Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

Not to be picky but power is IBM hardware

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

POWER yes. PowerPC (the architecture of the CPUs in the xbox 360 and Apple G5 boxes in question) on the other hand is Apple-IBM-Motorola (aka 'AIM').

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

but mostly used and made by IBM these days, it seems...

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

PowerPC? If we're talking processors shipped I'd say the biggest users are, Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, right? BTW, Linux on the Wii is kind of fun. :)

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

I get the feeling the next OS will only run on new hardware just to get you to buy new hardware. Well if my 6-month old N810 will not run it, I will learn from the experience because it will be the first and last Nokia product I buy.

And looking at the overall software quality, I will be heading back to the Windows Mobile world... My PDA just worked and all the tools I could get for it too. No hacking.

Until now I was only sick of the software, still thinking the hardware itself was ok, just a matter of waiting for the next release to fix things. So I'd better sell my N810 while there are still people willing to buy it. Once this news gets public, it is worth nothing anymore.

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

You'll get the same problem with windows mobile, have you ever been able to upgrade any mobile from one version of windows mobile to the next? Even if you could for one, can you do it for all?

Also I doubt that given the number of n800/n810 users that support will stop.
For browsers fennec is coming and should help a lot.
For email there are many choices.
If your not happy, just sell it now and quit whining ;-)

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

Yes, because the tablets are completely useless and utterly dependent on a major OS release to make them functional.

:rolleyes:

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

Of course !!! They don't have an iphone look and feel ... so the software isn't finished ! Nokia sell unfinished products !

(2nd degree inside)

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

Tablets aside, Nokia's unwillingness to fix firmware problems in certain "unpopular" products (like E70) isn't particularly endearing.

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

(tiredly) N8x0 has a standard OMAP2 chip with a standard PowerVR accelerator. Drivers for this chip exist (dunno how stable though).

No, the hardware is a simple OMAP2 SoC, with PowerVR and internal video buffer intact. This hardware is not being used in N8x0, but it does not mean you cannot use PowerVR to render into that internal buffer and then copy the results to the actual Blizzard-powered N8x0 screen.

So, to summarize:
1. No, you can't have PowerVR in N8x0.
2. No, this is not a technical problem but a political one.

But, as you still can't have it, the argument about "why" is merely academical.

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

About as unstable as they can get and still reasonably be called drivers. They're also for an older kernel.

See the justification page on the wiki for the details you're after.

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

I agree with that sentiment, I just found the hyperbole (as usual) in the other post too funny to resist. ;)

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

This should not be an issue, the older kernel is still 2.6.x and I presume that the kernel interface has remained the same, should just need a recompile.

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

So you got me curious. I went and looked at the OMAP2420 Technical Reference Manual. I can't find the 640x480 limitation for the display or the accelerator hardware. The display hardware does have a limit but it's larger than 640x480.

I understand the internal SRAM is the limit for the resolution you are quoting. Although I don't understand why RFBI (Remote Frame Buffer Interface) mode wasn't used with the internal display subsystem. But the answer to that really doesn't matter.

What matters is how, physically, is the external LCD controller interfaced to the OMAP2420? It seems that if the CPU can access the external frame buffer, the 3d accelerator could as well.

If the bandwidth between the external frame buffer and 3d accelerator is the limiting factor, then this discussion is over. For the purposes of user interface, the 8x0 really doesn't have a 3d accelerator.

I've reviewed the Driver Justification wiki but don't see the answer to the above question.

Frank

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

No on both counts, it's for a 2.4.x and the interface has changed within 2.6.x.

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

No you are wrong. I have a 2.4.x driver, but Nokia have a 2.6.x driver.

I don't know how large the change inside the 2.6.x series was, but I'm surprised, stuff like that is usually held for a series change isn't it? In any case I'd still reckon (not having looked to see how much has changed) that it would be a simple(ish) re-compile job.

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

There is no limitation (specific to the 3D driver being able to drive our display that is) afaik, this is mis-information produced by people assuming things.

Indeed.

The same bandwidth limitation as exists for arbitrary video output will hold (3D hardware writes directly to the framebuffer afaik, framebuffer memory is allocated in SDRAM from where it is copied to the Epson LCD controller chip to perform updates). This in no way (afaict) precludes using the 3D chipset.

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

If the framebuffer is in SDRAM, the 3d accelerator can access that. Then it's clear to me that the 3d accelerator is usable from a technical standpoint. The rest is a matter of software (not saying it's simple or possible from a licensing perspective).

It seems that the only possible technical limitation would be the update rate possible when copying from SDRAM to external frame buffer. Non technical issues aside, the Fremantle bling would not update at 30fps on the n8x0s. But this shouldn't slow down the overall interface or experience. The CPU does not have to do the 3d rendering. There would be frames dropped is all because the 3d accelerator could update the SDRAM frame buffer faster than it could be copied to the external frame buffer. On video this may suck, but does it matter on menus and other UI widgets? Hard to say without seeing the interface but I would guess not.

Frank

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

lardman,

unless something drastic has changed the powervr will still render frames which tear when sent over the bus.
Of course if we can use a lower resolution tearfree rgb then we are in business.

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

I have performed winmo upgrades. Many times. Both official (from hardware vendors) and unofficial. There is a thriving community around porting new (admittedly of dubious legality) windows mobile versions onto old hardware. This is why I have devices which came with "pocket pc 2003" running windows mobile 5. Although I don't use them, because my n800 is much better. No, they're not available for all, they tend to be directed towards HTC devices. But given that HTC still sells the most winmo devices, that's not too much of an issue.

And it you want to get really picky, you can always just put linux on many of them :)

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

Yes, depending on the amount of data to be sent (i.e. size of the update region), and the required update rate. But this is the fundamental limitation I was talking about above.

Of course, though I'm not sure whether the desktop and apps can/could be scaled arbitrarily while running without all sorts of graphical glitches (thinking about an accelerated desktop). Certainly for individual apps (such as your cool liqbase) this is true.

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

No comments about powervr, but 4.2008.36-5 diablo software update had introduced fixes for tearing problems in the omapfb kernel driver.

You can even have full 800x480 resolution tearfree rgb, but CPU has to run at 400MHz for that (RFBI speed also depends on CPU speed via some multipliers). When running at 330MHz, screen updates are not fast enough for full resolution rgb updates, but lower resolution screen updates should be ok.

Re: Is the Maemo5 development/release process unprecedented?
 

Serge,
thats excellent, I'm just at a critical point and bringing myself back into RGB alignment could be beneficial.

I'll have a play.