I saw a post on another part of the forum that was closed and the moderator linked me here.
Someone was wondering if Windows Vista could be ported to the kaiser and what the risks are.
the simple answer to your question would be...
nope
Simple answer:
NO.
With a little more detail for you:
1. Kaiser does not have an x86 processor.
2. You would have to develop an x86 emulator capable of running on the ARM processor
3. There isn't enough RAM on the device.
3. Vista's install footprint is bigger than the Kaiser's SDHC card capability.
4. Your batter would be gone before it managed to boot it.
Merrell
Why would u like 2 run Vista in a PHONE? Is Vista´s dial pad better than WM? Are drugs legal in your state?
BTW ... Vista min sys specs are:
1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 GB of system memory
40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
WDDM Driver
128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
32 bits per pixel
DVD-ROM drive
If you wanna cram Vista on something small, try a VGN-UX1XN.
LOL.. I wonder why the admin closed the thread on that topic
Hello, is there any emulator wich will alaud me to use windows xp app (like games) on mobile phones, or chance windows xp or vista or 7 to bi installed on mobile phone like htc for example?
helion222 said:
Hello, is there any emulator wich will alaud me to use windows xp app (like games) on mobile phones, or chance windows xp or vista or 7 to bi installed on mobile phone like htc for example?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i dont think so, windows xp needs a big ammount of ram and above 2ghz cpu dual core to even run properly these days, it takes alot of HDD space too.
Its very hard to make windows xp run natively on a phone, but emulating it is out of the question.
Emulating an entire operating system will result in major slowdown, you have xbox360 with windowsxp and its running horrible, it has a 3.2ghz tricore cpu too so imagine the speed of emulating it on a 1.0ghz dual core cpu and thats the top of the line phone these days.
So, windows will be very slow and when i mean slow i mean things like taking an entire minute to send a file to recycle bin and games would be out of the question as they are in majority D3D dependant and android cellphones use OpenGL.
As the above post says, no. It is possible to emulate a Winmo device from 2003 through 6.5.3 on your PC, but not the other way round. A phone, even the powerful ones do not have enough grunt, to do the job. WinMo emulators on the PC can now run native ARM code executables directly. No mean feat, even on a 3GHz PC
If the PC program was written in native x86 code, a phone cannot run it, but if it was written in .NET and used the core basic methods and properties of the same or a previous version of the .NET CF framework, there is a very slim outside chance that it may work, but the requisites are very restrictive.
Watch for the upcoming version of Windows 8. Microsoft is determined to get onto the latest ARM powered pad devices, having already lost important ground to the iPad and 'pad' versions of Android. This should see a much closer integration of the platforms, but next year may already be too late.
stephj said:
As the above post says, no. It is possible to emulate a Winmo device from 2003 through 6.5.3 on your PC, but not the other way round. A phone does not have enough grunt in it to do the job.
If the PC program was written in native x86 code, a phone cannot run it, but if it was written in .NET and used the core basic methods and properties of the same or previous version of the .NET CF framework, there is a very slim outside chance that it may work, but the requisites are very restrictive.
Watch the upcoming version of Windows 8, that Microsoft is determined to get onto the latest ARM powered pad devices, having already lost important ground to versions of Android. This should see a much closer integration of the platforms, but next year may already be too late.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This!
Buy a wm phone
to whom is knowledgable and also like to explain like Ted mozbi in How I met Your Mother show.... please what is the defernce between ARM based tablet and Intel based tablet???? what concerns me the most is it like I can install exe. file on the intel while I can't in the ARM !?
The major difference between the two is that they typically refer to the the architecture of the cpu. This means how it was designed and how machine instructions are interpreted by cpu.
The answer is yes and no for whether you can install exe's. Yes, they will both be able to install different programs and applications. However, the application or program in question will have to be compiled for that architecture. I haven't done any windows mobile development but my guess is that most if not all apps you can download from the market place will be available for both architectures.
Hopefully that can clear things up a bit.
Wow fastest replay ever seen thanks a milion,,, it did clear out the picture clearer then before ...
To add a little more to the above, Windows on ARM (WoA) will only be able to run Metro style apps, specifically written for Windows 8. I also think that it will only be able to get these apps through the Windows Marketplace. I'm sure there'll be a jailbreak before it's even released, but I think this will still only allow metro style apps written for Windows 8, it'll just allow for them to be installed from other sources. Jailbreaking may also allow non-metro desktop style apps, it's too early to tell, but these will still have to be specially written for WoA.
Windows 8 on Intel chips will be able to run all legacy apps (which will now be called desktop mode apps to differentiate them from Metro apps), from any and all sources, just like your normal Windows PC can now. It will also be able to run Metro apps from the marketplace, and presumably from any other source as well.
See also http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1466400
for the Definitive guide to Windows on ARM
stevenmu said:
To add a little more to the above, Windows on ARM (WoA) will only be able to run Metro style apps, specifically written for Windows 8. I also think that it will only be able to get these apps through the Windows Marketplace.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To add on, Windows on ARM is called Windows RT. Metro Style Apps is able to cross-platform on the x86, x64 and also ARM while Desktop Apps are able to run on x86 and x64. However, preinstalled Desktop Apps such as Office 15 (Microsoft Word, Excel, Powerpoint, OneNote, etc.) will be able to run on the ARM version.
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've got a tablet with a dual core Atom Z2560 x86 CPU and 1GB RAM on Android 4.3. After seeing that the CPU officially supports VT-x it came to mind that this kind of hardware can be enough to fully virtualize at least Windows XP or Ubuntu, and even do it pretty smoothly, since I've done it on slower PCs. But I quickly found out that there is no software for doing this. Neither Vmware or Virtualbox seem to have released hosts for Android, and the only software I found that could be sufficient is QEMU, which appears to be designed to translate x86 commands to ARM, and therefore is insanely slow. I'm not even sure if it will work on x86.
Is there any software that can do what I'm asking for ? Or any software in development for this at all ?
As far as I know, there's no such software at this time.