Jump to content


Photo

Soak OTA's 9.18.79/9.20.1 Directly Correlated to "MR2/MR4" or 9.16.6 - 9.16.9 [Discussion/Brain-Storming]

The Solution?

  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

#1 tucstwo

tucstwo

    www.drdevs.com

  • Administrator
  • 14,435 posts
  • Twitter:tucstwo
  • Google+:tucstwo@gmail.com
  • LocationNJ
  • Current Device(s):LG G3 VS985, Nexus 7 (flo)

Posted 11 July 2013 - 06:34 PM

Ok, so after MUCH head banging and aggravation. I have finally come the conclusion as to WHY there are TWO DIFFERENT Soak OTA's being pushed!
 
Let's Begin with the "Facts". MOST of the Razr HD users should be coming from 9.16.6. Or in the Fastboot files world, we can call this (Long) 

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

 (Short) MR2. Separately, there was leaked file system (Long)

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

 (Short) MR4. This shall correlate to the system version of 9.16.9. Now, MR4 (9.16.9) was NEVER pushed out as an Official OTA. It was simply a leaked set of FXZ files. The "rumor" was that this file set was submitted to VZW and/or Moto tech support to aid a small group of people were having a very specific set of problems. To be clear, this "MR4" file system was NEVER broadly pushed to EVERY HD user. So unless one flashed it on their own volition or they had it flashed via tech support, it is NOT the norm to have this system on your device.

 

For the sake of historical info. 9.16.6 IS the official firmware for the latest 4.1.2 JB release. During the last few months, a 9.16.9 leaked, however NOT as an OTA, but ONLY as an FXZ (MR4). Again...this system was NEVER pushed by Moto/VZW as an official software update AT ALL. The "rumor" was that should certain people have a specific set of problems (swype, or others) that should they have gone in for service at a VZW store, the tech support would flash this "MR4" FXZ to repair this issue.
 
What does this mean?
Not EVERYONE is, or should be on this 9.16.9 (MR4) file system (unless they flashed the leaked FXZ files or had service work done to their device for specific reasons).
 
Fast forward to Yesterday - 7/10/2013
 
Moto/Big Red begins to push out a soak test OTA. Initially referred to as

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

(Recall Moto's file label system, we are going FROM 9.16.6, NOT going to). (For the record, THIS OTA is 1000% safe for unlocked bootloaders as tested by myself FIRST HAND while updating from 9.16.6. I won't be going into the steps to properly flash this OTA in this OP, but I will 1000% confirm it DOES NOT relock the bootloader!)
 
A few hours later,

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

comes out from VZW depicting a list of changes for an update now labeled 9.20.1

 

Then, shortly after, soak invitees are reported to having a different OTA being pushed to them, coincidentally -

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

 (Now apparently labeled 9.16.9...remember Moto file naming...coming from not going to - IE The file system version of the "MR4, semi-unofficial" system version.)

 

(SIDE NOTE, Important - I Have NOT personally flashed this version, I can not comment on the bootloader lock/unlock exploit at this moment!)
 
Questions are raised in the Moto Feedback forum why different people are receiving different pushes. But they go unanswered. As a matter of fact, the soak managers make it clear in the beginning of the soak that the "OTA they receive, WILL be the official OTA pushed to the end users and your job is only to evaluate it".
 
It should be noted that

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

attempted to flash the 6.18.79 over his MR4 device and found himself soft bricked (? or with many errors). Well, it's now apparent why. Though he had to restore his device back to MR2 to flash 6.18.79, had he had at his disposal 9.20.1, he would have had no issues flashing it over his MR4 software.
 
So What the Hell Are We Talking about here?
 
Well honestly, without getting too complicated or confusing, my question to you (or Moto or anyone) is this: Why would they push out two drastically deviated updates to a device that appears to currently have only a 3rd spot removed (xx.xx.6 vs xx.xx.9) system version? If they have the ability to merge these now 2 different systems into 1, WHY would they push out to, what appears to be VERY far apart systems based on file version numbers? Now, granted, while I personally have yet to get really down and dirty to differentiate these two different OTAs, it still appears to be VERY atypical to me for Moto/VZW to fragmentate official system versions. This has NEVER been done like this in the past. There was once a time when (the Christmas leak), when there were 2 OTA's labeled differently (coming from, not going to) that brought the device to the SAME system version. This, on the other hand, is NOT the same case by ANY MEANS. 
 
Why? 
 
Again, I don't have the answer to this which is why I'm asking you guys to weigh in on your opinions. I realize this OP can be very hard to follow the first time it's read, but if you read it more than once, you will see my question. I'm not sure what to say or where to go from here. This is most unusual.
 
So the floor is OPEN. What do you all think? This is MOST unusual IMO. To me, I feel Moto would work hard to get these fragmented devices back on 1 system version. While I personally have not flashed nor examined this 9.20.1, I still find this practice bizarre. As IMO (from the testimony of those who I've spoken to, MR2 and MR4 aren't really THAT different).
 
So WTH is going on?! What do you all think about this?!


  • neckchop, geekabilly, Memnoch73 and 4 others like this

Visit DRDevs.com hosting site for all official Droidrzr.com ROMs, Apps, GApps and other mods/files!!
Please PM me if you need help!
I will be hosting AOSP-Based ROM GApps packages!
Download the most Up-to-Date GApps Packages for AOSP ROMs from me here!


#2 livinginkaos

livinginkaos

    I don't know what I'm doing anymore.....

  • Administrator
  • 15,038 posts
  • Google+:Hangouts - livinginkaos@gmail.com
  • LocationOregon
  • Current Device(s):Samsung S8+ / Pixel XL 128gb / iPhone 7+ 256gb / iPad Pro 12.9" / Samsung Chromrbook Plus / Pixel C / Nexus 6p 128gb / Nexus 6 / Nexus 6 on Fi / Nexus 9 / Moto 360^2 / Nvidia Shield TV Pro / Nvidia Shield Tablet / HTC EVODesign on FreedomPop / Chromecast / Surface Pro 3 i7 / Samsung Tab Pro 12.2 / Lenovo Win8 Tab / Eee Slate / '13 Nexus 7

Posted 11 July 2013 - 06:43 PM

????? Area 51 ?????
  • tucstwo likes this

b2wvCBn.png

Sig by livinginkaos
Samsung S8+ / Pixel XL 128gb / iPhone 7+ 256gb / iPad Pro 12.9" / Samsung Chromrbook Plus / Pixel C / Nexus 6p 128gb / Nexus 6 / Nexus 6 on Fi / Nexus 9 / Moto 360^2 / Nvidia Shield TV Pro / Nvidia Shield Tablet / HTC EVODesign on FreedomPop / Chromecast / Surface Pro 3 i7 / Samsung Tab Pro 12.2 / Lenovo Win8 Tab / Eee Slate / '13 Nexus 7


#3 Memnoch73

Memnoch73

    ~The Devil~

  • Smod
  • 5,016 posts
  • Google+:memnoch73@gmail.com
  • LocationRochester, NY
  • Current Device(s):Pixel 3XL

Posted 11 July 2013 - 06:46 PM

Quite Bizarre for sure...

 

Very well written post on the subject man.  :)

 

Hmm... could it be they don't mind having the forked versions now as MRs because 4.2.2 will re-merge them?? Or worse there will never be 4.2.2??


Bluesig3_zpsfd248ca4.png

 


#4 tucstwo

tucstwo

    www.drdevs.com

  • Administrator
  • 14,435 posts
  • Twitter:tucstwo
  • Google+:tucstwo@gmail.com
  • LocationNJ
  • Current Device(s):LG G3 VS985, Nexus 7 (flo)

Posted 11 July 2013 - 06:58 PM

Ok, so potentially notable (maybe not though as we're already CLEAR that these OTAs are looking for MR2 or MR4 (but to FURTHER enforce this theory):

In 9.18.79, the updater-script performs a:

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

Checking for an MR2/6

And in 9.20.1, the updater-script performs a:

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

Or Checking for MR4/9

While I agree this proves very little, it only further reinforces my opinion that these 2 updates are checking specifically for MR2 vs MR4 system versions.
 

 



Quite Bizarre for sure...

Very well written post on the subject man. :)

Hmm... could it be they don't mind having the forked versions now as MRs because 4.2.2 will re-merge them?? Or worse there will never be 4.2.2??

LMFAO! :D Wishful thinking for sure! ;) LOL. :lol: All that would mean though is that they would now have to deal with those who are on 9.18.79 via OTA and those on 9.20.1 via OTA and then once again be required to push a 4.2.2 soak OTA accommodating these further 2 system versions. Wouldn't it be VERY convenient to converge these two splits NOW rather than when it's time (should it happen) to release 4.2.2?? IDK...I DO NOT trust Moto and DEFINITELY DO NOT trust VZW. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but this whole deal STINKS to me! :ph34r:


Visit DRDevs.com hosting site for all official Droidrzr.com ROMs, Apps, GApps and other mods/files!!
Please PM me if you need help!
I will be hosting AOSP-Based ROM GApps packages!
Download the most Up-to-Date GApps Packages for AOSP ROMs from me here!


#5 DeJaVu74

DeJaVu74

    n00b

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Current Device(s):Moto Xoom(wifi), Droid Razr HD

Posted 11 July 2013 - 07:02 PM

I'm as stumped as everyone, this is the first I've ever seen of two update builds at the same time and I've been on android since the original droid, then the bionic. Only thing I can really think of is they're seeing wich works better real world as apposed to just in their labs. :mellow: End of Line.

#6 chdwrk

chdwrk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Twitter:workca
  • Locationnear Buffalo, NY
  • Current Device(s):Razr, Razr HD

Posted 11 July 2013 - 07:13 PM

They do things that make no sense because they hire highly educated people who have none?

Sent from my Razr HD using Tapatalk 4 Beta


  • DeJaVu74 likes this

#7 KaChow

KaChow

    If Only...

  • Superuser
  • 364 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia
  • Current Device(s):S6 (sm-g920f), Moto XT1575(waiting)

Posted 11 July 2013 - 07:15 PM

I was gonna start a new thread but since this is started.... I Lost Root… Got it back…

 

That was fun, more like crazy or insane. Anyhow, I received the invite for soak; however Motorola Services never connected on my device and I had Fastboot issues, needless to say downgraded to 4.1.1 then restored to 4.1.2 through device manager, restored root, kept unlocked Bootloader. Next, installed twrp 2.6, backup the fresh stock rom, as it finishes twrp asks to restore root permissions, which I did reboot, then install stock recovery and the update. This is where the important step was overlooked, I forgot to backup su with OTA RootKeeper. Update starts running, nice and smooth until the end of the get a “set_perms: some changes failed> Installation aborted”, however after device reboots the update was installed. However, almost immediately I get request to update the binary as it is outdated, which I tried to do and root was lost, then was a mention to report log, but log was blank. So, I uninstalled su and decided to try Motochopper, which I ran it and from the picture below please see the error. It seems that with this update, perhaps there was a counter to the current version of su that forced an update in which there was no such update available from su. The Bootloader continued to stay Unlocked nothing changed there. Many hours later and having a  nice stock ROM which drove me crazy for many hours, I ran the DST MR-2, which no problems with Fastboot was able to Downgrade without issues and Root was restored. Then restored the clean backup, updated su kept backup of OTA RootKeeper, ran the update again received the same error as earlier “set_perms: some changes failed>  Installation aborted”, rebooted update is applied. Almost instantly received the request for the outdated binary, then restored OTA RootKeeper and all is good to go… 

 

 

 

 

Attached Files


If you like this signature click on the Marvel logo this one is from Thor: The Dark World-> copy the html link to your signature in my settings-> Enjoy!


#8 tucstwo

tucstwo

    www.drdevs.com

  • Administrator
  • 14,435 posts
  • Twitter:tucstwo
  • Google+:tucstwo@gmail.com
  • LocationNJ
  • Current Device(s):LG G3 VS985, Nexus 7 (flo)

Posted 11 July 2013 - 07:22 PM



I'm as stumped as everyone, this is the first I've ever seen of two update builds at the same time and I've been on android since the original droid, then the bionic. Only thing I can really think of is they're seeing wich works better real world as apposed to just in their labs. :mellow: End of Line.

They're also being sneaky as hell about the 2 updates. The "official" Moto Feedback forums (Matt-the Moto forum manager) has (thus far) dodged this question about the 2 updates, LIKE THE PLAGUE. Shady to me.

 

 





I was gonna start a new thread but since this is started.... I Lost Root… Got it back…

That was fun, more like crazy or insane. Anyhow, I received the invite for soak; however Motorola Services never connected on my device and I had Fastboot issues, needless to say downgraded to 4.1.1 then restored to 4.1.2 through device manager, restored root, kept unlocked Bootloader. Next, installed twrp 2.6, backup the fresh stock rom, as it finishes twrp asks to restore root permissions, which I did reboot, then install stock recovery and the update. This is where the important step was overlooked, I forgot to backup su with OTA RootKeeper. Update starts running, nice and smooth until the end of the get a “set_perms: some changes failed> Installation aborted”, however after device reboots the update was installed. However, almost immediately I get request to update the binary as it is outdated, which I tried to do and root was lost, then was a mention to report log, but log was blank. So, I uninstalled su and decided to try Motochopper, which I ran it and from the picture below please see the error. It seems that with this update, perhaps there was a counter to the current version of su that forced an update in which there was no such update available from su. The Bootloader continued to stay Unlocked nothing changed there. Many hours later and having a nice stock ROM which drove me crazy for many hours, I ran the DST MR-2, which no problems with Fastboot was able to Downgrade without issues and Root was restored. Then restored the clean backup, updated su kept backup of OTA RootKeeper, ran the update again received the same error as earlier “set_perms: some changes failed> Installation aborted”, rebooted update is applied. Almost instantly received the request for the outdated binary, then restored OTA RootKeeper and all is good to go…

This whole thing is kinda confusing to me (and potentially others) KaChow. Remember, SO LONG as you DO NOT have your bootloader re-locked ALL you need to do is reflash your TWRP/CWM recovery and you can

Please Login or Register to see this Hidden Content

. GONE (at this juncture) are the DJRBliss, crazy ass root "exploits". It's MUCH more simplified now.


  • KaChow likes this

Visit DRDevs.com hosting site for all official Droidrzr.com ROMs, Apps, GApps and other mods/files!!
Please PM me if you need help!
I will be hosting AOSP-Based ROM GApps packages!
Download the most Up-to-Date GApps Packages for AOSP ROMs from me here!


#9 tucstwo

tucstwo

    www.drdevs.com

  • Administrator
  • 14,435 posts
  • Twitter:tucstwo
  • Google+:tucstwo@gmail.com
  • LocationNJ
  • Current Device(s):LG G3 VS985, Nexus 7 (flo)

Posted 11 July 2013 - 08:05 PM

FWIW, this forums "POST HTML MONSTER" Mutilated MY OP while making a simple edit and both MY and the pre-suggested corrections did NOT save it. While I agree, my original OP was a MASTERPIECE, this amended OP is NOT QUITE the same as the original. I am sad in this, but I have NO WAY to correct it or amend it to the original. All I can promise is that I will NOT change ANYTHING within it anymore further as I fear my minor grammatical or superficial changes will cause more harm than good. So, while I hope this OP portrays the original intent of the original OP, I am open in saying that it os NOT written as originally intended. 


Visit DRDevs.com hosting site for all official Droidrzr.com ROMs, Apps, GApps and other mods/files!!
Please PM me if you need help!
I will be hosting AOSP-Based ROM GApps packages!
Download the most Up-to-Date GApps Packages for AOSP ROMs from me here!


#10 mikeymax

mikeymax

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 102 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 08:18 PM

kachow  whats your baseband look like?


  • tucstwo likes this

#11 KaChow

KaChow

    If Only...

  • Superuser
  • 364 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia
  • Current Device(s):S6 (sm-g920f), Moto XT1575(waiting)

Posted 11 July 2013 - 08:28 PM

kachow  whats your baseband look like?

Good point, looks like I'm still on the old one, VANQUISH_BP_100730.081.64.09P

Attached Files


  • tucstwo likes this

If you like this signature click on the Marvel logo this one is from Thor: The Dark World-> copy the html link to your signature in my settings-> Enjoy!


#12 droidian1441

droidian1441

    News Leader

  • News Team Leader
  • PipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • LocationVirginia
  • Current Device(s):HTC One M8 (primary); Nexus 7 (2013)

Posted 11 July 2013 - 09:00 PM

Lol, I've never seen this happen before. I agree on the fact, that they should merge the two versions. Idk why they're doing this, hell it wouldn't hurt anything to put the 9.16.9 version on all phones, and then do this update up to 9.20.1. That's what I would be doing if I was Moto. If any users on 9.16.6 update to .9 and have issues the 9.20.1 can fix it. Along with bringing other enhancements as targeted.

 

Anybody get where I'm saying? Haha.

 

Very confusing at the least.

 

--Sam


Edited by droidian1441, 11 July 2013 - 09:01 PM.

  • KaChow and sastone75 like this

HTC One M8 // 3.28.605.4 // CleanROM 3.0 w/HarmonKardon audio // Android 4.4.4
n5SOtgv.jpg - "White Noise" out November 4th!
(Recommended)
 


#13 Pearlmikejam

Pearlmikejam

    n00b

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:30 AM

I was gonna start a new thread but since this is started.... I Lost Root… Got it back…

That was fun, more like crazy or insane. Anyhow, I received the invite for soak; however Motorola Services never connected on my device and I had Fastboot issues, needless to say downgraded to 4.1.1 then restored to 4.1.2 through device manager, restored root, kept unlocked Bootloader. Next, installed twrp 2.6, backup the fresh stock rom, as it finishes twrp asks to restore root permissions, which I did reboot, then install stock recovery and the update. This is where the important step was overlooked, I forgot to backup su with OTA RootKeeper. Update starts running, nice and smooth until the end of the get a “set_perms: some changes failed> Installation aborted”, however after device reboots the update was installed. However, almost immediately I get request to update the binary as it is outdated, which I tried to do and root was lost, then was a mention to report log, but log was blank. So, I uninstalled su and decided to try Motochopper, which I ran it and from the picture below please see the error. It seems that with this update, perhaps there was a counter to the current version of su that forced an update in which there was no such update available from su. The Bootloader continued to stay Unlocked nothing changed there. Many hours later and having a nice stock ROM which drove me crazy for many hours, I ran the DST MR-2, which no problems with Fastboot was able to Downgrade without issues and Root was restored. Then restored the clean backup, updated su kept backup of OTA RootKeeper, ran the update again received the same error as earlier “set_perms: some changes failed> Installation aborted”, rebooted update is applied. Almost instantly received the request for the outdated binary, then restored OTA RootKeeper and all is good to go…


I have the OTA and root, but the original 4.1.2 update (x.16.9) was problematic for my phone. My issues are compounded with the latest OTA. I want to flash back to stock 4.1.2, root and update. Is that what you did? I am not unlocked. What tool would you recommend to flash back if it is possible?

This is a different theory than I have seen elsewhere. The prevailing theory on the Moto forums is that the different versions relate to different chipsets (later production runs of the snapdragon were said to be slightly different) requiring different tweaks. After reading thus thread, I don't see why the code could not read the chipsets and determine what to apply instead of having two separate updates.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk HD

#14 mikepahl318

mikepahl318

    Member

  • Dedicated Supporter
  • PipPip
  • 102 posts
  • LocationUSA
  • Current Device(s):Droid Turbo 64GB, 2013 Nexus 7 32GB

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:34 AM

I have heard this by two or three different people now... apparently Razr HDs have two different chipsets depending on production date....

 

 

Can someone confirm?



#15 tucstwo

tucstwo

    www.drdevs.com

  • Administrator
  • 14,435 posts
  • Twitter:tucstwo
  • Google+:tucstwo@gmail.com
  • LocationNJ
  • Current Device(s):LG G3 VS985, Nexus 7 (flo)

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:21 AM

Lol, I've never seen this happen before. I agree on the fact, that they should merge the two versions. Idk why they're doing this, hell it wouldn't hurt anything to put the 9.16.9 version on all phones, and then do this update up to 9.20.1. That's what I would be doing if I was Moto. If any users on 9.16.6 update to .9 and have issues the 9.20.1 can fix it. Along with bringing other enhancements as targeted.

Anybody get where I'm saying? Haha.

Very confusing at the least.

--Sam


I'm not sure what you're saying. You can't really Frankenstein these two updates to work regardless of what system version you're on now. It's not gonna jive.


I have heard this by two or three different people now... apparently Razr HDs have two different chipsets depending on production date....


Can someone confirm?


I've heard this rumor and checked with a few others, but you guys are welcome to compare with me

Posted Image

Visit DRDevs.com hosting site for all official Droidrzr.com ROMs, Apps, GApps and other mods/files!!
Please PM me if you need help!
I will be hosting AOSP-Based ROM GApps packages!
Download the most Up-to-Date GApps Packages for AOSP ROMs from me here!


#16 KaChow

KaChow

    If Only...

  • Superuser
  • 364 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia
  • Current Device(s):S6 (sm-g920f), Moto XT1575(waiting)

Posted 12 July 2013 - 05:33 AM

Lol, I've never seen this happen before. I agree on the fact, that they should merge the two versions. Idk why they're doing this, hell it wouldn't hurt anything to put the 9.16.9 version on all phones, and then do this update up to 9.20.1. That's what I would be doing if I was Moto. If any users on 9.16.6 update to .9 and have issues the 9.20.1 can fix it. Along with bringing other enhancements as targeted.

 

Anybody get where I'm saying? Haha.

 

Very confusing at the least.

 

--Sam

I happen to like the Frankenstein idea here, anyone have a copy of the 9.20.1 update that I can Flash? May not flash this till later tonight, but I would certainly test out this theory.


If you like this signature click on the Marvel logo this one is from Thor: The Dark World-> copy the html link to your signature in my settings-> Enjoy!


#17 KaChow

KaChow

    If Only...

  • Superuser
  • 364 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia
  • Current Device(s):S6 (sm-g920f), Moto XT1575(waiting)

Posted 12 July 2013 - 05:39 AM

I'm not sure what you're saying. You can't really Frankenstein these two updates to work regardless of what system version you're on now. It's not gonna jive.



I've heard this rumor and checked with a few others, but you guys are welcome to compare with me

ja2e8a7u.jpg

Comparison

Attached Files


If you like this signature click on the Marvel logo this one is from Thor: The Dark World-> copy the html link to your signature in my settings-> Enjoy!


#18 Pearlmikejam

Pearlmikejam

    n00b

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 06:40 AM

Any significance to the differences in Rev numbers (0 vs. 4)?



#19 droidian1441

droidian1441

    News Leader

  • News Team Leader
  • PipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • LocationVirginia
  • Current Device(s):HTC One M8 (primary); Nexus 7 (2013)

Posted 12 July 2013 - 08:24 AM

I'm not sure what you're saying. You can't really Frankenstein these two updates to work regardless of what system version you're on now. It's not gonna jive.

 

 

Yeah I didn't think anyone would. Let's try to clear it up. 
 
What I would've done if I was Moto, is this: Deploy 9.16.9 update to all 9.16.6 users, not just some users. All. That way the two devices are not on different updates, and if any issues arise for some and not for others the 9.20.1 update can fix those, while also bringing what enhancements the update brings.
 
Is that better? Lol

HTC One M8 // 3.28.605.4 // CleanROM 3.0 w/HarmonKardon audio // Android 4.4.4
n5SOtgv.jpg - "White Noise" out November 4th!
(Recommended)
 


#20 livinginkaos

livinginkaos

    I don't know what I'm doing anymore.....

  • Administrator
  • 15,038 posts
  • Google+:Hangouts - livinginkaos@gmail.com
  • LocationOregon
  • Current Device(s):Samsung S8+ / Pixel XL 128gb / iPhone 7+ 256gb / iPad Pro 12.9" / Samsung Chromrbook Plus / Pixel C / Nexus 6p 128gb / Nexus 6 / Nexus 6 on Fi / Nexus 9 / Moto 360^2 / Nvidia Shield TV Pro / Nvidia Shield Tablet / HTC EVODesign on FreedomPop / Chromecast / Surface Pro 3 i7 / Samsung Tab Pro 12.2 / Lenovo Win8 Tab / Eee Slate / '13 Nexus 7

Posted 12 July 2013 - 09:59 AM

Comparison

Well, this shows the different CPU version


b2wvCBn.png

Sig by livinginkaos
Samsung S8+ / Pixel XL 128gb / iPhone 7+ 256gb / iPad Pro 12.9" / Samsung Chromrbook Plus / Pixel C / Nexus 6p 128gb / Nexus 6 / Nexus 6 on Fi / Nexus 9 / Moto 360^2 / Nvidia Shield TV Pro / Nvidia Shield Tablet / HTC EVODesign on FreedomPop / Chromecast / Surface Pro 3 i7 / Samsung Tab Pro 12.2 / Lenovo Win8 Tab / Eee Slate / '13 Nexus 7





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users