Rockbox General > Rockbox General Discussion

How many people still use old Archos devices?

(1/5) > >>

dreamlayers:
How many people still use old Archos devices? If you're using one, which Rockbox version do you use?

I still have my Archos V2 Recorder. (That's like the FM Recorder but without the FM radio receiver hardware.) Since it's large and heavy, I don't carry it around much. I only use it if I want to listen to something in bed. I think it's more rugged and less prone to damage if I fall asleep with it still on my bed.

In 2007, I stopped updating the Rockbox version I use on there. There's only 2 MB of RAM, and I wanted to preserve as much as possible for buffer space. Also, I didn't really need any new features. I built a stripped down version based on r15545 and stuck with that. Over time, I backported a few fixes and reduced memory use a bit more. I didn't bother to do anything more official with that because I removed features in a messy way, and I didn't see any demand. I'd love to do the 8 MB hardware mod, but I don't trust myself with that much tricky surface mount soldering, and anyways, things work well as-is.

TAC109:
I still have a working v1 Archos jukebox recorder 20, with a 40GB drive in it. It runs Rockbox vn 2.5.1 (surprise, surprise). It has been superseded by my 32GB iPhone 3gs, but as I can't fit all my tracks onto the iPhone the Archos still gets used from time to time.

The iPhone features of the inbuilt iPod application plus the Audiomark app (which supplies similar functionality to the Rockbox bookmarking facility) gives me most of the facilities of the old Rockbox.

Last year I installed the current (at that time) version of Rockbox onto my wife's old iPod Photo. I found it rather flaky and unreliable, so removed it.

Rockbox for the Archos was in my (limited) view the best implementation of the Rockbox software.

saratoga:

--- Quote from: dreamlayers on November 05, 2011, 01:08:08 AM ---In 2007, I stopped updating the Rockbox version I use on there. There's only 2 MB of RAM, and I wanted to preserve as much as possible for buffer space. Also, I didn't really need any new features. I built a stripped down version based on r15545 and stuck with that. Over time, I backported a few fixes and reduced memory use a bit more. I didn't bother to do anything more official with that because I removed features in a messy way, and I didn't see any demand. I'd love to do the 8 MB hardware mod, but I don't trust myself with that much tricky surface mount soldering, and anyways, things work well as-is.

--- End quote ---

I've been of the opinion for a while now that at some point we should just fork off HWCODEC into it own branch and concentrate on memory efficiency rather then new features.  Otherwise we're going to slowly squeeze out all the 2MB targets.   

dreamlayers:

--- Quote from: saratoga on November 05, 2011, 05:00:59 PM ---I've been of the opinion for a while now that at some point we should just fork off HWCODEC into it own branch and concentrate on memory efficiency rather then new features.  Otherwise we're going to slowly squeeze out all the 2MB targets.   

--- End quote ---

I've thought similar things. A separate HWCODEC branch may be good for both users and developers. Users would get more efficient and bug free software, and developers wouldn't have to concern themselves with HWCODEC issues while working on the trunk.

JdGordon:
Hell yeah!
Though the question then becomes at which revision does it get branched? current or many months back?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page