Develop Bugs

android on samsung s5600 preston?

i'm new into this, so i was wondering if anyone knows if there is any way i can port android on a samsung preston. it's native ui is awful and there's little to no customization.

if no-one is planning on doing an android port for this phone, can anyone point me in the direction of a good guide to doing it myself?
My daughter has this phone it it could really do with a decent OS

Yeah...I would really like to have android on my samsung GT-S5600...I HATE the samsung OS...I like the phone's design,but I'm thinking of buying a new one,just because of the crappy OS...If someone could make android for it,I would be grateful...

dexter9374 said:
Yeah...I would really like to have android on my samsung GT-S5600...I HATE the samsung OS...I like the phone's design,but I'm thinking of buying a new one,just because of the crappy OS...If someone could make android for it,I would be grateful...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have the same "problem" if anyone find the solution will be very apriciated.
Thanks
Bissius

Well, I think our only way out would be getting a dev interested... Or we could always buy another phone

I don't see this as being very likely. There are a number of problems that will need to be overcome. First and foremost is the processor type. We have no idea what the speed is. Let alone the architecture. Android requires an ARM based architecture to run with a minimum of 200MHz or so which pretty much guarantees global system lag. You'll probably have smoother performance on the proprietary OS. Not that I've used the device or anything but that's what would be expected. After all, the prop. OS's have been slimmed down to the extent that only the incorporated functions run and nothing else. Next is ram. We again are told nothing on how much memory this thing has. Barebones 'droid requires 128mb minimum to run. Storage… Here's a list of 'droid's requirements.
http://www.netmite.com/android/mydroid/development/pdk/docs/system_requirements.html
Recommended is 256MB of minimum internal storage. It says it will run on less but its not recommended. Let's push the boundaries a little. Lets say that the preston has 96mb of internal memory, which realistically should be about right. Maybe 128mb TOPS. Thats 37.5-50% of the original requirement. Even if you did get it running, where are your personal files going to be stored if you can't get the sd card slot working? In addition to that, more lag will be faced as it is a proven fact that all machines slow down if more than half the internal storage has been used.
Assuming that we got passed all of this (it'll be a miracle if we did), there are other matters that are sure to lay down a roadblock. First of all, drivers. The internal hardware of the device will need drivers written for it. That means everything like radio, bluetooth, camera, keypad, touchscreen, audio, display etc. etc. All current devices that run Android can run it because the hardware in the device already exists in an equivalent Android device. If none of the hardware in the 5600 exists in any other droid phone, drivers will need to be reverse engineered. The kernel is essential for the system to boot. It is the underlying structure on which the OS is built. If the CPU in the device is not ARM based, there is a fat chance that a working kernel will ever be built for it. And the final and probably most important reason why this will probably never work is the boot loader. Even Windows Mobile devices which currently run Android won't work without a third party loader. Hence the reason it must boot into WinMo first to load droid. The reason being is that all phone manufacturers lock the phone's boot loader to prevent it from running anything but the shipped OS. Lets say we got past this by creating a loader similar to haret that ran inside the prop. OS. You would be able to TECHNICALLY bypass the problems we would have with the stock boot loader and internal storage (that is, considering that we have established a way to enter the linux kernel). But you would still be faced with CPU compatibility issues, driver support and sufficient ram to barely run an OS as packed as Android. I will gladly give a medal and bow down to the gentleman/woman who manages the task but as I previously said, it does not seem possible.

ayilm1 said:
I don't see this as being very likely. There are a number of problems that will need to be overcome. First and foremost is the processor type. We have no idea what the speed is. Let alone the architecture. Android requires an ARM based architecture to run with a minimum of 200MHz or so which pretty much guarantees global system lag. You'll probably have smoother performance on the proprietary OS. Not that I've used the device or anything but that's what would be expected. After all, the prop. OS's have been slimmed down to the extent that only the incorporated functions run and nothing else. Next is ram. We again are told nothing on how much memory this thing has. Barebones 'droid requires 128mb minimum to run. Storage… Here's a list of 'droid's requirements.
http://www.netmite.com/android/mydroid/development/pdk/docs/system_requirements.html
Recommended is 256MB of minimum internal storage. It says it will run on less but its not recommended. Let's push the boundaries a little. Lets say that the preston has 96mb of internal memory, which realistically should be about right. Maybe 128mb TOPS. Thats 37.5-50% of the original requirement. Even if you did get it running, where are your personal files going to be stored if you can't get the sd card slot working? In addition to that, more lag will be faced as it is a proven fact that all machines slow down if more than half the internal storage has been used.
Assuming that we got passed all of this (it'll be a miracle if we did), there are other matters that are sure to lay down a roadblock. First of all, drivers. The internal hardware of the device will need drivers written for it. That means everything like radio, bluetooth, camera, keypad, touchscreen, audio, display etc. etc. All current devices that run Android can run it because the hardware in the device already exists in an equivalent Android device. If none of the hardware in the 5600 exists in any other droid phone, drivers will need to be reverse engineered. The kernel is essential for the system to boot. It is the underlying structure on which the OS is built. If the CPU in the device is not ARM based, there is a fat chance that a working kernel will ever be built for it. And the final and probably most important reason why this will probably never work is the boot loader. Even Windows Mobile devices which currently run Android won't work without a third party loader. Hence the reason it must boot into WinMo first to load droid. The reason being is that all phone manufacturers lock the phone's boot loader to prevent it from running anything but the shipped OS. Lets say we got past this by creating a loader similar to haret that ran inside the prop. OS. You would be able to TECHNICALLY bypass the problems we would have with the stock boot loader and internal storage (that is, considering that we have established a way to enter the linux kernel). But you would still be faced with CPU compatibility issues, driver support and sufficient ram to barely run an OS as packed as Android. I will gladly give a medal and bow down to the gentleman/woman who manages the task but as I previously said, it does not seem possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks for the info, looks quite feasible what you're telling; it makes me a little sad though

Isn't there any Android version with everything working?

Hey guys,
I'm searching for an Android version that has everything working, i.e. Camera, GPS, WiFi...
I know this was possible with Android 1.6, there were several versions, some had the camera working, some had WiFi working - but none had everything working.
But it proves that it's possible.
Why are people only working on Android 2.x anymore, when there are so many things not working and probably never will?
And why make so many different versions with none of them working 100%? Can people not work together and create ONE version that has everything?
Please, if there is any Android (likely 1.6, cause 2.x seems impossible to get fully working) version that has everything working, direct me to it. If not, why not come together and try it?

If you feel it is this easy, why not do it yourself?
I believe noone has made a fully working distribution yet due to the fact that it is difficult. Add the fact that most of the chefs does this as a hobby, and you might understand why it is hard to get developers to spend a lot of time on it.
My two cents.
-KJ
-------------------------------------
Sent via the XDA Tapatalk App

Well, if you actually read my post, I said all the necessary stuff is there for Android 1.6. It IS possible.
The problem is just that people can't work together. There have been 1.6 versions with the camera working, and others with WiFi working, and others with GPS working, but none with everything.
But it's clear that it would be possible, if people put the pieces together.
Unfortunately, nobody seems to be working on 1.6 anymore. It's clear that 2.x will NEVER be fully working on the Touch HD, so why do people waste their time on that?
I am sure we could have a fully working Android version. It doesn't have to be the newest one, but at least it would be good for everyday use.

Well camera was never working on Touch HD and stuff you mentioned aren't about Android version. Those hardware issues are mostly linux kernel related and only way to fix them is to write a proper drivers and modules - and that's the tricky part. Simply put: Android version has nothing to do with non-working hardware on our devices.

I remeber I had the camera working... or was that another device? I have too many phones lying around here, but actually I am pretty sure I had the camera working in an older Android version.

shaundalglish said:
blah blah...
I know this was possible with Android 1.6, there were several versions, some had the camera working, some had WiFi working - but none had everything working.
...blah blah...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hey man, wake up!
You 're just frustrated but you do not propose anything.
Thx for this usefull thread

shaundalglish said:
Well, if you actually read my post, I said all the necessary stuff is there for Android 1.6. It IS possible.
The problem is just that people can't work together. There have been 1.6 versions with the camera working, and others with WiFi working, and others with GPS working, but none with everything.
But it's clear that it would be possible, if people put the pieces together.
Unfortunately, nobody seems to be working on 1.6 anymore. It's clear that 2.x will NEVER be fully working on the Touch HD, so why do people waste their time on that?
I am sure we could have a fully working Android version. It doesn't have to be the newest one, but at least it would be good for everyday use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is a TOTALLY misleading post.
The number of devices, the variation in hardware and memory is quite extensive... yes, somebody MIGHT get the camera working on ONE specific device... this is hardly a version of Android everybody can enjoy.
For the large part most of the developers ARE sharing knowledge, but there are people screaming "why isn't MY device supported, and other saying why are your bothering with old version of Android, and others screaming, where's Froyo???"
XDAndroid's come a long way. But there are only a handful of developers working on it, and they don't have every single phone at their disposal (not to mention every operator variant with slightly different radio code and configuration).
Each week the development takes two steps forward, and one step back... but it's progress. All that you're asking for is more progress.... and the only way you can get that is by contribution the code changes to the dev team.
If you can't do that, then you just have to sit back and wait.

shaundalglish said:
It's clear that 2.x will NEVER be fully working on the Touch HD, so why do people waste their time on that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How is it clear? It's being worked on... perhaps at a pace that's not to YOUR liking, but it's being worked on.
What evidence do you have to suggest it will NEVER be fully working?
It is true that it's proving to be difficult, but it's also true that it's very hard to stay with 1.6 when many new apps stop working with it, or new features NEED 2.x, and all the latest source code will include support for newer devices and 1.6 won't.
The developers aren't working on HD alone, they are working on a release that works on multiple devices. If someone wanted to focus on HD, they'd be welcome to, but nobody is. They are sharing their knowledge for the greater good of all devices.
To be frank, if someone is truly that crazy for Android, then they are fools to be using a WinMo device. They should have bought an Android device.
If I want OSX, I should buy a Mac. The fact that I can run OSX on my PC is nice, but I should expect issues. The same applies to XDAndroid. Expect issues.

TheBrilliantMistake said:
How is it clear? It's being worked on... perhaps at a pace that's not to YOUR liking, but it's being worked on.
What evidence do you have to suggest it will NEVER be fully working?
It is true that it's proving to be difficult, but it's also true that it's very hard to stay with 1.6 when many new apps stop working with it, or new features NEED 2.x, and all the latest source code will include support for newer devices and 1.6 won't.
The developers aren't working on HD alone, they are working on a release that works on multiple devices. If someone wanted to focus on HD, they'd be welcome to, but nobody is. They are sharing their knowledge for the greater good of all devices.
To be frank, if someone is truly that crazy for Android, then they are fools to be using a WinMo device. They should have bought an Android device.
If I want OSX, I should buy a Mac. The fact that I can run OSX on my PC is nice, but I should expect issues. The same applies to XDAndroid. Expect issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very well said. These people never stop complaining.

shaundalglish said:
I remeber I had the camera working... or was that another device? I have too many phones lying around here, but actually I am pretty sure I had the camera working in an older Android version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry buddy, but you're not recalling right, the camera has never worked on the Touch HD, no matter how old the version was (and GPS support only came recently a few weeks ago).
Camera support & GPS are a kernel feature (simply put, the kernel is all the drivers for the hardware in the devices and the way to properly communicate with them) it is not an android feature (android operates on top and apart of the kernel).
I can't comment on the other devices but I don't recall having a winmo device having his camera supported in android, they have a really hard time implementing camera support in the kernel, so they did go on with the other things such as better stability, speed and battery life...
But if you have the resources, feel free to help, xdandroid team will be happy to welcome another dev.

Becoming a bit of a flame war and I see no end result.
Thread closed

[Q] How Does the Android OS Work?

Disclaimer: I am only a flasher. I do, however, contribute to the forums, donate to devs and also use the paid version of good apps.
My question is: How does Android work on our phones?
You have hardware (HTC Incredible); you have a carrier (Verizon, in my case); you have an OS (Android, obviously); you have a radio; you have a ROM; you have a kernel; you have themes, you have skins and you have apps. How do all these pieces interact? Just curious.

This is a really good question that should be answered in laymen's terms. I'm surprised it hasn't been answered yet.

I also thought it would have been answered by now. However, I think the developers (who would be the best folks to answer this question) are busy working with the Gingerbread source code to build new ROMs for us.
This is what I have figured out so far but I'm not sure if my analysis is correct:
After selecting your hardware and carrier, the OS is the most important element. Most of us are currently on Froyo (2.2). I have seen some screen shots showing the OS version to be "2.2.1" but I am not sure why. Google (I think) has released the source code for Gingerbread (2.3) and the developers ("devs") are hard at work producing new ROMs as I post this.
I gather that it is best to stay away from trying out different radios ("basebands"). Most of us are using 2.15.00.07.28.
I think the ROM takes the OS and re-works the user interface by adding, removing and changing the various screens and "features" of the OS. For example: the ROM can be written to take out the stock music player and substitute a music player that the ROM developer prefers. I think this is called "baking in an app". I believe the ROM developer can also create an overall "look and feel" that can be quite different from the stock OS. For instance, the ROM can be "colored" in black and red (rather than the stock green) and the stock font can be changed to something the developer prefers. In other words, the ROM is what you see and use on a daily basis.
Now this is where things get a little fuzzy: the kernel. I think this is kind of a behind the scenes element that governs the performance of a ROM. It greatly affects things like battery life, time to charge the battery and the "speed" of the phone. The kernel is where the phone can be "over-clocked" and "under-volted" should you want to do those things. I gather that once you select a ROM, you can try different kernels without changing what the various screens look like on the phone. I believe this is the way most people do it (pick a ROM and try different kernels with it). I don't think the other way really works (pick a kernel and try different ROMs with the kernel).
Next comes themes and skins which really only affect what you see on the various screens without do anything about battery life or the speed of the phone. I haven't played with these much.
Finally, I forgot to put WALLPAPER on the list in the original post. I believe this only appears as a background image on the home screens.
If any reader sees errors in my layman's analysis, please, by all means jump in and correct me. Per my disclaimer in Post #1, I am just an ordinary user and this analysis could be flawed or incorrect in whole or in part.

Everytime I try to answer a question like this, I get too complex about it and leave more questions than answers. Then someone comes along and says "It's like Windows or Linux or MacOS on a PC", and that's that. Well they're right. Those OS's tell the PC's that they are PC's and essentially all OS's do the same things.
Here's my simplified new list:
1) Hardware on phone :: meaningless without OS
-- (android OS - or any other OS)
2) Linux kernel understands hardware like touchscreen, radios, I/O (drivers/modules). Of course it also understands how to schedule processes and all those "kernel tasks".
3) Libraries provide APIs (Application programming interface) to userspace code (like APPS).
4) Userspace (apps, scripts, libraries) provide user control over the phone.
--
Together they work in harmony (we hope) to make the phone realize it is a phone and allow us to use it as such. (well, a smartphone, so many things other than a phone).
Here's a simple example: You touch the phone icon which is in userspace, and it brings up the userspace phone app. As soon (or before) as you touch some buttons, dial a number, it is using the API to the driver in the kernel that actually understands the phone hardware/radio. Also userspace controls GUI which is also requiring API to some form of OPENGL API that is requiring device drivers that get the touchscreen/LCD display. and so on.
--- Hashi
PS: I realize there are a thousand things wrong with this representation, but hey, it's a start. Feel free to fix it up if you're inclined.

[Q] Why is ROM-cooking so hard?

Hi!
I have great respect for the people that give us our great ROMs, and i KNOW that that is hard - but my question is: why exactly is it that hard?
This is just a question out of curiosity, because I would really like to understand the unerlying problems that cause all the other issues.
I was under the impression that the Android stack runs on top of the Linux kernel.
Usually, the Linux kernel is the Hardware Abstraction Layer, and apps and ROM, in theory, should be kind of hardware agnostic?
e.g. the Bluetooth Issue on our Captivate Glides: I would guess that Android communicates, through some API, with the kernel's BT stack/driver. There must be some (open or closed source) driver available (worst case: some .so module ripped out of an official ROM, maybe?). So why does the headset profile not work? Did the APIs change? Are custom ROMs forced to use another version of the driver?
It also happens to this 50$ chinese tablet i have here: some ROM screw up the touchscreen, some break audio, and so forth. Why can't there be some way of installing a generic ROM, and then side-loading the OEM's drivers?
Thank you again to all ROM developers! This is NO WAY a complaint. Just pure curiosity!

I may be out of my league when trying to describe this, but the processor in our phones is somewhat different to the processor in the bulk of other phones. This is where majority of the issues came from in porting ICS to the glide before ATT released it. Even after the first official ICS update, the modders here were the ones who fixed the keyboard lights... I changed up to JB because the GPS wasn't locking quick enough and PACROM had all the quick toggles and the speed/gps lock I needed.
Sure the kernel is the underlying part that pulls it all together, even still there is all the drivers that need to work with it. If there isn't a bluetooth/wifi/HW Video driver for the version of the kernel, then it gets really tricky and now its coding for a piece of software to speak with the hardware ..... We have things that partially work, but not fully ...as with everything computers, in theory things that "should" work, don't always... I'm an IT tech.. I run into weird **** all the time that "should" work ... takes time, but with persistence and the right skillset, majority of the time a resolution can always be found.

Is there life for this device?

I have had 2 AFTV1 devices since launch and they have been good devices. In my opinion, the hardware is still great. The most disappointing thing about these boxes is that they have never received a non-FireOS based ROM. We have TWRP recovery now and pre-rooted stock ROMS, but I'm starting to wonder if we will ever see a true custom ROM on this device will vanilla Android Marshmallow or Nougat. I use KODI to stream my Blu Rays from a local mediaserver/NAS and with KODI recently getting up to snuff on "Official" Android standards with the latest Krypton builds, DTS passthrough has been removed since the the FireOS API version only on version 22, based on Lollipop. API 23 is the minimum for DTS support now, Marshmallow. These boxes aren't much use to me know if I can't have surround for my movies.

I think you need to either update your AFTV1. (Not sure if possible, since even the AFTV2 is Lollipop), or downgrade your Kodi back to Jarvis 16.x. Which is still the 'Stable Current' Build.
Perhaps down the Road, SPMC, or other fork, might correct these oversights for these Boxes.

That is just the problem there. "Downgrade" my Kodi to Jarvis. I don't want to do that. Kryton stable is not far off now and I have been running the nightlies for a while now. I also have SPMC (jarvis-based) loaded so I can have DTS passthrough support. I don't see FireOS getting updated anytime soon if ever from Lollipop. Normally, a custom ROM will get you around this on a device. We just never got one for this box. I just don't get the KODI team removing the working DTS Passthrough (apparently they had a workaround in place to make it work), and now that they have decided to adhere to the Android API standards (which isn't a bad thing) they broke existing functionality. Their stance is "bug your vendor" for android update on your device which is not a good answer for these boxes. So although this hardware is more than capbable, if I want to use Krypton I will most likely have to buy new hardware.

Did you say AFTV, or AFTV2?
AFTV with its Snap 600? Might eventually someday perhaps get a custom ROM, as Qualcomm are pretty decent about releasing Code.
AFTV2 With its MediaTek SoC? Not a chance in Hell Amazon are in a fairly decent position to muscle MediaTek 'round a bit, but as is the case with these Chinese outfits. Once the Parts out the Door, its no longer their problem. And what's that? You wanted a new Android?! Well buy our new Box then.
But, back to the topic if you like what is a beta version of Krypton better then Jarvis. Then you'll have to live with the fact that somethings will break.