01-24-2012 11:41 PM - edited 01-25-2012 02:06 AM
Hey I don't know about you but most everything I buy I want to know what's up front under the hood. In the case of my PlayBook I'm pretty sure that the chips are generic off the shelf stuff and taking a cruise of any of the tear down sites will prove that out.
But what about the OS? I've had my hands into quit a few xxxNIX OS's and even taken classes on Novel NetWare and real full blooded UNIX along with Windows Server and Desktop OS's. I've even made the change over from Apple MAC OS 7 to 9 to X.????
The point is I like digging into operating systems and understanding what they're made of. Which gets to the reason why I bought a PlayBook in the first place, its the OS. I have followed the QNX RTOS for a while and when I found out that RIM bought the company and had planned to implement it into a tablet device I almost shook with excitement and anticipation.
The QNX OS uses what is called Micro Kernels, that is one resource controller is assigned to one application in memory. That means that if an application fails and locks up its only that kernel that will fail and not the entire OS like the rest of the tablets out there. If the web browser crashes on an Adroid or IOS tablet the whole tablet goes down and you have to reboot loosing any data running in any other app at that time.
On the PlayBook running QNX if the browser crashes only the browser and its kernel crashes and the rest of the system keeps on humming not knowing any better. WOOHOO! the PlayBook is a huge winner for the end user in my view. If interested here's some further reading:
Hope you like what's up under the hood of your PlayBook as much as I do. -Zil
01-25-2012 01:27 AM
01-25-2012 01:43 AM - edited 01-25-2012 02:16 AM
I don't know about all that those things have nothing to do with QNX or even the browser crashing. And as far as Android goes it is the most unstable OS out there. Android users experience more forced reboots than any other phone OS. To me that translates that Android is an over hyped immature OS. QNX is a proven mission criticle OS marrying it with Android is like deluting and piosoning it. I am sure glad that no space craft, air craft or automobile runs on Android.
As far as criticizing QNX on the Playbook that is premature. After all this is version 1 and the peeps experimenting with the prerelease of ver. 2.0 know that they have an unstable trial release in hand. I'm pretty sure that RIM is aware of the pressure they are under for 2.0 to better perform than 1.0.
As far as creating a stable GUI on top of QNX for this tablet goes I will not pretend to understand that challenge I only know that I like this youngster a lot and look forward to its maturing process as a Tablet OS and have great hopes for it as a phone OS.
Also for RIM to create any device that looks like IOS would put RIM at liability of copyright and patent infringement. And why would you want it to look like that? Sure glad that Fords don't look like Chevys or like Toyotas or Nissans etc.
We need to get past the perfect phone mentality. There is no such thing as a perfect phone, that is nothing more than media hype fantasy. There is only a perfect phone for you based upon your own personal preferences.
As far as control borders on a phone I am not sure I would want to give up that much screen real estate. In that application I think the BB trackpad is superior. But I am not a BB designer either.
01-25-2012 03:26 AM
I've found the 2.0 beta's at least as stable as the 1.0 releases, if not more stable. Apps rarely crash, and if they do the PB recovers just fine. Reboots tend to be due to OS upgrades or perhaps the battery running out completely (once a month or so).
I'm very impressed with QNX, both as a user and from a architectural/developer perspective. Even when doing "funky stuff" during development and experimentation it remains rock solid. I just hope RIM open up some more API's soon, so we can take more advantage of the platform.
Reading the forums, I'm always amazed at the problems some people have with their gadgets, or perhaps more surprised that I rarely have such problems. Maybe it's because I'm a developer, and tend to understand how these things work. Or maybe it's just the Midas touch ;-) The only real trouble I've ever had with the PlayBook was an incompatibility with a Wifi router. Tweaking the router settings fixed that. Oh and the odd PDF file that doesn't open properly.
Without wanting to get into the "my device is better than yours" discussion, I also have an Acer Iconia A500 (Android 3.2) tab, HTC Desire HD phone (Android 2.3) and iPod Touch 4 (IOS 5). All official factory OS's. The Acer is relatively unstable with frequent performance hickups and forced closes. Wouldn't recommend it to a non-technical end-user at the moment. But the HTC is almost as solid as the PlayBook, going for weeks without rebooting. I don't use the iPod enough to really compare, but I've had it hang a few times.
01-25-2012 03:35 PM
02-03-2012 10:35 PM - edited 02-03-2012 10:47 PM
In order to keep the spirit and intent of this thread consistant, that is the superiority of QNX over other mobile platforms, I'd like to provide a link to an article on the BGR web site:
I think one thing not well pointed out but part of the criticism of RIM is the lack of apps in the store. Yes that may be true but at any given point of number of days in existance what did the other stores have? That is the only true comparison.
At 11 months of existance how many apps did the IOS store have or the Android store have? I remember media criticisms of the Android store when it first opened because of how few apps it had in comparison of the IOS store.
Having said that it is obvious that IOS and Android both have hundreds of thousands of apps in their stores which is why their apps crash a lot.
The more apps in the store, the higher the percentage of crashy apps in the store. Plus the more difficult to enforce any sort of quality standard for submitted apps. I think we can all remember press criticisms for both IOS and Android on that count.
The Pie Chart in the above article indicating crashes by version is scary to view. As a developer would you want to keep track of that many versions of an OS?
The lower number of kernels per app the higher the percentage of crashes. Android and IOS both have only one kernel for every app in memory to share the resources of. One app = one kernel... five apps = one fifth of a kernel's resources unless the other apps are paused which they are in IOS because it does not have true multi-tasking.
QNX provides a kernel in RAM for each application in RAM for true multi tasking which protects the OS and other apps when a malfunctioning app does crash.
Plus Android is so fragmented a develper will never know that his app will run or crash on any given device unless it is physically tested on the device.
If you look at Android tablets you will see several that can never be updated to the current version of Android before they are ever taken out of the box. They were marketed and built already obsolete just to get a quick sell! And they can only run a reduced percentage of the apps in the Android store.
All of this causes me to question the comparison to RIM's QNX OS to Android or IOS. Just because both platforms may have a few highly successfull apps in their store does not prove that those platforms can compare to QNX.
02-04-2012 06:07 AM
A little history...
When the iPhone launched in June 2007, it launched without the app store. It wasn't until July 2008 and iPhone 2.0 that the app store was opened, with 500 third party apps.
Android Market opened in October 2008, one month after release of Android v1.0 and on the same day the first Android device (HTC Dream G1) was available. In March 2009 there were 2500 apps.
Note that this is all about phones. Tablets were still clucky PC-based solutions at the time.