Talk:Firmware

Add defunct firmwares?

There are some defunct firmware builds referenced in Apple's XML file (i.e.- iPhone 2G 3A101a). Should these be added to this page, or not? -Dialexio 20:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

can we add recovery firmware like x12220000_5_Recovery.ipsw and the ipod touch 1g had firmware 1.0 iPod_1.0_36A00403.ipsw --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 that contains/uses iOS (there are only three files inside of it, one of which references "N20", not "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. --Dialexio 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. Enjoy! --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" Source. --Ryccardo 16:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of "Can be unlocked" ?

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. --M2m 03:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Quote Oranav: "There's no point for an "unlock" column if we write "yes, stay at X".

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 --M2m 02:19, 17 September 2009 (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. Haldo 13:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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. --Blackbox 18:22, 17 September 2009 (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? Rekoil 21:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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? --adriaaan 15:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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? --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 version XML, like how Trejan lists it. --Dialexio 19:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

iPod touch 2G/iOS 2.2 jailbreak status

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 --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilstevie (talk) 10:55, September 30, 2010 (UTC). Please consult this page for more info on how to sign pages, and how to fix this.

Please sign any entry you make on the talk pages. There is 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. --Dialexio 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? -- http 23:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would remove the ones without vail as a decrypted firmware shows vail in the name... --Balloonhead66 23:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Vail" identifies a private (non-GM) beta. --Ryccardo 14:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

All beta rootFS images end with "N88DeveloperOS" in the label instead of "N88OS". --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? -- http 21:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)