Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago
(For the impatient: use IOS60v6174 and IOS80v6944. Or read on...)
Hi,
I've had some problems myself setting up SNEEK or UNEEK - but I suppose this
maybe has something todo with your NAND or compiler environment, as the latest
releases since somewhere after around r156 or so (not tried r164 to r167) work
fine for me (even with Priiloader loading JoyFlow etc. installed on the
emulated NAND.)
And I'm one of these guys having lots of trouble with a 4.3E black Wii. (j'st
kiddin' Cred..)
So, back to topic - and to clarify: IMHO, the used IOSes aren't the big point!
For the last weeks, I compiled every SNEEK-Release with devkitARM r24/r32/r34,
and all those IOSes recommended by different web sites/tutorials/FAQs. And
there's no difference at all. (Well, actually there is... but not when it comes
to whether it works or not.)
For building di.bin (which uses 00000001.app) you can use IOS60 v6174 - which
is IMHO the latest, before Nintendo released the stub v6400 (which means: IOS60
v6174 = good, v6400 = bad!).
For building kernel.bin (which uses 000000e.app), I used IOS70 v6687, or IOS80
v6943, or IOS80 v6944 - all of these work. IOS70 v6912 does not work, being a
stub IOS, as NUSD tells everyone who's actually willing to READ THE MESSAGES
THE PROGRAM SPITS OUT. (This, for not just screaming out loud "RTFM, dude!")
Original comment by lima...@web.de
on 25 Jul 2011 at 9:11
so is there any difference for compatibility, speed, issues, features or
efficiency basically anything between any of these ios bases that is different
or is the 0000000e.app the same exact file in each of the sys menu configs
Original comment by andi.ire...@gmail.com
on 25 Jul 2011 at 10:58
its basically the same except for updates to stop homebrew i think i could be
wrong though
myself i have done many experiments with uneek :
i have built it with the .app files of ios58 57 56
it will run and channels work but the di doesnt work because the calls are for
the system menu and not for the ios that i used as a base 58 57 56
Original comment by Looking.4.nowok.76@gmail.com
on 26 Jul 2011 at 3:32
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
andi.ire...@gmail.com
on 25 Jul 2011 at 4:39