Slashdot Mirror
Honeycomb To Require Dual-Core Processor
adeelarshad82 writes "According to managing director of Korean consumer electronics firm Enspert, Google's new Android Honeycomb tablet OS will require a dual-core ARM Cortex-A9 processor to run properly. That means that many existing Android tablets will not be upgradeable to Honeycomb, as they lack the processor necessary to meet the spec. Currently, Nvidia's Tegra 2 platform is the only chipset in products on the market to include a Cortex-A9, although other manufacturers have said they're moving to the new processor architecture for 2011 products."
Honeycomb's big, yeah yeah yeah, it's not small, no no no?
Teach your kids: "C++ made baby Jesus cry."
How many cores will Total require? Probably just 1 right?
Well hold on here, isn't Honeycomb supposed to be a tablet OS? And since dual core mobile processors are on their way, is it unreasonable to make them a requirement?
I mean, you can restrict yourself to the capabilities of an ARM11 based processor from six years ago but then all of the performance and technological gains since then would be completely wasted. And if such a processor is your target, don't use an OS made for more capable devices.
Personally, I want an A9 based device running MeeGo. Something even more open than Android, and more familiar underneath.
You wouldn't want a core dedicted to UI and telephone-related operations?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Be like BeOS, use pervasive multithreading, and those with extra CPUs win, no loss for the older ones. Why REQUIRE it?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
So Google are going to leave their shiny new baby on gingerbread? Yeah... no.
And wasn't it an equally "reliable" source within an OEM that told us about minimum hardware requirements for Gingerbread? What ever happened with that again?
Oh yeah, it was total bull.
If an OS can to take advantage of dual processors it's a good thing.
If an OS needs a dual processor to function properly it's a bad thing.
Pretty much everything that is called through Java bindings shows up in profiles. One wonders what is the purpose of that language? Why is such a slow platform enforced in Android-OS in the first place ? You know the low-power, low-performance mobile platform. Smart operating systems sure can run without Java, see iOS or Bada. And then there is the dreaded "automatic garbage collector" that is always kicking in and stalls the entire system when you least need it -- no wonder Google needs another core to tame such a lousy system.
These are not "cell phones", they're small handheld computers with cell phone capability.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
I'm not sure if that's in the best interest of tablet devices, which are generally used for basic content consumption (with light data input) or casual gaming.
It's not like you can swap out a motherboard/CPU/RAM and upgrade it incrementally (like the DIY PC crowd); the end user will constantly have to buy a whole new tablet in order to stay current with the next generation touch-OS.
Maybe that's the plan after all.. since it would be in the manufaturer's interest to make all of them all final devices that are hardly upgradeable so it'll force to users to shell out $500 every 18 months or so.
No one (well, almost no one) seems to mind when a mobile OS requires a faster processor, but the number of cores is suddenly an issue. Wake up and smell the 21st century. The not-so-recent improvements in performance come from the number of cores and not the clock speed. And it looks like this is the way it's going to be for a while. Get used to it.
But is there a market for small handheld computers without cell phone capability? Google doesn't seem to think so, or it'd have licensed the Android Market application to Archos.
The source for this is a tablet maker claiming that its competitors' tablets won't be fast enough. So there's an obvious conflict of interest. And anyways, requiring a dual core processor doesn't make any sense; Google isn't stupid, they won't release something that's too slow for the majority of hardware already shipped.
This is already been discussed at length on androidcentral. The consensus is that this stupid rumor is false. It makes absolutely no sense to require any particular number of cores to run Android.
Who is writing this stuff and what is their motive???
My point is that the performance requirement progression is pointless, useless, too fast, and stupid. Gingerbread is leaving behind almost every device already on the market.
That's a lot more forced progression than I'm used to seeing from any OS.
It doesn't seem right. It's just out of fucking line that a cellphone OS would require a dual-core processor. Somebody needs to trim some bloat.
That 'bloat' you speak of is 'applications' and people want to run applications on their devices. People want to run multiple applications on their devices simultaneously so naturally a multi-core CPU is the ideal choice.
It's funny how some people are so ignorant they just assume that because system requirements go up it means the software is wasting clock cycles. Do you think added stability, security and features all come with no computational cost?
I don't even see how this is possible. From a processor standpoint, a 1800MHz single core is *roughly* equivalent to a 900MHz dual core. TFA is claiming that Google cares about the chip and not the relative performance? That doesn't make sense.
My point is that the performance requirement progression is pointless, useless, too fast, and stupid.
Why? We want more security, more stability, more responsiveness and more capability...these things don't come free. No-one's forcing you to upgrade so it's moving too fast for you then stick with what you've got.
Gingerbread is leaving behind almost every device already on the market.
That's a lot more forced progression than I'm used to seeing from any OS.
Well firstly it doesn't even have a release date yet and secondly of course at some point the OS will leave most existing devices behind, look at all the problems with the older iPhones running the latest OS, and the original 2G and early iPods don't get it at all. They want to start fresh to provide a consistent user experience and this is the way to accomplish that, seems reasonable since there are already some devices on the market that will support the OS even though the OS doesn't have a release date yet.
I don't even see how this is possible. From a processor standpoint, a 1800MHz single core is *roughly* equivalent to a 900MHz dual core.
Probably going to get better battery life and responsiveness in multitasking since you'll spend less time context switching.
TFA is claiming that Google cares about the chip and not the relative performance? That doesn't make sense.
Getting the same performance for the same software out of different chips is very difficult even if they are capable of the same performance. Optimising for a particular instruction set? Optimising the scheduler and power management for multi-core CPUs?
I don't actually know, i'm just throwing out some guesses.
It used to be that all I needed for Honeycomb was a bowl, a spoon, and some milk. I'm getting sick of the superfluous inflation of requirements.
Now, lets think about the phone side of the fence. The current crop of 1Ghz processor equipped phones are pretty snappy and sharp. I have a Galaxy S phone, and although I had concerns at first about the battery performance, I don't now. But what about when the first dual processors show up in the very small form factors, where space and weight is more of an issue than in a tablet? I am not sure at all that I would sacrifice battery performance for a few extra glitzy perks on the UI. In fact, I switched from a G1 to a 3gs for that very reason. Now, a year later I've picked up the Captivate and it is holding its own in this regard. I really don't want a phone that has to be plugged in every eight hours.
So, the question I have, is: Would moving to a dual processor negatively affect the batter life of a cellphone? -No Sig Req'd
Isn't 2.3 Gingerbread?
I was able to do just this at 15fps on the Nexus 1. Before the NDK had debugging I had to debug my code somehow, so I made a java version and ran that (since the code was almost identical). Now, the NDK code is faster, but then again that removes your argument since you can just use the NDK.
-]Phreak Out[-
Step one: allow a million tablet devices to be released with Android
Step two: Make a new version of Android for Tablets that runs on none of them and only on a new wave of tablets.
Step three: Developer making tablet specific software now required to target two classes of devices.
Step Four: Mu-ha-ha
So what are you to do now if you are an Android developer? Ignore millions of Galaxy Tab units sold?
If I were an Android developer I would be THIS PISSED.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apple's bar is that you get OS upgrades for about three years after buying a device.
Even if you ignore that bar, saying that a device just released is not getting an update just months later, is pretty harsh.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So, the question I have, is: Would moving to a dual processor negatively affect the batter life of a cellphone?
Dual cores will likely increase the battery life since one core can be underclocked or disabled when appropriate (saves battery life).
However, I have no idea how multi-core hardware will affect batter... Hmmm, are you planing a fast food themed competitor to "Will it Blend?"
That's close but what Google has been saying for a while is that they are planning to split android into two tracks. The new 3 series track (starting with honeycomb) will be designed to support tablets as well as new "super phones". Existing phones as well as future bargain phones stay on the 2 series track.
Basically, google is looking to diversify the android platform in order to expand its market appeal. The 2 series phones will be targeted at feature phone customers. The 3 series phones will be the cutting edge iphone competitors.
Google has never said that honeycomb is only for tablets, just that it will require new hardware.
Show me your android java markerless tracker running at 15fps ans I believe you. At least video. About NDK - that was argument *for* the use of NDK, as opposite to java.
Step one: allow a million tablet devices to be released with Android
Misconceived. Android is open source; Google can't disallow anything except their own (non-open) apps & services like the Android Market (which they have been doing, on almost all released tablets).
Step two: Make a new version of Android for Tablets that runs on none of them and only on a new wave of tablets.
A bit like iOS 4 not running on older devices? Anyway, we've only got some random, non-Google suit's claim that this is even the case.
Step three: Developer making tablet specific software now required to target two classes of devices.
Hardly. An Android developer need merely target an earlier version of the OS like Froyo or Gingerbread, and their app will run just the same on a Honeycomb tablet.
Step Four: Mu-ha-ha
Huh? Is that just there to make Google look evil or something? Are they supposed to be pleased about this hypothetical situation?
I don't get why you so regularly attack anything non-Apple. Is it just platform insecurity?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I'm just surprised dual-core would be a requirement for any OS. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been an OS (apart perhaps from research OS'es) that require more than a single core.
Sure, most OS's today can utilize a multitude of cores, but none of them actually need more than one.
What is it in the architecture of Honeycomb that would necessitate two cores?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Because Android will fail if consumers see it as slow/unresponsive. Failure is not an option, so minimum number CPU cycles becomes a mandate.
No sig today...
i'm not sure about this but i think a computer with two 800Mhz processor cores is much faster than one with a single 1.6Ghz core.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
I hate Apple... to prove it, I don't even run OS X on my Mac Book, I use Windows 7 instead. I have no idea how, but I was resolved not to own an iPad because tablets with telephone operating systems sound really stupid to me, yet, I was given an iPad against my will. I use it as a coffee cup saucer.
Though, I love my iPhones. My daughter runs iOS 4 on her 3G, my son runs iOS 4 on his 3Gs and my wife and I both have iPhone 4s. They're great devices and the #1 reason I like them is that my daughter's iPhone 3 is still getting Apple love after all this time. I've owned HTC's, Nokia's etc... and the bitch of it is, that when you buy the phone, unless there's a major issue, you are stuck with what you bought. I've worked on Nokia phones (internally with Nokia) and know for a fact that after a phone ships, the least valuable asset on the development team becomes the new support team for that phone.
Apple at least makes a commitment to their phones for a long enough time that you feel that you weren't just abandoned after purchasing.
I also have a stack of Android devices. I don't use them. With the exception of the REALLY high end ones, I find them to be clunky as hell. If anything Google needs to set a specific standard requiring a minimum CPU, a minimum GPU (and a minimum set of functions that MUST be hardware accelerated as part of the GPU), a minimum amount of RAM, a minimum performance speed for RAM and Flash, and a minimum screen refresh time.
By leaving the platform as open as they have, they've made it a joke. It's the "I couldn't afford and iPhone, but this Android thing was affordable, too bad it's not fast enough to run Angry Birds" platform.
What Google did wrong was this. They waited until after Christmas to hit us with this bomb. It's like "Samsung sold X millions of Galaxy Tablets for Christmas 2010" followed right by "Be ready to by the new Galaxy Tablet in February 2011 since Samsung will not be able to provide support for newer OS versions on the model you got for Christmas".
So, now either Samsung needs to fork Android and maintain it for a year or so to keep users from being pissed that their $600 Christmas gift to the family is a brick in January. Or Google needs to specifically support the fork themselves. Just imagine how cool you'd be if you got to work on the development team at Google that has to support that shitty old OS that was superseded by something better.
Let's not forget the thousands of stores around the world that has a stock of these things and they'll sell them and three hours later, the purchaser will come back saying "I just read this thing won't run new software starting in February". What kind of scam are you pulling!
The UI doesn't need a core of it own and phone operations are already done on a separate chip in most if not all smartphones.
Mada mada dane.
Java SE embedded vs Android 2.2. :)
Perhaps if Larry wins the court case against Android, Google will be forced to license Java and Android will finally get some decent performance by using Hotspot instead of Dalvik!
In any case, these dual core ARM machines are more than powerful enough to run the desktop version for light applications.
Gingerbread is already out.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
That doesn't make sense. A single core.. guess what.. can be underclocked as well, and there's no second core to turn off, as it doesn't exists. In a perfect (and very simplified) world a single core CPU would use as much or less power than a multi-core of equal technology level.
However, ARM 9 multi-core CPUs are more power efficient - this means they are "faster" while using less energy than the ARM 8 generation (single core). So in practice, battery life depends on the implementation of the CPU, and ARM 9 dual core CPUs use (average) less power (battery) than the ARM 8 single cores. At least, recent implementations such as the OMAP4 follow that trend.
Are they saying it really requires dual cores to run, as in it just won't run on a single core (which sounds like an unholy level of bloat and some seriously bad programming), or are they saying that it requires dual cores in the same way PC software system requirements do, as in "dual core 1Ghz" is a rough estimate of the amount of processing power required to run smoothly?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
What use is a small handheld computer without Internet connection?
What use was there for a Pocket PC, whose apps could sync to the Internet through Wi-Fi? What use is there for an iPod touch or Nintendo DS?
I think you need to look up Samsungs new Galaxy Player -- it has the full market and no cell phone capability.
I've heard good things about Galaxy Player, but I live in the United States, and I haven't seen one at Best Buy or Sears. On the other hand, Best Buy has a floor model of every iPod, iPhone, and iPad. Where can I try Galaxy Player?
The phone-less devices would need retail distribution/space, probably a slower tougher task than working through the phone vendors.
In other words, unlike Archos and Samsung products, iPod touch rode the coattails of the click-wheel iPod products to establish space on retailers' shelves and a chance for end users to try before buying.
The iPod touch and iPad are already very well established with a robust well-integrated ecosystem for product, media, and app distribution
Is Android Market not "a robust well-integrated ecosystem"? If so, then why has Google been so slow to offer it on Android-based Wi-Fi tablets and media players that compete with Apple products?
Some devices are used without a net/data connection, not a situation where Google sells ads.
You know, Google can still sell ads for display on devices with intermittent net connections. It could download a new set of ads whenever the device syncs based on the browsing history. Then it could use something like the Read It Later extension for Firefox so that when the user clicks on an ad while offline, the device downloads the landing page at next sync.
There are fewer viable business models since there's no monthly access fee to profit from.
No monthly access fee from the users, or from the developers (like Apple's $8.25 per month fee for iPhone developer program access)?
Nvidia's Tegra 2 platform is the only chipset in products on the market to include a Cortex-A9
Really? Because I'm fairly sure that the PandaBoard is shipping now (and has been for a little while) and includes a TI OMAP4430, a SoC that contains a dual-core ARM Cortex A9 at 1GHz, a PowerVR SGX530 GPU, and a few other things. I've not seen anything actually shipping that includes Tegra 2, although it's been coming Real Soon Now for a year or so.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Well, first, this is nothing new for Android. You could have bought an ADP from Google a week before the N1 was released, and I don't believe it ever received android v2. Ditto for any of the other 1st-gen android phones.
The only difference now is that a lot more people bought Droids, N1s, and Galaxies, and now they're feeling the pain that all the first-gen owners felt when their platforms came along.
I wouldn't throw stones at Apple though. While I prefer Android to iOS, the fact remains that Apple has supported old hardware for upwards of three years - FAR longer than anybody has supported Android-based phones. The G1 was finally discontinued in July of 2010 (per wikipedia), and it never got a release beyond v1.6, which dates back to October 2009! So, the first flagship Android phone was supported for negative one years after discontinuance...
I'm lusting after a small MeeGo-based device myself, but am rapidly losing hope that Nokia can be convinced to loosen their desperate clinging grip on Symbian long enough to put some actual effort into getting it into actual devices.
Android's okay (especially if one has a phone for which CyanogenMod is available and can get full root access), but I also would rather have a more traditional and complete Linux environment to play in on my portable devices.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Fragmentation? What fragmentation?
*whistles*
Yeah, that's initially what I thought. But I read Nvidia's presentation on the Tegra 2 and they claim that there is power savings for various reasons. You can read it
here (PDF).
Gingerbread is already out.
Not for all devices yet.
The only difference now is that a lot more people bought Droids, N1s, and Galaxies, and now they're feeling the pain that all the first-gen owners felt when their platforms came along.
How are they 'feeling the pain'? Because of a rumor that a future OS that doesn't even have a release date may not support their devices?
In any case it's not the makers of Android but the handset manufacturers and carriers that handle the updates, so it isn't an Android problem but a HTC or Samsung or Motorola or Archos...etc... problem.
I wouldn't throw stones at Apple though. While I prefer Android to iOS, the fact remains that Apple has supported old hardware for upwards of three years - FAR longer than anybody has supported Android-based phones.
Just because it runs doesn't mean it will run well, there have been heaps of issues with the older 'supported' devices like the 3G and 3GS running the latest OS. There's little point supporting devices that won't run the system well anyway.
Unfortunately it's more of an advertising paper. It's just another ARM9 as far as I'm concerned, with nvidia extensions (each vendor adds it's extensions - usually just a "own" GPU)
According to the ARM9 papers (which I'm too lazy to link, sorry :p) most of the efficiency comes from the CPU architecture itself, aka 1 ARM9 core is more efficient than 1 ARM8 core.
Then both ARM9 cores at middle capacity use less energy than 1 ARM8 core at full capacity.
Both ARM9 core at full capacity uses still slightly more than 1 ARM8 core (but also is a lot more powerful)
Eventually, since most really intensive apps use 3D, the GPU will play a big part in really intensive apps anyway, and this part seems to be always different. Some other optimizations depending on the vendor might also make some differences, as well as the software part, yada yada.
This guy is running a G1, incredibly slow compared with the N1 running froyo. http://nhenze.net/?p=107
-]Phreak Out[-
Gingerbread is already out.
And on a side note i just assumed QuantumBeep was referring to Honeycomb and not Gingerbread in his post.
This year is the year, android ... future technology
Natural Health Cures
Colour Laser Printers
Hmmm... I have a 3G running iOS4.2 and no noticeable problems (I don't play much music, perhaps that a factor). My point is that it seems not all recommendations by manufactures are realistic or universal. Some understate and some overstate. At the end of the day you just have to give it a go.
I do suggest waiting until the warranty runs out.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...