[MDA III, XDA III, PDA2k, 9090 Software Upgrading] Tuatara:
Cheers ... there is quite a lot of work (and research) involved in improving a ROM version. Bug fixing when you don't have source code is particularly troublesome. Even just ensuring that a ROM will operate smoothly with updated components requires a LOT of testing, and a LOT of patience.

Ivan's ROM is based on the leaked WM5 BA Build from MS. This ROM base was significantly improved and bugs fixed by mamaich and others from the original leak. This was done through 5 or 6 iterations of ROM releases, resulting in the 'base' ROM which Ivan is using: WM5 5.1.1700 build 14343 ROM version 3 (actually 3.1 with the appropriate patches applied).

Later, mamaich released his v1, then v2, and v2a BA -> Wizard Port. This ROM base again is based on the WM5 5.1.1700 build 14343 ROM version 3 boot XIP section (hence the version number), however the application/OS layer from the Wizard has been modified to be compatible. Instead of requiring the older MS "dogfood" ROM components, newer "commercially released" components are used.

In essence, the 'boot' section of the ROM still remains WM5 5.1.1700 build 14343. This XIP (eXecute In Place) section is (mostly) the same for TuMa and for Ivan's ROM. We can not change this base (much), as this is specifically compiled for the device itself, and contains the boot-up hardware specific code required. We can 'hex edit' portions, correct some settings, and attempt to fix/change some elements (which TuMa does) ... but introducing large changes is impossible without the platform source code.

The answer to this is YES and NO. Ivan's ROM is exclusively 5.1.1700, Build 14343 ... Whereas TuMa is using 5.1.1700 to boot from, and then running 5.1.70, build 14409 as the main OS from the Wizard 1.6.7 ROM ... well ... mostly. Add a chunk of Himalaya, and a splash of JasJar, Atom, and Acer ... and you'll get TuMa v1.4 (unless I get the core of AKU2 up and running shortly - then it'll be mostly Himalaya :D).

So ... in essence ...

* Ivan: Windows CE - Built on Feb 23 2005 (5.1.1700, Build 14343)

* TuMa: Windows CE - Built on Sep 5 2005 (5.1.70, build 14409)

It is ... and I could change the version number to be appropriate ... but there really is no need. It's only cosmetic. But then again, we're still limited by the XIP boot section in the device. (more on this in a moment) ...

There is ... however the AKU2 update has a few issues (memory leaks), and additionally we have a much better 'match' for BA devices now in the Himalaya AKU2 ROM. However, it's now apparent (mamaich, myself, and bepe have attempted ROM Ports), and we know that there are some core elements in the XIP sections specifically for the device which need to be updated or modified for compliance. This is a huge undertaking, given we have no sources (or a another leaked AKU2 build for BA :cry:).

As I said before ... R5.1 is built on a different compile. TuMa v1.3 is predominantly OMAP with Wizard 1.6.7 as it's ROM base, Ivan's is the original XScale leak, with patches and fixes and further updates. They are two very different ROMs, eventhough they share the same boot code. Ivan's ROM also does not utilise Direct Draw, have any D3D support, and is missing a number of the later elements added. Of course ... adding things will (predominantly) slow down a device.

"Clean Device Syndrome" is definately at play here too. Comparing a multi-week old device's speed to a brand new flashed ROM ... no matter how good your memory is ... it WILL always seem faster. Alone having the Flash memory available for immediate storage (i.e. formatted) makes all the difference!

So, the question which really should be asked - do you care about 'speed' or 'features'?

For speed, it is obviously best to go for WM2003SE - No WM5 features. Next then would be the Original Leaked BA ROM - standard WM5 features (Ivan's, mamaich's, etc.), following that would be the Wizard Port - most WM5 features (mamaich's, TuMa, ???).

Within each of those categories you've got your 'performance tweaks'. Many will speed up your device in the SHORT term, others will keep it humming along nicely for the the LONG term. As the end-user, it's up to you to decide which you want, or which you need.

To address everyone's 'concerns' over speed ... while TuMa v1.4 (soon - very soon) will again be noticably faster than v1.3, the performance has been DELIBRATELY adjusted so as to MAINTAIN the same performance speed over time. This is to avoid the classic slow-down problems plaguing most devices.

Personally, I want a rock-solid, robust, reliable and continually usable device - not necessarily something which runs fast for a week or two, and then becomes slow as mud. I don't have the time to hard-reset my device all the time, and then spend hours reconfiguring it - which is why I'm using two BA's for development of TuMa, and my Himalaya has remained my main phone unchanged now for many months. Once the BA is to my liking, I'll switch over, and then it's probably the Himalaya's turn - but I'll probably just tweak TofClock's 'latest and greatest' ROM from buzzdev with the changes I want applied.

Man ... I must be in a 'ranting' mood these past few days ... *sigh* ... apologies.

Well ... for Ivan, mamaich and myself ... it's probably entirely for the "love" of it, and (speaking for myself - in my case) for personal gain. I just want my $#@$#!!! phone to work properly. :!:

Oh ... by the way, the news from one alpha tester: it appears that A2DP and Avrcp is working in TuMa v1.4 ... more testing will be required to absolutely confirm this. (I wish I'd bought a BT Stereo headset now) ...