yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] arcadia2112:
Hack`

As I worked with top IT guys in the past , involved in Office Online and such I experienced it is possible to overclock though you may blow up the notebook and or desktop and I guess the same goes for the PDA, at least it will decrease the life of your PDA. Can anyone advice me to start a Cook, I want to create a pure business useable ROM no games etc, based upon the latest

developments. looking forward hearing from you, in the case of succes I will certainly share:)
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] elyl:
Hex is the file, there is nothing that can be hidden when compared in hex, that is the code which runs on the machine at its most basic level.

This thread gives me an idea for creating a new ROM. Elyl's ROM with Super Snake Oil hack. Keep checking this forum for release date... :)

I don't want to flame, but I call bull**** on this "hack" and agree that it was a great idea to get people to download kholk's ROM, but it is basically misleading people. Perhaps the processor does only scale to 700MHz, but it seems clear this "modified" file does not change that.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] freyberry:
No, that's not how science works. As a physicist, let me explain how science works:

First of all, no theory is EVER considered true. No good scientist will EVER claim to have found "the truth".

The point of a theory is to make accurate preditions of the outcome of experiments. As long as a theory does that, it's a good theory.

Any good theory is "valid" only until there is an experiment that proves it false (i.e. that shows results different from those predicted by the theory).
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] firaX:
However, it needs to be proven valid FIRST. This has not happened here.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] freyberry:
That's true.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] huggy_72:
your definitions on the assessment of a theory are interesting

but not focus on the problem

the problem is not whether or not the processor goes to 1GHz

the problem for me is a user says he has created a hack

shares it with the community and the community examines it and discovers that it has not been changed

If this is not a theory

then

the hack has never been created

or

the hack has never been shared

however, it is misconduct

are free not to share your works

but I find it insulting mockery of a comunity

or has shared the wrong file by mistake

and has the obligation to clarify
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] appelflap:
Interesting discussion. First of all I think kholk, the creator of the supposed hack, has to be given the benefit of the doubt. Not because he invented the "hack", but because of his commitment to a general cause that motives many here, and that is to create better software for a phone.

How he is committed to this cause, can be subject to many speculations :) That is not interesting. What is interesting is what he has created. Now, actually I think freyberry is right in saying that a theory is proved as long as the predictions deduced from a theory are confirmed. The problem of cause is, how to select those predictions. A prediction as the device "feels" faster isn't a interesting test-case, because that's easily confirmed (or what's the same: that is difficult to falsify). What is interesting is a predictor that can actually be falsified with "objective" experiments. If a predictor passes such tests, the theory has a better change to be accepted by a community (imo more "objective" than this a theory can't get, but that's a different story).

One of the least suprising prediction (I thought initially, when I was reading the first time of kholks conjecture) of the 1GHz-hack theory is that the hack at least resulted in a difference of some system files. This turns out to be not the case, as far as I know. This makes a very uninteresting prediction suddenly very interesting... And what more interesting, is the reaction of kholk in this thread. His answer was that we have to look better, as far as he is concerned, the difference is actually there. Without any suggestions about the direction of where to look at, he goes on to defend his "theory". Now that is a practice that in my opinion is highly "unscientific" or "objective". The same will be said by a truth-predictor, mind-reader or a "uri geller" type of guy/woman. I find that suspicious, and only because of this statement done by khelk I totally abandon his theory. He doesn't live up to the objective criteria the community has defined. Yes, I think that khok has an obligation here to respond to the statements that falsify his theory. (And no I don't think that the reference to Bepe and Cotulla's hack isn't appropriate here. In kholks case there is no reason at all to keep anything secret )

That are my 2cents as a user. I will never try out a ROM with a ORACLE cooked in... :D
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] bobsbbq:
Very interesting theory. Well I think that there has been enough comparing the files to determine that they are just stock files, and in so saying the fix which was given to public for share is a fake, CONFIRMED again and again. It is also similar to the drivers advertisement in Khok's thread. After further investigation the Ati V2-z430 drivers are also simply our stock drivers from 1.66, and 2.02. Clever marketing if you ask me. The drivers from our stock device are not so bad after all. And they work good with chainfires patch.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] mnet:
The modules are different because they are simply relocated.

Let me explain:

The difference between a module and the dll obtained by recmoding is that the module is run a predefined memory space, while in the case of the dll the memory space is allocated upon runtime. What kholk did was to relocate the original 1.66 msm_clk.dll module into a different memory space, thereby changing some regions of the file. He then claimed that this new file was hacked to 1GHz, when in reality there is absolutely no difference in the function between the two files.

This is how you can reproduce his fake hack:
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] faisalee:
Hi Bob,

Best would be to generate a Checksum of the two files! I am not very sure about BC, have only used it to compare Source code till date :p

Get hold of a free checksum utility and do a checksum of both! if even a bit changed will be reflected in the "numbers" :)

EDIT: Just saw the recmode thingy... please ignore :p

Cheers,

Faisal.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] bobsbbq:
That has already been done too, not by me but someone else and posted in his thread, and they were the same.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] X1-owner:
You have determined that the two dlls are code identical. kholk insists that the hack is valid. What if it is possible for both of those to be true? What if HTC has capped the speed, but they need an easy way to enable full speed for internal testing? I agree with others that kholk is being unnecessarily, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's lying.

As far as I know, this is what kholk has stated:

The hack is real.

The uploaded file is correct.

You cannot recmod the file.

What he HAS NOT said is that that he has changed any executable code in the dll.

Thee is also the testimony from anja31 who claims noticable speed gains in some areas.

Maybe the sped cap is not implemented in this dll, but in some other code that during boot checks for some information about this dll and that the dll is in the ROM, not replaced later. If so, I'm sure that code could be hacked instead, but this is perhaps more complex, and more importantly, maybe will not work universally on modules from different releases.

Why would HTC do it this way?

Well, one obvious advantage is that this cap can be turned on or off without changing ANY code. Just change information about ONE dll, no matter what version it is or what code it contains, the cap will be on or off. It also makes it impossible for users to easily turn it on or off if it has to be included in the ROM. If it was in the registry, then anyone could change it, and it might be easier for hackers to discover.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] mnet:
If after all this you still believe that the HD2 is not really clocked at 1GHz then I am sorry to say that you are stupid

This rumor was started single-handedly by kholk in order to promote his ROM. See this thread.

He provided ZERO evidence that HTC is lying and that the HD2 is not really clocked at 1GHZ

Then he posts a hack that has been confirmed fake.

I can't believe someone would spread so much misinformation just to promote a ROM.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] bobsbbq:
You are right about one thing maybe he did not share the right files or the hack at all. Which is not to good to do to your fellow chefs. It is obvious you don't know much about how dll's work or you would understand you can't make a apple out of a orange. The file is a file .dll converted to a module for implementation in XIP. I'm not going to go in to how or why modules are used but do a search if you want to know more. There is nothing in the file he shared that is going to do anything more than a stock 1.66 ROM will do. Just because Kholk says the hack is valid, are you supposed to believe it. I hope you open up your eyes and use some common sense to know you are being fooled. How many of us have to prove it to you.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] seatone:
Do someone knows about the 2 GHz hack? :D:D
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] appelflap:
HKCU\Hacks\enable2GHz=1

It really works! try it.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] HD2Owner:
just a thought:

what if the rom's speed (the real and yet unrevealed 1ghz trigger) is dependent on the memory-allocation of msm_clk.dll (only the module; not how it works but where it's allocated)??

maybe that's the reason for his clam that the hack is working/real....

htc could use the already 1024mhz enabled dll file (1.66stock dll file) and just relocate the according module to access various "scaling"-profiles.......

also makes sense (but i don't like it) for htc to hold back some mhz (but false-advertising as 1024mhz) in the initial 1.43/1.48/1.66 roms for better reviews (only 1230mAh; battery-life...).
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] secoseco:
yes you can,

Get 2 LEO and Hack every one with 1 Ghz Hack, In this case would have 2 Ghz hack
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] barbapappa_86:
Dual Core :eek:
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] Ultimaex:
wow nice. I will try the 2GHz Hack tomorrow :D
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] elyl:
I don't see any practical reason why HTC would set it up this way. Memory mapping and allocation will likely change in each build. To enable the extra speed based on something so arbitrary (and likely to change) is just illogical.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] bobsbbq:
If you believe this then I have some Ocean front property in Arizona I would like to sell you. You are obviously not thinking with a clear mind. The .dll is coded to work and do it's job. If you were going to change it's job you would rewrite it now wouldn't you. Placing it in a different allocated space is like moving one of your pictures in my documents to your D:\ Pictures. It will still open and show you the same picture from there or any other location. I'm sorry but you are to gullible.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] 4tune:
I also tested the stock dll and recmoded hacked module on a hex level and found no difference. What puzzles me is this. Why does kholk give us a supposedly hacked module which is so easily uncovered as fake?

I mean, he might have reasons to put forward his "hack", for instance promoting his ROM, but this attempt to share is almost an insult to other great chefs. I don't consider kholk as stupid, so why this (what seems like) decoy.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] vijay555:
Guys, this thread might need to be left quiet for a while, it seems that everything that needs to be said has been said, and until there is more benchmarking, let's stop going around in circles.

I think the debate has been relatively polite and vigorous, much like my baby making efforts, but also like my baby making, the results seem inconclusive...

I'm sure the debate has raised expectations on the next Kholk roms, and that's what's great about the xda devs!

V
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] Audio Oblivion:
In my opinion... this debate has not raised expectations of Kholks roms. In actual fact i think this whole debacle has completely obliterated his credibility. There are only two possible scenarios here as i see it... the hack exists and kholk has "released" a decoy for others to cook... or the hack doesnt exist. Either way... its pretty poor form from someone wishing to be prominent in the xda community.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] ebliss:
This is quoted from the first post of his ROM thread...

Out of the 5 "features", the last 3 are not his work. They can be found in the forum itself. The first one, is not done, so, I wouldn't comment.

The 2nd "feature" claimed that the CPU scales to 768MHz without his "hack". Now, question is, how did he manage to measure that? And if he can indeed, using special program, measure it, then he should show it to people and at the same time, using that special program, to show the CPU scaling to 1GHz with his hack.

Shouldn't the mod be doing something regarding this type of misleading information (one without proof)?
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] gianton:
it would be nice to have a little app like cpu-z for windows.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] Martinhdk:
he does not claim that its his tweaks so he is only informing what his rom contains. Thats what all cooks do.... No problem with that!
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] MaRaHoX:
:(

Hey guys, stop this flame... Vijay said it 100% correct! Everything was said, now everything other is bull****.

And critics of ownership of functionalities is mean! Everybody does that! This community is based on sharing and this principles.

SO PLEASE guys, stop this and show little more dignity! Future will show...
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] iDance°-->ra1n:
i think that the hack works...can you tell me how i can install it? (i'm a noob)
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] wacky.banana:
Mod Warning

Just tidied up this thread and acted against certain individuals.

Can we please keep the debate civil, on topic, on track and in line with XDA forum rules.

I don't like closing threads. Just needs a little self control.

Thanks

WB
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] B4PJS:
Right, I have an Idea that may or may not work to Benchmark this:

By profession I am a DBA and I know that nothing hammers a CPU more than SQL can. All our devices have SQLCE on them so surely if someone knocked up a small app that had a timed SQL command to select and sort ddata from lets say a 1GB db (if you can have a CE DB that is that size) and this SQL command only used CTEs (only handled in memory and on the proc) to sort the data then the timings would should almost a 30% increase when using this hack. If someone can knock to gether an app to do this I am sure I can help with the SQL and providing a dummy DB.

Regards,

Barny
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] ei05035:
Possible way to measure CPU frequency

Actually this might work.

If we created a program that does a , say, 30 seconds long loop, and inside that loop it does a floating point operation and increases a counter each time it does, by the end of the 30 second loop, one could divide that counter by the number of seconds (in this case, 30 seconds) and obtain the number of FLOPS (Floating point Operations Per Second). Doing so, we could determine the gain of speed in percentage (dividing the FLOPS after by the flops before using the hack).

Waddya guys think? It's quite easily doable, just a dozen lines of code and voilá.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] maesus:
hmm, can the CPU benchmark tests in SPB mobile benchmark usable for this evaluation?it contains a couple of CPU intensive tests such as zip file compression,that should definitely scale with CPU clock speed,right? so anyone tested and can publish some results?
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] ShaDrac:
Measure CPU speed with this

Normaly I use a program like this to measure how much CPU I gain with Extendir but with some modifications it fits your need. :)

Just run the program from your phone and select how many loops it must do.

When done it show how long it took measured in performancecounters.

During the test your device appears frozen, this is because of the high CPU priority it gets so nothing else can interfere.

And for those who want to know:

Integer calculations in CPU register (cache) so memory bandwidth isn't a issue

Enjoy

ShaDrac
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] bobsbbq:
Thanks Shadrac for your App. I will be the first to test it and post my results here.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] bobsbbq:
Is lower score then Faster the CPU, or the other way around.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] bobsbbq:
Her are my test based on Shadrac CPU Test app. Run at 100000 loops. I don't know how to interpret the numbers but there is a difference. See the screen shots.

The photo on the left is using stock 2.07 msm_clk.dll, the one on the right is using the msm_clk.dll Kholk gaves us for the 1 ghz hack. Both ROM's built identical with changes only to the file mentioned above. Even though the files are binary identical there seems to be a difference in the test. If the lower number is in time and thus indicates faster performance then it seems to make a difference. I'm waiting to here from Shadrac on this. I would like another chef to also cook and post their results as to make the results more valid. And in the end if I'm wrong then I will be the first to apologize to Kholk.

EDIT the difference is about 23% between the 2 test
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] appelflap:
Thanks for doing this. Did you run a couple of tests and calculated the average or is this just the result of one run? If so, can you do more runs and publish the average? I think that is more reliable (you never know what could interfere with just 1 test run)
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] pen-pen:
Shadrac said that when the program is done, it show how long it took.

So the lower is the better.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] the_scotsman:
Thanks for posting this...

hmmm...can you maybe try a few more runs, to make sure the trend stays the same?

This will be pretty big news if it turns out to actually work lol...
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] faisalee:
I just tried the speed check utilility on the following freshly flashed roms:

1. Topix 1.3

2. Shock Star RC5

3. Eugina v1.1 with 1Ghz "Hack" (Latest)

All giving the same result:

Shock Star 1st: 100,000,000 loop => 1505093

Shock Star 2nd: 100,000,000 loop => 1505108

Shock Star 3rd: 100,000,000 loop => 1505090

Topix 1st: 100,000,000 loop => 1505090

Topix 2nd: 100,000,000 loop => 1505098

Topix 3rd: 100,000,000 loop => 1505010

Eugina 1Ghz 1st: 100,000,000 loop => 1505091

Eugina 1Ghz 2nd: 100,000,000 loop => 1505109

Eugina 1Ghz 3rd: 100,000,000 loop => 1505099

May be the tool dosent even hit the so called 768mhz mark and there is no need to scale all the way to 1ghz!?

Did I miss something? :-o

Cheers,

Faisal.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] the_scotsman:
I think the better test is to use the same ROM, with and without the "hack", just as bobsbbq has done. This will show the difference for certain.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] faisalee:
Agree :D

But why are the timings so similar between "normal" and "hacked" roms :o

I am totally confused now lol!
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] the_scotsman:
yea, that's a good question! :p
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] B4PJS:
Apparently my ROM is pretty good. Scores for three runs as follows (By the way, this is just using the standard dll. Will have to wait till I get home from work to try three runs with Kholks 'hack')

Run 1: 1505072

Run 2: 1505080

Run 2: 1505082

By the way I think this works out at around 900 MHz by using the following equation:

60/(100000000/1505072) * 1000 = 903.0432 Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

(100000000/1505072)= Time taken for one loop

---EDIT---

Something strange is going on here I just did the calculation on the patch results given by Bob:

(60 / (100[SIZE=-2] [/SIZE]000[SIZE=-2] [/SIZE]000 / 1[SIZE=-2] [/SIZE]156[SIZE=-2] [/SIZE]341)) * 1[SIZE=-2] [/SIZE]000 = 693.8046

I think there must be something wrong with my calculations but tis too early to tell what for it seems that kholks patch actually SLOWS DOWN the processing!!!
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] faisalee:
Not too sure about the formula but thats prety much the score I got from three roms including the one with 1ghz hack :)

I am forced to think, why would HTC scale the cpu only until 768mhz and scream all over the world about the 1ghz cpu!? I am still confused :o
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] seatone:
Yeah its pretty confusing (just to be kind...):

SHA1:

Original 1.66 msm_clk.dll: C47E3ECEDABD2DCB6A877FAD21974D34DDFA1068

"1ghz Hacked" msm_clk.dll: C47E3ECEDABD2DCB6A877FAD21974D34DDFA1068

Till now I've seen only proofs that it's a fake thing, the only proof for being true was some kinda feelings...that's all.

How can someone modify a file without changing SHA1 ?:confused:

And why would HTC lie in such a stupid manner? :confused:

This is why I say: it's just a hoax, nothing more.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] appelflap:
Maybe the hack will work on the HD mini, because that one is advertised as running way less then 1000MHz :D
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] anja31:
So I did it with my rom, exactly the same results bobsbbq have - so I will be the first to apologize to Kholk - there are difference. I don´t know if it brings difference for real life use but for first I can confirm that the files are different..

regards

Anja31
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] appelflap:
I never apologize to Kholk. I don't like someone to say the stuff I bought isn't really the stuff I bought without a firm proof. That's it.
[HD2 Windows Mobile 6.5 ROM Development] ShaDrac:
Very interesting results...

First 1 question: how long does it takes in seconds to complete the 100,000,000 test?

The result form the test is how long it takes to complete the loop, so lower means faster.

This is measured in "performancecounters".

These "performancecounters" have a base value for example 50000 counters per second while on another device this could be 20000 counters per second.

BUT since these "performancecounters" are programable (hardcoded?) I will update the CPU test later today so it also shows this base value.

Actualy it shouldn't make any difference since the calculations are done with such high CPU priority that even an defected hardware (excluding the cpu) or wrong drivers or very bad cooked rom can't interfere with the results.

Only an another base value for the "performancecounters" can change the results (but this base value can't be changed during a test :)) OR the scaling of the CPU is software based and not initiated/handled by the CPU (hardware based).

Hi B4PJS,

You can't use this to test how fast actualy a rom is, only long your CPU takes over some calculations so it's not posible to calculate the MHz based only on these values. ;)

So based on the initial results of bobsbbq and Anja31 the hack seems to work.

But I wil post an updated version today of the cpu test so we can see that the basevalues for those "performancecounters" are the same or not.

Enjoy!

ShaDrac