Justin Noland

I have read a few articles on the web about how wiindows 95 and 98 had been emulated on the pocket PC, but windows 98 was chronically slow and windows 95 was slow but still functional. Now that we have the powers of the iPAQ, such as its 614 mhz processor (three times the required speed for XP) and the 64 megs of ram (bottom of the line required for XP) and 2-4 gig microdrives, could we, in fact emulate or even run windows 2000/XP on a pocket PC?

imported_Dermot81

Much faster to just remote desktop to your windows xp desktop.

__________________
Dell X51v + Motorola e815 | HP HX4700 | HP 2215 | iPAQ 3950 | iPAQ 3835

Zorglab

Windows for pc has been compiled for the x86 architecture. This means, if you want it to run on your pocket pc (which has an arm architecture), you have to emulate the whole cpu. This is something that realy slows everything down, because, for example, one simple instruction can easily become five instructions, so the program will run five times slower.

That said, I don't see any interest in putting xp in our pockets. It isn't optimised for those small screens and special inputs.

Phullcourt

You could always just break out your checkbook and buy one of these :

http://www.oqo.com/store/shop.cgi/op/op_index.html

__________________
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend; inside of a dog it's too dark to read" - Groucho Marx

weastman

No idea how well the touch screen, etc. would work, but on the surface it looks awesome!

. . . and I thought the 4700 was expensive . . .

Justin Noland

yes, the ogo is an exceptionalyl beautiful device. However, it in itself is porbably worth more than my entire house... For now, I will just stick to remote access for my XPness. R/A actually looks really good on the hx if you se your desktop's screen res to 640X480 and use R/A in True VGA and portrait mode...

IPAQED

just a quick question how does one go about using the remote access? I am a little confused about this stuff...

CookieKid

Originally Posted by IPAQED

just a quick question how does one go about using the remote access? I am a little confused about this stuff...

Here ya go:
http://www.ipaqhq.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10226

RaTBaG

Originally Posted by Phullcourt

You could always just break out your checkbook and buy one of these : http://www.oqo.com/store/shop.cgi/op/op_index.html

I heard that oqo are going to release a new version (probably costing even more ) which will have the standard clamshell approach so that the screen isn't exposed during transit.

Also Sony do (or did) a similarly small and neat PC for the Jap market but for some stupid reason didn't export it. I saw one coz my m8 bought one when he travelled to Tokyo - talk about an impuse buy!

__________________
_____________________________________________
Anything I say will probably be stupid so ignore it anyway

ShALLaX

Originally Posted by Justin Noland

I have read a few articles on the web about how wiindows 95 and 98 had been emulated on the pocket PC, but windows 98 was chronically slow and windows 95 was slow but still functional. Now that we have the powers of the iPAQ, such as its 614 mhz processor (three times the required speed for XP) and the 64 megs of ram (bottom of the line required for XP) and 2-4 gig microdrives, could we, in fact emulate or even run windows 2000/XP on a pocket PC?

Another person who thinks you can compare CPU speeds across different architectures

Justin Noland

what is that supposed to mean?

Possum Roadkil

Originally Posted by Justin Noland

what is that supposed to mean?

There's a lot of factors involved other than microprocessor speed that need to be considered.

How many bits does the processor handle at one time, how fast is the system bus, data pipeline length...

I have a Tungsten T3 that feels just as quick as my hx4705 even though it has a slower processor at the cost of having multitasking and I have seen comments about VGA PPCs not being as fast as QVGA PPCs with slower processors, which does make sense, since you have to consider the screen has 4x the number of pixels. Quite a bit of variation, considering this is with similar processors.