Related
Hi Guys,
I have searched high and low for the answer to this one, so I thought I'd give up and ask you guys.
What I need is an Emulator for PPC that I can use on my computer to test downloaded programs before I instal them to my XDA.
The problems are:
Active sync appears to only work with visual .net development suit, which I dont have the money to buy.
Embeded visual C does run a nice emulator, but it wont connect to the active sync and thuse I cant install programmes. There did seem to be a solution in useing the folder option in the above programe to access a Virtual SD card on the computer (shared folder on my drive) but how do I access the programmes?
I would prefer to try these programmes out in a sand pit if I could.
But there doesnt seem to be away.
Please dont flame me if I have missed an earlier thread or some google search... I am new.. I am not worthy... I have no flame retardent underware...
Edy
I don't have an answer for you, (I also would like to do this also!), but I don't believe you will be able to get the eMbedded Emulator to run 'real' apps because these apps are compiled for a CPU target, (usually ARM) and the emulator only runs 8086 compiles.
The emulator is more to test your own source code and it compiles for 8086, and when you are ready, you compile your source for ARM, MIPS, to distribute.
If anyone knows of a Windows based emulator that runs ARM compiled programs, I would LOVE to know about it.
I seem to remember there was a Palm version where you could simply drag and drop programmes into it and test them. Would be nice if that were so for the PPC.
Still noone said life had to be perfect ;-)
Edy
Ya, I came from the Palm world, and they did have an emulator that would allow you to run Palm apps. It wasn’t the great emulation, but it usually was good enough to give you an idea if you even wanted to bother installing it on your ‘real’ device.
Well, maybe there is one for PPC and we just don’t know about it… Anyone???
There is no such an emulator and making it is extremely difficult. You'll have to completely emulate whole CPU, some hardware and write your own OS just for this "virtual" PocketPC. Noone has done this.
So the long and the short of this is I need visual .net to be able to run the MS emu... Any here doing that? If so can you tell me if it is possible to install other programs for testing, or will the emu only work with applications you are writing yourself?
There is no such an emulator and making it is extremely difficult. You'll have to completely emulate whole CPU, some hardware and write your own OS just for this "virtual" PocketPC. Noone has
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no it's that that difficult at all sure it takes some time to do
if you look around for emulators many many platforms come as emulated on pc systems like ps2 all the way back to mame
i have a few friends who just made a whole emulation of the arm cpu on the pc not a pocketpc or windows ce emulator but just pure arm
Rudegar said:
i have a few friends who just made a whole emulation of the arm cpu on the pc not a pocketpc or windows ce emulator but just pure arm
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please, can you provide us with a link? I was very interested in such an emulation to test Xanadux stuff without being afraid to render the Himalaya into a brick
Matthias
they are making it because they are embedded software developers
and they are making a project where they are programming to the arm cpu i dont know if they would part with the code but mind you it's no
pocketpc emulator and i doubt it would even support a graphic display apart from text since they dont need it for the project
i'm sure there must be some emulators out there
i mean the stuff in embedded visual c++ and visual studio 2003 and 2005
even if it's not a true emulator then it comes kinda close
embedded visual c++ does have an emulator, but you cant sync it with active sync and therefore you can only test programs that you are developing yourself. There was a posted solution for this involving a null modem cable and two com ports. But my computer only has one com port :-(
Looks like you need to buy Visual Studio .net to get a fully working emulator that can sync with active x and thus test programs....
Hi there,
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I don't think even getting the .NET framework working with Microsofts PPC 2003 emulator will work as a true emulator for the actual device.
I have the emulators for PPC and SmartPhones installed since we are developing applications for mobile (but mostly Java based) phones. So far with our initial test developments, you can only run your own developed applications or applications that are currently being developed and compiled for the emulators. Final compiled applications (for ARM/MIPS) are different from the compiled versions for the emulators and won't work with it. Being like this, the compiled version for the ARM processors will not work with the PPC emulator.
Well, that is just my comment...
Cheers,
Hey, I haven't tried it yet, but this sure sounds like what we have wanted...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/mobility/windowsmobile/downloads/emulatorpreview/default.aspx
Hey, I just tired it, (installing an ARM app) and it works. Cool!
How do I download that program. or can somebody upload please.
How do I download that program. or can somebody upload please
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
* Visit http://beta.microsoft.com,
* Login using your Passport account, or create one if you don't have one.
* Use Guest ID MSDEVICE to access the Community Preview website
You'll have to create a passport but that shouldn't be a real problem? I tried to upload it to the FTP using upload:upload but it won't let me send the file?
I have to say that this tool / App is one of the best you can find on the Web. I can now emulate the Pocket PC on my PC to trial games / apps first without messing up my XDA2i.
Thanks for the link guys well done!!
Lee
Upload it plz!
can u upload it somewhere? i am unable to download from the MS site!!!
PLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.................
Re: Upload it plz!
studdocs said:
can u upload it somewhere? i am unable to download from the MS site!!!
PLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.................
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I assume you installed the Microsoft ActiveX component called "Microsoft File Transfer Manager" right?
It's the requestor that appears just before the download begins... Then press "transfer" to begin the transfer ..
I hope it works for you...
Rayan
It would be helpful if somebody could upload this program, I am having no success after many attempts to download.
Here you go: ftp://ftp.xda-developers.com/DeviceEmulator050419.msi
(better use a 'normal' FTP client to download)
Qt apps work on WinCE. If WP7 is built on top of WinCE, why would Qt apps not be allowed on Win7?
I'm just trying to make sense of it here. Is it an artificial Microsoft restriction for their platform?
Because third-party apps are managed in .NET compact framework. Qt is a C++ framework and thus unmanaged. This is a smart move by MS as it increases system stability and enhances user experience.
leonard2010 said:
Because third-party apps are managed in .NET compact framework. Qt is a C++ framework and thus unmanaged. This is a smart move by MS as it increases system stability and enhances user experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If that's the lame reason they give for it not being doable then I will just need to hack Qt onto it. Dumbest move in Nokia's history!
discourse said:
If that's the lame reason they give for it not being doable then I will just need to hack Qt onto it. Dumbest move in Nokia's history!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
givin that one of the main reasons that windows mobile 6 and for that matter windows desktop can be unstable is poor quality 3rd party programs i think the move was a very good one, forcing programers to stick to strict controls means they have to develop good software, also givin MS got most of the flak for these crap programs i think it was a good move on their part
at the cost of lower performance and code easily being stolen. MS don't care about developers. Hacking a silverlight app onto CE and calling it a new OS was a terrible shortcut and will cost them in the long run.
It's a matter of time until Microsoft releases a Native Development Kit. In a recent interview Brad Watson from Windows Phone 7 Development team said:
Brad Watson said:
8) What about native SDK? Android got theirs later, should we expect Microsoft to provide a native SDK also, or just forget about it ?
BLW – if by native SDK, you are asking will we allow anyone to run C or C++ unmanaged code on the device, the answer is “not now.” Our primary concern is ensuring that there is a fantastic customer experience on the phone. We recently announced that we have satisfaction rates for the phone at 93%. That’s amazing. We attribute at least some of that to the fact that customers can buy apps that they don’t have to worry will trash their phones, and they don’t have to worry because of the managed platform.
Over time we will certainly relax certain restrictions on the phone, but we cannot compromise the integrity of the phone experience or the marketplace experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Microsoft has to release a NDK because the competition has a NDK. Hopefully the competition will have more and more NDK applications (Firefox, Skype) which would make them more appealing to the user.
When such a NDK will be present, Qt (at least lighthouse) will be ported to Windows Phone 7
indiekiduk said:
at the cost of lower performance and code easily being stolen. MS don't care about developers. Hacking a silverlight app onto CE and calling it a new OS was a terrible shortcut and will cost them in the long run.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I agree it's far from the entirely new OS we were promised I very much doubt it will cost them in the long run. They have provided a OS experience that is second to none, this is all because of the limitations they have put in place.
I would expect the platform to open up somewhat for the next wave of [higher-end] devices giving existing users an iOS-like experience where you can certainly upgrade to utilize multitasking and all that jazz but it will cost you some of the current smoothness of the UX.
The fact that .Net assemblies are easily decompiled into fully working Visual Studio projects hasn't been a huge problem on the desktop and as obfuscating tools become better and better I see no reason why it should lead to a problem on the mobile platform either. Looking thru some of the recent marketplace apps they are all but decipherable for the average developer. Also, as more and more processing moves to the cloud it becomes less and less of a problem - most startups are neither willing not capable of mirroring your closed-source/protected backend services.
The missing NDK is not the sole reason. The OS IS different. As others have pointed out, quite some GDI stuff is just not there, or doesn't do anything. So, Qt would probably just not start. And as there will never be (as MS said) (official) OpenGL drivers on WP7 you can't switch the backend.
And there has to be already some kind of NDK, as e.g. Navigon Select is a semi-native application and it is not created by OEMs.
Hades32 said:
The missing NDK is not the sole reason. The OS IS different. As others have pointed out, quite some GDI stuff is just not there, or doesn't do anything. So, Qt would probably just not start. And as there will never be (as MS said) (official) OpenGL drivers on WP7 you can't switch the backend.
And there has to be already some kind of NDK, as e.g. Navigon Select is a semi-native application and it is not created by OEMs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They say IE9 will have accelerated graphics support, which I presume is based on Direct3D. For WinPhone7 Qt needs a Direct3D backend, which should work on all WinPhone7 devices.
Qt should have the same capabilities of IE9, which AFAIK is not written in managed code.
Qt could also use Google's angleproject which should help in translating "OpenGL ES 2.0 API calls to DirectX 9 API calls".
Since this is a discussion thread, this is going in WP7 General.
~~Tito~~
It will simply not happen. It's that easy. (Not w/o homebrew that is)
By not allowing Qt on WP7, Microsoft and Nokia have just shot themselves in the foot. Instead of offering a smooth migration path for the millions of Nokia users and devs, they've basically alienated the entire community. WP7 is also losing out on thousands of high quality applications like Angry Birds for Symbian^3 and MeeGo that was developed using Nokia's Qt SDK. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS1dwYmKMjs
discourse said:
If that's the lame reason they give for it not being doable then I will just need to hack Qt onto it. Dumbest move in Nokia's history!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good luck hacking Qt into it.
Using .NET also increases Security.
WP7 doens't need Qt, and Microsoft should do whatever it can to stop Nokia from putting Qt in WP7.
Those reasons aren't lame, unless you're missing the portion of you brain that controls logic.
discourse said:
By not allowing Qt on WP7, Microsoft and Nokia have just shot themselves in the foot. Instead of offering a smooth migration path for the millions of Nokia users and devs, they've basically alienated the entire community. WP7 is also losing out on thousands of high quality applications like Angry Birds for Symbian^3 and MeeGo that was developed using Nokia's Qt SDK. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS1dwYmKMjs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's much easier to develop for WP7 than it is for Symbian/Qt. I don't think the developers will have much of an issue with it. They didn't shoot themselves in the foot, you people just AREN'T developers, and don't understand it.
You know you're talking to clueless people when Angry Birds is the epitome o fa high quality application to them.
Cause you cannot develop Angry Birds in XNA, and you seriously believe porting Angry Birds to WP7 will involve nothing other than a few code line changes and a recompilation?
Give me a break.
I wish Microsoft had partnered with SE or something. Nokia's fanbase are more bat**** crazy over these pet projects than the Android people.
Qt will continue to be the development framework for Symbian and Nokia will use Symbian for further devices; continuing to develop strategic applications in Qt for Symbian platform and encouraging application developers to do the same. With 200 million users worldwide and Nokia planning to sell around 150 million more Symbian devices, Symbian still offers unparalleled geographical scale for developers.
Extending the scope of Qt further will be our first MeeGo-related open source device, which we plan to ship later this year. Though our plans for MeeGo have been adapted in light of our planned partnership with Microsoft, that device will be compatible with applications developed within the Qt framework and so give Qt developers a further device to target.
i just want to know that why android operating system does not work directly in mobile devices
why there is need of development in it to use in all diffrent phones?
why it cant work directly like windows in pc does
and other question all others like bada os, symbien and apple os they all need they also need development or we can use them directly
if sumone didnt understand my question i will explain more
for further explanation>
windows we can install directly in any pc of any company or assembled
but android need development and designed for a seprate product of a specific brand
why?
no1 is intrestd in answring these questions ?
You are just kidding here right?
/Pun intended.
For example
[1] ....
[n] Windows has the complete set of drivers
[n+1] The manufacturer delivers the driver
Fundamentally, you're misunderstanding the situation. Windows does not run on any computer you can throw together. It runs on any computer that you can throw together that matches the evolving, de facto standard that started as the IBM PC.
It won't run on a SPARC Station or a 68k Mac or an IBM 360 or a Wii or a PS3 or, well, a HTC Vision.
Similarly, Android will run on any PC, er phone, er tablet, er, well computer that is basically the same as an existing Android device. The vast majority of the custom development that is, strictly-speaking, necessary for a new device amounts to device drivers. Now, most manufacturers do a lot on top of that to distinguish their product. That's where Sense and MotoBlur and such-like come into play.
A further complication is that storage space and memory are at a heavy premium on these devices. So, it is infeasible to include the incredible variety of drivers and other hardware support that makes a typical Windows or Linux install need several GBs.
Back in the day, when dinosaurs roamed the earth and there were only a handful of PC makers in the world, similar customization was needed. My first PC came with a manufacturer-custom version of DOS 2.1 and Windows 1.1. Is wasn't until at least DOS 3.x (maybe 4.x, that was a long time ago) that a vanilla MS copy had a chance of working. Even then, most peripherals *needed* a custom driver to be used at all. My first mouse is an example. Only way to use it was the Genius Mouse drivers that came with it.
thanks for ur answers guys
Let me preface this by saying I already suggested this idea in the DEV POOL sticky of software development. Unfortunately that thread receives very little attention and my question would be better placed here.
Anyways: Currently WP7 has two emulators (at least that I know of) and they are for the NES and classic Gameboy. Unfortunately, we are missing some really great ones like Gameboy Advance (I still have all my Pokemon games from it), SNES, and N64. You may not be aware, but the Zune HD actually had a partially working Gameboy Advance emulator. The Zune HD possess far lower specs then new WP7 devices, even the first generation devices. The original iPhone 3GS can also emulate Gameboy Advance games and its specs are also a lot lower then current WP7 devices.
I'm curious as to why this hasn't been worked on (at least talked about). I understand that code could be a problem, but the Zune HD I'm sure had similar problems on a far lesser known platform with even less developers and still had some form of Gameboy Advance emulator. Also, native code of some kind is achievable now, correct?
Anyways, I'm just curious if anyone else would like to see this/know if something is in the works. If it is of any help, here is the link to the Zune HD Gameboy Advance emualtor; they even have the source code listed: http://code.google.com/p/visual-boy-zune/
Currently there are several issues with emulation on WP7.
1) The lack of hardware access (XNA)
2) Managed languages and the inability to remove excessive runtime safety checks (like bounds checking) makes it very hard to have efficient rendering and sound generation.
3) The lack of native code access and not allowing for unsafe code in managed languages
While technically you can run native code through COM, it would be a huge amount of work porting an existing emulator over that way and it would be limited to fully unlocked devices.
I do know a few people that has been toying with SNES or even GBA emulation for WP7, but in the end they've given up, because of the inability to have it running at any reasonable speed. Which is very understandable considering how slow it is to run an interpreted emulator inside an VM when u have no way remove safety checks or compile code on the fly.
I honestly don't see any of these things changing for WP7, considering how little to none extra API access that we've been given since the Mango SDK.
But looking at Windows 8 and the Metro style API's, Microsoft would be complete idiots to not bring the same set of languages (native/managed) c++/c# (with unsafe code!)/js to WP8 and native access to directx etc. So none of the WP7 issues would be present.
N64/PSX...that would require a whole set of even lower level hardware access.
So in short; The lack of native or unsafe code access is why u don't have a gba/snes emulator on wp7
Nudua said:
Currently there are several issues with emulation on WP7.
1) The lack of hardware access (XNA)
2) Managed languages and the inability to remove excessive runtime safety checks (like bounds checking) makes it very hard to have efficient rendering and sound generation.
3) The lack of native code access and not allowing for unsafe code in managed languages
While technically you can run native code through COM, it would be a huge amount of work porting an existing emulator over that way and it would be limited to fully unlocked devices.
I do know a few people that has been toying with SNES or even GBA emulation for WP7, but in the end they've given up, because of the inability to have it running at any reasonable speed. Which is very understandable considering how slow it is to run an interpreted emulator inside an VM when u have no way remove safety checks or compile code on the fly.
I honestly don't see any of these things changing for WP7, considering how little to none extra API access that we've been given since the Mango SDK.
But looking at Windows 8 and the Metro style API's, Microsoft would be complete idiots to not bring the same set of languages (native/managed) c++/c# (with unsafe code!)/js to WP8 and native access to directx etc. So none of the WP7 issues would be present.
N64/PSX...that would require a whole set of even lower level hardware access.
So in short; The lack of native or unsafe code access is why u don't have a gba/snes emulator on wp7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well that is mighty unfortunate. I'm assuming the current emulators work because they don't need much power to run? Also is it XNA that allowed for the Zune HD to emulate the Gameboy Advance?
I thank you for your time in answering my question, hopefully Windows 8 will change this current situation.
ErikWithNoC said:
Well that is mighty unfortunate. I'm assuming the current emulators work because they don't need much power to run? Also is it XNA that allowed for the Zune HD to emulate the Gameboy Advance?
I thank you for your time in answering my question, hopefully Windows 8 will change this current situation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know much about the Zune HD, but from looking at the GBA project, it's using native code (OpenZDK?) and not XNA.
Current emulators work because most run at 20/30fps and the emulation of 8bit consoles is less demanding. Also most emulators are written in native languages, making it much harder to port over to WP7.
If WP8 is anything like W8 and Microsoft continues to allow emulators, I'm sure we'll see a lot of emulators for WP8.
The ZuneHD was never hacked at all. If I remember correctly (and I was big on the Zune scene), the Zune devices had far superior security software that was never cracked. Not saying it wouldn't have been possible if more people cared about development for the Zune (it had nowhere near as much following as iPhone and iPod).
Microsoft never gave out a full SDK for the Zune, only access to limited functions in XDA. There wasn't even support for 3D games...
But Zune fanatics were able to find a more "back door" method to hacking the Zune. They created OpenZDK, which allowed for more access to what the Zune can really do. It was almost like a partial hack (which you'd be used to if you're in the PSP hacking scene).
Through OpenZDK, you were able to develop software that better used the Zune's potential (that MS never tapped into). Developers could make 3D games, and even make an emulator. Now my ZuneHD crapped out on me before I could try the GBA emulator, but I used the crap out of it when it was just GB/GBC. I still prefer it over anything I've used on iOS and Android. The only downfalls were that you had to save the normal way, no fast forward, and no sound.
If Microsoft had given more freedom for developers in XNA, then they would have used that to make VBZ and it'd probably be easier to port to Windows Phone.
Microsoft just really messed up with the Zune.
whats the best open source GBA emulator? it would be interesting to use NFC and the Local Wireless to emulate Link functionality. I tried to port a GBA emulator to WP7 XNA but it failed, now with native code, i want to try it in metro.
No$GBA, but I'm not sure
Please try it to make a gba emulator for windowsphone
MaryJane420 said:
No$GBA, but I'm not sure
Please try it to make a gba emulator for windowsphone
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm going to make one for windows 8 metro, then I can attempt to port it over.
So I was wondering if its possible for someone to create or start developing an application that can emulator x86/64 code on an arm architecture?
What x86 code, exactly, do you mean? Do you mean running native x86 code directly or do you mean taking Java or .NET code and running it?
Ultimately, pretty much *anything* is possible to emulate. However, emulating it in a way that it can run in a reasonable amount of time is unlikely to happen. There are just so many things that are limited in the RT version of the .NET Framework.
ok, im not exactly best qualified for this but ill try and explain
in short, no, you could potentially make an emulator for a given program, but to make some be all end all x86 emulator to cover everything would be massively inefficient and probably not possible
you primary obstacle is that RT uses managed code, that means MS tells you want you can and cant do, it gives you the frame work if you like and you can build what you want within that frame work but step outside it and do your own thing isn't possible (yet)
once you got over that barrier, next up would be to port every single function and call sent to the CPU to an ARM equivalent, ARM is like a tadpole compared to Blue Whale of X86 so it wont do everything on chip meaning youd need to also convert it in software to something it can do
It would be like trying to blow a golf ball through a garden hose
however, small limited programs that don't rely on many hardware functions and with limited calls outside of its own program would potentially be possible to emulate assuming you can get native code to work anyway
Surface RT - Paperweight
Surface Pro - Glorified Tablet/Notebook
Just go with the Pro, it will make life much easier. The whole emulator debacle isn't even necessary if you just go with the logical choice.
I mean the Tegra 3 is awful as an SoC--I don't know what moron said Quad A9's are better than A15's, not to mention the GPU is junk compared to an SGX.
Overall Micro$oft shot themselves in the foot.
qhdevon43 said:
So I was wondering if its possible for someone to create or start developing an application that can emulator x86/64 code on an arm architecture?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually Visual Studio 2012 could technically support building desktop applications to run on Surface RT and other RT (ARM) tablets. However, at this time, Microsoft is also allowing Microsoft signed applications. And, I heard that if you disabled that check in the registry, then you get blocked by RT. It is definitely possible that in the future, Microsoft might allow desktop applications to be recompiled for RT.
In the meantime, Remote Desktop is wonder in that I can connect to my Windows 8 laptop and use it to run any application with almost full touchscreen functionality. So, combining a Surface RT and a Windows 8 computer is ideal for me.
wrexus said:
Actually Visual Studio 2012 could technically support building desktop applications to run on Surface RT and other RT (ARM) tablets. However, at this time, Microsoft is also allowing Microsoft signed applications. And, I heard that if you disabled that check in the registry, then you get blocked by RT.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Add it stands, you can't even really disable UAC without breaking Metro in full Windows 8 (the UI setting to disable it doesn't really disable it). They have that thing locked down pretty well!
You can enable test-sign mode on RT, this would allow you to run your own ARM desktop apps, signed by your own cert, not with MS one. This is absolutely legal, but it can be closed by MS in some of the new hotfixes (and they'll definitely will, when this mode would be used to run cracked apps).
It is really possible to make a working x86 CPU emulator that would allow you to run x86 windows programs on RT. Just remember my port of "heroes of might and magic" 1 and 2 for Windows Mobile - it was more difficult to make it, as WM had a more limited Win32 API than Windows RT has.
I'll make a nearly universal emulator for RT when I'll buy a device, project is already started and has good results. But I'm waiting for a device that is based on quad-core Snapdragon S4. I would not recommend buying Tegra devices, 4-core Krait beats them in CPU and 3D speed. And high CPU speed would be necessary for smooth x86 emulation.
Quad A9's are better than A15. If you wasnt too busy kissing jobs ass, you would know this. Tegra line is alot better that any apple "cpu"
Ace42 said:
Surface RT - Paperweight
Surface Pro - Glorified Tablet/Notebook
Just go with the Pro, it will make life much easier. The whole emulator debacle isn't even necessary if you just go with the logical choice.
I mean the Tegra 3 is awful as an SoC--I don't know what moron said Quad A9's are better than A15's, not to mention the GPU is junk compared to an SGX.
Overall Micro$oft shot themselves in the foot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@Jaxidian: Disabling UAC disables Mandatory integrity Controls, which is how the sandboxes for both IE and Metro-style apps are implemented. Metro-style apps check, when they are launched, if they are running in such a sandbox, and exit if they aren't.
Disabling UAC is, and always was, a terrible, idiotic thing to do, and I truly don't know why MS made it an available behavior. Just set it to auto-elevate without UI instead, if you really can't stand having proper principle of least privilege in your OS. This is a little more complex (you have to use the Local Security Policy editor, which can be launched by typing "secpol.msc" into Run or by going into the Administrative Tools) but is a much better solution as things which explicitly want to be run with limited permissions (sandboxing) still can be.
@dazza9075: Dosbox is an x86 emulator that is already available on other ARM platforms. It just doesn't support the (many) x86 opcodes that have been added since the 386. It certainly can't do 64-bit. However, it's fine for running old DOS programs, including games. Somebody should port it to the Windows Store if possible, or at least see about making a homebrew build of it that we can run on RT devices. This is totally not my area of expertise or I'd do it myself.
A full x86 emulator, like Microsoft's old Virtual PC for Mac (except running on ARM instead of PPC), is technically possible. It's just hard. It sounds like some people are already working on this, though.
Regarding publishing DosBox, Bochs, Qemu, ScummVM and other emulators to Windows Store - they would be unable to pass the certification. Read the requirements here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh694083.aspx
3.9 All app logic must originate from, and reside in, your app package
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For emulators - app logic resides in an emulated program that is typically not present in app package.
By the way, Microsoft Internet Explorer can't pass this check too - as it downloads and executes flash from web. But MS is already known for its double-standards.
The other reason why those apps may be refused:
3.5 Your app must fully support touch input, and fully support keyboard and mouse input
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Old programs (games at least) may be unusable without keyboard or mouse. My own program was refused for this reason, because it is unusable without hardware keyboard.
It is possible (and really easy) to port Bochs or DosBox for RT as a "desktop" application (making a "metro" port would be a bit more difficult). I can do that myself when I'll get hands on a Krait-based quad-core RT device, if someone would not port them earlier.
Regarding Tegra 3 vs Krait - Krait is not directly based on A9 nor on A15.
mamaich said:
You can enable test-sign mode on RT, this would allow you to run your own ARM desktop apps, signed by your own cert, not with MS one. This is absolutely legal, but it can be closed by MS in some of the new hotfixes (and they'll definitely will, when this mode would be used to run cracked apps).
It is really possible to make a working x86 CPU emulator that would allow you to run x86 windows programs on RT. Just remember my port of "heroes of might and magic" 1 and 2 for Windows Mobile - it was more difficult to make it, as WM had a more limited Win32 API than Windows RT has.
I'll make a nearly universal emulator for RT when I'll buy a device, project is already started and has good results. But I'm waiting for a device that is based on quad-core Snapdragon S4. I would not recommend buying Tegra devices, 4-core Krait beats them in CPU and 3D speed. And high CPU speed would be necessary for smooth x86 emulation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mamaich said:
Regarding publishing DosBox, Bochs, Qemu, ScummVM and other emulators to Windows Store - they would be unable to pass the certification. Read the requirements here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh694083.aspx
For emulators - app logic resides in an emulated program that is typically not present in app package.
By the way, Microsoft Internet Explorer can't pass this check too - as it downloads and executes flash from web. But MS is already known for its double-standards.
The other reason why those apps may be refused:
Old programs (games at least) may be unusable without keyboard or mouse. My own program was refused for this reason, because it is unusable without hardware keyboard.
It is possible (and really easy) to port Bochs or DosBox for RT as a "desktop" application (making a "metro" port would be a bit more difficult). I can do that myself when I'll get hands on a Krait-based quad-core RT device, if someone would not port them earlier.
Regarding Tegra 3 vs Krait - Krait is not directly based on A9 nor on A15.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But its only a matter of time before we figure out a way to sideload metro apps without going through the store.