Talk:Firmware Keys/2011

STOP

The article says to stop adding/editing pages like this one, add the keys to a firmware version and add a link to the firmware page. Fine. But on the Firmware page we dont list the beta firmwares. Should we create a beta firmware page to link to all the beta firmware key pages? --http 22:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

yes User:iH8sn0w know's how to get the key's and now i realise that that is what makes him a hacker (not even the real hackers look after the wiki) --liamchat 23:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Table merge

Any one but me think about merging the two tables? I will do it. --5urd 14:26, 17 July 2011 (MDT)

I intentionally kept them separate when creating them, as it was a wish not to include betas in the real list. Looking back, I think it was still a good idea, so let's leave it like this. Merging them would mean we should also merge the two firmware pages and I think nobody wants that. --http 18:07, 17 July 2011 (MDT)

Split up the table?

Updating the tables on this page is rather unwieldy, so I'd like to split the tables up by firmware version. (i.e.- 1.x, 2.x, 3.x…) Is this fine with everyone? --Dialexio 15:07, 26 July 2011 (MDT)

Agreed. This way we can remove the columns of the devices that did not exist at the time of the firmware release (like iPad 2 columns in the 2.x table) and also those devices that are no longer supported on the given firmware versions (like ipt1g column in 4.x table). But maybe add a comment of what is missing to each table. --http 03:33, 27 July 2011 (MDT)

agreed as the table is getting waaaaaay to wide for small displays. So like for 1.x, we could have only 2 columns: ipt1g and iph2g --5urd 09:48, 30 July 2011 (MDT)

Wow! That looks way nicer! Now we just need to do the betas --5urd 16:10, 1 August 2011 (MDT)

Major Resorting Request

I would like to change the sorting etc. on this page. Right now we have ATV versions that belong to 5.x under the 4.x section, because we put them under the displayed version section. So I would suggest to change these tables to sort by build number. Rows that have different build numbers should get split up to two rows. So far so good. But two questions remain: 1. Where do we see the iOS version number? Just in front of the build number? And what about the ATV iOS numbers on the screen, do we show those as well and where? 2. If we have the build number in the first column already, then what do we write as the link? Just an "X" or what? Anybody disagrees with the resorting in general? -- http 11:49, 18 October 2011 (MDT)

see discussion here: The_iPhone_Wiki:Community_portal#Apple_TV_2G_versions_.28Part_34.29 --http 06:00, 25 October 2011 (MDT)

Frankly spoken this page looks messy and I suggest an overhaul. What are the tables here used for anyway? The VFDecrypt Keys for every firmware can be reached easily from the firmware page via the Link in the Build column. Maybe the colum should be renamed to Build/VFDecrypt Keys. Then the issue about the aTV firmeware numbers would also be taken care of as these columns are also already available (for 'real' and reported). This page here could then explain how the VFDecrypt keys can be generated.--M2m 06:30, 25 October 2011 (MDT)

An overhaul was done a while back by dialexio to seperate it by major versions. But this page does seem like a duplicate of firmware and I kind of agree that we should just change this to list the ways to get the keys. But a lot of tech blogs on decrypting the firmwares link to this page... Maybe the above info stays the same, but the tables are replaced with:

== Firmware Versions ==
{{main|Firmware|Beta Firmware}}

Any other thoughts? --5urd 14:04, 26 October 2011 (MDT)

Well just like I said I would remove all tables here and just refer to the Firmware Page for the Keys themselves. In case really necessary add an extra column as shown below.

VFDecrypt Key
Yes

Otherwise I also see lots of double maintenance.. --M2m 04:35, 29 October 2011 (MDT)

I love your edit. But yes, I think we should resort to removing the tables from this page and adding the column "VFDecrypt Key" to Firmware and Beta Firmware as the Apple TV does get confusing. --5urd 18:53, 29 October 2011 (MDT)

This is awful, there used to be a nice table you could look at and know which keys are available by firmware based on if the page is created or not... or at least what the links are to each one. Now you have to scroll through a giant list sorted by PRODUCT instead of by firmware to figure out which keys are available. What was wrong with having a little redundancy for the sake of usability? --Sbingner 19:17, 11 November 2011 (MST)

Personally, I liked the table as well as I could easily find the keys by version instead of device. If we bring the table back now, we only have the 5.0.1 betas and 5.0.1 final to bring back. But the Apple TV screwed it all. Maybe if it had its own dedicated section... Perhaps:

== Final ==
=== 1.x ===
=== 2.x ===
=== 3.x ===
=== 4.x ===
=== 5.x ===
=== Apple TV ===
== Beta ==
=== 1.x/2.x ===
=== 3.x ===
=== 4.x ===
=== 5.x ===
=== Apple TV ===

Any thoughts? --5urd 21:48, 12 November 2011 (MST)

Despite its… "unique" versioning, I'm not too keen on splitting the Apple TV from the rest of the bunch. (To an extent, it would split the table based on product again.) I think that we should decide on what we should use for the Apple TV's firmware versions before discussing this further. --Dialexio 00:15, 13 November 2011 (MST)

What about bringing back the list like this:

	Apple TV 2G	iPad	iPad 2 (Wi-Fi)
8F190	-	4.3	-
8F191	-	-	4.3
8F191m	4.2	-	-
8F202	4.2.1	-	-
8F305	4.2.2	-	-
8F455	4.3	-	-
9A334	-	5.0	5.0
9A334v	4.4	-	-

--http 15:43, 14 November 2011 (MST)

What about

	Apple TV 2G	iPad 2 (Wi-Fi)
8F191	-	Durango 4.3
8F191m	Durango 4.2	-

--5urd 17:49, 14 November 2011 (MST)

We don't need to repeat the names for every link. They are already on each page in case anybody needs to know. Having them here in the link too just wastes the space. --http 17:52, 14 November 2011 (MST)

Now that you say that, I can see that. I like your idea. --5urd 17:53, 14 November 2011 (MST)

I do see a problem in that... The iPad 3.2.x builds are in the 7B*** range while the 3.1.3 builds are 7D11(?)... --5urd 20:24, 15 November 2011 (MST)

Apologies for neglecting to respond; I have a bit of college work on my hands. It sounds good to me as well. --Dialexio 08:05, 15 November 2011 (MST)

2.0 beta 1

After 1.2 beta 1, the version was renamed to 2.0. The question now is if the next beta was 2.0 beta 1 or beta 2. According to wiki it was beta 1, but I don't believe that, as there was no evidence in this wiki. Does anybody know more? --http 10:44, 24 October 2011 (MDT)

Discussing this on Twitter resulted in the fact that just the iOS version name changed after beta 1 (or was wrong on beta 1), but the beta numbers were continuously. So I removed the non-existent 2.0b1 from the list. -- http 15:43, 24 October 2011 (MDT)

I edited wikipedia to 2.0b2, I doubt anyone will challenge that... If they do, I will reference them to this wiki --5urd 14:11, 24 October 2011 (MDT)