There is a version of Android that runs on X86 platform that Intel and Google have been working on. I don't know what kind of bastardized version it is, but then, does it really matter? This just continues the fragmentation of the Android platform. Poor bastages!
Porting Dalvik to x86 is "bastardizing" it? Because that's what most of porting Android to x86 has involved.
Surprise? How? Google's been working on internal x86 builds since 2011 and Intel ported Jelly Bean last year which ran on the Lava Xolo X900 which used an Intel Medfield chip.
Surprise as in:
- There are some Android apps (mainly games and e.g. VM clients) using the NDK, they won't run on x86
- Android is already the most "hardware intensive" mobile OS (requires more and faster cores, more RAM etc. than iOS, WP8, BB10 to deliver the same performance); Intel CPUs and their power consumption don't seem like a good fit. Who wants a tablet running scaled up phone apps and delivering the battery times of a Surface Pro?
- There are some Android apps (mainly games and e.g. VM clients) using the NDK, they won't run on x86
Already addressed that point in the link I provided from Anandtech in that very same post. Intel has the device download a version of the app that has undergone binary translation from ARM to x86. Again, there is nothing at all surprising here. In fact, it's old news by this point.
First, it's not technically a virtual machine if it's running a different architecture - it's an emulator.
Sure it is. The point of a virtual machine is that it abstracts away the hardware so it can be run on multiple architectures. Your statement makes absolutely no sense and your definition of what constitutes a virtual machine is completely non-standard. By your logic the Java Virtual Machine is not actually a virtual machine, right? Because you do realize it runs on many different architectures?
Already addressed that point in the link I provided from Anandtech in that very same post. Intel has the device download a version of the app that has undergone binary translation from ARM to x86. Again, there is nothing at all surprising here. In fact, it's old news by this point.
Well, this is a manual transaction by the programmer. No idea what the Lava Xolo's market share is (I have honestly never seen one), and how many developers did actually re-compile their apps for it... But I know how many developers made an effort to bring their Android apps to the Amazon Appstore (which should be a lot bigger than than the Lava Xolo's audience and most certainly "old news", too). Not many, to put it politely.
Well, this is a manual transaction by the programmer. No idea what the Lava Xolo's market share is (I have honestly never seen one), and how many developers did actually re-compile their apps for it... But I know how many developers made an effort to bring their Android apps to the Amazon Appstore (which should be a lot bigger than than the Lava Xolo's audience and most certainly "old news", too). Not many, to put it politely.
I never said the phone had any significant market share and I don't really see what relevance that has to do with what I said. You seem to be focused on some irrelevant point. My point was that Intel's port of Android and how they intended to have ARM compiled programs run on x86 Android is old news. This is stuff they had been talked about from around mid 2011 to early last year. In fact, it's more surprising that you find it surprising since it was talked about on numerous tech sites.
"Less Windows, more Android. Acer is about to give us a taste of this trend, as Android PCs begin to creep onto the market. The ($400) Acer all-in-one (AIO), due to be announced next week, will pack an Intel 3GHz Core i5 4430 "Haswell" processor and run Android. Acer confirmed the AIO with CNET on Thursday.
Expect this trend to pick up steam as PC vendors announce new systems based on Intel's upcoming Haswell and Bay Trail chips. Intel is already dropping not-so-subtle hints that Android laptops running on the Bay Trail chip are on the way and will be priced between $200 and $300."
Sure it is. The point of a virtual machine is that it abstracts away the hardware so it can be run on multiple architectures. Your statement makes absolutely no sense and your definition of what constitutes a virtual machine is completely non-standard. By your logic the Java Virtual Machine is not actually a virtual machine, right? Because you do realize it runs on many different architectures?
Running MS Windows on a PPC Mac is emulation because Windows only had binaries for x86. Running MS Windows on an Intel Mac is virtualization because Windows understands the HW. That means it al had to be emulated so that the processor code understand what the OS was requesting. This made it very slow even on the fastest systems. Many Intel chips are even designed to allow a VM to take advantage of the HW with less overhead but the OS needs to understand x86 or x86_64 HW for this to work.
- Android is already the most "hardware intensive" mobile OS (requires more and faster cores, more RAM etc. than iOS, WP8, BB10 to deliver the same performance); Intel CPUs and their power consumption don't seem like a good fit. Who wants a tablet running scaled up phone apps and delivering the battery times of a Surface Pro?
Running MS Windows on a PPC Mac is emulation because Windows only had binaries for x86. Running MS Windows on an Intel Mac is virtualization because Windows understands the HW. Many Intel chips are even designed to allow a VM to take advantage of the HW with less overhead but the OS needs to understand x86 or x86_64 HW for this to work.
So that I understand would Acer's new AIO with Haswell and Android use emulation or virtualization?
So that I understand would Acer's new AIO with Haswell and Android use emulation or virtualization?
What architecture is the HW? What architectures do the OSes support?
Edit: It appears Windows supports ARM and Android supports x86, which Intel lists as Atom which I take to mean no 64-bit support. That would then depend on what architecture is run for the second OS but I'd think only native binaries make sense if they are available.
I never said the phone had any significant market share and I don't really see what relevance that has to do with what I said. You seem to be focused on some irrelevant point. My point was that Intel's port of Android and how they intended to have ARM compiled programs run on x86 Android is old news. This is stuff they had been talked about from around mid 2011 to early last year. In fact, it's more surprising that you find it surprising since it was talked about on numerous tech sites.
My point (it might well be irrelevant, what do I know) is simply that I would consider it surprising if Samsung would release a mass market device (supposed to compete with the iPad, Amazon's and Samsung's own ARM devices) that would be incompatible with quite a few Android apps, especially since Android is still short of dedicated tablet apps. What is the actual benefit of a x86 CPU when running Android? A product needs at least one selling point. It won't be lighter, it won't be cooler, it can't be cheaper, and it definitely won't have more battery life... so, what is the point?
My point (it might well be irrelevant, what do I know) is simply that I would consider it surprising if Samsung would release a mass market device (supposed to compete with the iPad, Amazon's and Samsung's own ARM devices) that would be incompatible with quite a few Android apps, especially since Android is still short of dedicated tablet apps. What is the actual benefit of a x86 CPU when running Android? A product needs at least one selling point. It won't be lighter, it won't be cooler, it can't be cheaper, and it definitely won't have more battery life... so, what is the point?
It offers better power efficiency and better performance.
Comments
Originally Posted by hill60
This is probably another Windows based tablet…
But it's a Galaxy. Specifically the Galaxy Tab. Specifically the Android Galaxy Tab, according to the article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
This is probably another Windows based tablet, Samsung has made them before, Samsung even hinted at it with their upcoming 20th June announcement.
No it's not. If it was a Windows-based tablet it wouldn't have the Galaxy name. It would be called part of the "ATIV" line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotivDev
There is a version of Android that runs on X86 platform that Intel and Google have been working on. I don't know what kind of bastardized version it is, but then, does it really matter? This just continues the fragmentation of the Android platform. Poor bastages!
Porting Dalvik to x86 is "bastardizing" it? Because that's what most of porting Android to x86 has involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
Surprise? How? Google's been working on internal x86 builds since 2011 and Intel ported Jelly Bean last year which ran on the Lava Xolo X900 which used an Intel Medfield chip.
Surprise as in:
- There are some Android apps (mainly games and e.g. VM clients) using the NDK, they won't run on x86
- Android is already the most "hardware intensive" mobile OS (requires more and faster cores, more RAM etc. than iOS, WP8, BB10 to deliver the same performance); Intel CPUs and their power consumption don't seem like a good fit. Who wants a tablet running scaled up phone apps and delivering the battery times of a Surface Pro?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2
Surprise as in:
- There are some Android apps (mainly games and e.g. VM clients) using the NDK, they won't run on x86
Already addressed that point in the link I provided from Anandtech in that very same post. Intel has the device download a version of the app that has undergone binary translation from ARM to x86. Again, there is nothing at all surprising here. In fact, it's old news by this point.
First, it's not technically a virtual machine if it's running a different architecture - it's an emulator.
Second, emulation is slow.
Finally, emulation isn't perfect - some apps will break even if lots of them run.
Just one more example of fragmentation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
First, it's not technically a virtual machine if it's running a different architecture - it's an emulator.
Sure it is. The point of a virtual machine is that it abstracts away the hardware so it can be run on multiple architectures. Your statement makes absolutely no sense and your definition of what constitutes a virtual machine is completely non-standard. By your logic the Java Virtual Machine is not actually a virtual machine, right? Because you do realize it runs on many different architectures?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
Already addressed that point in the link I provided from Anandtech in that very same post. Intel has the device download a version of the app that has undergone binary translation from ARM to x86. Again, there is nothing at all surprising here. In fact, it's old news by this point.
Well, this is a manual transaction by the programmer. No idea what the Lava Xolo's market share is (I have honestly never seen one), and how many developers did actually re-compile their apps for it... But I know how many developers made an effort to bring their Android apps to the Amazon Appstore (which should be a lot bigger than than the Lava Xolo's audience and most certainly "old news", too). Not many, to put it politely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2
Well, this is a manual transaction by the programmer. No idea what the Lava Xolo's market share is (I have honestly never seen one), and how many developers did actually re-compile their apps for it... But I know how many developers made an effort to bring their Android apps to the Amazon Appstore (which should be a lot bigger than than the Lava Xolo's audience and most certainly "old news", too). Not many, to put it politely.
I never said the phone had any significant market share and I don't really see what relevance that has to do with what I said. You seem to be focused on some irrelevant point. My point was that Intel's port of Android and how they intended to have ARM compiled programs run on x86 Android is old news. This is stuff they had been talked about from around mid 2011 to early last year. In fact, it's more surprising that you find it surprising since it was talked about on numerous tech sites.
"Less Windows, more Android. Acer is about to give us a taste of this trend, as Android PCs begin to creep onto the market.
The ($400) Acer all-in-one (AIO), due to be announced next week, will pack an Intel 3GHz Core i5 4430 "Haswell" processor and run Android.
Acer confirmed the AIO with CNET on Thursday.
Expect this trend to pick up steam as PC vendors announce new systems based on Intel's upcoming Haswell and Bay Trail chips. Intel is already dropping not-so-subtle hints that Android laptops running on the Bay Trail chip are on the way and will be priced between $200 and $300."
jragosta is correct.
Running MS Windows on a PPC Mac is emulation because Windows only had binaries for x86. Running MS Windows on an Intel Mac is virtualization because Windows understands the HW. That means it al had to be emulated so that the processor code understand what the OS was requesting. This made it very slow even on the fastest systems. Many Intel chips are even designed to allow a VM to take advantage of the HW with less overhead but the OS needs to understand x86 or x86_64 HW for this to work.
do we really have to go through this myth again?
Intel CPUs are as power efficient as ARMs.
So that I understand would Acer's new AIO with Haswell and Android use emulation or virtualization?
What architecture is the HW? What architectures do the OSes support?
Edit: It appears Windows supports ARM and Android supports x86, which Intel lists as Atom which I take to mean no 64-bit support. That would then depend on what architecture is run for the second OS but I'd think only native binaries make sense if they are available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
I never said the phone had any significant market share and I don't really see what relevance that has to do with what I said. You seem to be focused on some irrelevant point. My point was that Intel's port of Android and how they intended to have ARM compiled programs run on x86 Android is old news. This is stuff they had been talked about from around mid 2011 to early last year. In fact, it's more surprising that you find it surprising since it was talked about on numerous tech sites.
My point (it might well be irrelevant, what do I know) is simply that I would consider it surprising if Samsung would release a mass market device (supposed to compete with the iPad, Amazon's and Samsung's own ARM devices) that would be incompatible with quite a few Android apps, especially since Android is still short of dedicated tablet apps. What is the actual benefit of a x86 CPU when running Android? A product needs at least one selling point. It won't be lighter, it won't be cooler, it can't be cheaper, and it definitely won't have more battery life... so, what is the point?
If it's Haswell i5 wouldn't it be x86? You're much more knowledgeable than I am about architectures.
It offers better power efficiency and better performance.
I see talk of virtualization. Is that one of the many reasons as to why Android runs like complete shit?
Ah, you did mention Haswell. I completely overlooked that.