Feb 18 2004, 09:54 PM
I really hate the Sharp 2.38 ROM which is what my refurbished 5500 that I got today came with. It was a nightmare getting it to work enough to just upgrade to 3.13, which I did. It didn't seem like it had many cool features. It was very blah.
Anyhow, this new upgrade has made a world of difference, and before I go changing it to OZ right away, I wanted to make sure I won't be losing anything or backtracking.
This is what I like about the new ROM: it shows my wireless status below, and I can disconnect or reconnect with just a couple of clicks. Opera will automatically ask me if I want to connect. This new one is a lot less buggy and it looks nicer.
So, am I going to lose any of that by flashing to OZ 3.2? It SEEMS like what I want, based on what I've read, but I thought I'd ask for your opinions. I am running creators on all my apps in preparation for the switch.
Feb 19 2004, 01:46 AM
If you're happy with the SharpROM 3.13 stick with it. OZ 3.2 contains old software and OZ 3.3.x is marked unstable.
Feb 19 2004, 08:33 AM
Can you explain what you mean by old software? I was under the impression that OZ 3.2 was capable of running any of the packages the sharp ROM can. Old compared to 3.3.5, yes, but is there some innovation that the Sharp ROM has that makes it better than OZ 3.2?
The main things I don't like about this ROM I am using now are: 1. QT and 2. The limitations on how the RAM is distributed.
It does run smoothly, though.
Feb 19 2004, 09:39 AM
I've been using OZ 3.2 for a long time now and I'm very happy with it. I find it to be very stable, and easy to work with. I have a friend who worked with 3.3.5 a little bt but as stated by Mickeyl, it is marked unstable and we discovered that, so he too switched back to 3.2
Sure it might not be the most up-to-date, running the 2.4.6 kernel, but it does what it needs to do, with little or not trouble, and if you're interested in the RAM/Storage flexability that OZ offers, then by all means, give it a try.
I've been thinking more and more lately about giving 3.3.5 another try, and I'm definitely looking forward to the next stable release with the new OpenEmbedded build system.
Feb 19 2004, 10:58 AM
OK, so it seems like the main disadvantage with the OZ 3.2 ROM vs. the Sharp 3.13 ROM is going to be the Linux Kernel used. OZ 3.2 uses 2.4.6 and Sharp 3.13 uses 2.4.18. This is from the FAQ:
The 2.4.6 kernel on the SL5500 2.x ROMs did not manage memory very well. Flashing to the latest 3.x Sharp ROM gives a huge improvment in memory management.
What other improvements does the 2.4.18 kernel have for the 5500?
OZ 3.3.5 uses the 2.4.18 kernel doesn't it?
Feb 19 2004, 01:25 PM
So does 3.3.6pre1 (but then you'll need to use compat libs - not a big thing but added hassle when you're starting out).
I used 3.3.5 for a while and it wasn't too bad (in terms of stability). 3.3.6pre1 has been absolutely rock solid - as good as if not better than 3.2, but YMMV ;-)
Feb 19 2004, 02:23 PM
I am running creators on all my apps in preparation for the switch.
I am currently contemplating the OZ/Sharp issue (in theory, as my 5500 has yet to arrive) as well.
If I may be a bit ignorant, what is a "creator" and how does it prepare applications for a ROM switch?
Feb 19 2004, 02:44 PM
As part of the installation process scripts can be run. The creator ipk is just a couple of these scripts (no data to be installed) which create an ipk of the relevant application (Hancom apps, Jeode, Opera), once you've extracted the files (which are in the ROM) by 'installing' the creator ipks, you can save the ipk files which they have created and make the switch, then re-install them.
Feb 19 2004, 03:44 PM
I guess the question now becomes: "How does Sharp 3.13 stack up to OZ 3.3.6pre1? Where do I get this ROM, and where can I read about known issues (such as this thing with the compat libs?)
It looks to me like people are having trouble installing software for this release.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here