Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 3rd Jan 2014 19:44 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems

The PC industry isn't doing so well. Sales have dramatically slumped, despite the industry's efforts to tempt consumers with Windows 8 tablets and transforming touchscreen laptops. But next week, the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas may be the launching pad for a new push - a new brand of computer that runs both Windows and Android.

Sources close to the matter tell The Verge that Intel is behind the idea, and that the chipmaker is working with PC manufacturers on a number of new devices that could be announced at the show. Internally known as "Dual OS," Intel's idea is that Android would run inside of Windows using virtualization techniques, so you could have Android and Windows apps side by side without rebooting your machine.

I'm going to make a very daring prediction, that is sure to send ripples across the entire industry: this is not going to turn the tide for the PC.

Order by: Score:
BlueofRainbow
Member since:
2009-01-06

A dual purpose system is not something I would go for. I see laptops/netbooks and tablets being for different purposes/needs.

I remember the old days when Microsoft strong-armed OEMs in not allowing anything more than Windows to boot. There was for a very short time a Hitachi system dual booting BeOS and Windows.

It would be strange that Microsoft would have changed its ways given that they are trying to gain traction with their Surface and Windows 8.1.

Does Intel has the (legal) muscle to win such a dual booting battle?

Reply Score: 5

martini Member since:
2006-01-23

It is not going to turn the tide for the PC, but I hope it turn the tide for Windows.... to worst ;)

I also remember when MS tried to boycot any OEM that wanted to make models with one OS and other with Windows. In that case MS will not give the manufacturer the standard OEM discount and charge more for Windows.

I always thought that HP strategy to ship dual boot WebOS on Windows was good, but instead it worsted HP relationship with Microsoft.

But I remember it was a little try to do this, "HP QuickBoot OS" was a little linux (Splashtop?) but it never gain traction.

Reply Score: 7

reduz Member since:
2006-02-25

Yes, this is truly terrible for Microsoft.

CES is the most important consumer electronics show and media all over the world replicates the announcements.

This is a clear message that the Windows-centric computing age is nearing the end.

I'm still surprised that Android hasn't added a desktop mode yet. The Asus Transformer Prime actually worked pretty decent as a desktop, but it's clear the OS wasn't ready.

Reply Score: 2

ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

This is a clear message that the Windows-centric computing age is nearing the end.

Actually this message is not about the fate of Windows-centric computing (which took a hit for home market already), but more about Intel's [lack of] imagination. The only purpose the whole thing serves is to show that Intel's hardware is capable of running Android via virtualization more efficiently then commodity tablets do natively.

Actually, the trend with PC market is more of a problem for Intel then for any software vendor: Microsoft earns most of its money with Office and [IMO overpriced] server products, and it only needs to hold enough of PC market to keep the main products dominant (eg. ".docx" as the default text format or .Net as a viable development platform). Loosing home market will make Microsoft less comfortable, but won't do much beyond that. (Or may be even cut Microsoft's expences on desktop OS R&D).

In the meantime Intel gets its money from x86 hardware. The server part of Intel's business is only growing, but the mass consumer market - the one Intel had in its pocket recently - is about to vanish (according to some, at least). While Intel also seems to make more money outside mass consumer market, the proportion isn't as favorable for Intel as it is for Microsoft.

P.S.: bear in mind, that when you buy an Android device, you also pay for a Windows Phone license, albeit not getting one. It's less money per item, but lower risks and expences and larger market compensate for that. I'm not particularly sure whether Microsoft indeed is loosing anything in terms of financial result. And piracy is also of no concern on mobile side of things. It may even be that Microsoft is OK with loosing desktop market to mobile as long as its office monopoly remains unchallenged.

P.P.S.: Ironically, if desktop Linux was growing with the pace of Android back in the days of Symbian dominance, it would hurt Microsoft much more.

P.P.P.S.: And the next version of Windows Phone will turn things around for Microsoft's share of mobile market - Nelson can't be wrong... :-P

Edited 2014-01-04 18:08 UTC

Reply Score: 3

reduz Member since:
2006-02-25

I understand what you mean and I agree with you,
but despite the message they may be trying to send I don't think the general public will understand it the same way.

CES is a very mainstream event, It's the magic time in the year where new products and trends are announced. It's not the place for Intel to send that kind of messages because the media an consumers will give a different interpretation to it.

Reply Score: 3

ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

Mass consumers (those who can't get this setup on their Windows 8 touch-enabled device already) don't really care CES as far as I'm aware. Intel needs publicity, and with this show it remind everyone that only x86 hardware offers viable virtualization for consumer-ready devices. They communicate this message frequently enough to get it hyped and well-remembered, and all the rest will simply fade away after CES ends. In the end it will be just another fresh mention of Intel in context of virtualization.

Reply Score: 3

Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Mass consumers (those who can't get this setup on their Windows 8 touch-enabled device already) don't really care CES as far as I'm aware.


Iwouldn't be so sure about that, one of the local news channels (WISN 12 Milwaukee) does a tech report and sends a reporter to trade shows like CES and E3 to do a piece on tech trends.

While not goog coverage by our own geeky standards, it does bring CES and other tech trade shows to the uninitiated masses.

Reply Score: 3

ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

Then my point about Intel's desire to be mentioned again in connection to virtualization is even more valid: Intel shows a device that runs something general consumer expects on phablet, and Intel's technology allows to do so without sacrificing the ability to run "your normal apps"™. Again, enough time will pass after CES that general consumer forgets it ever existed, but the impression of Intel doing something everyone else failed to do will already give roots.

Reply Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Lol CES is like the tech Comicon, no one pays attention and a year later most mainstream people are hard pressed to remember a single product that even made it to consumer shelves in a meaningful fashion.

Its a circus for vaporware, flexible screens, and 80 inch TVs that cost $7000.

People care about products in stores, on retail shelves. Not the latest science projects from LG, Samsung, Lenovo, et all.

Reply Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

What do you mean by legal muscle? Microsoft got in deep Anti trust doo doo for that. I don't think they'd try and revive it.

Edit: removed comment portion that assumed this was dual boot. Its Virtualized... Doesn't help me at all...

Edited 2014-01-03 22:57 UTC

Reply Score: 3

JPollard Member since:
2011-12-31

It isn't that Microsoft changed...

But the contracts Microsoft used had those items canceled by the anti-trust lawsuits.

Currently Microsoft uses the "advertising" kickbacks to keep vendors in line. What is happening is that there are no kickbacks when users don't buy the item in the first place.

So they are starting to try to use Android to get the sale... and include Windows to try and get the kickback...

Reply Score: 3

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 3rd Jan 2014 20:10 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Why do they need Android on the desktop? Any normal Linux is light years better.

On the Intel side, I hope they'll release proper glibc drivers for their Merrifield SoC, so Linux can be run natively there (Sailfish and co). After all, they participate in Tizen. Because the ARM situation isn't getting any better and being stuck with libhybris forever is kind of sad.

Edited 2014-01-03 20:24 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by shmerl
by vivainio on Fri 3rd Jan 2014 20:16 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Android has a much better (i.e. nonzero) selection of touch friendly apps, obviously.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 3rd Jan 2014 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

First of all, if we are talking about regular desktops / laptops, you don't care about applications being touch friendly. Secondly, you don't need Android as an OS for it (as an OS it's pretty crippled). It's enough to have the runtime built for any particular OS. Not sure why it's not widely implemented, like OpenJDK does. I.e. where is Android runtime for Linux or for Windows?

Edited 2014-01-03 20:23 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by vivainio on Fri 3rd Jan 2014 20:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Obviously the motivation here is to create consumer interest for touch screen laptops, or hybrids with "real os" when keyboard is connected and casual touch friendly OS when it's not.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by kristoph on Sun 5th Jan 2014 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

The assumption therefore, is that we actually need touch screen laptops. Personally I think this is backward.

What we need is the ability to turn a tablet temporarily into a PC to run the odd PC app ( yeah, I know you can already do this using Citrix and the like but it's not the same ).

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by shmerl
by moondevil on Fri 3rd Jan 2014 21:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Why do they need Android on the desktop? Any normal Linux is light years better.


While you are right, the truth is that Android is the only Linux distribution that has had commercial success for the average Joe.

....After all, they participate in Tizen. ...


Tizen will never go anywhere. I am yet to see any major commercial use of it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Sun 5th Jan 2014 07:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Tizen will never go anywhere. I am yet to see any major commercial use of it.


Yes, so far nothing came out of it, but that wasn't the point. Since Intel participates, they at least should make sure their hardware works with glibc Linux. The sickening situation around Qualcomm and Co. is really annoying, so Intel can be a game changer, if only they'll release a suitable SoC at last.

Edited 2014-01-05 07:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Comment by shmerl
by shadoweva09 on Sat 4th Jan 2014 03:37 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
I remember dependency hell... vaguely
by ricegf on Sat 4th Jan 2014 04:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Are you really unaware that dependency hell was resolved 7 long years ago by both deb and rpm systems?

Reply Score: 8

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Tell another one please.

Reply Score: 3

shadoweva09 Member since:
2008-03-10

"Both rpm and deb systems", android one package, all devices, no dependencies to manage. Linux: Hopefully someone in the community bothered to repackage the latest version and upload it to the distro's repository, and last time I checked gimp and blender were severely out of date in ubuntu's repository. Need something that wasn't put in a repository, like the latest version of makehuman or Citrix? Better figure out how to manage those dependencies yourself since no one bothered to fix the errors with make human dependencies, and Citrix is commercial software so the community doesn't care and instead wants them to do more work because they're clearly entitled to tell a business what to do. Your software doesn't use the latest version of everything? oh well, none of those old dependencies are supported anymore. Android? iOS, Mac OSX, Windows, Blackberry, etc. All Official SDKs that make sure the end user and developer never have to put of with this. At what cost? A little wasted disk space. Worth it? Clearly.

Edited 2014-01-04 15:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Citrix is commercial software so the community doesn't care and instead wants them to do more work because they're clearly entitled to tell a business what to do.

Are you saying Citrix doesn't know how to package binary software in a redistributable manner? I've got binaries of my (GNUstep) app that were built on a Debian-derived distro over 6 years ago and run just fine on the latest Slackwares. The trick is pretty simple: bring everything you need with you, exactly as you said below.

last time I checked gimp and blender were severely out of date in ubuntu's repository

The latest version of Gimp I see in the Ubuntu repos is 2.8.6 from 2013-06-21, i.e. the most up to date before the release of Ubuntu 13.10. The latest stable release of Gimp is one point release above that (2.8.8), hardly what you'd call "severely out of date" (unless you update your software by physical age instead of by features).
As for Blender, the version in Ubuntu is 2.66 whereas the latest pre-built binaries I could find were 2.69. Don't know how old that is, I couldn't be bothered to track that down, so perhaps it's pretty old. However, you can always download the latest pre-built 64-bit Linux tarball from blender.org - just dusted off my old Mint system to try it and it worked flawlessly. Download, unpack, click binary, running. Didn't have to touch the terminal once.

Your software doesn't use the latest version of everything? oh well, none of those old dependencies are supported anymore. Android? iOS, Mac OSX, Windows, Blackberry, etc. All Official SDKs that make sure the end user and developer never have to put of with this. At what cost? A little wasted disk space. Worth it? Clearly.

Well, so far the examples you provided above and my own experience in doing so don't seem to support your case that somehow packaging software for Linux systems is inherently "hard". Packaging complex pieces of software for any platform has its challenges, but once you know how to do it, it isn't that hard.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by shmerl
by The123king on Sat 4th Jan 2014 13:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
The123king Member since:
2009-05-28

Android actually has a decent library of third-party apps that Joe Public might actually want. He doesn't want Blender or Eclipse, he wants Temple Run and Angry Birds. GNU/Linux is great for content creators, Google/linux is great for content consumers.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Sun 5th Jan 2014 06:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Android is bad for either creators or consumers. It has horrendous multitasking support (better to say none), and really badly designed system architecture. Sorry, but no. Android on the desktop is a stupid idea. It was created for dummified mobile devices where one application runs at a time. Retrofitting it back into multitasking desktop is pointless.

Edited 2014-01-05 06:05 UTC

Reply Score: 1

So...
by deathshadow on Fri 3rd Jan 2014 20:12 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

They're bundling BlueStacks? YAWN.

Reply Score: 4

Maybe...
by Jpoint on Fri 3rd Jan 2014 20:39 UTC
Jpoint
Member since:
2013-11-22

I like this idea, but only with certain conditions.

First, it's only useful on touch devices - there's no reason to have Android on the desktop. However, a x86 tablet with the ability to run Win 8 and Android apps, along with the ability to connect a keyboard and turn into a full Windows laptop is appealing.

Second, it would need to have Google Play or a similar app market that can keep apps updated automatically. Android apps get updated so frequently I can't imagine having to keep up with it manually. I don't see Google allowing Play to be on a Windows tablet, so that means another market.

Reply Score: 5

Virtualization makes it useless for me
by Temcat on Fri 3rd Jan 2014 21:00 UTC
Temcat
Member since:
2005-10-18

I would be interested in such a device if it were dual-boot. But not Android in a VM. The battery life when using it as an Android device will suck compared to running natively, speed will most likely suck too.

Reply Score: 5

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

If done right not necessarily. It can't be full Android otherwise it would be a mess of 3 not integrated, intermingled environments (Win desk, Win Metro, Android Launcher). They have to find a way of isolating just Android apps. This way they could run side by side with Metro full screen apps and wouldn't stand out so much (style aside).
Pure Java apps could run in native windows Dalvik reimplementation, while C based apps would use some rudimentary Linux VM with stripped down Android just to launch apps.

Reply Score: 3

Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

But that needs Windows running, hence the battery life and speed issues.

Reply Score: 2

Comment titles are useless
by pandronic on Fri 3rd Jan 2014 21:10 UTC
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

Sounds retarded. What's the point?

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment titles are useless
by Vanders on Sat 4th Jan 2014 01:36 UTC in reply to "Comment titles are useless"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

I figure it's another desperate attempt by Intel to grab a piece of the largely ARM centric Android market. I bet they're kicking themselves for selling off XScale...

Reply Score: 5

The123king Member since:
2009-05-28

I agree it's a blatant atttempt for Intel to try and get the mobile market hooked onto x86 just like the desktop market. Intel must be nearly as scared as Microsoft at the direction modern-day computing is going. It's moving from power-hungry boxes running expensive software to throwaway machines running open-source software. If MS and Intel don't sort their s**t out, they'll end up like DEC or National Semiconductor.

Maybe they're "too big to fail", but if they can't make stuff that people want to buy, there's no point them trying to sell stuff.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment titles are useless
by Hayoo! on Sat 4th Jan 2014 11:58 UTC in reply to "Comment titles are useless"
Hayoo! Member since:
2013-04-13

Sounds retarded. What's the point?

Were you referring to comment titles or the news?

Edit: I agree on the former but am still unsure about the latter.

Edited 2014-01-04 12:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Devices are the key
by Wodenhelm on Fri 3rd Jan 2014 22:48 UTC
Wodenhelm
Member since:
2010-07-16

I think once Android, Kindle, and iOS can work with devices such as a wireless dvd burner, printer, mouse, etc... then the PC will be done.

At least in my case, as a consumer (who does not produce content), that's about all I need my laptop for. Then of course, multi-tasking.

The PC still has its place, by all means... just expect it to be relegated to office use, content production (media, programming, etc).

Reply Score: 4

RE: Devices are the key
by The123king on Sat 4th Jan 2014 13:33 UTC in reply to "Devices are the key"
The123king Member since:
2009-05-28

If you need a cursor, CD burner and RHW keyboard, don't buy a tablet. I own both and use both, but the laptop is used more for creative pursuits and content production than the tablet. My tablet is treated most of the time, like an interactive book. I use it to read PDFs, news articles etc relevent to any creative work i'm doing on the laptop. Two screens are great, especially one that you can scowl at because you code won't compile, whilst playing Angry Birds on the other.

In a strange way, we've gone back to the days of the typewriter. Except that typewriter can play Portal 2 and the textbook can play GTA San Andreas.

To paraphrase Mark Twain. "The death of the desktop has been highly exaggerated"

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Devices are the key
by Wodenhelm on Sun 5th Jan 2014 04:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Devices are the key"
Wodenhelm Member since:
2010-07-16

I say that on the unspoken assumption that tablet makers (or perhaps Google, through Android) will want to finally overthrow Microsoft's Windows once and for all.

I occasionally use my Bluetooth keyboard with my Kindle Fire HDX, but certainly not often enough to warrant having it attached. In that setup, I'll prop up the tablet on a picture frame holder, so I've got a mini desktop setup going.

And if I could indeed make use of the various hardware peripherals that are standard on a laptop or desktop, then I could easily consider abandoning Windows, as my KF-HDX is far faster than my laptop (its 2.2 GHz quadcore only having to deal with a smaller mobile OS make for a pretty good "power to weight ratio", so to say).

Reply Score: 2

Interesting concept but...
by jnemesh on Fri 3rd Jan 2014 22:51 UTC
jnemesh
Member since:
2008-04-08

They should forget about Android on the desktop and just offer dual boot to a standard Linux distro. I guarantee you, if they have it boot to Linux Mint by default, most customers will never see the need to go into Windows AT ALL.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Interesting concept but...
by allanregistos on Sat 4th Jan 2014 00:28 UTC in reply to "Interesting concept but..."
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

They should forget about Android on the desktop and just offer dual boot to a standard Linux distro. I guarantee you, if they have it boot to Linux Mint by default, most customers will never see the need to go into Windows AT ALL.


Hardly. But granted, I don't think Linux Mint fits the bill, it needs to have a proper company behind a Linux desktop = Mandriva, Ubuntu, Redhat or Suse.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Interesting concept but...
by Odwalla on Sat 4th Jan 2014 01:04 UTC in reply to "Interesting concept but..."
Odwalla Member since:
2006-02-01

Hahahaha...ahahahaha. No. Consumers want a device that provides a software ecosystem for them. They want the iTunes store, the Windows Store or the Google Play store. They don't want to apt-get-blah-blah in a terminal or put up with similar-but-not-quite-the-same applications. They want something familiar. And given the market penetration of Windows, iOS, and Android that's what is considered familiar. Putting any Linux other than Android on a consumer device as a user-facing OS would be the most ridiculous thing ever. Unless of course your plan is to have people buy products other than yours.

Reply Score: 1

sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

My mother went from a Windows PC to an Android tablet. No trouble switching and learning a new different platform. If it's easy to use, most people would adapt. Android is easy to use, Linux is not.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Interesting concept but...
by Dano on Sat 4th Jan 2014 23:11 UTC in reply to "Interesting concept but..."
Dano Member since:
2006-01-22

I'm not too sure about that. The Windows software ecosystem extends to many areas that Android would never encounter coming from a mobile platform. Server tools, advanced networking tools, .NET framework and legacy applications are all reasons why Windows is going to be around for a long time. Not to say that Android could not be extended to the PC, but as a stand-alone, that would take a while.

Reply Score: 3

Why not just use plain Android?
by allanregistos on Sat 4th Jan 2014 00:13 UTC
allanregistos
Member since:
2011-02-10

Why not just use plain Android? It is time to force Microsoft Windows to acknowledge that it needs to keep up with the recent trend, a free OS (Not necessarily open source) and only provide services/technical support and apps on top of Windows. I believe MS needs to do this in order to be remain competitive in the near future.

Reply Score: 3

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Removing Windows would make the whole x86 barrage with associated cost useless.

Reply Score: 2

Why virtualization?
by FunkyELF on Sat 4th Jan 2014 00:30 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

Wouldn't this be handled better with a compatibility layer and run the Java code directly?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why virtualization?
by malxau on Sat 4th Jan 2014 02:44 UTC in reply to "Why virtualization?"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

Yes, but that would take much longer to build and get to market compared to putting Android in a VM.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Why virtualization?
by sbenitezb on Mon 6th Jan 2014 03:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Why virtualization?"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

But they don't need to run Android in a VM. Android already runs on Intel based phones.

Reply Score: 2

Kalessin
Member since:
2007-01-18

Android is a mobile OS, not a desktop or laptop OS. Its paradigm is fundamentally different. Windows 8 sucks so much precisely because Microsoft tried to mobile paradigms on a PC. How is using an OS that is designed only for mobile devices rather than trying to be for both going to help when the target is a PC? I don't see how this really solves anything.

This is big news, because it shows a lack of faith in Windows and the fact that PC vendors are looking to find ways to make the PC do better in spite of the stupidity that is Windows 8, but if you're selling a PC, put a PC OS on it. To be honest, at first glance at least, what they're doing sounds stupid. Maybe it somehow makes sense, but IMHO, if you have a PC, it should run an OS designed for a PC, and if Windows doesn't cut it anymore, your primary options are Mac OS X and Linux, and since Mac OS X is restricted to Apple devices, that means that you're only real option is Linux.

So, it could make sense if they were dual-booting with Linux, but Android? Not so much. It's like they're trying to be schizophrenic about paradigms like Windows 8 is but with dual-booting thrown in.

About the only thing about this that makes sense to me is that if you're going to be stuck with an OS designed for mobile devices on your PC, you might as well go with a good mobile OS rather than Windows 8. But the real solution is to use an OS designed for the PC.

Reply Score: 3

allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10



So, it could make sense if they were dual-booting with Linux, but Android? Not so much. It's like they're trying to be schizophrenic about paradigms like Windows 8 is but with dual-booting thrown in.


Putting Anroid make much more sense to them even though it doesn't make sense for Android to be a Laptop/Desktop's OS, that is because of Android's momentum. Anroid apps run full screen and so Windows 8 apps, therefore Android apps will run on Windows 8 in the same way Win 8 native apps, users won't notice the difference.

Basically, you have Windows 8 that is as crippled as Chrome OS unless you run previous versions of Windows applications to make your life productive on Windows 8, because as per Windows 8 TV ad shows you, the only app they showed was a useless drawing app.

It means also that Windows 8 is relevant only, because it has the name Windows on it, not that it is better than Windows 7 in terms of user experience. Intel saw this opportunity to create a better way to merge Android apps into Windows 8. Microsoft needs to thank Intel for doing this, because, from a user perspective, Windows 8 have tons of apps overnight. Win8 apps are basically the same as Android apps in terms of user experience. Users do not care if they run Android or native applications on Windows as long as it will work for them.

Reply Score: 4

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Interesting. One potential problem is whether those Android apps "feel" native, or like they are running in an entirely different virtual machine on top of Windows.

I'd be surprised if they pulled this off and make it compelling, but I've been surprised before.

As an alterate for desktops, Acer has an interesting new 27" 2560x1440 monitor that doubles as a (really big!) Android tablet. I scratched my head at first, but the idea has grown on me a little - kind of a "smart touch monitor" equivalent to a "smart TV", and as a bonus it provides a great environment for the monitor setup and configuration apps.

Would love to give it a try sometime. In sufficient volume, I suspect Android would add little to the cost of a touch monitor, so it would only have to appeal to a portion of the market to be eventually included by default.

Certainly a bold and creative idea - which often equals "crazy" and occasionally "game changing". :-)

http://www.techspot.com/news/55202-acers-new-27-all-in-one-is-a-hig...

Edited 2014-01-04 16:14 UTC

Reply Score: 3

chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

Another Manufacturer to do the same is Lenovo with the ThinkVision 28, but they chose a 28" Ultra HD (3840x2160) TN panel.

http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/lenovo-thinkvision-28-smart/45...

As the hardware to run Android costs next to nothing compared to a 1440p or 4K panel, this might be something we will see more often in high end displays this year.

Reply Score: 3

Shake a Legacy
by tomz on Sat 4th Jan 2014 02:18 UTC
tomz
Member since:
2010-05-06

But we need compatibility with the original 4004 and 8080 running on one of the old S100 bus IMSAI or Altair computers! Who doesn't want to use toggle switches to get their bootloader.

For everything else, there's ARM. Oh, except Windows that needs x86 compatibility (even spoiling 64 bit). But even Windows is now ARMed and dangerous to Intel.

ARM is to hardware what Windows was to software.

AMD should have 12 core ARM with some ultra GPU if they were smart.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Shake a Legacy
by Kivada on Sat 4th Jan 2014 06:20 UTC in reply to "Shake a Legacy"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

AMD should have 12 core ARM with some ultra GPU if they were smart.


I take it you haven't heard of AMD's upcoming Seattle series ARM Cortex-A57 based SoCs w/ Radeon GPUs? If AMD holds true to form it could be the first ARM system with fully OSS drivers, something that has ben sorely lacking for ARM hardware.

http://www.serverwatch.com/server-news/amd-enlists-arm-based-seattl...

https://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/amd-seattle-adds-high-speed-in...

Reply Score: 6

Not interested
by benoitb on Sat 4th Jan 2014 02:19 UTC
benoitb
Member since:
2010-06-29

I don't want a glossy touchscreen on my laptop.
I have a smartphone, a tablet: they run Android and I like it. They are ARM based and could be x86 if Intel's offering is competitive.

I want a laptop that has a nice mate screen around 7-9 inches, as light and autonomous as possible. With all the practical ports, decent power, a great keyboard (this is the selling point, otherwise you get a tablet) no fan. The latest Atoms would be great to offer such laptops but the closest thing is the shitty Asus transformer win8.1 convertible tablet.

That thing has a glossy screen, a useless keyboard that is weight to counter the weight of the tablet: such non-sense ! And too few ports.

I'm waiting for an intelligent ultralight laptop, but nobody seems to be willing to build it.
The closest thing available today is the Acer c720 chromebook.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not interested
by ricegf on Sat 4th Jan 2014 05:39 UTC in reply to "Not interested"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Typing this on my less-than-a-month-old Acer C720P, a nice little touch Chromebook with 2 GB RAM and a 32 GB SSD. It's light, fast, and fun to use IMHO - and I love the keyboard, though that's always a personal preference.

But to touch. It's certainly not required, but it's very useful. My favorite use is swiping left-to-right as a "back button" and right-to-left as a "forward button". It's also really great for scrolling and pinch-to-zoom (although the latter only works on web apps, not normal web pages - yet).

The non-touch Acer C720 is $199, and touch (C720P) adds $100 to the price. It's worth it to me, but I think it will vary from person to person and OS to OS.

It would obviously be mandatory for effective use of Android. Not sure I'd make much effort to run Android on a laptop, though - the Chrome app store hasn't disappointed me at all. I do plan to install Crouton (the Ubuntu that shares the kernel with ChromeOS), and look forward to trying that with touch soon.

Edited 2014-01-04 05:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not interested
by allanregistos on Sat 4th Jan 2014 05:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Not interested"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

Typing this on my less-than-a-month-old Acer C720P, a nice little touch Chromebook with 2 GB RAM and a 32 GB SSD. It's light, fast, and fun to use IMHO - and I love the keyboard, though that's always a personal preference.

But to touch. It's certainly not required, but it's very useful. My favorite use is swiping left-to-right as a "back button" and right-to-left as a "forward button". It's also really great for scrolling and pinch-to-zoom (although the latter only works on web apps, not normal web pages - yet).

The non-touch Acer C720 is $199, and touch (C720P) adds $100 to the price. It's worth it to me, but I think it will vary from person to person and OS to OS.

It would obviously be mandatory for effective use of Android. Not sure I'd make much effort to run Android on a laptop, though - the Chrome app store hasn't disappointed me at all. I do plan to install Crouton (the Ubuntu that shares the kernel with ChromeOS), and look forward to trying that with touch soon.


A touch enabled laptop that adds $100 for that privileged doesn't make any sense. Touch is only optional, Keyboard/Mouse is still the best input you have for your PC/Laptop. Touch must be optional, not required, this is the same reason Win8 native apps is a mess. You can certainly replace touch with a mouse input, but mouse/keyboard with TOUCH? Hardly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Not interested
by ricegf on Sat 4th Jan 2014 06:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not interested"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Augments, not replaces. Best of both worlds.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Not interested
by allanregistos on Mon 6th Jan 2014 07:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not interested"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

Augments, not replaces. Best of both worlds.

Then asking customer for additional hundred bucks for that privileged?
That is my point.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Not interested
by ricegf on Mon 6th Jan 2014 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not interested"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

"[q]You can certainly replace touch with a mouse input, but mouse/keyboard with TOUCH? Hardly.

Augments, not replaces. Best of both worlds.
"
Then asking customer for additional hundred bucks for that privileged? That is my point. [/q]
Doesn't sound like your point in the above context, but whatever.

Having used it for a month, I'd say that touch on a laptop is exceptionally useful for scrolling, zooming, and moving among web pages. It's also needed for certain classes of casual gaming, e.g., Angry Birds and friends, that involve direct manipulation of objects on-screen.

It was worth it for 44 of 50 Amazon reviewers who gave it 5 stars, and those who caused it to sell out in their store in a week's time and begin selling for an additional premium from third party suppliers. And its still less expensive than the cheapest non-touch Windows 8 laptop I've seen, and it's price-competitive and more usable for text input than any iPad or Android tablet with a bluetooth keyboard I've tried.

And it was easily worth $100 for the extra capability to me. YMMV.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not interested
by p13. on Sat 4th Jan 2014 10:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Not interested"
p13. Member since:
2005-07-10

Sure, and you can make them _actually_ useful by ditching chromeos entirely and replacing it with a distro of your choice.

Edited 2014-01-04 10:35 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Not interested
by ricegf on Sat 4th Jan 2014 16:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not interested"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

You needn't ditch ChromeOS, you can run a more traditional Gnu-focused Linux simultaneously. We use Crouton.

But sure, unlike those Windows machines that encrypt the bootloader to protect Microsoft^H^H^H the user, it's unlocked and trivial to put any OS on a Chromebook you prefer. Haiku? Android? MorphOS?

Laptops are fun again.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Not interested
by p13. on Sat 4th Jan 2014 17:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not interested"
p13. Member since:
2005-07-10

Secure boot can be disabled, except on embedded stuff, like the windows RT tablets ... then again, good luck installing a non-android OS on an android phone. That argument can (sadly) be made for pretty much any embedded or near-embedded type device on the market today, including your chromebook.

I just cannot fathom why you'd pay for a machine that can run a full OS, but then decide to run just a browser. That same browser can be run from within a fully fledged OS, AND you'll be able to actually do something with it if you don't have a network connection.

I like chromebooks, sure ... as a source of cheap hackable hardware. ChromeOS is a failure, and for good reason.

<-- Warning rant ahead -->

Now, i don't really like MS, but you have to give them credit where credit is due. Even they haven't felt the need to sell hardware to you that you can only use with their online services. Even an xbox one still allows you to run local applications.

Truth is, if MS tried to sell something like a chromebook, people would be up in arms.

Apple does it, and they get lots of flak for it. Their evil app store plans are met with serious criticism, and so it should be.

Bottom line: me no comprendo why you buy something that is capable of doing anything a fully fledged laptop can do (albeit slower), and then let google close it all up and make you depend on their services and web "apps" only.

Don't even get me started on web apps for that matter.

Oh well, it's late. I am prone to ranting when it's late, so please excuse me for my behavior.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Not interested
by ricegf on Sat 4th Jan 2014 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not interested"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Secure boot can be disabled, except on embedded stuff, like the windows RT tablets ...


Um, I was talking about RT tablets. And the RT-based Surfaces. And Windows phones, of course. Pretty much all of the computing hardware Microsoft sells except Surface Pro. Comprende?

then again, good luck installing a non-android OS on an android phone.


Seriously? You've never heard of cyanogenmod.org, or Ubuntu (ubuntu.com/phone/install and wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/DualBootInstallation), or FirefoxOS (http://www.themobimag.com/how-to-install-firefox-os-on-google-nexus...), or webOS, or any other alternate?

Well, I'm honored to introduce to you to whole new world. Welcome to freedom! ;-)

That argument can (sadly) be made for pretty much any embedded or near-embedded type device on the market today, including your chromebook.


Try crouton or chrubuntu, for example. However, it's just an x86 laptop, so I could install pretty much any OS that I wanted. Just pop it into developer mode, and off we go.

I just cannot fathom why you'd pay for a machine that can run a full OS, but then decide to run just a browser.


Given that you've never heard of loading an alternate operating system on any mobile device, this doesn't surprise me in the least.

That same browser can be run from within a fully fledged OS, AND you'll be able to actually do something with it if you don't have a network connection.


That you think ChromeOS can't run apps off-line doesn't surprise me, either.

On the other hand, I am surprised that you are aware that the Chrome browser can run exactly the same apps as ChromeOS under Linux, OS X, or Windows. It's a little surprising that you haven't considered the implications of this yet.

I doubt you realize that installing an app (say, the Gimp or Angry Birds) on one installs it on all, so that my environment is consistent for a given account regardless of the hardware I happen to be using. You'd probably miss having to purchase and manually install a copy of each application on each machine, though. What could be more fun, right? *sigh*

I like chromebooks, sure ... as a source of cheap hackable hardware. ChromeOS is a failure, and for good reason.


That you're unaware that ChromeOS is by far the fastest growing pre-installed laptop OS doesn't surprise me, either. It picked up 10% of the market last year (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/173691-chromebooks-pick-up-10-...), starting from 0.2% the previous year.

In fact, you've convinced me - you definitely don't get out much!

I would encourage you to read beyond the Microsoft fan base that has limited you thus far. There's an entire world of computing out there beyond the Microsoft walls. You should learn about it, or at least not comment so incorrectly about it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Not interested
by p13. on Sat 4th Jan 2014 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not interested"
p13. Member since:
2005-07-10

Um, I was talking about RT tablets. And the RT-based Surfaces. And Windows phones, of course. Pretty much all of the computing hardware Microsoft sells except Surface Pro. Comprende?


I wasn't.

Seriously? You've never heard of cyanogenmod.org, or Ubuntu (ubuntu.com/phone/install and wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/DualBootInstallation), or FirefoxOS (http://www.themobimag.com/how-to-install-firefox-os-on-google-nexus.....), or webOS, or any other alternate?


Cyanogen is android, they are also forced to take in any binary blobs that come with the manufacturer image, since, as i'm sure you know ... all of that stuff is off limits for the FOSS community.
Ubuntu touch only runs on the devices that come with (semi)open drivers, aka some of the nexus devices.

Firefox OS follow the same trend, some nexus devices and some open arm boards.

WebOS is dead.

No, seriously. Try installing webos on your android phone. Let me know how that works out for you.

Well, I'm honored to introduce to you to whole new world. Welcome to freedom! ;-)


That's a tad pretentious, isn't it? I run leenucks on mips(SGI), pa-risc (HP 9K), alpha (AS1K) as well as on regular desktop hardware.

Try crouton or chrubuntu, for example. However, it's just an x86 laptop, so I could install pretty much any OS that I wanted. Just pop it into developer mode, and off we go.


Chrooting into something is hardly installing a new os, now is it?
Yes, it's just an X86 laptop with severely non-standard firmware. That's my whole point. I said chromebooks were only good as a source of cheap hackable hardware, to install a full os on.

Given that you've never heard of loading an alternate operating system on any mobile device, this doesn't surprise me in the least.


lol

That same browser can be run from within a fully fledged OS, AND you'll be able to actually do something with it if you don't have a network connection.


What, HTML5 offline storage? Give me a break.
What else are you going to do with it? Intricate tasks such as browsing files? Listen to an MP3?

That you think ChromeOS can't run apps off-line doesn't surprise me, either.


It can't. It can only load locally stored web pages that try to hack some usefulness out of a web page that's not on the internet.
Other than that, there's a file manager, and little else.

On the other hand, I am surprised that you are aware that the Chrome browser can run exactly the same apps as ChromeOS under Linux, OS X, or Windows. It's a little surprising that you haven't considered the implications of this yet.


Would you also be surprised to hear that C code can be compiled anywhere?

I doubt you realize that installing an app (say, the Gimp or Angry Birds) on one installs it on all, so that my environment is consistent for a given account regardless of the hardware I happen to be using. You'd probably miss having to purchase and manually install a copy of each application on each machine, though. What could be more fun, right? *sigh*


That wouldn't change, whether you just run chrome, or chromeos. Chrome apps are chrome apps. This is not an inherent chromeos advantage.

That you're unaware that ChromeOS is by far the fastest growing pre-installed laptop OS doesn't surprise me, either. It picked up 10% of the market last year (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/173691-chromebooks-pick-up-10-.....), starting from 0.2% the previous year.


5% of those bought them to hack them.
The rest sold because windows 8 failed.
I don't care, at all about market share.
Most of the world runs windows ... wise choice? Nuff said.

In fact, you've convinced me - you definitely don't get out much!


I get it, you're hip. You live in the cloud. I could never understand.

I would encourage you to read beyond the Microsoft fan base that has limited you thus far. There's an entire world of computing out there beyond the Microsoft walls. You should learn about it, or at least not comment so incorrectly about it.


Son ...

Edited 2014-01-04 20:38 UTC

Reply Score: 3

One PC to rule them all?
by xfce_fanboy on Sat 4th Jan 2014 04:31 UTC
xfce_fanboy
Member since:
2013-04-09

Intel seems to be betting on consumers wanting one device that serves as both a mobile PC and a desktop/laptop-replacement. That seems to be the only reason to include both Android (great apps for mobile users) and Win 8.x (boundless selection of desktop apps but the Metro apps are limited) on the same device.

Perhaps Intel is saying they've bought into Canonical's vision for the future of computing, with phones and tablets that become desktop PC's when placed in a dock. It certainly speaks volumes about Intel's lack of faith in Microsoft's mobile strategy. Only time will tell if consumers really want a device that can do it all, or if they're content to live with the desktop/laptop + tablet + phone paradigm that currently exists.

Reply Score: 2

It depends...
by unclefester on Sat 4th Jan 2014 10:14 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

If Intel and partners choose the right form factor(s) this idea could be very successful. eg Imagine a 5" Android phablet that uses (wireless) docking with a desktop or laptop to becomes a fully functional Windows PC.

Reply Score: 3

BlueStacks did this over 2 years ago
by rklrkl on Sat 4th Jan 2014 11:21 UTC
rklrkl
Member since:
2005-07-06

Back in 2011, BlueStacks released their Intel-based virtualised Android solution in Windows and it didn't really take off. It's not clear to me what this "new" proposal will do differently, except for perhaps persuading some OEMs to bundle the virtualisation with their Windows pre-install (which is probably the only way a BlueStacks-style solution could succeed).

It does sound that Intel have something of an NIH issue - there's no mention of BlueStacks in the Verge article and BlueStacks themselves seem to think that Intel are going alone on this (despite Intel being an investor in BlueStacks!):

http://venturebeat.com/2014/01/03/bluestacks-responds-to-intels-and...

Reply Score: 4

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Back in 2011, BlueStacks released their Intel-based virtualised Android solution in Windows and it didn't really take off.


It didn't take off because most Android apps are useless without a touchscreen.

Reply Score: 5

Comment by Anonymous Penguin
by Anonymous Penguin on Sat 4th Jan 2014 13:57 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm going to make a very daring prediction, that is sure to send ripples across the entire industry: this is not going to turn the tide for the PC


I can see only 2 possible outcomes:
1)The PC dies, replaced by phones and tablets. But offices and business still need PCs.
2)Somebody totally new comes along and replaces MS Windows with something totally new (not Android). This one would be the ideal solution, IMO.
Personally I use OS X on a 17" MacBook Pro, but considering that I am never going to buy a 15" MacBook Pro for 3000 euro, and even less a recycle bin (the so called Mac Pro) for 4000 euro, this is also a temporary solution.

Reply Score: 1

Agreed
by roblearns on Sat 4th Jan 2014 15:33 UTC
roblearns
Member since:
2010-09-13

I agree with those who say this isn't a game changer for the PC. However it is a feature, one that I wish I had on the Mac. I wish it could run, unmodified, all my iOS apps purchased from the App Store, with cut and paste working between environments.

Just another feature....not a world changer, but would be nice.

Reply Score: 3

delta0.delta0
Member since:
2010-06-01

Microsoft tried to get Android handset makers to dual boot win phone and Android, I don't think any of the handset makers agreed - It was a stupid idea.

http://www.androidcentral.com/microsoft-wants-htc-s-android-phones-...

This is Microsoft and Intel trying a different approach to the same thing... Why bother ? I think Thom's response was spot on, this isn't going to change the tide of anything.

As for a couple of the commenter's here, I really cant believe there are people that believe Linux still has dependency hell - this is something that existed before YUM, a problem Debian never had because of APT, its such an old problem that was sorted out so long ago and absolutely nothing to do with Android. Its just such a shill thing to say, I got bored of arguing with marketing companies (acting as individuals) paid to spread misinformation, my time is more valuable.

Truth is Linux just does not need the evangelism any more its not a small kernel/os with great potential, its a kernel/os that dominates practically every industry.

I have had a non-IT friend mention that I am the only person they know that uses Linux, without even realising that they were using Linux on their android tablet, I don't even bother telling them they are actually using Linux.

Even PC Gaming is beginning the move to Linux, only a week to go until the steam machines are revealed - The world has changed in the last 10 years, desktops are no longer relevant.

Once upon a time every company had desktops - now every company I work in use laptops (So many mac book pros out there in the corporate world now) Windows laptops/Desktops are becoming less and less ubiquitous.

Truth is I no longer dislike microsoft, I find all of this money they throw at terrible marketing campaigns hilarious, it only tarnishes their own image when these campaigns back fire on them (Every major outlet that runs windows phone / windows tablet stories is infested with Microsoft shills - All the misinformation they try to spread about their competitors only pisses off the regular readers) and none of it is helping the windows cause.

I no longer dislike Microsoft as it no longer dominates the desktop os space and I can accept the OS, I hate being forced to use something. I hated Microsoft trying to dictate to me that I had to use their software, that they had completely cornered everything.

I realise this is another vain attempt to try and corner the tablet market by Intel and Microsoft, but it is just that another vain attempt - Think about it, they are virtualising android to run Android apps in Windows and Android is a Linux based OS - its just such a turn of events, what a difference a decade makes.

I don't think Intel has anything to worry about, ARM will get better but Intel will get its power usage down - Haswell is a massive step towards this. Competition will be fierce but we the consumers will benefit massively from it which is great.

Reply Score: 3

Darkmage Member since:
2006-10-20

Debian still has massive dependancy problems, as indicated by the fact that Wine still doesn't have regular daily builds of 1-3 revisions out of date being made for it. The official builds of wine are like 1-2 YEARS out of date. And this is on SID which is the experimental distro! It would be nice if Debian had more developers working on keeping packages up to date, and attacking architectural problems like wine 32 and 64 bit packages on 64 bit linux, rather than working on stuff like keeping 3 year old debian updated.

Edited 2014-01-04 19:34 UTC

Reply Score: 1

delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

How is an out of date wine package, "dependency problems" ?

I just decided to check your claim out:

http://packages.debian.org/sid/wine -> Package: wine (1.6.1-11)

http://www.winehq.org/download/ -> Latest stable release: Wine 1.6.1

Looks like debian sid (sid is not experimental - its unstable - http://www.debian.org/releases/) has the latest stable version of wine available.

FYI, Debian Stable is used for server installations, I have worked in many organisations that use Debian stable as their Server OS, I mean multi-million pound companies that rely on Debian Stable (the standard is usually RHEL or CentOS but there are a few massive companies that I know of that rely on Debian). Its stable branch is just that very stable, server production ready stable, this is why the desktop side may seem out of date - Look at RHEL 6 / CentOS 6 and you will notice that that too uses older versions of common desktop applications, its intentional - its not about bleeding edge but using software that has proven itself to work reliably. If you want easy to use up-to-date desktop packages use mint or ubuntu or fedora or debian unstable or arch or gentoo, whatever you want, but what you just explained above has absolutely nothing to do with dependency problems.

If you want the development release of wine (by its very nature beta or alpha software) there is a repo for that as well: http://dev.carbon-project.org/debian/wine-unstable/

I don't understand how you think this is dependency hell and is a complete non issue anyway.

The more important question to ask is why do you need wine ?

Also if you really value wine maybe you should buy the commercial version of it, http://www.codeweavers.com/ so you can help the wine project : http://www.codeweavers.com/about/support_wine/

Reply Score: 4

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

As for a couple of the commenter's here, I really cant believe there are people that believe Linux still has dependency hell - this is something that existed before YUM, a problem Debian never had because of APT, its such an old problem that was sorted out so long ago and absolutely nothing to do with Android.

It's insane that you're claiming Linux dependency hell was solved long ago when the truth is it continues to be an on-going problem. Package managers have nothing to do with why dependency hell exists. YUM and APT can't fix it. The problem how poorly designed things are written and how over-simplistic building has been made. For example, you write something that depends on just one thing from A. But, A depends on B & C. B depends on D, E, F. C depends on G, H, I. D depends on... E depends on... F depends on... Blah blah blah. A person trying to argue that Linux dependency hell doesn't exist is like trying to argue that the sun doesn't exist while standing in the desert at high noon with it beaming straight down on you.

Even PC Gaming is beginning the move to Linux, only a week to go until the steam machines are revealed - The world has changed in the last 10 years, desktops are no longer relevant.

Are you nuts? It's hard to take comments like these even half serious because they're so blatantly absurd.

Once upon a time every company had desktops - now every company I work in use laptops (So many mac book pros out there in the corporate world now) Windows laptops/Desktops are becoming less and less ubiquitous.

Laptops only replace desktops where it makes sense. Where desktops weren't the optimal setup in the first place but where good alternatives may not have been available at the time. But to imply that every desktop could be replaced by a laptop, or anything in that ballpark, is completely idiotic. Desktops, laptops, and tablets are not equal devices. They each have their advantages and disadvantages. While there's a lot of common ground they can share, each sees it's strengths in different areas & tasks. Anyone who has trouble grasping that fact needs to take an Intro To Computers class, or just ask themselves why they own both a butter knife and a screwdriver.

Reply Score: 2

delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

Seriously I've read your past comments I know your a massive Microsoft fan, some of your comments come across as some 1 with a massive vested interest in Microsoft. Out of curiosity, do you get paid to comment on these message threads ?

Just the fact that you believe dependency hell exists without understanding why shared libraries are better than statically linking everything means there is no point arguing with you..

Distributions have long since resolved dependency issues - that is the whole point of APT and YUM ...

I've got better things to do with my time than argue with you..

Edited 2014-01-04 22:32 UTC

Reply Score: 0

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Seriously I've read your past comments I know your a massive Microsoft fan, some of your comments come across as some 1 with a massive vested interest in Microsoft. Out of curiosity, do you get paid to comment on these message threads ?

Sorry to wiss in your Fruit Loops but I'm not a fan of any company. If I were this "massive Microsoft fan" you ignorantly claim, I'd be a pretty poor one considering I use Linux as much if not more than Windows on average.

I find it silly people become emotionally attached to for-profit companies.

Just the fact that you believe dependency hell exists without understanding why shared libraries are better than statically linking everything means there is no point arguing with you..

It's dumb I have to say this but the discussion is not about shared vs. static libraries. It's whether or not Linux dependency hell exists. It does, is well-known, and commonly talked about. The fact that you believe no Linux dependency hell exists means you are either trolling or clueless.

Distributions have long since resolved dependency issues - that is the whole point of APT and YUM ...

That you have to be told again that package managers can not address the issue of dependency hell tells me you don't understand the roll a package manager plays. The problem is not the grouping & delivery of required packages, it's that way too much software is designed poorly because to do it correctly requires what many devs see as too much work. Linux dev mentality tends to be to take the easy route, throw everything at you, and don't complain about it cuz the cost of storage is cheap. Maybe we should move this chat elsewhere, like irc, so you can disagree with devs directly.

I've got better things to do with my time than argue with you..

You got that right.. I suggest joining and reading the Linux dev mailing lists and major Linux forums for starters. Then perhaps you can learn something about this topic and stop posting such ridiculous comments.

Reply Score: 2

delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

There was a commenter above that believed out of date versions in a repo constituted dependency hell.

What in your opinion causes dependency hell ?
why do package managers not address dependency hell in your opinion ?

Please explain clearly and concisely, what you believe dependency hell to be.

What is the difference between statically linking all dependant libraries to a program and dynamically linking them and why is this directly related to dependency hell ?

As a regular Linux User, please name me 2 recent examples of where you experienced dependency hell, please explain clearly and concisely how you managed to hit the stated dependency issues, what you were trying to do and what distribution you were using.

Once you have provided this information I will continue on with this conversation, until such time there is no point discussing this further. You have provided at best anecdotal evidence and have managed to offend practically every open source / Linux developer with your bullshit about:

"Linux dev mentality tends to be to take the easy route, throw everything at you, and don't complain about it cuz the cost of storage is cheap"

Reply Score: 2

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

There was a commenter above that believed out of date versions in a repo constituted dependency hell.

What in your opinion causes dependency hell ?
why do package managers not address dependency hell in your opinion ?

Please explain clearly and concisely, what you believe dependency hell to be.

Already stated. See previous posts.

What is the difference between statically linking all dependant libraries to a program and dynamically linking them and why is this directly related to dependency hell ?

AGAIN, the discussion is not about static vs dynamic libraries. Stop going off-topic.

As a regular Linux User, please name me 2 recent examples of where you experienced dependency hell, please explain clearly and concisely how you managed to hit the stated dependency issues, what you were trying to do and what distribution you were using.

Unnecessary. Your request is already available on various Linux mailing lists & major forums. Go read as you have already been told to do.

Once you have provided this information I will continue on with this conversation, until such time there is no point discussing this further.

We've already established there's no point in continuing this nonsense because you can't even comprehend the actual subject. That's why you keep veering off.

You have provided at best anecdotal evidence and have managed to offend practically every open source / Linux developer with your bullshit about:

"Linux dev mentality tends to be to take the easy route, throw everything at you, and don't complain about it cuz the cost of storage is cheap"

This is the cherry on top. I haven't said anything new in that comment and were you to frequent the dev mailing lists and irc channels you would see it coming straight from the horses mouth. If that isn't enough, there isn't a single Linux dev I know, of many, who has ever told me they've been offended by anything I've said. To the contrary, many of them couldn't care less what other peoples opinions are because it's not going to change their own or have any affect on their dev work. It's not a big secret, it's something I've seen openly & willingly admitted countless times over the years.

You were told to go straight to the source and hear/read it for yourself yet you refuse because that eliminates the buffer between yourself and those you're talking about. For some reason you think you look like less of a dumbfuck if devs aren't saying it directly to you.

Reply Score: 1

delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

Which basically confirms your full of shit..

Reply Score: 1

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Considering you don't even know the difference between a package manager and include dependencies, you're comments hold about as much water as a piece of petrified wood. ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Reply Score: 2

delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

To clarify:

You as a regular Linux user cant remember/provide the last time you suffered from dependency issues, which explains my whole point.

You still don't get why I keep mentioning dynamic vs statically linked libraries its the key to dependency issues, its what reduces binary size, yet you still don't get it ...

The majority of Linux apps can have features enabled and disabled at compile time, depending on what you want the program to support which in turn reduces or increases dependencies to various dynamic libraries (you can also statically compile all dependencies against the program which completely removes dependencies) - This is done by the package maintainers for the various distributions which is in turn directly linked to the package management systems of the various distributions and your telling me it has nothing to do with this and everything to do with lazy devs who don't care about disk space ...

You provide more anecdotal evidence about Linux devs, painting them all in a bad light, pure FUD at its finest.

At this point my only question for you is are you paid to comment, or are you just a clueless troll ?

You don't have a clue about Linux, about dependencies or package management and the more you talk the more you make it that much more apparent...

This leads to my previous succinct comment:

"Which basically confirms your full of shit.."

Edited 2014-01-05 11:51 UTC

Reply Score: 1

allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

Ilovebeer, in my limited opinion, dependency hell exists only when an application was run and linked to a library with a version not installed on a Linux host or that version was impossible to install on that host. This is just one scenario, I have encountered this only when I download tarballs and compile them. It is normal. Try that with Windows, download a source code and compile if you can without manually installing compilers and IDEs.

But with YUM AND APT, you don't need to worry about dependency hell, because if an app is present in host's repositories, it will be installed, with just one command, and the rest of the dependency programs/libraries will be installed also as needed without your input.

And my other opinion is that, shared libraries is what make dependency a problem in the past. Again, dependency hell exists only if you add custom repositories that are not supported by your Linux distro, or you download and compiled programs yourself with ./configure && make

Reply Score: 2

saso Member since:
2007-04-18

The problem how poorly designed things are written and how over-simplistic building has been made.

Please do explain in more depth. What does "over-simplistic building" mean and how would you address it, assuming it's a problem.

For example, you write something that depends on just one thing from A. But, A depends on B & C. B depends on D, E, F. C depends on G, H, I. D depends on... E depends on... F depends on... Blah blah blah.

And that's exactly what APT and YUM solve, just as the poster before you said. You simply type "[yum|apt-get] install <what-you-want>", then simply hit Return a couple of times and you're done. In the likes of Synaptic or Ubuntu's Software Center (which is what most beginners would use) it's even simpler - one click, agree to download 'X' many MB and you're done. It could hardly be simpler.

Reply Score: 2

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

As already stated, I'm not talking about grouping required dependencies and delivering them all together, which is what a package manager does. I'm talking about the spaghetti mess that creates bloat and dependencies that, were things designed better to begin with, would be completely unnecessary. I am talking about code level design, not end-user pre-compiled package management.

Reply Score: 1

saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Such as? Give examples, I still can't see what you mean.

Reply Score: 4

allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

As already stated, I'm not talking about grouping required dependencies and delivering them all together, which is what a package manager does. I'm talking about the spaghetti mess that creates bloat and dependencies that, were things designed better to begin with, would be completely unnecessary. I am talking about code level design, not end-user pre-compiled package management.


You talking about code level design? Is that something has to do with DEPENDENCY HELL?

I could write a complete spaghetti type of code without worrying dependencies.

Reply Score: 2

hey guys remember this?
by reduz on Sat 4th Jan 2014 17:33 UTC
reduz
Member since:
2006-02-25

http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/tablets/microsoft-ma...

maybe it's a plan from microsoft to take over android..

Reply Score: 3

Why not ChromeOS
by cmost on Sat 4th Jan 2014 23:02 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

Android is (at least currently) ill-suited to a role as a desktop OS and isn't in the same league as Windows on a traditional desktop. It lacks windowing and has only rudimentary hardware support for peripherals. While full-fledged Linux would be well suited to such a role, many people hear the word "Linux" and immediately think geekware! A much better option would be to simply dump Windows altogether and supply new light-weight desktops (super thin AIO types) with ChromeOS. Google's new tech darling has already proven itself to be a dark horse running because it has sold well over the holiday shopping season compared to comparable Windows systems. It also feels like a more traditional OS compared to MacOS or Windows. Of course it lacks touch, which is most certainly why OEM's are choosing Android instead. The best of both worlds would be for Google to quickly advance ChromeOS by making it touch capapble and adding a layer that would allow the tens of thousands of Android apps to run natively. Then I suspect Microsoft will really have something to worry about!

Edited 2014-01-04 23:08 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why not ChromeOS
by ilovebeer on Sun 5th Jan 2014 04:51 UTC in reply to "Why not ChromeOS"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

I can't honestly say I agree with you about Chrome OS. But, it will be interesting to see where Chrome OS stands after it matures more.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why not ChromeOS
by oiaohm on Sun 5th Jan 2014 20:40 UTC in reply to "Why not ChromeOS"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

Android is (at least currently) ill-suited to a role as a desktop OS and isn't in the same league as Windows on a traditional desktop. It lacks windowing and has only rudimentary hardware support for peripherals.


Lacks Windowing is incorrect. You need to open up the SDK you will find Windowing is in fact supported. The default window manager of Android is not exposing this. There third party used by samsung that fully supports Windowing mode on tablets. Yes over 20 percent of the Android existing market.

Rudimentary hardware support is very questionable if that is true. Linux /dev and /proc directory is exposed to Android applications. So all the hardware support of the Linux kernel is included. Lack of applications to use more than rudimentary is more the case.

So you issues is Applications not Android itself.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Why not ChromeOS
by zima on Mon 6th Jan 2014 21:31 UTC in reply to "Why not ChromeOS"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

ChromeOS. [...] Of course it lacks touch, which is most certainly why OEM's are choosing Android instead. The best of both worlds would be for Google to quickly advance ChromeOS by making it touch capapble

ChromeOS, as running for example on Google Pixel laptop, does support touch.

Reply Score: 2