[Q] NT emulator on ARM? - General Questions and Answers

I remember my first Windoze NT was running fine on a 133MHz/64MB box, so it isn't much of hardware requirement nowadays even for our smartphones - I guess the only problem is different architecture, but IIRC there were many NT4 builds for various CPU architectures before M$oft limited NT line to x86 with NT5.0 or NT5.1, so is such emulator doable? and if so, has anyone tried to do it before?

If you really wanted to do almost nothing I am sure it wouldn't be too bad writing an arm hypervisor to run an old Arm copy of NT. Mind you the architecture has change a lot since. Clock Frequency = Nothing you already know that. Having to change over instructions to the host platform makes for a very nice drop in speed.
Guy had an app for running Linux and 95 through XP on an Evo 3D so why not. Plenty of open source x86 emulators out there. But your performance experience will vary. The classic Bochs is horrible but good for compatability. Seems like whatever this guy ported to android did well for 95.

RainMotorsports said:
If you really wanted to do almost nothing I am sure it wouldn't be too bad writing an arm hypervisor to run an old Arm copy of NT. Mind you the architecture has change a lot since. Clock Frequency = Nothing you already know that. Having to change over instructions to the host platform makes for a very nice drop in speed.
Guy had an app for running Linux and 95 through XP on an Evo 3D so why not. Plenty of open source x86 emulators out there. But your performance experience will vary. The classic Bochs is horrible but good for compatability. Seems like whatever this guy ported to android did well for 95.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks. I digged around after I asked, and found good start here

Please use the Q&A Forum for questions &
Read the Forum Rules Ref Posting
Moving to Q&A

Related

Windows CE

Hi all, hope u had a nice week-end
I have resuscitated an old HP Jornada, and I was wondering if one can still find softwares for windows CE. Especially games, even basic ones since it is intended for use by my kids.
Thank you and take care
i believe that games for the cpu will work
as in if it have an arm cpu arm based games will work
and if it's mips mips games will work
games are typicaly written in asm directly for the cpu and the os dont mean that much
Redugar - I don't mean to be rude but are you leaving in the 80s?
No one has bee writing games or anything other than drivers and other OS / basic components using assembler in over a decade and a half!
It's way way too much work and not at all necessary.
But you are right about one thing - I've seen on some freeware sites like www.pocketpcfreeware.com apps that were compiled for CE2.11 so yes I do believe there is a good chance to find a few games.
Thanks folks for your replies.
I've tried very "basic" games like ICBM, but they won't run.
Visual basic stuff works provided one downloads the appropriate dll.
Will keep searching.
Take care,
well i may still look like this
http://thor.mirtna.org/features/titular_movie_themes_limahl.jpg
but my dukenukeem3d and warcraft2 are just in dirs on my sd card and they run under wm2002 to wm2005 3.5AKU without even a reinstall
so they are not really taking advantage of any newer features of the os
same with this doomCE port
http://www.revolution.cx/DoomCE.htm
levenum said:
Redugar - I don't mean to be rude but are you leaving in the 80s?
No one has bee writing games or anything other than drivers and other OS / basic components using assembler in over a decade and a half!
It's way way too much work and not at all necessary.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Check out SmartGear (see my emulation-related articles) and the new Pocket QuickView ( http://www.modaco.com/Pocket-QuickView-40-looking-for-ideas-t255364.html )
The mission-critical sections were all written in assembly. This is why it's WAY faster than any other, C-based emulators / image viewers.
maybe using gcc for arm to some some nativ arm code would also have less overhead then win32 stk
though not sure how many libs would be required to be linked to so could end up a drag
Ok, I know when I am bitten but I am just no willing to quit!
(Just to reiterate - to 80's remark was meant in good fun and not intended as an insult, plus this was written late at night after a long work day)
Any way it does make sense that for high speed some graphics rendering routines will be written in assembler (note that unfortunately eVC tools do not include inline assembler so modules have to be compiled separately and then linked)
I do remember taking a peak at the DOOM port and it is mostly C. (Though I am sure it has assembler sections).
What I was trying to say is this:
a) You can't write a whole game like DOOM in assembler only in reasonable time.
b) Even assembler modules need to be eventually linked in to an executable so the OS (what ever it is) can load them - and here is the problem. Every exe has a header that states what processor and what OS it is designed for. Even if your app does not use new OS features, but is linked using a higher OS SDK settings the exe header will contain a version number unknown to the OS and it will refuse to load stating that it is "illegal file".
A less prehistoric example would be files compiled with WM 6 SDK refusing to run on WM 5 despite the fact that there is almost no difference in the OS.
"(Just to reiterate - to 80's remark was meant in good fun and not intended as an insult, plus this was written late at night after a long work day)"
dont think anybody took it any other way at least i did
what i should had said maybe rather then that they were in pure asm
then maybe that they were not that depending on the os and version of the os itselfs
and maybe of those fps like doom and nuke3d and such
are ports of old dos games where that was more the custom then later on when windows gaming took off

VirtualBox Android Emulator with Marketplace

Does anyone know of any VirtualBox Android Emulator that has Marketplace?
Thanks!
Oh, I forgot to add "that's free" and not the $50 that some cheeky bastards are trying to charge for a thing called AndroidVM!
iridium21 said:
Does anyone know of any VirtualBox Android Emulator that has Marketplace?
Thanks!
Oh, I forgot to add "that's free" and not the $50 that some cheeky bastards are trying to charge for a thing called AndroidVM!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android doesn't just load up and run on a PC. It's a source code project that a real developer has to spend time porting from platform to platform, unless you want to run it from a runtime built from the SDK. To do that requires an underlying OS, like Windows, Linux a MAC - something capable of running the SDK.
Since, VMware is emulating a PC, then in order to run as a real virtual machine, android needs to be pretty much ported to a PC. Since Android is built on a Linux kernel, it's not impossible, but geese - why? That said, it's bound to show up on an Intel compatible tablet at some point, if it hasn't already.
attn1 said:
Android doesn't just load up and run on a PC. It's a source code project that a real developer has to spend time porting from platform to platform, unless you want to run it from a runtime built from the SDK. To do that requires an underlying OS, like Windows, Linux a MAC - something capable of running the SDK.
Since, VMware is emulating a PC, then in order to run as a real virtual machine, android needs to be pretty much ported to a PC. Since Android is built on a Linux kernel, it's not impossible, but geese - why? That said, it's bound to show up on an Intel compatible tablet at some point, if it hasn't already.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm already running Android under Virtualbox - I just wondered if there's a version for VB that has Marketplace.
attn1 said:
Android doesn't just load up and run on a PC. It's a source code project that a real developer has to spend time porting from platform to platform, unless you want to run it from a runtime built from the SDK. To do that requires an underlying OS, like Windows, Linux a MAC - something capable of running the SDK.
Since, VMware is emulating a PC, then in order to run as a real virtual machine, android needs to be pretty much ported to a PC. Since Android is built on a Linux kernel, it's not impossible, but geese - why? That said, it's bound to show up on an Intel compatible tablet at some point, if it hasn't already.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow. So much complete and utter wrong in one post... I've been running Android under a virtual machine for quite a while...
There is an x86 version of Android available at androidx86.org
It will definitely run under Virtual Box or any other virtualization software package. It's Android 1.6 by the way, and you will have to perform some geek-like activities to simulate an SD-card to install appz.
Big question is whether an ARM-device version of Android would work in a normal VM emulator (not talking about Bochs and stuff).
FloatingFatMan said:
Wow. So much complete and utter wrong in one post... I've been running Android under a virtual machine for quite a while...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, since I hadn't heard of a port to x86, I was certainly wrong about that, which makes the rest of the post moot, but not wrong. In any event, I stand corrected.
sorry to add a flame of any kind but this
"Since, VMware is emulating a PC, then in order to run as a real virtual machine, android needs to be pretty much ported to a PC. Since Android is built on a Linux kernel, it's not impossible, but geese - why? That said, it's bound to show up on an Intel compatible tablet at some point, if it hasn't already."
is totally wrong.
Virtual machines virtualise the hardware of your machine (bad explanation I KNOW). if you have a PowerPC you can only emulate PowerPC (Mac for those that dont know) and intel/amd chips are things like x86 then theres smaller devices like ARM. my point is that if you have a Intel/amd box you can only emulate x86 O/S. however if you have a netbook with a version of linux or windows built on arm arch then u could prob get away with the original android if you are running normal x86 then u require android that has been built from source on x86.
this made me laugh
"Since Android is built on a Linux kernel, it's not impossible"
all i can say is what??
anyway back to the point... to run android on a x86 box u need x86 android
The problem with getting the Market to work is simply that the GApps are currently only available in a compiled for ARM version. period. that's the answer you wanted to hear i guess.
@others: stop OTing please...
hvc123 said:
sorry to add a flame of any kind but this
"Since, VMware is emulating a PC, then in order to run as a real virtual machine, android needs to be pretty much ported to a PC. Since Android is built on a Linux kernel, it's not impossible, but geese - why? That said, it's bound to show up on an Intel compatible tablet at some point, if it hasn't already."
is totally wrong.
Virtual machines virtualise the hardware of your machine (bad explanation I KNOW). if you have a PowerPC you can only emulate PowerPC (Mac for those that dont know) and intel/amd chips are things like x86 then theres smaller devices like ARM. my point is that if you have a Intel/amd box you can only emulate x86 O/S. however if you have a netbook with a version of linux or windows built on arm arch then u could prob get away with the original android if you are running normal x86 then u require android that has been built from source on x86.
this made me laugh
"Since Android is built on a Linux kernel, it's not impossible"
all i can say is what??
anyway back to the point... to run android on a x86 box u need x86 android
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
VMware and Virtualbox emulate PC hardware. Since Android runs on a Linux kernel, and Linux was originally developed for an x86 PC, it follows that a port of Android could be done for a PC. Since this was not a generic discussion about virtual machines but a specific discussion about PC emulation, I don't see where the argument is.
PC = x86 and it's successors. You said I was totally wrong and then pretty much made my case. The only point I missed is that the work had already been done. To run Android in a x86 (PC) VM, you'll need an X86 (PC) compatible version of Android - right - what I said.
Right... Ok, now does anyone know the answer to the original question?
the_fish said:
The problem with getting the Market to work is simply that the GApps are currently only available in a compiled for ARM version. period. that's the answer you wanted to hear i guess.
@others: stop OTing please...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OP should read your thread.
arctu said:
OP should read your thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have
Supposedly, these guys have Android with Marketplace for VirtualBox:
http://www.androidvm.com/home
So it must be able to be done - the only problem is that it's $49.95!
deleted
zgornz said:
They state they are running Ubuntu in a VM, then installed the Android emulator in Ubuntu, then the android emulator is setup to have the Marketplace. The android emulator is doing the ARM emulation.
I think using qemu User Mode emulation it might be possible to actually launch the Marketplace and apps via android-x86 without using a phone emulator. Not sure it would be that valuable, but it would allow lots more apps on a netbook running Android.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I imagine it would be a mess to get a touch screen working in android running on an emulator.
I read reviews on androidx86 booted (not emulated) on a few netbooks that ran great and very responsive..I also read one on a touch screen comp that worked fine..they claim all apps work-minus gapps obviously.
I plan on trying this on my Toshiba nb205 netbook today and can post a review if anyone is interested..
Sent from my Nexus One using the XDA mobile application powered by Tapatalk
A review would sure be appreciated. More knowledge is always better.
Just a quick follow up, I tried out the Androidx86 on my netbook this weekend, both booted off the usb and installed on the hd..it runs..nothing spectacular and slightly dissappointing. You still only have a 4x4 screen and the Marketplace is entirely different, very small selection of "blah" apps..none of my favorite android apps anyways-facebook,twitter,gmail..not really any widgets either. Lastly, you need to use an external mouse..the touchpad just moves the background but gives you no pointer (could be a hardware compatability issue tho)..
On the positive side, the internet was very fast and resume time was almost instantanious..not really any major bugs, just nothing too special..
This method works with 1.6 as originally described here:
link-> forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=529170
I got it to run with the signed-dream_devphone_userdebug-img-14721.zip image from HTC for the developer phone.
link-> developer.htc.com/adp.html
I replaced the android-sdk-windows\add-ons\google_apis-4_r02\images\system.img with the one from the signed-dream_devphone_userdebug-img-14721.zip
(you should backup the original system.ini)
I then used the Android SDK GUI interface to create a Google API Level 4 machine.
I did not need to install the marketenabler.apk, as described in the original thread.
It boots up like a new Dev Phone, it behaves like there is a valid SIM and working data connection.
CTRL-F11 rotates the screen (slide out keyboard).
I have only installed a few free apps (K9 mail) but they seem to work fine.
I can't post links so copy, and paste them.
It would be trivial to create an Ubuntu virtual machine and then install the Android SDK inside of it and modify the system.img. Installing the SDK on your own machine probably takes less space and resources then running it inside another VM.
attn1 said:
Well, since I hadn't heard of a port to x86, I was certainly wrong about that, which makes the rest of the post moot, but not wrong. In any event, I stand corrected.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Updated, not corrected.
Yes, you were absolutely correct except for being out of date, because that process you described has already taken place as others have now pointed out.
To the person who said he was wrong, actually, no.
Android as it stands on the phone, is an ARM system compiled in ARM machine code. Android apps are hardware/platform agnostic but the operating system is not, it does have to be ported and recompiled for any different hardware system. That being said, it seems that most of that work is finished, ala androidx86.org
Cheers,
Rob
x86 Android Market
I have been reading a bit. It seems that it is possible to have Gapps installed for x86.
Froyo, people have been using Cyanogen 6 Gapps for Tegra.
Android x86 launched their Gingerbread version not long ago. It would not surprise me if Cyanogen 7 Gapps worked with it. Different devices used different versions and now there is just one version for all. It should be possible to run VM from the desktop.
NDK dependent Apps: in theory, it may be possible taking the apk using android apk tool, x86 NDK from the x86 build and rebuild it for x86 code.
I will be playing with an old EEE900 and see how this goes sooon.

Android Dev: Linux vs. Mac vs. Windows

Experts, Developers, Fellow Gentlemen (& perhaps, some Lassey?),
PURPOSE:
To request, collect, organize, and clearly present 3 types of information related to BOTH android application development (for sale on the market) and ROM cooking (using scripts, kitchens, etc.).
INFO REQUESTED:
(1) Compare the relative the PROs and CONs of Android Dev. using:
Windows with Cygwin and Eclipse
Windows with a Linux VM (Eclipse installed on the VM)
Mac with Eclipse
Mac with a Linux VM (Eclipse installed on the VM)
Linux on bare metal (using Eclipse, of course, or the NDK)
(2) If you have used two or more of the above for Android Dev., please describe your experiences and insights, the primary differences, similarities, tips and pitfalls, etc.
(3) Given a fairly large budget to buy your own laptop for use in Android application development and ROM cooking, please RANK the above 5 choices in order from your 1st (best and most desirable) choice to your 5th (last and least desirable) configuration.
Best Regards,
Paul
Honestly your best bet if you want to do android ROM development, and not developing apks, then your best bet is to dual boot your laptop with widows and ubuntu. I thouhgt that you were wanting to develop apks, since you mentioned the SDK and eclipse, that is really more for app development, rather than ROMS and android open source it self.
The reason for ubuntu is that all the of utilities all work with ubuntu, they can work with other distros, but ubuntu seems to be the one most flock to.
The reason not to use a VM is because it can have issues connecting to the USB connection with your phone attached.
Mac will work, if you really want to go down that path, but it is more cumbersome to get things to work "well" as BSD is the underlying kernel, but you have to install an Xwindows environment to use most of the Android utilities, and that can be a pain to get working for someone not really experienced with linux AND OS X.
Windows with cygwin is a possibility, but again, more of a pain that just dual booting ubuntu.
+1 for dualboot
I'm definitely not a developer but I do know PC's. Jim's right you won't get any odd b.s. if you partition and install Ubuntu.
For the small amount of rom tweaking/developing I have done I use windows with cygwin. With baksmali and smali for decompiling dex files.
Sent from my MB865 using xda premium
Me too. I get by with Windows7 and Cygwin...
I know that I will eventually have to at least set up dual-boot with Ubuntu if I want to get involved in "real" development (even that would freak out my wife though - having options at boot on our shared family computer... gonna need a separate dev machine I guess)
Sent from my mind using XDA
I have worked through both windows and linux (ubuntu mostly), and I can give you some info about macs too, but I don't have actual experience there.
Windows
Pros:
More software for things other than android development, so if you want just one OS it may be the way to go.
If you are familiar with it already, it will make your life easier as you won't have to learn about a new OS.
Not much more really.
Cons:
most developers use linux, so you will be a bit alone i the android dev world meaning possible less support.
Not as well supported officially or not.
Overall:
Windows will probably be just fine for app development, as the sdk and eclipse both run fine.
You will have trouble with rom development. Android is based on the linux kernel, so it does not play well with windows.
You can use Cygwin, but you will have mixed results. It is not perfect. Some things just won't work unless you have linux, and quite honestly it is probably easier to get ubuntu working right.
Ubuntu
Pros:
It's FREE!!!!!
most official support
It's what most devs use, so unofficial support is good
Most utilities are built for it.
Cons:
Can be tough to learn if you are used to windows
not as many apps for other things, but that is getting better.
Over all:
By far the best for development. you are just gonna be better off in general. your best bet is to dual boot, which is really easy, and you can always use windows when you want. A virtual machine is an option, but you will have issues with certain things, like usb support. A VM will also require more cpu power to do everything so it is not a good idea on low power machines.
Hardware
Linux is much lighter than windows, so a low power computer will be better off with it.
You should be fine with anything that is not total crap for app development. Basic rom development should be fine in the mid to low end. If you are getting into more serious stuff like building up android source you will want some serious power. I have 4GB or ram and an intel i3 processor (2.13 gHZ dual core 4 thread) and that barely cuts it. compiling cm7 takes a couple hours and it runs at 100% cpu usage the whole time and gets hotter than hell.
You will need a pretty big hard drive for some stuff. The AOSP source is huge. all my android stuff takes about 28GB.
Over all
your best bet is to dual boot windows and Ubuntu Linux on at least a decent PC. you will be happier with something with a slightly higher end CPU.
I use 64-bit Ubuntu, it's just so much better and everything just runs natively! I mean some of those kitchens and tools are only for windows, but it doesn't really bother me because I dont use them
If you want to learn to write code, get ubuntu and jump head first into it.

BlueStacks App player

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.

windows 95 running on surface rt

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

Categories

Resources