linux and windows apps

[sicksound]

hey,

i'm brand new to the pocket pc world. i'm thinking of getting the viewsonic V36. here's a few things i'm wondering:

1) is it possible to format the harddrive (or flash rom or whatever is used) and install a linux based os, or any other one?

2) with windows pocket pc 2003 can i run any applications i can run in say xp?

3) it's a 300mhz processor. is it really about as good as my old p2 300?

thanks, just wondering if i should put it on my xmas list!

[dean_shan]

hey,

i'm brand new to the pocket pc world. i'm thinking of getting the viewsonic V36. here's a few things i'm wondering:

1) is it possible to format the harddrive (or flash rom or whatever is used) and install a linux based os, or any other one?
Some have flashed their iPaqs with a linix os (http://www.bryhni.com/~jane/ipaq/). Don't try it though. You can easily ruin your device.

2) with windows pocket pc 2003 can i run any applications i can run in say xp?
No

3) it's a 300mhz processor. is it really about as good as my old p2 300?

No

[sicksound]

thanks for the help!

this certain pocket pc will end up costing me $199 after the rebate, is it worth it?

[Kowalski]

since windows xp and windows mobile are different platforms the use different amount of clock cycles but i can say that an xscale proccessor is far better and powerfull than a pentium II with the same clock speed

[Janak Parekh]

since windows xp and windows mobile are different platforms the use different amount of clock cycles but i can say that an xscale proccessor is far better and powerfull than a pentium II with the same clock speed
How so? This isn't a valid comparison. The PII is much more powerful at the same clock speed due to heavily-optimized CISC instructions. Moreover, it has an integrated floating-point unit, which the XScale doesn't. Don't forget the much larger cache. But it's a moot point, as the PII draws much more power.

--janak

[Kowalski]

The PII is much more powerful at the same clock speed due to heavily-optimized CISC instructions.

are you sure that you realy know what RISC and CISC means??? and why intel has choosen CISC architecture 20+ years befoure? why doesnt any company produce a new processor that has a CISC architecture?
for example new intel (itanium, xscale) , samsung, and even PIC (16CE625 is a good example) all the DSP proccessors. these are all RISC architecture.
answer: you can make a RISC proc. with less transistors because CISC architecture is more complex
(CISC stands for complex instruction set computer and RISC for Reduced )
a CISC proc. wont have more then 8 general purpose registers but a RISC proc. can have up to 64 registers.
pairing is done much more efficiently in RISC proccessors than CISC because CISC instructions dont have the same lenght.

the list goes on like this but the counterpart yes they dont have a FPU and they dont have larger cache but keep in mind that PXA255 has 200 mHz system bus which is so important and the cache in pII works half the speed of the proccessor

[Janak Parekh]

are you sure that you realy know what RISC and CISC means???
Yes.

and why intel has choosen CISC architecture 20+ years befoure? why doesnt any company produce a new processor that has a CISC architecture?
I never said it was a good thing. CISC definitely has its downsides, especially in complexity. However, Intel has done a superb job optimizing the heck out of the x86 ISA.

a CISC proc. wont have more then 8 general purpose registers but a RISC proc. can have up to 64 registers.
Whoa, where'd you get that? There is no rule stating that CISC processors won't have more than 8 GPRs. In fact, the modern Pentium processors do have more GPRs "in effect", as long as you don't use the ancient 8-bit and 16-bit instructions.

the list goes on like this but the counterpart yes they dont have a FPU and they dont have larger cache but keep in mind that PXA255 has 200 mHz system bus which is so important and the cache in pII works half the speed of the proccessor
I understand the PXA255 has a 200MHz CPU bus. That's just one variable of many. However, the lack of FP and cache really hurts the throughput of ARM chips, even if the PII's cache runs at half-speed. I'm not saying this is a bad thing; it was a necessary tradeoff. ARM is an awesome architecture, but it's on a completely different level than the Pentiums. I maintain my original assertion, which is that this is not a valid comparison.

--janak

[Jon Westfall]

Thanks everyone for making my head spin with CISC, RISC, etc... Reminds me that I'll be discussing that in class in about a month again. I understand it, its just getting others to comprehend ;)

[Kowalski]

Intel has done a superb job optimizing the heck out of the x86 ISA.


intel is stuck to backward compatibility if they tend to make a new proceessor which will be a new architecture they'll lose most of their market share because AMD will still use the present command set

Whoa, where'd you get that? There is no rule stating that CISC processors won't have more than 8 GPRs. In fact, the modern Pentium processors do have more GPRs "in effect", as long as you don't use the ancient 8-bit and 16-bit instructions

since the CISC proccessors have a complex structure it is diffucult to make more registers. but this is obvious that RISC have much more general purpose registers( i'm not sure but itanium must have 64!!!)
the more general purpose registers you have the faster your applications runs

However, the lack of FP and cache really hurts the throughput of ARM chips, even if the PII's cache runs at half-speed.

why the engineers invented the cache? to feed the speedy proccessors from much slower devices. do we have harddisks? no we have 200mHz system bus so we don't have a memory bottleneck which PCs suffer.
and for the FPU: the new proccessors have most of the floating point instructions included and since the ppc dont use 3D graphics much this doesnt hurt much.

the xscale proceessor is designed from strach and after 15+ years from x86 core. so the design and implementation will be much more effective for sure

I maintain my original assertion, which is that this is not a valid comparison.

i say again:xscale is more powerfull than a PII with the same clock speed