Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Sep 2010 19:07 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
QNX When Research In Motion unveiled its BlackBerry Playbook tablet on Monday, including the new QNX-based operating system it runs, I already speculated that it would probably make its way onto RIM's smartphones as well. RIM has now confirmed this suspicion.
Thread beginning with comment 443274
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Why Does It Even Matter
by flyingrobots on Thu 30th Sep 2010 16:07 UTC in reply to "Why Does It Even Matter"
flyingrobots
Member since:
2010-09-30

It's not just the graphics. The architecture of the low level stuff provides a foundation that will ultimately limit or enhance what a user can do. There are many many low level details that affect usability. It's more than just graphics.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Why Does It Even Matter
by Neolander on Thu 30th Sep 2010 16:39 in reply to "RE: Why Does It Even Matter"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Indeed. Low-level stuff can help the UI layer, and hence usability.

Consider, as an example, a kernel based around the concept of events. You have standard round-robin scheduling around most of the time, but when an interrupt comes around it is processed immediately.

The result of that is a very snappy UI : even when under load, the OS takes the time to process mouse clicks as soon as they come and refresh the UI immediately.

Snappiness means a busy user. A busy user feels that the computer is working quickly and efficiently, even when it's not actually the case.

Of course, that's a quick an dirty example, but I think it shows how good low-end components matter too. A good mainframe kernel with batch scheduling would still be terrible at powering a desktop OS.

Edited 2010-09-30 16:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Why Does It Even Matter
by tony on Thu 30th Sep 2010 16:51 in reply to "RE[2]: Why Does It Even Matter"
tony Member since:
2005-07-06

Indeed. Low-level stuff can help the UI layer, and hence usability.

Consider, as an example, a kernel based around the concept of events. You have standard round-robin scheduling around most of the time, but when an interrupt comes around it is processed immediately.

The result of that is a very snappy UI : even when under load, the OS takes the time to process mouse clicks as soon as they come and refresh the UI immediately.

Snappiness means a busy user. A busy user feels that the computer is working quickly and efficiently, even when it's not actually the case.

Of course, that's a quick an dirty example, but I think it shows how good low-end components matter too. A good mainframe kernel with batch scheduling would still be terrible at powering a desktop OS.


True, but all the operating environments have tackled this. Neither Linux nor iOS have mainframe batch scheduling (Linux has a multitude of schedulers geared towards interactiveness). It's not a problem any of them have. I would think the GPU power and code running on top of it (relatively unaffected by a decent scheduler) would have way more impact than the differences between scheduling engines.

It'd be an interesting benchmark to run. I suspect the differences would be minimum. And again, the challenges that companies like Nokia, Google, Microsoft, and Apple have aren't really low-level based. It's usability and whole-operating environment.

Reply Parent Score: 2