Anyone here think that Windows 8 is 'vastly superior' to iOS and Android?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Well, the alternative is to either have the OS become progressively more sluggish, and ultimately crash, use more storage space (which, cannot be depended on, due to manufacturor decisions.), or not attempt to do it at all.

Or, the OS can make better use of the available hardware; say, virtual memory swapping or a separate state-mapping buffer. Those are *old* problems that were solved decades ago by experienced OS developers who, BTW, had a lot *less* to work with than even the meanest android-hosting hardware.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Or, the OS can make better use of the available hardware; say, virtual memory swapping or a separate state-mapping buffer. Those are *old* problems that were solved decades ago by experienced OS developers who, BTW, had a lot *less* to work with than even the meanest android-hosting hardware.

Or, the company that makes the OS requests minimum hardware requirements.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Or, the company that makes the OS requests minimum hardware requirements.

Uh-huh.
Profiling app resource usage isn't all that hard to do...*if* you even think of it.

[mgmueller]

Originally Posted by Graham

I'm not sure what version of Android you're using here, but on ICS at least switching back to the email client remembers both the email and where your cursor is positioned. You can certainly switch away to the browser, copy some text, switch back to the email, and paste it in, exactly as you'd expect.

Graham

I'm using ICS and JB.
Quite frankly, my description might be outdated in the meantime.
Maybe they've changed something (a lot?) in the last few months.
I've given up months ago, to use any of my tablets for "productive tasks".
Even for most basic tasks, such as writing emails, I normally use my MacBook Air. Almost as mobile as any tablet, similar battery duration and boot-time. But real Multi-Tasking and way more efficient.
I'm mainly using BlackBerry as my mobile business tool. And, quite surprisingly, iPhone. Not because I like it that much, but because it collaborates best with my MacBook Air.
But if I can avoid it, I'm not using any tablet other than for private stuff.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Or, the OS can make better use of the available hardware; say, virtual memory swapping or a separate state-mapping buffer. Those are *old* problems that were solved decades ago by experienced OS developers who, BTW, had a lot *less* to work with than even the meanest android-hosting hardware.

Problem is, some of the devices have so little RAM and storage, that becomes tricky. This is especially a problem as things go further on. My fiance's phone has 512mb of RAM and 140mb of accessable storage on board, and due to LG preventing any access to clearing out the Dalvik or system Cache partition, as time goes on, those caches fill up the available storage. The longer it has been used, she's had to uninstall apps to make more room because she was running out of space. Lately she's been having it crash and not wanting to really even handle calls. Given this, how could virtual memory really be used in a way to hold everything? You can't really expect an ample amount of storage, when so many manufacturers are cutting corners. (And the phone she has, is the LG Optimus S, one still being sold).

Yes, there are methods for better handling this sorts of situations, but given the issues from the manufacturers making stupid decisions, it complicates things for developers.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Uh-huh.
Profiling app resource usage isn't all that hard to do...*if* you even think of it.

What would that solve?

[rbooth]

It's not an operating system issue. All operating systems interface hardware to software. The issue is what do you want to do with your computer. Currently most android software centers around non-business applications. Microsoft's claim to fame is its integrated Microsoft Office that is second to none at this time. And from a business standpoint, at this time none of the other companies have the number or quality of applications that the Windows platform has. Apple's solution, it's interesting to note is they have a couple of applications that when installed allow their Mac computers to emulate Windows and run Windows software.
And there are also several remote connectivity applications that allow Android and Apple and Windows applications to access and run applications on a the other parties machine provided that the other machine is running and connected over the internet. Cloud based applications will probably eliminate most of the considerations about Operating Systems sometime in the future.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by rbooth

Apple's solution, it's interesting to note is they have a couple of applications that when installed allow their Mac computers to emulate Windows and run Windows software.
And there are also several remote connectivity applications that allow Android and Apple and Windows applications to access and run applications on a the other parties machine provided that the other machine is running and connected over the internet. Cloud based applications will probably eliminate most of the considerations about Operating Systems sometime in the future.

Ehh, slight nit pick. Apple's only got one solution and it technically isn't emulation. No hardware is mimicked, everything is run directly on the processor, just like any other app. Apple has bootcamp, which allows you to install Windows, and when you boot select either Windows or Mac OS X. Now, then you have the Wine based solutions from various third parties, like PlayOnMac, etc. All those are is API abstraction layers, adding support for the APIs the apps need, onto an OS that doesn't normally have them. Next up is stuff like VMWare and Parallels, which in the instance they are on MacOS, they're not truly emulation either, but rather virtualization. Virtualization just tricks the guest OS into thinking it is running on different hardware, and encapsulates it on the host OS. Doing it this way helps speed things up greatly compared to emulation, as most of the commands are still done fairly natively on the host.

[JAcheson]

I tried out the desktop version of Windows 8 on the VM setup at work, and loathed it. It surprised me how much I disliked it. I just found it completely unintuitive. I would much rather use Vista, and I don't like Vista.

I've said it before: one of Microsoft's problems as a company is that they've forgotten everything that they ever did right.

[LovesMacs]

I like the idea of live tiles but I don't like they look, at least in the screenshots I have seen. The flexibility of live tiles go counter to the consistency that I think Apple seeks in its interfaces. I like a consistent interface but also understand that new ideas can require something different.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Problem is, some of the devices have so little RAM and storage, that becomes tricky. This is especially a problem as things go further on. My fiance's phone has 512mb of RAM and 140mb of accessable storage on board, and due to LG preventing any access to clearing out the Dalvik or system Cache partition, as time goes on, those caches fill up the available storage.

512Mb of RAM?
140 MB of storage?
The IBM PC XT and AT ran 640Kb RAM and 10-30MB of storage.
Macintoshes ran with 128Kb and 10Mb.
Windows95 ran on 4MB RAM and 50 MB storage.
Windows CE portables ran smoothly on 64MB RAM since the OS footprint was only 350Kb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_CE_5.0
As the Linux crowd would say: OS bloat is not a law of nature.

[Serpentine]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

As the Linux crowd would say: OS bloat is not a law of nature.

Because Linux isn't an OS

But really, in a commercial environment with large(r) teams - bloat happens. Features add and change, content is stored in friendlier formats, static is replaced with dynamic, scripting replaces compiled; and both bit rot and code entropy team up with the god-developer leaving a project. Ease of development outweighs caring about hardware, it also drives sales and keeps prices down.

While it's never nice to see things devolve into bloated corpses, it's life - complain to the people with the money, help the guys who do it out of their own time.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

512Mb of RAM?
140 MB of storage?
The IBM PC XT and AT ran 640Kb RAM and 10-30MB of storage.
Macintoshes ran with 128Kb and 10Mb.
Windows95 ran on 4MB RAM and 50 MB storage.
Windows CE portables ran smoothly on 64MB RAM since the OS footprint was only 350Kb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_CE_5.0
As the Linux crowd would say: OS bloat is not a law of nature.

Recommended Minimum System Requirements for Ubuntu Desktop Edition

700 MHz processor (about Intel Celeron or better)
512 MiB RAM (system memory)
5 GB of hard-drive space (or USB stick, memory card or external drive but see LiveCD for an alternative approach)
VGA capable of 1024x768 screen resolution

Is the Ubuntu crowd composed of the obese members of the Linux crowd?

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Is the Ubuntu crowd composed of the obese members of the Linux crowd?

The Ubuntu crowd are people that want an OS exactly like one from apple or microsoft without being from apple or microsoft.

I use debian linux because that is the one that works the best for me. But even then, I do a minimal install without GUI, then install the GUI and other components that I want.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Is the Ubuntu crowd composed of the obese members of the Linux crowd?

Well, you'll have to pay the price if you want the features and you want a rapid development cycle. But at least Linux distributions (including Ubuntu) make it easy to cut out the fat. It is nowhere near as lean as the other systems you mentioned, particularly if you want the features to be on par, but at least you can use the resources more effectively.