well, windows 98 can be run off of a PSP, maybe thats a better goal to look at? also older versions of the mac os have been run off of the psp!
Yes. Older windows versions might work.
However, that's not really interesting. If you'd like a powerful OS with nice apps and loads of possibilities then try to kick these guys into 5th gear and then get them to modify it for the Axim X51V ;): http://www.handhelds.org/moin/moin.cgi/DellAximX50
Well, actually XP is designed to be processor neutral. There have been versions of Windows (XP or ohter versions of NT) running on x86, Itanium, PowerPC, Mips, Alpha, and other processors that I'm forgetting.
So, if you had the source code to XP and a suitable compiler, you could compile most of the code for Xscale. But you'd be a long long way from having a working system.
look guys.. i hate to rain on your parade, but it just isnt possable. i am an experinced programmer, i know for a fact that windows xp is not designed to be proc utral. other thing is that what you are looking at when you see xp on a different platform then I386 is whats called an emulator. nto thereal os.
Correct. And i started this thing about windows on ppc, remember that post that attract thousands. SO it is not POSIBLE! (to run properly or efficiently). But farcry would be cool, and it runs on my laptop with a 16mb video card so might on PPC. Maybe even wolfenstein, or Battlefield 2.
look im sorry. you cant compare an x50 to your laptop with 16mb video card ok. consider that an x50 is a mac. and a desktop is a pc. becouse theyare both computers can they run the same os?
I'm pretty sure NT 4.0 was the last Windows OS that supported different processor architectures. Even if you had the XP source code it would take a *LOT* more than recompiling with an ARM compiler.
I'm pretty sure NT 4.0 was the last Windows OS that supported different processor architectures. Even if you had the XP source code it would take a *LOT* more than recompiling with an ARM compiler.
i doubt it would be possible at all. the problem is that peopel who ntohing about computer keep saying "i know its possable we just need to figure itout!" truth be told guys. it is not possabvle ok? xp was desgined to be run on a desktop pc with at leat 1.5 gigs of hdd space. how much does an axim have? not even .5 gb hdd space. plus what about input? xp was desinged in mind that there would bea ps/2 bus. plus axims dont have the hp needed to even start xp. xpwas desgined for one thign and wm was desinged for another. its kind of like saying " i knkw my alarm clock can run windows we just need to install it" it isnt that easy guys. the other thign is that these peole keep seeing emluators thinkign that it is the real thing.
look guys.. i hate to rain on your parade, but it just isnt possable. i am an experinced programmer, i know for a fact that windows xp is not designed to be proc utral. other thing is that what you are looking at when you see xp on a different platform then I386 is whats called an emulator. nto thereal os.
Huh. That's funny. I'm looking right now at Windows running on a non x86 platform. And no, it's not running under an emulator, it's running native. Gee, I've seen windows running native on Mips, Alpha, and Itanium. I wonder how they did that without making it possible to port the OS? You may know for a fact that Windows XP was not designed to be processor neutral, but your facts are wrong.
Do you know much about the history of Windows? Windows NT was designed to be portable across processor lines. That was one of the fundamental motivations for Windows NT and a lot of programers spent a lot of time to make it that way. To quote from Helen Custer's book, "Inside NT": "The second design goal [of NT is] code portability....portability enables the entire operating system to move to a machine based on a different processor or configuration, with as little recoding as possible."
So to claim that Windows NT (and its decendents, such as XP) was not designed to be portable across CPU lines is just plain wrong. It was, and given a compiler, large sections of XP would compile just fine for an XScale processor.
That said, you would still be a long long way from having a working system for the Axim. It's a lot more than just getting the code to compile for your CPU. It's porting the small sections of assembly, it's porting the HAL, or hardware abstraction layer that provides an idealized machine for the rest of the OS. It's device drivers and low-level processor-dependent data structures. It's trying to make all this work within the resource constraints of a PDA. So you are correct to say that it's not going to happen, but it's not because NT wasn't designed to be portable. It was designed that way, and it has been ported to a number of different architectures.
In fact, rather than starting with Windows XP, you'd be better offer using Microsoft's Embedded XP product, which is a stripped down/componentized version of XP designed for custom embedded applications....huh, sort of sounds like a PDA, doesn't it?
Huh. That's funny. I'm looking right now at Windows running on a non x86 platform. And no, it's not running under an emulator, it's running native. Gee, I've seen windows running native on Mips, Alpha, and Itanium. I wonder how they did that without making it possible to port the OS? You may know for a fact that Windows XP was not designed to be processor neutral, but your facts are wrong.
Lets all get back on the same page here. Neither of you are completely right, because you are talking about different things. Windows NT and Windows XP are VERY different beasts -- even though XP was a continuation of the NT platform it does not mean that all of the original requirements of NT have continued on. Microsoft took a lesson from the Mac when they built XP, deciding that its better to code the product for the largest market share, giving up some of the 'portability' in the process. The DirectX layer is a good example of that; it would take a LOT of work to port that to a new processor. Speaking of Windows NT, you could say that it was written with the goal of multi-platform support, but that does not mean that it is "processor neutral". It simply means that it wasn't geared solely toward the x86 CPU. An OS that was completely "processor neutral" would have to be very simplified and inefficient. There is hardware-level support for a great deal of the core components of Windows, and that's what has helped the OS improve so much over the last 20 years.
Getting back to the topic, the whole idea of porting Windows XP to a PocketPC is a bit ridiculous. If it is one of those "lets see if we can do it" types of things, then fine, I see the value in it being a challenge. But as far as it being a good solution to the problems we have with Windows Mobile, there's simply no way to justify the argument. WM, especially the PocketPC version, was specifically designed to support PDA hardware, and to perform in a PDA world. Things like on-screen keyboards, touch screens, instant-on, etc. are all huge benefits that I think we're taking for granted. WM is far from perfect, but it is a MUCH better fit than XP would be. People are upset now with the slowdowns in WM5? Wait till XP starts playing its virtual memory games, and watch as your PDA becomes a useless battery-killer (maybe still having some value as a pocket warmer).
As Microsoft continues their product lines, I do see a convergence at some point, and the WM or CE line going away. Before that happens, they will need to more or less re-build the entire platform to be much more modular, being able to pull out huge chunks of the OS without causing problems. My guess is that we'll see this in Vista's grandchild, maybe great-grandchild.
__________________ Dell Support Rep on 1/12/06: Only a small number of users are having issues (WM5 on x50v)... Dell will be releasing (update for x50v) but it will not be soon.
Huh. That's funny. I'm looking right now at Windows running on a non x86 platform. And no, it's not running under an emulator, it's running native. Gee, I've seen windows running native on Mips, Alpha, and Itanium. I wonder how they did that without making it possible to port the OS? You may know for a fact that Windows XP was not designed to be processor neutral, but your facts are wrong.
Do you know much about the history of Windows? Windows NT was designed to be portable across processor lines. That was one of the fundamental motivations for Windows NT and a lot of programers spent a lot of time to make it that way. To quote from Helen Custer's book, "Inside NT": "The second design goal [of NT is] code portability....portability enables the entire operating system to move to a machine based on a different processor or configuration, with as little recoding as possible."
So to claim that Windows NT (and its decendents, such as XP) was not designed to be portable across CPU lines is just plain wrong. It was, and given a compiler, large sections of XP would compile just fine for an XScale processor.
That said, you would still be a long long way from having a working system for the Axim. It's a lot more than just getting the code to compile for your CPU. It's porting the small sections of assembly, it's porting the HAL, or hardware abstraction layer that provides an idealized machine for the rest of the OS. It's device drivers and low-level processor-dependent data structures. It's trying to make all this work within the resource constraints of a PDA. So you are correct to say that it's not going to happen, but it's not because NT wasn't designed to be portable. It was designed that way, and it has been ported to a number of different architectures.
In fact, rather than starting with Windows XP, you'd be better offer using Microsoft's Embedded XP product, which is a stripped down/componentized version of XP designed for custom embedded applications....huh, sort of sounds like a PDA, doesn't it?
please tell.... what platform are you uising? is is I686 by any chance?
my offer still stands.... And i'll throw in the duct tape for free...
__________________
You'd have thought that someone would have put a sig here To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
please tell.... what platform are you uising? is is I686 by any chance?
Dude, I'm confused. Is it that you think a Mips/Alpha/Itanium is an I686 machine? Or do you not think that windows runs on these architectures?
I'm kind of tired of pointing out the obvious. Maybe you're a hands-on guy and need to feel the hardware for yourself. I'll help: just go to this url (http://h20341.www2.hp.com/integrity/...0-0-0-121.html) and you can purchase your own Itanium running Windows Server 2003. Heck, then you'll be able to use your programming credentials to do great things.
Trying to get back on some useful disscussion...In the future, if hardware capabilities continue to advance faster than software requirements, we will probably see a convergence of the Windows CE codebase with future mainline Windows. We're seeing this already with the UMPC line of devices, which have form factors not much larger than some PDAs and yet run Windows XP. Eventually the core codebase will probably be the same, with different UI components to handle keyboard-less environments.
Yes, the problem with UMPCs is they are all incredibly crippled hardware-wise, excpet the Sony Vaio UX-series. I mean, you won't see a 7" device in someone's pocket. And you won't see it playing the latest games. The UX has a 4.5" screen, with a resolution almost twice that of all others. I have the UX's predecessor, and it doesn't fit in pocket by a long stretch, even my gigantically oversized ones. But it is a great device. Unfortuantely for it, my X51v does everything it does except run 3rd party Windows prgrams, and it has BT built-in as well.
__________________ Have fun.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (15 Jan 07)
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Microsoft took a lesson from the Mac when they built XP, deciding that its better to code the product for the largest market share, giving up some of the 'portability' in the process. The DirectX layer is a good example of that; it would take a LOT of work to port that to a new processor.
[...]
As Microsoft continues their product lines, I do see a convergence at some point, and the WM or CE line going away. Before that happens, they will need to more or less re-build the entire platform to be much more modular, being able to pull out huge chunks of the OS without causing problems. My guess is that we'll see this in Vista's grandchild, maybe great-grandchild.
Actually, DirectX does run on the Itanium, at least Version 8. As it became clear that the Itanium was going to be limited to a niche database/server market and not a mainstream gaming platform, I'm not sure that Microsoft continued to support development work on DirectX for the Itanium. However, this April 2006 release of the DirectX redistributable runtimes, which is listed as being supported on Itanium systems, may indicate otherwise. (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en)
I do agree with your convergence point...I was just blabing on about that.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Senior Member
