124 replies to this topic

[tucstwo]

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?!

[livinginkaos]

????? Area 51 ?????

[Memnoch73]

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??

[tucstwo]

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! Wishful thinking for sure! 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! :

[DeJaVu74]

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. : End of Line.

[chdwrk]

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

[KaChow]

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

•  Restored.png   56.86KB   129 downloads
•  SUFAIL.png   123.44KB   127 downloads

[tucstwo]

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. : 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.

[tucstwo]

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. 

[mikeymax]

kachow  whats your baseband look like?

[KaChow]

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

•  Screenshot_2013-07-12-01-07-251.png   121.4KB   112 downloads

[droidian1441]

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.

[Pearlmikejam]

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

[mikepahl318]

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?

[tucstwo]

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

[KaChow]

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.

[KaChow]

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

Comparison

Attached Files

•  Screenshot_2013-07-12-10-08-251.png   61.39KB   91 downloads

[Pearlmikejam]

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

[droidian1441]

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

[livinginkaos]

Comparison

Well, this shows the different CPU version