yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[XPERIA X1 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] ju76:
hi members,

i search for 2 hours and cannot find a way to got my original os.nb files. i like to make a rom of my original firmware bevor i flash the phone with another version.

please help me in this case or is not importend what file i take for os.nb?

if i start the KovskyKitchen there is only standing i need the part1 and 2 and one nb file, but the script like to copy files and this does not exist. in the ervius package tool+buildos you can not open the folder, without this files.

please give ma a hint.

kind regards

ju

Solution: use any rom image from here for got the missing os.nb and rename it to RUU_Signed.nbh. it must only a complete nbh - rom.
[General Questions and Answers] TheMystic:
I have seen that the space occupied by 'System' is different for different storage sizes of the same device.

My Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra shows space occupied by system as over 50 GB. Mine is the 512 GB variant (Snapdragon). While I don't remember how much it was out of the box, but it has been somewhere in that region throughout.

But the space occupied by S22U 256 GB variant is much lower, at around 30 GB for the same region.

View attachment 5835035

Can someone explain why this is different?

In this context, Samsung's OneUI is probably the most bloated version of Android. Even though there is some explanation (about 7% conversion loss) as to why System on Samsung devices shows a very high use of storage space (it apparently includes the 7% conversion loss), it still doesn't explain why the System size is substantially different between different storage variants of the same device.

References:

Not True- 60 GB OS Occupy on the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

You may already know about 60 GB OS Occupy on the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra from popular News Sites. But that is not accurately correct. The claim that

www.androidinfotech.com

One UI 5.1 bloatware does NOT take up 60GB storage on the Galaxy S23 series

It turns out One UI 5.1 bloatware does not take up 60GB system storage on the Galaxy S23 phones. Here's an explanation.

www.androidauthority.com
[General Questions and Answers] alecxs:
download the ROM from samfw or samloader, extract it and see what is inside. I bet even when converted into raw partition images the system is around 4 GB only. therefore what you mean with System is actually userdata or something different.
[General Questions and Answers] TheMystic:
User files, app data, etc. are shown separately.
[General Questions and Answers] alecxs:
check the output of df what is the total size of system partition. check space occupied on userdata partition.

df -h /
df -h /data
[General Questions and Answers] TheMystic:
My device isn't rooted. Not sure if these terminal commands would work.

Doing a bit of math, here are the numbers:

The 7% computational difference means:

For 512 GB variant, about 36 GB is included in the System classification, which means the OS itself is only about 14 GB, which is along expected lines.

For 256 GB variant, 7% is about 18 GB, so if Storage Analysis shows System as occupying about 32 GB, this will confirm the OS itself is only about 14 GB, which is same as above. Someone with a 256 GB variant would be able to confirm this.

Likewise, the 128 GB variant should show System as occupying 23 GB and 1 TB variant should show System as occupying 86 GB.

Hopefully people with these storage variants can confirm this.

Samsung should ideally provide more details (breakdown) on what makes up the space shown against System as OS Files and Others.
[General Questions and Answers] alecxs:
the df cmd doesn't need root. you could easily figured out from any terminal emulator.
[General Questions and Answers] alecxs:
I checked this ROM and the super partition is 12G only.

https://samfw.com/firmware/SM-S908U/TMB/S908USQU2CWAI

Doing a bit of math, here are the numbers:

12G - 9.3G = 2.6G reserved

the system partition is only 6.1G (haven't checked f2fs file system, it's less). so obviously what you see as System is actually stored on userdata partition. I assume the ROM is the same for all variants of storage 128/256/512G, so the system partition is therefore also the same size.

ubuntu@ubuntu:/mnt/c/Android/Backup/SM-S908U/AP_S908USQU2CWAI_S908USQU2CWAI_MQB61793398_REV00_user_low_ship_MULTI_CERT_meta_OS13/super$ ls -lh
total 9.3G
-rwxrwxrwx 1 ubuntu ubuntu 21M Feb 13 21:21 odm.img
-rwxrwxrwx 1 ubuntu ubuntu 1.1G Feb 13 21:21 product.img
-rwxrwxrwx 1 ubuntu ubuntu 6.1G Feb 13 21:13 system.img
-rwxrwxrwx 1 ubuntu ubuntu 236M Feb 13 21:21 system_ext.img
-rwxrwxrwx 1 ubuntu ubuntu 1.8G Feb 13 21:18 vendor.img
-rwxrwxrwx 1 ubuntu ubuntu 53M Feb 13 20:58 vendor_dlkm.img

btw the 7 % "loss" isn't about occupied space at all, it's simply the "difference" between GB <=> GiB (but it's the same size only different unit)

1000^3 (GB) Gigabyte != 1024^3 (GiB) Gibibyte

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte

In other words your phone comes with 512 GB = 476.8 GiB storage. and that marketing naming is same for each and every storage we buy, be it pendrive, MicroSD card or HDD disk drive, not a Samsung thing...
[General Questions and Answers] TheMystic:
That's true. This question arose because the built-in storage analyzer shows different values for different storage variants of the same device (same region).

Yes, it's just a question of units.

The value shown against System is basically the unaccounted difference, which is a mathematical computation of the total storage size minus the sum of all other allocations (classifications).
[General Questions and Answers] alecxs:
Okay, think I got it. I had to read whole thread including links again twice...

so what they claim is basically

- Samsung is mixing up different units GB - GiB

- System is not even sum of existing files, but

- System is just calculated by subtracting all the non-system files (rest)

or in other words, the storage app is lying. whoever has coded this.

still I think 20 G is too much compared to 6 G system partition, maybe that is dalvik ART cache of extracted system apks (and their respective apps data) counted all together.

someone with rooted device should count all system files on userdata partition to clarify. the tool already comes with toybox du
[General Questions and Answers] WoKoschekk:
@TheMystic Find attached the partition table of the S22U taken from the PIT file. All partitions except /userdata are summarized as "Android OS". The /userdata starts at block 3.574.272 and ends with the last free adress block. With a block size of 4K /userdata starts at 14.640.218.112 byte (13,6GiB, which is the occupied storage by Android OS)

Taken from 2nd URL:

That's not correct. You can't loose storage due to conversion. If someone runs 1 mile and another one 1,609 km then nobody runs more than the other. Loss of storage would mean 512GB are converted into 476,84GiB and then turned into 476,86GB. That would be indeed a real loss but it's incorrect.

There's also no lost space. The first 256 and the last 34 blocks (512 byte) are reserved for the GPT. Then your bootloader begins at block 256 and the last partition has to end at (last block - 34). Only the single partitions have a rest of unused space at the end. But that's a few kb and quite normal.

The most informations inside the 1st link are nonsense...

Starting with this

Sorry, that's not a number when using more than one comma.

Awesome!! The official binary unit for GB is GiB. Then 256GB are 238,4GiB (<= and this is the binary and not the decimal unit!!).

From the mentioned arstechnica.com page:

From that point I refused to read any further.

How can a partition on a physical storage become bigger without changing the size of any other partition?

Or how does the stored data on a partition effects the entire amount of the available storage? When I create a 10GB partition on a 100GB physical storage I've a second one of 90GB. No matter what I stored on the 10GB the other is still 90GB. So, the size of /system is always the same!

Back to the 1st link:

I love this guy! Pre-installed apps are called system apps (mostly) because their APK is saved on a system partition. Since those partitions are r/o we can't uninstall them. But if we could, it won't turn any byte on your device into an usuable for you. It's still a system partition mounted r/o and already summarized as Android OS in your storage overview.

Next thing is that neither system apps nor any bloatware (however, who should say an app is bloatware? Should Android decide it on its own "Oh yeah, this app is definitely bloatware! Categorize it as "System" storage, please") could occupy storage as "System". On /data partition it's determinated that the paths ~/app, ~/data and ~/user_de are the OS' app directories. All entries are summarized as "Apps" and that's it.

No, they can't. If they are stored on your device, then it will be on /cache. Since Samsung is still using A-only partitioning scheme an OTA-update requires to be installed from recovery. But you can't access /data from your stock recovery and it wouldn't make any sense to store the update on it.

Those files are max. 1GB. Only system apps without any updates need /data/dalvik-cache/. The updated ones store their APKs and the odexed Java code in /data/app. Furthermore the libraries and some other storage occupying stuff from the APKs are not part of the dalvik-cache.
[General Questions and Answers] TheMystic:
That's true. The issue is they have used GB and GiB inconsistently.

Also, what is reported under 'System' is just a balancing figure, i.e. total storage minus sum of all other classifications.

The storage used by 'System' does vary for different storage variants of the same device model, but that difference is due to unit conversion. And where the system file manager isn't able to classify a particular file properly, it tends to include them under 'System', which causes more variation. I wonder why they even have a dedicated classification called 'Other files'.

Ideally, they should have a breakdown for 'System' to show the storage occupied by the OS (which should be identical for all storage variants of the same device model), and space occupied by System Files/ Data.

Anything else should go under 'Other files' and the Storage Analyser should list these files by size/ location. There is plenty of scope for improvement in how this tool displays information.
[General Questions and Answers] WoKoschekk:
No, there are fixed rules for classification that are stated in the AOSP.

See attached file, infos are taken from the firmware.
[General Questions and Answers] WoKoschekk:
There is no marketing issue or sth similar and there is no conversion issue. If you have 40GB in System then there is 40GB occupied by OS and system related files. No matter if GB or GiB. Occupied is occupied.

Edit: The attached pit file is valid for every model
[General Questions and Answers] TheMystic:
Then Samsung doesn't seem to be following it properly.

So the OS itself is 13.63 GB?

Check this out:

https://xdaforums.com/t/solved-difference-in-system-storage-in-march-update.4571055/
[General Questions and Answers] WoKoschekk:
I checked this out. But where do I find the proof for loss of storage due to conversion? Where is the proof for different occupied storage by system on all the different variants? All I can see is a single statement refering to this thread:
[General Questions and Answers] WoKoschekk:
Yes
[General Questions and Answers] TheMystic:
There is no loss as such, but just that the space occupied by 'System' as shown by the built-in tool is a lot more than the actual space used by the OS and System Files.

I don't have proof to show you now. You may find it on the internet. But it is a fact. The space occupied by 'System' as shown by the built-in tool is indeed significantly different for different storage variants of the exact same device. The reasons have been mentioned in the OP and the comments section.
[General Questions and Answers] WoKoschekk:
How do you know that?

Because you can find it online...? Mmh... A detailed listing of those files would be helpful. But only a comparison of devices that are running since weeks/months says nothing.
[General Questions and Answers] TheMystic:
I have the details for my device (see attachments). As you would see, space occupied by 'System' has remained constant at 50.4 GB over the last 1 year of several updates. As you said, the OS is only about 14 GB. Which means the rest is basically difference in units used.

I have confirmed the different values reported between different storage variants of the exact same device. I don't have screenshots to show you now, but this is indeed true. The explanation for the difference is provided in comment #5.

The built-in tool doesn't provide a breakup for this value. But as mentioned in comment #5, the excess is mostly due to conversion of units.
[General Questions and Answers] alecxs:
Nope. That's why I wrote I had to read it twice ;)
[General Questions and Answers] WoKoschekk:
All informations about any system value are only provided by the system itself. Those infos/values are not accessible for any other app or UI. A file browser app for example isn't reading the file system to get all those files and folders. What you see there is a more user friendly view of /data/data/com.android.providers.media/database/external.db. That's just provided by Android.

Executing (adb shell) dumpsys diskstats provides all information as shown in your built-in storage overview. Not in KB, not in MB and not in binary values. Storage numbers are shown in Byte. The corresponding file to that is located in /data/system/diskstats_cache.json

See https://android.googlesource.com/pl...java/com/android/server/DiskStatsService.java

There is no need for Samsung to convert sth since all values are taken from system. To get the classification "System", a file must met special defined criteria, e.g. only accessible by system. Only 4 folders on /data (~/app ~/data ~/media ~/user_de) are not only accessible by system. All the rest is only accessible by system and therefore a part of "System".

Neither Samsung nor Google will publish a code that declares unallocated storage space as a part of "System". That would be absolutely necessary for your statement to be correct.
[General Questions and Answers] alecxs:
But that's obviously exactly what we're dealing with.
[General Questions and Answers] TheMystic:
The system is reporting in GiB, but Samsung's built-in tool is reporting those values as GB, instead of GiB. This is the problem. The values you see against each category are all in GiB, but Samsung's Storage Analyser tool is incorrectly showing the unit as GB. The end result is that the value reported against 'System' includes the unit differences of all the categories, and makes it look much bigger than it actually is.

There is also a new issue with the latest update of Samsung's My Files app as I showed in the other post. The newest update is now also counting the space occupied by .apks files under System. Ideally, these should be counted as 'Installation Files' as these are split APKs. All previous builds of My Files app counted them under 'Other files'. But to now classify them under 'System' shows that this built-in tool requires a lot of rework to be done.
[General Questions and Answers] WoKoschekk:
No, look inside the system. There is no GiB
[General Questions and Answers] TheMystic:
How do I look there?
[General Questions and Answers] WoKoschekk:
No one reports sth in GiB or GB. I linked the source code. Look inside. Grab a logcat or a kernel log. Nowhere is sth reported in GiB or GB regarding your storage overview.
[General Questions and Answers] alecxs:
@WoKoschekk please calculate yourself. what is wrong with that picture? ;)
[General Questions and Answers] TheMystic:
Can you explain why System is showing as occupying 50.4 GB in my phone? I think it is because of that 7% conversion difference caused by GB and GiB. If you take it out, System would occupy about 14 GB, which is exactly what the file you attached also says.
[General Questions and Answers] WoKoschekk:
There are 50GB occupied because you have 36GB files on your device categorized as System. That's it. Turn on ADB and run the command:

adb shell dumpsys diskstats. Then you'll see the occupied storage reported by the system. No conversion, no unknown allocated space. The real numbers in Byte.
[General Questions and Answers] TheMystic:
The problem is probably with Android itself reporting incorrect figures.

Check out the storage stats fresh out of the box:

System is about 10 GB and apps about 1.2 GB.

I transferred 3.5 GB music to my phone's internal storage, and from there moved them to the microSD card. The storage reported System as 6.5 GB and Audio as 3.5 GB (even though the audio files were not in the internal storage). Do note that the total storage used in internal storage was being reported correctly; only the break-up shown was wrong.

I transferred a lot of music files again to my microSD card. This time copied directly to the microSD card. Now look at the stats reported:

System is now showing as 1.1 GB. :ROFLMAO:

The total storage used in internal storage is still showing correctly as 14 GB. The breakdown should be System 10 GB and Apps 4 GB. But the actual allocation shown is wrong for System, Audio and Documents & Others.
[General Questions and Answers] wale0000:
It depends on what you install and what you do with the system, lets imagine you install a lot of app, well all this apps save and write data in their own unique way, and it can be different for everyone because we all use the phone in different ways, my galaxy a52s says im using 20 gb for system, and its because im constantly optimizing my phone and keeping it clean, despite using atleast 50 apps every month
[General Questions and Answers] TheMystic:
Apps have to follow guidelines and are not free to write data any way they please.

And app data doesn't count under System. They have a separate category called Apps which accounts for the space occupied by installed apps.

There is a bug in Android that isn't doing the classification properly. The matter is made worse when OEMs use the info provided by the operating system to present info in their own unique ways.
[Palm Treo 750] mkalbouneh:
i am doing exactly what everyone says, tried most of the stuff on here and else where!!

using the cheetah unlocker this is what happens

-Establish a WMDC(Vista) or Activeysnc connection(XP)

-Confirm this!

-Start the unlocker program on your PC.

-Click "Flash SPL" (Step 1)

-Click "Yes"

-On the Treo you are prompted to allow the install of itsutils.dll and jumpspl.exe. Say YES to both.

*****The Treo will reboot. Don't click anything on the PC until the treo is back up and a WMDC/AS connection is re-established

it doesnt prompt me to install itsutils.dll and jumpspl.exe.

so i go through the steps and when its done its still locked

it works with out a sim card, but when i put my t-mobile sim i get you have tried 15 times and you have to wait for timout or something like that

can anyone help me??

i tried some other stuff like JumpSPL but its asking for address and i dont know what is the right one

bottom line its not my phone, its my friend and i am afraid i am gonna brick it!!

:)
[Palm Treo 750] mkalbouneh:
bump, anyone??
[Networking] wolframio74:
any knows a way to get IE go out by Socks? my operator give me free MSN, i can use Outlook for mail too, even i can use Opera mini (JAVA, go out by Socks), but i cant surf with a normal browser like IE or Opera Mobile... Regards!!!
[Networking] orb3000:
have you tried with Skyfire: http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=363205

or Net fornt 3.5: http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=367165

Hope it helps,
[General Questions and Answers] james_lpool:
Hi, I use Firefox on my Samsung S21 ultra, I am soon getting a Samsung S23 ultra. I have my account synced, so I know it will save the bookmarks and site passwords. I am assuming sync doesn't include app settings, shortcuts I have created on front screen and collecting I have made? Is there any way to back them up, so I can move them across?

Regards

James
[Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra] Mishuletz:
Hi guys. I am trying to use my Realme buds wireless pro with LDAC codec on my s23 ultra but I can't change it from aac. What do you think? I tried to do this in developer options. I really appreciate your advise.
[Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra] Jaxom84:
LDAC is available as an option (I use Sony WF-1000XM4), but as soon as I select it, the modal is closed and the codec switches back to AAC. I suspect it to be a firmware issue, as my S22 Ultra (Exynos) was able to use the LDAC with those headphones and my Audio-Technica ATH-M50xBT2 without issues (I haven't tried the latest on the S23 Ultra yet, though). 🤔
[Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra] Mishuletz:
It works for me now 🙂
[Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra] Jaxom84:
Great, at least for one of us. 😅

Normally, my WF-1000XM4 are able to switch automatically from AAC to LDAC depending on the priority you set (connection's stability for AAC and audio fidelity for LDAC), but LDAC seems to not be currently reachable. I'll quickly check around to see if I missed something. 🤔

Edit: I tried a few things but nothing seems to be able to solve this for now. I'll compensate with the Dolby Atmos until a solution appears.
[Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra] Mishuletz:
Sony must have an app for your buds. Look if you find it and try in settings of this app.

Good luck!
[Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra] KasyaDMHH:
Is LDAC activated in Settings - Connections - Bluetooth - WF-1000XM4?
[Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra] Mishuletz:
I think that is what you have to do..
[Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra] Jaxom84:
Exactly that! So dumb of me... Thanks for the reminder. 😊

Yes, the Sony Headphones app was already set up for LDAC, it was just a mistake from my side to haven't checked the Bluetooth profile of the WF-1000XM4. 😅

Thanks for your help, guys. 🫡
[Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra] amirage:
Comrades, if you guys got the galaxy buds 2 pro, you really must give it a try. God damn, they sound sweet and can easily give the XM4 a run for their money. You may need to change the tips to those with the XM4s..the stock buds tips are garbage.
[Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra] Jaxom84:
I kept the ones offered as "S23 Ultra early-adopter" bonus for my wife, but I assume the proprietary codec from Samsung is doing fine? I'll ask her to let me try them to have a comparison, though. 🫡

But for someone looking for a new pair of TWS (and outside of the launch offer), I would still recommend the WF-1000XM4. They are quite discounted, these days, so as the price range is pretty close I'm not sure that the Buds 2 Pro are that comparable (overall specs), especially since the multi-point has been confirmed to arrive soon (during winter, if Sony keeps its word). 🤔

But thanks for the recommendation, it tickled my interest!
[Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra] amirage:
I have the Sony WF-1000XM4, WH-1000XM4, and now the Galaxy Buds 2 Pro and believe me the earphones sound astounding. I have the scalable codec enabled and it really gives LDAC a run for its money. The sound imaging is extremely detailed compared to the XM4s - I listen to Tidal with Master enabled (although Master is meant for wired listening, but at BT levels, it transmits at the highest bitrate). The only issue is the extreme battery drain - I have been listening for 40 mins and the battery has drained 13% already! On that note, the XM4s are champions.
[Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra] Jaxom84:
If my wife begins to complain that I "borrow" her Buds 2 Pro too often, consider it'll be your fault. 🤣

Jokes aside, that's pretty sad that Samsung didn't include LDAC in these, as it would be more versatile and consumer-friendly (although I perfectly understand the "golden cage" move, as Apple does the very same with its own ecosystem of products).
[Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra] Joloxx9:
Hold on, do you want to tell me that Buds 2 Pro are better than WF-1000XM4?