Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1.    #1  
    Anybody know what the technical differences (besides the processor speed) that makes it "difficult" to put WebOS 2.0 on Pres or Pre Pluses?

    from the Palm blog...

    "Our original expectation was that wed be able to support older phones as well as the new product line. But ultimately it became clear that we would need to choose between supporting the past with over-the-air updates and ensuring that our upcoming devices would live up to your hopes and expectations for them. It was a difficult and, frankly, painful decision for us, and we realize it was a frustrating outcome for many of you."
  2. #2  
    The whole back end is written differently as far as I understnd it .

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
    Here is a direct link to webOS Doc for all carriers
    P.S. if i have helped you and you are thankful please hit the thanks button to the right---->
  3. #3  
    it isn't the same therefore it's different.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadavis08 View Post
    The whole back end is written differently as far as I understnd it .

    I'm not sure what you mean by "back end" that term typically means something in enterprise computing that I don't know if you mean here. Are you talking about the way the device interacts with external servers that provide content - for example the Palm profile? Or are you talking about the device firmware? Other than those I can't figure out something that would be outside of the OS itself.

    In another thread someone mentioned that there were proprietary drivers for the graphics chips used and that the Pre2 and Pre Plus did not use the exact same graphics hardware -- however another user pointed to sources for 2.0 graphics drivers which may or may not invalidate this claim.
  5. #5  
    It may be the memory. Maybe the Pre-/Pixi- don't cut it so all are out. Or maybe the CPU speed (without UK).

    In any event, I don't see why an OC'ed to 1GHz Pre + couldn't handle it.
  6. #6  
    From all accounts the Pre+ runs it fine. (by evidence of the unoffical installs). The point is that having given the undertaking, they were obliged to give us a version 2 that worked on our devices. If that meant limiting the scope of the update, then so be it. I personally think that there is a bit of corporate politics at work.

Posting Permissions