maemo.org - Talk - N900 vs samsung galaxy s

maemo.org - Talk (https://talk.maemo.org/index.php)

- Competitors (https://talk.maemo.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - N900 vs samsung galaxy s (https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=59615)

Re: N900 vs samsung galaxy s

Quote:

Originally Posted by daperl (Post 826049)

Again, what phones like the n900? There's only one.

I wasn't responding about speed, the topic was portability.

Good lord, man. I was talking about speed as per the post. You interpreted this as an attack against your phone of choice. Other phones that execute at native speed include: the iPhone, Symbian phones, WinMo phones, etc, etc, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daperl (Post 826049)

Without the proper supporting cast (compiler, drivers, shared libraries, ..., etc.), has it ever really mattered? Python's a better answer than Dalvik. Source code compiler and byte code compiler properly stay close to each other, and source code distribution is optional. A Python JIT is rarely considered based on how easy it is to either create Python bindings, or actually directly access native shared libraries.

In practical terms, Dalvik's best features are its memory and blob management, and maybe its security, but not its portability.

You're arguing the concept of 'more', which by definition is NOT an absolute concept.

I will not take back what I said without convincing (and relevant) evidence: A dalvik binary is MORE portable than a binary compiled for a target platform considering that it uses a VM! This is why VMs were created in the first place! Sure they may require libraries, drivers, etc, as do targeted binaries. However they do NOT require compatible architecture, which at the very least is a requisite of targeted binaries, and as such are... wait for it... MORE PORTABLE.

Now if there's some non-VM, auto-binary-translate feature in play that is widely used, I will concede this point. But last I checked debian (and similar) repo's contain multiple versions compiled for different architectures, and such a system doesn't exist.

What is it about platform tribalism that turns [assumed] reasonable people into simple extrapolating argumentative pedants?

Re: N900 vs samsung galaxy s

Sorry for attacking you. Like you, I actually think these things are very interesting topics, and maybe we're clashing because we differ at what we think is important. Regardless, there's no reason that we can't have a civil conversation. So, totally my fault. And again, sorry, my tone was inappropriate. I have since had my coffee.

Anyway, even though I'm stepping away for now, these topics are far from dead. And as you have alluded to, there's no free lunch and there's more than one way to skin a cat. Choice is good, as is debate.

Peace.

Re: N900 vs samsung galaxy s

I'm just as much to blame. I apologize for getting out of line.

Re: N900 vs samsung galaxy s

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capt'n Corrupt (Post 826063)

I will not take back what I said without convincing (and relevant) evidence: A dalvik binary is MORE portable than a binary compiled for a target platform considering that it uses a VM! This is why VMs were created in the first place!

Off on semi-related tangent, is not the portability of Dalvik binaries largely irrelevant due to the extremely narrow range of architectures (officially only ARM) that Android is running on? Certainly you have variations between ARMv6 and ARMv7, but that's so trivial as to be easily automated with the click of a button.

I could always take the Free Software bent and note that VM-based software is irrelevant if you have the source code. ;)

Re: N900 vs samsung galaxy s

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmarone (Post 826168)

Indeed, this is true most of the time. In recent days, though, Android is deployed to x86 devices in the form of Google TV, and the rate of evolution of the mobile arena does not elude to a clear architecture leader. The VM leaves the arch out of the equation so acrh innovation can happen without sacrificing compatibility.

Yes, code is indeed very portable often rendering VMs unecessary, of course.... :)

Re: N900 vs samsung galaxy s

hi guys

just got a galaxy s, cause i'm gmail user ... gorgeous screen, love it ...
i'm just starting setting things ... but after just few hours of playing i can say ...
galaxy is for fun, it's fun, it's nice .... but:

- synchronize contacts with gmail and you get all your gmail contacts (not just the "my contacts" ... hundreds of contacts you don't really want in you phone ... maybe there is a fix, a procedure to do this, but ... don't delete any contact ... cause it will delete it from your gmail account too ...

- i always considered the n900 phone/contact aplication limited, but i'm not that happy with the android alternative

- galaxy has gtalk, but no voice, no video .... maybe there is another app ... maybe a newer version of android will change this

- browser seems to only get the mobile version of the pages

etc

first time with an android phone ....

Re: N900 vs samsung galaxy s

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capt'n Corrupt (Post 826182)

Or one could simply just use Qt, ya know? ;)

Re: N900 vs samsung galaxy s

probably not correct thread but WTF
http://www.removethelabels.com/2010/...oid-community/

What kind of OS does that? Or is it AT&T fault or whattahell? Those "resolutions" sound pretty voodoo :)

Re: N900 vs samsung galaxy s

da perl and cap'n, sitting in the tree... K-I-S-S-I....

Re: N900 vs samsung galaxy s

Quote:

Originally Posted by slender (Post 829322)

What kind of OS does that? Or is it AT&T fault or whattahell? Those "resolutions" sound pretty voodoo :)

AT&T doesn't give a damn about the "android community" or their users. They'd prefer you were on a high margin iPhone instead.

But it sounds awesome, like it'll blindly begin writing out a ROM update even if you cancel it partially. I wonder if that's a vendor specific mechanism or Samsung?