Difference between revisions of "Talk:Firmware"

From The iPhone Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(That didn't look right.)
(Adding iOS 13: new section)
(10 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Talk Archive}}
 
{{Talk Archive}}
   
== Remove "Comments" Column ==
+
== Page split ==
  +
The tables here are too wide and stretch off the side of the page. We could fix this by ditching the "Comments" column. The column is barely used, and when it is, it adds nothing that couldn't be found on the [[timeline]]. The majority of the "comments" are either redundant ("Initial release") or can be found on the timeline.<br />
 
  +
This page is pretty manageable— far more so than [[OTA Updates]]. However, I am aware that it's growing quite a bit, so I was thinking of splitting the page up by device class (e.g. Apple TV, iPad, iPad mini, etc.). (We can also further divide those pages by firmware version, but I don't think that's necessary.) In the process, I'd also like to merge in the "Deprecated" pages, since those were split off to lessen the burden of editing a page with so many devices. How does this sound? --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 22:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
There are a "few" loners:
 
  +
:That's fine by me. I agree we done need to and shouldn't go down to each major iOS on this page, just device type. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 10:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
* iPhone (original)
 
  +
** [[Alpine 1A420]]: either make the "IPSW Download URL" "<code>iphoneproto.zip</code>" a link to the MacRumors article or move to [[Beta Firmware]]
 
  +
== iOS 10 New IPSW Style ==
** [[Alpine 1A543a (iPhone1,1)|Alpine 1A543a]]/[[Oktoberfest 3B48b (iPhone1,1)|Oktoberfest 3B48b]] ("Initial US/Euro shipment"): this is the only device where we differentiate by release date; so unless we do that for all devices, release location/date doesn't really matter
 
  +
** [[Alpine 4A57]]: move to [[Beta Firmware]]
 
  +
With iOS 10 beta, Apple changed the format of IPSW's to bundle for multiple devices (you can see with [http://imgur.com/gTS7Rwb this image]). This means that we have two options (as far as I can see) for listing them. We can either:
* iPhone 3G
 
  +
** [[Big Bear 5A345 (iPhone1,2)|Big Bear 5A345]]: not a beta, but remove "Initial release" (you could argue [[Big Bear 5A347 (iPhone1,2)|5A347]] was an "initial release" also just like 4.2.5/4.2.6 for the [[n92ap|Verizon iPhone 4 (iPhone3,3)]] and 7.0/7.0.1 for the [[iPhone 5c]] and [[iPhone 5s|5s]])
 
  +
* List how we currently are but copy/paste each new firmware multiple times for the devices listed in the bundled IPSW
* iPhone 3GS
 
  +
** [[Baker 8B117 (iPhone2,1)|Baker 8B117]]: says that devices that came with 5.0 can't downgrade to 4.1 (nothing we didn't already know)
 
  +
* Add another page off each device page (something like [[Firmware/iPhone/10.x]]) and make new tables to list these firmwares and those tables would include a list of all devices for the one IPSW
* iPhone 4 GSM (iPhone3,1)
 
  +
** [[Telluride 9A405 (iPhone3,1)|Telluride 9A405]]: information available from [[OTA Updates]] and (should be) the timeline ([[Telluride 9A405 (iPhone2,1)|9A405 for the 3GS]] was also first non-beta OTA, but that doesn't have a comment)
 
  +
I personally think we should do the latter because that way it'll be easier when editing, be easier to find the IPSW for your device, and prevent the current pages getting slower when newer firmware are added to it. What does everyone else think? --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 23:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
* iPhone 4S
 
  +
:I've already discussed this on Twitter, but I'll share my thoughts on this issue here.
** [[Telluride 9A334 (iPhone4,1)|Telluride 9A334]]: put that information on the timeline
 
  +
:To be blunt, I think it's stupid to keep changing the format on what feels like an annual basis. By constantly changing things around, it creates needless confusion for users, who will expect a link on page A when it's on page B, just for it to go to page C a year later. After taking some time to think about it more rationally (this was initially proposed to me while shopping for groceries— not ideal), I'm somewhat more receptive to the idea of partitioning the tables more by version number. But whatever happens, I don't want it to change for another five years, regardless of what crazy nonsense Apple pulls off. We just need to establish and maintain a consistent format that resists whatever Apple wants to throw at us.
** [[Brighton 10B145 (iPhone4,1)|Brighton 10B145]]: put that information on the timeline
 
  +
:To further add to the confusion is Apple's decision to (finally) support multiple devices in an IPSW. Should we change how we list the links to only include it once, or include the link multiple times, once for each device? The answer's quite obvious to me: Just keep listing it the way we've been doing it— a link for iPhone 5, a link for iPhone 5C, etc. (Sub-classes can be omitted, as all iPhone 5 devices will use the same IPSW, etc.) It's familiar, and pretty straight to the point. Is inserting a link multiple times in different sections on one page too confusing? You invite even more confusion if you list one link once under a new section named "32-bit 4.0 inch iPhones." Is my phone 32-bit or 64-bit? What is that measurement referring to— my screen size, or my phone's size? ...Okay, that last one's a bit of a hyperbole. But this is all for the sake of only needing to update only one or two less tables? Geez, just copy and paste. Heck, if the tables are split up by version number, you can just turn it into a template. --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 00:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
* iPhone 5 (iPhone5,1 and iPhone5,2)
 
  +
::I'm with Dialexio. The format we have currently, and having it listed multiple times makes more sense. — '''[[User:Spydar007|<span style="color:black;">Spydar007</span>]] [[User talk:Spydar007|<span style="color:gray;">(Talk)</span>]]''' 11:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
** Sundance 10A551: put that information on the timeline
 
  +
* iPod touch (original)
 
  +
== Removing codenames for key page links ==
** [[Big Bear 5A347 (iPod1,1)|Big Bear 5A347]] and up: mentioned in the footnote for "Download Link Prohibited"
 
  +
* iPod touch 2G:
 
  +
It was recently requested by various users to add links to key pages back to the firmware pages. They were initially removed since it conflicted with how iOS 10.x and newer are now presented. In order to make this happen, I'm proposing the removal of the "Codename" column to make room for another column titled "Keys," which would contain links to key pages for the respective devices. (For reference, [https://twitter.com/Dialexio/status/896804257671901184 this] is an example of how it would look.) Having both columns seems redundant and will unnecessarily consume horizontal space. Firwmare codenames are already in the link/title for firmware key pages, but may be listed together on a new page such as [[Firmware Codenames]] if anyone wishes to have a list of firmware codenames somewhere. If nobody has any objections, we'll make this change shortly. --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 19:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
** [[Kirkwood 7A341 (iPod2,1)|Kirkwood 7A341]] through [[SUNorthstarTwo 7E18 (iPod2,1)|SUNorthstarTwo 7E18]]: mentioned in the footnote for "Download Link Prohibited"
 
  +
:I just think it was much easier and more convenient to be able to get to the key pages from firmware pages. [[User:OothecaPickle|OothecaPickle]] ([[User talk:OothecaPickle|talk]]) 19:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
** [[Northstar 7C145 (iPod2,1)|Northstar 7C145]]: put that information on the [[n72ap|device's page]]
 
  +
::While I do not object to it, I personally would vote to keep it as it is because firmware key pages are easily linked from [[Firmware Keys]] and that is a more logical place to have them linked from (rather than having both) in my opinion. I also think that the codename column would be better on Firmware and Beta Firmware pages. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 20:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
We could extend this to [[Beta Firmware]] also, but that can be handled later. --[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]]) 17:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 
  +
::I agree it looks fine on a big enough monitor, but not everyone has big screens. I have a 1280x1024 screen, and the table is too big for that. As for OTA Updates, I agree it has its purpose, but there has to be a better way to do it, but that's a job for another day. --[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]]) 21:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 
  +
== Adding iOS 13 ==
:::Actually, apart from that info I noted, is there any more information on OTA Updates comments section that is important? If not, we could just add a section to state the OTA from 5.0.x to 6.1.3. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 22:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 
  +
:::It looks actually fine on my iPhone retina display. If table-size is an issue why not merge the ipsw url column and the sha1 hash column into 1 column ?--[[User:M2m|M2m]] ([[User talk:M2m|talk]]) 01:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 
  +
Hello,
::::That wouldn't work. The issue [[User:5urd|5urd]] mentioned would be because the width of the table is too big. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 08:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 
  +
I have created an iOS 13 page here [[IOS_13]] and I would like it added to the Firmware page for iPhones and iPod (7th gen.).
:::: so merging url with sha1 and a br-tag in between wouldn't reduce width ?--[[User:M2m|M2m]] ([[User talk:M2m|talk]]) 15:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 
:It fits perfectly fine on my 15-inch MacBook Pro. However, I agree it's not that necessary. I'd be for removing it. For OTA Updates, I'd say it is required really since it explains why you have to get 6.1.3 from 5.0.x before 8.x for example. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 20:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
+
:::This has now been completed. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 11:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::Oh, that might but it would look very very ugly. I think the best thing to do is just remove the comments column and add a note for important info there (like the 5.0.x > 6.1.3 OTA). --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 16:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 
:::::That'd work, but as Adam said, it'd just be ugly. Look at [[Firmware#iPad|the original iPad's table]] compared to almost everything else; because of the comments column, each row is at least twice as tall as it needs to be (the width of the comments column shrinks the date column, forcing it to use two lines. --[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]]) 17:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 
:::::: Looks ok to me:
 
::::::{| class="wikitable" style="font-size: smaller; text-align: center;"
 
|-
 
! Version
 
! Build
 
! Codename
 
! Baseband
 
! Release Date
 
! IPSW Download URL<br/>SHA1 Hash
 
! Comments
 
! File Size
 
|-
 
| 8.0
 
| [[Okemo 12A366 (iPhone7,1)|12A366]]
 
| rowspan="3" | Okemo
 
| rowspan="3" | [[1.00.05]]
 
| 17 Sep 2014
 
| [http://appldnld.apple.com/iOS8/031-05555.20140917.YWW0v/iPhone7,1_8.0_12A366_Restore.ipsw iPhone7,1_8.0_12A366_Restore.ipsw] <code>bfe00f19ca630bfd7c831ffc765ea3b32cf9e48b</code>
 
| some useful comment
 
| 2,374,372,056
 
|}
 
::::::Question is if the information outwights "beauty-concerns" so to speak. --[[User:M2m|M2m]] ([[User talk:M2m|talk]]) 08:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 
:::::::Yeah it works, but it still looks ugly. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 10:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 
:::::::Combining the download URL and the hash doesn't really shrink the width though. Not to mention, if the comment gets too long, it can span two lines. On my 1280x1024 monitor, the width of the comments column forces the release date to span two lines on almost every device (it doesn't here). Keep in mind, not everyone has a big monitor; I'm one of them.
 
:::::::{| class="wikitable" style="font-size: smaller; text-align: center;"
 
|-
 
! Version
 
! Build
 
! Codename
 
! Baseband
 
! Release Date
 
! IPSW Download URL
 
! SHA1 Hash
 
! Comments
 
! File Size
 
|-
 
| 8.0
 
| [[Okemo 12A366 (iPhone7,1)|12A366]]
 
| rowspan="3" | Okemo
 
| rowspan="3" | [[1.00.05]]
 
| 17 Sep 2014
 
| [http://appldnld.apple.com/iOS8/031-05555.20140917.YWW0v/iPhone7,1_8.0_12A366_Restore.ipsw iPhone7,1_8.0_12A366_Restore.ipsw]
 
| <code>bfe00f19ca630bfd7c831ffc765ea3b32cf9e48b</code>
 
| some worthless comment
 
| 2,374,372,056
 
|}
 
:::::::Compare that to just removing the comments column:
 
:::::::{| class="wikitable" style="font-size: smaller; text-align: center;"
 
|-
 
! Version
 
! Build
 
! Codename
 
! Baseband
 
! Release Date
 
! IPSW Download URL
 
! SHA1 Hash
 
! File Size
 
|-
 
| 8.0
 
| [[Okemo 12A366 (iPhone7,1)|12A366]]
 
| rowspan="3" | Okemo
 
| rowspan="3" | [[1.00.05]]
 
| 17 Sep 2014
 
| [http://appldnld.apple.com/iOS8/031-05555.20140917.YWW0v/iPhone7,1_8.0_12A366_Restore.ipsw iPhone7,1_8.0_12A366_Restore.ipsw]
 
| <code>bfe00f19ca630bfd7c831ffc765ea3b32cf9e48b</code>
 
| 2,374,372,056
 
|}
 
:::::::To show you what it looks like on small monitors, [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/38132225/Editing%20Talk%20Firmware%20-%20The%20iPhone%20Wiki.png here's a screenshot] of this discussion. And [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/38132225/Firmware%20-%20The%20iPhone%20Wiki.png here's a ''full page'' screenshot] of [[Firmware]]. Notice how the width of the comments column is forcing the "Release Date" cells into two rows almost all the time? While that could be fixed by replacing the spaces with <code>&amp;nbsp;</code>, that'd just force the already too wide tables to be wider (eg. Apple TV (all 3), iPad (original through Air), iPad mini (original and 2), iPhone (3G and up), iPod touch 5G). Almost, as if by pure coincidence, the only tables that ''aren't'' too wide either have no cellular chip (except for iPod touch 5G) or have either really short comments (original iPhone) or none at all (iPad Air 2 and iPad mini 3).
 
:::::::--[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]]) 17:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 
::::::: This is how it looks like on my iPhone 6: http://postimg.org/image/kxeobh4jj/ notice that the release date is 2 lines in ever example and the the difference between the current and the no-comments version is not that big (on that device). --[[User:M2m|M2m]] ([[User talk:M2m|talk]]) 04:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 
:Why do we have the prototype iPhone software listed here? Also, could I add the real download link, or would that count as piracy? --[[User:Awesomebing1|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1|talk]]) 03:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 
::If you are referring to the Rapidshare link where it was originally posted, that's been since taken down. If you downloaded it and uploaded it elsewhere, I wouldn't post it. It's not piracy, but because it isn't a ''public'' firmware, the copyrighted material in it could get us in trouble. You could argue fair use, but it's best to err on the side of caution. --[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]])
 
:::It is a reupload, so I won't add it then. But, since it isn't a public firmware, why is it on this list and not [[Beta Firmware]]? --[[User:Awesomebing1|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1|talk]]) 02:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 
::::That is a good question and unfortunately, it's the same reason [[Alpine 4A57]] and [[Big Bear 5A345 (iPhone1,2)|Big Bear 5A345]] are here: no one's questioned it until now. My guess it that back in the olden days where there were only a handful of devices, there was no [[Beta Firmware]] page because there were no beta firmwares (until 1.2/2.0), so any prototype firmwares were just placed here. Times have since changed and prototype firmwares (Inferno and the likes) are placed on "Beta Firmware", so these should be moved there too. Maybe we could just make an [[Internal Firmware]] page and put all of them there? --[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]]) 02:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 
As the removal of the comments column has begun, where will the information go that has been in there ?--[[User:M2m|M2m]] ([[User talk:M2m|talk]]) 16:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 
:It's moving to [[Timeline]] and already has been for what has been removed. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 17:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 

Revision as of 01:11, 12 September 2019

Archives
 • 2008 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2015 •

Page split

This page is pretty manageable— far more so than OTA Updates. However, I am aware that it's growing quite a bit, so I was thinking of splitting the page up by device class (e.g. Apple TV, iPad, iPad mini, etc.). (We can also further divide those pages by firmware version, but I don't think that's necessary.) In the process, I'd also like to merge in the "Deprecated" pages, since those were split off to lessen the burden of editing a page with so many devices. How does this sound? --Dialexio (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I agree we done need to and shouldn't go down to each major iOS on this page, just device type. --iAdam1n (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

iOS 10 New IPSW Style

With iOS 10 beta, Apple changed the format of IPSW's to bundle for multiple devices (you can see with this image). This means that we have two options (as far as I can see) for listing them. We can either:

  • List how we currently are but copy/paste each new firmware multiple times for the devices listed in the bundled IPSW
  • Add another page off each device page (something like Firmware/iPhone/10.x) and make new tables to list these firmwares and those tables would include a list of all devices for the one IPSW

I personally think we should do the latter because that way it'll be easier when editing, be easier to find the IPSW for your device, and prevent the current pages getting slower when newer firmware are added to it. What does everyone else think? --iAdam1n (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've already discussed this on Twitter, but I'll share my thoughts on this issue here.
To be blunt, I think it's stupid to keep changing the format on what feels like an annual basis. By constantly changing things around, it creates needless confusion for users, who will expect a link on page A when it's on page B, just for it to go to page C a year later. After taking some time to think about it more rationally (this was initially proposed to me while shopping for groceries— not ideal), I'm somewhat more receptive to the idea of partitioning the tables more by version number. But whatever happens, I don't want it to change for another five years, regardless of what crazy nonsense Apple pulls off. We just need to establish and maintain a consistent format that resists whatever Apple wants to throw at us.
To further add to the confusion is Apple's decision to (finally) support multiple devices in an IPSW. Should we change how we list the links to only include it once, or include the link multiple times, once for each device? The answer's quite obvious to me: Just keep listing it the way we've been doing it— a link for iPhone 5, a link for iPhone 5C, etc. (Sub-classes can be omitted, as all iPhone 5 devices will use the same IPSW, etc.) It's familiar, and pretty straight to the point. Is inserting a link multiple times in different sections on one page too confusing? You invite even more confusion if you list one link once under a new section named "32-bit 4.0 inch iPhones." Is my phone 32-bit or 64-bit? What is that measurement referring to— my screen size, or my phone's size? ...Okay, that last one's a bit of a hyperbole. But this is all for the sake of only needing to update only one or two less tables? Geez, just copy and paste. Heck, if the tables are split up by version number, you can just turn it into a template. --Dialexio (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm with Dialexio. The format we have currently, and having it listed multiple times makes more sense. — Spydar007 (Talk) 11:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing codenames for key page links

It was recently requested by various users to add links to key pages back to the firmware pages. They were initially removed since it conflicted with how iOS 10.x and newer are now presented. In order to make this happen, I'm proposing the removal of the "Codename" column to make room for another column titled "Keys," which would contain links to key pages for the respective devices. (For reference, this is an example of how it would look.) Having both columns seems redundant and will unnecessarily consume horizontal space. Firwmare codenames are already in the link/title for firmware key pages, but may be listed together on a new page such as Firmware Codenames if anyone wishes to have a list of firmware codenames somewhere. If nobody has any objections, we'll make this change shortly. --Dialexio (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I just think it was much easier and more convenient to be able to get to the key pages from firmware pages. OothecaPickle (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
While I do not object to it, I personally would vote to keep it as it is because firmware key pages are easily linked from Firmware Keys and that is a more logical place to have them linked from (rather than having both) in my opinion. I also think that the codename column would be better on Firmware and Beta Firmware pages. --iAdam1n (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
This has now been completed. --iAdam1n (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding iOS 13

Hello, I have created an iOS 13 page here IOS_13 and I would like it added to the Firmware page for iPhones and iPod (7th gen.).