Which Model PDA's runs EMU-42

[Bill (Smithville, NJ)]

I'm itching to run EMU-42 on a PDA.

Thanks Erik for all your effort in getting this emulator released.

Since I've been using Palm devices, I need to purchase a Win CE PDA.

I see that EMU-42 runs on an ARM machine. Does this include the Intex Xscale? I'm thinking of picking up the new Dell 624 MHZ unit, but want to make sure that EMU-42 would work on it before I buy.

Thanks for your help.

Bill

[Christoph Giesselink]

> I see that EMU-42 runs on an ARM machine. Does this include the Intex Xscale? I'm thinking of picking up the new Dell 624 MHZ unit, but want to make sure that EMU-42 would work on it before I buy.

Emu42 has been tested by beta testers on the follwing machines

• HP Jornada 565 StrongARM 206Mhz (SA1110) PocketPC 2002 German
  
• HP Jornada 568 StrongARM 206Mhz (SA1110) PocketPC 2002 English
  
• Aldi (Yakumo ???) XSCALE 400Mhz (PX255) PocketPC 2003 German
  
• iPAQ H1930 SAMSUNG 203Mhz (S3C2410) PocketPC 2003 French ??
  

My development platform is the HP Jornada 565 so I can only be sure that it's working on this machine. This was also the reason why Erik bought the HP Jornada 568.

To the Dell Axim X30 ???, this PDA use the Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition (aka PocketPC 2003 2nd Edition). There's no experience with Emu42 running on a PDA with Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition or PDA's with the VGA resolution 640x480 display.

But Emu42 is now published, so other users may tell you the hardware and the problems (hopefully not) they have.

Regards

Christoph

[DavidY]

I have run the old emu48 on a Dell X5 and a new Dell X30 (intermediate version with wireless but 400 mhz processor). I've just loaded the emu-42 and it runs--start OK anyway, I don't have the 42 ROM.
The latest em48 code from Christoph's site also installs and runs OK on the Dell's (WinCE2003 machines) and is much faster than the origional version I had tried (by way of HPCalc.org).

In fact right now I have installed Frank B's 41 emulator, the em48 emulator, Lygea's HP15 and HP16 (love this one) simulators, Math Tablet, and Math Tablet. All stable.

Actually, using an overclocking application I've pushed the Dell X5 to 472mhz. with everything running stable and down to 100mhz. with the apps stable.

Using the same app. I've pushed the Dell X30 to about 600mhz. with stable operation of the apps.

While I haven't had a chance to test the em48 emulator very much I can comment that higher speed doesn't gain that much for the 41 emulator or the 15/16 simulators. The standard speeds for the Dell PDAs are so fast in comparison to the origionals that shaving another second or so off a program is sort of redundant. The old emu48 emulator was a bit shaky to start with so higher speed just seemed to make it that much more likely to hang.

I have to complement Christoph on his latest emulators; the reworked em48 is very stable and quite a bit faster relative to the older version. If you need the power it is a great program to use and well worth sending Christoph $$$ to reward him for his work. I will as soon as I finish testing.

[Bill (Smithville, NJ)]

Christoph and David,

Thanks for your input. If I understand correctly, the code compiled for the ARM processor should run on the Intel Xscale? I take it the Xscale is a ARM processor. It's been awhile since I owned a WinCE PDA and I remember that there were three different processors - each one had to have the code specially compiled for it. I take it that's not the case now?

The Dell X30 with 624MHZ processor and WiFI/Blue Tooth at about $300 looks like a great deal. My birthday's coming up, so I'm thinking I deserve to buy myself a gift.

Thanks.

Bill

[Christoph Giesselink]

> Thanks for your input. If I understand correctly, the code compiled for the ARM processor should run on the Intel Xscale?

This is true.

> I take it the Xscale is a ARM processor. It's been awhile since I owned a WinCE PDA and I remember that there were three different processors - each one had to have the code specially compiled for it. I take it that's not the case now?

I'll try to bring some light into the MS chaos of version names. I give _no_ guarantee that the following information is correct. So I'm not responsible for decisions you made base on this perhaps wrong information!

There exist some kernel versions of a Windows embedded OS. The most common are:

• Windows CE 2.2
  
• Windows CE 3.0
  
• Windows CE .Net 4.2
  
• Windows CE 5.0
  

Then we have some keyless Pocket PC's with the OS:

• Windows CE 3.0
  
• Pocket PC 2000 using the Windows CE 3.0 kernel
  
• Pocket PC 2002 (aka Windows mobile 2002 for Pocket PC) using the Windows CE 3.0 kernel
  
• Pocket PC 2003 (aka Windows mobile 2003 for Pocket PC) using the Windows CE .Net 4.2 kernel
  
• Pocket PC 2003 SE (aka Windows mobile 2003 SE for Pocket PC) using the Windows CE .Net 4.2 kernel ?
  

In the example above we have three OS versions with a Windows CE 3.0 kernel, they differ esspecially in the number of API functions. Emu42PPC and Emu48PPC are Pocket PC 2002 applications which use API calls exist only in Pocket PC 2002 and later, so they can't run on Pocket PC 2000 devices.

Pocket PC 2002 applications mean: I build them with eVC++ 3.0 compiler and the Pocket PC 2002 SDK.

Now to the CPU's you asked for:

StrongARM, XScale, Bulverde are chips for embedded systems from Intel. Intel licensed the ARM CPU core inside. I mentioned in my earlier mail the Samsung S3C2410 chip. This chip use the same or quite equal core (ARM 920T). Because of this, binary code for the Intel chips can also be executed on the Samsung chip.

Earlier WinCE OS supported several different incompatible CPU's (MIPS, SH3, SH4, x86, ...). This mean the OS and the application was specially compiled for this CPU. There was also a meta binary format for applications that the OS should convert into the necessary CPU binary format before running. This concept never worked very successful (speed reasons).

Now back to the Pocket PC 2002 versions. Pocket PC 2002 PDA's were the first one, only sold with an ARM core CPU. Most one with the StrongARM and the later one with the XScale CPU's. PDA's with XScale CPU are slower than the one with StrongARM CPU at same clock speed running on Pocket PC 2002. This was fixed with the Pocket PC 2003 version, because this OS was especially optimized for the XScale CPU's. Currently all Pocket PC 2002, 2003, 2003 SE devices use an ARM core CPU with compatible binary files. Differences are only in the Win API. So Pocket PC 2002 supports no multimedia timers, where the Windows CE .Net 4.2 kernel and the OS base on this kernel do.

Finally some word to the Windows CE 5.0 kernel. This kernel should be available for MIPS, ARM, SH, x86 CPU cores. So forthcoming keyless Pocket PC PDA's using the Windows CE 5.0 kernel may need different compiled applications.

> The Dell X30 with 624MHZ processor and WiFI/Blue Tooth at about $300 looks like a great deal. My birthday's coming up, so I'm thinking I deserve to buy myself a gift.

I can only repeat my previous mail, from the technical aspects it _should_ work, but I haven't tested this so I must say I don't know.

Regards

Christoph

[Bill (Smithville, NJ)]

Hi Christoph,

Thanks for the great information on Pocket PC's and their associated operating systems.

I just ordered the Dell X30, 624 MHZ. Unforturnately, it has a long lead time, so probally won't actually receive it till the end of September.

I'll let you know how EMU42 runs on it once I get it.

Now, I need to sell my two Sony Clie's. :)

Thanks again for the detailed explanation.

Bill

[Erik Ehrling (Sweden)]

Quote:

---

I just ordered the Dell X30, 624 MHZ. Unforturnately, it has a long lead time, so probally won't actually receive it till the end of September.

I'll let you know how EMU42 runs on it once I get it.

---

Yes, please let us know, we await the results... (and some benchmarks :-)



Best regards,

Erik Ehrling (Sweden)