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.
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.
On a positive note, I?m 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.
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.
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.
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.
On a positive note, I?m glad to see samab participating in topics other than Verizon and CDMA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
On a positive note, I?m 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.
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.
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.
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.
On a positive note, I?m 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.