Well yes we have now updated my friends box to this latest Android build 20200901-1005_4GB with some difficulty as his box did not have the FOTO Update app installed on it so we had to use the Update app and select from the local sources wiht the zip file previously placced in the Downloads folder as per instructions.
Yes that worked and updated his Android to this latest 1005 version and then he had the FOTO Update app showing too. So clearly that 1719 must be quite an old build before the FOTO Update app was included in teh syystem apps. BUT BUT BUT still it will not boot into CoreELEC from the SD card and is the same symptoms as before and just sticks on the X96 logo screen. I tried this update on my own good box with the August 20200818 build version 2014 and that worked fine with my box now being in this latest 202009001 version and I was able to reset it to again boot off the SD card into CoreELEC and as before no problem.
So clearly this has not changed the uBoot code !! SO what now. Do we use the Amlogic Burn Card Maker with a suitable correct image file and reflash the box bia recovery mode?? That will surely then change the uBoot code to a workable one yes??? Anyone know where to get a known good Amlogic image file for this box for use with the Burn Card Maker utiltiy ??
I can find no image file newer than March 2020 and this may be too old and still have the clearly rogue uBoot bootloader. Thanks Kostaman but I had Google Searched for a suitable immage file too but not one that was recent and definitely for ths Max+ 4GB box…
I have an " aml_upgrade_package.img " file sent to me from my known reliable Chinese supplier (not the factory who will not help him) but still waiting for him to confirm it is definitley for this X95 Max+ 4GB box and what date/version it is as it is not shown. It is almost 1.5GB in size BTW.
Is there someone here clever enough who can maybe extract the correct image file from a working CE box and post it here so we can reflash the ROM on the bad boxes with a correct working bootloader. Can anyone also please confirm that using either the USB burning tool, or the Amlogic Burn Maker Tool to make a suitable SD card, with a correct image will in fact replace the rogue uBoot bootloader code to the same or similar as the X96 Max+ 4GB boxes that will work with CE ??
Sorry Portisch I was not ignoring you and thank you for your input. But I am afraid I do not have the neccessary equiment or at my old age still have the ability to do that and certainly my not local friend with the rogue box and only some limited tech skills will be unable to do this. Probbaly 95% of most users on here would not be able to do it either. Appreciate your advice though.
So all I want to do is burn a suitable compatible image so that the uBoot bootloader code is changed to a working version. I can always update the Andorid version later once I have a proper bootloader that will recognise my properly set up bootable CoreELEC SD card.
I downloaded that image and looked inside the update zip.
I think you should open the so called rogue box and see if it has the same board and ram configuration as your working box.
I don’t believe it’s the Bootloader.
I reckon it’s a copy with a hacked firmware hence no server firmware update url in the OS.
It reports what the person/vendor who did the package wrote about system properties in “build.prop” file. This is not guaranteed the real RAM value. You can put any number you want in there, because AIDA64 and all other “diagnostic” software just reads what is written in build.prop instead of doing a real hardware test. It’s very easy to cheat in Android
I have enabled by on the android box, and my phone, the two seem to find each other but can’t sync…when it comes up with the access code on one, it doesn’t ask for the code on the other.
The phone does find the x96 on Bluetooth though…just can’t sync
Thanks very much Kostaman for your efforts. Sorry for late reply but have been ill this week with a nasty stomach bug.
Anyway yes it seems that there is a new bootloader image in the zip file. Cannot check the rogue box as it is with a non local friend and I am sure he will not want to open the box. Strange as my Chinese supplier deals direct with the factory in Shenzhen but I am disappointed that they seem unwilling to help him on this problem.
I have a good friend in Canada who is very knowledgeable on these streaming boxes too and he supplies his customers with them. He just got 5 new X96 Max+ boxes and they would not boot to CE off of the SD card but he just carried out an OTA upgrade as offered onscreen and bingo then the boxes booted to CE. That did not happen with the two rogue boxes my friends have.
Okay today I will try to get my friend to update his box via the Burn Card Tool with the image file. I will talk him through it as he has already made the special burn card withthe latest image file. If that does not work then he can try making a bootable CE USB stick and try that in both ports.
I will let you know how I get on.
Finally I see now Tanix have brought out a new TX5 Max box with the same spec as the X96 Max+ so has anyone had any experience ot this box ?? Certainly I do trust Tanix as they seem a reliable brand name unlike X96 which has no official brand name on the boxes. They have brought out some great boxes at good prices. The TX3 with the S905X3 processor is low on its auxiliary specs like no gigabit Ethernet for example.
HEre are teh side by side photographs of the X96 Max+ motherboards. The first photo with the component mounted on a dodgy loooking daugter board is from the 4/32GB box that will not boot and the second one is from my own perfectly normal 4/64GB box that works very well with CoreELEC 9.2.4.2 -ng. So clearly there are wqay too many difference to be simmply a later upgrade to the mobo and that kludgy lookign duaghter board !!! So it seems the rogue boxes with my two friends are indeed clones and my Chinese supplier has agreed to replace them hopefully with the new Tanix TX5 Plus box which I am having difficutly locating online anywhere other than Amazon in Canada ?? The rogue box shows it is a newer board version but that would be what a clone producer would do anyway and by the time he starts making the clone some similar freely available components would have newer production series codes too. Strangely though the rogue boxes came with a much earlier Android version that did not even have the FOTO Update app installed as clearly genuine OTA updates would not be able to be linked to and certified.
SO if your X96 Max+ box will not boot carefully open the base of the box (use a thin knife blade to snap it open but take care not to tear the little warranty seal) and check yours to these photos. If it is a clone then deand it is replaced by your supplier. These deplorable clone producers must not be allowed to get away with it, though that is sadly a big ask.
I think I explained why I am sure it is a clone as Kostamman also suspected in the circumstances. You can see the kludge the rogue box board is and they would certainly not totally reorganise (disorganise) the original mobo as such with an upgraded version. There would simply be minor changes and improvements maybe a new memory chip or similar upgraded device. PLUS the rogue boxes also had an older version of Android which conveniently did not have the FOTA update app installed either and importantly of course it will not boot into CE like the other genuine boxes correctly do. Enough reasons for me and for most folk I would reckon. The Chinese supplier is slso said he is going to exchange them anyway for a box (maybe a new TX5 Plus if we can acquire one yet) that will boot to CE
I am not into reading UARTs and neither should I have to anyway. Also I do not have the rogue boxes here as they are not local to me but at a friends house where he has helped as technically as far as he can and I’m happy it will not boot into CE no matter all the usual methods and tricks we try. The box is non standard for sure.
I’m Chinese. My English is poor.
I have the same device,This device may use s905x2 chip，So the DTB file with x96max can be used normally。@rccardude@RayW
