Slashdot Mirror


Intel Rolls Out "Beacon Mountain" Android Dev Platform For Atom

MojoKid writes "In an effort to coax developers to begin taking Atom seriously as an Android platform, Intel has just released a complete suite of tools that should help ease them into things — especially since it can be used for ARM development as well. It's called Beacon Mountain, named after the highest peak outside of Beacon, New York. As you'd expect, Beacon Mountain supports Jelly Bean (4.2) development, and with this suite, you're provided with a collection of important Intel tools: Hardware Accelerated Execution Manager, Integrated Performance Primitives, Graphics and System Performance Analyzers, Threaded Building Blocks and Software Manager. In addition, Android SDK and NDK, Eclipse and Cygwin third-party tools are included to complete the package."

13 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. Yum..... by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh, whoops I thought it said 'Bacon' mountain. Curse you Intel and your false meaty product names.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Yum..... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bah, you'd still have to pay MS for the FAT patents.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  2. Why not use the Android naming system.... by The123king · · Score: 2

    Charlie! Lets go to Candy Mountain, Charlie!

    --
    If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
  3. It already has caught on. by tuppe666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Microsoft products are...

    ...Unwanted

    Android and Chrome head Sundar Pichai has just revealed that Android has passed the milestone of 900 million activations, up from 400 million in 2012 and 100 million in 2011 (to put that in some perspective Windows Installs is about 1.2Billion). Its an incredibly popular OS that people want, on devices people want. The same is not true for the current version on Windows with its new tablet interface, on current PC's, Which is damaging the whole PC industry....and in context of this article why intel wants to be part of this growing wave of devices.

    1. Re:It already has caught on. by bertok · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just because Eclipse is a terrible IDE, that doesn't mean that all IDEs are worse than Visual Studio!

      On Windows, just about everyone with any common sense uses Visual Studio because it's basically the only option, and also happens to be the best development environment for C# and Windows-only C++. For Java development, there's a lot more choice, and unfortunately Eclipse has become a defacto standard in a lot of places, despite being one of the worst IDEs out there.

      I use Visual Studio daily, and it's good, but it doesn't hold a candle to IntelliJ IDEA, for example. The new "refactorings" that have been added to recent versions of Visual Studio have been in IDEA for a decade. Download the trial edition, and do some serious work with it for a week or two on a large codebase. It'll blow your mind.

  4. Won't help with 'to-the-metal' apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Increasingly, the best Android apps will use C++ and assembler, producing binaries that will NOT run only dodgy x86 versions of Android. There is already an issue of the best 'to-the-metal' apps on Android only running on certain ARM tablets, although this is usually down to laziness or excessive caution by the programmers. ARM provides excellent ways to ensure ARM binaries have sufficient support for the minor variations found amongst the most commonly used ARM CPU cores, the main variation being in the area of vector acceleration facilities for floating point code.

    The world doesn't need x86 Android. The world doesn't want x86 Android. The world is only subject to x86 Android because Intel (illegally) PAYS third parties to build x86 Android devices. There is no sane commercial reason for any company to use an Intel chip UNLESS Intel turns up with wheel-barrows full of cash and shed loads of free low end x86 parts. Luckily, getting the devices built doesn't help Intel subvert the marketplace, since no-one chooses to buy them. Buying an Intel Android tablet would be like buying a non-cortex ARM based tablet. Sure, they'll both run 'Angry Birds', and other primitive Java only apps. However, no aware person would choose a non-cortex ARM or x86 CPU unless they wanted to be constantly checking the compatibility of Android software (and at least Android ARM binaries CAN be made compatible with non-cortex ARM v7).

    We've seen this before, in the early days of Microsoft NT (now, what you call 'Windows'). Microsoft backed 3 or 4 different CPUs, and provided tools for each. In theory, an app could carry binary pay-loads for each type of CPU in the same package. In practice this NEVER happened. Either an app was a general program for a common x86 based PC, or an app was a highly specialised program for a MIPS machine or whatever. Of course, back then the (supposedly) CPU ISA independent .NET initiative did not exist.

    Or again, consider the nintendo Wii U. This console was designed for brainless and cheap ports from the Xbox360. The Wii U has CPU and GPU features that can be considered as supersets of the Xbox360, but in reality things are more complex. The Wii U may have more power than the Xbox360, and 'compatible' hardware (same CPU ISA, GPU form same company), but now almost no Xbox360 developer is creating versions of their games for the Wii U. Intel's argument for Android on x86 is like Nintendo's argument for the Wii U- namely that developers from successful platforms will obviously want to port their apps/games across if the process is 'easy' enough.

    In the world of software development 'easy enough' is a buzz phrase designed to fool the 'pointy-haired bosses', and it doesn't even do this. The very reason, for instance, that EA no longer codes ANY games for the Wii U is the self-same reason vanishing few good apps will appear for the x86 version of Android. Testing, supporting, and porting just won't be worth the effort. Developers who support Intel KNOW they are uselessly helping to fragment the Android market, AND support a CPU manufacturer that, if successful, will massively raise the cost of x86 Android CPU parts. Intel's mad dream is to drive ARM out of the mobile market, and then to raise the price of their mobile x86 parts back to notebook levels.

  5. Look at the big screen by tuppe666 · · Score: 2

    Yeah right, and we're supposed to believe some guy named Sumdum Pikachu about this?

    They put it on a big screen and everything :) http://cdn.androidcentral.com/sites/androidcentral.com/files/imagecache/w680h550/postimages/108579/900m.jpg

  6. Intel CPU's are too expensive by tuppe666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry to break this to you, but the lowest end Intel CPU is powerful enough to emulate the highest end ARM CPU

    Its not true ARM chipsets are faster than atom chipsets...and even if they weren't you need a 12x speed in power. The bottom line though is what people need is CPU's cheap, fast enough (for smartphone apps) vs power consumption (at least a day maybe two). The problem till now is Intel didn't have a CPU suitable for mobile...now they do (have for a while), but they are still expensive(because they insist on ludicrous margins...and its helping kill the PC industry), and in comparisons worse than the opposition.

  7. Windows 8 the tablet OS by tuppe666 · · Score: 2

    A cosmetic change to the start menu does not change that any more than the superbar in Windows 7 did.

    I notice this new lie, about the start menu. Its just that a lie. The problem with Windows 8 is that it resembles an embedded OS on locked hardware not a Disk based OS on General Purpose Hardware...and compared poorly to Android and iOS. The problem is metro...the problem is Windows RT.

  8. Re:Cygwin... they mean i have to use Windows? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    cygwin is probably for the ndk..
    though dunno why the fuck since you can get away without it nowadays.

    other than that, I don't see the kit really including anything you wouldn't get by just installing the android sdk(adt, whatever) on linux and choosing the ndk etc components.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  9. Why is there hatred of Open Platforms? by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On my supposedly "archaic" x86 desktop, I download any Linux distro I feel like using and can use the exact same installer to setup a 5 year old desktop or next month's Haswell.

    On my "futuristic" smartphone I have to wade through outdated information on sketchy forums to find the exact set of model-specific voodoo in order to unlock the device. Oh.. and I'm aware that not every ARM device comes locked, I was in the first-wave of Raspberry Pi purchasers. But guess what? Even with my Raspberry Pi I have to hunt down images that are tailor made just to booth with the Pi and stepping off the Raspberry Pi software reservation gets real ugly real fast.

    Why is the thought of an unlocked x86 tablet that could host the exact same Linux distro that I feel comfortable with on various other computers be considered some type of evil? Why is the idea of having the ability to install a stock Android with no garbage without having to sift throught 2,000 forum posts dedicated to a specific flavor of smartphone for a specific vendor considered "anti-freedom"?

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:Why is there hatred of Open Platforms? by jrumney · · Score: 3, Informative

      On my supposedly "archaic" x86 desktop, I download any Linux distro I feel like using and can use the exact same installer to setup a 5 year old desktop or next month's Haswell.

      This has nothing to do with it being Intel vs ARM, it is that the complete definition of a PC compatible platform is standardized. Intel Atom based tablets may not necessarily follow that platform standard.

    2. Re:Why is there hatred of Open Platforms? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      On my supposedly "archaic" x86 desktop, I download any Linux distro I feel like using and can use the exact same installer to setup a 5 year old desktop or next month's Haswell.

      I bet it wouldn't work on a NEC PC-Engine. Or an original Xbox.

      You see, the thing is your PC is just ONE platform. Everything about the PC has been the same standard dating all the way back to the original IBM PC. RAM is always in the same location on every PC, and even today we still have the stupid 640ki-1M memory hole (for display). I/O ports are still in the same location as they always were.

      Whereas on ARM, NOTHING is standard. Some SoCs have RAM at 0x0. Others at 0x40000000. Or 0x80000000. Or 0xC0000000. Boot ROM can be at 0x0. Or 0x10000000. Or wherever else. The serial ports? Anywhere. Display? Registers are randomly here or there, at least the memory is somewhere in RAM space and usually programmable.

      Pluses and minuses on both. Minus for the PC is the horrendously discontiguous RAM space (there's another RAM hole around 3GiB-4GiB for memory mapped peripherals). Pluses means one OS image will work on all platforms because the kernel knows where everything is and will not change.

      ARM Linux actually has undergone huge revisions to accommodate the fact that each SoC is different - it started with the platform_device that separates I/O addresses from drivers, and proceeded to the device-tree that expands on that even more. With proper coding, it's possible to have one kernel binary be able to boot several different SoCs. Of course, getting it to work across multiple manufacturers is much harder. Including multiple OEMs.