ChuWi Forum»Forum General Discussion General Discussion What " Download "/Support files are Official by Chuw ...

Follow Us

What " Download "/Support files are Official by Chuwi?

[Copy link]

ZenBalancer|Post time:5-13-2017 16:32:55 View:197|Reply:2

Edited by ZenBalancer at 5-1-2017 17:54
Given the soup of suggested sites and files, I would have no idea which one to trust.

There is no real
I have begun to gingerly set settings in the bios that sound like they might be relevant. I have had no success so far.
The "Download" button/link at the top of the forum > subcategories by device > admin or Emily being the OP and poster > and for ease the [Official Version] "title tag".

Those are the best clues I think. But I don't have firsthand experience with such files, having said that. A Hi13 BIOS updater based implicitly on those clues, has recent success with his issue.

Edits: clarity.

-- ... 22059&fromuid=19651

Edit: improved thread-title search-terms searchability.
Reply button? Also lists for a response, @username doesn't.
Chuwi? Time-constrains乁( ◔ ౪◔)「
3: 1+1+1 Links: Laplets vs Tabtops + is Chuwi good or bad? + After-sales?

Use magic Report

ZenBalancer| Post time 5-8-2017 17:42:39 | Show all posts
Edited by ZenBalancer at 5-10-2017 16:51

There are user reports, confirming that "unallowed" spreading of for example BIOS versions considered unofficial by Chuwi, still providing the seeked solution according to the user: ... 23599&fromuid=19651
This program works perfectly!


I have got a pm from Jurgen, that the bios update diden't solve the jumping cursor problem
-- Post #19 - Cursor jumping while typing
/Update. /Edit.

What seems clear though, that there is no change log, nor clear liability if something goes wrong. Why can't unofficial files be shared publicaly​ for what the file is, so that we can gather feedback if it's worth the risk, for how many users, or not? Or to get any tips about the files.

Because otherwise we would not be limiting unnecessary risks, making things worse for some, while others experienced good results.

Basically, currently here at the Chuwi forums remains a clear divide between those "in the know" and those not. While instead we need to have a clear divide, a clear line, between file versions that are certainly safe, and unofficial "experimental" or limited support ones that still might be worth it. And adding to the overview of relevant experiences in those regards.

Until then, you'll have to decide for yourself, what is worth it to you.
I don't know what the worst case thus far has been.

Has there been ever a bricked Chuwi device by an unofficial file, that Chuwi refused to provide or being unable to provide a working solution to de-brick?

How about warranty situation? Does Chuwi really pay-attention to how a device was bricked if so?

It is not the responsibility of any Moderator nor any user to take on that much liability for trying to remain responsibly helpful.

I think Chuwi would be wise to allow us more transparency, instead of leading to "back channeling"/PMs/etc.. for genuine Chuwi customers to continue enjoying their Chuwi devices after any change in the previously working situation.

Users and Moderators should be allowed to set a disclaimer on the shared files, and for themselves and everyone add their feedback and testing results, to change the status of such files. Perhaps from experimental, to tested. And from Unofficial to Official. Depending on what it fixes, and how much that would help Chuwi's reputation and sense of responsibility.

Currently, the community process is hampered in that regard. Relevant experiences and knowledge about such files are fragmented and not easily constructive.

This needs a consensus by as many as possible, for Chuwi to reconsider their position on community participation. That's the least that can do, if they won't go fully open source on their code bases within all the relevant licenses.

It might seem that I'm mixing issues, rest assured I'm not. It's about what Chuwi supports as a community process, that might be considered as officially supported, after it goes through the community process.

First the said community process must be allowed to be developed, by the community, under Chuwi's observation.

I'm learning from a conceptual page out of the Java community process, but perhaps the Linux kernel community process is much older, but at the moment still alien to me.


Edit: typo, adjustment, clarity, edit addition + update.
Reply button? Also lists for a response, @username doesn't.
Chuwi? Time-constrains乁( ◔ ౪◔)「
3: 1+1+1 Links: Laplets vs Tabtops + is Chuwi good or bad? + After-sales?
Reply Support Not support

Use magic Report

doodzilla| Post time 5-13-2017 16:32:55 | Show all posts
ZenBalancer replied at 5-9-2017 09:42
There are user reports, confirming that "unallowed" spreading of for example BIOS versions considere ...

I've not gathered enough knowledge on topics such as "open source" to be comfortable enough to accurately use it in a sentence, but yes if by "open source" it applies the principle that Chuwi should be more open to its customer community to result in better results for everyone, then I absolutely agree.
Reply Support Not support

Use magic Report

You have to log in before you can reply Login | Register

Points Rules

Quick Reply To Top Return to the list