ROM dev threads. I started using xdandroid on my Fuze as my first introduction to Android and each phone that it ran on had a thread and on the first page was a listing of each major functional piece (sound, camera, bluetooth, etc) and whether or not it was working yet. Each developer can do as they choose, but if the status of functional items and known bugs was listed in the first page, it would save on questions and some of the less than helpful responses that the questions cause.
People also have to remember that only a leaked/unfinished Captivate 2.2 ROM has been made available as a base for some ROMs so there's no other choice for a complete Froyo ROM without resorting to i9000 ROMs. Expecting things to work from a unfinished leak is a bit different from having high standards.
GPS is also broken for some people whether they're on a stock ROM or not to begin with, devs can't magically make it work for everyone.
Cell reception is not 100% determined by a ROM, if I flash the "most amazing bestestst rom ever" and live in a remote forest with lead leaves, reception might just suck a little because it mainly depends on location.
No phone is the same believe it or not, maybe unless it's an iPhone. If you want something that works as it should perfectly, you probably shouldn't be flashing ROMs, because they are essentially in infinite beta until a dev doesn't want to work on it anymore. Either stick to the stock ROM, get an Aria or some other unlocked phone, or even an iPhone since that's probably most stable thing out there right now.
The ROM threads grow dozens of pages every hour, and posts will always get overlooked whether they are important or not. It still amazes me that people get confused when they start seeing an H instead of 3G. This is a development community and has several thousands and thousands of users at any given time. It is busy.
tysj said:
People also have to remember that only a leaked/unfinished Captivate 2.2 ROM has been made available as a base for some ROMs so there's no other choice for a complete Froyo ROM without resorting to i9000 ROMs. Expecting things to work from a unfinished leak is a bit different from having high standards.
GPS is also broken for some people whether they're on a stock ROM or not to begin with, devs can't magically make it work for everyone.
Cell reception is not 100% determined by a ROM, if I flash the "most amazing bestestst rom ever" and live in a remote forest with lead leaves, reception might just suck a little because it mainly depends on location.
No phone is the same believe it or not, maybe unless it's an iPhone. If you want something that works as it should perfectly, you probably shouldn't be flashing ROMs, because they are essentially in infinite beta until a dev doesn't want to work on it anymore. Either stick to the stock ROM, get an Aria or some other unlocked phone, or even an iPhone since that's probably most stable thing out there right now.
The ROM threads grow dozens of pages every hour, and posts will always get overlooked whether they are important or not. It still amazes me that people get confused when they start seeing an H instead of 3G. This is a development community and has several thousands and thousands of users at any given time. It is busy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For the American SGS phones, I was not trying to suggest that the developers can "fix" the GPS (though it is worth noting that Da_G has made some good progress http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=881941).
I don't completely disagree with many of your points, which is why I am still running the stock ROM. If I had two phones, I would be willing to beta test unfinished software and ROMs, but since I only have 1 phone that I expect to work (or more accurately, my company who pays for it expects it to work) I have not flashed any of the current firmwares that are available.
I think cell reception has a lot more to do with the Radio/Modem than the ROM. If you have a working modem and that modem functions with the ROM, then it should give you the same reception. I think one of the main points the OP was making was that there is no apparent consistency, and some modems work with some ROMs, and not with others. It does not even seem to be accurate to say that any i9000 modem will work with any i9000 ROM, as some combinations cause poor voice quality or other issues.
I do disagree with your statement that "no phone is the same." Any Captivate in the same batch/build should have identical hardware and should function identically (assuming Samsung has good quality controls in place). There is the potential for slight differences between batches, but I can't believe that any of those differences is significant enough to cause software running on the phones to behave differently. If that is the case, there is no way that Samsung can release a working Froyo build, or even a working Eclair build that would function as intended on every captivate. If Samsung was unable to produce identical products consistently, they would be out of business because none of their products would function as intended consistently.
As far as "expecting things to work from a unfinished leak is a bit different from having high standards," I don't think it is unreasonable for better visibility to what works and what does not work in the first page of a ROM thread. I am not saying that I expect everything to work 100% on all ROMs, especially without 2.2 sources, and I am not saying I expect the devs to be able to test every possible things, but I don't think it is unreasonable to hope that as bugs or problems or ROM/Kernel/Modem combinations that do not work are discovered, that information could be made more accessible without reading 100 pages of a ROM thread.
Hopefully most of this is just growing pains as Android is evolving and as we wait for 2.2 sources for the Captivate. For Windows Mobile, much of the OS and functionality of the OS was pretty much set between ROMs. The biggest differences were in the frameworks (Sense vs. Non-Sense, etc) and theming of the ROMs. That is why I have said in the past that if we could get a solid, working AOSP ROM with all drivers, etc for the SGS, it would give a good base for additional ROM development.
So, i know its a newer device, and if thats the reason, great! But i was wondering why there is such a lack of available Kernel options (especially for AOSP roms)? Even Sense Kernels are few and far between. I just was wondering if its something HTC has not released ( i know they havent released the source for US Kernel, but wouldnt the international one be VERY similar?) or done that they should be or if it was just that its new and these things take time?
It just seemed like every other phone that i had, even newer phones, had kernels being developed almost immediately which i am really not seeing for the one s.
Again, not *****ing, just curious. THANKS.
Hey, I'm a noob, let's get that out of the way first.
Alright, so I'd like to know, why is it so hard to get special ROMs working on certain devices?
For example, I have an Evo 3D (HTC Evo V 4G, whatever), so why is it so hard to get, say, stock ICS running on it?
Inthe end, isn't the hardware all the same, other than say processors and screen size? To get a stock ICS ROM working, couldn't you just pull it off of a similar phone with an S3 processor and a 4.3 inch screen?
Or is it not that simple? Are different codes baked into the hardware that make it impossible to just modify the pixel density, size of the screen and have the ROM work with the processors?
I understand the cameras are different, hence cameras not working on early builds of CM9... but considering many phones run the same processors, couldn't they just all work?
Please explain... thanks, thebeastglasser.
thebeastglasser said:
Hey, I'm a noob, let's get that out of the way first.
Alright, so I'd like to know, why is it so hard to get special ROMs working on certain devices?
For example, I have an Evo 3D (HTC Evo V 4G, whatever), so why is it so hard to get, say, stock ICS running on it?
Inthe end, isn't the hardware all the same, other than say processors and screen size? To get a stock ICS ROM working, couldn't you just pull it off of a similar phone with an S3 processor and a 4.3 inch screen?
Or is it not that simple? Are different codes baked into the hardware that make it impossible to just modify the pixel density, size of the screen and have the ROM work with the processors?
I understand the cameras are different, hence cameras not working on early builds of CM9... but considering many phones run the same processors, couldn't they just all work?
Please explain... thanks, thebeastglasser.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is not that easy! I'm an EVO user/rom porter and I hear this alot where users such as yourself think is an easy process BUT is not. Same processor, same screen size maybe the same BUT at times the kernel is not there. Either the kernel for the device doesn't support ROM A or ROM B and therefore it can't be ported to whatever device or the libs keep it from running half way decent.....i.e WiFi doesn't work, sound is **** up or whatever the case maybe...just not functional to say the least.
Take for example Sense 4.0 on the One V....it was ported to the EVO4g and the ROM barely works! Both the One V and the EVO4g have similar hardware but one runs Sense 4.0 like a dream and the other one struggles with simple things like WiFi and Sound.
Now I'm sure someone else with a bit more knowledge on this can get into the specifics and the why's and what's of WHY this can't happen BUT that's it in a nut shell.....the kernel and 9/10 times libs
See ya around dude!
Hey first off, thanks! Second...
Another question then. If they all have relatively similar hardware, why isn't it that a universal kernel for similar phones can't be created?
Or better explained, what about the phone, makes it so that the kernel doesn't work? Or why couldn't you just take the kernel from device A and shove it on device B?
Sorry if I'm overloading you with questions, but hey I'm curious. Ya know?
EDIT: Or if they're practically both the same phones, why is it that you can't just take the ROM AND the kernel from phone A and put it onto phone B?
thebeastglasser said:
Hey first off, thanks! Second...
Another question then. If they all have relatively similar hardware, why isn't it that a universal kernel for similar phones can't be created?
Or better explained, what about the phone, makes it so that the kernel doesn't work? Or why couldn't you just take the kernel from device A and shove it on device B?
Sorry if I'm overloading you with questions, but hey I'm curious. Ya know?
EDIT: Or if they're practically both the same phones, why is it that you can't just take the ROM AND the kernel from phone A and put it onto phone B?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's the manufacturer of the device who would need to release the kernel sources for the certain firmware version which they won't do continuously. In other words, device A may get ICS, hence the kernel sources may be released, but device B may be stuck with gingerbread and may not have a kernel which supports ICS. Back-porting can be done, but in many cases it is very difficult and in the end there still could be a lot of bugs.
You can't just take a kernel and "shove" it in another device. If you did this, it's quite likely nothing would work. The device would not even boot. Remember, the kernel is the center of android (Linux), so everything needs to be "linked" and correspond with each other exactly for it to work (I'm trying to make it as simple as possible ).
If they are the same devices, that would not be necessary. They would use the same roms/kernels. If they are just very similar (e.g. the a100 and a500) you may have some luck with the roms, but not the kernel. Some a500 roms can be flashed onto an a100 and work flawlessly BUT the device's original kernel must be restored for the device to boot.
Theonew said:
It's the manufacturer of the device who would need to release the kernel sources for the certain firmware version which they won't do continuously. In other words, device A may get ICS, hence the kernel sources may be released, but device B may be stuck with gingerbread and may not have a kernel which supports ICS. Back-porting can be done, but in many cases it is very difficult and in the end there still could be a lot of bugs.
You can't just take a kernel and "shove" it in another device. If you did this, it's quite likely nothing would work. The device would not even boot. Remember, the kernel is the center of android (Linux), so everything needs to be "linked" and correspond with each other exactly for it to work (I'm trying to make it as simple as possible ).
If they are the same devices, that would not be necessary. They would use the same roms/kernels. If they are just very similar (e.g. the a100 and a500) you may have some luck with the roms, but not the kernel. Some a500 roms can be flashed onto an a100 and work flawlessly BUT the device's original kernel must be restored for the device to boot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have the strangest feeling I just tried to jump into the shallow end of the swimming pool, and yet instead was shot out of a cannon into the middle of the sea without a scuba diver's suit... If only I could understand this more!
thebeastglasser said:
I have the strangest feeling I just tried to jump into the shallow end of the swimming pool, and yet instead was shot out of a cannon into the middle of the sea without a scuba diver's suit... If only I could understand this more!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Think about it this way. The Android OS could be run on a number of different devices that run slightly different hardware such as cameras, touchscreens, processors, etc...but the OS has to be able to communicate properly to that hardware using device drivers. Just like Windows from a 30000 foot view. It can run on a Dell or Acer computer, but must have the proper drivers.
If the manufacturer's of those devices do not write ICS drivers or preferably furnish their source code, then it is incredibly difficult if not impossible for someone without the internal company documentation to write such a driver.
mf2112 said:
Think about it this way. The Android OS could be run on a number of different devices that run slightly different hardware such as cameras, touchscreens, processors, etc...but the OS has to be able to communicate properly to that hardware using device drivers. Just like Windows from a 30000 foot view. It can run on a Dell or Acer computer, but must have the proper drivers.
If the manufacturer's of those devices do not write ICS drivers or preferably furnish their source code, then it is incredibly difficult if not impossible for someone without the internal company documentation to write such a driver.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ohhh... so say you decided to put your own little phone together according to your own prerequisites, it'd be simple for you to do something on it, but not so much for someone who only has the hardware to look at... correct?
Another question, why is it so easy to port things onto Nexus Devices? Are they just more compatible with all drivers? As I've heard from one of my friends that he has a fully working Sense 4 ROM on his Nexus S... and yet it's tough to find one for my Evo V.
EDIT: I'm out of "thanks" I'll give you one as soon as I get some more...
thebeastglasser said:
Ohhh... so say you decided to put your own little phone together according to your own prerequisites, it'd be simple for you to do something on it, but not so much for someone who only has the hardware to look at... correct?
Another question, why is it so easy to port things onto Nexus Devices? Are they just more compatible with all drivers? As I've heard from one of my friends that he has a fully working Sense 4 ROM on his Nexus S... and yet it's tough to find one for my Evo V.
EDIT: I'm out of "thanks" I'll give you one as soon as I get some more...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmm, I am not as familiar with the Nexus devices, but I suspect that Google has released the hardware spec details and the source code for the drivers for Nexus phones, so the source code can be modified and included for the ports. HTC unfortunately has not been as open with some of their phones.
If you were to put a phone together, you would need to use hardware in it that you had access to the specs and source code for. This is not a great analogy, but I think it will serve. The camera app tells the OS, "take a picture", then the OS tells the driver, "make the camera take a picture", and the camera device driver controls the hardware parts like the shutter, the focus, and zoom to cause the picture to be taken and handed back to the OS to be saved and then the OS notifies the app, "here is your picture, awaiting next command".
If you do not have access to the camera driver source code and camera hardware specs to create a driver, or an actual driver from the camera manufacturer, then you are missing the crucial third part and you cannot make the camera take a picture even if you get an OS loaded and an app installed there.
Check out The Tricorder Project for an excellent example. Create your own Star Trek "tricorder" with various sensors and a touchscreen that runs on Linux for around $200 and some work putting it together.
thebeastglasser said:
Ohhh... so say you decided to put your own little phone together according to your own prerequisites, it'd be simple for you to do something on it, but not so much for someone who only has the hardware to look at... correct?
Another question, why is it so easy to port things onto Nexus Devices? Are they just more compatible with all drivers? As I've heard from one of my friends that he has a fully working Sense 4 ROM on his Nexus S... and yet it's tough to find one for my Evo V.
EDIT: I'm out of "thanks" I'll give you one as soon as I get some more...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its easy to develop for nexus devices since Google always releases their sources and those devices are easily unlockable (the bootloader). This is one reason why they are usually referred to as development/developer devices.
So in other words, the software communicates with the hardware, but without the proper code embedded in the hardware, it's not possible for the software to communicate with it? And without source code given from the developer of the hardware, you're making software that hypothetically should work, but because of the different device hardware it may or may not work...?
And that's also big because some guy on the portal recently found out that all of the eight mega pixel cameras on HTC devices are the same, so it should now be easy to use working cameras on ported and newly created ROMs...
Am I getting anywhere with this?
thebeastglasser said:
So in other words, the software communicates with the hardware, but without the proper code embedded in the hardware, it's not possible for the software to communicate with it? And without source code given from the developer of the hardware, you're making software that hypothetically should work, but because of the different device hardware it may or may not work...?
And that's also big because some guy on the portal recently found out that all of the eight mega pixel cameras on HTC devices are the same, so it should now be easy to use working cameras on ported and newly created ROMs...
Am I getting anywhere with this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, you got it a bit better now. The software needs to have the same codes embedded in the hardware to correspond with it. The source code is not from the hardware but of the software (kernel source).
Yes if the ROM was ported to other HTC devices with the same/similar camera (some libs will still need to be changed though).
Theonew said:
Yes, you got it a bit better now. The software needs to have the same codes embedded in the hardware to correspond with it. The source code is not from the hardware but of the software (kernel source).
Yes if the ROM was ported to other HTC devices with the same/similar camera (some libs will still need to be changed though).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Alright that makes a bit more sense. Thanks for your help guys!
So someone please explain to me how This Is possible. I was under the belief in my understanding of android that this is a BIG NO NO. I do realize and I may not fully understand the similarities and differences between the different versions of the SGS3 but I would think that because of the Radio being different among all of the carriers that Kernels would be totally different as well. I will reference the Fascinate and the Mesmerize for example. Pretty much the same phone but completely different as far as anything and everything development wise. So what it boils down is this
1. Can we flash kernels designed for the At&t, Sprint, or T-Mobile versions of our phone.
2.What versions of the SGS3 can we SAFELY flash Kernels from.
3.How is this possible given the differences in the different phones.(Question for my sake cause I am really curious and hope i can get a good explanation regarding this)
Aali1011 said:
So someone please explain to me how This Is possible. I was under the belief in my understanding of android that this is a BIG NO NO. I do realize and I may not fully understand the similarities and differences between the different versions of the SGS3 but I would think that because of the Radio being different among all of the carriers that Kernels would be totally different as well. I will reference the Fascinate and the Mesmerize for example. Pretty much the same phone but completely different as far as anything and everything development wise. So what it boils down is this
1. Can we flash kernels designed for the At&t, Sprint, or T-Mobile versions of our phone.
2.What versions of the SGS3 can we SAFELY flash Kernels from.
3.How is this possible given the differences in the different phones.(Question for my sake cause I am really curious and hope i can get a good explanation regarding this)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There have been some successful instances of sprint kernels being flashed that I've seen, but it is never a great idea to flash kernels not specifically designed for your phone. btw. there are some pretty good kernels available for vzw now
It's a pretty bad idea. There is a very small chance it could work but more than likely it won't boot
arrogantS3 said:
There have been some successful instances of sprint kernels being flashed that I've seen, but it is never a great idea to flash kernels not specifically designed for your phone. btw. there are some pretty good kernels available for vzw now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And i figured as much. I am just REALLY surprised it worked and I just kinda wanna know why it worked. The technical reasons to be honest. But to play it safe i will just stick with those kernels that have been made for the Verizon version thus far. I am still hesitant using the Sprint Kernel even knowing it works.
Neverendingxsin said:
It's a pretty bad idea. There is a very small chance it could work but more than likely it won't boot
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And based of of you saying this and me knowing this is why i ask lol. Cause like arrogant says there have been successful flashes of the Sprint Kernel. Again idk everything there is about Android but i wonder if it possible due to the fact our unlocked bootloader is partially sprint or something along those lines. That is why i was hoping someone would see this and chime in with a technical explanation and then either a go for it, no, or tread with caution. When the phone was being released there was talks of a rom kitchen being established between the carriers and i was hoping that this was a part of that. Meaning that someone who Devs for the AT&T version of the SGS3 can have their rom or kernel ported to Sprint version and then the Verizon and T-Mobile variants. Idk if the kitchen is still a possibility or in the works but it would be cool to see it kernel wise considering most are running AOSP based roms.
I tried to flash att one two days ago, can not turn wifi on....
So, not recommended
Aali1011 said:
And based of of you saying this and me knowing this is why i ask lol. Cause like arrogant says there have been successful flashes of the Sprint Kernel. Again idk everything there is about Android but i wonder if it possible due to the fact our unlocked bootloader is partially sprint or something along those lines. That is why i was hoping someone would see this and chime in with a technical explanation and then either a go for it, no, or tread with caution. When the phone was being released there was talks of a rom kitchen being established between the carriers and i was hoping that this was a part of that. Meaning that someone who Devs for the AT&T version of the SGS3 can have their rom or kernel ported to Sprint version and then the Verizon and T-Mobile variants. Idk if the kitchen is still a possibility or in the works but it would be cool to see it kernel wise considering most are running AOSP based roms.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some kernels could very well work, same as some stock themes for sprint will work with stock roms on verizon (jellybomb domination being one of them) the issue is that some things could be carried over that may not play nice with our phones and vice versa. While it may run perfectly fine, there's a greater risk that it could break something.
I have yet to run an AOSP rom because of the IMEI issues, so i can't really comment on that, but i know if i was going to flash another carriers kernel i would make sure to make a backup first.