Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Mon 28th Jun 2010 23:01 UTC
Intel has been working lately on "Atomising" the Android mobile OS in lieu of the upcoming Froyo (or 2.2) release so that it can be installed natively on x86 devices-- Atom-based netbooks in particular. Says Renee James, Senior VP for software and services at Intel: "Our expectation is that [native x86 Android] will be based on the Froyo release and will be available this summer to developers... [it] wasn't tremendously difficult, as we have a lot experience in Linux". The fun is supposed to arrive for developers this summer.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-10
Member since:
2008-04-18
I've been looking at getting one of those cheap chinese 7" netbooks with the ARM processor on ebay, particularly one of the ones that comes with google android installed instead of windows ce
do you have to pay to be a developer to have access to the developer builds of android? I'd love to try this out on my atom mini-itx desktop system just to see how it runs.
Member since:
2008-05-26
Member since:
2005-07-12
Member since:
2010-06-29
The problems with this current android x86 implementation are:
- no intelligent management of usb storage (the first device you plug is mounted as the sd card)
- video is x264 only with 480pixels max
- I think there is no 3D acceleration
- many applications are now optimized with the NDK for ARM processors and won't run
Intel might solve the first 3 issues but will have difficulties solving the 3rd one.
I tried it on a eeePc 701. And I'd say it is an excellent OS for a netbook, I would love that Intel makes it really usable as my daily OS.
Edited 2010-06-29 07:22 UTC
Member since:
2007-03-26
RE: Comment by Laurence
by vivainio on Tue 29th Jun 2010 09:50 UTC
in reply to "Comment by Laurence"
Member since:2008-12-26
RE[2]: Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Tue 29th Jun 2010 10:07 UTC
in reply to "RE: Comment by Laurence"
Member since:2007-03-26
Well, ARM has overwhelming dominance in mobile/embedded market.
Which counts for nothing on the netbook market unless they can utilise the brands they've gained in the mobile space.
ARM should be perfect for netbooks but at the moment it's an x86 / Windows arena.
So I stand by my point that I think this a real shame for ARM. Particlarly as iPad-style tablets are the latest fad. I can see Intel stealing the market from ARM just like they did with netbooks.
Edited 2010-06-29 10:08 UTC
RE[3]: Comment by Laurence
by vodoomoth on Tue 29th Jun 2010 11:27 UTC
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Laurence"
Member since:2010-03-30
So I stand by my point that I think this a real shame for ARM. Particlarly as iPad-style tablets are the latest fad. I can see Intel stealing the market from ARM just like they did with netbooks.
It's fine to stand by your point but your last sentence is off key.
Who can say "Intel stole the netbook market from ARM"? Netbooks are still laptops no matter what the marketing people said. Intel has always played in that field. Was ARM in the game? Had ARM initiated the netbook market or been one of its pioneer actors, maybe you could have said "it's a shame ARM didn't keep its market share". Even then, markets usually involve several competitors, not landlords and thieves.
As far as I know, ARM netbooks are not common. I still have to see one in my town here in France. An ARM laptop may exist but I haven't heard of it.
RE[4]: Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Tue 29th Jun 2010 11:54 UTC
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Laurence"
Member since:2007-03-26
It's fine to stand by your point but your last sentence is off key.
Who can say "Intel stole the netbook market from ARM"? Netbooks are still laptops no matter what the marketing people said. Intel has always played in that field. Was ARM in the game? Had ARM initiated the netbook market or been one of its pioneer actors, maybe you could have said "it's a shame ARM didn't keep its market share". Even then, markets usually involve several competitors, not landlords and thieves.
Who can say "Intel stole the netbook market from ARM"? Netbooks are still laptops no matter what the marketing people said. Intel has always played in that field. Was ARM in the game? Had ARM initiated the netbook market or been one of its pioneer actors, maybe you could have said "it's a shame ARM didn't keep its market share". Even then, markets usually involve several competitors, not landlords and thieves.
The reason why I said what i said was simply because ARM is perfect for netbooks: it's cheap, lower powered, moderately spec'ed and ultra-portable.
You stated that netbooks are essentially laptops, which is true in a broader sense of the term. But the reality is that the two devices perform very different roles. Netbooks were never intended to be "laptops" in the traditional sense, but rather a cheap hub for online services and an office suite. Where as laptops these days are as powerful as many desktops and are usually brought to perform desktop-type processing while offering portability.
So taking the above into account, there's no reason why ARM shouldn't have had more success.
That said, I do think that ARM wasn't entirely to blame. Some of the Linux distro's bundled were so poor that it put off many people and then when MS entered into the market, they had the money to subsidise Windows so much that it became doubly unattractive to run anything other than Windows XP on x86.
Now it's looking too late for ARM to recover as Intel already have optimised netbook CPUs out there to compete with ARM (where initially there was only the Celleron which was virtually no competition to ARM).
So while I don't entirely blame ARM for losing the netbook battle, they should still have had a much greater market share in that product line than they currently do.
As far as I know, ARM netbooks are not common. I still have to see one in my town here in France. An ARM laptop may exist but I haven't heard of it.
That's exactly my point though. They could have and should have been more common.
The netbook market is an ideal market space for ARM to flurrish, but it just felt like they were held back.
Edited 2010-06-29 11:58 UTC
RE[5]: Comment by Laurence
by vivainio on Tue 29th Jun 2010 12:04 UTC
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Laurence"
Member since:2008-12-26
The netbook market is an ideal market space for ARM to flurrish, but it just felt like they were held back.
I guess tablets are the interesting market right now. It's something where ARM can compete with Intel very well (I heard this 'iPad' tablet is pretty popular in united states of america).
If Moorestown kills ARM on tablets, it means MeeGo & Android kill iPad => a cause for celebration ;-).
EDIT: MeeGo, Android, Windows. Not as sweet a victory, but a victory nonetheless ;-).
Edited 2010-06-29 12:07 UTC
RE[6]: Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Tue 29th Jun 2010 15:11 UTC
in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Laurence"
Member since:2007-03-26
I guess tablets are the interesting market right now. It's something where ARM can compete with Intel very well (I heard this 'iPad' tablet is pretty popular in united states of america).
Agreed, which is what I said to you about 4 posts up
But my whole point was saying that Intel porting Android to x86 could potentially harm ARM (and lets face it, Intel aren't doing this to try and sell /less/ x86 chips now are they)
RE[5]: Comment by Laurence
by nt_jerkface on Tue 29th Jun 2010 17:50 UTC
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Laurence"
Member since:2009-08-26
The reason why I said what i said was simply because ARM is perfect for netbooks: it's cheap, lower powered, moderately spec'ed and ultra-portable.
They aren't perfect, they have a major downside which is compatibility.
Even with netbooks you still run into issues with plug-ins, namely Flash.
But Flash is currently being ported which will make ARM a lot more appealing to OEMs.
The nice thing about ARM is that it is forcing Intel to keep their Atom line extremely low priced. You can get an Atom/motherboard combo for around $65.
RE[6]: Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Tue 29th Jun 2010 21:40 UTC
in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Laurence"
Member since:2007-03-26
They aren't perfect, they have a major downside which is compatibility.
Even with netbooks you still run into issues with plug-ins, namely Flash.
But Flash is currently being ported which will make ARM a lot more appealing to OEMs.
Even with netbooks you still run into issues with plug-ins, namely Flash.
But Flash is currently being ported which will make ARM a lot more appealing to OEMs.
Compatibility isn't that big of an issue with netbooks:
* Linux already runs on ARM
* There's already a plethora open source apps out there that can read 99.99% of office documents (many of which may already have been ported to ARM)
* There's already countless media player applications, both specifically for ARM and open source that can be ported.
* Websites mostly use open standards - and the iPhone / iPad don't have Flash either. so even that example of yours isn't entirely fair.
So, for what netbooks are used for, compatibility really isn't the issue.
But i agree that ARM isn't perfect, but then nothing in life is truly perfect
The nice thing about ARM is that it is forcing Intel to keep their Atom line extremely low priced. You can get an Atom/motherboard combo for around $65.
Nice for consumers in the short term maybe. But in the long term Intel's pricing model is harmful as it's encouraging a monopoly.
RE[7]: Comment by Laurence
by nt_jerkface on Wed 30th Jun 2010 02:26 UTC
in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Laurence"
Member since:2009-08-26
Compatibility isn't that big of an issue with netbooks:
Talking about compatibility with consumer software. Itunes, MS Office, $favorite_game. That may not mean anything to you but everyone I know is tied to at least one Windows or OSX program.
- and the iPhone / iPad don't have Flash either. so even that example of yours isn't entirely fair.
They don't use Flash but they come with a media and app store.
You're already asking a lot from consumers to buy a computer with an unfamiliar OS. Taking away Flash goes too far and Google realizes this which is why they are integrating it in their browser.
RE: Comment by Laurence
by nt_jerkface on Tue 29th Jun 2010 17:20 UTC
in reply to "Comment by Laurence"
Member since:2009-08-26
