Talk:Firmware

Prohibited

Why are some links "prohibited", like the 3.1.3 of the iPod touch 1G? --Jaggions 15:25, 31 August 2012 (MDT)

Because of copyright issues. We don't want any problems here. I have an iPod touch 1G and had to pay for all the major firmware upgrades. --http 19:30, 1 September 2012 (MDT)

iPod touch 4G 6.0

Was there a final for the iPod touch 4G released? --5urd 19:47, 19 September 2012 (MDT)

Yes, of course. :P I didn't get around to adding it earlier due to an evening class, though. --Dialexio 20:47, 19 September 2012 (MDT)

New iPhones

I'm holding off on adding the new iPhone models (iPhone3,2 / iPhone5,1 / iPhone5,2) until we get more information about them (e.g. which iPhone 5 is for AT&T, what exactly is iPhone3,2…). --Dialexio 20:58, 19 September 2012 (MDT)

iPhone 3GS 6.0.1 Can be jailbroken.

I see it says 3GS 6.0.1 cannot be jailbroken but it can. I was going to edit this myself but cant understand where that part is in the code. --adaminsull (talk) November 6, 2012 (MST)

It can be, there is just no tool that does it yet. The 3GS has a bootrom (un)tethered exploit and therefore, there is no work to be done to jailbreak. You just need an updated payload. --5urd 15:10, 6 November 2012 (MST)

fixed. redsn0w works (just pointing to 6.0 firmware). --http 16:54, 6 November 2012 (MST)

Jailbreak column

Can "Yes¹" be changed to "tethered" . Its not much more letters and if people who do not use the wiki often look, they may think its untethered without looking at the bottom. I am willing to do this. --Adaminsull 11:29, 4 December 2012 (MST)

I have no problem with that. (I actually remember it being that way before, but it was changed for some reason.) --Dialexio 12:04, 18 December 2012 (MST)

Ok I will do this later. I will also do this on the jailbreak page. --Adaminsull 12:37, 18 December 2012 (MST)

How do I add the color for tethered? This template does not show. --Adaminsull 04:15, 19 December 2012 (MST)

Removal Request

Would it be ok to delete the jailbreak column because they are shown on jailbreak page. We could also add jailbreak to the See Also part. I think we should because it is just duplicating. Let me know what you think. --adaminsull (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually you're right that it's duplicated at we don't need to have this info twice. On the other hand, all current jailbreaks depend mainly on the iOS version (mainly independent of the device). That would mean this info would be better suited to be here. So I'm not 100% sure if we should remove it. I'd like to hear some other opinions too. If we decide so and you finally remove it, then take that opportunity to compare everything against the other page. --http (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Jailbreak does have it by device and iOS version. --adaminsull (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Because no one else replied, I will it and add a note on deletion any issues discuss here. --adaminsull (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What? 7 hours? I didn't even check the changes list until just now and I last checked last night about 18 hours ago). 7 hours is too short. Something like 4 or 5 days when the wiki is slow like it is now is appropriate. If there are more that, say 10 **people** editing recently, then a day is fine. However, *****DON'T***** do this, please. --5urd (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It was actually 3 days. I made this on the 11th. --adaminsull (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

New firmwares

I use http://itunes.com/version but this does not show the download size. Is there a better site? --Adaminsull 11:44, 18 December 2012 (MST)

Nope. That's the one and only place where iTunes checks for iOS updates. We're stuck with downloading the entire IPSW (or perhaps sniff HTTP headers after starting a download?) to figure out the file size. --Dialexio 12:01, 18 December 2012 (MST)

The way I do it is start the download, find the mb size and then convert it. --Adaminsull 12:09, 18 December 2012 (MST)

Dont do that please. Reported file sizes are rounded. In addition, files are not saved to a 1MB boundary. You need to get the byte count and that only.

Ok so how do I find the byte size? --Adaminsull 16:02, 18 December 2012 (MST)

You either have to read the header returned to the browser or download the whole thing. If you have done any by the calculation from megabyte/mebibytes, do tell so I can fix them. --5urd 17:23, 18 December 2012 (MST)

I have looked but cannot see what header you mean. Please tell me where. --adaminsull (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, found out that you can do curl -I <URL>. --adaminsull (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that header. The one that you don't see because it is intended for the browser. If there are any you have done with the MB calculation, please fix them.

--5urd (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

They have all been fixed. I'll use curl next time. --adaminsull (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Baseband version page name format

I think we had a discussion on the format of the baseband version we use for the links / pages here and if I remember correctly we decided to use the format of the version how it is displayed. I can see on this page that for iPhone until about iPhone 4 many modem versions have leading zeroes, but all the rest hasn't. Are these pages just not fixed yet or do they really display the modem version like that? I think I removed one of the leading zeroes on at least one page in the last days (on a baseband chip page I think), so we should know what is correct now. --http (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the baseband actually reports that. Also, the file names are named that way also. --5urd (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the newer baseband chips don't have the leading zero. The "cutoff area" seems to be when Apple switched to Qualcomm basebands. --Dialexio (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, then we should be fine. And I also found my change, but that was probably correct. --http (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

SHA1 Hash

What do we need to show this for? Does it have a purpose? If not could we delete it? --adaminsull (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The hash is here longer than I'm a user on this wiki. We can still question if it's necessary though. I think it is useful to verify that you have a correct and not a corrupted ipsw file. I see no reason to remove that. This is especially important on versions that can no longer be downloaded from Apple. --http (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand but you can use the download links from this wiki to download so you have the correct version. --adaminsull (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Editing.

I was wondering, would it be better to add all devices just to that page instead of multiple edits? Of course deprecated would stay as they are just current would be on the page. There would be no need to edit Firmware/iPad, Firmware/iPad mini, Firmware/iPod touch and Firmware/iPhone. You will just edit Firmware. This will save a lot of edits. Also If this is agreed I will do it for OTA_Updates and Jailbreak. It would look like Beta_Firmware. Let me know what you think. --adaminsull (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the page (or maybe it was Beta Firmware), that is how it used to be. --5urd (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you like it to be like that again? I made it like this as it was all devices separate but I do not mind doing it like Beta Firmware. If yes I will do all that have this design like that. --adaminsull (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This page used to be unified, but it got chopped up after HostMonster kept choking on the page's length. As nice as it would be to bring everything back to one page, I don't think there's a problem with how things are right now. The number of edits for each firmware update shouldn't be a problem (for the time being), as long as Apple doesn't push updates as frequently as Mozilla does for Firefox… --Dialexio (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments column.

Is this really needed? I mean its does not state what each iOS fixes and we can tell an initial release. What do you think about removing it? --adaminsull (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards a no for this. The comments could probably use some TLC (e.g. cleaning up obvious remarks like you said, and perhaps note things like 5.0.1 build 9A406 having unencrypted ramdisks), but I don't think it warrants a column removal. --Dialexio (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Shall I remove the exchange bug fix comment? I can also mention the unencrypted ramdisks. --adaminsull (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change anything. --http (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)