Slashdot Mirror
Nvidia Lauds Windows CE Over Android For Smartbooks
ericatcw writes "Google's Android may enjoy the hype, but an increasing number of key industry players say the mobile OS isn't ready for ARM netbooks, aka smartbooks. Nvidia is the most recent to declare Android unfit for duty, stating its preference for Microsoft's Windows CE, which an Nvidia exec praised for having a "low footprint" and being "rock solid." Nvidia is busy optimizing its multimedia-savvy Tegra system-on-chip for Windows CE. Such improvements won't arrive for at least a year to Android, which has an inflexible UI and poor graphics support for devices larger than a smartphone, says Nvidia. Other firms echoing similar criticism include ARM and Asustek."
So you're saying software designed for mobile phones doesn't work as well on a little computer like device as software which was designed for little computer like devices?
Wow. Amazing. Incredible.
And they're the same age too!
No, wait, Windows CE is 13 years old. It's had a little more time to design the window manager for different screen sizes.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Isn't this NVIDIA opinion somehow influenced by having Microsoft as customer for their Tegra chips going to upcoming Zune HD?
From TFA:
"The world soundly rejected the first netbooks that came out with Linux," he said. "Printers didn't work, and devices didn't get recognized. The whole thing was a mess."
I'm sure all printers come with WinCE drivers these days. Or maybe Nvidia knows how to install Vista drivers on CE?
This is standard operating procedure for Microsoft contractees. Happened just this last month with Asus where as soon as Microsoft negotiated a new deal with Asus, Asus out of the blue started spouting anti-Linux FUD.
The Zune HD contract with NVidia obviously has the same type of garbage built in.
I was at a conference in 2002 where the chairman of ARM, Sir Robin Saxby, gave a keynote talk on ARM. In the Q&A session afterwards one of the attendees asked what Mr. Saxby thought of Linux - he replied that it was a toy operating system that would never amount to anything, and that open source was a useless strategy for developing software and he didn't see any place for it in the business world. The hall erupted with various PhD students and postgrads raising their hands, and after three people all said basically the same thing - that they use Linux and think open source is great - the chair had to say no more Linux questions. But after hearing what the guy at the top had to say, it would never surprise me to hear that ARM might be hostile to Linux and open source, even when it's running on their own chipsets.
It would be either that or not having Nvidia support on Windows 7 SP 1...
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
If NVidia does not want a piece of Android business, it is NVidia's loss.
And AMD/ATI gain.
Modded interesting? Interestingly offtopic?
This is an ARM story. AMD doesn't do ARM, and while ATI does produce embedded graphics chips, I've never heard of them being paired with handheld devices.
Really, the early success of netbooks loaded with Ubuntu showed clearly that there is no real need for Android. Now, there's going to be netbooks with ARM. GREAT, this is the time to demonstrate (if only it was needed) that Linux is portable, and that distributions like Debian can run perfectly on ARM chips. There WILL be some players in the industry that will understand it, sooner or later. I knew there will be a time where DFSG free OS would start becoming popular just because of the fact it can fit any hardware. It's great if it's demonstrated by using them on cheaper netbooks.
As Wikipedia says, native code runs under Android fine. The Chrome web browser runs on Android. Chrome is not written in Java.
What you might mean is that you can't run native code on some specific mobile phone type device without hacks, and that you can't upload native code to the App Store. That much is true. In the first case, some manufacturers like to lock down their devices - the iphone is also pretty much locked down. In the second, Google want platform independence. But Android itself can clearly run native code - most of the software that it ships with is written in C. And you can distribute and install whatever Java code you want on any Android device, which is better than Apple's "you only load what we want you to load on a phone" rules.
A company that only begrudgingly supports linux with a massive binary blob and no real support thinks that it may be easier to support a platform where that kind of treatment is considered the norm. This does not surprise me. I have a lot of respect for the nvidia linux engineers and they seem like knowledgeable and good guys but, I would imagine that management has tied their hands and this is a political rather than an engineering decision.
Mike Rayfield:
"The world soundly rejected the first netbooks that came out with Linux," he said. "Printers didn't work, and devices didn't get recognized. The whole thing was a mess."
And how is Windows CE/Mobile any better in that regard? I would think it's even worse.
The Zune HD that has been said to have a version of Win CE as the OS.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
"You do know that you can use C/C++ code right? JNI is fully supported you know."
You do know Google doesn't really officially support native code apps and there are no defined native mode API's to access the things you might want to access in native mode like graphics and audio. There are interfaces there but they are internal, not published and are "use at your own risk". If you use them chances are relatively high your native code will break the first time Google puts out a new version of Android.
I think the grandparent meant to say iPhone supports native code as a first class citizen while Google doesn't. You certainly can do some kinds of native mode apps that don't interact much with the hardware and OS, or do so only through clunky JNI.
Java is great for a lot of things, for ease of development, portability and improved security, but it is something of a limiting factor for applications that need maximum performance or to get closer to the metal.
Not sure if its intentional or not but in areas like media players it gives Google a degree of exclusivity in app development since they can use native code and their internal API's whenever they want, while that is a relatively dangerous thing to do for third party app developers.
@de_machina
Maybe I don't get it, but this looks like a concerted FUD campaign against Android. I don't know much about the Android internals, but isn't graphics hardware acceleration handled in the DRM part of the Linux kernel? What does this have to do with Android?
Presumably Android would have to implement the rest of DRI (if they don't use the existing Linux infrastructure / didn't do so already), and next their equivalent of a X.org video driver. But what's the big deal?
Also, all video and graphics rendering in Android is done today by the operating system's Java code, a technique he says is too slow for HD video.
"There's no hardware acceleration. It's all software," Rayfield said.
So, huh? Because it's Java it can't use hardware acceleration?
Other major problems include the fact that the Android icons are too large, and apparently it's gonna take one year to make them small... Well, that makes a lotta sense.
It would make more sense if nVidia said "We're already having a hard time with binary blobs for those lousy x86 linux geeks. Now they want to do that for ARM too, and even worse, for something that doesn't use the X.org architecture. I say we better get together again next year."
After twenty years of Microsoft corrupting the industry and colluding with other companies to place their products, how can anybody take such statements seriously? Nvidia has strong ties to Microsoft, and when Microsoft tells them to jump, they simply ask "how high".
Personally, I think Android is not a very good choice for netbooks; Ubuntu Netbook edition is a much better choice. But Windows CE wouldn't even make my list of a usable netbook operating system.
Apparently someone doesn't appreciate the difference between hardware and software.
Anybody want a peanut?
There's no such thing as a piece of the Android business. Android is a means to an end, not the end itself.
1) Poor UI - what he is talking about? Windows CE is a mess. Yes, Windows Mobile 5 was kinda Teletubies land as Windows XP, but still, it's a huge mess stiched together
2) Doesn't support devices larger than smartphones? Ohh boy, yes, it doesn't, because it doesn't aim for it!
Sounds like Microsoft partner trashing competitor. Propably there are technical reasons why Nvidia have chosen Windows CE, but these doesn't sound like valid one.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
It's my understanding that Qualcomm purchase the engineers, equipment, and all the IP from ATI's handheld division. The purchase of the IP would seem to preclude them from developing anything new for the mobile market in the near term.
Citation
I ask, NVIDIA who?
I work for a very large computer manufacture who is coming out with an ARM based PC. We looked at Marvell, Freescale, and NVIDIA. NVIDIA was the only one who has no support for Linux and because of this was marked off right away. Besides there lack of support for Linux there ARM CPU is pretty weak compared to Marvell and Freescale, there only advantage is the GPU. But because of the lack of Linux support we crossed them off right away. There really only hurting themselves.
Android doesn't use X - nVidia have drivers for X and for Windows - but not for Android - so no one's choosing nVidia hardware for Android - so nVidia's discouraging people from using Android ....
Just wait, if they're smart a year from now they'll have Android drivers and wont have a problem with it
Exactly what I was thinking. That is so incredibly ass-backwards - in terms of complexity, man hours, and cost, I don't know what to say. There is a REASON we don't do everything in silicon: it's cheaper, by far, to do it in software. You optimize your OS for the hardware, not vice versa.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Google gives you Java (for App Store), but their own applications run native code?
Yes, because they want everything in the app store to be forward compatible: in future Android might run on chips that are not ARM, so native code would break, and though it would be the developers' fault it would still make their app store look bad.
Windows CE runs native, the portability point is pretty invalid.
Most of the native apps run on ARM chips only, and won't work e.g. on MIPS based devices (also supported by Windows CE). The portable apps use .NET Compact Framework, so the situation is more or less equivalent to Java.
on iPhone I have proper GCC/G++ compilers
Which you can't use without jailbreaking, so your argument is instantly moot.
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
Android OS crashes--??? Haven't seen it crash yet (since Dec 2008). Apps have crashed, or the phone needs a reboot due to lack of force close, but the phone recovers nicely on app crashes. Apps crashing on any of the above devices usually result in an OS crash as well.
.
There's a reason why VM's make sense. Especially when you're mobile. Nvidia is shooting themselves in the foot on this one.