Related
how hard is it to port windows progs to run on ppc (wm5) there is a great product for the pc called ulta hal heres a link to see what it is
http://www.zabaware.com/
now if this could be ported to ppc it would turn si-fi to si-fact it would open up a whole new world to the ppc
any info you guys could give me would be a great help or any guides on porting software
please guys id love to see this software running on ppc
for now its a dream but please help me make it reallity
thank in advanced
Ok here goes:
1) As this is a commercial product and there for getting its source code is not an option porting it would really mean just writing the whole thing from scratch. Not really feasible.
2) From just reading the intro on the site it seems that PDA type device don't really need this kind of app. After all all that 'secretary' like functionality is already exposed for one click use and there is no shortage of various reminders (built in and 3rd party apps).
4) Microsoft Voice Command and Cyberon Voice Commander (full version, not the built in voice dial crap) can launch apps and do other stuff as well as dial the phone so there goes that functionality.
5) For most devices having 2D / 3D animation constantly taking up part of the screen and all that other functionality running in the background may just be to much of a drain on resources.
Sorry. I didn't mean to pummel your idea in to the dirt, but I just can't see something like this happening with the current abilities of our devices.
Perhaps in a few more years as the phones / PDAs get more powerful, but not now.
thank you for you reply well iguess ill just have to wait but it would be nice to have it on ppc as all the app out for ppc at the min dont learn as hal does if i was running hal i could say for eg becky it my hair dresser her phone number is 00000000 and if later on i wanted to ring her i could say ring the hair dressers of i could say who cuts my her and hal would reply becky cuts your hair
its not a nessasery prog but it would make a great protable personal assistant
could i use this to do it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bochs
it allows you to run x86 code on a ppc
i know i should probable drop this idea but i cant i really want to see it running on a ppc
Close but no cigar, as they say.
This thing will emulate the PC but not the OS which means you somehow need to stick (what is the minimal version HAL runs on?) desktop windows on you device, and get it to run under the emulator.
Do I need to continue?
It might be possible to create something like this for the newer high powered devices (certainly not my Jamin or your k-jam). Perhaps you could peach the idea to the manufacturer.
i have already got intouch with the makers of hal and am still waiting for a relpy
yer i think i may have to give up on this one as hal uses the ms assistantce so id have to get them working before i could even mske a start on the speach system and that would take up most of my mem but yer there is a but i dug out my old pc the other day its has a 350 cpu and 64mb of ram which is way below my ppc and hal was running fine and i was also able to have enough mem to run ms media player and ie exploerer and my ppc has a 400mhz cpu and 128 mem so there is still hope
You can't really compare PPC CPU and computer CPU speeds like that - they're different types of chips off the bat, and also they run different operating systems, which almost always means the computer ends up doing more things and doing them faster. Take the difference between Intel XScale chips and Texas OMAP chips for example - both are PPC CPUs, but the OMAP's 200MHz can almost match the Intel's 416MHz, despite the former being less than half the speed of the latter.
It's not to say that running this software isn't possible, but you might need a lot more grunt than you expect. Remember, the Playstation 1 had a 33MHz chip, yet if anyone wants to emulate a PSOne on the PC it'll take >400MHz for good performance (though note that this is emulation. Obviously if someone was able to recompile the PSOne's software to run natively on PC hardware, then it would be significantly more efficient.).
Hello, is there any emulator wich will alaud me to use windows xp app (like games) on mobile phones, or chance windows xp or vista or 7 to bi installed on mobile phone like htc for example?
helion222 said:
Hello, is there any emulator wich will alaud me to use windows xp app (like games) on mobile phones, or chance windows xp or vista or 7 to bi installed on mobile phone like htc for example?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i dont think so, windows xp needs a big ammount of ram and above 2ghz cpu dual core to even run properly these days, it takes alot of HDD space too.
Its very hard to make windows xp run natively on a phone, but emulating it is out of the question.
Emulating an entire operating system will result in major slowdown, you have xbox360 with windowsxp and its running horrible, it has a 3.2ghz tricore cpu too so imagine the speed of emulating it on a 1.0ghz dual core cpu and thats the top of the line phone these days.
So, windows will be very slow and when i mean slow i mean things like taking an entire minute to send a file to recycle bin and games would be out of the question as they are in majority D3D dependant and android cellphones use OpenGL.
As the above post says, no. It is possible to emulate a Winmo device from 2003 through 6.5.3 on your PC, but not the other way round. A phone, even the powerful ones do not have enough grunt, to do the job. WinMo emulators on the PC can now run native ARM code executables directly. No mean feat, even on a 3GHz PC
If the PC program was written in native x86 code, a phone cannot run it, but if it was written in .NET and used the core basic methods and properties of the same or a previous version of the .NET CF framework, there is a very slim outside chance that it may work, but the requisites are very restrictive.
Watch for the upcoming version of Windows 8. Microsoft is determined to get onto the latest ARM powered pad devices, having already lost important ground to the iPad and 'pad' versions of Android. This should see a much closer integration of the platforms, but next year may already be too late.
stephj said:
As the above post says, no. It is possible to emulate a Winmo device from 2003 through 6.5.3 on your PC, but not the other way round. A phone does not have enough grunt in it to do the job.
If the PC program was written in native x86 code, a phone cannot run it, but if it was written in .NET and used the core basic methods and properties of the same or previous version of the .NET CF framework, there is a very slim outside chance that it may work, but the requisites are very restrictive.
Watch the upcoming version of Windows 8, that Microsoft is determined to get onto the latest ARM powered pad devices, having already lost important ground to versions of Android. This should see a much closer integration of the platforms, but next year may already be too late.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This!
Buy a wm phone
Can anyone with experiences or skillful developers answer my question?
every time when I opening up an application which i downloaded from the marketplace(non-stock apps),the speed was like i open an app on my iphone 3g,laggy and sluggish.
Honestly,the wp7 experience is not that great for me CURRENTLY and I don't have much money like M$,if not I could buy a second gen wp7 device.So,is it possible mango will fix everything up?or just the 1ghz processor is not good enough to run wp7?
I would prefer windows mobile 6.5 with wp7 animation&transition,then i'm good to go.
now this could be a novel question
but could it be the application itself? you even said native programs are smooth....
yea,true,native apps are buttery smooth.However,in other apps are so laggy.any solution for these problems?is it related to the APIs or the OS itself?
It's related to developers running business and dal code on the ui thread.
Give it time, devs will learn how to do it properly, especially with the new tools coming in VS soon.
1Ghz is plenty, and barely relative.
Is the Xbox fast enough? Of course, even 5 years after - because devs know how to utilise it properly, and build FOR the platform, not blame the platform for their inefficient code.
sylau90 said:
Honestly,the wp7 experience is not that great for me CURRENTLY and I don't have much money like M$,if not I could buy a second gen wp7 device.So,is it possible mango will fix everything up?or just the 1ghz processor is not good enough to run wp7?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mango will fix a lot of it, developers need to fix some of it as well.
http://www.mobiletechworld.com/2011...overview-32bit-color-support-better-controls/
thanks mate @PG2G,thats really helpful and looks promising...can't wait for mango
domineus said:
now this could be a novel question
but could it be the application itself? you even said native programs are smooth....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Microsoft and oems cam use native code. Thirsting party developers cannot. That is why stock apps perform perfectly but third party apps suffer.
Developers can fix it by stripping out all the eye candy from their apps but then your left with a modern day textual user interface...
I hope they open up some native apps soon. Even in desktop apps the performance advantage odd an mfc oems or Delphi app is immediately apparent compared to their .net counterparts, even with beastly hardware.
Better hardware and os-level optimization will help the situation soon, though...
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
3rd party apps are all written in .NET managed code. When the app first loads, it needs to be compiled into native code and also instantiate inside a SliverLight player. Both take extra processing power and time compared to native apps that need to do neither tasks. I'm sure MS will continue to optimize the speed of JIT and SilverLight player. It will never match the native app load speed but it also won't bring down the entire OS if something goes wrong like the native apps potentially could do.
foxbat121 said:
3rd party apps are all written in .NET managed code. When the app first loads, it needs to be compiled into native code and also instantiate inside a SliverLight player. Both take extra processing power and time compared to native apps that need to do neither tasks. I'm sure MS will continue to optimize the speed of JIT and SilverLight player. It will never match the native app load speed but it also won't bring down the entire OS if something goes wrong like the native apps potentially could do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
.NET can precompile assemblies. That is what NGen does on the desktop. I'd find it quite odd if all of the base OS assemblies (entire .NET framework, etc.) isn't NGen'd on the phone. In fact, it would be pretty amatuer for Microsoft not to do that.
The Native Image Generator (Ngen.exe) is a tool that improves the performance of managed applications. Ngen.exe creates native images, which are files containing compiled processor-specific machine code, and installs them into the native image cache on the local computer. The runtime can use native images from the cache instead using the just-in-time (JIT) compiler to compile the original assembly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Issues at play:
1. Older SoC with Older GPU in it: The phones would obviously perform better with a newer 1GHz Snapdragon or TI OMAP CPU. A Hummingbird would fly (too bad Samsung couldn't use it) with WP7.
2. Overreliance on Managed Code: This will get better as software is optimized more (the base platform) and WP7 users move to newer devices. But Managed Code, while not far behind Native code in many instances, just can't touch Native code in many places. You could develop MFC applications for Windows Mobile. .NET CF applications could not compete with those applications for performance.
3. Resources: Stock Apps do Multi-Task and in many cases you cannot truly exit them. If those apps are in the background eating up resources, then you will get worse performance.
Expanding on that, and of particular interest is RAM. Devices say they have 512 MB RAM but most devices have 128 MB dedicated to the GPU. The system and applications cannot use that for general purpose tasks. So while you may think you have 512 MB RAM, you really only have a configuration equivalent to 384 RAM with a 128 MB Graphics card in your phone. 128 MB is a large percentage of 512 (though a small number), and it can have performance implications on the device.
This is why HTC added an extra 64 MB RAM in their HD2/7 devices. The HD2/HD7 have 576 MB RAM, but 128 MB is dedicated to the GPU, so the system/apps really only has access to 448 MB of that.
4. Module dependency: Native Applications written in something like Visual C++ (MFC) or Delphi/C++Builder (VCL) don't really have that many module dependencies. That's why their load times are ridiculously fast. .NET applications have large module dependency chains and have to load in many cases a lot more libraries. There's a huge difference between loading the C++ Runtime and an MFC Shared Library (assuming the app was NOT statically compiled) and loading the app and having it daisy-chainload 20 different modules into memory.
Not to mention Native Applications can be multi-tasked much better because well written native apps tend to not use as much RAM.
On PCs this is less of a problem these days, since CPUs/RAM and even Hard Drives (SSD, etc.) are so fast and we have tons of RAM. But on phones, all of these factors can have factorably performance implications (excuse the redundancy).
But it is only that bad in certain types of apps - particularly those with long lists and tons of eye candy in the user interfaces. It should get better with updates.
P.S. There are ways to sandbox Native Apps, as well
Hi everyone.
Could anybody compile BlueStacks App Player for Windows RT?
It would be great to use this app on our tablet with Win RT
I use on my laptop (win7) and wish o use on my Surface RT
Official site
Thanx a lot
It would be a great app to have, but seeing that it's not open-source there is about zero chance of it ever getting ported by the community.
Your best bet is to just hope that they (the actual makers of the app) decide to bring it over to RT, which is possible but unlikely.
Search next time; the devs here are up to their ears in requests for closed-source applications and are pretty fed up with it. Sorry.
They've actually already stated that it's coming...
Not explicitly. They hinted at it in a Help forum post, but never confirmed or denied it. And that was months ago.
jtg007 said:
Not explicitly. They hinted at it in a Help forum post, but never confirmed or denied it. And that was months ago.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually they had listed on their site that they were working on an ARM version.but not sure if they still are. Seems unlikely MS would allow it in the store due to direct competition with the windows store.
guitar1969 said:
Actually they had listed on their site that they were working on an ARM version.but not sure if they still are. Seems unlikely MS would allow it in the store due to direct competition with the windows store.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MS doesn't have a whole lot of control of things outside the Store. They could side-load an app pretty easily.
The vast majority of RT devices aren't "jailbroken" for sideloading arbitrary ARM binaries. Also, remember that RT doesn't (currently) support OpenGL, which means any Android apps/games that use advanced graphics won't work unless BlueStacks write and include an openGL-via-DirectX compatibility layer.
GoodDayToDie said:
The vast majority of RT devices aren't "jailbroken" for sideloading arbitrary ARM binaries. Also, remember that RT doesn't (currently) support OpenGL, which means any Android apps/games that use advanced graphics won't work unless BlueStacks write and include an openGL-via-DirectX compatibility layer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I meant side-loading a Metro app, which can be done by just about everybody.
Cant sideload metro apps without a developers certificate
Derp. Yes, of course sideloading is the obvious way to go about it. Getting the dev license is easy, and yeah BS would have to sign their app, but that's not exactly difficult and their cert doesn't have to be signed by anybody else; it just requires that the end user install the cert before the app if it doesn't already chain to a trusted authority. The appx installer script automates all of that, though.
That said, the OpenGL issue is still there. Don't count on 3D games, at a minimum, working.
Don't forget however, that all of this is pretty much irrelevant right now. The Surface lacks the power to run Bluestacks. On my 6-core 2.3 ghz 6 gigs of ram computer with a great graphics unit, Bluestacks is still relatively slow. Just imagine it on the quad-core 1.4 with 2 gigs of ram that the Surface has. Not to mention it's on ARM, which is considerably less powerful than x86 or x64.
C-Lang said:
Don't forget however, that all of this is pretty much irrelevant right now. The Surface lacks the power to run Bluestacks. On my 6-core 2.3 ghz 6 gigs of ram computer with a great graphics unit, Bluestacks is still relatively slow. Just imagine it on the quad-core 1.4 with 2 gigs of ram that the Surface has. Not to mention it's on ARM, which is considerably less powerful than x86 or x64.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dont think bluestacks is a multithreaded application in which case your 6 cores would be irrelevant and it would be purely down to your 2.3ghz clockspeed, which is not high at all. 6gb of RAM would also be irrelevant as no android app requires that much RAM so it simply wont be needed. GPU, not so sure what happens there, most of the apps I try running dont seem to enable my GPU at all so I am not sure if bluestacks is using software or hardware OpenGL, but then I havent tried any 3d games or anything. It runs ok on my 3.5ghz AMD athlon 2 but its not always as perfect as lets say a nexus 7 tablet running android natively.
I'm admittedly not 100% sure on how BlueStacks works (is it a native x86 DalvikVM, or is it emulating a full ARM system?), but it should be, at least in theory, possible to get it to run as naively as it does on Android by just porting the DalvikVM to Windows RT. That should result in speeds at least similar to a lower end Android tablet (Windows is bigger and has more cruft than the linux kernel that's running the DVM). With some sort of reverse WINE scenario it should also be possible to get a degree of binary compatibility for native libraries/addons.
SixSixSevenSeven said:
I dont think bluestacks is a multithreaded application in which case your 6 cores would be irrelevant and it would be purely down to your 2.3ghz clockspeed, which is not high at all. 6gb of RAM would also be irrelevant as no android app requires that much RAM so it simply wont be needed. GPU, not so sure what happens there, most of the apps I try running dont seem to enable my GPU at all so I am not sure if bluestacks is using software or hardware OpenGL, but then I havent tried any 3d games or anything. It runs ok on my 3.5ghz AMD athlon 2 but its not always as perfect as lets say a nexus 7 tablet running android natively.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sort of, yes. But still, that means the Surface would be way less powerful. Also, my RAM is EATEN by Bluestacks because it's not apps that are the problem to run, it's Android. You're basically loading an entire virtual machine onto your RAM to run, in a program shell, then running Android apps on top of that. So the power of the device does matter... however:
netham45 said:
I'm admittedly not 100% sure on how BlueStacks works (is it a native x86 DalvikVM, or is it emulating a full ARM system?), but it should be, at least in theory, possible to get it to run as naively as it does on Android by just porting the DalvikVM to Windows RT. That should result in speeds at least similar to a lower end Android tablet (Windows is bigger and has more cruft than the linux kernel that's running the DVM). With some sort of reverse WINE scenario it should also be possible to get a degree of binary compatibility for native libraries/addons.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bluestacks would have to run a full emulation of ARM in order to run all apps, right? Because when you install native x86 Android, it runs very few apps from the store, because they aren't compiled for ARM.
Netham45 could be right though that we could kind of make Android run natively, though I'm highly dubious about it happening through Bluestacks. Bluestacks most likely won't make an ARM port (especially cause I doubt Microsoft would allow it in the store) and if we did have access to source code, it's still built around running on Intel processors, and would probably have to go through all sorts of unnatural emulation... So making a totally separate Android program from scratch (which would require inordinate amounts of work) would probably be the best bet.
No. I think bluestacks is actually "just" a port of the dalvik VM to run on windows.
Android apps are not compiled for a specific CPU type. They are compiled for the dalvik virtual machine which is in a way similar to the java virtual machine, in fact a dalvik applications source code is java source code hense why many people say android apps are java, in reality the dalvik VM is very different from the java VM and the 2 are not compatible.
The vast majority of apps do actually work on x86 just fine.
The main problem is that google restricts apps based on your device and often it doesn't recognise x86 devices so doesn't show results, the default app manifest files don't actually restrict platform but many devs set them to arm for some reason. With various tools to spoof what device you appear as you can still gain access to thses other apps.
The problem apps are those that use the NDK (a small minority). NDK apps do have native code, but not just for ARM. The NDK default settings are to generate binaries for ARMv7, but it can be set to x86, ARMv6, MIPS or to compile multiple binaries for a mixture of the above (causes its own issue as it includes the binaries for all platforms in one APK which loads the relevant binary at runtime, good for compatibility as one APK covers all devices but makes the final APK massive). x86 devices of course cannot run ARM compiled apps which does include a few big name apps.
I don't know if bluestacks has left it as pure dalvik VM on x86 or if it does include an ARM emulator for the NDK but it certainly isn't just running an ARM emulator and tyen android atop of it.
I don't experience the ram eating effects you mention either.
SixSixSevenSeven said:
No. I think bluestacks is actually "just" a port of the dalvik VM to run on windows.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's exactly what my understanding was as well, although what I'm about to say somewhat contradicts that.
Interestingly, http://www.bluestacks.com/technology.html says that BlueStacks is "fully configurable" and that it "supports" Windows on ARM as well as x86 Chrome, even though neither of those are actually available today. So, not sure if that page is before or ahead of its time.
"BlueStacks employs a lightweight, optimized, soft hypervisor with deep enhancements to support "embedded virtualization". End consumers can enjoy the full Android environment through BlueStacks, or just install Android app icons directly on the Windows desktop."
What the page basically says is that the core virtualization that BS uses is very easily configurable to different combinations or permutations of OSs; that the technology can just as easily run Windows on Android or Android on Chrome as it can Android on Windows, which is the only current release. It also implies that BS can do BOTH a mere dalvik vm (just install apps to the Desktop) as well as a complete system emulation (full Android experience).
There may be hope for RT yet.
As far as I remember, Bluestacks is using QEMU as there base platform. So it's probably still running ARM code in emulator.
I am looking at if we can port the Dalvik VM over to Windows RT. Anybody want to join the explorations?
So far I can see the Dalvik VM has lots of generated ARM assembly code and have huge dependencies on linux.
Porting would need quite a bit of effort.
Developers from Windroy has done it for the Windows X86 platform. If they can do it for Windows RT, it'll be much easier.
start windows 95 Help on surface rt, really need the program electronic workbench 5.12, via an x 86 emulator, it is not.
I will use bochs, downloaded the BIOS file and VGA in tab CPU put the bad CPU, but still does not work. The configuration file can only be downloaded in the format of the bxrc format, the txt he does not understand. If that happens, put Please setup and working windows 95 image
I kind of doubt anybody else is going to bother with the effort needed to get Win95 running (it would run very slowly, although I suppose it was intended to run on very slow CPUs...) on a first-gen Surface RT, but hey, maybe I'm wrong.
Anybody familiar with Bochs configuration want to weigh in on the configuration issue? I never really did much with it.
GoodDayToDie said:
I kind of doubt anybody else is going to bother with the effort needed to get Win95 running (it would run very slowly, although I suppose it was intended to run on very slow CPUs...) on a first-gen Surface RT, but hey, maybe I'm wrong.
Anybody familiar with Bochs configuration want to weigh in on the configuration issue? I never really did much with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really need the electronic workbench 5.12 "want to run it in any way, it is not a resource, the minimum requirements in the area of pentium 200 MHz
You'll be lucky if you get that equivalent of speed, actually. Typical estimate is order of 10x overhead for emulation, which means each core of the Surface RT is basically like a 130MHz x86 chip. Unless the emulator runs across multiple cores and the program does too (unlikely), you probably won't get much.
Have you considered running it on a real PC and just having the Surface remote desktop into it? Unless you're somewhere without an Internet connection, that's at least a little more likely to work.
Deleted due to forum software screwup
If they can run windows 95 on Android wear, Surface RT is certainly capable. If that's what you want to do, and have the ability to get it done knock yourself out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZx-LJH5J_I
Whether or not it's *possible* to run 95 wasn't really in question - people have, in fact, booted later versions of Windows via emulators - but rather whether it's a practical way to run even a very old program.
If anybody were still maintaining the RT x86 dynamic recompilation layer, I'd say to work on getting it working in that; the performance is a lot better when you don't have to support an entire OS and can execute OS library code in native instructions rather than emulating even the low-level functions. However, I don't think even the source code for that program was ever released. :-/
Weigh in here
Deleted due to forum software screwup
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What happened? HAHA
Also I would like to weigh in here. You (mickel2255) should have done a simple forum search. Gooddaytodie has a list and in it is an x86 emulator that I tested with electronic workbench 5.12 and it works no problem.
List of desktop apps for hacked RT devices http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=36534446
Click to expand...
Click to collapse