yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[HTC Flyer, EVO View 4G] sureshotz:
I just bought this flyer 3G version It was working with 2.3.4 when i bought it.

I've searched the entire XDA forum ,modaco and loads of the other sites. Been attempting this for 4 hours straight x 3nights in a row.

I've managed to get Bootloader unlock via HTCdev but still on S-ON because my hboot is 1.11.011 Flashed the Paul obriens modified HC boot 11.11.0011 image. I got revolution CWM and i can get into it but now suddenly fail to adb into it.

FLYER PVT SHI{P

S-ON RL

HBOOT - 1.11.0011

MICROP=0950

RADIO-3822.10.08.07_M

eMMC-boot Oct 25 2011,16:55:07

I think my flyer is in limbo.

CID=044 which is the HTC Asia WWE one.

I tried: Installing some custom ROM's as soon as i achieved bootloader unlocked. Tried the latest LOeeDroid etc. BUT they all fail at the HTC boot screen. Even after waiting for 10 mins. Yes I did extract the boot.img and flashed via fastboot due to s-on but still stuck at HTC boot logo.

Ran the RUU's directly from fastboot mode (i just double clicked on the exe from my PC) -HTC Asia WWE . but they all fail on installtion/ signature. RUU_Flyer_hTC_Asia_WWE_1.48.707.4_Radio_20.3501.30 .089BU_3809.05.04.10_M_release_193927_signed RUU_Flyer_hTC_Asia_WWE_2.27.707.1_Radio_20.3504.30 .089BU_3809.07.04.06_M_release_204905_signed RUU_Flyer_hTC_Asia_WWE_2.27.707.2_Radio_20.3504.30 .089BU_3809.07.04.06_M_release_219276_signed

i tried the rom.zip extraction and renamed it to PG411MG.zip with the hope of the bootloader detecting and running it - it tried to install but failed -signature. I created a goldcard but not used this method yet as i had to format it and now i cant even connect to the PC -its as if it cant detect the device. I will try a ROM that is similar to my radio . But i cant connect to the Flyer -(adb- device not found)

Please help - ill gladly donate to a working solution. I dont know what else to do. I just want to get android working again passing the horrid HTC boot logo. i dont mind stock etc just need my flyer to work.

Been ROMing since HD2

UPDATE: SOLVED

none of the stock RUU I tried installing was successful because I had Unlocked the Bootloader.

All I needed to do was' fastboot oem lock' and it relocked. RUU will only install on locked bootloaders.

While still in fastboot I ran the RUU from my PC and it worked. Installing while tears of joy rolled down my tired eyes.

So I'm now on an older hboot and achieved S-off,rooted and made my flyer into a phone + Bluetooth.
[HTC Flyer, EVO View 4G] debanikonline:
Flash the stock rom

Get a guide on xda about it... Urs any flashing software and u will b alr9

Click THANKS button if I helped, or u liked my post.

Will be honored.
[HTC One X] redfrog1243:
Hi!

I recently switched over to ubuntu from Windows and I don't know how to flash boot.IMG with Ubuntu. Anybody can give me a tutorial?

Btw, when I try running an ADB command inside terminal I get a message that tells me that it's not known as a command.
[HTC One X] JEZ69:
hello

follow this tutorial

http://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/android

you don tneed to install all the sdk just the android sdk tool

than if it s not working follows this

http://ptspts.blogspot.fr/2011/10/how-to-fix-adb-no-permissions-error-on.html

hope it s help for me it s working for ubuntu and other linux
[HTC One X] redfrog1243:
I'm sorry, but you haven't got the first link by any possibility in English? :)
[HTC One X] Michealtbh:
Try this http://www.xda-developers.com/android/script-helps-users-configure-adb-and-fastboot-on-linux/
[HTC EVO 3D] Triumph:
I was wondering if there was a way to get an unlocked bootloader without using HTCDev.com while I'm on 1.58 Hboot?

I upgraded using Virus's PC86IMG.zip file from his thread, and that upgraded the radio's and hboot (and other stuff I'm assuming).

or do all of the methods involve downgrading the hboot while unlocking?
[HTC EVO 3D] ramjet73:
Sort of.

If you are S-OFF you can flash one of the custom bootloaders from this post and it will support the same fastboot commands that an unlocked stock bootloader supports. Technically your bootloader status is still "***LOCKED***" and if you reflash the stock bootloader it will show that, but the custom bootloaders ignore that status and support the additional fastboot commands.

Since you are currently using 1.58, I recommend the JuopunutBear Sprint ICS (1.58.5858) version since you will probably need that for the ROM you are currently running. Just be aware that version doesn't get along well with GB and AOSP ROM's.

ramjet73
[HTC EVO 3D] Triumph:
ok, thanks ramjet.

Just so I am clear, I won't be running a GB or AOSP rom. I have been using TribulattiFather's Roms (SolidRom Family). So I should be good with JuopunutBear's Sprint ICS 1.58.5858.

If I plan on running a AOSP rom down the line somewhere, I should just follow the downgrade hboot guides that are listed in these forums? or is running the JuopunutBear's HBoot not allowing downgrades?

Thanks again for the info, it is greatly appriciated.
[HTC EVO 3D] ramjet73:
As long as you are S-OFF you can downgrade/upgrade your bootloader anytime you want. Just make sure to delete the PG86IMG.zip file after you flash it or you will only be able to do a normal boot from the bootloader and not get into fastboot USB or recovery. Also, if you are running 4EXT recovery it will go into safe mode after changing bootloaders until cache+dalvik is reformatted and recovery is restarted.

ramjet73
[HTC EVO 3D] Triumph:
ok perfect! thanks again ramjet!
[HTC EVO 3D] guyandhisdog:
I did all this and it worked perfectly. Thanks y'all
[Motorola Droid Bionic] Xaotikdesigns:
I reactivated mine, and wanted to make sure I had a good current ROM. Looking through, I find a lot of dead links and old information.

Are people still developing for this phone?
[Motorola Droid Bionic] icd-evil:
It's not a super active community, but it is still alive.

The host site for a lot of the information (droidhive) was taken down a few weeks back and there hasn't been a good replacement made yet. I don't think we'll ever see an unlocked bootloader and if we do, it will probably be too little, too late. I expect ICS to eventually be released officially in the near future. That will put some life back into the community, but overall I would expect that new development will be minimal.

There just are not enough people--especially devs--still using the device.

---------- Post added at 06:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 PM ----------

That said, there are ICS build leaks directly from Moto. But be weary about going above the .232 build and we don't have the FXZ at the moment. If you flash a newer version, there is no way to return to stock should something happen.
[Motorola Droid Bionic] amageus:
We don't have a direct bootloader unlock from Moto but I do believe we have Kexec. Its the best we have atm but with Kexec there has been a few people getting JB started for us.

http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1862459

With Kexec development is picking up. Would be better if moto would give us a Bootloader Unlock but I don't think that will happen. We're still waiting for an official ICS release. I am holding off on JB til we get an official ICS release and when JB is stable enough to use as a daily rom.
[Motorola Droid Bionic] zoompastu:
This is true. Kexec is a work around to load a Kernal on top of another Kernal and bypass the stock bootloader. This is in its infancy right now but will grow. I guess by years end we should have JB CM10 rom that should be stable. That is PURELY an educated guess. The Bionic has love but not nearly as much as it should have.
[Motorola Droid Bionic] bhp117:
Lots of activity here

http://www.droidrzr.com/index.php/forum/68-droid-bionic/

Look in rom section

The new droid hive

http://romdroidhacks.com/forums/
[Motorola Droid Bionic] smokedkill:
The problem with the bionic community is that you have to go to 5 or more different sites to get everything for it. I've been an Android owner for over 3 years, and have had 4 different phones and 1 tablet, and this was the first device that I wasn't able to get everything here at XDA.

Its been a rock solid phone for me though and I love safestrap.
[Motorola Droid Bionic] brainwash1:
A few of the most active bionic developers have had threads locked and been blocked from xda, so it is a bit more work to keep track of them.
[Motorola Droid Bionic] ronaldheld:
Perhaps it is due to the phone did not come out when the Etna was supposed to. It is also a year old and people have moved on to work on newer phones?
[Motorola Droid Bionic] smokedkill:
Ronald, it was like that even when the bionic was new. I bought mine within the first week it came out. Xda has been one of the last places to come for information with this phone.
[Motorola Droid Bionic] brandogg:
Right, but he's pointing out how the Bionic was delayed for a long, long time (and completely changed from the original Etna model), so a lot of people simply skipped over it. Locked bootloaders never help either.
[AT&T, Rogers, Bell, Telus Samsung Galaxy S III] reNeglect:
I've gotten 5710kb/s down and upload 1699kb/s upload. Wondering what speeds you guys have been able to get.
[AT&T, Rogers, Bell, Telus Samsung Galaxy S III] msoileau:
View attachment 1324095
[AT&T, Rogers, Bell, Telus Samsung Galaxy S III] zmore:
I'll never know how fast my AT&T LTE can be, because I'm not on unlimited, and each SPEEDTEST USES 20MB of my data quota. :)
[AT&T, Rogers, Bell, Telus Samsung Galaxy S III] cue_32:
Mine
[AT&T, Rogers, Bell, Telus Samsung Galaxy S III] ant_129:
At a dynamo game

View attachment 1324953

Sent from my At&t GSIII running CM10
[AT&T, Rogers, Bell, Telus Samsung Galaxy S III] johnomaz:
I'm on the edge of the LTE service in my area. A mile or so south and i'm on HSPA. This is the fastest I've gotten in my house.
[AT&T, Rogers, Bell, Telus Samsung Galaxy S III] pseudoware:
CM10 9/14
[AT&T, Rogers, Bell, Telus Samsung Galaxy S III] cmjkxa:
Sandy eggo.
[AT&T, Rogers, Bell, Telus Samsung Galaxy S III] awaken13:
Im usually around 30 down and 12 up. Way better upload speeds then my cable connection at home, kind of sad haha.
[LG Optimus Black] ejcleunamme:
Hi I just bought P970 with V20B Fw, the problem is I cant root it. I searched for the steps already but the flashed bin or kdz download link is not working anymore. Is there any other way to root it or can I downgrade to V10B Froyo so I can just use Gingerbreak??? Pls Help. Thanks.
[LG Optimus Black] xonar_:
There is now tools to automatically convert the kdz to bin and fls and inject CWM. Search for P970 ROM converter and get the kdz file from lg-phone-firmware.com

Sent from my LG Optimus Black
[LG Optimus Black] N00BY0815:
Read my noob how to (post 3 especially), if you need any more info on that.
[LG Optimus Black] ejcleunamme:
Thanks, although the patched bin download link in getzilla is not working anymore, anyway you can reupload that in mediafire or zippyshare maybe. Thanks.
[LG Optimus Black] N00BY0815:
Patch it yourself, download the kdz and then follow my how to, it's being done in less then 10 minutes...
[LG Optimus Black] ejcleunamme:
Thanks man. I was able to root my OB now. I downgraded to Froyo first using Smarttool then rooted with Blackjack. damn gingerbread is hard to root, what more when ics comes. i hope not.
[Asus Transformer TF700] noobwow:
I have been waiting for a long time.

I want it so much. Rawr!!!!!!!!!!!!
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] troyolson92:
*********

I've read on several ROM forums that only certain apps utilize or dual cores. go to sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1 there is a file there. When using one of the above said apps it populated cpu1 with freq folders etc, changes that one file from 0 to 1 enabling it. without one if these apps there is no freq tables for cpu1.

****my question: using Linux and cpu i ran speed tests. Over 70 tests in total. There is zero performance difference in using one app versus another versus cm performance cpu menu. I understand how it looks like two cores are only utilized from certain apps looking at the folders. However it does not change performance at all. Tests show same speed any way to control cpu. Also feels the same. Is there really a difference our is it monkey say????

Also in my tests i found using "VR" versus sio or noob or cfq to be the fastest. I didn't feel a difference however changing i/o setting.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] gregsarg:
Their are claims that Intel’s internal handset testing has shown multi-core implementations running slower than single core, however they did not cite any particular chip. If you take a look a lot of handsets on the market, when you turn on the second core or having the second core there [on die], the [current] leakage is high enough and their power threshold is low enough because of the size of the case that it isn’t entirely clear you get much of a benefit to turning the second core on. In some of the use cases they cited, having a second core is actually a detriment, because of the way some of the software engineers have not implemented their thread scheduling properly.......

That being said, one could argue the concept that a single core chip, running a slight overclock, would produce a far better result, than a dual core application. But again, thread scheduling detracts from any governor efforts anyway...IMHO....g
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] troyolson92:
Hum. I would have to agree then that in our case and in my tests dual core doesn't help nor hinder performance results but does appear to reduce battery life. Now these are my tests using two different programs to test performance and using combo of setcpu/system pro/Cm10 performance built in/Tasker to control cpu. I have done enough testing to know that on cm10 roms dual core, or so the sys files indicate, is of zero performance upgrade and appears to drain battery faster.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] gregsarg:
Yes ...I agree with your findings.

I suppose it's safe too say then, when using the AOSP rom source, within it's normal configuration, that unless development is done beyond the current schedules, the stated performance is well ....overstated ??

Of course , CM is in a constant state of change, and I suppose that after they are finished with the functional repairs, they may focus more on the kernel.

I'd be very interested to see your same tests against another kernel, say flappjaxxx latest JB build.

I do know that he, and several other developers have made some great improvements to the source kernels, and although there will likely always be bugs present, after running my own evaluation of them, the governors are functional and do make at least a perceived difference.

But as you stated, albeit at the cost of battery life.

I choose not to overclock, as I feel that the marginal reward , as proven by your testing , and by testing from several reputable sources, is simply not worth the risk ...g
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] troyolson92:
I agree Greg, i will test other kernels... Samsung ROM is probably the only one i won't test... I also don't overclock, i do under clock at work and screen off using Tasker for battery life. That does help greatly. I'll post back after testing different kernels tonight.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] gregsarg:
Excellent....

And I suppose, since this is the Premier development site, that it would be of great value to the community if you could perhaps publish your results here ?

These aspects of the android OS have been of great interest to me for some time.

Without doubt, many other users would enjoy this information as well in forming their decision regarding roms, kernels etcetera.

Thanks to you, for your inspiring thread. I look forward to the forthcoming information ....g
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] troyolson92:
Ok with out posting tons of pics i tested all available kernels (new). Results were the same. No real difference in single core versus dual core...

The following pics show how to know whether the second core is online or not and my results and how i tested this time around... I was more through the first time but results the same.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] troyolson92:
I am posting pictures for first time hope this turns out.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] Mad383Max:
What do you use to disable the second core? Read this with some interest. Would like to try this with ics Rom. With oc'ing fRom 1.56 to 1.72 i see a consistent jump of 300-400 in my antutu scores. Currently on flapjaxx ics b4.

I know it is just a score, but is your score indicative of the cm builds? It just seems really low.

Here is my 'stock 1.56 speed' with ondemand governor. Want to a get a single core sample.to compare with it.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] gregsarg:
How interesting ....

I can say that both of your posted results lead toward our initial assumptions, that indeed we are seeing a consistent draw against the systems cores with little or no improvement upon activation of the second core.

Some Time ago, shortly after my note arrived, I began some simple tests with low speed dual core activation. My thought process was simply this.

Slow speed dual core operation (both cores running in the 650mhz range ) would ideally produce a faster process response.

My initial results were favorable, as I had a noticeably quicker device during screen transitions, and even in several multitasking functions.

I even went so far as to create a small script to handle this function for me. I'm no developer, and ultimately I didn't possess the programming skills I needed to complete and implement my script into an actual, flash worthy modification. And based on what we are seeing here , the results provided would indicate that my attempt is flawed due to chip current leakage, if the cores are allowed to ramp to high, and perhaps even the use of improper source schedule interference.

I'm so busy these days, I simply haven't time to explore the low speed theory further at this point.

But perhaps with your test bench already set, a simple test using my concept could be carried out??

As we know, CPU [current] thresholds are plagued by voltage bleeding at maximum CPU frequencies, but the thought has just occurred to me that [current ] bleeding is highly controllable when the CPU is driven at lower voltage inputs. And too combine a reduced frequency with reduced voltage over a multiple core platform, could, or should balance the loss and equal the output levels.

Are you up for another test ??

If so ....I suggest the following parameters.

Core "0" at 600/700 MHz

Core "1" at 600/700 MHz

Governor at "interactive "

Voltage at "-24Mv"

Then we'll see if the theory holds water.

P.S. thanks gents, I'm enjoying the heck out of this thread ......g
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] troyolson92:
Mad383max, look at your folders from my pics to tell if two cores are running. Typically on after market roms one core is running until you enable the second from other software like from my pics.

Will test at lunch. I like this lower voltage idea. If i were a betting man i would guess with speeds you proposed and two cores i would guess similar to higher results. Let's see....
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] gregsarg:
Agreed......

I'm excited to see the results....and thank you !!...g
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] troyolson92:
I have to reflash ROM so pics might be a little awhile. I messed up some things and somehow lost my Google account. reflashing gapps and ROM didn't fix it.

Anyway results were 2600 something at 700 both cores underclocked 25... Slightly more than half of normal speed at slightly less than half clock speed... For kicks i tried 1.5 clock speed undervolted 75 (most my phone will go without lockups) and got 5k results. Best yet.

You are on to something. Less voltage = more speed. I now need to try single core undervolted. Give me couple hours for pics etc.. Got to get phone working with Google again and spend time with wife. She hates me on the phone.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] gregsarg:
No worries Troy. ...

Take all the time you need.....

I do appreciate the excellent testing you have undertaken. I know that the results are going to benefit the community.

And i am highly intrigued by your first run under the parameter set you've chosen...

It's leading down the exact path that i suspected. ..

I'll talk with you soon. ...g
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] gregsarg:
A few additional items that I have failed to consider during my testing, could weigh heavily on our testing results and should be considered during testing.

They are, battery power levels, charger connection and type....(wall/PC), and rom power save levels.

I do know that the android OS will adjust itself during varying power levels, much like our setting the CPU to UC/UV settings, only on a much smaller scale.

I feel its important that we are able to control the input levels in the following way...

Battery to full charge, with no charger connection, and if the cable is needed we use a non powered port. Next would be controlling the rom power settings if the rom contains them, as found in most GB and ICS builds.

If these baselines are met, we should be able to greater rely on the mark scores we are seeing. These variables could explain why we continue to see so many peaks and valleys in scores when two users share the same builds, on like devices.....(speculation)..

Additionally, are we able to control the background processes to the extent, they will remain constant for testing?

Sorry for the rant.....Im just concerned about the ability to quantify our findings once testing is complete.

Ive started some tests on my end as well, and certainly do not want to give you the impression that I expect you to do all of the work.

After all, you did ask first....lol and I feel like Im dumping this effort into your lap.

And please forgive my pathetic punctuation in this post, as my keyboard of choice decided to fail tonight....g
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] troyolson92:
Battery does effect performance greatly.... Also noticed none of the apps to test are very repeatable. Fluctuation seemed to be about 100.

Having issues up loading pics from phone, I'm away from laptop for a few days.

In the end i found -12 v single core to provide the best battery and performance that was equal to dual core. I tried over under voting many differences.... over voting did nothing, under voting a little made small preformance improvements. I believe some of fluctuations are related to app, battery, etc.... In the end it's too say dual core has no speed improvement. I would be cool to test an app that it's specifically for dual core. I am better off without the second core speed is same anyway, and battery is much better. There is definitely voltage leakage..

Let me know what y'all find in your tests....
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] gregsarg:
Outstanding !!

I appreciate the hard work !!

So it seems we are better off using the note running a single core and about 12mv under volt.

And I'm of the belief that our second core is rather pointless...unless it can be proven that the second core is absolutely needed to perform a function.

And so far, I haven't found anything I use that requires activation of the second core.

I'll continue my tests, but the way it looks now, Intel is right, and Samsung pushed a dual core chip to this device for nothing more than a market share increase. As it is quite clear that the device does "not " need it to function well, and at a Very respectable speed.

Now we have a quad core version, and I highly question the motivation behind that move, beyond marketing as well.

These statements may offend some, and folks will certainly disagree, but if you want a great running device and great battery life, you need a single core chip ...IMHO ....g