Full Linux Tablet Coming
-
@scottalanmiller said:
It targets @Dashrender who likes a "full OS" on his tablet
LOL - nice! except it doesn't because tablets in general are something personally I've found no use for. On top of that, I'm not a daily, or even part time user of linux.
-
@scottalanmiller I would call a full OS something that has "Windows 7 Pro" or 10. Nothing specifically designed for a device set.
-
I honestly fine iOS to be so ideal for a tablet form factor, can't imagine actually wanting to have full Linux on one.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
Even the iPad Pro doesn't have a full OS on it yet.
So these units in this topic would be competitors to the Surface Pro.
Yes, in a way. Although as we discussed in the other thread, what exactly is the difference between a "full OS" and a "mobile OS" is not well defined.
Yeah, it really boils down to the apps - As Paul Thurrott's kid said - who cares what OS it runs dad, as long as I can play my games!
And while I have emotional attachment to my Wind'ers machines I realized a while ago that the device/OS doesn't matter, getting the job done is what really matters.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@scottalanmiller I would call a full OS something that has "Windows 7 Pro" or 10. Nothing specifically designed for a device set.
That's not a good definition. You are backfilling. All of them are for specific devices. That's why you can't install Windows 7 on most tablets and vice versa. You can put Android on a desktop, the AppleTV is technically an iOS desktop.
-
We know, more or less, what we all mean by a "full OS" or a "mobile OS", but when the rubber meets the road, we actually find there isn't much other than intended use that separates them. An OS is an OS. The user of the terms have conventions attached to them, but they are only conventions and are not very strict.
The biggest difference, that I am surprised no one mentions, is that all major "full OS" products are designed to be multiple users and all "mobile OS" products are designed around single users.
-
But systems like iOS and Android have the full multiple-user systems under the hood, so it becomes only an exposure and interface thing.
-
Why can't a full OS be defined as what has always been a full OS.
Multiple user interface, with a full range of applications that can be used to their full capability.
Hardware being the only limitation. Meaning, sure I won't be doing any High resolution rendering on a tablet of any OS. But why can't I at least install the software to see how it performs.
A scaled back application would in my opinion remove the OS from being a "Full OS", or more specifically, 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.
There would have to be an extreme use case for wanting to do something, on a device never intended to do it.
-
@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.
