Related
I know that Microsoft is only going to release Windows 8 RT as a pre installed OS on the specific device. I also know that they will lock the boot loaders of these devices. I know the chances of getting this seam close to impossible, but i found this device on Asus website.
http://eee.asus.com/global/event/2012/computex2012/tablet-600.html
It looks exactly like the TF300T just running windows 8 RT, it is even using the same exact processor. Do any of the developers think that it would be possible to extract the OS from this device and port it over to the TF300T? Also wouldn't Asus also have to post the image of the OS on their site to restore the device in case of a crash and you need to reload? If the second is the case wouldn't we just need to have a custom boot loader that would allow us to flash and actually boot into Windows 8 RT? I am mainly just trying to get a developers viewpoint on this to see if it would even be possible.
it had double the ram, a different resolution, NFC, led flash...
these things alone will make it near impossible to port windows 8 over to our tf300's, its seems the only spec to match is the processor, and even then it doesnt say what type of tegra 3 that is, so i really wouldn't get your hopes to high
coffmad said:
it had double the ram, a different resolution, NFC, led flash...
these things alone will make it near impossible to port windows 8 over to our tf300's, its seems the only spec to match is the processor, and even then it doesnt say what type of tegra 3 that is, so i really wouldn't get your hopes to high
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If windows 8 RT is anything like the current windows operating system ( which Microsoft says it shares most of the same code as the x86 based version), than having more ram does not matter. The only thing that really matters is that the chip set drivers are the same and that the storage controller drivers are the same. So as long as the chip set is the same (or the diver is the same) than i do not see how it wouldn't work.
Its not an x86 PC, mind it... Embedded ARM platforms dont have plug and play, "smart" buses and standarts in general... It doesnt matter if device X is visually the same as device Y, all the meaningful stuff - GPIO, interrupts etc - maybe completely different.
As far as my experience goes (i 'launched' (cant say ported, i only 'welded' assorted driver code and kernel) linux on wince acer s200 ), CPU and miscellaneous hw initialization may be completely different on WinRT. Besides, why you want an OS which is incompatible with either WM7 or old WinCE/WinMo?
tsamolotoff said:
Its not an x86 PC, mind it... Embedded ARM platforms dont have plug and play, "smart" buses and standarts in general... It doesnt matter if device X is visually the same as device Y, all the meaningful stuff - GPIO, interrupts etc - maybe completely different.
As far as my experience goes (i 'launched' (cant say ported, i only 'welded' assorted driver code and kernel) linux on wince acer s200 ), CPU and miscellaneous hw initialization may be completely different on WinRT. Besides, why you want an OS which is incompatible with either WM7 or old WinCE/WinMo?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand your points. I was simply pointing out that Microsoft stated that the majority of the code for Win RT is the same as the x86 version. I know that it has nothing to do with the look of the product and everything to do with the hardware inside. The only reason i would prefer Win RT over Android right now is that Win RT supports the full desktop version of IE 10. Android is lacking a fully functional desktop version ( chrome does not support apps, the full version of java, ETC.) If Android where to get a fully functional desktop web browser, i would be perfectly happy. Also it would be nice to have the full suite of Microsoft office for college.
I think its more connected to limited IO and CPU resources of ARM tablets, rather than OS limitations... MS can say absolutely anything, but the fact is that there would be no software on release... especially if you take into account that Valve/major OEMs had already sent their 'f-bombs' to MS and its plans with windows 8.
Would the fact that all RT tabs ship with locked boot loaders halt anything as well? I don't believe MS wants RT out on anything but approved tabs.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda premium
You do know that since almost all win apps are in net frame work making them work is one click in vs2012?
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300TG using Tapatalk 2
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.
So after playing with my Surface for 5 days now, it is obvious there is a lot of capability in the back end through the Desktop. II have networked printers, and drives at both home and office going, streaming content etc. It is very capable for what it is, way beyond any other Ipad and Android tablet out there. So it seems to me it is just a matter of time before some XDAer figures out a way to unleash it and possibly load other programs (non-RT) programs some way. We know the official MS word is no, but it seems to me it is a fully capable Win8 machine that just has some goierners on it and limited processing power, just waiting to be cracked.
Am I just dreaming?
I would love to see this happen. The one thing holding me back from purchasing one. I'd love a Windows 8 Pro version tablet at the Surface RT pricing but wouldn't we all...
I dont think rt can run x86 app properly. Because the cpu is not as good as x86 core. I am interested in porting rt to compatiable device such as tergra 2 and 3 pad.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda app-developers app
liu2002 said:
I dont think rt can run x86 app properly. Because the cpu is not as good as x86 core. I am interested in porting rt to compatiable device such as tergra 2 and 3 pad.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think it's necessarily about the Tegra being "as good" as an x86 - the issue is that you'd need an emulator, or the source for the x86 app which you'd then need to re-compile for ARM. I believe MS made a developer toolkit available that allows simpler conversion from x86 to ARM but it's still up to the app vendors to do it.
In theory, the same code could compile for both x86/64 and ARM (RT), but VS2012 will not allow you to compile an ARM desktop app. There is no legit way to write/compile a desktop app on RT. Its an arbitrary BS limitation put in place by MS. You cannot side load apps, everything must come through the MS store, RT enterprise being an exception... which doesn't help us. And the MS store will only offer Metro apps. MS office shows that's desktop apps are fully possible, albeit recoded/recompiled for ARM, but MS will not allow it. In an ideal world, RT would be a fully supported OS, and the likes of Adobe and others could release desktop apps for RT, but sadly it won't happen.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Skitals said:
In an ideal world, RT would be a fully supported OS, and the likes of Adobe and others could release desktop apps for RT, but sadly it won't happen.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why do you say that?
Because its not allowed, only metro style apps published through the app store are allowed. Even if you compile compatible desktop software, the OS won't run it. Its a closed sandbox.
At best we can hope for a "homebrew" community to compile open source software, and find some hacks to get it running.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Hello,
I’m a happy owner of the Surface RT and I just wanted to add my 2c.
I think that Metro UI is great for tablet, but lacks apps !
So I cannot understand why Microsoft didn’t include .Net on this platform ! I think the main goal and the first “Homebrew” must be recompilation of Mono for ARM. As this will allow us develop a lot of programs, quickly and using “good” tools (Visual )
I just started to study WinRT and I’m already hitting a lot of blocks (For instance, I cannot find a way to open Shared Socket ! So if any other app listen on 1900 port, I lose my SSDP discovery... )
But I think recompilation of Mono is definitely a way to go ! I think i’ll try it this week-end, if I have some time, but It’s sure I will not be able install on my surface As for now it seems to be impossible to enter Testing Mode on it.
Jurion
jurion said:
So I cannot understand why Microsoft didn’t include .Net on this platform !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think people seem to be missing something here (well, not just here, on other threads/forums.blogs too). MS have essentially (it’s really quite impressive) ported over the entire Windows OS to run on ARM – and this includes all of .NET v4 with supporting libraries/DLLs.
You only have to pop to C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319 on your Surface RT to see – all the same libraries for the same version of .NET a x86 desktop seem to be there - including Linq, SQL, reflection etc.
Now, this could be really great news! I’d bet that it would be entirely possible for standard .NET applications (by standard, I mean programs that only use managed code and nothing legacy) to be reasonably easily recompiled to run on ARM - ideally as easyily as changing a drop-down!
Furthermore, this is all supported in Visual Studio, it’s just locked down a bit - I’ve been able to compile, with VS2012 (and a minor tweak to remove the ARM compile block) a simple command line EXE for ARM (using .NET calls – though only in C++ which is a shame). The problem is, as soon I open it on Surface, I get an error saying the ‘digital certificate’ couldn't be validated – a common issue which has a simple fix documented online. The catch... that the instructions to remove this block don’t work with secure boot enabled, and - at present - we can’t disable this on the Surface (on normal PCs this can be turned off in the bios).
So – the key to all this, is for MS to open it up (not impossible, but who knows if or when) or for someone to get round this secure boot/certificate requirement. I’m sure there’s some smart people on here with abilities to work on, and hopefully succeed in doing this. Even if people aren't able to work a way round this block, I'm hopefully that eventually MS may release some firmware update tools that someone can hack to switch off UEFI secure boot. Or perhaps someone at MS or a partner may leak some file/app/boot that unlocks this for dev/enterprise purposes.
I look forward to it happening!
T
Skitals said:
In theory, the same code could compile for both x86/64 and ARM (RT), but VS2012 will not allow you to compile an ARM desktop app. There is no legit way to write/compile a desktop app on RT. Its an arbitrary BS limitation put in place by MS. You cannot side load apps, everything must come through the MS store, RT enterprise being an exception... which doesn't help us. And the MS store will only offer Metro apps. MS office shows that's desktop apps are fully possible, albeit recoded/recompiled for ARM, but MS will not allow it. In an ideal world, RT would be a fully supported OS, and the likes of Adobe and others could release desktop apps for RT, but sadly it won't happen.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everything doesn't have to come through the MS store, you can install applications that you build in Visual Studio 2012 for Windows Store, create an appx package and choose not to publish it in Windows Store. VS2012 then creates an appx package as well as a PowerShell script that you can run on Surface, accept security warning, get the developer's license on the device (it's free) and that's it!
It is fairly obvious why MS does not allow installation of "Desktop" apps on ARM tablets. Otherwise dev's would get lazy and just recompile desktop apps for ARM. The experience on a touch tablet would not be great on (unmodified) Desktop apps, hence Microsoft set this constraint on Windows RT in order to push dev's towards making a proper touch friendly app. The result is of course the lack of apps initially, but in the long run the benefits will be a greater experience as the apps would be optimized for touch.
Sure there are obvious downsides to this strategy, but the decision itself makes a lot of sense from a useability standpoint. You already read the complaints in reviews about "Office" not being Metro-style and unfriendly to touch. However this is naturally a decision due to time constraints, because MS would have also preferred to not include a desktop on RT. Office is the selling point now, to gravitate people towards RT and when there is enough demand, the touch friendly (Metro) apps will flow in eventually
Backflipping said:
I think people seem to be missing something here (well, not just here, on other threads/forums.blogs too). MS have essentially (it’s really quite impressive) ported over the entire Windows OS to run on ARM – and this includes all of .NET v4 with supporting libraries/DLLs.
You only have to pop to C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319 on your Surface RT to see – all the same libraries for the same version of .NET a x86 desktop seem to be there - including Linq, SQL, reflection etc.
Now, this could be really great news! I’d bet that it would be entirely possible for standard .NET applications (by standard, I mean programs that only use managed code and nothing legacy) to be reasonably easily recompiled to run on ARM - ideally as easyily as changing a drop-down!
Furthermore, this is all supported in Visual Studio, it’s just locked down a bit - I’ve been able to compile, with VS2012 (and a minor tweak to remove the ARM compile block) a simple command line EXE for ARM (using .NET calls – though only in C++ which is a shame). The problem is, as soon I open it on Surface, I get an error saying the ‘digital certificate’ couldn't be validated – a common issue which has a simple fix documented online. The catch... that the instructions to remove this block don’t work with secure boot enabled, and - at present - we can’t disable this on the Surface (on normal PCs this can be turned off in the bios).
So – the key to all this, is for MS to open it up (not impossible, but who knows if or when) or for someone to get round this secure boot/certificate requirement. I’m sure there’s some smart people on here with abilities to work on, and hopefully succeed in doing this. Even if people aren't able to work a way round this block, I'm hopefully that eventually MS may release some firmware update tools that someone can hack to switch off UEFI secure boot. Or perhaps someone at MS or a partner may leak some file/app/boot that unlocks this for dev/enterprise purposes.
I look forward to it happening!
T
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmm, sorry my bad, didn't look enougth to find .Net assemblies.
As for open it for MS, may be, maaaay be it's the same scheme which they followed with Windows Phone 7.
No native developpment for 7.0 -- 7.8
But they open it for 8.0
May be they just want to force people developp Metro app to populate the store first.
So where's the best place to get one?
I'm looking into buying one very very soon, I found some on ebay for $585 with the cover, That sounds like a win to me. I wish QVC had it, That'd be lovely.
I'm praying we get a work around for all this, But still If the device isn't made for it, I can't be mad that it doesn't do it, That's like being angry that my car doesn't fly.
But it's such a tease, it worries me that I'll have an entire desktop, Sitting, Obselete, With nothing but Office, which I wont even use.
Can't_Live_Without_My_Evo said:
I'm looking into buying one very very soon, I found some on ebay for $585 with the cover, That sounds like a win to me. I wish QVC had it, That'd be lovely.
I'm praying we get a work around for all this, But still If the device isn't made for it, I can't be mad that it doesn't do it, That's like being angry that my car doesn't fly.
But it's such a tease, it worries me that I'll have an entire desktop, Sitting, Obselete, With nothing but Office, which I wont even use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is made for it. It has the full desktop, and the full desktop Office suite. Its a big tease. The whole "do more" campaign advertises you can "click in" and have full laptop productivity with touchpad and mouse/keyboard. Except the only software to take advantage of it is desktop IE and Office.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
This is a nagging question for me and the more I hear and question and dig, the more it LOOKS, FEELS and SMELLS like a Penguin, so to speak.
I am asking XDA experts and hackers for more insight than the almost nonexistent hints I have found searching the web.
Is the Windows 8 Platform some type of Linux???
With the fast start of Win 8, the boot lock tactics (I think it's boot loader is Linux flavored) and Hyper-V, (I think a virtual machine IS what the old desktop as we know it runs in, including the virtual limitations), it sure seems to me as if Windows 8 is nothing more than a form of Linux modified by Microsoft. I think RT for devices is "Winix" without the virtual OS stuff enabled or installed.
About the time, if I remember correctly VMware demonstrated, Winmo and Win CE on smart devices in a virtual machine at Comdex, Hyper-V was announced and the Win VM's became history.
"I also noticed people trying to use Win 8 as a VM host having little success and when they do they suffer the same things I have noticed running a VM inside a VM... severe performance reduction along with the problems that are inherent to Microsoft’s Virtual environment"
Does or can anyone determine if my suspicions are founded???
[FNF]LoBot said:
Is the Windows 8 Platform some type of Linux???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. None of those things are at all indicative of Windows 8 being based on Linux.
What is really in Windows 8
I don't think Win 8 runs the way MS wants us to think it does that is why I am asking and I would hope that more XDA people would chime in.
The Windows 8 claim, if the app runs on one Win 8 device it will run on ALL Win 8 devices. This smells of a "virtual appliance" (See VMware). This was also supposed to be what the java platform was for before MS bastardized and renamed it. Aside from that Java does run somewhat accross platforms.
If you enable/use what appears to be the desktop as most of us knew it, when it starts, it starts like a VMware VM that was put in PAUSE. Not that any of this is a bad thing but with the different OS's out there, the Win 8 feels more like them with virtualization mixed in.
Metro look, barffff. Just a comment, "it is not easy to make hot graphics in raw stripped down linux but two color icons....
Win 8 may not be any flavor of linux "Winux" but I feel that Windows 8 is a shell running things as virtual appliances of a sort. The only people that I feel can begin to answer this are the modders and hackers because MS sure isn't going to spell it out.
This link may be total trash but it also hints at sprinkles of linux "Winux"
http://www.muktware.com/941/microsoft-using-linux-kernel-windows-8
Here is another Link from a couple years ago about MS violating GPL (Linux) for it's Hyper-V
http://www.osnews.com/story/21882/Microsoft_s_Linux_Kernel_Code_Drop_Result_of_GPL_Violation
I can't be the only one that really wants to know why this looks like a Penguin
P.S. I am not a hater, I just don't like anyones OS trying to lock down the hardware I payed hard cash for
[FNF]LoBot said:
This was also supposed to be what the java platform was for before MS made better and renamed it. Aside from that Java does run somewhat accross platforms.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fixed (if your comment was in reference to Java / C#).
Srsly, ever used C#? Yes, it pretty much is Java, but IMO it was much more intuitive for me to pick up and learn (I did come from C++ background though, so that probably helped somewhat syntax-wise).
Not bashing, just trying to dig under the hood...
carngeX said:
Fixed (if your comment was in reference to Java / C#).
Srsly, ever used C#? Yes, it pretty much is Java, but IMO it was much more intuitive for me to pick up and learn (I did come from C++ background though, so that probably helped somewhat syntax-wise).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes the reference would be C# but I think it was called something else on the way to C#. The term (you fixed) was only used because the origional concept was derived from Java then to the shortly used MS name I don't recall before it ended up as C#. And yes I have and still periodically use C#.
Please, don't get me wrong, "I am NOT a fanboy for any OS or Hardware. If the use of the OS or the specs of the hardware are what I am looking for, thats what I get. Aside from the price must also agree with me or a customer is buying then it's all good
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.