Talk:Jailbreak/2014

Error

Actually, I believe redsn0w (normal version) still loads a 2.1.1 iBoot & uses the arm7_go exploit to bootstrap the ramdisk that flashes the NOR, including an LLB with the 24kpwn exploit. Can someone confirm this? --Cool name 01:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

limera1n/greenpois0n

We should really try to get a name for the exploit or find a way to add it to exploits used post 2.0 --JakeAnthraX 05:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparenttly, limera1n uses SHAtter as it is unmatchable. Also google it --5urd 05:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

SHAtter was not used and was saved. This is the iPhone wiki, usually people come here before googling and after all it should be here. --JakeAnthraX 05:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

the exploit is used differently on both jailbreaks on limera1n it creates a command called geohot then reboots to recovery mode and boots a ramdisk however on greenpois0n it injects IBSS and then uses the exploit to inject a pwnd IBEC in the description of shatter it did say it rebooted --liamchat 11:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

[SHAtter] was saved, [greenpois0n] uses the same exploit as [limera1n]. Also can someone stem the flow of crap coming from liamchat? It's getting annoying now. --GreySyntax 11:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Exploits which are used in order to jailbreak 2.x?"

The exploits used for jailbreaking iOS 1.x are broken down by firmware version. I'd like to accomplish the same thing for the 2.0 and onward section, since it's formatted much differently. But then I thought to myself, "This is going to be a huge revision that may receive sharp criticism. Let me make a talk page entry for this." So that's what I did…

So, in other words, would it be fine if the "Exploits which are used in order to jailbreak 2.0+" section was changed to something similar to the "Exploits which are used in order to jailbreak 1.x" section? --Dialexio 02:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Wouldn't it be easier to also separate them by major revisions? Like have a 2.X section, a 3.X section, a 4.X section, and soon to be 5.X? --JakeAnthraX 02:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course! I was planning to do that, too. :P --Dialexio 02:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

4.3.5 / 4.2.10

I've changed references to 0.9.8b3 to 0.9.8b7 for 4.3.5 tethered jailbreaks (see latest iPhone Dev rs iOS5beta posting). Should the Main Page be changed to reflect that an official jailbreak is available? Or will this only be changed on release of an untethered exploit being made available? Also fixed an error in which a reference to 0.9.6rc18 was existent with a question mark. Now changed to the accurate version of rs beta that needs to be used for 4.3.4 on that device. I've left 0.9.8b3 for 4.3.4 simply because that was the first release supporting it. Hope this is okay. blackthund3r 04:57, 31 August 2011 (MDT)

Actually it should list the lowest and highest version number that supports the listed firmware version, not just the latest. That's why all other pre 4.3.3 versions for redsn0w have ranges. -- http 00:57, 1 September 2011 (MDT)

3GS separation

From a jailbreak point of view, the 3GS with old and new bootrom are totally different devices. Can we separate that into two tables? -- http 12:48, 14 December 2011 (MST)

5.x PwnageTool bundles

The list says there are PwnageTool custom bundles for 5.0 for iPad and iPhone 4 (GSM) available. Is that correct? -- http 05:06, 19 December 2011 (MST)

see pwnbundles.com --Zmaster 06:45, 19 December 2011 (MST)

That site doesn't list any bundle for iOS 5.0, while this page says iOS 5.0 can be jailbroken with PwnageTool and a custom bundle. Is this just meant theoretical or what? -- http 10:32, 19 December 2011 (MST)

Clutter

Some of the tables (notably the iPhone 3GS section) are beginning to appear crammed. I think we could break up the tables a little more, based on firmware versions, to alleviate this issue. Thoughts? --Dialexio 18:51, 28 December 2011 (MST)

What about dropping the table all together:

== [[m68ap|iPhone]] ==
* 1.0.0
** iBrickr
*** Untethered: 0.5-0.91

or

== [[m68ap|iPhone]] ==
* 1.0.0
** iBrickr (Untethered): 0.5-0.91

--5urd 19:00, 28 December 2011 (MST)

Sounds good to me. Unless somebody wants tables, I'll switch over to this proposed format sometime around the weekend. --Dialexio 21:08, 28 December 2011 (MST)

There is one more that I would like better: the first option but list all versions:

== [[m68ap|iPhone]] ==
* 1.0.0
** iBrickr
*** 0.5 (Untethered)
*** 0.6 (Untethered)
...

Its a bigger job, but it is better IMO --5urd 22:42, 28 December 2011 (MST)

One more (the tools area is listed like list option three, but w/o the link. The link is on the second column. The "5.0.1" can be like ==== 5.0.1 ====): File:JB Option.png --5urd 22:47, 28 December 2011 (MST)

I do like the tables and I don't see a big need to change anything (except updating). A list won't bring much advantage and just increase page size. But the last proposed version of 5urd, a table that lists all tools in their versions for each firmware (still per device) wouldn't be bad if you want to change something. Please see also my request above about separating devices for old/new bootrom. --http 02:59, 29 December 2011 (MST)

It will make it vertical instead of horizontal (which is better) and it would allow someone to link to the firmware version with the ToC if we make the version number a header (see above comment). I can do it later today. --5urd 12:01, 29 December 2011 (MST)

I would actually like to see the new table format on Firmware and Beta Firmware --5urd 16:08, 29 December 2011 (MST)

Absinthe

For all entries of Absinthe it is stated that Absinthe 2.0/2.0.1 jailbreaks iOS 5.0.1, however Absinthe 2.0.* jailbreaks only 5.1.1. In order to jailbreak 5.0.1, one must use Absinthe 0.4. The official website states this cleary and keeps both 0.4 and 2.0.* available. I'll refrain from making this edit myself because I am not that friendly of wiki-like tables and might break something else :D --Luxiel 06:16, 30 May 2012 (MDT)

You're absolutely right. To edit the tables, feel free to try. There's a preview button; that way you can't break anything. If nobody updates this soon, I'll edit it. Thanks for reporting. --http 13:45, 30 May 2012 (MDT)

My bad… I kinda went by what I saw inside Absinthe.app. I'll work on changing the tables accordingly. --Dialexio 15:11, 30 May 2012 (MDT)

…OK, I just tried it out twice, and Absinthe 2.0.4 was able to successfully jailbreak my iPod touch 4G on iOS 5.0.1. It may be that Absinthe 0.4 is more recommended for jailbreaking iOS 5.0.1 (albeit only on the iPad 2 and iPhone 4S), but 2.0.4 seems to be perfectly capable of jailbreaking 5.0.1 and 5.1.1. --Dialexio 16:18, 30 May 2012 (MDT)

I didn't actually try to jailbreak a 5.0.1 with the new versions, as Chronic Team states on the Absinthe.exe that it jailbreakes 5.1.1 and the website points us to use 0.4 for 5.0.1, but if it works, it works :D --Luxiel 13:30, 31 May 2012 (MDT)

Bootrom exploits

Should we really list/repeat the limera1n and other bootrom exploits for every iOS version here? --http 14:58, 25 October 2012 (MDT)

redsn0w versions

In the jailbreak charts, we are listing the redsn0w-versions that work with this device/iOS version. That's fine. But in order to avoid updating the charts for every minor redsn0w release, I suggest that we just leave the starting version, like "0.9.15b1-" to indicate that support was added then. Of course, if redsn0w no longer supports that iOS build on the affected device, we have to add the end version too, like it is now. And also if the tether-status changes. The main problem right now is not even a lot of updates here just for minor redsn0w changes, but also if we forget to update this. For example if we list it as compatible with versions "0.9.102-0.9.117" and not we're at version "0.9.135", then nobody knows if support stopped at version "0.9.117" or if just the list didn't get updated. --http 13:22, 4 November 2012 (MST)

Order of jailbreak tools.

I was looking at this today and thought that on different devices that it gets confusing that the order of tools is different. Would it be better if the tools were sorted in alphabetical order? --iAdam1n (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2012 (MST)

I don't care. If it bothers you so much, feel free to sort them. --http 13:09, 14 December 2012 (MST)

Okay. Will do. --iAdam1n (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2012 (MST)

Version number of tool.

Would it not be better to just say yes or no? I mean most people will use the latest version to jailbreak even old firmwares. --iAdam1n (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2012 (MST)

Because sometimes the latest one doesn't work. Take sn0wbreeze: before 2.9, you would need a specific version as the latest didn't include the bundles for old firmwares. --5urd 11:32, 4 December 2012 (MST)

Ok. Was hoping to change it to yes, no or tethered but that is a good point. --iAdam1n (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2012 (MST)

That's exactly the problem. Not all tools in their latest version work with old firmwares, so you have to take an older version in order to use it. But for tools that do work in their latest version we might want to remove the latest version and just list since which version it is supported, for example firmware x is supported with "redsn0w 0.99.1023-" meaning since that version of redsn0w. That way we don't have to update everything if a new redsn0w version comes out. And when (for any reason) firmware x is no longer supported with the newest redsn0w, we could replace it with "redsn0w 0.99.1023-0.99.2039" (when redsn0w 0.99.2040 is the version no longer supporting it). -- http 17:59, 4 December 2012 (MST)

I see. Please see my question above this one. --iAdam1n (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2012 (MST)

Tethered Jailbreak breaks camera

Has anybody noticed that the 6.0.1 tethered jailbreak breaks the camera? --Haifisch (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What device? Have you tried a fresh restore + jailbreak (restore, set up as new, jailbreak) as it could be your system having a corrupted binary. If that didn't/doesn't work, did/can you contact p0sixninja? --5urd (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Works ok here. --iAdam1n (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm seems to be my iPhone 4 (6.0.1) then... Let me see if the binary is OK --Haifisch (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Errm… This has nothing to do with the front page. I'll let it slide though. (For the record, my iPhone 4 CDMA's cameras function properly.) --Dialexio (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to put it (I meant to put it on the community portal actually, made a mistake) What have you installed? --Haifisch (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could have asked something like "Should it be noted that the 6.0.1 jailbreak messes with camera functionality?" on the Jailbreak talk page. ;P But I digress. I have AntiTint, BlurriedNCBackground, f.lux, iCleaner, MultiStorey, My3G, PrivaCy, Protect My Privacy, ScrollingBoard, and TetherMe installed. --Dialexio (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

is there somewhere were i can note this? --Haifisch (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No untethered jailbreak for 6.1.3!

Hi Adam, you added many of these edits, but there is no untethered jailbreak for 6.1.3+ available. Can you fix that everywhere you changed it? --http (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

TLC

Okay, we've seen a bunch of firmwares come and go now. The page has started getting pretty incomprehensible and unwieldy. For starters, I think we can move the exploits used to a different page (Jailbreak Exploits?). We'll probably have to rethink how the tables display the information to make it friendlier to use… Maybe forgo tables, and present the information in a list, like such:

iPod touch 4G

• Absinthe: iOS 5.0.1
• greenpois0n: iOS 4.1, 4.2.1
• p0sixspwn: iOS 6.1.5, 6.1.6 (Cydia package only)
• Saffron: iOS 4.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3

What do you guys think? --Dialexio (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I do like the idea of this, though I kind of prefer a table. I do agree though that something in the tables should change since they are getting too big. If no other table ideas are thought of, I would be fine with this proposed design. --iAdam1n (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We should definitely move the exploits to a seperate page. I'm not so sure about the list view since we wouldn't be able to show which version of which tool is capable of jailbreaking which firmware like we can in the tables at the moment. I think we should have a separate page for Jailbreak Tools and that this page should only be for the first few paragraphs. — Spydar007 (Talk) 09:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The only problem with the tables though, is that they do not fit on the page. If this can be made to fit, then I also like the idea of keeping tables. --iAdam1n (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is a problem that they don't fit as you can just use the scrollbar at the bottom of your browser. There aren't many that don't fit, four or five. The only way I see we would be able to fix this, would be to make the text smaller. — Spydar007 (Talk) 09:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could use the list view as Dialexio said but in brackets list the version used? We could have a sentence on the page saying what it means. For example;

iPod touch 5G

• evasi0n7: iOS 7.0.4 (1.0)

That way we keep the version numbers but don't overflow the page. --iAdam1n (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

We could do, but I still think the tables look cooler and nicer. — Spydar007 (Talk) 09:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

We could also have a table for each jailbreak tool, listing tool versions, iOS versions and devices supported. I am not sure yet how it would be designed, but wanted to put the idea out there incase anyone has ideas. --iAdam1n (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

So you mean instead of having a several tables for devices, wer have several tables for jailbreak tools. Nice idea! I like that and it will be a lot cleaner than it is currently. — Spydar007 (Talk) 10:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean. I have a design that could be used, here. If anyone has a better idea, please share it. --iAdam1n (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That looks great! I was just coming up with another design, although I think that that makes it clear enough. — Spydar007 (Talk) 10:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is what I came up with for evasi0n7 (it's not finished, obviously). — Spydar007 (Talk) 10:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks great too. We could maybe avoid the (3,1) etc but lets see what others think. --iAdam1n (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I built on your proposal a little more and came up with this. (It's based off of Absinthe's compatibility information.) How does it look? --Dialexio (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

iOS Version	Device
	iPhone 4 (iPhone3,1)	iPhone 4 (iPhone3,2)	iPhone 4 (iPhone3,3)	iPhone 4S
5.0	No			0.1
5.0.1 (9A405)	2.0			0.1
5.0.1 (9A406)	N/A			Yes
5.1	No
5.1.1	2.0

That does look a bit like mine. You've just added in the colors and changed a few things around. :P I would be happy to go forward with this design as the final version. — Spydar007 (Talk) 12:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Also looks fine by me. If the table still did not fit, we could use iPhone 4 without variants also. --iAdam1n (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you guys think we should go ahead with this? — Spydar007 (Talk) 14:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. --iAdam1n (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Are we agreed to move the exploits to Jailbreak Exploits and the tools to Jailbreak Tools? — Spydar007 (Talk) 14:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the exploits, but do not like the idea for a new page for tools. We can add a new section ==Jailbreak Tools== instead which IMO will look better. --iAdam1n (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I can go either way, but I don't see the need to move jailbreak compatibility to a new page. It seems fine over here. --Dialexio (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hm… Now that I see the layout in action, the page certainly looks neater, but it does seem a bit difficult to find the device you're looking for. Any ideas on how to tackle this? Perhaps we can do away with "Device" in favor of more descriptive cells for device classes. (i.e. "Apple TV," "iPad," "iPad mini," "iPhone," and "iPod touch") Here's how it might look:

iOS Version	iPhone				iPod touch
	iPhone 4 (iPhone3,1)	iPhone 4 (iPhone3,2)	iPhone 4 (iPhone3,3)	iPhone 4S	iPod touch 4G
5.1.1	2.0

(I thought of squeezing that row in between "Device" and the different models, but I didn't care for how it looked.) Any other thoughts? --Dialexio (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

To be honest guys, I think the original way is best. Think about it. Let's say someone from JailbreakQA wants to know which tool jailbreaks his iPod touch 2G on iOS 4.2.1. We can direct him to this page. With the original way, he can just scroll down to the iPod touch 2G section, look at 4.2.1 and see exactly which software jailbreaks 4.2.1. But with this new way, he has to scroll through every single tool looking for "iPod touch 2G" and "4.2.1" to be listed, which will take a very long time. I personally think the original way is best. — Spydar007 (Talk) 05:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think reverting is a good idea since it does not fit on the page. If we could make this fit, we could maybe have a table that lists the device, tool name, version and iOS version in a table but narrow it down to say 5.x, 6.x, 7.x then that could work, though I do not have an idea currently of a design for this. In any case, the current way is fine. People can cmd + f or ctrl +f to find out. --iAdam1n (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why it doesn't fit. It fits perfectly fine on both my monitors for both my computers. It must be your screen resolution. I think that whatever way we do it, it will not be as easy to find as it will be as it was with the original way. Even if people do Ctrl+F or CMD+F, they still have to scroll through and find the correct place for it. — Spydar007 (Talk) 14:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It does not fit on a 15" monitor. The page needs to be scrolled over to find the end of some of the tables, such as iPhone3,1 table. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The iPhone 3,1 has about 3-inch of space at the end of the table for me. What we could do, is to change the font size of certain tables.

All tables start with this line:

{| class="wikitable" style="font-size: smaller; text-align: center;

So, instead we just change it to say this:

{| class="wikitable" style="font-size: 7pt; text-align: center;

Which will make the font asize smaller. — Spydar007 (Talk) 15:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Adam, scroll down and look at the iPhone 3,1 table now. Does it still overlap? — Spydar007 (Talk) 15:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No, still overlaps. See this image. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Since the new design can be confusing if you do not know which tool supports a certain firmware, I have had another design idea. See below.

6.x

iOS	Jailbreak Tool	Tool Version	Devices
6.0	redsn0w	0.9.15b11	iPad 2, iPad 3, iPad mini 1G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPod touch 4G, iPod touch 5G
	evasi0n	1.0-1.5.3
5.1	redsn0w	0.9.15b31	Apple TV 2G
6.0.1	redsn0w	0.9.15b31	iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPod touch 4G, iPod touch 5G
	evasi0n	1.0-1.5.3	iPad 2, iPad 3, iPad mini 1G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPod touch 4G, iPod touch 5G
5.1.1	redsn0w	0.9.15b31	Apple TV 2G
6.0.2	redsn0w	0.9.15b31	iPad mini 1G, iPhone 5
	evasi0n	1.0-1.5.3

¹ Tethered jailbreak.

We would do this for each major iOS, 5.x, 6.x, 7.x etc. Let me know what you think. --iAdam1n (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea! However, I think it could get confusing with having the iOS 5 firmwares for the Apple TV 2. I think that we a should either have these in the iOS 5 section, or label them as iOS 6. — Spydar007 (Talk) 14:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be more confusing since they are technically in the right place IMO. Since it lists which device it is, I see no issue but if anyone else wants it done like this, ok. --iAdam1n (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

True, but I think we should move both of the iOS 5 ones to either the top or the bottom of the table. — Spydar007 (Talk) 14:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That would make it more confusing. Let's see what others think. --iAdam1n (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the Apple TV can get its own table under the same header. In the separate table, the Apple TV can list both the iOS version and the marketing version… Just throwing that out there. --Dialexio (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that could work. --iAdam1n (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That would work. — Spydar007 (Talk) 14:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you propose that we have a table for the major versions like 5.x, 6.x, 7.x etc. and in those sections we have one table for all devices other than that of the Apple TV. Below that, we have a second table that has the Apple TV jailbreaks. Should we still use the {{yes}} and {{partial}} templates? — Spydar007 (Talk) 13:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh and also, should we include the betas (like evasi0n7 can jailbreak 7.1b1,2&3)? — Spydar007 (Talk) 13:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is how it is proposed. We should not include betas as it promotes more piracy with people upgrading to use them and if we listed it for evasi0n7, we would have to for all jailbreaks that support betas. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Should we still use the {{yes}} and {{partial}} templates? — Spydar007 (Talk) 15:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no need to. --iAdam1n (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking that it would be better to include {{yes}} and whatnot too. I decided to sample it to see how it looks, and I think I really like it. It's just a rough draft, so the colspans and rowspans for the yes/partial/no cells can be changed as necessary. Now if you'll excuse me, my eyes are starting to burn from staring at this wiki markup. :P --Dialexio (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

4.x

iOS	Jailbreak Tool	Tool Version	Devices
			iPad	iPad 2	iPhone 3G	iPhone 3GS	iPhone 4 (iPhone3,1)	iPhone 4 (iPhone3,3)	iPod touch 3G	iPod touch 4G
4.1	redsn0w	0.9.6b2	N/A	N/A	Yes	Yes	Yes	N/A	Yes	Yes
	greenpois0n	RC4	N/A	N/A	Yes	Yes	Yes	N/A	Yes	Yes
4.2.6	redsn0w	0.9.6rc9	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	Yes	N/A	N/A
	greenpois0n	RC5 b4	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	Yes	N/A	N/A
4.3.3	redsn0w	0.9.6rc16	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N/A	Yes	Yes
	Saffron	1.0-1.5.3	Yes					N/A	Yes

Apple TV

Marketing Version	iOS Version	Jailbreak Tool	Tool Version	Devices
				Apple TV 2G
4.0	4.1	Seas0nPass	?	Yes

6.x

iOS	Jailbreak Tool	Tool Version	Devices
			iPad 2	iPad 3	iPad 4	iPad mini 1G	iPhone 3GS	iPhone 4	iPhone 4S	iPhone 5	iPod touch 4G	iPod touch 5G
6.0	redsn0w	0.9.15b11	No	No	No	No	Yes1	Tethered	No	No	Tethered	No
	evasi0n	1.0-1.5.3	Yes

¹ Tethered jailbreak on devices not vulnerable to 0x24000 Segment Overflow.

Apple TV

Marketing Version	iOS Version	Jailbreak Tool	Tool Version	Devices
				Apple TV 2G	Apple TV 3G
5.1	6.0	redsn0w	0.9.15b1	Tethered	No
		evasi0n	1.0-1.5.3	Yes	No

¹ Tethered jailbreak.

I like it. I would say use colspan and rowspan save duplicate yes/no but other than that, great design. --iAdam1n (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I to would be happy to go forward with this as the final design for the page. — Spydar007 (Talk) 06:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I have now started to use this design on the page. However, I think we should now discuss the markup for the tables. Take a look at the 7.x table. Should we use rowspan to combine evasi0n7 into one? Should we do this for Geeksn0w? Should we use rowspan to combine the tool versions? Should we use rowspan to combine the 7.0.1, 2, 3 and 4 iOS versions? Should we combine Geeksn0w's 'No's? If for example, we combine the tools on the 7.x version, then this should be combined throughout this table and others. So, if we combine the evasi0n7 rows, we should also combine the Geeksn0w. Whatever we do on this table, we should do for other tables like 5.x and 6.x. It needs to be kept uniform and easy to read. — Spydar007 (Talk) 15:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and also take a look at the 1.x tables because that needs some serious improvements. For example, should we even include iOS 1.1? — Spydar007 (Talk) 15:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I say do just colspan on the actual yes/no part since it was like that before. Doing both breaks the 1.x table. I say that we should rowspan iOS versions however as it looks neater and is easier to understand. I also see no reason for iOS 1.1 since it cannot be jailbroken, and any other iOS's that happen to be like that. --iAdam1n (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What about merging the tool version? I personally think we should keep iOS 1.1 becasue, like the Apple TV, if we don't include it, ssomeone may think we missed it out. Obviously, we should keep it the same throughout the page so if there are other iOS's that can't be jailbroken, we should include those too, for example, if iOS 7.1.2 is released. — Spydar007 (Talk) 05:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I suppose we should include 1.1. I don't mind either way about tool version rowspan. --iAdam1n (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should do rowspan on the yes/no part. — Spydar007 (Talk) 14:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Since talking on IRC and you meant per iOS only, I like the idea. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so we basically done all that. One more thing though, which one should be superior? For example, take a look at the 5.x table. You can see for PwnageTool on 5.0 the No is colspanned for the iPhone 4S, the iPod 3 and the iPod 4. However, should it be that it is only colspanned on the iPod 3 and the iPod 4, in order to rowspan the iPhone 4S with the other tools? Which should be superior? There are other examples of this throughout this table, like 5.1.1 redsn0w. — Spydar007 (Talk) 16:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that colspan should take priority. --iAdam1n (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This has now all been completed. --iAdam1n (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

iPhone 4 sections

Is it really necessary to have different sections for the variants of the iPhone 4? Surely, we could combine them into one. — Spydar007 (Talk) 16:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

We should keep them as it is because not all devices have the same iOS versions on it. Though iPad 2 is combined, it should be left alone. --iAdam1n (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

What about the iPad Air for the China LTA WLAN models? — Spydar007 (Talk) 17:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't know but I would say don't merge them since there are different CDMA versions etc. See what others think too. Topics on talk pages should be given at least a week before anything changes anyway. --iAdam1n (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)