Related
I know this is an idiot question.
But I want to fire a subject to let people think about!
It would be good if we can experience this marvelous OS on this cheap device
Possible, but considering the fact that WM is a proprietary OS, porting it to something it wasn't meant for is extremely hard, but I think is still possible.
Windows 7 is not an open operating system. So there will never be a port. And even if it would be possible, there would be still missing hardware drivers...
Well, even if they could, why would someone try to port WM7 when we've got Android, which is pretty damn awesome with almost no restrictions...?
reminds me of porting android to the kaiser, but with far more problems...
if there were a wp7 device with similar specs it could be made possible.
but, as the previous post says, what's the point?
android for kaiser was a good-ish idea, as wm6 is... well... wm6.
well. just have a look at HD2
My colleague has just put DarkForceTeam WP7 Rom to HD2, I found it was really wonderful.
If we can do something like this to our P500, that would be marvelous. We have a big chance to enjoy an absolutely new OS on our cheap cellphone.
I still hope and thank to some developers who can do this.
I don't see any reason, why somebody should port this bad os to the optimus one.
Sorry for WP7 bashing
domenic_s said:
I don't see any reason, why somebody should port this bad os to the optimus one.
Sorry for WP7 bashing
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What if for some reason there's a WP7 rom for the O1, and that it doesn't have the touchscreen lag bug. Would you switch?
Still don't think i would do that, doubt WP7 will be as successful as Android.
herohut said:
well. just have a look at HD2
My colleague has just put DarkForceTeam WP7 Rom to HD2, I found it was really wonderful.
If we can do something like this to our P500, that would be marvelous. We have a big chance to enjoy an absolutely new OS on our cheap cellphone.
I still hope and thank to some developers who can do this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And so.......Exactly WHEN Android became a "non New OS" ??
Someone thinks that Android is the BEST OS for smartphone..............
Other people thinks that iOS is the BEST OS for smartphone............
BUT all thinks that Microsoft Mobile (6.5 - 7) is the WORST OS for smartphone.........
the_best_hacker said:
And so.......Exactly WHEN Android became a "non New OS" ??
BUT all thinks that Microsoft Mobile (6.5 - 7) is the WORST OS for smartphone.........
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Was there anyone who said this idiot thing 3-4 years ago?
If there is a new thing born, idiot people will have a new chance to compare with the previous ones.
If you first look at the home screen of an iOS, an Android, a Bada OS, Windows Mobile menu: ohhhhh, icons, icons and icons, yes they are almost similar, even in more details. From years to years, they are still almost similar. And if you first look at a Windows Phone 7 phone: ohhhhh different, you can realize the difference even if you don't like that style.
If you research more and learn about the technical things, you will find that the collection of these OS are all based on Linux. Windows Phone 7 is absolutely new architecture which is built by user experiences of Microsoft in years.
BUT don't put the idiot words on Windows Phone 7 if you haven't touched it even just once.
My personal idea: use Windows Phone 7: professional OS
@herohut:
I see your profile picture is the XAML logo, which means you are probably a fan of Microsoft. I myself like to use WPF, .NET, C# and Microsoft technologies, and I'll explain why.
It's not about the look of Windows 7 or MSN. Microsoft deserves respect. If you look back into history, or even now in Wikipedia, you will see that there are two families of operating systems - UNIX and Windows. UNIX once included the true UNIX, but now almost all of UNIX operating systems are based on Linux; some on BSD; some on Solaris; and off course Apple's Mac OS and iOS. The core difference between Windows-based and UNIX-like operating systems is that ALMOST all (not all) of the UNIX-like operating systems are open-source.
Off course, it is not bad for a software to be open-source, but the main problem is that almost every developer makes his own variation of the software, resulting in instability. There is no way to proove it, but everybody here should agree with it.
On the other hand, Microsoft is a developer of proprietary software, which is not only stable, but rich-featured and customizable. It is not a secret that most of Windows, Office, Visual Studio and other Microsoft products can be programatically controlled, yet closed-source. Microsoft is the developer of high-end costumer software, which means the software requirments often fulfill the quality of the software.
Linux and most UNIX-like operating systems are intended for use in either weak machines, or on supercomputers. It is also known that Windows 7 can use maximum 192 GB RAM (Which is sad for supercomputers). As a very minimalistic and customizable kernel, Linux can be tweaked to work even on a piece of wood.
So for a customer use OS, I say Windows.
As for base-level modifications, advanced features and supercomputer usage, I say Linux.
EDIT: To be on-topic:
Microsoft says it is good to have a 1GHz processor to run Windows Phone. From personal experience I can tell that it is better to buy a phone with a 1GHz processor than to modify Windows Phone to run on Optimus One. The reason is simple - preformance.
So, if you want Windows on your Optimus One, simply make a Windows Mobile 6.5/6.5.1 firmware.
And if you want to develop with familiar to you techologies, simply visit monodroid.net
Very well spoken ianis.. I will have to agree with this Guy.
And I will say at very least run 1gb for optimistic to run a wp7 port..
But im content with what I have been given for the dollars I paid.
carry on...
Astroturf?
You can off course theme the Optimus One to look like Windows Phone, but I have noticed lately that most "visual themes" are just a piece of ...err...trash.
While I was waiting for Windows 7 to come out, I decided to theme a XP machine to look like 7, just for fun.
When I searched "XP themes", I noticed that more than 95% of the results were: XP theme for ME, Vista theme for XP and 7 theme for Vista. I asked myself "Why?". There wasn't any difference. The same themes from page to page. All people just wanted to make their old OS look newer, probably without even knowing that it is possible to upgrade Windows. I noticed the same thing around here: many newbies requested a Gingerbread theme. Not even the music equalizer. I felt somehow...strange seeing people mad for a new look of their battery/WiFi icon. And not just a new look. The SAME as Gingerbread's.
I don't even believe that these people know what a system process is. And they don't care for it. They are all ready to pay money for a Gingerbread theme!
Sorry, I've gone slightly mad, but I now I feel somehow relaxed after sharing my opinion.
Ianis G. Vasilev said:
@herohut:
I see your profile picture is the XAML logo, which means you are probably a fan of Microsoft. I myself like to use WPF, .NET, C# and Microsoft technologies, and I'll explain why.
It's not about the look of Windows 7 or MSN. Microsoft deserves respect. If you look back into history, or even now in Wikipedia, you will see that there are two families of operating systems - UNIX and Windows. UNIX once included the true UNIX, but now almost all of UNIX operating systems are based on Linux; some on BSD; some on Solaris; and off course Apple's Mac OS and iOS. The core difference between Windows-based and UNIX-like operating systems is that ALMOST all (not all) of the UNIX-like operating systems are open-source.
Off course, it is not bad for a software to be open-source, but the main problem is that almost every developer makes his own variation of the software, resulting in instability. There is no way to proove it, but everybody here should agree with it.
On the other hand, Microsoft is a developer of proprietary software, which is not only stable, but rich-featured and customizable. It is not a secret that most of Windows, Office, Visual Studio and other Microsoft products can be programatically controlled, yet closed-source. Microsoft is the developer of high-end costumer software, which means the software requirments often fulfill the quality of the software.
Linux and most UNIX-like operating systems are intended for use in either weak machines, or on supercomputers. It is also known that Windows 7 can use maximum 192 GB RAM (Which is sad for supercomputers). As a very minimalistic and customizable kernel, Linux can be tweaked to work even on a piece of wood.
So for a customer use OS, I say Windows.
As for base-level modifications, advanced features and supercomputer usage, I say Linux.
EDIT: To be on-topic:
Microsoft says it is good to have a 1GHz processor to run Windows Phone. From personal experience I can tell that it is better to buy a phone with a 1GHz processor than to modify Windows Phone to run on Optimus One. The reason is simple - preformance.
So, if you want Windows on your Optimus One, simply make a Windows Mobile 6.5/6.5.1 firmware.
And if you want to develop with familiar to you techologies, simply visit monodroid.net
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am absolutely agreed with this guy and thank you for your good idea.
I have certainly known the requirements that Microsoft forced hardware manufactures to follow: these are the standard to obtain 100% performance of WP7
But there's one thing to remark: Windows Phone 7 is not as heavy as it is thought to be. 1GHz CPU mades WP7 running very fast (as in HD2), i feel that if we have WP7 running on OptimusOne at 60% performance of WP7 standard (40% slower) [600MHz/1GHz * 100% = 60%], it will be still fast enough for us to enjoy WP7. Just see how much slower the OptimusOne runs in comparison to other Android smartphones with 1GHz.
And yes, I am a fan of Microsoft software technologies, especially the thing on my avatar, it is extremely faster to write something that runs on WP7 than in other OS
I'm currently trying to MOD HD2's Windows Phone MOD
(It's fun MODing MODs...)
Hey! I'm trying to play with HD2 WP7 DarkForces Team ROM, too. But I am just a beginner in this MOD world, trying to find out if it is possible to run WP7 on my Optimus One.
Invoke me if you need someone to mod together.
WP7 wonderful os? LOL
Sent from my LG-P500 using XDA App
Incompatible processor...not only the cycles per second, but the instructions. WP7 requires an ARM7 processor with extentions. To run it on an ARM6 Cortex there are two ways:
Hypervisor virtualization - should be very complex;
Decompile the WP7 binary and recompile it with all stock drivers remastered. Sounds harder but is probably easier.
Any help will be accepted.
You guys see this yet?
http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/android
I'm an Ubuntu fanboy and would absolutely love a rom with this functionality baked in.
I tried to install something similar. Locked bootloader prevented installation. Let me know if it works though. What I'm referring to is I Ubuntu installer on Android market.
Sent from my MB870 using XDA App
Here it is in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQozs5tXxwY
This would be frickin sweet but I would think that if anything were to keep us from having this, it would be the stupid locked bootloader. If our phones could do this, I'd for sure be buying a dock.
Thanks for the video link, I hadn't seen that yet. Extremely cool. (And yeah, extremely impossible given our bootloader situation.)
From what I get from the video, it seems like when you dock it to your Ubuntu computer, your android stuff is integrated into it. Or is there no computer needed? And if you dock it to an HD TV, you get pretty much an Ubuntu styled media center? Am I right? And I'm guessing this is just the beginning stages of it that not just anyone can get right now?
EDIT: Answered my own question on how it works. Read this on the website:
"Ubuntu for Android requires minimal custom hardware enablement, allowing fast and cost-efficient core integration. It requires a core based on Android 2.3 (Gingerbread) or any subsequent version.
Ubuntu and Android share the same kernel. When docked, the Ubuntu OS boots and runs concurrently with Android. This allows both mobile and desktop functionality to co-exist in different runtimes.
Shared services and applications are delivered using a Convergence API module which ensures the tight integration between desktop and mobile environments. Work is balanced across the cores of the phone. When the handset is not docked, both CPU cores transfer their full power to Android."
Requirements:
1. Dual-core 1GHz CPU
2. Video acceleration: shared kernel driver with associated X driver; Open GL, ES/EGL
3. Storage: 2GB for OS disk image
4. HDMI: video out with secondary frame buffer device
5. USB host mode
6. 512 MB RAM
I think number two is OUR only problem.
EDIT #2: And I guess they are advertising this for Handset makers or network operators. So I guess its not something we can just download and install ourselves.
I got around to getting in touch with the people at Ubuntu. I will await their reply and post what I get. Hopefully it will be some good news. I really want this!!!
Sent from my MB870 using Tapatalk
---------- Post added at 10:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------
By the way....a better video on this. Still AWESOME!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deT1LSCuI_Y
Update: At about 10:45 in the video, we kind of get what they are trying to do. They want to direct it towards device manufacturers to integrate it into future phones. He mentions one day maybe it will be able to be installed by "home users" but I dont think thats where its being pushed towards. The good thing is that they are working with Motorola. Maybe this is part of Google purchasing Motorola. But this whole thing seems to be still up in the air. I really hope we see this one day on the Droid X2.
And if anyone is interested, this is the response I got from the Ubuntu Team:
Thank you for your interest in Ubuntu for Android. We are still in the early stages of development, but industry reaction so far has been incredible.
Right now, we’re working with hardware manufacturers and mobile operators to bring the product to market. If you’d like to follow our progerss, the easiest ways to do this are:
Join the discussions in #ubuntu on Freenode (irc).
Check the Ubuntu web pages for more updates.
Follow @Canonical on Twitter for the latest news.
Thanks again!
Yours sincerely,
The Ubuntu team
Cool, I really hope they're not blowing smoke about manufacturer interest.
History shows OEMs are more interested in "differentiation" than user experience. So the pessimistic side of me thinks we'll see more **** implementations of the concept (like Moto WebTop) and less OEMs embracing the awesome openness of Ubuntu.
I can't seem to find much on this, so I thought I'd ask the question. I personally use a Samsung Galaxy Nexus and was a previous owner of a Galaxy S1. I also sport an Apple Macbook Pro and I love the computer.
There's been a constant "reminder" from various articles how developing for iOS appeals to the developer more than doing so for Android.
This topic has spawned countless of times, and with the recent intro of Instagram to Android, that topic has been re-written once more to show why iOS is "dominant" among developers compared to Android. Article HERE.
Thing is, with all this talk about developing for iOS being better, I find myself asking "if that were true, then why do developers still develop for Android? If that were true, Instagram wouldn't even bother coming to Android...especially since it's free."
So what would make developers for Instagram want to make an app for Android when according to these articles:
Developing on Android is "harder" because it has to adapt to countless hardwares
Android developers make less than iOS developers
Do you develop for both iOS and Android? What's your take? What actually entices you to want to work on the Android platform?
It would be nice if a developer who works on both platforms can give some insights. Please no fanboy or anti-apple talk here...I am sure many of you Android users like me, would have had your friends who are iPhone users bring up such a topic on how they've read that developing for iOS is better, and you can't explain to them why people still make apps for Android cause there's little material online to covers that topic. I'm genuinely curious to know from a developer's perspective
Developers want to get their program out to as many people as possible so they develop for platforms where the customers are at. The two biggest phone operating systems right now are iOS and Android.
Developers choose iOS first because their is a lot less device diversity with iOS devices so developing an app is probably easier. It has also been shown that there is more money to be made selling iOS apps than Android apps which could be due to the fact that people who are on a tight budget may see an Android device as a better deal or may have a carrier that doesn't even sell the iPhone. Piracy is an issue on both platforms but it could be argued that Android is easier to pirate on since apks can be sideloaded without rooting where as iPhones have to be jailbroken. But sideloading apks is used for legit reasons as well, like testing betas, nightlies and other apps that aren't distributed through App Stores.
Android apps have to account for multiple screen resolutions, ratios, and densities. Most regular apps scale just fine. Games seem to be where there are the most issues and I really wish Google would address the issues. It seems each GPU type needs its own support (PowerVR, Nvidia, Adreno, etc). I really wish Google would implement something like DirectX so games can be played on any GPU with enough power. iOS has the advantage here because only a single GPU type is used, PowerVR I believe, so all games can be optimized for it. Couple that with the fact that iOS tends to bring in more money and this is why the game developers usually favor it over Android.
Thanks for the insight. I figured gaming would be difficult for developers but didn't understand why, I just naturally assumed that "if the app seems more complicated, it naturally equates to more complications making it run on various hardwares".
Am I right to say then that when tech reviewers write about how Developers favor iOS to Android, it's mostly pertaining to gaming?
What about non-gaming apps? Is reaching as many people as possible the only incentive to go Android? Take Whatsapp, or Instagram that recently came out...it's free on Android, it also has to deal with multiple hardwares (though now I'm assuming it's actually not as tough as it sounds to accomplish if the app's fairly simple)...is there an incentive for developers to create an Android App...cause the guys at Instagram or Whatsapp could have gone "Well there's nothing here for me, I'll just stick to iOS"...because from what I see, it looks like opening it to the Android market meant having to stress their servers with a sudden influx of users, which mean spending more money to maintain them so it doesn't slow down too much...it seems like a lose-lose situation from where I'm standing. =\
I guess for some apps, google ads are what keeps them going...like Draw Something. I do wonder though how Whatsapp and Instagram manages its upkeep when it doesnt have ads...and if the answer is that they use the money earned from iOS to manage their expansion, is it really worth it if the goal is just branding purposes.
If there is a market to reach developers will develop. Web developers had to put up with the terrible non standard supporting ie6 for years. It was a real pain to develop for but had a large user base that couldnt just be ignored. Android is the same way, developers go where they can reach the consumer. Luckily android its nowhere near as bad as ie6 was.
Sent from my Touchpad using Tapatalk
spunker88 said:
If there is a market to reach developers will develop. Web developers had to put up with the terrible non standard supporting ie6 for years. It was a real pain to develop for but had a large user base that couldnt just be ignored. Android is the same way, developers go where they can reach the consumer. Luckily android its nowhere near as bad as ie6 was.
Sent from my Touchpad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the input! From your take, it seems like developers make apps for Android not because they want to, but they have to.
Do you or any of the developers reading this, can testify that there are some ups to developing on Android as compared to iOS.
Please use the Q&A Forum for questions &
Read the Forum Rules Ref Posting
Moving to Q&A
lufc said:
Please use the Q&A Forum for questions &
Read the Forum Rules Ref Posting
Moving to Q&A
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi, sorry the topic may be [Q] but it's meant to generate comments and thoughts pertaining to the Android platform as per the sub header for Android General
Could it please be sent back to Android General? The Q&A section seems to be a place for people to post technical questions they need help solving.
Anyway, anyone else able to share their thoughts? Do you develop for both iOS and Android? It seems so far that people prefer to develop for iOS and lesser for Android, but they do it cause they have to as a means of reaching to the masses, but not really because they want to.
Anyone beg to differ? Do you have a reason why you actually prefer developing for Android over iOS?
Hi,
I'm a web developer, and when I decided to try mobile development, I made the choice to develop only for Android, for various reasons, but mainly because I'm not a fan of the Apple ecosystem.
This is not fanboyism here, I'm not bashing Apple, they make great products. But I prefer a fragmented ecosystem, with various companies, various devices, various app markets, etc. because this is a great source of opportunities. I also like the fact that android is open-source, leaving the availability to study the source code and hack around.
As for the difficulty to develop for various devices, I'd say that I'm used to it, being a web developer. Web devs are used to cope with various browsers (some of them being pretty old) and different screen sizes. See for example the mediaqueri.es site (cannot post link since I'm a new user)
thibaultj said:
Hi,
I'm a web developer, and when I decided to try mobile development, I made the choice to develop only for Android, for various reasons, but mainly because I'm not a fan of the Apple ecosystem.
This is not fanboyism here, I'm not bashing Apple, they make great products. But I prefer a fragmented ecosystem, with various companies, various devices, various app markets, etc. because this is a great source of opportunities. I also like the fact that android is open-source, leaving the availability to study the source code and hack around.
As for the difficulty to develop for various devices, I'd say that I'm used to it, being a web developer. Web devs are used to cope with various browsers (some of them being pretty old) and different screen sizes. See for example the mediaqueri.es site (cannot post link since I'm a new user)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your 2 cents! Am I right to assume that in fact, having to deal with different hardwares and screen sizes are actually a norm among developers before iOS came along? In other words, yes, Apple is right to say criticize that other platforms are harder to work with compared to iOS but that's because iOS is the exception among developing platforms where it's system is easier to work with?
spunker88 said:
I really wish Google would implement something like DirectX so games can be played on any GPU with enough power.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But Android and iOS already have something like DirectX - OpenGL ES 1.1 and 2.0.
The_R said:
But Android and iOS already have something like DirectX - OpenGL ES 1.1 and 2.0.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the additional input...if there always is a direct standard like Open GL in both iOS and Android, what's the difficult part about manufacturing games for Android?
iOS required Apple computer to install their development environment. And You must pay 99$ per year for being the official iOS developer..
ayen1234 said:
iOS required Apple computer to install their development environment. And You must pay 99$ per year for being the official iOS developer..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd actually say that it is worth it.
yeahyeahright said:
Thanks for the additional input...if there always is a direct standard like Open GL in both iOS and Android, what's the difficult part about manufacturing games for Android?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think its large number of the types of Android devices. It really isn't as simple as just supporting different screen sizes. Doing that is actually a really simple task using OpenGL.
With my own games I've experienced that what generally works on my test device won't necessarily work the same way on someone else's. For example, some devices support textures of any size while some devices have a constraint of the texture size being a power of 2. On many of my games which need multitouch, I've experienced that it doesn't always work the same on all devices either. On some it is downright broken while on other it just works fine.
There are many such other issues which you'd be aware of only after experiencing them.
The reason for this is the different hardware and the different software implementations that each phone manufacturer brings in. Even if the game "works" on a wide range of devices, there is always a different feel that you get when playing on a different device because of the hardware variations. You might get a good frame rate on a high end phone but have you tried playing it on a low end one? I've seen games from even the big publishers working fine on a high end phone but it just is completely glitchy on a low end one.
Now for a small developer with limited resources it can get really hard to test on and support as many devices as possible. This is one of the main reasons I feel that it can get really hard to develop games on Android. It just requires more effort if the developer wants to guarantee a good experience on a wide range of devices.
The other factor as stated before is that the iOS platform is more uniform. And moreover there are more people who are apparently willing to pay for your game on iOS than on Android. With one of my own games I've experienced that I've made more money in the last 10 days by selling it on the iOS App store than on Android in the last one year with ad revenues.
I actually started developing games on Android initially and one of the really big disappointments for me has been that I am not able to sell my games on the market(now Google Play) because Google checkout for merchants is only available in a few countries. This was the main reason for me to consider moving over to iOS. I think I could sell on a different market like the Amazon App store if I really wanted though.
Inspite of all that I'd say that Android is a great platform.
Wow thanks a lot for the insight! It's great to understand it from a developer's POV, especially one who works on both platforms.
I realise people do comment a lot about Android users less committed to pay for an app, I wonder why...I don't think it's due to their budget, my guess is that their afraid it may not work well on their devices...to that I think Google could really push hard and promote it's 15 minutes refund policy which I think a lot of users are not aware of....I use the 15 minute window a lot and it helps me to decide if something is worth my time buying or not.
I guess the "openness" of Android has allowed phone manufacturers to get really creative with their products (Touchwiz, Sense, Dual Screens, Qwerty Keypads etc) but at the same time, makes it harder for a developer to create stuff, probably even harder than creating stuff on a Windows Desktop.
Do any of you think that having "game settings" like you get on a Windows PC will help change this experience? Either one where the user gets to tweak the graphics (low, med, high) and performance, or perhaps one where the game will adjust graphics to the "recommended setting based on your hardware"? Is this even possible on Android or it's more complicated than you'd get on Windows?
yeahyeahright said:
Do any of you think that having "game settings" like you get on a Windows PC will help change this experience? Either one where the user gets to tweak the graphics (low, med, high) and performance, or perhaps one where the game will adjust graphics to the "recommended setting based on your hardware"? Is this even possible on Android or it's more complicated than you'd get on Windows?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I have actually seen a few games that do that, and it does help. But it also requires some extra time and effort on the developer's part.
In some of my games too, I've added some simple settings in order to change the control schemes, so that if one of them doesn't work for you, you could choose the other one. Graphically, though, my games are really simple.
yeahyeahright said:
Thanks for your 2 cents! Am I right to assume that in fact, having to deal with different hardwares and screen sizes are actually a norm among developers before iOS came along? In other words, yes, Apple is right to say criticize that other platforms are harder to work with compared to iOS but that's because iOS is the exception among developing platforms where it's system is easier to work with?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Having to deal with different hardwares started to be a thing of the past, with the explosion of web apps. One platform for all, what a dream! Then came smartphones and tablets, and developing for a native platfrom became cool again.
Anyway, building for the web is still the only way to reach anyone with an internet access. The only problem with web apps is that it's harder to monetize. But the web's decentralized architecture is not a bug, it's a feature. That is what guarantees it's freedom and independance. You don't have such guarantees on a centralized market managed by a single company, whose first goal is profit.
Well, this post was slightly off-topic, sorry about that.
Thanks both of you for the really good insight. I guess Android is great as a supposedly "open" phone os, it certainly has a lot of hurdles to clear in order to please and entice developers the way iOS does, I'm not certain it can get there, but I do think they do make an effort, like the just upgraded emulator which shows Google's commitment to better developed apps (talk about timing!).
I'm certainly happy with my Android phone and from what I've read about the negative results developers gain from working on Android than on iOS, I take my hat off to those that stick around on this platform and try to make things happen. *clap*
=)
I choose Android for one reason. It's much cheaper. Only 25$ one time. iOS is 99$ every year
What are the chances we'll see the new Ubuntu for phones os running on our hardware anytime soon?
As far as I understand it it should be just a matter of compiling for our specific soc, making a flashable rom and then flashing, right? They say it can run on android kernels so there shouldn't have to be any hardware interface work that needs to be done, right?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda app-developers app
If you don't mind me asking, how would this make any difference to us?
rangercaptain said:
If you don't mind me asking, how would this make any difference to us?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would enable us an alternative operating system choice, allowing application developers to create processor native applications (rather than using a java virtual machine that's quite resource intensive than running apps on the bare metal) thus using less system resources, enabling faster multitasking, greater compatibility with preexisting applications, enhanced security, and the desktop mode that they are touting is quite nice as well. connect an hdmi dongle and use a bluetooth keyboard and mouse to turn the phone into a desktop computer... there are lots of uses for a bare metal operating system on a hardware platform with restrictive system resources.
there's really nothing wrong with android per se, she's a great OS, but there are a wide number of other approaches to building os's and user experiences. I would consider this pretty similar to choosing to install ubuntu on a PC, or windows on a mac for that matter. it's a matter of widening the variety of application approaches and compatibility. a matter of choice.
I really want to know if this is possible after seeing the demo of it on engadget this morning I'm convinced that this is one os I'd be willing to flash and possibly leave on over android, as amazing as Android is this just better though out in terms of where everything is and speed of access
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk 2
It may take off, if someone is able to best the entire android community as a whole, but the odds of that are "0"...
We would be better served if google took it over, and incorporated the OS into a handful of smart phones. Beyond that prospect, a port for us would be nothing more than a pet project.
This idea is not new, and mention of it can be found in virtually ever forum on this site, and a few devs have met with success on getting a bootable Android device running Ubuntu, but it was a short lived event, as support for the OS is simply not there ATM.
I do agree that a different OS is a good idea, but as a dedicated Android user, I would not be willing to switch at this point, as a stable, functional OS is months or even years away.
Likely the OS would fall the way of RIM, and other OS platforms, albeit, ahead of it's time.....g
gregsarg said:
It may take off, if someone is able to best the entire android community as a whole, but the odds of that are "0"...
We would be better served if google took it over, and incorporated the OS into a handful of smart phones. Beyond that prospect, a port for us would be nothing more than a pet project.
This idea is not new, and mention of it can be found in virtually ever forum on this site, and a few devs have met with success on getting a bootable Android device running Ubuntu, but it was a short lived event, as support for the OS is simply not there ATM.
I do agree that a different OS is a good idea, but as a dedicated Android user, I would not be willing to switch at this point, as a stable, functional OS is months or even years away.
Likely the OS would fall the way of RIM, and other OS platforms, albeit, ahead of it's time.....g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I strongly believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, the fact of the matter is that it's already running on the quintessential android test bed for the current generation of phones (the galaxy nexus) which means that it should be very easily ported to other, similar hardware (which is most of the android devices out there right now.). if they made this completely open source (which i'm pretty sure they'd have to given that most of the components of the OS are built on open-source licenses), and allowed the already very good and very diverse linux community expand it's functionality, write good apps for it, I think it has some pretty great promise.
my personal standpoint however, is that operating systems for mobile should work exactly like they do for PC's (and macs for that matter). you should be able to install whatever, whenever, without the approval of the company that happens to make the hardware, and without the approval of the company who provides the data and telephone services for the device... it's a pocket computer, not a dumb phone designed for one thing.
I thought Android was Linux and Ubuntu was Linux. Why is one type better than the other? And to run native, wouldn't hardware manufacturers have to write a butt load of drivers? Like the fiasco of upgrading from win2000 to win7.
Ubuntu won't be released til 2014, will older phones like our note1 be supported?
Keep in mind that by 2014 the note1 would be considered old in mobile years.
rangercaptain said:
I thought Android was Linux and Ubuntu was Linux. Why is one type better than the other? And to run native, wouldn't hardware manufacturers have to write a butt load of drivers? Like the fiasco of upgrading from win2000 to win7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hardware drivers always run on the bare metal anyway (usually as part of the kernel, or occasionally as a background daemon service). the point is that android applications are built on top of the java environment which is a virtual machine - it's processes are abstracted and emulated which requires much more system resources than writing in something like c++ for the underlaying hardware. the only compatibility that this would break is that binaries don't work across cpu platforms. if something is compiled for the arm9 architecture for example (what most modern smartphones use, including our note), it wouldn't run on android for x86 or another java virtual machine like bluestacks. in order to get it to run on a different hardware platform you'd either have to emulate a complete device (like the iphone and android sdk simulators), or recompile it for the platform you want to run it on (only useful if you have the source code). the latter method is how linux distributions have been doing things for years. there are virtually identical linux distributions that can run on intel, arm, powerpc, sparc, motorola 68k, etc. etc. they can all run pretty much the same applications (because of the hardware abstraction layer present in the kernel), but in order for it to work, those applications must be recompiled for the appropriate underlaying processor architecture, as the output of a c(++,#) compiler is code that is cpu architecture specific.
also, windows 2000 and windows 7 were designed for the same (or similar) underlaying hardware problems. windows 2000 to windows 7 was mostly a piece of cake. whereas the move from windows 98 to windows 2000 or windows 98 to windows xp was difficult because windows 9x and windows 2000/xp use a different variety of hardware abstraction layer and thus different drivers must be written as drivers designed for one HAL won't work with another. (same thing for major linux revisions. the HAL in the 2.4 series of kernels is different from the one in 2.6 series of kernels which means one has to rewrite device drivers in order to get some less-than-standard hardware working.
So cp....
your a smart guy...
Get it going for us.....
you've got the skills we need to pull it off....g
gregsarg said:
So cp....
your a smart guy...
Get it going for us.....
you've got the skills we need to pull it off....g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, If i had access to the sources (that by all rights should be open thanks to the way the gpl is designed), I'd be happy to build a rom and help with the development efforts. I'm pretty decent at optimizing linux distributions for arm hardware. we should all petition canonical to release the code post haste.
I would love to see ubuntu ported over to phones. I almost fell off my chair when I heard of the idea that your phone could just connect to a monitor/keyboard/mouse to become a fully fledged desktop computer. This would literally replace almost all of my gadgets into one device. I wouldn't need a laptop, an ipod, a dvd player, or even a gaming console possibly as well.
I've been using ubuntu for a number of years and would be overjoyed to see almost all of my electronics and computing essentially made into one pocket sized device. The possibilities are so great for this kind of leap in technology and it almost seems to be the inevitable succession in personal computer technology. This could possibly be the beginning of the end for laptops, desktops, tablets, and netbooks/ultrabooks. All data would be transmitted using flash memory or transmitted OTA instead of spinning disks or other media.
If the source code is released, and I'm sure it will since Canonical has done a decent job of running Ubuntu lately, I hope someone brings it to the i717 because then I would probably sell a lot of electronic equipment
The release will never happen to allow a single, all inclusive device.
Ubuntu or not, there are too many hands in the pie, and billions of dollars on the table.
The apples, and Samsungs of the world will go at it until the day we die.
They all want the biggest piece, and will squash anyone that gets in their way.
Ubuntu would need a home run piece of code that emulates a magic carpet if they ever hope to slay the beast.
And if they did, I'm not so sure that people would embrace the one stop shop mentality for a single device anyway.
It simply stinks of yet another apple type monopoly in the making.
I support the idea, but it's the logistics that kill the deal, money driven logistics of course.....g
gregsarg said:
The release will never happen to allow a single, all inclusive device.
Ubuntu or not, there are too many hands in the pie, and billions of dollars on the table.
The apples, and Samsungs of the world will go at it until the day we die.
They all want the biggest piece, and will squash anyone that gets in their way.
Ubuntu would need a home run piece of code that emulates a magic carpet if they ever hope to slay the beast.
And if they did, I'm not so sure that people would embrace the one stop shop mentality for a single device anyway.
It simply stinks of yet another apple type monopoly in the making.
I support the idea, but it's the logistics that kill the deal, money driven logistics of course.....g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Too true, it's all about the money in the end, even with free stuff.
Now that you mention it, it does sound a lot like some sort of Apple type ploy to get you to buy their things... either way I hope it happens someday
Would like to say Hello. I am a developer (server and PC) mostly C++ some IOS but after some medial issues and a few years away looking forward to getting back in to software development.
I do have a few questions though.
What would be a good solid development platform to develop the same app for android, IOS and Windows?
I know everyone has there own specific smartphone manufacture they use and live buy and the manufactures have there own version of android but I was thinking is there a base Android OS that works with all phone manufacturers?
Any links and suggestions would rock thanks in advance.
analyticworm said:
Would like to say Hello. I am a developer (server and PC) mostly C++ some IOS but after some medial issues and a few years away looking forward to getting back in to software development.
I do have a few questions though.
What would be a good solid development platform to develop the same app for android, IOS and Windows?
I know everyone has there own specific smartphone manufacture they use and live buy and the manufactures have there own version of android but I was thinking is there a base Android OS that works with all phone manufacturers?
Any links and suggestions would rock thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Every android device uses Google's Vanilla android OS, a.k.a. AOSP(Android Open Source Project) as the base of all android operating systems, then the various manufacturers and carriers put their personal coding on top of that.
Sent from my SM-S767VL using Tapatalk