Google is the force behind a potential delay in the first tablet to instantly switch between Windows 8.1 and Android 4.X using Intel technology, a fresh report from Asia says. A CNET source backs up this claim.
The original source is DigiTimes, so some salt may be required, but sources confirmed it to Cnet. There’s no detail on exactly which steps Google has actually taken, but it’s clear this reeks quite strongly of the same illegal and despicable acts Microsoft committed 15 years ago to pressure OEMs into not shipping BeOS.
So, where’s the diference between your last statement and the “same illegal and despicable acts” of Apple forbidding to sell their hardware with other OS?
Because this is not “google’s hardware”?
You cannot sell Apple software on non-apple hardware as a few companies have learned. I completely disagree with this stance, but let´s be very clear about where things stand right now.
Apple produces a mobile operating system. Apple does not give the license to use this operating system to third party OEMS. Therefore nobody but Apple is permitted redistribute this operating system.
Google and Microsoft both produce mobile operating systems. Both give licenses to third party OEMS to use their respective operating systems. Thom says one of these operating system vendors trying to impede an OEM from licensing the operating system from the other vendor is “illegal and despicable”. This situation is obviously different from the Apple situation.
I do not know how this could be made more clear to you.
Too bad Google wasn’t around to keep Microsoft in check back when Microsoft was doing everything it wanted to with impunity. We need a balance of power, and despite being a despicable company, Microsoft’s value lies in keeping Google from becoming the same thing.
Good concept.
Apparently not popular though.
And this is why MS was brought up on antitrust charges, but then the US government flinched (and the EU regulators didn’t do much better).
OK, I am not what would be qualified as a “Google” user. My preferred browser is Firefox, my main email is not gmail (it is not even my third) and most projects I’m more interested are on github or sourceforge. I use their search engine (and like it) but also Bing and duckduckgo.
It looks like two sources said that Google is behind the delays but we need to know how trustful they are and, much more important, we should know what are the reasons for the delay, it may very well be related to drivers not been ready yet on Android side. Without these informations everything is just wild speculation.
It’s rare to see any OEM to commit to shipped a dual boot setup pre-installed, mainly because it can potentially double any support (or licensing) costs they may have to incur.
Also, how much sharing goes on between Windows and Android in this setup? Can both OS’es see each other’s filestore? Can they even share Android app installs (Windows side using Bluestacks or something perhaps)? Can you run Windows apps on the Android side? Is identical pre-installed software (e.g. browsers, mail clients, office suites etc) present and, again, able to share config/data between the two OS’es?
If the answer to any of the above is no, then I’m struggling to see the point of shipping dual boot. Having said that, I set up my desktop PC dual boot simply to run games in Windows, which is basically all that OS is good for really (Linux tops it in every other department, IMHO).
But that is up to each hardware vendor to choose, not Google (or Microsoft).
Edited 2014-03-08 19:49 UTC
I’ve been trying to get a nice Triple-boot going on my HP Touchsmart TX2-1025. I just about have it all working. Windows 8.1, Android-x86 4.4-RC1 and Tanglu (which is a Debian based distribution with newest Gnome/KDE, based on Testing).
Literally the only thing I’ve found in testing Android on it that doesn’t work (granted it’s a big one) is the touch screen, which seems like I should be able to fix it with modifying the defconfig file and building a new ISO.
Wouldn’t it be kind of cool for an OEM to start selling triple boot systems. Hell, they could even do a triple boot with Windows 8.x, 7 and Android. Now if I could only add Sailfish to my Touchsmart as well…
I reboot my system once a month. For anything like testing things, playing with setups and stuff, I virtualize it using kvm:)
dual boot is so 1995 :p
As it seems TFA mentions “instantly switch … using Intel technology” I suspect it is using hypervisor tech or so to “instantly” switch between Windows/Android….
This is all guessing, but if that’s it, it is actually a pretty neat solution, basically running both at the same time…
Does it mean that about half of the hardware resources stay unused when you use any one of the two OSs? If so, I’d prefer the real, “slow” dual-boot. I’d mainly use the thing as an Android tablet, but occasionally, when there is a need to work on the go, I’d boot into Windows, and use all resources for each of the OSs at all times.
Too little information in TFA to tell, but I’m sure looking at the original wording it is more then just the “classic” dual boot setup… That might also be why Google is concerned (for side effects or so)….
We will not know until more technical details are revealed I guess…
Nope. A modern chipset these days, from both AMD and Intel, can do address remapping. Meaning that code that wants to talk directly to hardware, like say GPU drivers, will think they have free reign. While in reality they are assigned different address ranges for each VM.
OK, what about processor cores? Can one of the OSs take over all the cores?
If the other is idled, sure. We are pretty much talking virtual machines here, but ones running as close to the hardware as technically possible.
While Google’s acts may well be despicable, given their past history i have absolutely no sympathy for microsoft in this case.
Patent trolling by MS extracting fees from manufacturers that caved in to pressure to undisclosed patents is one. The other is adding an extra MS tax to what could be seen as a Google device. I would have no sympathy if I were Google in this case.
for all we know MS could be the ones who initiated the dual boot push in the first place. I might bet on that.
Edited 2014-03-09 13:37 UTC
If true, it’s probably more accurate to consider the move in a broader context. MS has declared war on all competing OS’s from day one, and not just in the marketplace of ideas or merit. If they can’t beat them, then buy them, sue them, troll them, ‘predatory price’ them out of existence, yadda, yadda, yadda. MS has no scruples.
So, I take Thom’s posturing with a bus-sized grain of salt. This is the way the game is played, like it or not. If it’s truly illegal (which isn’t clear) then there are lawyers to sort that out. You might not like the rules but if some bully were constantly trying to knock your teeth out I expect you wouldn’t want to share your seat on the bus with them; despite what Thom — like some little Miss Molly Doright with curly locks — thinks of it.
Love that whenever he posts news that reflect negatively on Google, he’ll always start with excuses before going on to the real news.
Close enough to the definition of bias.
Except, of course, that I normally skip DigiTimes news altogether – including all those times they ramble on negatively about Apple.
But hey, don’t let reality and truth get in the way of your narrative!
Those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.