To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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
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.





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.