Is the Redmi 8a using 32 bit or 64 bit? If it's using 32 bit architecture then I won't buy it, because google play store would not support 32 bit phones next year...
But I'm kinda confused because isn't Snapdragon 439 supports 64 bit? Can this be fix with changing ROM? I really want to buy the Redmi 8a...
Any phone with an 8-core processor supports 64-bit.
You can know this by using AIDA64 for example if the installed ROM is 32-bit (ARM-V8A in 32-bit mode) or 64-bit (ARM-V8A).
It is very likely that the 2GB version of RAM is 32-bit, but I'm not sure.
i already owned one, the Cpu is 64 but the OS is 32
Screen shot?
Please note that it's not true Play Store will not support 32bit phones next year. It will. The announced change means that they will no longer support 32bit apps on 64bit systems, meaning every 32bit app should have a native 64bit version available. If your device is 32bit (or, as is the case with many devices, 64bit hardware running 32bit Android), nothing should change for you (as long as the developer of the specific app doesn't decide to stop supporting a 32bit version of their app themselves, but in that case, it's the decision of the developer, not something Play Store is enforcing).
is havoc os 3.6 Gsi is 32bit or 64bit, how could I know
Redmi 4A abdal said:
is havoc os 3.6 Gsi is 32bit or 64bit, how could I know
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
install CPU-Z from play store and open it, go to system tab, find kernel architecture , Look at the text in front of it , if you see armv7(or arm v7I) means 32 bit and if you see armv8(or v8I) means 64 bit.
Please let me know after doing this
sorry for my poor english.
thanks.
Related
Since Windows NT supports RISC CPU's, and the PPC CPU's are based on RISC, I was wondering if it is possible to somehow install Windows NT on an Pocket Pc.
What do you guy's think ?
Not snowball's chance in hell. NT was only ever built for x86, SPARC, MIPS and ALPHA (I think there may have been a couple of others) - never for any ARM cores. Same goes for Win 9x/ME/2k/XP/Vista/Whatever.
-- The only alternative OSes you are ever likely to see are *nix/BSD derivatives. --
yes, but what i meant is that nt supports risc cpu architecture. so thats why my question came up
fek NT - get ubuntu
so could i install ubuntu?
they got a new ubuntu-mobile edition comming up
would that work?
soothomas said:
yes, but what i meant is that nt supports risc cpu architecture. so thats why my question came up
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
RISC Architecture is not a "standard" like x86, it's more a theory of processor archiecture design. Windows NT supported some RISC architecture processor families as it supported some CISC processors. One might argue that since it supported CISC, it should run on Motorola 680x0 or Natsemi 32016. Clearly it doesn't
You specificially said NT so this probably doesnt help, but there are tutorials and guides out there to help you get Win95/98 emulated and away on your PPC. Runs sub-par though, but if I recall this was done back in 2005, PPCs and emulating software might have come a long way since then..
Seems good
Take a look
http://www.pocketgamer.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3660
With Dosbox emulator
Is there anyway to use Dosbox as Bootloader of pda's
I know touchscreen emulation is a problem
I think this is not a unbreakable block for developers ( C++ masters )
Actually XScale is a 32 bit X86 processor too.
I'm not professional about that but
I guess windows 98 ( or windows Xp without servicepack 1&2 ) can work on our
pda's.
I know these problems ( Services, drivers, memory adresing etc.. )
any one have an idea or can we make a discussion
oorrrr
any professional programmer can say a few ideas.
Whatever
At the end.
It's funny right?
Regards.
"Actually XScale is a 32 bit X86 processor too."
no it's arm based which is a pretty different architecture based on RISC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture
where x86 are CISC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86
so it's an emulation
worst of all is that it's an emulation of a cpu architecture which is more
powerfull
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=362344
Yeah But I've miss wrote.
Rudegar said:
"Actually XScale is a 32 bit X86 processor too."
no it's arm based which is a pretty different architecture based on RISC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture
where x86 are CISC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86
so it's an emulation
worst of all is that it's an emulation of a cpu architecture which is more
powerfull
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=362344
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So... Fin...
Hi ! I have an interesting question here, perhaps you may noticed on the Title "Is it Possible to run Windows XP or Windows 7 (PC) on HD2 ?"... well.. after I tested Windows 95 with the QEMU soft.. I was really impressed by how it works.. & I'm sure it can have ALOT of more possibilities than just a simple Smartphone OS, by having at least Windows XP on the HD2 ... so what do you say ? Is it possible or not ? and btw.. I tried to start Windows XP SP2 (597MB) on the HD2, by copying the .img File on the SD.. then I noticed that in the qemu_launcher, it doesn't see the XP SP2 image File.. so I noticed that the Win95 had 2 notepads .txt files "emul_cmdline" & the "EMUL_INI" .. and I opened them in my Win7 PC, and changed in the "emul_cmdline.txt" the name of the Image File, like this.. from ...
1G-qcow.img to the name of my XP SP2 Image File like "XP Sp2.img" ... & changed the "[emul]
name=" from the "EMUL_INI" to the name of the Windows or so... then I copied those 2 .txt files "emul_cmdline.txt" & "EMUL_INI.txt" to the folder on my HD2's SD Card in which contained the XP SP2.img... then I noticed that in the qemu_launcher it show'd me the XP SP2.img... and when I tried to launch it.. I just pressed the "Launch" button.. & the qemu launcher closes & nothing happens... xD.. any help ? or at least explain me if is it possible to run XP or even 7 (PC OS) on the HD2 ? .. but I think that at least Win XP can be runed FOR SURE on the HD2, because the Win XP's System Requirements are these:
PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
• 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
• 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
• Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
But the HD2's capabilities are MUCH MORE higher than these requirements... the only problem is again the Internal Memory or the SD Card... because on the Internal Memory it can't just fit in... but if you boot from the SD Card.. you may experience laggs or even freezes... xD .. I don't know really... I'm just guessing now...
Please do not post any comments like: "What's the point ?" or "Why do you need to do all this ?" ... I'm just interested in having Win XP or even 7 on my HD2... and I'm sure there are more people on XDA which probably want the same thing as I do...
i've always wanted this too jus hope i dont get bashed for supportin u
It may be possible to get it to boot, but I doubt you would be able to get it usable. Also, I think the fact that XP runs on ntfs instead of fat like 98 does, that may make it impossible. And when using emulators, you have to generally have a processor 10 times the speed of what's required for it to work properly. And arm processors are different than the x86 processors that computers use... you can't expect a 1 ghz arm processor to handle the same things a 1 ghz x86 processor handles... different architecture.
Sent from my HTC HD2 using XDA App
zarathustrax said:
It may be possible to get it to boot, but I doubt you would be able to get it usable. Also, I think the fact that XP runs on ntfs instead of fat like 98 does, that may make it impossible. And when using emulators, you have to generally have a processor 10 times the speed of what's required for it to work properly. And arm processors are different than the x86 processors that computers use... you can't expect a 1 ghz arm processor to handle the same things a 1 ghz x86 processor handles... different architecture.
Sent from my HTC HD2 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah ! I agree with you.. but the HD2 has a Qualcomm CPU, so I don't know... is it an x86 or an ARM CPU ? .. but it kinda' doesn't make part of either x86 or ARM ...
hmm does our HD has a 1.5 HDD?
running from an external SD card maybe then.
and yes xp supports fat32
but can you format an sd card to NTFS?
Guess a mouse and keyboard would come in handy.
I'm not entirely sure how QEMU works. If it's really an x86 emulator with functioning kernel and driver support, it might work. But I doubt it'd be really usable.
Danny1911 said:
Yeah ! I agree with you.. but the HD2 has a Qualcomm CPU, so I don't know... is it an x86 or an ARM CPU ? .. but it kinda' doesn't make part of either x86 or ARM ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Qualcomm's Snapdragons use a custom ARMv7-based CPU comparable to the Cortex-A8, called the "Scorpion".
Also, don't compare clock speeds here. The Scorpion and A8 achieve approximately 2 instructions per clock. Even the lowly Pentium 3 could get about 2.7 instructions per clock.
Add to that the fact that the architecture's being emulated, and that there aren't really any good drivers (meaning little to no hardware acceleration) and you've got yourself some awful performance right there.
M-en-M said:
I'm not entirely sure how QEMU works. If it's really an x86 emulator with functioning kernel and driver support, it might work. But I doubt it'd be really usable.
Qualcomm's Snapdragons use a custom ARMv7-based CPU comparable to the Cortex-A8, called the "Scorpion".
Also, don't compare clock speeds here. The Scorpion and A8 achieve approximately 2 instructions per clock. Even the lowly Pentium 3 could get about 2.7 instructions per clock.
Add to that the fact that the architecture's being emulated, and that there aren't really any good drivers (meaning little to no hardware acceleration) and you've got yourself some awful performance right there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
all in all...dreams busted
We aren't worried about how fast, we just want it to work. Once itworks I am sure people will make drivers.
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App
soneracar said:
We aren't worried about how fast, we just want it to work. Once itworks I am sure people will make drivers.
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes ! Very Right ! I'm totally agree with you !
soneracar said:
We aren't worried about how fast, we just want it to work. Once itworks I am sure people will make drivers.
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
After some searching, I did find someone who managed to get XP working.
Here.
Using another x86 emulator, Bochs. You'll need to know a thing or two about coding, obviously. So if anyone really, really wants XP on their phones, go ahead and tell us if that works out.
Within the same thread, people confirmed that with emulation going on in the background, our good ol' QSD8250 scored along the lines of a 90MHz Pentium.
M-en-M said:
After some searching, I did find someone who managed to get XP working.
Here.
Using another x86 emulator, Bochs. You'll need to know a thing or two about coding, obviously. So if anyone really, really wants XP on their phones, go ahead and tell us if that works out.
Within the same thread, people confirmed that with emulation going on in the background, our good ol' QSD8250 scored along the lines of a 90MHz Pentium.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Awesome !!! Big thx !... at least I'm happy to know that it is possible, and that someone tried it & it worked... good to know... but I think that the software he used "Bochs" is not so good as QEMU... and that may be the main problem why the Win XP is working slow... and also it matters which SP the Windows has, because XP SP1 eates about 100 - 200 MB of RAM... while SP3 eats between 200MB - 300MB ... so it's really important too which SP he had used to boot... using to boot from the SD Card is also the big problem... SD Card is not as fast as the internal memory of the phone...
PS: But anyway... I'm happy to know that someone tried XP on HD2, and it worked... that's Awesome news ! ... I hope some developers may try to work on making a more greater & smaller in capacity Image File of the Windows.. but to keep the same features as like a Real Computer !
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=784424
windows 7 and qemu
as for the size, look at xplite or similar, and there's one for win 7, get rid of all the useless stuff,, you can get xp down to a few hundred meg
never got it running, myself, but i only spent an evening trying.
samsamuel said:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=784424
windows 7 and qemu
as for the size, look at xplite or similar, and there's one for win 7, get rid of all the useless stuff,, you can get xp down to a few hundred meg
never got it running, myself, but i only spent an evening trying.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow ! Amazing ! Unexpected xD ! Thx alot man !
I'm trying to install ubuntu 12.04 on virtualbox but it seems to be running very slow! I don't have a slow computer so I don't understand why its running so slow. I put for it to take up 50 GB and use 1024 MB of ram. I have 4 GB of ram in total and 237 GB of free space. Is there a special way to install it? Also when I choose Ubuntu 64 bit (because I have a 64 bit computer) and than start the vm it shows an error saying I don't have the correct kernel and I need to install x86 bit or x32 bit so thats what im using. Any help would be very appreciated. I also am not a noob at this so please dont call me that. Thanks.
Processor: AMD E-300 APU with Radeon(tm) HD Graphics 1.30 GHz
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
itzdarockz said:
I'm trying to install ubuntu 12.04 on virtualbox but it seems to be running very slow! I don't have a slow computer so I don't understand why its running so slow. I put for it to take up 50 GB and use 1024 MB of ram. I have 4 GB of ram in total and 237 GB of free space. Is there a special way to install it? Also when I choose Ubuntu 64 bit (because I have a 64 bit computer) and than start the vm it shows an error saying I don't have the correct kernel and I need to install x86 bit or x32 bit so thats what im using. Any help would be very appreciated. I also am not a noob at this so please dont call me that. Thanks.
Processor: AMD E-300 APU with Radeon(tm) HD Graphics 1.30 GHz
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would be slow because you running a 64bit OS with 1GB of RAM, you really should use the 32bit version, it dosnt matter what OS your running as your host OS, thats the whole point of virtualisation you can run either
zacthespack said:
It would be slow because you running a 64bit OS with 1GB of RAM, you really should use the 32bit version, it dosnt matter what OS your running as your host OS, thats the whole point of virtualisation you can run either
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually im using 32 bit not 64 for ubuntu because it wouldnt boot up. How much ram is good eneough for 32 bit?
itzdarockz said:
Actually im using 32 bit not 64 for ubuntu because it wouldnt boot up. How much ram is good eneough for 32 bit?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1GB should me move than enough, how much CPU time are you giving it? and have you enabled 2D/3D graphics in virtualboxes settings?
zacthespack said:
1GB should me move than enough, how much CPU time are you giving it? and have you enabled 2D/3D graphics in virtualboxes settings?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
By cpu time do you mean how long its taking me? Its taken me like 1 hour just to get from the start of the vm to actually installing the files. It took like 20 min to boot up. And 30 min just to finish copying the files. And no i do not have the 3d and 2d accelerator enabled.
itzdarockz said:
By cpu time do you mean how long its taking me? Its taken me like 1 hour just to get from the start of the vm to actually installing the files. It took like 20 min to boot up. And 30 min just to finish copying the files. And no i do not have the 3d and 2d accelerator enabled.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No I meant how much of the CPU are you giving to the virtualmachine to use (i.e 50% of the time etc) and you should enabled 3/2D acceleration as I have always found it gives a big speed boost as it takes away the GUI load from the CPU, unless you have a really poor graphics card
zacthespack said:
No I meant how much of the CPU are you giving to the virtualmachine to use (i.e 50% of the time etc) and you should enabled 3/2D acceleration as I have always found it gives a big speed boost as it takes away the GUI load from the CPU, unless you have a really poor graphics card
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where do i find the cpu time and i do not have a poor graphics card i have amd Radeon Hd 6310 graphics. And thanks i will check that when i get home and i will tell you if it works good. Also are those times that i put normal?
itzdarockz said:
Where do i find the cpu time and i do not have a poor graphics card i have amd Radeon Hd 6310 graphics. And thanks i will check that when i get home and i will tell you if it works good. Also are those times that i put normal?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No not really which is why it sounds like the not enough CPU time it being giving to the virtual machine, I believe these settings are found in the system section of the settings for that virtual machine but I have not used virtualbox for a while so cant be sure. But you need to give it really atleast half maybe more if you dont plan on doing most in the host OS while the virtual machine is running
zacthespack said:
No not really which is why it sounds like the not enough CPU time it being giving to the virtual machine, I believe these settings are found in the system section of the settings for that virtual machine but I have not used virtualbox for a while so cant be sure. But you need to give it really atleast half maybe more if you dont plan on doing most in the host OS while the virtual machine is running
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think its called execution cap on system->processor because of the description. Im going to set it to 60% and see what it does.
EDIT: Still no good. I also cant find anything that has CPU time in it.
I've been looking around and i've noticed others are having problems with 12.04. I will try another version (9.04) and I will update on how it runs.
EDIT: I installed 9.04 and it ran perfectly fine with half the settings I used for 12.04. But sadly it cannot install git-core which is what im going for. Im going to try 10.10 now.
itzdarockz said:
I've been looking around and i've noticed others are having problems with 12.04. I will try another version (9.04) and I will update on how it runs.
EDIT: I installed 9.04 and it ran perfectly fine with half the settings I used for 12.04. But sadly it cannot install git-core which is what im going for. Im going to try 10.10 now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Latest Ubuntu comes with the Unity UI which is very graphically intense.
You have two quick options:
- kill the Unity UI (can be disabled during boot/login screen)
- attempt to get the guest tools installed inside Ubuntu so it can tap into the power of the host PC's GPU/graphics card.
I'd try installing the guest tools in Ubuntu, it's usually either easy and a success, or a pointless nightmare.
To kill Unity UI just google for it with the exact version of Ubuntu you've got and the results should be plentiful. It's a common complaint with the latest version.
I have an HP Elitepad 900 with absolutely no operating system on it. Windows was absolutely useless running on it due to its low spec hardware. Ive tried installing it a couple times with no luck due to its 32 bit CPU architecture. Would anybody happen to know where to get the 32 bit version of this OS' ISO to make an installation disk? Thank you for any help in advance!