Android Versions

[shawnbusker]

I've been thinking, now that we can make roms, what version of android should we work on porting first? I personally would like to see honeycomb run on the PMID701C.

Shawn

[shawnbusker]

Building from source

Making the Honeycomb and Ice Cream Sandwich roms will be tougher to do because I'll have to build them directly from source. I don't think it'll be that hard to do, but with the lack of tutorials and support for a10 devices, it may be harder to do.

If anyone has experience doing this please PM me and lets try to get something working.

Shawn

[Android_n00b]

Honeycomb

3.0 Honeycomb is the Android OS made for tablets, 4.0 ICS is the merging back of 2.3 and 3.0, so since this is a tablet forum and were all using tablets 3.0 seems the logical choice. I've often wondered why SoTel didn't put 3.0 on our tablets, and why the newer tablets, of all brands, are using 4.0. It seems to me that 3.0, being a tablet only OS wouldn't have a phone.apk and some of other issues and be more tailored for what we need. Of course there may be a reason for all the aforementioned questions, but I can't think of any.

[Finless]

FYI Honeycomb was never really an officially launched OS. SO they say.

Want more info?

Have a look here:

http://developer.android.com/guide/a...pi-levels.html

Bob

[lukenova]

Honeycomb was released on tablets but from what I can tell, I they never actually released the source code to the Android community. Which really annoyed the community because we want to be able to tinker with it.
Since 4.0 ICS is the merging of tablet and phone together, I see no good reason to release a 3.0 honeycomb rom for these tablets. ICS seems the most logical. And it's the most up to date as well.

Sent from my Polaroid PMID701i using Tapatalk 2

[shawnbusker]

According to the poll, ICS was first and Honeycomb was second highest voted. Now that ICS is released, I don't have another rom to work on. I think the sources were released but I'll need to look around for them.

Shawn

[jwhood]

how bout sense 4.0????

i know that would be a biocth too port but i think it would look good on our tabs,or maybe aokp build 34 either one would be great just putting my ideas out there,or maybe sense 3.5!!!!!

[lukenova]

I have an HTC thunderbolt. Sense seems to mostly suck on it. I try to keep an aosp rom on it.

Sent from my Polaroid PMID701i using Tapatalk 2

[sabercatpuck]

Similar hardware

I have an HTC thunderbolt. Sense seems to mostly suck on it. I try to keep an aosp rom on it.

Sent from my Polaroid PMID701i using Tapatalk 2

I just recently rooted my thunderbolt too. I wanted to make sure there were no hardware problems before I did and before I got to it I got the 605.9 OTA and it wasnt till recent times that they found a way to get S-OFF without having to downgrade to 605.5 and wipe the phone. But that is a serious digression, if ya ever want to talk Tbolts the PM option is there

[LiquidLimez]

Ics ics ,baby

We need to get a highly tweaked ICS Rom. I personaly feel ICS has a vast amount of sluggishness. Due to it's maturity.

Gingerbread = Speed


Note: Thumbs up Shawn for your work!!

[lukenova]

We need to get a highly tweaked ICS Rom. I personaly feel ICS has a vast amount of sluggishness. Due to it's maturity.

Gingerbread = Speed


Note: Thumbs up Shawn for your work!!

I agree with this entirely. I would love to see a tweaked ICS rom.

Sent from my Polaroid PMID701i using Tapatalk 2

[Android_n00b]

Honeycomb

So any news on the Honeycomb ROM?

[Lexridge]

3.0 Honeycomb is the Android OS made for tablets, 4.0 ICS is the merging back of 2.3 and 3.0, so since this is a tablet forum and were all using tablets 3.0 seems the logical choice. I've often wondered why SoTel didn't put 3.0 on our tablets, and why the newer tablets, of all brands, are using 4.0. It seems to me that 3.0, being a tablet only OS wouldn't have a phone.apk and some of other issues and be more tailored for what we need. Of course there may be a reason for all the aforementioned questions, but I can't think of any.

Honeycomb was kinda still born, and the Google red headed step child. It was a good OS, but did not gain much support, as we can tell from its very short lifespan. People wanted HC on their phones, but it had no phone features to speak of. So, Google took the good features from HC, and GB and created ICS, which I think will be here much longer than HC was. IMO, it would be senseless to do anything BUT ICS.

Never look backwards, always look forwards.

[Android_n00b]

Honeycomb

Honeycomb was kinda still born, and the Google red headed step child. It was a good OS, but did not gain much support, as we can tell from its very short lifespan. People wanted HC on their phones, but it had no phone features to speak of. So, Google took the good features from HC, and GB and created ICS, which I think will be here much longer than HC was. IMO, it would be senseless to do anything BUT ICS. Never look backwards, always look forwards.

I don't agree, you said they took features from HC and from GB, and GB is primarily a phone OS, and obviously ICS is too. Our tablets aren't phones, so why do we need phone features to bog down the OS. I say we "purge" our tablets of phone features and make them tablets like they were meant to be. And anyway I thought Shawn already released the ICS ROM, so now we need Honeycomb.

[Lexridge]

I don't agree, you said they took features from HC and from GB, and GB is primarily a phone OS, and obviously ICS is too. Our tablets aren't phones, so why do we need phone features to bog down the OS. I say we "purge" our tablets of phone features and make them tablets like they were meant to be. And anyway I thought Shawn already released the ICS ROM, so now we need Honeycomb.

Actually, I think I was not clear enough on this. ICS was built to support both phones and tablets. It just depends on how the source code is built for which device it runs on. You cannot take one that is compiled for a phone, and expect it to work on a tablet, and visa versa. You have to specifically built for the target device, and the Makefile should be smart enough to determine whether or not the phone features are built or not. They should not be when building the source for a tablet.

So, in a nutshell, if you build ICS for a phone, you end up with modified GB with an ICS interface. If it is built for a tablet, you get HC with the ICS interface. That is not exactly right, but essentially that is what happens.