Comments on: Gartner: Android 'snappy,' Windows 7 less so
Though analysts stop short of endorsing the platform, they offer some hope for future Android-based devices running on ARM processors.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About Nanotech - The Circuits Blog
Brooke Crothers has served as an editor at large at CNET News, an editor at Dow Jones' Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, and a senior editor at InfoWorld. His CNET blog covers chip technology and computer systems, and how they define the computing experience. He also contributes to The New York Times' Bits and Technology sections. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Nanotech - The Circuits Blog topics
Android has a way to go and to compare both at this time is rather foolish. Is Windows 7 written for a processor of that type and limited power? I don't think so! Apples to oranges at this stage and Gartner should stick with facts instead of speculating.
Write about what you know about Android but don't compare until it is working and widely available for anyone to test. Was Android given the same test as Windows 7 is doing by allowing any Joe-blow to download and test it on any system they see it? You bet they have not done that.
Just chill your heels for a while and your dreams may become reality. Andriod may very well be the cutting edge processor you have been waiting for all these years; but don't jump the gun at this stage.
Lousy reporting if you ask me.
Read article, then reply.
- fast boot & run-time, always-on operation
- super long battery life
- touch-optimized UI
- smartphone functionality (cell phone calls, SMS/MMS, LBS, etc.)
- low/no OS cost & maintenance
- ...
Hopefully, both categories of devices will co-exist, so users can buy the device that fits their specific needs.
Full featured version of Linux (Linux is what Android is based on) are "snappier" than windows 7. Take any distribution you like and put it on two identical machines. Linux will almost always be quicker.
___________________
Nope. Sorry, but Windows 7 vs. Linux is about the same speed-wise, and the not having to deal with command-line BS puts the win in Windows 7's column.
There are some valid points here. W7 is supposed to work on lower-end machines so it probably is valid to compare it against Android. But to do so without a comparison of features seems a bit disingenuous. We also don't have a final version for either so any comparisons are a bit sketchy.
However I do have issue with this statement: "Android is the first Linux OS backed by a strong consumer brand - Google". Just how big does a company need to be in order to strongly back Linux? Linux has plenty of sizable companies backing it and doesn't need Google to validate it. And if Google dropped it tomorrow Linux would continue to thrive without them.
Yes, because multiple variations of "Gartner iz teh sux0r!" in reaction to Microsoft-disadvantaged reports can be so very insightful...
No, I cannot prove it were shills, but it's no different than noticing dark clouds and saying, "Hmm, looks like rain."
*Not to discount the well thought out, rationally pro-Microsoft comments that might have been posted but were not.
They have been caught doing this in the past.
Imagine all the other times they get away with it?
You can tell a shill anyway, because no one in their right mind would support and promote a convicted monopolist who as a result of their illegally obtained monopoly, inflates prices for their software and ships second rate products too..
I would certainly not do that, but the fact of the matter is that Microsoft has never been accused of having obtained its monopoly illegaly. Of having abused it, yes. Of having obtained it illegaly, no. Microsoft obtained its monopoly because they were in the right place at the right time, and executed adequately.
Now, other reason why Microsoft succeeded is because they were CHEAP. THey were always significantly cheaper than any competition until OSS came up. So accusing it of inflating prices is childish at best. As for shipping second rate products, that's arguable. I actually like some of them, not so much for others. But claiming that no one can have a favorable opinion on some particular situation involving the company because of that is simply dumb.
If this is the case then kindly explain why OSX and Linux seem to have no problems with efficiency (each iteration tends to run faster and better than the last, and still out-performs Windows), but Vista demands 10+GB of disk space to do not nearly as much?
What kind of standard is that?!? lol
"When Android did work, we found that the user interface was very snappy on relatively low-performance ARM processors, more so than on Windows 7 on (Intel's) Atom."
That's quite a qualification... when Android did work. how often did it work at the same tasks? If it only works a percentage of the time, that's a lot of failure by comparison to OS X or Windows.
Also.... it's common knowledge in the IT industry that Microsoft doesn't have support or intend to support ARM on netbooks with Windows 7. You could just as easily say that it doesn't work well on a Commodore 64 for all that it matters. I would expect the Gartner group to at least know the facts before spouting gibberish, but that is what they have become known for in the industry unfortunately.
Furthermore, I always find it interesting when other OSes are compared to Windows and then claim things like, "well, we get less viruses, etc". Perhaps that's all true, but... there are a lot of things that Windows can claim than NONE of them can... like... Windows runs 1000 times more programs, games, etc... than Apple, Android (and everyone else) combined. My point is... Windows isn't as bad as the others try to claim... and the others aren't always everything they pretend to be.
Android doesn't run Civ4, Medal of Honor, etc
you guys can give free advertising to linux vaporware for all I care-- I think that www.news.com should lose the anti-microsoft banter!
Tired of hearing how every single company in the world is a threat to Microsoft.... when in fact, you're doing nothing but giving free advertising.
...and neither would Windows 7 on a netbook. Your point?
"...and neither would Windows 7 on a netbook. Your point?"
Actually, it can and does. Heck, it even runs Photoshop CS4 on my Acer Aspire. Now while all of those will run, it won't be fun due to the screen real estate size, but it does run.
Your point has been examined, evaluated, and rendered invalid.
"Android doesn't run Civ4, Medal of Honor, etc "
...and neither would Windows 7 on a netbook. Your point?
_________________________________
The point is that most people, when they realize how LIMITING netbooks are, would not buy one or even touch one without their hand bursting into flame!
Most people want to play, at least, low-end games on their computers like the ones that RealArcade offers..... on a netbook, you cannot even do those!
So, netbooks are a HUGE waste of money. Thank you very much, but I will spend the 1K on gaming class PC that I know will run everything, Crysis included most times, that I throw at it.
Does Anroid have potential - of course, but so does iPhone OS 4.0, Palm Web OS 2.0, and Windows Mobile 7.
Tech readers of CNet may think Android has potential on a netbook, but bottom line it is a Linux distro from a reputable company. At the end of the day, Asus and other have tried Linux on a netbook! That was the original promise from the company that invented the category - cheap, small PCs. Remember the $250 netbook running Linux. Where did it go? Bloated up to five, six, or even seven hundred dollars with a copy of Windows. Why - because that is what sold. Sitting on the display of Best Buy right next to each other people walked out with the more expensive unit running Windows time and time again until the Linux version became essentially extinct. We tech enthusiasts may hate it, but that is the business reality. Bottom line. What sells stays, what does not gets cut. We are years away from a viable Android based netbook.
Not to mentoin the rumors that Apple is moving into the space. Google is no different from all the other competitors, Apple will redifine the category because the have the marketing muscle to do so. Then Android will be playing catchup just like the rest.
I think if they didn't simplify the interface (it looks like a kid's toy) too much, matched hardware (ram and hard drive size), and could get Intel to release the drivers to the Linux community then the Linux models would sell well. Microsoft put a limitation of 1gb and 160gb hard drive to allow XP home to be installed by the OEM, they don't have that restriction with Linux, they can put 2gb of ram and increase the hard drive size accordingly, they can recompile the drivers to optimize with the hardware using full acceleration, and they could eventually force MS and Intel (they limit the architecture to 2gb ram, integrated graphics, and won't allow the dual-core atoms for netbooks) to open up more when people see the bottleneck becoming the Windows OS or the hardware limitation that comes with it. I also think the Linux choosen by the Netbook OEMs were all poor choices, they should of used slax or puppy derivatives, the initial tiny ssds made this obvious.
Also, why compare Apples to Oranges? What's the point. Win 7 on an Atom IS NOT the same as Android on an ARM. They have two different usage scenerios, except for the fact that they can run on the same physically sized machines. Other than that, they have different "customers" in my opinion.
Bill
A Chevrolet engine works very well in a GM chassis. A Ford engine doesn't work as well in that same GM chassis. Why would anyone ever expect to be able to make a reasonable comparison based on that? That's what the Gartner group is doing, and it's why they continue to be mocked in the industry.
Windows 7 also offers more then android
such as...?
(and consider the platform before answering, please).
It's pretty easy to figure this out.
Android: Cell phones, small PDA / netbooks only.
Windows 7: Full size systems down to netbooks.
Only on the netbook front are they close, but even then they aren't even on the same chipset or platform.
Please research the difference between ARM and Atom. Also, please examine the features list between Windows 7 and Android. That should answer all your questions there alone without requiring someone else to do your research for you. Always do your own research- don't let someone else tell you what your opinion will be.
For some reason, though, when it comes to hardware, consumers seem to be more open to multiple manufacturers... but, when it comes to software, it's generally a two-brand battle.
Well in that case i'll stick with Athlon X2 dual core that uses under 100watts.
Bill
I was being sarcastic.
Bill
- by ikramerica--2008 June 15, 2009 4:09 PM PDT
- Isn't it always true that a new OS seems fast because it's lacking features to slow it down, while a new iteration of a MATURE OS like Windows seems slow because they have to work out the kinks but all the features are there?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by LaTene_Man June 15, 2009 5:14 PM PDT
- Not to get too far off topic, but BeOS also had multi-threaded mutli-tasking when others didn't at the time. It WAS fast by nature, not from a lack of features. Apple would have done good to bite the bullet and buy Be , but buying NeXT worked out, so all's well that ends well. (Except for Be!)
- Like this
-
- by Lerianis3 June 15, 2009 10:39 PM PDT
- DING! DING! DING! ikramerica--2008 wins the 1 million dollar prize!
- Like this
-
- by ikramerica--2008 June 16, 2009 12:02 AM PDT
- Yeah, I used BeOS on my Umax J700, and it was a fun toy, but it had almost no features. It was cool to see it work so well, but it was also lacking.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (76 Comments)Didn't we see this same sort of thing with BeOS? Lacking many features, bells and whistles, it was fast. But start adding those features back, and the "old dog competition" catches up.
The fact is that the only reason that Windows 7 looks 'bloated' to the idiots out there is that they are trying to include every functionality that a person might want in the OS itself, so that people don't have to deal with the 'add-on incompatibility' problems that come up when you leave something out and 50 different people make their own version of that thing that you left out.