02-22-16 07:55 PM
316 ... 111213
tools
  1. FFR's Avatar
    So for the discussion then what is BBOS built from? Certainly not C++ then?
    Jvm: java virtual machine.
    Superfly_FR likes this.
    01-09-14 01:14 PM
  2. kbz1960's Avatar
    Jvm: java virtual machine.
    That is what I thought yet bfd keeps saying C++
    01-09-14 01:23 PM
  3. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    That is what I thought yet bfd keeps saying C++
    No, I repeated what other people said.
    01-09-14 01:34 PM
  4. serbanescu's Avatar
    There are many misunderstandings in the previous posts. This is a good quote explaining BBOS architecture and how it has evolved:

    Original BlackBerry pager devices used Intel 80386 processors, and RIM provided a low-level C API to developers. Preventing security coding errors and controlling application behavior are really difficult when writing code in unchecked native languages. So when the 5810 was introduced, the 80386 processor and C API were abandoned in favor of ARM 7 or 9 processors and a JME runtime environment. To increase speed, RIM created a custom Java Virtual Machine (JVM) that supports the standard JME instruction set and several RIM JVM-specific instructions. A complete list of these opcodes is available from Dr. Bolsen’s GeoCities website at www.geocities.com/drbolsen/opcodes.txt. Only the device and JVM are still written in C/C++ and assembly. All other applications, such as messaging and the browser, are written using Java.
    Source: Mobile Application Security > BlackBerry Security > Device and OS Architecture - Pg. : Safari Books Online

    I believe we should understand the following from the info above:

    JVM (Java Virtual Machine) itself and low-level OS components (those components that are dealing directly with the hardware part) are written in C/C++ and assembly language.

    The apps are written in the Java language (which is friendlier to programmers and allows for better security management), and run on a "virtual computer" - the Java Virtual Machine.

    Android itself has a similar architecture in this respect: on top of the OS (based on the Linux kernel) stands a proprietary version of the Java Virtual Machine - the Dalvik Virtual Machine - on which regular Android apps are running - see Dalvik (software) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Of course, the performance of each OS depends on its specific kernel and virtual machine.


    --------------------

    Pic Tagger for BB10 and PlayBook
    Last edited by serbanescu; 01-09-14 at 03:06 PM.
    01-09-14 02:18 PM
  5. Dave Bourque's Avatar
    It sits on top of QNX though like most OS. Referring to bb10.

    Z10STL100-3/10.2.1.1925
    01-09-14 03:23 PM
  6. Huey Newton's Avatar
    I agree that the bold 9900 just needed to be faster

    Posted via CB10
    01-13-14 09:22 PM
  7. Superfly_FR's Avatar
    Android itself has a similar architecture in this respect: on top of the OS (based on the Linux kernel) stands a proprietary version of the Java Virtual Machine - the Dalvik Virtual Machine - on which regular Android apps are running - see Dalvik (software) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Of course, the performance of each OS depends on its specific kernel and virtual machine.
    As a complement, Dalvik is also used by BB10. This explains why Android apps can run natively (V.S "emulated") under BB10.
    01-14-14 03:50 AM
  8. johnnyuk's Avatar
    I agree that the bold 9900 just needed to be faster

    Posted via CB10
    If BlackBerry only wanted to sell phones to people who's idea of a Smartphone is locked in 2010 then then that's what they could have done. They could have just cranked up the clock speed on that old single core processor in the 9900 and made the phone twice as thick for the size of the battery that would be required (maybe 3 times as thick for the heat sink and fan required to dissipate the heat that such an inefficient way of speeding things up would create) and then we could all enjoy the serious limitations of BBOS... just faster!

    Posted via CB10 on Z30 STA100-2 / 10.2.0.1803 on O2 UK - Activated on BES10.2
    Last edited by johnnyuk; 01-16-14 at 06:19 AM.
    MarsupilamiX likes this.
    01-15-14 01:13 PM
  9. dkonigs's Avatar
    I agree that the bold 9900 just needed to be faster

    Posted via CB10
    Actually, I see the Bold 9900 as proof that you couldn't fix BBOS just by throwing more hardware at the problem. As far as BBOS phones went, and for the time it was launched, it was actually about as ridiculously overpowered as they could possibly make it. Ultimately, the OS just wasn't designed to scale up to how it was being used.
    01-16-14 12:40 AM
  10. hanexs's Avatar
    They could have just cranked up the clock speed on that old single core processor in the 9900 and made the phone twice as thick for the size of the battery that would be required (maybe 3 times as thick for the heat sink and fan required to dissipate the heat that such an inefficient way of speeding things up would create) and then we could all enjoy the serious limitations of BBOS... just faster!

    Posted via CB10 on Z30 STA100-2 / 10.2.0.1803 on O2 UK - Activated on BES10.2
    What does this comment even mean? Many phones have quad core processors, and are thin without a fan. Obviously the work to make BBOS faster would include work to make it utilize the CPU, just like that work has been done in all modern phones.

    No one is suggesting that they should have made a crappy BBOS phone, but rather put a small portion of the massive effort it took to make BB10 and redirect it to making a modern phone on BBOS.
    01-16-14 09:06 AM
  11. hanexs's Avatar
    Actually, I see the Bold 9900 as proof that you couldn't fix BBOS just by throwing more hardware at the problem. As far as BBOS phones went, and for the time it was launched, it was actually about as ridiculously overpowered as they could possibly make it. Ultimately, the OS just wasn't designed to scale up to how it was being used.
    This at least addresses the point, but unfortunately there is little reasons, or information on why this is exactly true. Code can be rewritten, updated, modules or kernels can be swapped out. Portions of archaic code can be updated. I wonder, why is it easier to start from scratch?
    01-16-14 09:16 AM
  12. kbz1960's Avatar
    This at least addresses the point, but unfortunately there is little reasons, or information on why this is exactly true. Code can be rewritten, updated, modules or kernels can be swapped out. Portions of archaic code can be updated. I wonder, why is it easier to start from scratch?
    I heard that BBOS was getting so bloated with code etc. that it was becoming a nightmare to work with.
    01-16-14 09:43 AM
  13. johnnyuk's Avatar
    This at least addresses the point, but unfortunately there is little reasons, or information on why this is exactly true. Code can be rewritten, updated, modules or kernels can be swapped out. Portions of archaic code can be updated. I wonder, why is it easier to start from scratch?
    It has been purported earlier in this thread that BBOS code was so archaic and difficult to maintain and develop that RIM management took the view that it would be quicker to cut the ties and build a new platform on the already existing QNX kernel rather than try to turn the inner workings of BBOS in to something fit for the next decade.

    That's not to say that given enough time and resources it couldn't have been improved in theory, it was just too impractical in reality.

    RIM gave up trying to implement their heavily customised JavaME as a virtual machine for the PlayBook to maintain BBOS app compatibility as it was too difficult and resource intensive to ever get it working in the timescale for getting PlayBook out. That gives an indication of how tricky it would be to redevelop the JavaME in BBOS if that was required to maintain software compatibility as the rest of BBOS changed in to something new and better. There just isn't enough public material on how the BBOS kernel works and exactly how it handles running the JavaME to ever know for sure how changing A would break B which when fixed would break C and so on but it was messy enough to make them look elsewhere for a quicker fix.

    You have to remember that going with QNX wasn't starting from scratch from RIM's point of view. It was starting with an off the shelf and proven OS kernel that had established developer resources already in place. They just had to build what they wanted on top of that.

    Unfortunately Tablet OS for the PlayBook was what RIM management wanted to build whereas what RIM needed to build was a new phone OS, like a more primitive BB10, but for release in 2011 not 2013.

    Posted via CB10 on Z30 STA100-2 / 10.2.0.1803 on O2 UK - Activated on BES10.2
    01-16-14 01:56 PM
  14. johnnyuk's Avatar
    What does this comment even mean? Many phones have quad core processors, and are thin without a fan. Obviously the work to make BBOS faster would include work to make it utilize the CPU, just like that work has been done in all modern phones.
    That comment meant that cranking up the clock speed of the SINGLE core processor in the 9900 wasn't the answer to any of BBOS's problems. The person I was replying to said "just make a faster 9900", not improve BBOS.

    No one is suggesting that they should have made a crappy BBOS phone, but rather put a small portion of the massive effort it took to make BB10 and redirect it to making a modern phone on BBOS
    Lots of people are suggesting they should have made a crappy BBOS phone unfortunately, so many that they did back in the summer, the 9720. I've used one. Crappy but not as uber-crappy as a 9320.

    A small portion of the effort it took to make BB10 would not have been enough to make BBOS 'modern' in any realistically useful time scale. That was the view of RIM management in 2010 when they chose QNX instead and back then had the whole of the company's development resources at their disposal, not just a small portion. BBOS was that messy to unravel and redevelop thanks to a decade of kludges that bolted on new functionality to what started out as an OS for a pager.


    Posted via CB10 on Z30 STA100-2 / 10.2.0.1803 on O2 UK - Activated on BES10.2
    extisis likes this.
    01-16-14 02:50 PM
  15. hanexs's Avatar
    unfortunately there is little reasons, or information on why this is exactly true. Code can be rewritten, updated, modules or kernels can be swapped out. Portions of archaic code can be updated. I wonder, why is it easier to start from scratch?
    Still blown away about the massive opportunities lost with BB.

    I came back to this post, after updating BBM on my S5. Yes I still use BBM for 2-3 contacts that havent moved to whatsapp yet. You know what my update was for? Stickers..... and a few more advertisements. How is it that whatsapp was free for so long, but BBM can't afford to run a messaging platform without running ads.
    02-22-16 06:38 PM
  16. BigBadWulf's Avatar
    Holy necro-posting, Batman!
    02-22-16 07:55 PM
316 ... 111213

Similar Threads

  1. Mac Users: OS 10.2.1.1925 improves icloud integration
    By blackburberry in forum BlackBerry 10 OS
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-27-14, 10:24 PM
  2. Os 10 greater quality than Android OS
    By zten in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & Rumors
    Replies: 201
    Last Post: 01-05-14, 04:35 PM
  3. Can't get Sachesi to install os to my phone
    By jamiemarksberry in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & Rumors
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-04-14, 11:20 PM
  4. Downgrading OS to official carrier release
    By Imthiyaz Hameed in forum BlackBerry 10 OS
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-04-14, 10:27 AM
  5. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-04-14, 09:14 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD