Related
So Canonical has demonstrated a prototype version of an environment for Ubuntu, based on the Xorg X Window environment, in which Android Apps can be run. For many folks that like to experiment and play around, for instance with the installation of Android to a computer, this is pretty exciting. After the project is optimized a bit more, I guess, the source code for the emulator will be released. Anyways what I'm getting at is that the article points out that a main purpose in this is to provide users the option to run Android programs in their current Ubuntu environment instead of a full-on Android installation to their machine. Seeing as the Android OS version for computers has a long ways to go before people can really install it and have full functionality without having to do a lot of work themselves, this has my hopes high. Here is the full article so you can stop listening to me babble and see what the guys at desktoplinux had to give us:
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS7172257171.html
I know this is an old article, but I figured many people had never seen this and could use the bit of info.
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.
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.
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.
I like this phone. Feels good in my hand. Did the job fine with Froyo. When the GB update never came, rooted it and began a new hobby (obsession?). Now running a 4.4.4 Omnirom. Works mostly quite well. Doubtful if there will ever be Lollipop.
I do not need a quad-core screamer. This is a mobile phone and information device. I am not playing Grand Theft Auto on it, and if I spend time viewing my favorite flicks, there will be no battery left when I need to phone home. Wife will not be happy (unless here battery is also dead for similar reasons so will never know).
However, more and more apps will not run. Armv6 is definitely on the outs, even though some providers still sell such phones. Running old Maps version, Google Now does work, sideloaded, with an online-voicesearch-wrapper. Not bad, in all.
But maybe time to get a newer device. Or maybe another OS ...
Android was designed to be a Java-based Linux. Apps written would simply install and run on any hardware. No need to compile for that Atom or other chip. Simply played. The way it was supposed to be. (Gnu Linux depends on Gnu C and C++ compilers, and every distro needs to maintain app package variants for various HW architectures. Android was to be the alternative with one app store ...)
and then, devs started incorporating pre-compiled JNI (Java Native Interface) components. These are compiled (using the Gnu compilers?) for specific architectures. Read Armv7. Lets out our devices, Intels, etc. It is too much trouble to maintain multi-architecture apps this way. Armv6 is obviously obsolete, so goes by the wayside entirely. Most apps are not opensource even if I were to compile them myself.
This destroys the whole idea of Android and Google is the worst offender. How long till that shiny ridiculously priced flagship ends up like our device? How long to only 64 bit is supported (definitely need 64-bit on a ... phone!)? How long till Armv8, 9, .... Maybe time to forget about Android all together. Google is the prime offender.
Problem is that Windows and Ubuntu both need compiled Apps (though QML and HTML5 should be portable). Both do look good. Put in the Dalvik VM, just like Java gets installed on any distro, and made in the shade, can keep the more reasonable apps. Gnu tools should be available for Ubuntu.
Do not know whether this is the place for this tirade, but ... what say you?