It's not very surprising as we've all speculated a full-fledged Google OS for years, then Google's mobile OS hit the phone market, and now we've seen it (Android, of course) already installed and working dutifully on netbooks. It's not rock-solid, but Google's CEO has hinted that there'll be subsidized, Android-powered netbooks backed by Google or its partners arriving to the netbook scene soon.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-06
I can't see myself using android on netbook. It has some interesting design features, like concept of activities, that work great on phones with small screens but won't provide enough flexibility on netbooks.
Having screen as small as 10" is enough to run Ubuntu with either Gnome or Kde on top of it and enjoy actually having windows on screens.
Android works different way, which is why it'll fails on netbooks market.
Member since:2006-07-30
Member since:2006-01-04
Member since:2008-12-26
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2009-03-09
why in the world would you jump to the conclusion it will fail? have you even seen it?
IMHO, the success or failure will be based on how well the client itself PLUS the functionality of back-end cloud.
If we're betting between Microsoft and Google on the cloud stuff ... hmmm. I wonder who will win that one?
cheers
Member since:
2005-09-27
Member since:2008-07-15
I don't particularly see anything wrong with a desktop os based on Java, as long as the VM is implemented in an optimized way. I just don't see Android being the right fit for anything larger than a PDA, at least not yet. I wouldn't be surprised to see Android-powered PDAs, basically a phone without the phone radio, but on a netbook I'll take a full desktop os, thanks.
Member since:2006-09-20
Member since:2007-05-27
Android uses the Java syntax and models much of the Sun Java API but it is not Java. It uses Googles own libraries and Googles own VM AND Googles own bytecode format. If you mean "no to bytecode based desktops blah blah" or something similar, then yes you would be correct in that the development of Android applications does indeed produce bytecode. However, such bytecode, much like other high-level languages like C++, can be compiled to assembly fairly easily. So, no its not Java and no it doesn't have to be running bytecode (can be running native).
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2008-05-27
Member since:2006-10-27
Member since:
2005-09-21
Why would anyone want to run a cut-down OS like android if you can run a full OS like proper Linux or Windows without problems?
The whole appeal of netbooks for me is that they run exactly the same stuff you run on your desktop, not some crappy niche OS that will never have good application support.
Member since:2008-12-26
The whole appeal of netbooks for me is that they run exactly the same stuff you run on your desktop, not some crappy niche OS that will never have good application support.
Xandros shipped by default in EEE's is not far from "crappy niche OS", but luckily it's quite easy to replace w/ Ubuntu. I'd imagine Android will also be ejected quite rapidly by power users, unless the devices are locked down on hw level.
Member since:2005-07-22
quote
Xandros shipped by default in EEE's is not far from "crappy niche OS", but luckily it's quite easy to replace w/ Ubuntu.
endquote
Should be
Xandros shipped by default in EEE's is not far from "crappy niche OS", but luckily it's quite easy to replace with another Linux based O/S.
Ubuntu != The only Linux. There are others that work equally well on an eeePC Ok.
Member since:2008-12-26
Member since:2006-12-05
Ubuntu is quite nice, but it's pretty... well, heavy. Sure, daemons can be disabled, but I'm still not sure if after doing so it'd be as responsive as its parent. Debian is lighter by default, but what I'd like to try out some day when I get a netbook is Slackware or one of its derivatives. Netbooks typically don't have much power, and Slack-based distros tend to be some of the fastest and lightest around, so it sounds like it'd be the perfect match.
Arch would be another good one, but I've never had much luck setting up a desktop Arch system, mostly due to the X.org configuration. Has anyone installed the latest Arch? Is its X.org auto-configuration any better? Maybe it's about time I try a new reinstall of the distro myself...
Member since:2008-12-26
Ubuntu is quite nice, but it's pretty... well, heavy. Sure, daemons can be disabled, but I'm still not sure if after doing so it'd be as responsive as its parent.
Performance is mostly dictated by what you programs you are running, not what distro you are using. I noted a huge performance increase on my eee 900 when I switched from gnome to xfce, probably due to memory footprint. I mostly only use the browser anyway, so I don't need full gnome as a glorified firefox launcher.
Xandros core was actually well implemented, and wlan worked great on it; too bad the apt repos sucked.
Member since:2006-10-11
Then you don't need XFCE either. Just use a baremetal WM, e. g. twm, launch FF from .xinitrc (.xsession for Debian and spin-offs users) and a mini-cli, such as gmrun. More than you will ever need
Anyway, Android netbooks, why not? Coupled with one of those nifty Freescale minibooks it could be cool.
Member since:2007-11-24
Member since:2009-03-09
"why would anyone want to run a _cut_down_ operating system?"
Windows and any early linux distros were built with the assumption of slow or no network. they still attempt to write to your disk: all drivers and similar stuff that may be used only on install, or infrequently, or never ... is that your notion of a _not_cut_down operating system?
FYI, windows puts tons of code related to SCSI on your disk drive and mine, SCSI has a bunch of logic and error management related to tape drives. Yup, that stuff is on your drive too. Did you know that Excel has a soap element for real time currency conversions within a spread sheet? Do you use that? I don't.
New operating systems now assume a network connection (duh), they get the basic stuff installed, and if they need special drivers or code, they hit the net and get only what they need rather than install everything on the local drive. That's one reason why my desktop with Ubuntu/gOS takes 5GB for an entire install including an office suite. it takes 30 seconds to boot, and takes 15 seconds to shut down. and most importantly it has everything I need.
My point is the old paradigm is install _everything_, the new paradigm is install the basics and get the fancy stuff later. to me, that's the "proper" way to conduct business.
Member since:
2005-07-06
A lot will depend on the applications. I am a bit skeptical on an Android only based netbook, but with subsidies taking the cost down it might be viable.
I have pre-ordered a Touch Book with the intent of trying to get android running on it. As I see it, with the touch screen and expandable nature via USB, the Touch Book could make an interesting Android platform. Optimally I would like to be able to launch X applications rootless from Android. Failing that having a minimalist X session may be sufficient for the few applications that I foresee doing on a device like that.
For the "power user" though an android only OS would be a bit limiting. Given the choice of Android only or Debian only I would take Debian. I would rather have both though.
For a simple user only looking for portable web and mail Android might not be a bad choice. It is not a consumer group I deal with often but I think android is intuitive enough that it should work well for an end user for these basic tasks.
I do not see Android competing with Windows 7 in the full featured netbook category though. There will be users who want a device that does the same stuff as their main computers, within limitations of the device size. For those Android won't cut it. Of course neither would Linux in general for that group.
Edited 2009-03-07 20:05 UTC
Member since:
2005-11-12
Member since:
2005-10-11
Can someone please spell it out. Why would an Android netbook be more successful than Linpus or whatever Linux distro.
I have only one reason, that I can understand. Linux desktop distro are generally slow, and especially on something like a netbook.
Whereas something like Android is designed for underpowered devices like phones (which are getting more powerful). I believe apps on an Android powered netbook will simply be faster than other *nix graphical programs.
Member since:2007-03-26
I have only one reason, that I can understand. Linux desktop distro are generally slow, and especially on something like a netbook.
Whereas something like Android is designed for underpowered devices like phones (which are getting more powerful). I believe apps on an Android powered netbook will simply be faster than other *nix graphical programs.
I'm sorry mate, but that's just pure BS.
Linux is as much designed to run on lower powered devices as it is for high end systems.
Sure, you wouldn't want Compiz or KDE4 on an embedded device, but the beauty of Linux (and why so many embedded systems use this OS) is you have the choice not to install all that.
So to say desktop Linux is slow is complete bullshit. Just install a different desktop manager or turn off compositing if your system can't manage the latest desktop technologies.
As for your original question; The reason why Android would succeed where other distro's have failed is down to one simple fact:
It's built, supported and backed by a large company n00bies are familiar with and trust.
Most users don't care whether their kernel is NT or Linux - the just want a system that has applications, and is pretty / easy to use. But most importantly, users want support for when the metaphoric shit hits the proverbial fan.
Vanillia linux (not that there is such a thing) seems cold and scarey to many users as it wasn't owned by a single multi-national billian dollar company - but Android is.
So I forsee Android's success simply because users trust Google.
Edited 2009-03-08 11:09 UTC
Member since:2007-02-17
I have only one reason, that I can understand. Linux desktop distro are generally slow, and especially on something like a netbook.
Not a bit of it. Quite mistaken. One can easily run Kubuntu Jaunty Alpha 5 on a netbook at entirely acceptable speed. This version of Kubuntu uses KDE 4.2.1 and Qt4.5.
I'm running it right now, as I type this, on an ASUS EEEPC 1000H. Installs fully with everything working out of the box. It comes with a full desktop suite of applications.
EG: OpenOffice Writer 3.0 first opens in 12 seconds, and 3 seconds subsequently. Kubuntu fully boots in about 25 seconds from pushing the power switch to Firefox 3 being opened and ready for browsing. Firefox 3 re-starts in one second after the first load. Web pages render quickly, and scroll smoothly.
Perfectly useable. Fully functional. Remarkably stable, given that this is still an Alpha pre-release.
Edited 2009-03-08 11:47 UTC
Member since:2006-12-01
I really do not understand the thing about 'Linux with Gnome/KDE is slow on the netbook'. I have the eeepc 701 and I installed some eeepc tailored ubuntu distribution (forgot the name, maybe eeebuntu or something like that). It had XCFE, because everybody kept telling that was light, fast etc. After I tried Gnome, and I found no noticeable difference in speed (maybe a couple of seconds in boot), and after I tried KDE4. Again not much difference.
I run now KDE 4.2 and it is just fine. True that I have two gigs ram on that machine, but is like 30 euros more...
Android would be cool to play with, but honestly I do not want a stripped down OS on my netbook.
But I do not know if the Android for netbooks will be a different thing from what we see in the cell phones...
Member since:
2005-07-06
Just some points I'd like to make:
1) When people hint at Android on a netbook, don't just assume it is a matter of picking up android from the mobile phone and throwing it on a netbook. No doubt they're going to bring over the same frameworks but I also see them creating a customised UI that addresses the unique nature of the Netbook sized screen.
2) Regarding Java, IIRC the ARM based processors have (quoting Wikipedia) "Jazelle is a technique that allows Java Bytecode to be executed directly in the ARM architecture as a third execution state alongside the existing ARM and Thumb-mod". So the performance penalty should be very minor.
3) I'm excited that maybe we'll see arm and other non-x86 based netbooks internationally - the gdium from Emtec (MIPS based) which I had so much hope is not selling in New Zealand or Australia; are we going to see the same sort of distain for international customers when Google start up their netbook sales? you'd think that commonsense, given the current economic climate, relying on sales in the US is a stupid model.
Edited 2009-03-07 23:44 UTC
Member since:2008-12-26
I don't think Android relies on this technology, or runs standard Java bytecode. They ase "dalvik" jvm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalvik_virtual_machine
Member since:
2006-04-13
Android on netbooks is not for people reading OSNEWS, it is for people who don't know what an IP address is.
Most people can work cellphones which have a lot of bells an whistles. Using the same cellphone style UI would translate to a simple computer which most people can operate. I would guarantee that a simple UI would mean that my mum could actually use email.
I'd even use it because it would mean that stuff just works kinda like my cellphone just works.
