Update operating system independent of network and hardware manufacturer

L

lucii_nixxerz

New member
I don't need to have my DSL network and/or PC manufacturer engineer OS updates or upgrades to my PC. I can do them independently. Yet OS updates/upgrades for Android require that the mfr and network invest time and money to roll out the change. There's no incentive for them to do that with end of life products so existing phones will be stuck with older less robust systems. The Android group should configure their OS to permit upgrades in the same manner as internet browsers are automatically updated or OS patches and updates are loaded. If PC software can analyse the current hardware options for the PC, so should Android be able to check the phone and identify whether an update can be supported, or recommend more memory if that's an issue. The fact that some are able to upgrade by changing root on their phone is not practical for the vast number of regular phone users. Android development is sort of at the stage of windows 95. It should be able to gain from the last 15 years of OS development and not have to repeat the same path.
 
Hi arneadler and welcome to the AC forums.

Let me ask you something. Would you try installing Windows 7 on a PC that's 6 years old? Would you expect it to be fast, or even usable at all?

Mobile phone technology is increasing at an estimated rate that is 3x faster than that of PCs (based on the last 3 years). So a two year old phone has become superseded like a 6 year old PC.

Indeed, the main reasons Android 2.X hasn't been officially launched for the HTC Dream (the first Android phone released in October 2008), is due to its storage capacity (its default partitions are not big enough to store the the OS), it's memory (it doesn't have enough RAM to run it well), and speed (it's processor isn't really up to the job of live wallpapers and Android 2 stuff).

So, it's not about manufacturers having an incentive to do it, it's more about there's little point in supporting phones more than 2 years old because there simply aren't any updates that'll work on them because Android has evolved to run on current hardware.

Indeed, the next version of Android (2.3 or 3.0, we don't know yet), called Gingerbread, is the first to be developed around a minimum hardware model, including a minimum screen size and resolution, and 1GHz processor. This means that Gingerbread simple will not work on devices released before January of this year.

The problem with phone manufacturers/networks needing to be involved is because they CHOOSE to modify and customise the OS, by adding stuff like TouchWiz UI (Samsung), Sense UI (HTC), or at least the networks own ringtones, logos, and apps. Standard Android builds can be downloaded directly from Google, and will work on the likes of the Nexus One which haven't been modified/customised in any way.

Of course you can't just throw Android 2.2 on any phone. Each manufacturer/network CHOOSES to lock their boot loaders so that they only accept ROMs that have been signed by them. Again, not the fault of Android.
 
Hi Extorian: thanks



You are absolutely correct that hardware would limit the upgrade potential of the Android OS. But today, adding software or upgrading an OS onto a PC gets an automatic scan to see if the hardware is capable. Years ago I could not update Internet Explorer past 5.5 on a Windows 95 OS. Later computers I owned could update yet also reached similar EOL issues.



My view is that my five 8 month old Samsung Moment phones might be capable of Android 2.2 but Sprint wouldn't want to invest $'s on a unit they just discontinued. I think that the OS should be able to improve the phone up to its hardware limits. And that it should be a simple procedure, not the PC download I had to do for the five phones.



Thanks for commenting
 
It's not really about automated checks to see if the hardware is up to the job or not... You're comparing PC (with massive storage like DVDs) to phones (that have to get updates over very slow 2G connections). Windows, for example, should work on any modern PC as it comes with a billion drivers and a huge number of abstraction layers (e.g. applications sitting on top of direct X, sitting on top of drivers, sitting on top of hardware virtualisation, sitting on top of more drivers, sitting on top of the BIOS, sitting on top of the hardware). It has the resources to make itself work on the vast array of hardware out there.

Android and mobile phone hardware are totally different beasts. Google released Android, which sits on top of Dalvik, which sits on top of a specialised version of Linux, which in turn sits on top of drivers and the hardware. So Google don't have anything to do with the people who make the hardware, and Android doesn't ship with a load of drivers to make it work on any hardware. It doesn't come with anything like that.

The hardware manufacturers, such as HTC, Samsung, Motorola, etc are the ones who have to make Android work on their phones. Whereas the OS vendor, Microsoft, are the ones expected to make Windows work on other people's hardware - or at least get it working enough to allow the installation of updated drivers.

So when you say Sprint is not wanting to invest money, in fact that should be aimed at Samsung. They're the ones who make a given version of Android work with a given Samsung phone. Once they had Android working, they'd then have to upgrade their customisations (e.g. TouchWiz, if the Moment has that, not sure) and Samsung apps to work on the new version too. Only then would Sprint have to do anything, and they would have to further work on it to add their own customisations on top of it (Sprint apps, and other minor stuff like graphics and ringtones). From what I can tell, the ball is in Samsung's court for the Samsung Moment and Android 2.2.

Samsung have a pretty bad reputation when it comes to supporting their phones. I just pray they don't continue this with the Samsung Galaxy S range of phones.
 
Back
Top