WM 6.5 Kitchen QVGA and VGA Developer Edition - Page 234

vickylife007 · #**2331** (**permalink**) 04-09-2009, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anryl

i just made some changes to my romhdr removed not needed stuf so LITE 21500 is really faster then previous builds

Any link to your SYS, just dont want to mess my head up with any fix right now if someone else already got things working. Makes sense?

anryl · #**2332** (**permalink**) 04-09-2009, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vickylife007

Any link to your SYS, just dont want to mess my head up with any fix right now if someone else already got things working. Makes sense?

Here is already SYS posted by dsi76

and is working perfect thanx again

rgildoss · #**2333** (**permalink**) 04-09-2009, 05:55 AM

to be or not to be ???

is it fake or real? most are saying its fake...but just wanted to see what everyone using it thinks ...i see that con suggested it might be a fake as well....

anywho....anyone have a sys+rom for touchpro yet?

xda2_haseeb · #**2334** (**permalink**) 04-09-2009, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgildoss

to be or not to be ???

is it fake or real? most are saying its fake...but just wanted to see what everyone using it thinks ...i see that con suggested it might be a fake as well....

anywho....anyone have a sys+rom for touchpro yet?

yes, please guys tell us if this Build 21500 is real or fake? THNX

vickylife007 · #**2335** (**permalink**) 04-09-2009, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anryl

Here is already SYS posted by dsi76

and is working perfect thanx again

Thanks Anryl, am not sure I saw that post earlier.

chazybaz13 · #**2336** (**permalink**) 04-09-2009, 06:36 AM

i honestly think it is fake, con also said it is fake and there hasnt been any real successful reportings of it being real. if it was these CDMA thread would have lit up like a storm.

vickylife007 · #**2337** (**permalink**) 04-09-2009, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xda2_haseeb

yes, please guys tell us if this Build 21500 is real or fake? THNX

Lol, With due respect sir, this arguement could go on forever. OKay to calm nerves let's say it is fake, but here is the catch, folks say this fake is best of all the originals thus far. It's very fast, and things broken in previous builds are working on this one. So this is a good fake.
My suggestion, let's drop the appellation and enjoy this well cooked meal, the aroma of which already promises a delicious eating. Does anyone feel me here?

rgildoss · #**2338** (**permalink**) 04-09-2009, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vickylife007

Lol, With due respect sir, this arguement could go on forever. OKay to calm nerves let's say it is fake, but here is the catch, folks say this fake is best of all the originals thus far. It's very fast, and things broken in previous builds are working on this one. So this is a good fake.
My suggestion, let's drop the appellation and enjoy this well cooked meal, the aroma of which already promises a delicious eating. Does anyone feel me here?

i respectfully disagree ..if its a fake it should be marked as a fake and not put back into the community as a better running fake...

if you by a wife/husband a fake diamond ring no matter how much you scrub and shine it, its still a fake and in the end someone will be disappointed....

if it is a fake it should be MARKED as a fake ...I hope this is not what it has come to, "oh well it runs better then the real release so lets just keep it on the low and use it " thats not a cool way of looking at things....

AndrewSh · #**2339** (**permalink**) 04-09-2009, 07:10 AM

I think the build is OK. The changes from 202 are really minor:
cmhome.dll, ccore.dll, packageinfoapi.dll, lockscreen.dll, gwes.exe, shell32.exe are different. The rest is the same. And it seems to me that the code is optimized. If someone can not live without marking it FAKE - let it be fake for him. But if so - 21202 is also definitely fake, and so on.....
I like the build.
vickylife007, nice words!

rainabba · #**2340** (**permalink**) 04-09-2009, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgildoss

i respectfully disagree ..if its a fake it should be marked as a fake and not put back into the community as a better running fake...

if you by a wife/husband a fake diamond ring no matter how much you scrub and shine it, its still a fake and in the end someone will be disappointed....

if it is a fake it should be MARKED as a fake ...I hope this is not what it has come to, "oh well it runs better then the real release so lets just keep it on the low and use it " thats not a cool way of looking at things....

So if you find that the majority of the population could be curred of their addictions (like smoking and drinking) by a sugar pill under the guise that it's a new treatment that addresses addiction at a genetic level, it shouldn't be done. Instead, we should just call it a sugar pill and ignore all the benefits. Am I understanding your logic correctly?