Ipod Touch

[syxbit]

i'd certainly pay for an android version
and there are no costs associated with the SDK

[Tord Romstad]

i'd certainly pay for an android version
and there are no costs associated with the SDK

That depends on how you measure the cost. For me, having to rewrite everything in Java would be an enormous cost, both in terms of performance and in terms of development effort. I would have to rewrite my whole program completely from scratch, and in the end I would have a program far slower, weaker and less pleasant to use than an equivalent iPhone version.

At the moment, I have no interest whatsoever in porting my program to the Android platform. But as my program is free, nothing is stopping you or anyone else who is interested from porting it.

Tord

[Nid Hogge]

i'd certainly pay for an android version
and there are no costs associated with the SDK

That depends on how you measure the cost. For me, having to rewrite everything in Java would be an enormous cost, both in terms of performance and in terms of development effort. I would have to rewrite my whole program completely from scratch, and in the end I would have a program far slower, weaker and less pleasant to use than an equivalent iPhone version.

At the moment, I have no interest whatsoever in porting my program to the Android platform. But as my program is free, nothing is stopping you or anyone else who is interested from porting it.

Tord

The next-next iPhone version (not the one coming in 3 days), is rumored to have an x86 processor instead of the current ARM one. So you will be able to run any MAC OS software on it. Ofcourse, this is without Apple resrictions that they are likely to enforce.

But in that timeframe you should already see some capable iPhone competitors (unlike the crappy "iPhone killers" that ship now), so maybe yo'ull see x86 windows (not Windows Mobile) running on top of them, running your favorite applications natively and free of charge.

Take it with a grain of salt ofcourse, the rumored CPU will be an Intel Atom CPU, probably the 32nm shrinked version. But even then, Apple may decide not to use it. People say they bought PA Semi for a reason. And let's not forget Steve Jobs and his quirkiness.

[Tord Romstad]

The next-next iPhone version (not the one coming in 3 days), is rumored to have an x86 processor instead of the current ARM one.

It would surprise me very much if these rumors were true (switching to x86 now would be an immensely stupid move, IMHO), but I don't care either way. I use plain, portable C/C++ without any x86 specific code, and my program runs equally well on x86 and ARM CPUs.

So you will be able to run any MAC OS software on it.

Not at all. The APIs and user interfaces are very different, and there is no way you would be able to use a desktop Mac OS X program on the iPhone. Moreover, even if it were theoretically possible, nobody would want to do so. Using a program with a mouse, keyboard and a big screen is completely different from using your fingers on the tiny screen of a mobile phone. Well-designed desktop applications would be user interface nightmares on a phone, and vice versa.

But in that timeframe you should already see some capable iPhone competitors (unlike the crappy "iPhone killers" that ship now), so maybe yo'ull see x86 windows (not Windows Mobile) running on top of them, running your favorite applications natively and free of charge.

Same thing here: Even if it is technically possible, just copying a desktop application to a phone operated with the fingers is a monumentally stupid idea. Unless the user interface of the program is specifically designed for the phone, it will be terribly awkward, and everybody will hate it.

Therefore, whether Apple and others use x86 or ARM CPUs has little importance for developers and users. Developers will have to do the same amount of work in both cases, and users will never notice what CPUs their devices are running. The choice of CPU is mainly relevant to those who make the hardware, who have to balance the price, performance and battery life.

Tord

[Nid Hogge]

It would surprise me very much if these rumors were true (switching to x86 now would be an immensely stupid move, IMHO), but I don't care either way. I use plain, portable C/C++ without any x86 specific code, and my program runs equally well on x86 and ARM CPUs.

Just for the sake of the rumor - here it is. http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/ ... iphone-x86

Not at all. The APIs and user interfaces are very different, and there is no way you would be able to use a desktop Mac OS X program on the iPhone. Moreover, even if it were theoretically possible, nobody would want to do so. Using a program with a mouse, keyboard and a big screen is completely different from using your fingers on the tiny screen of a mobile phone. Well-designed desktop applications would be user interface nightmares on a phone, and vice versa.

Same thing here: Even if it is technically possible, just copying a desktop application to a phone operated with the fingers is a monumentally stupid idea. Unless the user interface of the program is specifically designed for the phone, it will be terribly awkward, and everybody will hate it.

Therefore, whether Apple and others use x86 or ARM CPUs has little importance for developers and users. Developers will have to do the same amount of work in both cases, and users will never notice what CPUs their devices are running. The choice of CPU is mainly relevant to those who make the hardware, who have to balance the price, performance and battery life.

I'm speaking about something like the Willcom's D4:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/19/vide ... previewed/

This is a MID so to speak, it falls somewhere between a Mobile phone and a UMPC. It runs Vista (unmodified) on the Intel atom. The reason it's so big is due to high power consumption issues you have mentioned. That's why if it's ever going to happen, it will be on the 32nm node or smaller, when it could be crammed into a mobile phone.

But, per the video, it runs WinVista, and while I agree that it may not come handy(no pun intended), the 'x86 Everywhere' motto is being sang pretty loudly by Intel this day. That's why I disagree on the user and developer issues - Think about it, it makes sense for everyone. The joe average user, he justs want to see MSN Messenger and all his favorite windows apps on his Mobile phone. So it also makes a lot of sense for the companies financially. MS, INTC, Nokia, AAPL. Think about the revenue that can milk out of it. I remember an Intel employee saying the mobile market will be worth around $ 40 billion in a few years. Theyr'e not going to miss that chance.

Maybe it makes smaller sense for Apple, because it only has 6-8~% of the OS Market. But for Microsoft? It's a goldmine. This is the holy grail for them. The world is going mobile, the trend is pretty much clear. Users want a device they can hold in they're hand, stay connected to the net 24/7, and run the applications they like on it. Now ... what would be more suitable for them if not the World's most used OS? The code is already written.. this is why they set to win this one. This is the same old compability issue we have in the desktop area and why Linux will never replace windows.. no matter how good it is, no one is going to rewrite the billions of programs for it again. Same thing with x86 and other architectures. Itanium demonstrated the whole thing pretty well.. And theyre not going to do the same mistake again.

[M ANSARI]

The problem with these devices is that a chess engine really drains the battery quickly. That is why I have removed any chess programs from my Mobile. I do have a PPC that still has chess on it ... but with PPC's and mobile phones merging, the lack of battery stamina makes using this application on your mobile phone a problem.

[Tord Romstad]

I'm speaking about something like the Willcom's D4:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/19/vide ... previewed/

This is a MID so to speak, it falls somewhere between a Mobile phone and a UMPC. It runs Vista (unmodified) on the Intel atom. The reason it's so big is due to high power consumption issues you have mentioned. That's why if it's ever going to happen, it will be on the 32nm node or smaller, when it could be crammed into a mobile phone.

Even without the problems of heat and power consumption, it would be unusable on a significantly smaller device, because of the user interface issues, as I tried to explain in my previous message. The desktop version of Windows may be usable on a 1024x600 display with a keyboard, but that's very different from a 320x480 (or smaller) display with no keyboard, no mouse, and no other input device apart from thick fingers. More below.

The joe average user, he justs want to see MSN Messenger and all his favorite windows apps on his Mobile phone.

Perhaps that's what Joe Average user thinks he wants, but if he tried, he would quickly discover that he doesn't like it. It would be a user interface nightmare. To see for yourself, try reducing the window sizes on your favorite Windows apps to 320x480 (the screen resolution on the iPhone, which is bigger than most mobile phones), and use them like that for a while. Painful, isn't it? It would be even worse on a mobile phone, because you have no big keyboard (or no keyboard at all), and no pointing device nearly as precise as a mouse.

What Joe Average user really wants (but may not know that he wants) is highly simplified versions of his favorite apps, with everything except the most frequently used features removed, and with a completely different user interface designed specifically for use on a mobile phone.

My chess program has been available as a desktop Mac OS X application for a long while, but virtually nothing of my user interface code is usable in the iPhone port. The only thing which is similar is the code to display the chess board on the screen. Designing a good user interface on the phone is simply a vastly different (and more difficult) task from writing a good interface on a desktop computer.

This is why Apple will never release iPhones running the desktop Mac OS X, and why you are highly unlikely to ever see small mobile phones (those huge, foldable mobile phones with a QWERTY keyboard which you sometimes see business users use might be an exception) running a standard desktop version of Windows. If such a phone does appear, it will almost certainly be a flop, because everybody will hate to use it.

Tord

[Tord Romstad]

The problem with these devices is that a chess engine really drains the battery quickly. That is why I have removed any chess programs from my Mobile. I do have a PPC that still has chess on it ... but with PPC's and mobile phones merging, the lack of battery stamina makes using this application on your mobile phone a problem.

This is not really a big problem, IMHO. I will simply leave pondering off and let the program play quickly (one or two seconds per move) by default. With the speed of current CPUs, this should be more than sufficient to be a formidable opponent for almost all users, and the battery will not drain very quickly. Actually, I think listening to music is likely to drain the battery more quickly.

Tord

[Nid Hogge]

Even without the problems of heat and power consumption, it would be unusable on a significantly smaller device, because of the user interface issues, as I tried to explain in my previous message. The desktop version of Windows may be usable on a 1024x600 display with a keyboard, but that's very different from a 320x480 (or smaller) display with no keyboard, no mouse, and no other input device apart from thick fingers. More below.

Perhaps that's what Joe Average user thinks he wants, but if he tried, he would quickly discover that he doesn't like it. It would be a user interface nightmare. To see for yourself, try reducing the window sizes on your favorite Windows apps to 320x480 (the screen resolution on the iPhone, which is bigger than most mobile phones), and use them like that for a while. Painful, isn't it? It would be even worse on a mobile phone, because you have no big keyboard (or no keyboard at all), and no pointing device nearly as precise as a mouse.

As I have said before, I generally agree that it might not be the most convinient and handy device out there. Physical limitation is already a big problem anyway. the screen will always be too small to actually be convenient to work with. Perhaps I didn't explain myself good enough. The critical thing is - that the system is going to be powerd by a x86 device, even if the OS will not be a full pledged Windows OS, or MAC OS, and the UI is going to be different. It could run on any interface, it won't matter.

It makes sense for the iPhone, I think the new App Store proves just that. Yes, they do offer slightly more than 500 applications, some are good, some are bad. Now just imagine the Applications it could run if it would have x86 CPU. You're looking at a 10000+ database of applications easily. almost out of the box, and without porting to a different CPU or writing entirely new code. Ofcourse, you would still need to make adjustmens to you app, so it would fit in a smaller screen and make it look good enough. But, you won't need to rewrite your internal code - only the design stuff.
Naturally not everyone is going to migrate, it does not make sense for everyone - but it would be much easier for those who do want to port it the such a devide. And I'm sure you have seen how popular and how much buzz this thing can create, so the assumption should be that programmers would want to migrate, and reach millions of people.(Either commercial of a free product).

My chess program has been available as a desktop Mac OS X application for a long while, but virtually nothing of my user interface code is usable in the iPhone port. The only thing which is similar is the code to display the chess board on the screen. Designing a good user interface on the phone is simply a vastly different (and more difficult) task from writing a good interface on a desktop computer.

Definitely. See above.

This is why Apple will never release iPhones running the desktop Mac OS X, and why you are highly unlikely to ever see small mobile phones (those huge, foldable mobile phones with a QWERTY keyboard which you sometimes see business users use might be an exception) running a standard desktop version of Windows. If such a phone does appear, it will almost certainly be a flop, because everybody will hate to use it.

Ditto. But once again, as I said above - it wouldn't have to, as long as it has x86 cpu inside, and a great UI to take advantage of that. (e.g. iPhone).

[syxbit]

i'd certainly pay for an android version
and there are no costs associated with the SDK

That depends on how you measure the cost. For me, having to rewrite everything in Java would be an enormous cost, both in terms of performance and in terms of development effort. I would have to rewrite my whole program completely from scratch, and in the end I would have a program far slower, weaker and less pleasant to use than an equivalent iPhone version.

Tord

would the performance hit from writing in Java really be that much? (i doubt people would care if there where a 100 elo lose on Android. people are arrogant and want the most powerful engine, but really, i never beat Fritz 5.32!)
also, i'm sure there will be a way to write native code for it.
ideally, write the GUI in Java (you could reuse someone elses) and have the engine in native code