Why Android can not be treated as a standalone OS for a PC?

Question

Why can't it be treated as standalone operating system on PCs. Which factors of Android makes the hindrance?

Answer 1

There is one for PC check this...
http://www.android-x86.org/

Comments

This is more of an initiative to run Dalvik on x86, for testing and development purposes (iirc) than trying to get Android to run standalone.

I guess the main point is: you could, but you'd need to do a lot of work, and Android wasn't designed to be run on the traditional PC environment.

So it's not that you couldn't, but that it was designed to exploit unique uses of mobile devices that would most likely make it suboptimal for PC deployment. If you want a PC operating system, we already have those :-)

---

I think your information is either outdated , misguided in either case it's totally incorrect. Android x86 project runs totally standalone quite happily , Not only that you can even run it using a 64bit PAE kernel which allows you full access to Memory address > 4GB and I've currently got a Pure x86_64 version which boots into a command shell and uses the Mainline 3.12 kernel. This was built from Pure AOSP sources.

The mobile considerations on a system level benefit everyone such as the work done on power saving. Although Given that the UI is what most folks consider to be Android I will grant you that the surfaceflinger Display Server is probably not fit for the user interface if you're using multihead display with a mouse and keyboard.

To me and in reality Android starts in the kernel moves up from there, It's init binary and the way daemon ( services ) are management are in my opinion superior for superior than the current messing the is upstart or systemd ( I don't need 3000+ config files in my /etc directory to manage a one user system ) . You could use any display server you like really, probably Mir might be worth investigating given ubuntu touch's initial reliance on a lot of android components