Jide Tech Created The Beautiful, PC-Optimized Version Of Android That Google Wouldn't

[Guest]

Jide Tech, a company made of former Google employees, built a $30 64-bit PC that comes with a PC-optimized version of Android that looks as good as any desktop OS and is what Google should have built years ago.

Jide Tech Created The Beautiful, PC-Optimized Version Of Android That Google Wouldn't : Read more

 

[TechyInAZ]

I'm impressed. I see a lot of potential in this OS.

 

[kenjitamura]

I'm hard pressed to think of a single desktop use Android would be better at than some other existing Linux OS that was built from the ground up with the desktop in mind.

 

[blazorthon]

I'm hard pressed to think of a single desktop use Android would be better at than some other existing Linux OS that was built from the ground up with the desktop in mind.

It's not about being better than other Linux distributions, it's about the apps available to Android and the familiarity that most people already have with Android. Also keep in mind that most of those Linux distributions still occasionally need some command line tinkering for some things.

As a proof of concept, this looks like an excellent start to me. Give it USB 3.0 and I'd buy one.

 

[sandman65]

400k windows apps might be an underestimate.

 

[basroil]

1) Looks like they just tried to copy Windows 10 UI straight up
2) Only 400k apps on Windows? Try >10 million, most without needing "app store" garbage either! (Steam is one such app store)
3) Android 4.4+ is not "low memory", when my phone starts up it's already using ~500mb, or about 25% of my phone's memory, while windows 7 on a similar spec computer is ~600 without disabling too much.

 

[jimbo007]

Android as it is, is not suitable for as a desktop OS. The kernel and process scheduler among many other core components are optimized for a OS running on a battery with limited power supply and thermal envelope. Running a desktop OS driven with mouse/KB with true multi-tasking and running on AC power requires substantial changes to the OS core, essentially reverting back to its Linux origins! I don't know at what stage is this "Remix OS".

 

[jimbo007]

I think it would be more practical to add an Android sub-system to Windows and Linux.

 

[blazorthon]

Android as it is, is not suitable for as a desktop OS. The kernel and process scheduler among many other core components are optimized for a OS running on a battery with limited power supply and thermal envelope. Running a desktop OS driven with mouse/KB with true multi-tasking and running on AC power requires substantial changes to the OS core, essentially reverting back to its Linux origins! I don't know at what stage is this "Remix OS".

I don't understand what you mean by optimized for battery devices. Windows works fine both on a desktop and on a laptop with a battery, or even some tablets, so what are you really trying to say? You don't need to change Android's core to make it run on a desktop. You don't even really need to change much to make it work with a keyboard and mouse.

For one, keyboard stuff is already used and two, you just click the mouse where you would have tapped with your fingers. Things like zooming in by spreading fingers on the screen might need to be changed, but there should be less need for zooming anyway with the more full-sized display and that's still easy to implement with minimal changes.

No computer actually runs on AC power. They all have power adapters to convert to proper DV voltages for components such as 12V, 5V, and 3.3V. Furthermore, the OS doesn't care what kind of power is being used. The OS has literally no impact on this.

Android already supports true multitasking.

 

[kenjitamura]

2) Only 400k apps on Windows? Try >10 million, most without needing "app store" garbage either! (Steam is one such app store)

They're probably referencing the number of apps for Windows RT which is Windows for ARM processors. I assume this to be the case because the device they're marketing uses an ARM processor.

 

[jimbo007]

I don't understand what you mean by optimized for battery devices. Windows works fine both on a desktop and on a laptop with a battery, or even some tablets, so what are you really trying to say? You don't need to change Android's core to make it run on a desktop. You don't even really need to change much to make it work with a keyboard and mouse.

For one, keyboard stuff is already used and two, you just click the mouse where you would have tapped with your fingers. Things like zooming in by spreading fingers on the screen might need to be changed, but there should be less need for zooming anyway with the more full-sized display and that's still easy to implement with minimal changes.

No computer actually runs on AC power. They all have power adapters to convert to proper DV voltages for components such as 12V, 5V, and 3.3V. Furthermore, the OS doesn't care what kind of power is being used. The OS has literally no impact on this.

Android already supports true multitasking.

Android as it is, is not suitable for as a desktop OS. The kernel and process scheduler among many other core components are optimized for a OS running on a battery with limited power supply and thermal envelope. Running a desktop OS driven with mouse/KB with true multi-tasking and running on AC power requires substantial changes to the OS core, essentially reverting back to its Linux origins! I don't know at what stage is this "Remix OS".

I don't understand what you mean by optimized for battery devices. Windows works fine both on a desktop and on a laptop with a battery, or even some tablets, so what are you really trying to say? You don't need to change Android's core to make it run on a desktop. You don't even really need to change much to make it work with a keyboard and mouse.

For one, keyboard stuff is already used and two, you just click the mouse where you would have tapped with your fingers. Things like zooming in by spreading fingers on the screen might need to be changed, but there should be less need for zooming anyway with the more full-sized display and that's still easy to implement with minimal changes.

No computer actually runs on AC power. They all have power adapters to convert to proper DV voltages for components such as 12V, 5V, and 3.3V. Furthermore, the OS doesn't care what kind of power is being used. The OS has literally no impact on this.

Android already supports true multitasking.

1. AC-powered vs battery-powered means access to unlimited power source. That is the OS kernel does not suspend background processes or kill idle ones. It means there is no significant difference at the kernel-level between the foreground and background processes and the scheduler support true multi-tasking. Also the memory manager's working algorithm would change significantly. It would require undoing many of the changes Google made to the Linux kernel in the first place and would be pointless. It's just easier to add an Android subsystem to Linux. There is a reason Google has not shown any interest in "Android on PC".

2. Simply supporting a mouse requires significant changes to the OS and the programming model (message-driven programming, pointer tracing, etc.).

3. Any high-school boy would know the hardware components don't run on the AC power themselves. It means an unlimited power source. Just go back to my first point.

4. With respect, please take a course on OS basics before wasting other people's time.

 

[thor220]

Any competition is good competition for windows. They've sat around doing nothing for far too long.

 

[blazorthon]

1. AC-powered vs battery-powered means access to unlimited power source. That is the OS kernel does not suspend background processes or kill idle ones. It means there is no significant difference at the kernel-level between the foreground and background processes and the scheduler support true multi-tasking. Also the memory manager's working algorithm would change significantly. It would require undoing many of the changes Google made to the Linux kernel in the first place and would be pointless. It's just easier to add an Android subsystem to Linux. There is a reason Google has not shown any interest in "Android on PC".

2. Simply supporting a mouse requires significant changes to the OS and the programming model (message-driven programming, pointer tracing, etc.).

3. Any high-school boy would know the hardware components don't run on the AC power themselves. It means an unlimited power source. Just go back to my first point.

4. With respect, please take a course on OS basics before wasting other people's time.

Let's say I made a driver for Android so that it would run on my laptop or I get an emulator. It'll run without any changed. Hell, I could remove the battery from an old phone or tablet, plug it into the wall, and it'll still run, but now it's on an unlimited power supply with no battery, no OS changes needed. In fact, I'd bet that making too many changes could easily break compatibility with a large number of apps. inhibiting one of the major incentives to buy this.

Yes, you could change things, maybe it'll improve it a bit- maybe even a lot- but the amazing thing is it'll still work without making such changes!

You really don't need to do much with the mouse. A driver is all it'll take. You can even make such input devices work on Android phones and tablets right now if you can connect them (which can be done). Again, yes, you could change things to make it work better, but again, you don't need to. It just needs to work.

Uh no, not any highschool boy would really know that. Only ones with an interest in this would know that.

With respect, don't try to over-complicate things.Yes, it could be better optimized for a desktop perspective- but it doesn't need to be. Again, I point to how Windows (and virtually any other operating system compatible with modern consumer computers) works fine both with desktops and laptops and Microsoft doesn't need to change the OS for both platforms.

 

[alidan]

1) Looks like they just tried to copy Windows 10 UI straight up
2) Only 400k apps on Windows? Try >10 million, most without needing "app store" garbage either! (Steam is one such app store)
3) Android 4.4+ is not "low memory", when my phone starts up it's already using ~500mb, or about 25% of my phone's memory, while windows 7 on a similar spec computer is ~600 without disabling too much.

windows starts up and eats 3-4gb of ram and when i kill all the background processes that i can that startup with windows, it's still hovering around 2.5-3gb

would love to know how the hell to get this down to sub 1gb range.

 

[blazorthon]

1) Looks like they just tried to copy Windows 10 UI straight up
2) Only 400k apps on Windows? Try >10 million, most without needing "app store" garbage either! (Steam is one such app store)
3) Android 4.4+ is not "low memory", when my phone starts up it's already using ~500mb, or about 25% of my phone's memory, while windows 7 on a similar spec computer is ~600 without disabling too much.

windows starts up and eats 3-4gb of ram and when i kill all the background processes that i can that startup with windows, it's still hovering around 2.5-3gb

would love to know how the hell to get this down to sub 1gb range.

Windows will use RAM when given RAM. Load up Windows 7 on a computer with only 1GB of RAM, it won't use up the RAM as much with things like Superfetch that can get pretty crazy when you have a lot more RAM. It'll also put fewer things in the paging file when you have more RAM, assuming you didn't choose to disable it.

 

[jimbo007]

@blazorthon: Oh my boy! You've got too much time and not much of ..... So good luck posting and responding and posting and ....

 

[canadianvice]

Hmmmm. Compelling. I await with anticipation.

 

[blazorthon]

@blazorthon: Oh my boy! You've got too much time and not much of ..... So good luck posting and responding and posting and ....

Hell of a series of thunderstorms these last few days and my next semester at college won't start for several weeks yet. I'm on vacation, so not much else to do until the weather improves.

 

[desolation0]

Missing a bit of a thing here. The article mentioned many of the apps would just not work all that well on a desktop, with keyboard and mouse. That means you would still need a touch screen monitor to make good use of them. Touch monitors still run at a premium over regular monitors, and aren't something most people have already. You also have to factor in the keyboard, mouse, storage (16 GB is cute to start with). All told, the cost really starts adding up if you want the full potential out of the system. Still way cheaper than a typical Windows tower for sure, but that's not its only competition.

By the end of the day, I may be better off with my ultra cheap Stream 8 Windows tablet that I bought for $150. I added a bluetooth keyboard/cover combo, a mouse and 64 GB SD card, for an ultra portable laptop that can run Civilization 5 (on the DirectX 9 version without touch at least : p). A decent monitor + Remix would be at best about even in price, and probably a fair bit more than just the tablet.

That said, I'd be lying if I didn't think this is intriguing. If the msrp on the final retail product is cheap enough, still in the $40-50 range, it could really give Roku and the other set top boxes some living room competition. Having no additional cost for the monitor and a keyboard and mouse ready to plug in really lessens the sting. Please, please let me network with my phone to use that as another controller though.

My dad still wouldn't be tech savvy enough to run it.

 

[ohim]

Android might be king for mobiles but for PC we don`t use "apps" and here Windows does not have 400k "apps". Funny how the article compares Android`s mobile apps in a PC ecosystem with Windows`s mobile apps. Also on PC we are talking about devices that have 8 to 16 GB of ram usually ... so that "high memory usage" does not really apply here. And is not like an Android Phone won`t take 1 + GB of ram after some use. Same as Win 7-8-10.

 

[LummusMaximus]

Android might be king for mobiles but for PC we don`t use "apps" and here Windows does not have 400k "apps". Funny how the article compares Android`s mobile apps in a PC ecosystem with Windows`s mobile apps. Also on PC we are talking about devices that have 8 to 16 GB of ram usually ... so that "high memory usage" does not really apply here. And is not like an Android Phone won`t take 1 + GB of ram after some use. Same as Win 7-8-10.

Not sure about most PCs having 8-16GB of memory, I seem to remember the Steam harware survey placing most gaming PCs (or at least, PCs using Steam) at 4GB - and that's a dedicated gaming service. Most of my friends have systems with 4GB of memory, even.

 

[knowom]

It's a good idea though the hardware could be better and the software apps are it's biggest limitation there are a lot of them and they are different from PC software, but we need more cross-platform software ported to android ideally. You can run Ubuntu Linux though on Android though so maybe bundle that in.

 

[Alec Mowat]

I have a Tablet with Windows 8.1, that uses 1 GB of RAM and runs just fine. Assuming the processor is x86, Windows 8.1 would run fine on that box.

 

[zodiacfml]

I'm almost convinced about this until I saw the RAM size in the hardware. My Nexus 5 is more capable for Android on a desktop.

Yet, there's a reason why Google did not. It's the user interface which is not optimized for mouse and keyboard. Everything in Android should be big enough for touch. In Chrome OS, it's basically a browser so the user interface doesn't need fixing. If it was Android on a netbook, then it is a UI headache.

 

[SamSerious]

I'd agree that Android uses way more RAM than Google claims. Even without a lot of background apps and heavy graphic grames you can easily go past the 1GB mark. And then Windows x64 isn't much worse.
Apart from that, you can't just install apps on a windows pc but also *.exe programs, ever heard of that before? Some say there are a lot of these *.exe programs out there.