yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] zephiK:
Uh.. have you taken a look at CES 2012? many companies announced upcoming phones. All of them with the exception of the Huawei one are being launched with Gingerbread upgradable to Ice Cream Sandwich. This will take months to do. Not to mention, manufacturer skins will ruin the stock ICS experience.

Sure tablets are coming out with quad-cores. But all in honesty, this is a phone, not a computer. Quad core is nice, yes. But it's still a phone.

Galaxy Nexus won't be big as the S2 in terms of sales. It never will be. Nexus devices are focused towards Android enthusiastics that want the stock experience. It is not a device that is mainstream (not the device everyone will notice). Which is what makes the device so cool and unique with it's sleek design.

Galaxy Nexus will have major support from developers. We've already have numerous developers who are putting work and effort into ROMs and kernels including Ezekeel (his works from the Nexus S and kernel expertise), Franco (kernel), morfic (in progress with donations), supercurio (Voodoo) and so on. Several CM devs also have the phone.

Why do you think Clockwork Recovery Touch Enabled was built first for the GN? Get the phone if modding / ROMs is your thing. The phone's just going to get bigger as it slowly gets expanded onto U.S. carriers (whenever..)
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] dhruvraj:
I don't understand ur point and most probably there is none anyway

Matter of months you see much better hardware, we will both be here I'll post ..HTC Samsung are both coming up with their next Gen phones.

Galaxy nexus is an year old spec almost, and regarding OS - almost everyone is rooting their nexus devices - so u root a much better hardware spec device and port a fully functional ICS rom on them and you're there!
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] aimetti:
Actually he made very good points. Coming from an iPhone the galaxy nexus was the only option. I won't deal with lack of upgrades and bloatware anymore
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] zephiK:
Next generation phones? The lineup of these phones at ces were not that impressive, and I doubt I'll be impressed at mwc. Also 99% of these phones will be on gingerbread

Nexus devices will always be the best choice for me because I enjoy the pure android experience without bloatware and easy unlock.
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] dhruvraj:
February!! ICS!! Quad core!!

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/samsung-galaxy-s3-here-february-with-3d-720p-screen-50006516/

Most likely 1.5 ghz!!

What are you talking about? Deluded?

Or because you bought nexus it is the best device??

It is an year old hardware, I've bought it for some reasons but anyone who can afford to ..should wait a month or two to get the real deal!

I just gave Samsung s3 a mighty upgrade from HTC is also coming up real soon!
[Samsung Galaxy Nexus] zephiK:
I bought a Galaxy Nexus because it is a nexus device. I do not care for Galaxy S3 because it uses a manufacturer skin causing delays when it comes to updates. Not to mention, S3 is announced and will probably not arrive to the states until Summer or Fall 2012.

Galaxy nexus hardware is definitely not outdated. Quad cores, what's the use of them if android os isn't optimized to be used with those four cores?
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy S II SGH-I777] BrokenLegGuy:
...i'm skeptical because audio drivers don't change app to app but If it does work for you then great. I'm going to hold out until CM9 officially works on the gs2.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy S II SGH-I777] Entropy512:
That's not working in-call audio - that's just a workaround using GrooveIP to make VoIP calls instead of pure voice calls, which is not an option for many people for various reasons.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy S II SGH-I777] BrokenLegGuy:
My skepticism seems to be well founded.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy S II SGH-I777] eep2378:
Kudos to you for trying this "workaround" but it certainly is not a fix of any kind. Its just not practical for people to be relying on a Voip service for all calls. Before this I'm sure many people tried this(and it probably worked) but its just not a long term solution of any kind...sorry

Edit:...."braces himself and gets ready for another, Why the Attidude/We're all negative thread!! ;)
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy S II SGH-I777] Red5:
Not if I close this first to prevent that. Coupled with the fact that CM9 is not really ready for us YET and we already have CM9 threads, there really is no reason to leave this open.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy S II SGH-I777] K Rich:
Red...you and that damn hammer of justice. :D
[Windows 8 General] mtmerrick:
Before anyone says anything, no, this is not another topic asking the stupid, worn out question "can I haz w8 on my kindle fire/nook/transformer prime/galaxySII/ect"

At CES there are several android devices being shown off with x86 processors: Intel atom CPUs. Would it be possible, provided internal storage is big enough, to be able to run the full version of windows 8 on these pieces of hardware? I can't think of any reasons why not, and being able to run full versions of x86 windows off of a cell phone is just amazing. IMHO it'd be worth the price of a seat of windows 8, and dual booting with android ICS sounds incredible. So, is there anything I'm missing? Or would the hardware support it fairly easily? I can't think of any roadblocks, other than the annoyance of installing off of microSD.
[Windows 8 General] :
I think this must be a new kind of Atom-CPUs that are built for the ARM-architecture on which Android runs? I red somewhere that they wanted to release that Kind of CPUs this year.
[Windows 8 General] mtmerrick:
No, they're definitely x86 chips.
[Windows 8 General] Whoareyou:
If it has BIOS/EFI it will be done ;)
[Windows 8 General] dryogeshd:
Why bother about it being on x86, windows 8 will run on ARM architecture too if I'm not mistaken
[Windows 8 General] mtmerrick:
Because putting W8ARM on existing devices is probably impossible and quite likely to be illegal.
[Windows 8 General] geebake:
Not sure why it would be illegal. If you own a license of the OS, you should be able to run it on whatever you want - unless, like the Apple stuff there's some kind of EULA that states that you specifically can't. I seriously doubt MS would bother to screw with people who tried anyway.

The Developer Preview of W8 is x86/x64 only anyway. Hopefully the beta coming in February will Feb will have arm support. I'm hoping to get it working on a Galaxy Tab 10.1 but who knows?

One potential caveat. I've heard that the ARM version will only work with Metro apps. If that's the case, it will be far less useful. Forget running all that excellent software you already have and know an love.

Greg
[Windows 8 General] tydem:
Microsoft (and the hardware manufacturers of current Android devices) don't want this to happen on ARM devices, because having an open bootloader and a myriad of Linux distributions would hurt their ecosystems. All ARM W8 tablets will come with locked bootloaders by specification, just like Android ones. Existing Android devices and others like the TouchPad will be very difficult to port this to because the bootloader security is different from current devices. But who wants ARM Windows 8 as the old apps and desktop don't work on it? :p

Regarding x86: If it's possible on the HTC Shift, it will sure be possible on Medfield (next-gen Atom for phones) devices, especially if the bootloader is open. If it's closed the scene will figure out how to unlock it and install Windows 7/W8/Ubuntu/etc. on it just like on a regular PC, which would mean having access to all legacy apps. Of course dual boot would also be possible.
[Windows 8 General] mtmerrick:
Since only OEMs will be able to buy W8 ARM liscences, and liscences are not device transferable, you will not be allowed to port it to a non-liscenced device, just like Windows Mobile or WP7.

And no, W8ARM will not be able to run x86 programs.
[Windows 8 General] geebake:
I think there's an excellent chance that private users will be able to get a copy of W8 for arm.

And whether or not x86 code will run in the arm version is definitely not settled.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/07/desktop-apps-may-run-on-win8-for-arm-after-all-maybe/
[Windows 8 General] mtmerrick:
I read that article and laughed. Never once did they mention ARM - they were reffering to the 'classic desktop' UI, and they can't decide if W8ARM will be metro only, or have the (for ARM) near useless classic desktop.

Give up all hope that W8ARM will have an emulator built in. Its not going to happen, performance will be so terrible it would alienate customers. W8ARM will not be available to consumers for the same reason WP7 isn't - Microsoft would loose too much control and non-techie customers would be too confused.
[Windows 8 General] skyrocketeer:
Not sure but does this mean windows 8 on a Cisco Cius is possible cause it has an Intel atom processor?

Sent via Samsung Skyrocket with Sky ICS
[Windows 8 General] mtmerrick:
if it has an atom processor, it should be. as with anything cross-platform, drivers would be an issue, but that shouldn't be too hard to overcome.
[Windows 8 General] skyrocketeer:
That's pretty awesome

Sent via Samsung Skyrocket with Sky ICS
[Windows 8 General] mitrjoshi:
yes right, i am agree with u
[Windows 8 General] blackhand1001:
I personally hope intel medfield kills off any arm competitors in the windows 8 tablet business. I am not happy with how closed arm can be compared to x86.
[Windows 8 General] Stannieman:
The arm architecture is more open than x86. But indeed you can do more on x86 based hardware as there is more software available for it.
[Windows 8 General] ShadowEO:
As long as your x86 Android netbook can boot from USB storage and isn't locked into the OSes that it came with, I guess it could be possible as long as the amount of RAM and internal storage meet the minimum requirements.
[Windows 8 General] dazza9075:
x86 instruction sets are one thing but drivers are a whole different ball game.

But in theory yes, Win 8 x86 could run on x86 android hardware, with several very large assumptions being made

as for ARM, I think we can forget x86 emulation, the overheads would cripple it. To be honest, I personally wouldn't have a use for an ARM tablet, an x86 tablet however would be very useful, so come on Intel, get your finger out and give us some affordable ultra low watt x86 SoCs, keep it cheap an OEMS will trip over them selves buying them, after all, backward compatibility means les overheads for companies and less hassle for users.
[Windows 8 General] J94w:
I wonder if it would be possible to do an emulation inside of windows on arm

What I am thinking is that the full windows 8 ARM is installed on a tablet, and then when you hit "desktop" it would switch on the emulator to do a x86/x64 emulation

That would be wonderful in the fact that the Metro Apps can take granted of the ARM, while the desktop is used to run normal everyday software which makes less development

And it could be vice versa for a desktop; running an emulator for the Metro Apps, and having full windows 8 installed on the machine

With tech getting better with arm quad core processors, and more than 2GB of ram (virtual or not), plus a good GPU, I think that would be possible and awesome (of course dont forget that 1TB solid state drive ;))
[Windows 8 General] dazza9075:
Except its not that easy. Take x86 and emulating some small device like a phone, or old games console, is fairly straight forward, x86 has the grunt to do it and the device doesn't need much emulation its self, what i mean by that is that the device has limited uses.

Emulating x86 on an arm CPU would be like tugging an oil tanker with a pedal boat, of course that does depend to what extent you need to emulate it, and I think there is the problem, there is so much scope with x86 that Ms couldn't easily do it and support it as well as cover all its bases, more possible is that someone can develop a limited use emulator, for a specific use or set of functions
[Windows 8 General] spunker88:
I thought of this as well, and we wouldn't even have to wait for Windows 8 the same could be done with Windows 7. I would love getting an Intel phone in a few years when the SoCs are a little faster. Then use something like a Motorola Lapdock to dock and you get a full x86 Windows experience. Instead of a laptop its on your phone, it wouldn't be your primary system but a pocketable netbook. This is the future once technology catches up and hopefully Microsoft can bring this idea to market.
[Windows 8 General] J94w:
I would have thought that arm would be able to compile and run with out a hitch, especially with the new quads coming out.. who knows maybe intel will bring something usable.

But really, how come a ARM processor cannot handle both an emulator and a actual windows for arm? I thought they were they same thing, just slower compared to a x86 (well not now since the new quads).
[Windows 8 General] dazza9075:
you need to have an understanding of how a CPU works to understand that its very difficult to emulate the whole thing.

an ARM CPU is a RISC CPU, the idea being that by making it simple it can be faster. Which is true to an extent, in a number of scenario's. It was seen as "the" solution back in the 90s but ultimately failed to gain any traction in the desktop market, hence we have a x86 dominated market.

What RISC did bring is the ability to have high numbers of cycles in a very short pipe line making it very efficient is some cases, hence why it has such a low power requirement and is great for small devices like phones and also why its taking Intel so long to develop a good x86 ultra low power CPU

But this is also its failure, because x86 is a longer pipe, or fatter if you'd rather, it can do more per cycle than a ARM CPU, a good way of thinking about it is to say it has more grunt, more bang per buck.

So lets take emulating a x86 CPU, even tho you can have 4 threads running at once on an ARM CPU it doesn't mean it could stitch those 4 threads together to emulate a single x86 instruction. or to put it another way, take a knitted woollen jumper, have 4 people grab a different strand and pull it apart, easy right? ok. now ask those 4 people to put it back together again... suddenly a lot harder isn't it!

a 1GHz ARM and a 1 GHz x86 CPU are running the same number of cycles a second, but the volume of work PER cycle is significantly less in the ARM, in the same way a current gen AMD 2GHz CPU is slower than a Intel 2GHz CPU, same speed, but it has less ability.

So take all that, combine it with the fact that x86 is VERY complex and you get an idea why emulating it on a weaker CPU is a lot harder than you may think.

the other way around is easy tho, ARM on x86 would be slower but because x86 has more grunt and ARM isn't as complex its a lot more feasible.

Im not saying x86 on ARM cant happen, im saying that its not going to be very good.

Oh the other thing you mention about just compiling it, what you have here is a program, not just written in a different language but also for a different system, now by using a cross platform programing language you get a head start but it is still trying to talk to the hardware in x86, all those calls would need to be intercepted and converted in to a ARM equivalent,

a simple program could easily be done with a basic emulator, but some x86 programs would likely be very complex, meaning the emulator would need to be setup to emulate anything the program might throw at it, which in turn means a much harder piece of work and the reason MS probably doesn't want do it, its also the reason that even if it did work it would be slow (in some cases) because the ARM CPU is RISC and your trying to make it do the work of a x86, it might take dozens of cycles to achieve what the x86 CPU can do in a single cycle.

I hope that helps, ive simplified things somewhat before folk jump up and down, :) but that is essentially the problems it would face.
[Windows 8 General] J94w:
Thanks, that makes more sense

Well I would love to see if Intel can bring something better than ARM for mobile devices especially with x86

But it would also be cool to see what they can do on ARM, even if it will be slower
[Windows 8 General] dazza9075:
Definitely.

Interestingly what intel might end up doing is going backwards and using older Pentium cores, or even P2/3. slapping several of them on a single die, shrink them to 22nm and turn down the juice, essentially turning it in to a many core CPU it would need some sort of controlling CPU dealing with all the threads because the OS wouldn't be setup to handle it and it would need the newer SSE and co, instruction sets added but it should mean a significant reduction in power usage that can scale depending on workload, ie turn 75% of the cores off if not needed.

but yes, they need to do something, im sure the tech people in Intel R&D are going mental with working with low power x86 and cursing all the additions over the years :D
[Windows 8 General] Rakeesh_j:
That's not true, only certain Android OEM's lock their bootloaders, namely HTC and Motorola. Samsung bootloaders for example are not locked.
[Windows 8 General] ShadowEO:
Agreed, but Microsoft has made UEFI security a mandatory requirement for Windows 8 ready devices (whether this can be disabled is up to the manufacturer though). Technically though, this isn't about bootloaders and more about UEFI firmwares which are (supposedly) the next generation replacements for a BIOS.

Hopefully we won't have to see this as too restricting (meaning hopefully manufacturers will give a way to disable this, which is not prohibited by the Microsoft Windows 8 Ready specification) and will continue to be able to use whatever OS we want with our Windows 8 Ready PCs.

How did we get on this topic anyway? I thought we we're contemplating the overhead of an x86 emulator on an ARM tablet..

Either way, it would take significantly more instructions to make up even a simple instruction that's found in an x86 processor, which would be pretty slow performance wise, not to mention very inefficient as opposed to porting applications to the ARM architecture.
[Windows 8 General] blackhand1001:
For x86 they made it mandatory that you must be able to disable it as well as add additional signatures. They did the opposite on ARM, saying that you must not be able to disable it nor add signatures.
[Windows 8 General] Rakeesh_j:
When did they say you must be able to disable it? As far as I'm aware they only allow disabling it to be optional. And an OEM copy of windows will refuse to boot if it is disabled.
[Windows 8 General] Filip98:
Lol slow down settle with making xp/vista work

Sent from my epic Y
[Windows 8 General] dazza9075:
Lets wait an see shall we, since RT is an OEM device only there is a good chance security will be higher on it, even more so if MS subsidisers some of the build cost to keep prices down, which I wouldnt rule out by the way! If they do that to keep prices low then they have every right to keep it locked down to them, of course it doesn't matter as the gods on here will fix it ;-)
[Windows 8 General] Rakeesh_j:
The problem with relying on exploits is that there's no guarantee you'll find an exploit. And even if you do, closing it is merely a patch away.
[Windows 8 General] dazza9075:
Where there's a will there's a way, in my opinion I couldn't care less, I'll be getting an x86 tablet, I don't see the point in getting a tablet with with its balls chopped off so lock down isn't a big issue
[Windows 8 General] blackhand1001:
"20. MANDATORY: On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: "Custom" and "Standard". Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified in the following:

a) It shall be possible for a physically present user to use the Custom Mode firmware setup option to modify the contents of the Secure Boot signature databases and the PK.

b) If the user ends up deleting the PK then, upon exiting the Custom Mode firmware setup, the system will be operating in Setup Mode with Secure Boot turned off.

c) The firmware setup shall indicate if Secure Boot is turned on, and if it is operated in Standard or Custom Mode. The firmware setup must provide an option to return from Custom to Standard Mode which restores the factory defaults."
[Windows 8 General] Rakeesh_j:
I've heard that argument before, as well as "if man can build it, man can unbuild it" but I've been in many hacking/development scenes where this has fallen apart. Ultimately yes, exploits always exist, because in theory you could just rebuild the whole thing from scratch without the forced signature checks. However the lengths you must go to achieve these exploits can become impractical to the point that people just give up and the development just quietly dies off.

The tivo scene is a big example of this. I used to be a very active member of the modding scene where we would run our own scripts on tivos to add features (for example, I was the very first person to transfer a recording from one tivo to another tivo, long before tivo themselves later added that feature.) However by the third generation it became necessary to do SMC rework just to run custom code. This slowed development on the S3 platform to a crawl, but it still existed to a degree.

In the S4 generation, the CPU itself actually checks for signatures, which then goes along down the chain of trust (bios > kernel > initrd etc.) I figured out a way around this, but the method requires building a daughterboard, and it's just not worth doing. There is no development going on at all for the S4 platform.

The same thing can happen with any platform.
[Windows 8 General] Product F(RED):
That's funny. I have an ASUS M5A97 Mobo in my computer that does UEFI; it has a mouse and keyboard interface with a full GUI rather than traditional BIOS.
[Samsung Infuse 4G] shooter5635:
Hey all,

My phone was acting up and had a lot of clutter so I ODIN'ed to stock WITH root and e3. I downloaded Rom manager and flashed recovery. Seemed to work. I did the double install deal. Loaded green recovery: great. Reboot the phone. Turn it off to boot back into recovery. As i do the two volume plus power button combo, phone boots and i come to the blue and yellow install screen for recovery. Happens everytime.

I even tried going back to entirely stock. No root or anything. I then rooted, added e3, and flashed. Same deal.

Whats going on?!

I'm flashing a rom right now to see if that fixes anything.

It can't be normal to have to reinstall the package everytime i reboot into recovery.

And it only boots into green. Not blue or red.

Help!
[Samsung Infuse 4G] shooter5635:
Just finished flashing Zeus and went into recovery. Booted right into red. I guess problem solved?
[Samsung Infuse 4G] Dani897:
galaxy s phones and the infuse don't conform to the android standard. they use a kernel with initramfs for boot in place of a boot.img partition. the initramfs can't be modded short of compiling a kernel and flashing it to the phone. the behavior you described is absolutely normal for high end Samsung phones. there isn't really any other safe or easy way to do it. the green recovery is the one designed for the i9000 with the stock kernel. the red/blue versions are themed and modded version that are baked into the kernel. once you flash a rom with a custom kernel you will have red unless it is cm7 or miui which will have blue.
[Samsung Infuse 4G] shooter5635:
Thanks for the explanation! Makes sense now.