[Captivate Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] opcow:
Actually they don't all say do it. The number who do is dwindling and newter55 says they seem to mainly be from the Captivate forums. (I don't read the other SGS forums much, but this doesn't surprise me at all.)

I see. I was just asking, because it seems like a lot of phones to go through, but I know it's not a record for these things.

If you don't do a second install then you'll be running stock. You are doing two installs each and every time you install a new froyo ROM--first stock, then the new froyo ROM.

What I'm doing is pointing out the fact that the vast majority of bricked phone posts can be traced back to odin. There is nothing misleading about it. Even accounts of semi-bricks after a CWM flash can usually be traced back to the loss of button combos after flashing stock.

Or take a poll of the percentage of odin flashes resulting in a brick vs. the percentage of CWM flashes resulting in a brick. If you added up the total number of people who bricked flashing to stock, then culled out just the ones doing it as a ROM preinstall, and if that number is only, say 30 people, then that's 30 people who lost phones for no good reason. I suspect it's much higher than that. It hurts us all when that happens, even those of us who couldn't give a damn about some n00b bricking his phone. It's bad because ultimately we all pay for the cost AT&T and Samsung incur, be that payment monetarily or in more locked down phones.

BTW, I took notice of a statement by someone from Google who said that overclocking these phones was undermining his efforts to keep manufacturers on board with allowing us to install alternate operating systems on out phones. I believe it was glitterballs who pointed it out and it's why I've stopped running any ROM which OC past 1200.

Your method replaces a froyo ROM with a eclair, presumes nothing is left behind, then replaces eclair with another froyo ROM (in many cases one with few differences from the one you had before the process was started) and again presumes nothing is left behind. It's pretty unlikely that anything which isn't supposed to be left behind is--in either case--which is why the stock flash isn't necessary.

It is indeed my opinion, but I backed it up with a logical analysis based on my reading of install script documentation and install scripts themselves, among other things. It is not based on anecdotes and argument from authority fallacies.

If your end goal is to have stock firmware on your phone then you should, if course, flash stock firmware.

That would be a bad reason to flash to stock, since it gains you nothing.

What I contend is that routine flashing to stock when changing ROMs is not necessary and should never be recommended (as routine procedure). Don't make straw man arguments.

Yet even if we presume that user error is the cause of most of those bricks we are still left with the fact that they wouldn't have happened had flashing to stock been avoided. Therefore, if flashing to stock can be avoided it should be avoided. The question isn't who is to blame. The question is, can these loses be avoid with better recommendations?

The fact that some ROM devs recommend it (in declining numbers) is neither here nor there. You may be convinced that they based their recommendations on sound logical analysis. I believe it's mainly based on a feeling that a stock flash is starting fresh. I read a post from one ROM developer wherein he recommended flashing to stock because a lot had changed in the framework of the new version. This displays a fundamental lack of understanding of what is going on during the install. I looked at the script. Nothing of his framework would have survived.

But then you've been through 4 phones with various issues, so the whole thing is a bit muddled. I, on the other hand, have flashed dozens of times using different versions of most of the variants in the Captivate forum without ever going back to stock. We all have our anecdotes. Maybe I have a super phone that fixes itself; yours have obviously had hardware issues.

As for how the hell I know this, let me quote myself:

...these issues may just as well have been solved by a simple reinstall...​

You can interpret the word may as "could have". I.e. we just don't know. It cercainly would be worth trying first.

I.e. I stated my opinion and backed it up with evidence and logical arguments based on outcomes of a great many forum users rather than argument from persons of dubious authority and on personal experience with flakey phones.

Flasehoods in the sense that claiming flashing to stock is the safe way is false. Not in the sense that they are lying.Their arguments are virtual always based on some anecdote or that it is how they've been told to do it and so that how they are going to do it.

I think you misunderstand the concept of a fallacy. If you think I've accused you of lying then you are mistaken.

The above reasons are reasons for you to continue doing it that way.

1) People you look up to as authority figures told you to do it that way.

2) You feel confident in doing it.

These are poor reasons for recommending to others how it should be done. My reasoning is more like this:

1) Is the step necessary based on a logical understanding of the process?

In my analysis, no.

2) What are the possible outcomes of doing this step vs. skipping it?

Bricking vs. having to simply reflash. In either case, bricking is, of course, possible, but with a CWM flash it is going to be exceedingly rare.

3) Can the step be safely done by the individual you are recommending it to?

Unknown. User experience, drivers and driver/software interaction and hardware and power issues combine to make this virtually unknowable.

4) What is the benefit of this step?

I suppose peace of mind that you did it the way ROMchef989 told you to, if you are subject to that kind of thinking. I can't think of anything else.

5) What is the cost?

The risks covered in step 2 and time and effort.

A logical error. They may very well be doing it for our benefit, but it doesn't mean they are right. I certainly don't think they are knowingly making a bad recommendation, they are just going with the flow, so to speak. You're right about nothing being written in stone, however. I think that was my point in daring to buck precedence (and authority) and say this is a bad recommended procedure.