Full Linux Tablet Coming
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Why can't a full OS be defined as what has always been a full OS.
Go ahead, try to define that.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Multiple user interface, with a full range of applications that can be used to their full capability.
So not DOS or Windows until NT?
-
@DustinB3403 said:
...with a full range of applications that can be used to their full capability.
What does that even mean? I'm not even sure what you are trying to say.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
But why can't I at least install the software to see how it performs.
You can, just get software compiled for the platform. That's nothing to do with the OS.
I think you are confusing an "impression" with a "definition." Just because people aren't bothering to build the apps on top of the platform that you want does not mean that the platform is something different.
Just because you love a car in green, doesn't mean that a car not available in green isn't a car.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
A scaled back application would in my opinion remove the OS from being a "Full OS
How does an application have anything to do with the situation? There are scaled back apps on every OS, so all OSes aren't full because someone else made a limited functionality app once?
-
But if only green cars can drive 100 MPH, than I'd better not be looking to buy a blue car that can only do 40 MPH. When in fact all I need is a green car that can go 100MPH.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
an application designed to be used on a less-than-powerful system which was built with mobility and a single user in mind, shouldn't have been designed in the first place.
So the issue is that you dislike things built to work well for their intended use and you are really only defining the two OS types by "what you like" and "what you don't like."
Can you actually provide a definition that can be used without subjectivity like "scaled back" or "how I want to use it" and one that is about the OS and not about how other people choose to use the OS?
-
"In order for an OS to quantify as a FULL OS, it needs to be capable of running on a multiplicity of device types, and sizes without modification. "
Done. I Win!! I need a cookie...
-
@DustinB3403 said:
"In order for an OS to quantify as a FULL OS, it needs to capable of running on a multiplicity of device types, and sizes without modification. "
Done. I Win!! I need a cookie...
So you just ruled out Windows. Since it is PC only. You need Windows RT to run on another platform.
Actually you've ruled them all out, there is no OS on the market that runs, without modification, between platforms. Not a one. Never has been.
-
And this is why I was saying that I can't define a PC any more - PC from a consumer's view, not the IBM definition.
The same goes for an OS - There is no reason you can't get full featured apps on iOS devices, no reason you can't have slimmed down ones on Windows (well we do now, some of the Universal apps are just such a thing).
It all boils down to the amount of processing power and battery life of the hardware more than than it does the OS. You'd never make a video editing software package for iOS today because the hardware would cripple your ability to use it efficiently, but who knows.. the OS itself might be better than MAC or Windows OS
-
Windows and iOS, just as examples, are equal in what they run on. One runs on essentially "any Intel PC spec device" and the other runs on "any Apple ARM spec device." Your definition makes them peers.
-
@Dashrender said:
And this is why I was saying that I can't define a PC any more - PC from a consumer's view, not the IBM definition.
There never was a definition of the non-IBM/Intel use of the term. It was always a casual, non-technical undefinable term.
-
@Dashrender said:
The same goes for an OS - There is no reason you can't get full featured apps on iOS devices, no reason you can't have slimmed down ones on Windows (well we do now, some of the Universal apps are just such a thing).
Metro Apps, for example, are limited "mobile apps" that run on Windows on the "desktop."
-
Metro = universal
-
@Dashrender said:
It all boils down to the amount of processing power and battery life of the hardware more than than it does the OS.
That's only useful for defining a mobile device versus a non-mobile device.
-
For me - I really don't care about the OS either - but I have found for me personally, the format of a tablet is pretty close to useless.
I do consume, but I think I create nearly as much as I consume. My creation is limited almost exclusively to postings here, on FB, emails, etc - basically typing. But doing more than 3 or 5 words on my phone drives me nuts. I couldn't imagine writing this single post on my phone or an iPad/Android tablet/Windows Surface Pro 3 without keyboard. Voice to text would take this a long way, but then I run into the problem with not liking to talk/think out loud as I'm creating a post like this. I could only image what others around me would thing hearing me say what I type into these posts.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
It all boils down to the amount of processing power and battery life of the hardware more than than it does the OS.
That's only useful for defining a mobile device versus a non-mobile device.
which furthers my point - it doesn't matter any more. If Apple created a high powered desktop/laptop device with iOS on it.. and the apps where there to let people do what they want, it would probably sell like crazy. A perfect example of that already in place is the Chromebook.
-
@Dashrender said:
I do consume, but I think I create nearly as much as I consume.
I lean to the content creation side and would never "do without" a content creation-focused machine, but I don't create continuously and really like the tablet format for when I am reading, surfing or do other casual activities where I want to stay well connected but am not actively creating content. It fills in the gaps where I would otherwise have nothing.
-
I actually use a tablet very little these days. Laptop and phone nearly always and a Kindle (semi-tablet, but not a Fire) for reading.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
It all boils down to the amount of processing power and battery life of the hardware more than than it does the OS.
That's only useful for defining a mobile device versus a non-mobile device.
which furthers my point - it doesn't matter any more. If Apple created a high powered desktop/laptop device with iOS on it.. and the apps where there to let people do what they want, it would probably sell like crazy. A perfect example of that already in place is the Chromebook.
They are nearly there. The AppleTV, now that it plays games and has a touchpad input, is essentially a special-purpose desktop. They are only an input-device away from turning it into one.
There is also a lot of talk of OSX and iOS merging in the near future as they slowly turn into one and the same thing and they already share tons of code.
