Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #4691 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-05-29 12:48 +1200 |
| Last post | 2011-06-02 03:43 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 213 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer
Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-29 12:48 +1200
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-05-28 21:28 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-29 16:56 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-05-28 23:17 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-29 09:32 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-29 09:55 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 12:45 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-29 19:49 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 16:21 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-29 22:37 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 19:12 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 01:03 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 22:13 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 03:58 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 23:20 +1200
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-05-29 19:52 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 16:20 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-30 01:14 -0400
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-30 00:33 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 19:54 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 03:26 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-30 11:24 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 13:09 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-05-30 13:43 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 15:55 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-05-30 16:32 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 18:10 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-31 13:56 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-05-31 11:10 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 07:13 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-31 12:43 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 08:00 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-31 13:33 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 09:29 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-31 17:13 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-05-31 22:03 +0000
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-31 16:08 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-05-31 21:09 +0000
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 09:27 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-05-31 22:25 +0000
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-31 15:20 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-31 12:11 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 07:59 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-31 15:01 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 15:05 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-01 00:58 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-01 03:21 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 09:40 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 12:17 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 17:06 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 16:04 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-07 11:42 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-02 11:54 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-01 17:43 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-01 17:43 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-03 15:08 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-02 20:50 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-03 17:34 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-02 23:20 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-03 18:43 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-03 08:27 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-04 16:02 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-03 22:24 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-06 13:29 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-06 14:15 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-07 13:59 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-08 12:55 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-08 06:18 -0300
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-08 07:06 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-08 10:25 -0400
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-08 10:56 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-08 14:11 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-08 14:09 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 09:46 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-04 16:08 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-04 02:40 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-05 15:46 +1200
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-06 13:26 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-07 10:23 +1200
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-07 13:55 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-08 12:55 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "H.J. Sander Bruggink" <sander.bruggink@uni-due.de> - 2011-06-06 11:21 +0200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-07 13:40 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "H.J. Sander Bruggink" <sander.bruggink@uni-due.de> - 2011-06-07 10:16 +0200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-07 01:30 -0700
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2011-06-02 10:35 +0100
Re: Android�Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-02 03:32 -0700
Re: Android�Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-02 11:07 -0400
Re: Android�Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-02 10:07 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 09:38 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-04 12:21 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-07 11:48 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 09:31 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 12:45 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 17:14 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-04 12:23 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 19:01 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-07 11:59 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-04 02:44 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-05 11:11 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-08 10:10 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-08 20:38 -0300
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-08 17:28 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-08 23:41 -0300
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-11 13:38 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-12 16:59 -0300
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-15 14:01 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-08 22:46 -0700
Re: Android---Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-11 13:39 -0400
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-06-03 22:38 -0400
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 22:12 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-31 13:54 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-05-31 14:25 +0000
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 08:02 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-31 14:26 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 11:33 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-05-31 19:43 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 15:03 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-05-31 20:15 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-01 01:04 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-01 03:30 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 10:05 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-03 11:16 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 17:36 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-04 12:14 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-04 02:47 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-05 15:40 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-07 12:09 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-09 07:55 -0300
Re: Swing versus Windows.Forms Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-12 17:11 -0300
Re: Android---Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-11 13:43 -0400
Re: Android---Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-11 14:57 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 13:05 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-04 12:13 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-03 21:52 -0300
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-04 02:52 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-05 15:45 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-05 01:04 -0300
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-06 18:52 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-06-06 01:35 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-06 23:05 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-06-06 06:32 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-06 11:19 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-07 10:21 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-08 10:30 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-07 06:53 -0300
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-08 10:37 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-07 12:26 -0400
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-30 19:12 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 21:58 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 17:42 -0400
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-03 18:48 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-06 13:28 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-08 10:51 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-04 12:10 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 18:47 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-04 16:00 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 22:01 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Abu Yahya <abu_yahya@invalid.com> - 2011-06-05 23:28 +0530
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-05 12:15 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Abu Yahya <abu_yahya@invalid.com> - 2011-06-06 06:25 +0530
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-06 01:45 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Abu Yahya <abu_yahya@invalid.com> - 2011-06-08 21:46 +0530
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-08 12:08 -0700
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-06 13:16 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-06 13:32 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Tobias Blass <tobiasblass@gmx.net> - 2011-06-05 20:08 +0000
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-05 14:55 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-05 14:53 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-06 18:50 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Abu Yahya <abu_yahya@invalid.com> - 2011-06-11 23:56 +0530
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-06 13:14 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-06 13:38 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-06-07 13:34 +0000
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-06-07 13:56 +0000
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-06-07 16:47 +0000
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-31 13:53 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-30 19:14 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 22:26 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-31 18:45 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-05-30 15:25 -0400
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 12:46 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-31 11:50 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-05-30 20:16 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-31 13:50 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-30 11:22 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-29 09:35 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 12:44 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-29 19:38 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 17:26 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-05-30 00:04 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 19:11 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-05-30 00:30 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 19:53 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-05-30 01:28 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 22:12 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 02:35 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-30 11:26 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 13:17 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-31 11:48 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 17:16 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-31 13:48 +1200
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? David Segall <david@address.invalid> - 2011-06-01 00:54 +1000
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-31 08:05 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-31 11:41 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 01:57 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 22:30 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 13:23 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> - 2011-05-31 09:42 +0100
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 09:17 +0200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 09:21 +0200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-02 19:34 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-02 03:43 -0700
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
| From | Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 15:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <is0r02$ds$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #4734 |
On 05/30/2011 06:26 AM, BGB wrote: > C source code generally doesn't need to change that much between one > target and another (after all, most variations in OS and architecture > can be trivially handled via #ifdef magic). I laugh at anyone who thinks this. If you do anything with a GUI, file access beyond "open this file and read/write it", networking, multithreading, you WILL run into nontrivial portability issues. Heck, even porting 32-bit code to a 64-bit target of an otherwise identical system is often nontrivial for any decently sized project. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 12:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <is0sce$7f3$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4741 |
On 5/30/2011 12:25 PM, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > On 05/30/2011 06:26 AM, BGB wrote: >> C source code generally doesn't need to change that much between one >> target and another (after all, most variations in OS and architecture >> can be trivially handled via #ifdef magic). > > I laugh at anyone who thinks this. If you do anything with a GUI, file > access beyond "open this file and read/write it", networking, > multithreading, you WILL run into nontrivial portability issues. Heck, > even porting 32-bit code to a 64-bit target of an otherwise identical > system is often nontrivial for any decently sized project. > as noted, I said "trivially handled via ifdef magic...". this means, generally: #ifdef linux Linux specific stuff... #endif #ifdef _WIN32 Windows specific stuff... #endif #ifdef MACOSX Mac specific stuff... #endif ... now, the code specific to each OS will only show up on its specific OS. this includes things like GUI, sound-system interfaces, ... generally, it is fairly common practice to wrap a lot of this in OS specific wrapper code, such that the app is mostly dealing with more normalized interfaces internally. for example, low-level memory allocation: #ifdef _WIN32 ptr=VirtualAlloc(...); #endif #ifdef linux ptr=mmap(...); #endif ... but, in general it is far less effort than many people make it out to be, and usually only effects a smaller portion of the total code, provided the developer(s) know what they are doing. personally, I have had relatively few issues with 32 and 64 bit transitions as well. yes, and I have done cross-platform apps with network and sound and GUI...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 11:50 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is1afo$9ot$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4741 |
In message <is0r02$ds$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > Heck, even porting 32-bit code to a 64-bit target of an otherwise > identical system is often nontrivial for any decently sized project. “Decently sized” like the Linux kernel? Which is portable across something like two dozen different architectures, both 32-bit and 64-bit?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 20:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <is1c0a$cmc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #4774 |
On 05/30/2011 07:50 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<is0r02$ds$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > >> Heck, even porting 32-bit code to a 64-bit target of an otherwise >> identical system is often nontrivial for any decently sized project. > > “Decently sized” like the Linux kernel? Which is portable across something > like two dozen different architectures, both 32-bit and 64-bit? I would call the porting work of Linux nontrivial. After all, supporting a new architecture (to my knowledge) requires cloning a directory and probably several changes to that directory. Remember that I said "nontrivial", not "impossible". -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 13:50 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is1hhg$dmh$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4775 |
In message <is1c0a$cmc$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > On 05/30/2011 07:50 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> In message<is0r02$ds$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >> >>> Heck, even porting 32-bit code to a 64-bit target of an otherwise >>> identical system is often nontrivial for any decently sized project. >> >> “Decently sized” like the Linux kernel? Which is portable across >> something like two dozen different architectures, both 32-bit and 64-bit? > > I would call the porting work of Linux nontrivial. OK, how about userland code then? Like, for example, Python, which is available on a range of different platforms, including Android?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 11:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.284d80282fb6cf8398976a@news.justthe.net> |
| In reply to | #4726 |
In article <irvift$98d$2@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... > > In message <MPG.284ce826ee59e4e9989769@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol wrote: > > > You write Android apps in Java (with the exception of some low-level > > code which is written in C; I understand that's mostly done for games). > > I see a lot of portable software also done in C. For example, the Python and > other interpreters used in the Scripting Layer for Android > <http://code.google.com/p/android-scripting/> are largely unchanged C code > from their versions on other platforms. Ah! I didn't even realized someone had ported the Python interpreter to Android. :) -- Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support sjsobol@JustThe.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-29 09:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <irtsqa$9ae$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4693 |
On 5/28/2011 9:28 PM, Roedy Green wrote: > On Sun, 29 May 2011 12:48:48 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro > <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted > someone who said : > >> >> Dalvik is also register-based, not stack based, for higher performance. > > I'll make some guesses. > > Dalvik was designed solely for a family of CPUs with similar RAM. > Oracle Java wanted to run everywhere. > well, it is possible, but register-based VMs are not necessarily non-portable, just the performance argument is a bit weak, especially on x86, since in both cases "register" and "stack" one generally ends up having to map things to memory anyways. likewise, many of my JITs will often map stack elements to registers in many cases as well (when appropriate) so IMO the performance argument of register VMs is a bit weak. for a pure interpreter, it is a bit "who knows" and which is faster ultimately comes down to a lot of micro-optimization and hand-waving. my own experience has been that often the logic for dispatching to the correct opcode itself becomes the main slowdown for an interpreter (rather than messing with the stack), and that usually the way around this is to have a number of "super opcodes" which include a sequence of common smaller opcodes into themselves (such as combined load+compare+jump opcodes, ...). also, IME, register VMs are more of a pain to target than stack-machines (and also often a little more complex). the result being that personally I have usually ended up with stack machines. > With Oracle Java, the licence forces users to provide the full > enchilada. I suspect with Dalvik they were able to prune it back just > to what they needed. > partly, yes. they do omit a few parts from a standard JVM... such as the classloader... (AFAIK, the "Class" and "ClassLoader" classes are mostly just stubs, ...). although they still use the Java language, which could itself be a factor in a legal sense (the alternative would have been to develop "some language X" which "just happens to look mostly like Java and is largely source-compatible"). > They are doing the old IBM lockin game. They don't want Android apps > running elsewhere or being easily ported there. possible... however, given that Android apps are still (language level) mostly plain Java, it is not so strong of an argument portability-wise. it is much like how C is generally regarded as portable, despite the fact that binaries will not generally work between one type of system and another. a much bigger problem then is likely any Android-specific library dependencies, and Java's lack of a mechanism similar to C's "ifdef"... yes... ifdef is kind of nasty, and is used/needed a bit more than is ideal, but is a decent part of C-style portability (rather than asking for a more-or-less homogeneous environment). then any classes/methods/... related to specific GUI APIs and similar would appear and disappear as needed. oh well, if it matters: I have long since given up my attempts to "bastardize" the Java/JVM architecture with more features in my own implementation, and have instead opted mostly with using my own language/VM for a lot of this (this itself is gets a bit hairy in the details). after all, if I pile on piles of new features/... then it is not really the same language anymore anyways, even if the core syntax/... was mostly similar. but, yes, it is partly sort of a "who cares" situation regarding my case. yet another HLL will not effect much in the greater scheme of things, probably the best it can really do is to serve my own uses, and even then it is a bit trying with all the time that goes into debugging and working on it, rather than it "just working". also, my current language is technically a bit more closely related to ActionScript than it is to Java... or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 12:44 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <irup9f$qki$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4699 |
In message <irtsqa$9ae$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > ... register-based VMs are not necessarily non-portable, just the > performance argument is a bit weak, especially on x86 ... Which, interestingly, is not very popular for ultramobile devices. > although they still use the Java language, which could itself be a > factor in a legal sense ... How come? Is the licence for the Sunacle JDK (which is what I use for compiling programs) violated in any way?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-29 19:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <irv04d$jga$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4704 |
On 5/29/2011 5:44 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<irtsqa$9ae$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > >> ... register-based VMs are not necessarily non-portable, just the >> performance argument is a bit weak, especially on x86 ... > > Which, interestingly, is not very popular for ultramobile devices. > possibly, but I primarily develop on x86 systems, which have a few relevant properties: indirect addressing is nearly free; memory in-cache performs nearly as fast as registers; in 32 bit mode, there are only 8 usable GPRs, of which 2 or 3 are generally needed by the CPU or ABI (ESP, EBP, and generally EBX on ELF based targets). now, maybe for RISC style targets things are faster, either with more GPRs or slower memory access being a more major factor, but alas, I haven't really used them much. >> although they still use the Java language, which could itself be a >> factor in a legal sense ... > > How come? Is the licence for the Sunacle JDK (which is what I use for > compiling programs) violated in any way? > apparently, Sun/Oracle is fairly fussy about who uses their trademark and when, and basically they went and sued Google, IIRC (?), for using their trademark in an unliscensed and partial implementation, and for infringing on their patents. although, normally one could just make a nearly identical clone language with a different name, an issue is that pretty much all the standard JDK packages use the word 'java' as part of their name, meaning that to completely escape the trademark issue, one would also have to rename the packages, breaking compatibility. this is also partly why the standards documents for JavaScript uses the name ECMAScript instead, and many alternative implementations and variants of the language (JScript, ActionScript, HaXe, ...) also have different names. my own BGBScript language itself is (loosely) a JavaScript variant. although it started out as a more loosely related language, was later brought much closer to JS, and more recently drifted a lot closer to ActionScript and added a few more non-JS features (the most drastic re-addition being optional C/Java/... style declarations, as opposed to using the 'var' and 'function' keywords...). side-note: my big effort to make a big/new/fancy Java-like language (with lots more features, like structs and properties, ...) ended in me mothballing it (due to having bigger concerns) and just shoving some of its planned features (and syntax/semantics) onto my existing script language and VM, creating a sort of hybrid... all this is in contrast to the more cohesive identity, say, of C, where there is a more solid core language, and generally lots of implementations and implementation-specific extensions. or languages like Scheme where although a common name and identity are used, general compatibility between implementations is nearly non-existent... or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 17:26 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <irv9pr$4a1$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4707 |
In message <irv04d$jga$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > On 5/29/2011 5:44 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> In message<irtsqa$9ae$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: >> >>> ... register-based VMs are not necessarily non-portable, just the >>> performance argument is a bit weak, especially on x86 ... >> >> Which, interestingly, is not very popular for ultramobile devices. >> > now, maybe for RISC style targets things are faster ... The issue is power consumption. Intel has been unable to drive down the power usage of x86 chips to offer serious competition to ARM. >>> although they still use the Java language, which could itself be a >>> factor in a legal sense ... >> >> How come? Is the licence for the Sunacle JDK (which is what I use for >> compiling programs) violated in any way? > > apparently, Sun/Oracle is fairly fussy about who uses their trademark > and when, and basically they went and sued Google, IIRC (?), for using > their trademark in an unliscensed and partial implementation ... I don’t recall any trademarks being at issue in that suit. > ... and for infringing on their patents. Which is a separate issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 00:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <irvfip$ufl$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #4717 |
On 5/29/2011 10:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > > The issue is power consumption. Intel has been unable to drive down the > power usage of x86 chips to offer serious competition to ARM. > Do you think the new intel 3D chips would do that? http://www.mobiledia.com/news/89236.html "Santa Clara, Calif.-based company said its "Tri-Gate" technology turns microchip channels -- traditionally flat -- on their side, creating a high, slender connector for higher performance and lower power consumption, which is particularly important for small mobile devices like smartphones and tablets. " http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9216451/Intel_s_3D_transistor_fuels_tablet_fight_with_ARM "On Wednesday, Intel announced that it has made a major leap in advancing chip technology: 3D transistors. The new technology, expected to make PCs, smartphones and tablets faster and more power-efficient, is slated to make its first appearance when Intel moves to 22-nanometer chips next year." etc// --Nasser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 19:11 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <irvfv1$7mj$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4720 |
In message <irvfip$ufl$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > On 5/29/2011 10:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> The issue is power consumption. Intel has been unable to drive down the >> power usage of x86 chips to offer serious competition to ARM. > > Do you think the new intel 3D chips would do that? Not a chance. They’ve already tacitly given up on phones for now, but are still making a big noise about tablets. Though I’ve yet to hear of any significant design wins. The only advantage to having x86 on a tablet is the ability to run Windows. And nobody seems to care about that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 00:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <irvh20$2of$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #4721 |
On 5/30/2011 12:11 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<irvfip$ufl$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > >> On 5/29/2011 10:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> The issue is power consumption. Intel has been unable to drive down the >>> power usage of x86 chips to offer serious competition to ARM. >> >> Do you think the new intel 3D chips would do that? > > Not a chance. They’ve already tacitly given up on phones for now, but are > still making a big noise about tablets. Though I’ve yet to hear of any > significant design wins. > > The only advantage to having x86 on a tablet is the ability to run Windows. > And nobody seems to care about that. Thanks. But windows still run on, what, may be 9% of the PC's in the world? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows "As of October 2009, Windows had approximately 91% of the market share of the client operating systems for usage on the Internet.[3][4][5] " So, I do not think not caring about 90% of the market is a wise thing to do? ps. I myself use Linux and windows on the same computer, thanks to VirtualPC. I have them both running, and use them both, as each is good at different things. --Nasser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 19:53 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <irvid8$98d$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4723 |
In message <irvh20$2of$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > On 5/30/2011 12:11 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> In message<irvfip$ufl$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: >> >>> On 5/29/2011 10:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>> The issue is power consumption. Intel has been unable to drive down the >>>> power usage of x86 chips to offer serious competition to ARM. >>> >>> Do you think the new intel 3D chips would do that? >> > >> Not a chance. They’ve already tacitly given up on phones for now, but are >> still making a big noise about tablets. Though I’ve yet to hear of any >> significant design wins. >> >> The only advantage to having x86 on a tablet is the ability to run >> Windows. And nobody seems to care about that. > > Thanks. But windows still run on, what, may be 9% of the PC's > in the world? Makes no difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 01:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <irvkfv$b88$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #4725 |
On 5/30/2011 12:53 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> The only advantage to having x86 on a tablet is the ability to run >>> Windows. And nobody seems to care about that. >> >> Thanks. But windows still run on, what, may be 9% of the PC's >> in the world? > > Makes no difference. Ok thanks, that makes sense. --Nasser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 22:12 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <irvqj3$dtn$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4728 |
In message <irvkfv$b88$3@speranza.aioe.org>, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > On 5/30/2011 12:53 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >>>> The only advantage to having x86 on a tablet is the ability to run >>>> Windows. And nobody seems to care about that. > >>> Thanks. But windows still run on, what, may be 9% of the PC's >>> in the world? > >> Makes no difference. > > Ok thanks, that makes sense. Not unless you remember that Microsoft has been trying to sell the things for the last decade without success.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 02:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <irvoj3$ifa$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4723 |
On 5/30/2011 12:30 AM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > On 5/30/2011 12:11 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> In message<irvfip$ufl$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: >> >>> On 5/29/2011 10:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>> The issue is power consumption. Intel has been unable to drive down the >>>> power usage of x86 chips to offer serious competition to ARM. >>> >>> Do you think the new intel 3D chips would do that? >> > >> Not a chance. They’ve already tacitly given up on phones for now, but are >> still making a big noise about tablets. Though I’ve yet to hear of any >> significant design wins. >> >> The only advantage to having x86 on a tablet is the ability to run >> Windows. >> And nobody seems to care about that. > > Thanks. But windows still run on, what, may be 9% of the PC's > in the world? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows > > "As of October 2009, Windows had approximately 91% of the market share > of the client operating systems for usage on the Internet.[3][4][5] " > > So, I do not think not caring about 90% of the market is a wise > thing to do? > > ps. I myself use Linux and windows on the same computer, thanks > to VirtualPC. I have them both running, and use them both, as > each is good at different things. > yeah... mostly I use and develop for Windows on normal PCs on x86 and x86-64... the big drawback of smartphones is that they cost about as much as a desktop PC but only do a fraction as much, and I have a cheap phone (probably runs ARM, costed $25, can't do crap with it much beyond using it as a phone and doing text messages...). I don't have the piles of money where I can justify spending $400 to $600 on a phone... otherwise, when "on the move I have a laptop and/or a netbook...". the netbook, however, runs on an Intel Atom chip... the laptop is older, and uses an AMD Mobile Sempron. mostly the netbook is better for "quick and dirty" stuff (sitting somewhere and wanting to fetch info on Wikipedia or check email), and the laptop is better for "actually doing something". the netbook runs Ubuntu, and the laptop runs Windows XP. AFAICT, laptops still win out at this point, in terms of common use, vs higher-end cell-phones... also, there are mobile x86 chips not made by Intel, such as by VIA and AMD and by several other companies, so Intel is not the sole player in x86 land, or even a market leader by a large margin (AMD has a good deal of standing in the desktop PC space). VIA and AMD have more relative standing in mobile and embedded systems (since I guess the Atom eats watts vs the VIA Nano...). ARM and PowerPC are popular in embedded, but interestingly I don't own any ARM systems I can actually develop for (since most are closed-system consumer electronics...). also... Android can also run on x86 chips... it all depends on the specific device it is running on. this basically means that developing C apps for Android would require recompiling for different architectures, vs Dalvik which can be run unmodified on multiple targets. or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 11:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nospam-DE40F8.11260130052011@news.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #4730 |
In article <irvoj3$ifa$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote: > > But windows still run on, what, may be 9[0]% of the PC's in > > the world? > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows > > > > "As of October 2009, Windows had approximately 91% of the market > > share of the client operating systems for usage on the > > Internet.[3][4][5]" Interestingly, [3][4][5] were examined in October 2009 to get the 91% figure. The 2011 numbers have all fallen--some more, some less. -- John B. Matthews trashgod at gmail dot com <http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 13:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <is0u74$cd8$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4738 |
On 5/30/2011 8:26 AM, John B. Matthews wrote: > In article<irvoj3$ifa$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB<cr88192@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >>> But windows still run on, what, may be 9[0]% of the PC's in >>> the world? >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows >>> >>> "As of October 2009, Windows had approximately 91% of the market >>> share of the client operating systems for usage on the >>> Internet.[3][4][5]" > > Interestingly, [3][4][5] were examined in October 2009 to get the 91% > figure. The 2011 numbers have all fallen--some more, some less. > because, slowly but surely, Windows becomes more sucky WRT its competition... yes, Win95 and 98 sucked... at least NT4 and Win2K were decent enough at the time. XP was solidly good, as at least there were no major issues. Vista was like "WTF, this sucks...". Windows 7 is like "well, at least it is not Vista.". but, it is a problem: use Windows 7, have computer that generally performs like crap (vs XP) and often behaves weirdly. or use WinXP and have lots of newer apps not actually work. sadly, Linux has not entirely caught up to Windows WRT making an OS which is solidly good either... but, yeah, modern Linux would probably have wiped the floor with Win98, but peoples' expectations are a little higher now. so, alas...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 11:48 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is1acs$9ot$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4764 |
In message <is0u74$cd8$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > sadly, Linux has not entirely caught up to Windows WRT making an OS > which is solidly good either... Except Android is kicking Microsoft’s arse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web