Getting Android on a PC?

[KDOG]

I was just sitting here fiddling with my NookColor running CM7 stable while doing some things on my PC (HP laptop) and thinking, hmmm it would be neat to get Android on this laptop. Is that possible?

 

[mammador]

On a tablet, yes. But on a desktop or laptop, I'm not sure. A good part of a functional OS is user-friendliness, especially for a home/business use OS. How well a largely touch screen OS could work on a traditional desktop/laptop, I'm not sure.

 

[SimMike2]

I found an earlier version of Android on the Internet that is supposed to work on PCs. It is a live distribution which is designed to run from the bootable CD. It didn't work on either my desktop or notebook.

 

[Emulex]

problem with an intel android would be binary incompatibility with the marketplace. but android users are well familiar with this

windows 8 ARM + Android 3 or 4 ARM will be real.

 

[shortylickens]

No. It wouldnt. It would balls.
Its a phone OS and arguably still in its infant stage.
Just use linux.

 

[mammador]

It would be cool if it could be done. Something needs to rival Windows.

 

[oynaz]

I think Chrome can run Andoird Apps.

 

[Nothinman]

It would be cool if it could be done. Something needs to rival Windows.

A phone/tablet PC will never rival Windows, the targets aren't even close to the same.

If you want to replace Windows you can do it more than easily with OS X or Linux. I've been a 100% Linux desktop user at home for like the last 10 years.

I think Chrome can run Andoird Apps.

That sentence doesn't make any sense. Chrome is a web browser and Android apps are done in a very specialized version of Java. I suppose if they were able to port Dalvik to Windows or Linux, then Chrome could run Android apps via a browser plugin. But AFAIK that's never happened.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

A phone/tablet PC will never rival Windows, the targets aren't even close to the same.

If you want to replace Windows you can do it more than easily with OS X or Linux. I've been a 100% Linux desktop user at home for like the last 10 years.



That sentence doesn't make any sense. Chrome is a web browser and Android apps are done in a very specialized version of Java. I suppose if they were able to port Dalvik to Windows or Linux, then Chrome could run Android apps via a browser plugin. But AFAIK that's never happened.

It's also an OS for net/notebooks Chrome OS http://www.google.com/chromeos/

 

[smartpatrol]

problem with an intel android would be binary incompatibility with the marketplace. but android users are well familiar with this

windows 8 ARM + Android 3 or 4 ARM will be real.

Android apps run on the Dalvik virtual machine. Theoretically they should be able to run on another device with a Dalvik VM regardless of what OS or ISA it uses. How do you think the Playbook can run Android apps?

Anyway, android will be coming to Intel chips later this year
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/15/intel_atom_honeycomb/

 

[Nothinman]

It's also an OS for net/notebooks Chrome OS http://www.google.com/chromeos/

Which means nothing. Android apps still run inside of Dalvik so that VM has to be ported to an OS besides Android before Android apps can run under it.

 

[mammador]

A phone/tablet PC will never rival Windows, the targets aren't even close to the same.

If you want to replace Windows you can do it more than easily with OS X or Linux. I've been a 100% Linux desktop user at home for like the last 10 years.

Linux is open source, and made largely by enthusiasts. Linux will never truly rival Windows for this reason. A large company with similar resources/strategic capabilty to MS is needed. Should Google ever move into desktop/IBM clone OS', then I see no reason why an adapted Android platform couldn't rival Windows.

 

[lxskllr]

Linux is open source, and made largely by enthusiasts. Linux will never truly rival Windows for this reason. A large company with similar resources/strategic capabilty to MS is needed. Should Google ever move into desktop/IBM clone OS', then I see no reason why an adapted Android platform couldn't rival Windows.

Nothing will rival Windows in the short term because Windows is too entrenched in the corporate world. There's literally billions of dollars of existing infrastructure that won't work on anything but Windows. Being open or closed source doesn't have much to do with it. Red Hat is a very profitable company, and they made their profits in open source.

Google could make a few bucks with Android gadgets, but that's all they'll be; toys that people use to fill in the small voids in their computing life, and waste a few dollars at the same time. Android won't be competing with Windows any time soon...

 

[Nothinman]

Linux is open source, and made largely by enthusiasts. Linux will never truly rival Windows for this reason. A large company with similar resources/strategic capabilty to MS is needed. Should Google ever move into desktop/IBM clone OS', then I see no reason why an adapted Android platform couldn't rival Windows.

Because Android isn't designed for general purpose PCs. The same reason that Win7 doesn't work well on tablets or phones and MS created WinPhone 7.

The fact that Linux is OSS is a good thing, it creates a more level playing field and lets anyone built upon a common base. The reason Android was able to be put together so quick was because Google had the Linux base to start with. The same goes for iOS and OS X since Apple built both off of the Mach kernel and FreeBSD userland.

Linux is made largely by professionals paid to work on it. RedHat, Canonical, HP, IBM, Oracle, etc all pay developers at one level or another to work on Linux. Sure each has their own strategic plans for Linux, but there's definitely no lack of corporate backing behind Linux these days and if you think otherwise you haven't been paying attention within the last 10+ years.

 

[vailr]

If you can find a copy, there's a "live cd" version of the Google Chrome operating system, that was made available several months ago. Boots and works fine on my Intel dual-core desktop machine.
Somewhat similar to the "live cd" version of Ubuntu, except that it uses the Chrome browser by default.

 

[oynaz]

That sentence doesn't make any sense. Chrome is a web browser and Android apps are done in a very specialized version of Java. I suppose if they were able to port Dalvik to Windows or Linux, then Chrome could run Android apps via a browser plugin. But AFAIK that's never happened.

I generally aim to make as little sense as possible ;-)

I confused Android with Chrome OS.

 

[amddude]

All these replies and not this yet?

http://www.android-x86.org/download

 

[Nothinman]

All these replies and not this yet?

http://www.android-x86.org/download

Porting it to x86 and running it on a full PC are two different things. Mainly it doesn't run X so it would need display and input drivers since most people don't have touch screen monitors.

 

[mammador]

Because Android isn't designed for general purpose PCs. The same reason that Win7 doesn't work well on tablets or phones and MS created WinPhone 7.

The fact that Linux is OSS is a good thing, it creates a more level playing field and lets anyone built upon a common base. The reason Android was able to be put together so quick was because Google had the Linux base to start with. The same goes for iOS and OS X since Apple built both off of the Mach kernel and FreeBSD userland.

Linux is made largely by professionals paid to work on it. RedHat, Canonical, HP, IBM, Oracle, etc all pay developers at one level or another to work on Linux. Sure each has their own strategic plans for Linux, but there's definitely no lack of corporate backing behind Linux these days and if you think otherwise you haven't been paying attention within the last 10+ years.

Red Hat is a small company, and certainly no rival globally to MS. The fact is MS' chief product is Windows. Yes it makes Office and IE, as well as MSN and a few other products, but the bulk of its resources go into Windows. There is corporate backing, but this is scant at best in the grand scheme. Neither HP or IBM place Linux as primary in their product offerings. HP is the world market leader in IBM clones, and IBM is a business ICT solutions company. Linux is small fry to them.

 

[mammador]

Nothing will rival Windows in the short term because Windows is too entrenched in the corporate world. There's literally billions of dollars of existing infrastructure that won't work on anything but Windows. Being open or closed source doesn't have much to do with it. Red Hat is a very profitable company, and they made their profits in open source.

Google could make a few bucks with Android gadgets, but that's all they'll be; toys that people use to fill in the small voids in their computing life, and waste a few dollars at the same time. Android won't be competing with Windows any time soon...

Maybe, but there is a potential market in consumer IBM clones. I know a rival to Windows is unlikely, but the platform has always been shit, so I'd welcome one if it did come.

 

[Nothinman]

Red Hat is a small company, and certainly no rival globally to MS. The fact is MS' chief product is Windows. Yes it makes Office and IE, as well as MSN and a few other products, but the bulk of its resources go into Windows. There is corporate backing, but this is scant at best in the grand scheme. Neither HP or IBM place Linux as primary in their product offerings. HP is the world market leader in IBM clones, and IBM is a business ICT solutions company. Linux is small fry to them.

The size of RedHat is irrelevant as are the individual sizes of each company's contributions. You said Linux was "made largely by enthusiasts" which hasn't been true for the past decade or so. A huge chunk of Cisco's business is dependent on Linux. I believe all of their voice products are now running on Linux, even UCCX finally, and things like their Nexus switches. Yes, the Linux kernel, Gnome, Apache, etc are all OSS and have enthusiasts contributing to everything from code to translations and ironically even with MS's size advantage OSS projects do a much better job at internationalization and usually code too. I guess that's what you get when the product is driven by an American monopoly primarily concerned with profit.

With phone and tablet devices becoming more and more popular and more apps moving to the "cloud", Windows will be less and less relevant on the consumer side because MS is very late to the game and Apple and Google have the fan base. The only thing MS has for the home user right now is familiarity and games, everything else is just as good, if not better, in OS X or Linux.

 

[oynaz]

Exactly. When people compare Linux to Microsoft, there is a tendency to only consider the desktop OSs. But, really, Linux runs so much more. Microsoft runs desktop OSs and servers, Linux runs desktop, servers, routers, firewalls, and a huge variety of other appliances, from toasters and vending machines to the LHC.

I actually think Linux has more funding than Windows.

 

[mammador]

The size of RedHat is irrelevant as are the individual sizes of each company's contributions. You said Linux was "made largely by enthusiasts" which hasn't been true for the past decade or so. A huge chunk of Cisco's business is dependent on Linux. I believe all of their voice products are now running on Linux, even UCCX finally, and things like their Nexus switches. Yes, the Linux kernel, Gnome, Apache, etc are all OSS and have enthusiasts contributing to everything from code to translations and ironically even with MS's size advantage OSS projects do a much better job at internationalization and usually code too. I guess that's what you get when the product is driven by an American monopoly primarily concerned with profit.

This again is the corporate angle. Windows has something like 80/90% market share, and most of this even is not in a corporate base. Windows is as big as it is since the average home user prefers it. For another platform to rival it, it needs a company/organisation that can provide the means to do so. Google can, given its size/resources. Can Red Hat? I don't think so, as you say its key markets are ICT-industry specific.

Any rival to Windows needs to have capital expenditure (for the factories) support, marketing support, logistics support, etc. to make it. A lot of the costs into making an OS comprise these points, not solely the IT project management/development needed to make the actual software. MS has this, and frankly this is perhaps the reason Windows is still big, no other company is large enough to compete with it.

With phone and tablet devices becoming more and more popular and more apps moving to the "cloud", Windows will be less and less relevant on the consumer side because MS is very late to the game and Apple and Google have the fan base. The only thing MS has for the home user right now is familiarity and games, everything else is just as good, if not better, in OS X or Linux.

Perhaps. But this lends to greater penetration for Android or iOS, or any other mobile OS.

 

[Nothinman]

This again is the corporate angle. Windows has something like 80/90% market share, and most of this even is not in a corporate base. Windows is as big as it is since the average home user prefers it. For another platform to rival it, it needs a company/organisation that can provide the means to do so. Google can, given its size/resources. Can Red Hat? I don't think so, as you say its key markets are ICT-industry specific.

Any rival to Windows needs to have capital expenditure (for the factories) support, marketing support, logistics support, etc. to make it. A lot of the costs into making an OS comprise these points, not solely the IT project management/development needed to make the actual software. MS has this, and frankly this is perhaps the reason Windows is still big, no other company is large enough to compete with it.

And why do your parents, siblings, neighbors, etc use Windows? Because it's what came with their PC and familiarity. They have no brand loyalty to MS, it's just the only thing they've ever known. If you gave them a PC with OS X or Linux on it and they were open minded about it looking slightly different, they would probably be fine barring the need for anything Windows only like games. In general most people just use whatever they're given.

 

[mammador]

And why do your parents, siblings, neighbors, etc use Windows? Because it's what came with their PC and familiarity. They have no brand loyalty to MS, it's just the only thing they've ever known. If you gave them a PC with OS X or Linux on it and they were open minded about it looking slightly different, they would probably be fine barring the need for anything Windows only like games. In general most people just use whatever they're given.

Well this lends to my initial point, if a rival platform was marketed well enough, then it could rival Windows. It still lends to the point that MS' size makes competition difficult. It needs a firm with similar resources to MS to make a viable rival.