Related
One of the big issues I have noticed is that there is no rationale behind the version number assignment for a lot of the mod firmware. There are different modders using their own versioning, and there isn't even a hint of what version of android they are using, so we have things like;
"KiNgxKxROM Version 1.1r1"
"The Official Blur - Hero-V1.5.7 by Drizzy"
"JACxHEROSkiv2.2"
"CyanogenMod 4.1.11.1"
*** these all have the same problem... what version of android do they correspond to? How new IS each one of them?
I would like to propose a new standard to be adopted by everyone.
name-officialversion-modversion.
Of the form i.e.
"superxmod-1.6.DRC83-0.1.0.0"
***WHERE the modversion RESETS TO ZERO each time the official version increases, so for example, "CyanogenMod 4.1.11.1" should be called "CyanogenMod-1.6.DRC63-0.1.11.1".
* this will allow the user to immediately know where this rom comes from in terms of the official android versions and approximately how old it is.
I do my best
I do my best ... with the "limited space" we're given for Thread Titles on the forum.
~enom~
I support this though I find it unnecessary. The new beginner user will most likely READ atleast the first post of the thread and they will know what the ROM is based off of. The end user will of course know to read the thread before doing any flashing of any kind so organizing mod rom versioning isn't a necessity. It's convienent but not necessary
I support this because it would make ROM catalogs easier to build, which would benefit the whole community.
why not just post what android version the rom is based on in the first post. First post should always hold the most info anyways.
Since this thread hasn't been moved from the Dev section so far.
+1 for the versioning.
Also, how about we all stick to one benchmarking app (or is there any one app that we CAN rely on)
to test performance of ROMs, so that there's an objective way of figuring out
whether the latest frankenROM (thanks devs! ) is faster than X or Y?
Benchmark Pi has a score that's difficult to figure out, seeing as it throws up an
awesome number on a fairly sluggish HERO whereas the score for a fast-as-light
cyan ROM is way way worse. I know that Benchmark Pi isn't the answer,
not by a long shot. So is there a better alternative out there?
I'm tired of posts that go "THIS IS WAY FASTER! THANKS!" only to find
that the supposed speed increase is more rooted in perception than in
reality.
We need definitive numbers for ModelNumber+ROMVersion+CC/SwapSettings combinations.
Any help?
alritewhadeva said:
The end user will of course know to read the thread before doing any flashing of any kind
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
rofl. Funniest thing i've read all week.
+1
how about shorthand naming such as
for example:
CyanogenMod = CM-AOSP1.6r1-v4.20
If you're talking about cyanogen mod, you might want to add a couple more zeroes at the end. Anyway, I had proposed this too a while ago. I like your format, and I'll go one better; let's do cook-androidVersion-buildVersion-feature.bugfix
for example, the build I made this morning would be "jm-1.6-Donut eng.jubeh.20090930.070211-0.0"
jm is what I use for my builds (short for jubehMod)
1.6 is the current android branch (as per build.prop, no 1.6_r1 yet)
Donut eng.jubeh.20090930.070211 is the build number the compiler assigned to my build, people who work off of modding factory releases or build for dream_open are the ones who usually come up with things like CRC or DRC etc, I build for "AOSP for Dream" (it's a new "vendor" added)
first 0 is feature number, at this point my build is nothing but stock AOSP donut, no Google apps, no a2sd, no netfilter, no compcache, no bfs, just stock donut, so say I were to add a2sd, then I'd go up to 1, as I would have added one or more features (and this would be listed at the change log), basically, anything added that improves the build (and that's not a fix) is a +1 to feature
second 0 is bugfix. For example, right now my build works correctly in every sense, but I have a problem with the video camera where video is of very poor quality (real problem, I'm trying to figure it out), so say i get it fixed, then my bugfix number would go up 1, so basically, anything changed in the build strictly because it didn't work as intended is a bugfix
the last two numbers would be allowed to go past 9, so no more pressures to add .1s at the end like cyanogen was doing to prevent jumping to build # 4.2
karthikjr said:
+1 for the versioning.
Also, how about we all stick to one benchmarking app (or is there any one app that we CAN rely on)
to test performance of ROMs, so that there's an objective way of figuring out
whether the latest frankenROM (thanks devs! ) is faster than X or Y?
Benchmark Pi has a score that's difficult to figure out, seeing as it throws up an
awesome number on a fairly sluggish HERO whereas the score for a fast-as-light
cyan ROM is way way worse. I know that Benchmark Pi isn't the answer,
not by a long shot. So is there a better alternative out there?
I'm tired of posts that go "THIS IS WAY FASTER! THANKS!" only to find
that the supposed speed increase is more rooted in perception than in
reality.
We need definitive numbers for ModelNumber+ROMVersion+CC/SwapSettings combinations.
Any help?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes just bench mark. its much better than benchmark pi only test the cpu really
by the way, I've been saving pretty much all roms that have been posted here (notable exceptions are haykuro's, jf's, and theduded's roms, I haven't been here THAT long) and I have them all saved on my computer separated by /cook/build/ for the Dream roms and /build/cook/ for the Hero ports. I guess I could run a quick filesystem lister and upload that list for people to see so they can sort of get an idea what mod release corresponds to what build
Here we go, I had to upload it inside a zip because of the stupid 2kb limitation on text files (this is 10kb)
lbcoder said:
One of the big issues I have noticed is that there is no rationale behind the version number assignment for a lot of the mod firmware. There are different modders using their own versioning, and there isn't even a hint of what version of android they are using, so we have things like;
"KiNgxKxROM Version 1.1r1"
"The Official Blur - Hero-V1.5.7 by Drizzy"
"JACxHEROSkiv2.2"
"CyanogenMod 4.1.11.1"
*** these all have the same problem... what version of android do they correspond to? How new IS each one of them?
I would like to propose a new standard to be adopted by everyone.
name-officialversion-modversion.
Of the form i.e.
"superxmod-1.6.DRC83-0.1.0.0"
***WHERE the modversion RESETS TO ZERO each time the official version increases, so for example, "CyanogenMod 4.1.11.1" should be called "CyanogenMod-1.6.DRC63-0.1.11.1".
* this will allow the user to immediately know where this rom comes from in terms of the official android versions and approximately how old it is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
................................
Hi jubeh,
Thanks, this kind of cataloging is exactly why the OP's suggestion will be helpful.
karthikjr said:
We need definitive numbers for ModelNumber+ROMVersion+CC/SwapSettings combinations.
Any help?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not so sure that we do...
I think that that should be more of a "details" thing.
Maybe we can go with "name-officialversion-modversion[-custom]" (square braces mean optional). Name might be a good place to keep modelnumber (I assume you mean by that "dream", "magic", "hero", etc.),
i.e.: supercustomrom(DREAM)-1.6r1-0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1-cc_swap_a2sd
lol, right? I know it's prob not possible, but I'm getting my first soon and, well, I think it'd be cool to have even 5.0 on a calculator.
I'm getting 50g: It's quite powerful for a calculator so maybe a stripped down ROM? It'd have to be a non-touch version. And it should have an advanced calculator built into the ROM, otherwise it won't be a calculator...
Any ideas?
HP 50g Graphing Calculator specifications:
Processor - 75Mhz ARM9
Memory RAM - 512 KB
Memory ROM - 2 MB
___
That's not possible in any way!
Spiaatie said:
HP 50g Graphing Calculator specifications:
Processor - 75Mhz ARM9
Memory RAM - 512 KB
Memory ROM - 2 MB
___
That's not possible in any way!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What about a really old, stripped down ROM? I'm not good with hardware, the numbers you stated make no sense to me, except for the "Memory ROM".
If the os is less than 2 mb, okay.
Anyone know of one? I'm gonna go and search through the "non-touchscreen" section of these forums.
please please please let there be one thats less than 2mb
drnessie said:
Anyone know of one? I'm gonna go and search through the "non-touchscreen" section of these forums.
please please please let there be one thats less than 2mb
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is none.
Don't waste your time - it's not possible to install WinMo on calculator!
Spiaatie said:
There is none.
Don't waste your time - it's not possible to install WinMo on calculator!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK, is there a chance that a modded version of WinCE 1.0 (or whatever you call it) would work?
Seeing as a Mod of the non-touchscreen forums has just told me its not, I better start looking up how to get keyboard input from a calculator, and build my own, basic, version.
Shouldn't be too hard, someone's made minesweeper, tictactoe, and even Zelda remakes for HP 50g
drnessie said:
OK, is there a chance that a modded version of WinCE 1.0 (or whatever you call it) would work?
Seeing as a Mod of the non-touchscreen forums has just told me its not, I better start looking up how to get keyboard input from a calculator, and build my own, basic, version.
Shouldn't be too hard, someone's made minesweeper, tictactoe, and even Zelda remakes for HP 50g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what makes you think that running a properly working OS requires the equivalent resources to minsweeper or tictactoe?
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET ANY WM WORKING ON YOUR CALCULATOR.
You could try and make your own os. If you head down this path I would be at a loss for words
asb123 said:
what makes you think that running a properly working OS requires the equivalent resources to minsweeper or tictactoe?
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET ANY WM WORKING ON YOUR CALCULATOR.
You could try and make your own os. If you head down this path I would be at a loss for words
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh no, by saying "My own, basic version", I meant a basic one coded with the inbuilt programming functions.
SO, I get that WinMo itself won't run in all its glory.
What about linux kernel? *lol*
I might consider brishing up on my C and make a simple OS...
I have a simple question about Android in which I have not found the simple answer to... (Although I think I know, I just want some clarification). I recently switched over to Windows Phone 7 because of various reasons, I will not name them here as that is an entirely different subject, however one of the reasons i switched was because of overall responsiveness of the OS. Why does Android's touch response feel sooo clunky? Yeah transitions and app launches are nice and quick, but I mean like pinch-to-zoom, and scrolling... I have played with the latest and greatest both rooted (with and without custom rom) and non rooted (with or without OEM UI), Motorola Xoom, Atrix 4G whatever is being claimed latest and greatest. But no matter what they all have the same touch response lag no matter what. This, believe it or not, is a major deal breaker for me, and before the majority of you speak, I'll speak for you; "why is something so simple and small, barely even considered a nuisance, be such a nuisance?" for me, i love fluidity, so, it just is. At this question however i do retort; if its such a "simple" or "small" nuisance, why can't it "simply" be coded to feel as fluid as Windows Phone 7, or iOS?
Luisraul924 said:
I have a simple question about Android in which I have not found the simple answer to... (Although I think I know, I just want some clarification). I recently switched over to Windows Phone 7 because of various reasons, I will not name them here as that is an entirely different subject, however one of the reasons i switched was because of overall responsiveness of the OS. Why does Android's touch response feel sooo clunky? Yeah transitions and app launches are nice and quick, but I mean like pinch-to-zoom, and scrolling... I have played with the latest and greatest both rooted (with and without custom rom) and non rooted (with or without OEM UI), Motorola Xoom, Atrix 4G whatever is being claimed latest and greatest. But no matter what they all have the same touch response lag no matter what. This, believe it or not, is a major deal breaker for me, and before the majority of you speak, I'll speak for you; "why is something so simple and small, barely even considered a nuisance, be such a nuisance?" for me, i love fluidity, so, it just is. At this question however i do retort; if its such a "simple" or "small" nuisance, why can't it "simply" be coded to feel as fluid as Windows Phone 7, or iOS?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will try to answer since I've been using android before. android now as I believe is still in development stage. especially because it started from open source, where many developers get involved to participate in android development. unlike windows or the IOS platform. development is only done by the company itself through microsoft and apple. Except for third-party application development
android is a system (for run smoothly) with very powerful hardware. so that the source code would require a very complicated of encoding. Its a very difficult job to sync between the needs of software with hardware which is available. and vice versa. in an application such as pinching and scrolling there is more than one command which contains a lot of code. and should be remembered that this is a system. which are all related to each other for the overall operations to run smoothly based on the minimum demand of the hardware required. if there is one character in which is wrong of encoding or difference may cause the application not running properly.
for high-end android device such as Xoom, atrik 4G I'm sure the hardware is not an issue. I'm sure it was more caused by the complexity of encoding in one of the applications listed that is running inside in the whole operating system, making it not running smoothly. because so many commands which must be running at the same time is what make pinching and scrolling activity to be "clunky" like you said. you can differentiate by turning off the internet connection or turn off unnecessary applications running in the background. But I'm sure very soon android operating system will have a system which is more stable and efficient in encoding such as those held by the windows or apple.
My answer may be added by other members of the more expert in these matters. as a newbie, i am just trying to help based on the knowledge I had acquired over the years. CMIIW
Yeah I figured it would be something like that, I owned a Droid (1st gen.) and I had multiple setups from completely stock to my favorite, Cyanogenmod (always on the latest stable build, although I've already flashed CM7 RC2 and its probably the fastest its ever been at 800 MHz) everything was perfect except; scrolling and pinch-to-zoom. The scrolling is almost there, it actually lags for a bit but if I leave my finger on the page, it locks on to that position and stays there, but once I lift it to continue scrolling down or up it'll lag a bit again. The pinch zooming is just horrible no matter what. Unfortunately, given the nature of open source, and coding software in general, there is no such thing as "finished" software, so since this is open source, and the software is basically written to run on "nearly" whatever device you choose to flash it on, i don't think that problem will ever be solved. However, if Android does eventually reach that richness of responsiveness, then i will more than gladly switch back.
issues of a system running smoothly is different from one device to another device.
due to the wide variety of different android devices that causes the emergence of issues on the system stability. it was time to google as the main developer sets the standards for the development of next android os. while there is no standardization of hardware is set by google. it will be very difficult for other developers to write code/adjust performance in the operating system command. all this time writing code is must be adapted to the device from vendor itself. This will bring up the differences result of writing the code on other devices from another vendors (competitors). so if we running bencmark test or head to head test on both devices from different vendor the result will not be the same.
and if there will be a standarization set by google i believed it will not againts a spirit of an open source
I think the hardware that the WinCE (well...the shoe still fits) and Android phones are made on is essentially the same, in terms of the CPU power, the actual CPUs, the memory and the various other systems (graphics, etc.). Maybe not identical but overlapping classes and performance.
I haven't played with the new WinPhones but have noticed that every Android phone, no matter how fast and how "bare" factory, sometimes goes out to lunch. Apparently that's just the way the OS is written, it sometimes goes off to do other things internally (loading code? checking hardware states?) and you can't do anything except wait for it to come back.
But then again, almost every OS does that at times, including the main Windows OSes. That's just how they are done these days. If you had a cell phone fifteen year ago, you could turn it on and dial NOW. With any of the new cell phones? Can you do a cold power up and have a functioning phone in less than 30 seconds? Uh, no. But they call that progress, because you rarely have to power them off these days.
Every OS has tradeoffs, if the WinPhone makes you happier, by all means do it.
Rred said:
I think the hardware that the WinCE (well...the shoe still fits) and Android phones are made on is essentially the same, in terms of the CPU power, the actual CPUs, the memory and the various other systems (graphics, etc.). Maybe not identical but overlapping classes and performance.
I haven't played with the new WinPhones but have noticed that every Android phone, no matter how fast and how "bare" factory, sometimes goes out to lunch. Apparently that's just the way the OS is written, it sometimes goes off to do other things internally (loading code? checking hardware states?) and you can't do anything except wait for it to come back.
But then again, almost every OS does that at times, including the main Windows OSes. That's just how they are done these days. If you had a cell phone fifteen year ago, you could turn it on and dial NOW. With any of the new cell phones? Can you do a cold power up and have a functioning phone in less than 30 seconds? Uh, no. But they call that progress, because you rarely have to power them off these days.
Every OS has tradeoffs, if the WinPhone makes you happier, by all means do it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you, I do like both OS's for their own benefits, currently I do like WP7 better than Android and keeps me "happy". However if you notice; that's not my prime motive in starting this thread, I didn't come here to say one is better than the other. I just want to know why those two simple things (scrolling and pinch zooming) are not fluid on Android. You can't use the excuse that it's different hardware because Microsoft is playing that trick too. You can't use the "its busy doing other things" excuse either, while WP7 doesn't have multi-tasking, iOS does (somewhat) so it can go "do" something else but will still feel fluid. In a multi-OEM environment it is up to the OEM to optimize it for the device it runs on, which is why it baffles me that even Sense and MotoBlur and others make performance decline a bit and still has the lag. Shouldn't it be the opposite?
Nothing? So no one can tell me why Android's responsiveness (scrolling, pinch-zooming) sucks?
Luisraul924 said:
Nothing? So no one can tell me why Android's responsiveness (scrolling, pinch-zooming) sucks?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The answer is quite simple (and the above replies are miles off the mark). Hardware acceleration.
WP7 has it, Android doesn't.
FloatingFatMan said:
The answer is quite simple (and the above replies are miles off the mark). Hardware acceleration.
WP7 has it, Android doesn't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So the hardware acceleration runs throughout the entire OS? I thought it was mainly just the XNA and Silverlight stuff that was accelerated (I do believe those are different than native OS code, as Microsoft isnt allowing developers to write apps with native code. Future compatibility issues I guess)
Of course it's the entire OS. Why do you think MS's minimum spec stipulations are so high? This is what Windows Mobile was so plagued with, and how MS fixed that problem.
Luis-
"So the hardware acceleration runs throughout the entire OS?"
It isn't so much that the hardware acceleration runs in the OS, but that the hardware itself has certain routines built into it, on the firmware level, so the OS can just call those routines instead of trying to calculate them.
To oversimplify a bit, for instance, a hardware accelerator for "zoom in" might be programmed into the video chip system to automatically tell it "take the 50 pixels around this spot and blow up up to 250 pixels, refresh screen" where the OS would be saying "OK, let's take this spot, draw a square with a 50 pixel radius around it, now let's take each of those pixels and transpose it over twice the radius and go fill..." sending a long slow string of commands, each computed by the CPU.
When the CPU can offload all of that into a simple "zoom" command to the video chip, the CPU is now free to do other things. Like, respond to your next input, or push the next menu onto the display.
When you have ironclad control over the hardware--it can be a great way to make systems faster. And more stable.
Rred said:
Luis-
"So the hardware acceleration runs throughout the entire OS?"
It isn't so much that the hardware acceleration runs in the OS, but that the hardware itself has certain routines built into it, on the firmware level, so the OS can just call those routines instead of trying to calculate them.
To oversimplify a bit, for instance, a hardware accelerator for "zoom in" might be programmed into the video chip system to automatically tell it "take the 50 pixels around this spot and blow up up to 250 pixels, refresh screen" where the OS would be saying "OK, let's take this spot, draw a square with a 50 pixel radius around it, now let's take each of those pixels and transpose it over twice the radius and go fill..." sending a long slow string of commands, each computed by the CPU.
When the CPU can offload all of that into a simple "zoom" command to the video chip, the CPU is now free to do other things. Like, respond to your next input, or push the next menu onto the display.
When you have ironclad control over the hardware--it can be a great way to make systems faster. And more stable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great answer. Makes sense, thanks. Now given that this is an Android section lets talk more on that, will it ever be possible to have hardware acceleration on Android, Whether it be through custom ROMs or OEM devices?
"will it ever be possible to have hardware acceleration on Android,"
Possible? Sure, I've seen pigs on the wing.<G> Don't hold your breath for it though. Android is an unruly place where even ordinary hardware is often not supported by the OS and software breaks on every new phone. In order for hardware acceleration to work, the OS needs to have routines and drivers for standard hardware, which means locking down a hardware spec. Which is so very Undroid.
Can't see that happening, unless ten year from now someone invents a "standard universal Android cell phone chipset" and all the manufacturers get paid to exclusively use it. That's the ticket--use our chipset, we'll pay you to use it, and oh, yes, it will play one of "our" ads every time your screen turns on. Or you launch a new app. Or place a call.
(See? Things could get worse!<G>)
Here's an interesting discussion...
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=6914
burtcom said:
Here's an interesting discussion...
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=6914
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well as far as I read, it was just a bunch of "me too" and "I agree" lol I got bored reading that I still dont think Google has an official statement on the matter do they?
Hello there,
I'm interested in developing image processing software for android devices. So far I got OpenCV and a simple example app running on my HTC Desire. It finds ellipses in realtime in a camera preview surface. The speed is OK (15 fps) and I expected the performance on the eeepad Transformer to be even faster. But the opposite is the case. The native (c++ implementation) camera preview that worked well on the Desire ist horribly slow on the transformer.
For me it's seems like the app has no full priority. Is there a way to give an app exclusive priority so it can use more CPU power? Are there some hidden performace switches on honeycomb I have to activate in order to get this app going faster?
thanks in advance for every answer or even hints to other forums.
SirHoop
I check the debug log of the native processor, apperently it processes the images with up to 30 fps. Unfortunately that is not the framerate I see on my display. This let's me conclude that there is a fundamental problem with the CameraPreview class on the transformer.
Apparently this is an OpenGL ES problem. The NativeCameraPreviewer of OpenCV uses a GLSurfaceView to draw the modified camera image. I use an additional GLSurfaceView to render some 3D content on top of that preview surface. So, 2 GLSurfaceViews are active and somehow that causes problems on either this specific device or android 3.0. On an HTC Desire running 2.2 this problem did not arise.
That's all I got, unfortunately I could not fix it so far. Just deactivating the second GLSurface made the camera preview smooth.
Did a light weight search here I don't see anything applicable.
Realizing the Linux\Android kernel is very memory friendly.
I had 1 or 2 questions.
What type of apps will put the most drag on processing as far as tasking on the Infinity?
Gaming for sure maybe.
Haven't gamed much lately so perhaps not an issue for me.
My uses are browsing like most.
Reading technical PDFs with diagrams and charts.
Letter writing.
Editing photos.
Electronic mail.
(I'll say I don't have much slowness with the above)
How are applications designed for speed?
Which type of apps present a light load on the system?
Do faster applications crash more? (with the Infinity specifically)
What are the major differences between Linux and Android?
I know a googsearch could yield info.
I just thought I could call on you guyz\galz for a spirited discussion.
all
Flames
Replies
Links
Jokes
Advice
Screenshots
accepted!
TIA
Thats OK said:
How are applications designed for speed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
By using fast algorithms and fast programming languages, and avoiding stupid things. Since the CPU has a fixed maximum speed, the only way to make an app faster is to execute fewer instructions to achieve the desired effect.
Thats OK said:
Which type of apps present a light load on the system?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correctly programmed apps will only load the system if they have a reason (meaning, they do some work for you). Depending on what the app is supposed to do, this can be a light or a heavy load.
Reading technical PDFs with diagrams and charts -> will be a heavy load while rendering a page, and should produce virtually no load while you are reading.
Letter writing. -> should be a light load, since it will wait for your keypresses most of the time.
Editing photos. -> photo manipulation can be a heavy load, since calculations have to be applied to millions of pixels.
Electronic mail. -> see letter writing. Except if you send big attachments, then this will be a heavy load for the storage subsystem, but a light one on for the CPU.
Thats OK said:
Do faster applications crash more? (with the Infinity specifically)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. Buggy apps crash more. If code is correct, it does not crash. As written above, slow applications do not really run slower or safer, they just waste more time.
Thats OK said:
What are the major differences between Linux and Android?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Android kernel is a derivate of Linux that has some additional features for memory management, interprocess communication and power management.
The userspace part (everything running on top of the kernel - system libraries and applications) is very different.
Thanx!
Good information for me.