or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › RIM demonstrates PlayBook with faster Web browsing than Apple's iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RIM demonstrates PlayBook with faster Web browsing than Apple's iPad - Page 7

post #241 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

You should assume that even if the Playbook has the same CPU, the same RAM and the same webkit as the ipad --- the Playbook would be faster, simply because QNX would have the expertise to optimize it for the limited resources available.

Except, you conveniently overlook the fact that Apple builds the CPU, RAM, etc. on a single custom chip and removes unnecessary baggage -- then designs the iOS software to exploit the hardware.

That's why, a slower, optimized, software/hardware combination often can (and does) outperform faster software optimized for faster hardware.

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #242 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Buying device != implied satisfaction with all aspects of said device.

OK, Got it... it's 2 vs say, 99,999,998 (assuming that you 2 whiners have bought an iOS device).

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #243 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Except, you conveniently overlook the fact that Apple builds the CPU, RAM, etc. on a single custom chip and removes unnecessary baggage -- then designs the iOS software to exploit the hardware.

That's why, a slower, optimized, software/hardware combination often can (and does) outperform faster software optimized for faster hardware.

.

You conveniently overlook the fact that the A4 uses all stock components. It was really a cost related move (to take out a few hardware items that Apple doesn't need). Nothing to do with the performance of the machine.
post #244 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

OK, Got it... it's 2 vs say, 99,999,998 (assuming that you 2 whiners have bought an iOS device).

.

Touchy much?
post #245 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

You conveniently overlook the fact that the A4 uses all stock components. It was really a cost related move (to take out a few hardware items that Apple doesn't need). Nothing to do with the performance of the machine.

You 'Sir' have no God damned idea of what you speak.
Yeah right, it was Apple's idea to get a product to the consumer that's as cheap as possible.
Nothing else - just cheap.
Like the iPod and iPhone - no thought whatsoever for UI or functionality.
Yep, your spot-on there mate.

Oh, BTW - you're an ill-informed idiot.

Other than that, have a nice day
May the Blue Bird of Happiness leave a deposit with you and yours.
Reply
May the Blue Bird of Happiness leave a deposit with you and yours.
Reply
post #246 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

You conveniently overlook the fact that the A4 uses all stock components. It was really a cost related move (to take out a few hardware items that Apple doesn't need). Nothing to do with the performance of the machine.

Yeah, except you are wrong.

Quote:
The Cortex-A8 core used in the A4 is thought to use performance enhancements developed by chip designer Intrinsity (which was subsequently acquired by Apple)[10] in collaboration with Samsung.[11] The resulting core, dubbed "Hummingbird", is able to run at far higher clock rates than other implementations while remaining fully compatible with the Cortex-A8 design provided by ARM.[12] Other performance improvements include additional L2 cache. The same Cortex-A8 CPU core used in the A4 is also used in Samsung's S5PC110A01 SoC.[13][14]
The A4 processor package does not contain RAM, but supports PoP installation. The top package of the A4 used in the iPad & iPod touch[15] 4th gen contains two low-power 128 MB DDR SDRAM chips for a total of 256MB RAM. For the iPhone 4 there are two chips of 256 MB for a total of 512 MB.[16][17][18] RAM is connected to the processor using ARM's 64-bit-wide AMBA 3 AXI bus. This is twice the width of the RAM data bus used in previous ARM 11 and ARM 9 based Apple devices, to support the greater need for graphics bandwidth in the iPad.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A4

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...-surfaces.html

What you got?

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #247 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Yeah, except you are wrong.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A4

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...-surfaces.html

What you got?

.

EARLY EARLY reports that were disproved by actual A4 chip teardowns (when they dissolved the top layer with acid and x-rayed the chip).

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...nd-tantalizing

The conclusion --- the A4 has pretty much zero difference than a Samsung chip (which also licensed the same Hummingbird design).
post #248 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

RIM CEO was already talking about the possibility of doing quad-cores yesterday at web 2.0 --- simply because QNX can. And we are talking about iOS that can't do real multi-tasking yet.

What exactly is "real" multitasking? The ability to kill your battery by running a background app that doesn't add any value when running in the background?

RIM has yet to demonstrate the benefits of their "real" or "true" multitasking. So far it just looks like a really great way for sloppy developers to eat your battery.
post #249 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

What exactly is "real" multitasking? The ability to kill your battery by running a background app that doesn't add any value when running in the background?

RIM has yet to demonstrate the benefits of their "real" or "true" multitasking. So far it just looks like a really great way for sloppy developers to eat your battery.

Don't need to demonstrate the benefits at all. It is just a great way to illustrate that their OS has a firm foundation to build on.

Battery life and heat dissipation is going to follow the desktop CPU path --- cell phones will go quad-core and RIM can do that with their current QNX kernel.
post #250 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Don't need to demonstrate the benefits at all. It is just a great way to illustrate that their OS has a firm foundation to build on.

Battery life and heat dissipation is going to follow the desktop CPU path --- cell phones will go quad-core and RIM can do that with their current QNX kernel.

"true" multitasking is a feature. Consumers buy benefits. Indeed, if RIM wants to differentiate based on multitasking then they need demonstrate the benefits. Otherwise consumers will simply be swayed by the sexiness of Apple products and Jobs' reality distortion field.

What do consumers need from multitasking? Background music, streaming, VOIP, no need to reload an app upon resume, etc. These will already be offered by iPad within a week. What is RIM bringing to the table besides a buzz word and marketing jibber jabber?

True multitasking? Super! Now I can play a video of fish in the background while I do email. I can't see the video, but isn't it great knowing that its playing in the background due to true multitasking? Amazing!
post #251 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

"true" multitasking is a feature. Consumers buy benefits. Indeed, if RIM wants to differentiate based on multitasking then they need demonstrate the benefits. Otherwise consumers will simply be swayed by the sexiness of Apple products and Jobs' reality distortion field.

As I said, software has been lagging hardware for the last 30 years.

The true benefit is going to be faster to market. Does Apple need to do drastic changes to the iOS for dual-core cpu's or quad-cores? Remember the old co-operating multitasking in system 6/7 --- the whole OS development slowed down because the basics weren't done.
post #252 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Don't need to demonstrate the benefits at all. It is just a great way to illustrate that their OS has a firm foundation to build on.

Battery life and heat dissipation is going to follow the desktop CPU path --- cell phones will go quad-core and RIM can do that with their current QNX kernel.

You say this like iOS (and even UNIX) cannot do this. I don't understand why you think rebuilding a kernel would be such a big deal and why a solid component has such a downturn to a split-component system.

QNX is fast. It can run a GUI. However, it has not been put to the task of running a complex mobile device so you can't make any just predictions. Everything you mentioned can be done with QNX's kernel, however, everything would have to be adjusted to do it correctly and efficiently. You can't just stick a new block in there and suppose it will operate right, that's when you get Windows.
post #253 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobodyy View Post

You say this like iOS (and even UNIX) cannot do this. I don't understand why you think rebuilding a kernel would be such a big deal and why a solid component has such a downturn to a split-component system.

QNX is fast. It can run a GUI. However, it has not been put to the task of running a complex mobile device so you can't make any just predictions. Everything you mentioned can be done with QNX's kernel, however, everything would have to be adjusted to do it correctly and efficiently. You can't just stick a new block in there and suppose it will operate right, that's when you get Windows.

I didn't say that. I said --- does Apple need to do a lot of work if they go dual core or quad core. It is about time to market. We know that RIM can do it without requiring a single change in the QNX kernel. Even if they require some changes, the amount of change required for QNX would be smaller than the amount required for iOS or webOS --- simply because QNX was designed to work on embedded stuff (that is even smaller than the smartphones/tablets) from day 1.

There is nothing really complex about a mobile device. You think it's complex, but the QNX people handle these things regularly.
post #254 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

There is nothing really complex about a mobile device. You think it's complex, but the QNX people handle these things regularly.

The complexity is not the device, its the ecosystem. If you tasked me with building a standalone tablet device that had an OS with a specific feature set I could do it in a snap. Ask me to build a device that is part of an ecosystem and well thats another story.
post #255 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post


There is nothing really complex about a mobile device. You think it's complex, but the QNX people handle these things regularly.

What does this even mean? Of course "mobile devices" are complex, if we're talking about modern general purpose computing devices. And what "things" are the QNX people handling?

You act as if hardware compatibility and a small footprint were the entire story. If that were the case, where has QNX been in the general purpose mobile computer market? Why didn't they beat Android to the punch and become the mass market OS of choice?

I think it's fine that QNX is multi-core ready. I think it's insane to think that, because of that, a QNX powered RIM tablet is poised to surpass the iPad. A QNX based RIM tablet can surpass the iPad if it offers some combination of a better experience, more ease of use, better and more plentiful applications, superior design, better battery life, etc., etc.

You'll notice none of those have anything to do with number of cores, a gear-head spec that consumers could care less about. RIM could bring a multicore tablet to market tomorrow, and unless it does a bunch of things substantially better than the iPad (and the only possible improvement that multi-core brings is speed-- do you hear people companying about how sluggish the iPad is?) than it doesn't matter. At all.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #256 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyde View Post

Bondai? (sp?)

It was Bandai. That's actually the manufactures name. The product was Pippin, sold for $ 599 or something. It did ship. And yes, it was a complete failure. Most of Apple's failed products were during the dark days. Some were actually under Jobs' watch...

Some failures I even like. Like the cube. Friend of mine has the original one from Next. Still think it's a cool design.
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #257 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

"true" multitasking is a feature. Consumers buy benefits. Indeed, if RIM wants to differentiate based on multitasking then they need demonstrate the benefits. Otherwise consumers will simply be swayed by the sexiness of Apple products and Jobs' reality distortion field.

What do consumers need from multitasking? Background music, streaming, VOIP, no need to reload an app upon resume, etc. These will already be offered by iPad within a week. What is RIM bringing to the table besides a buzz word and marketing jibber jabber?

True multitasking? Super! Now I can play a video of fish in the background while I do email. I can't see the video, but isn't it great knowing that its playing in the background due to true multitasking? Amazing!

and eating your battery so that by the time your email is finished and about to send it you would either scram for a recharge or basically loose the mail. Thats called true multitasking from both (device & human)
post #258 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

I didn't say that. I said --- does Apple need to do a lot of work if they go dual core or quad core. It is about time to market. We know that RIM can do it without requiring a single change in the QNX kernel. Even if they require some changes, the amount of change required for QNX would be smaller than the amount required for iOS or webOS --- simply because QNX was designed to work on embedded stuff (that is even smaller than the smartphones/tablets) from day 1.

There is nothing really complex about a mobile device. You think it's complex, but the QNX people handle these things regularly.

According to your logic neither Linux / Android or iOS/darwin can run on SMP. And have you heard of GCD (grand central dispatch).
MacOSX is 64-bit & SMP designed not SMP safe
post #259 of 274
deleted
post #260 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

I didn't say that. I said --- does Apple need to do a lot of work if they go dual core or quad core. It is about time to market. We know that RIM can do it without requiring a single change in the QNX kernel. Even if they require some changes, the amount of change required for QNX would be smaller than the amount required for iOS or webOS --- simply because QNX was designed to work on embedded stuff (that is even smaller than the smartphones/tablets) from day 1.

There is nothing really complex about a mobile device. You think it's complex, but the QNX people handle these things regularly.

QNX is (nowadays) targeted towards embedded systems such as CPUs, not an entire muktifunctional OS. Apple does not need to do that much more work to implement multiple cores, just as others have stated, OS X has been able to take advantage of them since the creation of GCD. The kernel would need work to take advantage of it (I assume, I don't know how the kernel handles multiple cores by default, especially in iOS), but QNX would have the same drawback. It is not significantly less work, in both cases it requires work. Don't forget that QNX operates as separate systems (hense the microkernel); to take full advantage you would need to make a new block and modify other systems to take advantage of the new one. Things are not not automatic in the kernel level, QNX or iOS, and you can't lay things on top to core hardware like you could with a baseband.

A mobile device is very complex. Unlike embedded systems, there are a lot more things that need to be managed. This is why i dislike microkernels in complicated designs. The fact that everything is split and many of the components are stuck at the "user space" level causes fragmentation of the core. In some cases this is good, in others it is not. QNX isn't a bad move, but that doesnt mean that it is completely godsent.
post #261 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobodyy View Post

QNX is (nowadays) targeted towards embedded systems such as CPUs, not an entire muktifunctional OS. Apple does not need to do that much more work to implement multiple cores, just as others have stated, OS X has been able to take advantage of them since the creation of GCD. The kernel would need work to take advantage of it (I assume, I don't know how the kernel handles multiple cores by default, especially in iOS), but QNX would have the same drawback. It is not significantly less work, in both cases it requires work. Don't forget that QNX operates as separate systems (hense the microkernel); to take full advantage you would need to make a new block and modify other systems to take advantage of the new one. Things are not not automatic in the kernel level, QNX or iOS, and you can't lay things on top to core hardware like you could with a baseband.

A mobile device is very complex. Unlike embedded systems, there are a lot more things that need to be managed. This is why i dislike microkernels in complicated designs. The fact that everything is split and many of the components are stuck at the "user space" level causes fragmentation of the core. In some cases this is good, in others it is not. QNX isn't a bad move, but that doesnt mean that it is completely godsent.

QNX has always been self-hosted and run as a desktop pc machine. I used this in high-school in the late 80's.

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/...asp?c=971&st=1

BILLIONS of feature cell phones have been manufactured to use microkernels.

The whole iOS is basically sitting in user space --- as a guest OS on top of a RTOS/hypervisor which runs the baseband. That's a lot more complicated to have 2 different OS'es.
post #262 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

QNX has always been self-hosted and run as a desktop pc machine. I used this in high-school in the late 80's.

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/...asp?c=971&st=1

BILLIONS of feature cell phones have been manufactured to use microkernels.

The whole iOS is basically sitting in user space --- as a guest OS on top of a RTOS/hypervisor which runs the baseband. That's a lot more complicated to have 2 different OS'es.

Again, none of this matters. The technical details of how the code is deployed is only interesting insofar as it enables a top-notch user experience, and even then is no kind of guarantee that such a user experience will be designed and implemented.

Just because QNX is powerful, or compact, or efficient, or any other qualities you'd like to attribute to it, doesn't really tell us anything about what a given vendor might actually do with it. Obviously, you want OS underpinnings that are capable of getting the job done, but then begins the hard work of making a mobile device that gracefully integrates a wide range of functionality with an intuitive, pleasant to use UI, a robust set of developer tools, and useful connections to other devices and peripherals.

Far more than desktop or laptop computers, mobile devices are almost entirely creatures of user experience. We want the hardware to disappear, so that we might easily and directly manipulate our content on the screen. People aren't going to be buying a bucket of hardware specs and software press releases, they're going to be buying a user experience. I've yet to see anything about QNX that tells me anything about what kind of user experience it might likely deliver in the hands of RIM-- and certainly links to 25 year old desktop computers doesn't help.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #263 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Again, none of this matters. The technical details of how the code is deployed is only interesting insofar as it enables a top-notch user experience, and even then is no kind of guarantee that such a user experience will be designed and implemented.

Just because QNX is powerful, or compact, or efficient, or any other qualities you'd like to attribute to it, doesn't really tell us anything about what a given vendor might actually do with it. Obviously, you want OS underpinnings that are capable of getting the job done, but then begins the hard work of making a mobile device that gracefully integrates a wide range of functionality with an intuitive, pleasant to use UI, a robust set of developer tools, and useful connections to other devices and peripherals.

Far more than desktop or laptop computers, mobile devices are almost entirely creatures of user experience. We want the hardware to disappear, so that we might easily and directly manipulate our content on the screen. People aren't going to be buying a bucket of hardware specs and software press releases, they're going to be buying a user experience. I've yet to see anything about QNX that tells me anything about what kind of user experience it might likely deliver in the hands of RIM-- and certainly links to 25 year old desktop computers doesn't help.

The vendor is the OS maker --- the whole project is driven by the QNX side of the engineers.

Millions of cars have QNX on their telematics systems --- why don't you look at those for a baseline. This is UI experience where they have to account that if you look a fraction more second on the head unit, you crash your car.

I never claimed that being able to run on a PC has anything to do with UI stuff. I was responding to a comment that seemed to suggest that QNX is used on simple headless devices, and further suggest that the QNX people would have zero clue on making it run on "complex" device like a laptop or tablet pc... Well, they have been running it on PC's for 30 years.
post #264 of 274
On a positive note, I’m glad to see samab participating in topics other than Verizon and CDMA.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #265 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

On a positive note, Im glad to see samab participating in topics other than Verizon and CDMA.

Yet Apple is public enemy number 1 on the net neutrality issue by the law professor who coined the term and GSMA just established a working group on embedding SIM cards into the cell phone's silicon. Maybe CDMA was correct all along.
post #266 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post


The whole iOS is basically sitting in user space --- as a guest OS on top of a RTOS/hypervisor which runs the baseband. That's a lot more complicated to have 2 different OS'es.

You DO realize that in microkernal architechtures pretty much everything possible is shoved into userspace? iOS is no more a "guest OS" above Mach than the unixy parts of qnx are guest OS above the qnx kernel. You also realize that both Mach and qnx are microkernels right? Because otherwise I'd be thinking you have no clue what you are talking about. Especially with the bs about "true" multitasking.

What folks should be more concerned about is whether air actionscript has been made multithreaded. As far as I'm aware, while the underlying flash is multithreaded the air deva are limited in developing single threaded apps. Talk about limiting.

iOS apps are native against the iOS APIs. Playbook apps are singly threaded apps running in a "guest" OS above qnx made by adobe. Your system is only as good as your weakest link and adobe AIR completely obliterates any possible advantage of the qnx kernel over mach. And I think the iOS core APIs are far better suited fir rich app development than qnx middleware with an rtos focus. The domain areas are totally different.
post #267 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

You DO realize that in microkernal architechtures pretty much everything possible is shoved into userspace? iOS is no more a "guest OS" above Mach than the unixy parts of qnx are guest OS above the qnx kernel. You also realize that both Mach and qnx are microkernels right? Because otherwise I'd be thinking you have no clue what you are talking about. Especially with the bs about "true" multitasking.

What folks should be more concerned about is whether air actionscript has been made multithreaded. As far as I'm aware, while the underlying flash is multithreaded the air deva are limited in developing single threaded apps. Talk about limiting.

iOS apps are native against the iOS APIs. Playbook apps are singly threaded apps running in a "guest" OS above qnx made by adobe. Your system is only as good as your weakest link and adobe AIR completely obliterates any possible advantage of the qnx kernel over mach. And I think the iOS core APIs are far better suited fir rich app development than qnx middleware with an rtos focus. The domain areas are totally different.

I do remember Mach, but the discussion was about how it was "complicated" the QNX microkernel supposed to be because stuff are pushed into the userspace. So we have iphone with a RTOS microkernel/hypervisor doing baseband and then mach runs on top of that and then iOS/OS X stuff runs on top of that.

RIM/QNX advises people to do use native codes for multithreading stuff and use flash just for the UI front-end.
post #268 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

I do remember Mach, but the discussion was about how it was "complicated" the QNX microkernel supposed to be because stuff are pushed into the userspace. So we have iphone with a RTOS microkernel/hypervisor doing baseband and then mach runs on top of that and then iOS/OS X stuff runs on top of that.

RIM/QNX advises people to do use native codes for multithreading stuff and use flash just for the UI front-end.

You know I missed you saying something that stupid due to your other more stupid comment regarding iOS lacking true multitasking which caused subsequent poor reading comprehension on my part.

You DO know where the baseband OS runs right? Hint: There is something called the baseband processor on the iphone. In the iphone 3g/gs that's the PMB8878. On the 4 that's the pmb9800. It has it's own ram and is a ARM1176 running at 416MHz.

iOS does NOT run on top of the baseband OS running in the baseband processor. iOS runs on the primary application processor...the A4.

There was maybe one comment regarding the complexity of microkernels not scaling well to more complex OSs vs use within a RTOS. While this is sorta true, I think we can say that OSX shows this isn't all that big a deal anymore. The QNX kernel has some advantages of Mach but total system performance depends on all the layers working well together. And QNX doesn't have some magical advantages over OSX/iOS/mach in terms of multiprocessor/multicore support.

I'm thinking that doing AIR based UIs and QNX based native code is a bit rube goldberg and risky on RIMs part from the perspective of gaining new devs. It's one thing to make a decent looking flash UI in a vehicle with in house devs. It's another to make it not a huge annoyance for app devs. This is one area that both Apple and MS work hard at. Google, a little less so.

QNX? I've never developed for QNX but I have for VxWorks and other RTOS (Lynx, pSOS). It's never been a high pri item for RTOS makers. Developing for an RTOS is a pain in the ass with far more complexities than for a general purpose OS. The last thing as an app developer that I want to do is have to deal with the annoyances of an RTOS.
post #269 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

On a positive note, Im glad to see samab participating in topics other than Verizon and CDMA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Yet Apple is public enemy number 1 on the net neutrality issue by the law professor who coined the term and GSMA just established a working group on embedding SIM cards into the cell phone's silicon. Maybe CDMA was correct all along.

I think this just allows us to narrow down exactly what his agenda is here. He says he's Canadian, he shills for CDMA/Qualcomm (the Verizon connection may just be because they are CDMA), he's clearly in the wireless industry since he seems to have links to industry data always at his fingertips (even though they are often just insider propaganda or misrepresented by him) and now he's going nuts promoting the Playbook and attacking Apple. (Apple the greatest threat to net neutrality, hahaha, oh yeah, that's a funny one, repeated by you in several threads.)

So, at this point, the evidence points to him working at RIM, or with a company closely connected to RIM (which doesn't entirely rule out Qualcomm). He doesn't seem smart enough to be an engineer, so, maybe some sort of mid-level manager (or possibly he was peter-principled to a higher level position). Maybe something in marketing, although probably not direct to consumer, perhaps carrier relations/marketing, something like that.

We know you are an interested party samab. You should just do the honest, gentlemanly thing and come clean about it.
post #270 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

You know I missed you saying something that stupid due to your other more stupid comment regarding iOS lacking true multitasking which caused subsequent poor reading comprehension on my part.

You DO know where the baseband OS runs right? Hint: There is something called the baseband processor on the iphone. In the iphone 3g/gs that's the PMB8878. On the 4 that's the pmb9800. It has it's own ram and is a ARM1176 running at 416MHz.

iOS does NOT run on top of the baseband OS running in the baseband processor. iOS runs on the primary application processor...the A4.

There was maybe one comment regarding the complexity of microkernels not scaling well to more complex OSs vs use within a RTOS. While this is sorta true, I think we can say that OSX shows this isn't all that big a deal anymore. The QNX kernel has some advantages of Mach but total system performance depends on all the layers working well together. And QNX doesn't have some magical advantages over OSX/iOS/mach in terms of multiprocessor/multicore support.

I'm thinking that doing AIR based UIs and QNX based native code is a bit rube goldberg and risky on RIMs part from the perspective of gaining new devs. It's one thing to make a decent looking flash UI in a vehicle with in house devs. It's another to make it not a huge annoyance for app devs. This is one area that both Apple and MS work hard at. Google, a little less so.

QNX? I've never developed for QNX but I have for VxWorks and other RTOS (Lynx, pSOS). It's never been a high pri item for RTOS makers. Developing for an RTOS is a pain in the ass with far more complexities than for a general purpose OS. The last thing as an app developer that I want to do is have to deal with the annoyances of an RTOS.

But in the Qualcomm world, the application processor is the baseband processor as well.
post #271 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

But in the Qualcomm world, the application processor is the baseband processor as well.

This has nothing to do with your complete fabrication about how iOS runs on the baseband processor and OS as a guest OS but does show you haven't run out of stupid things to say.

I would attribute it to simple ignorance but the trolling is willful and repeated.
post #272 of 274
restated the obvious...
post #273 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

This has nothing to do with your complete fabrication about how iOS runs on the baseband processor and OS as a guest OS but does show you haven't run out of stupid things to say.

I would attribute it to simple ignorance but the trolling is willful and repeated.

No, it has something to do with recent rumors of ipad2 going with qualcomm.
post #274 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

No, it has something to do with recent rumors of ipad2 going with qualcomm.

Which have nothing to do with your completely erroneous assertion that iOS runs as a guest OS above the baseband OS. You've been completely clueless in this thread and talking nonsense.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • RIM demonstrates PlayBook with faster Web browsing than Apple's iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › RIM demonstrates PlayBook with faster Web browsing than Apple's iPad