Difference between revisions of "Talk:Firmware"

From The iPhone Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Naming inconsistency)
(Adding Security Notes and Readable Release Notes To Firmware: Done.)
 
(179 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk Archive|Start-October 1, 2010}}
+
{{Talk Archive}}
   
== Add defunct firmwares? ==
+
== 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? --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 22:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
There are some defunct firmware builds referenced in Apple's XML file (i.e.- [[M68ap|iPhone 2G]] 3A101a). Should these be added to this page, or not?
 
  +
: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)
-[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] 20:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 
:can we add recovery firmware like [http://appldnld.apple.com.edgesuite.net/content.info.apple.com/iPhone/061-6618.20090617.Xse7Y/x12220000_5_Recovery.ipsw x12220000_5_Recovery.ipsw] and the ipod touch 1g had firmware 1.0 [http://appldnld.apple.com/iPod/SBML/osx/bundles/061-9054.20100907.VKPt5/iPod_1.0_36A00403.ipsw iPod_1.0_36A00403.ipsw] --[[User:Liamchat|liamchat]] 15:18, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 
::I wouldn't add the recovery IPSWs on this page... maybe they could have its own page, though. The "1.0" firmware that you linked to is definitely not for the iPod touch 1G; it's not set up like an [[IPSW File Format|IPSW]] that contains/uses iOS (there are only three files inside of it, one of which references "N20", not "[[N45ap|N45]]"), and the URL has a reference to the date September 7, 2010. I believe the URL is for the iPod nano 6G's firmware. --[[User:Dialexio|<span style="color:#C20; font-weight:normal;">Dialexio</span>]] 15:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:::iPod nano 4G and newer IPSWs have about 8 files inside (Just like the devices this website is about have Applelogo, Recovery, ChargingGlyph,...). If it has 3 files (osos, aupd, rsrc) it's for a "middle age" iPod and the first models required 4 files. [http://www.freemyipod.org/wiki/Firmware Enjoy!] --[[User:Ryccardo|Ryccardo]] 15:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:::BTW, the file Liamchat mentioned is for the "iPod touch not labeled as such and without the App Store" [http://www.trejan.com/projects/ipod/phobos.html#REGFIRMWARE Source]. --[[User:Ryccardo|Ryccardo]] 16:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
== Clarification of "Can be unlocked" ? ==
+
== 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 [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:
I think we need a clarification what the "Can be unlocked?"-Column means. Because Northstar 7C144 on the 3G can be unlocked using pwnage (i.e. if you stay at BB 04.26.08). However if you'd upgrade to BB 05.11.07 it can't. --[[User:M2m|M2m]] 03:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 
   
  +
* List how we currently are but copy/paste each new firmware multiple times for the devices listed in the bundled IPSW
Quote Oranav: "There's no point for an "unlock" column if we write "yes, stay at X".
 
   
  +
* 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 totally agree on this, however the Columns also states ''"Yes (Upgrade to 04.26.08)"'' for BB 01.45.00 - 02.30.03, while technically currently a working implementation only is available for 04.26.08 (ultrasn0w - yellowsn0w is not available anymore AFAIK). Like this I would think for BB 01.45.00 - 02.30.03 it should also read ''"No (Though you can upgrade to 04.26.08)"'' - or something similar.
 
Therefore my statement/request for a clarification.
 
Regards --[[User:M2m|M2m]] 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 
   
  +
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)
I am of the opinion that if the BB that ships with the given Apple IPSW is not unlock(ed/able) then it should be marked NO. It should be made clear elsewhere that 04.26.08 is suitable for devices looking for an unlock. [[User:Haldo|Haldo]] 13:53, 17 September 2009 (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. --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk: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. — '''[[User:Spydar007|<span style="color:black;">Spydar007</span>]] [[User talk:Spydar007|<span style="color:gray;">(Talk)</span>]]''' 11:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
   
  +
== Removing codenames for key page links ==
The main difference here is that for older firmwares there's an upgrade path towards unlock. For example, if you buy a 3G phone now with 2.0 and BB 01.45.00, it can be easily upgraded to 3.0 and unlocked. On the other hand, if the phone has 3.1 and 05.11.07 pre-installed, there's no such upgrade path. --[[User:Blackbox|Blackbox]] 18:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 
   
  +
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)
What about changing the title of the column to say "Can baseband be unlocked?" and then only answer yes if there is an unlock available for the baseband included in that version? [[User:Rekoil|Rekoil]] 21:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 
  +
: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)
  +
::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)
  +
:::This has now been completed. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 11:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
   
  +
== Adding iOS 13 ==
I've changed it to say yes only on the rows with basebands that can be unlocked "OTB". No one should have problems figuring out that you can upgrade to a version that can be unlocked if you're at a version below that cannot be unlocked. But maybe a clarification that you cannot downgrade basebands? --[[User:Rekoil|adriaaan]] 15:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 
   
  +
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.).
   
  +
== Adding Security Notes and Readable Release Notes To Firmware ==
== Forbidden ==
 
There are some IPSW links which instead of a download link contain just the text "forbidden". It would be good to know at least the name of this IPSW. To make sure nobody puts a working download link there instead (later), we could leave the "forbidden" text there and add a link to Google with the full name in the search query. I think that would be ok. What do you think? --[[User:Http|http]] 19:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 
:I suppose supplying the firmware name would be fine, but I'm not a fan of linking to a Google search of the name as it would still promote piracy/copyright infringement. Perhaps we could use the "protected://" URL that Apple supplies in the [http://itunes.apple.com/version version XML], like how [http://www.trejan.com/projects/ipod/ Trejan] lists it. --[[User:Dialexio|<span style="color:#C20; font-weight:normal;">Dialexio</span>]] 19:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
I was thinking about adding security notes as well as readable release notes such as [https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT210393#13 this] to Firmware pages and wanted to see if there were any objections. I'm thinking of using the "Release Notes" column [https://imgur.com/a/GUtJDCz like this]. The other option is to add another column for security notes, but my worry with this is that the page is already wide and it would make it even wider. I think security notes are a really important aspect of firmware updates and something we should easily link to. The main issue with the way we currently list release notes is that it is not in a readable format without additional tools to open the file, whereas the link I suggested would be. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 00:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
==iPod touch 2G/iOS 2.2 jailbreak status==
 
  +
:I have now completed this. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 17:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 
2.2 Timberline 5G77a iPod2,1_2.2_5G77a_Restore.ipsw 34a0a489605f34d6cc6c9954edcaaf9a050deedc No <-- shouldn't this be a yes with a superscript 1 for tethered as there were no real protections against using iBSS/iBEC from 2.1.1 on a 2.2 device, infact the run rs program was adapted to chainload a 2.2 iBEC/iBSS for devices that the NAND didn't detect with 2.1.1 iBSS {{unsigned|Lilstevie|10:55, September 30, 2010 (UTC)}}
 
 
:Please sign any entry you make on the talk pages. There is [http://theiphonewiki.com/wiki/skins/common/images/button_sig.png a button] that will insert the markup for signatures. :) To my knowledge, redsn0w Lite provided a tethered jailbreak for '''2.2.1''', not 2.2. --[[User:Dialexio|<span style="color:#C20; font-weight:normal;">Dialexio</span>]] 19:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== Naming inconsistency ==
 
We have a separate page for each firmware, named with a name, a build number, and in brackets for which device (like "[[Kirkwood 7A341 (iPhone 3GS)]]"). Fine. But where does this name (Kirkwood) come from? I saw that there is a conflict for some names. Some are named Apex and others ApexVail, some Baker, others BakerVail, some Jasper, others JasperVail, some NorthVail, others Northstar, etc. Can we rename some of those? And to what? -- [[User:Http|http]] 23:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 
:I would remove the ones without vail as a decrypted firmware shows vail in the name... --[[User:Balloonhead66|Balloonhead66]] 23:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 
::"Vail" identifies a private (non-GM) beta. --[[User:Ryccardo|Ryccardo]] 14:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 
::All beta rootFS images end with "N88DeveloperOS" in the label instead of "N88OS". --[[User:Ryccardo|Ryccardo]] 14:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 
:::Now we have the mess. We have a page called [[Apex 8A293 (iPhone 3GS)]] for the final version and a page called [[ApexVail 8A293 (iPhone 3GS)]] for the GM release. Both have the same build number. What should we do in this case? -- [[User:Http|http]] 21:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 
::::I wouldn't say that is a mess, in that case, the GM was the same as the Final as they didn't find anything wrong with it --[[User:Balloonhead66|Balloonhead66]] 23:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::If I'm not mistaken, "ApexVail" is actually an incorrect name; I think the GM was named "Apex." I think the "Apex" page should stay, and denote the GM VFDecrypt key on it. --[[User:Dialexio|<span style="color:#C20; font-weight:normal;">Dialexio</span>]] 23:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 

Latest revision as of 17:13, 29 November 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.).

Adding Security Notes and Readable Release Notes To Firmware

I was thinking about adding security notes as well as readable release notes such as this to Firmware pages and wanted to see if there were any objections. I'm thinking of using the "Release Notes" column like this. The other option is to add another column for security notes, but my worry with this is that the page is already wide and it would make it even wider. I think security notes are a really important aspect of firmware updates and something we should easily link to. The main issue with the way we currently list release notes is that it is not in a readable format without additional tools to open the file, whereas the link I suggested would be. --iAdam1n (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have now completed this. --iAdam1n (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)