What is a pocket PC good for?

[Dan308]

I'm new here and need some quick help. I want a small PC to use at work. I need it to run a program in DOS or windows. It's a estimating program and not very complex. will this type device do this?

Dan308

[npatang]

I think desktop is better for you then !!!!!

:devilboy:
--Npatang

[Dan308]

Do you mean a laptop? I'm trying to get some real information here. When my clients aks for a custom quote, I'd like to be able to give it to them on the spot.

[applejosh]

A PocketPC is not a real PC in the sense that you can run any DOS or Windows program on it. It's a different type of processor, and a different type of operating system that shares only its name with the desktop version.

That said, there are emulators out there that can do some DOS stuff, but I've never used them, and I personally won't recommend them. If you want to use a DOS program, then finding an older desktop PC (or possibly a laptop PC) is your best bet.

[Dan308]

Thanks, that's what I needed.

[yankeejeep]

The latest release of PocketDOS does set up a session that is fully DOS 6.22 compatible, and can now add extended memory support with 386/486 plug-ins. But the performance will not approach a PC with similar processor speed. You might want to scope it out if the PPC size is an important consideration and the program you are using is DOS-based.

[ipaq_wannabe]

The latest release of PocketDOS does set up a session that is fully DOS 6.22 compatible, and can now add extended memory support with 386/486 plug-ins. But the performance will not approach a PC with similar processor speed. You might want to scope it out if the PPC size is an important consideration and the program you are using is DOS-based.

arent the PPC processors faster than 386/486es?

and with a more RAM - wouldnt they be more than a match (except for screen size) than those ol' PCs??

[applejosh]

In terms of MHz, yes. In terms of processing power, I don't know. The ARM architecture isn't as robust as pure x86. Others with more intimate knowledge of processor architecture could probably chime in with details, but my understanding was that it's not as powerful as x86 chips. (Kind of like how the G3 processor used to beat up on the P-III, even though it was "slower" in terms of MHz.)

[Robb Bates]

ARM processors are RISC processors. Reduced Instruction Set Computing. Pentium and the like are CISC (C=Complex) What a 386/486/Pentium can do with one instruction would take a RISC processor several instructions. Also, since the instruction sets are different, PocketDOS and other emulators have to do some extra processing to convert one instruction set to another.

Robb

[Nurhisham Hussein]

The latest release of PocketDOS does set up a session that is fully DOS 6.22 compatible, and can now add extended memory support with 386/486 plug-ins. But the performance will not approach a PC with similar processor speed. You might want to scope it out if the PPC size is an important consideration and the program you are using is DOS-based.

You can find out more about the program here:

http://www.pocketdos.com/

The trial has no time limit, though it does have a periodic 30sec timeout during use. From my (limited, running abandonware games) experience, I'd characterise it as being around a 286 level of performance, even with the 386/486 plugins installed. Programs prior to about 1990 run fine, up to 1992/93 are hit and miss, and after that, too slow to bother with.

[Kowalski]

RISC processors are far superior to CISC processors for several reasons.
it is true that some CISC instructions correspond to a couple of RISC instructions, but this is one of the strong points of RISC processors. RISC processors complete an instuction in one clock cycle, while the timing of CISC instructions are from 1 cycle to 10+ cycles. RISC opcodes have fixed length and CISC opcode lengths are variable. these two reasons make pipelining not efficient on CISC processors. Also one of the biggest advantages of RISC machines is their arthitecture is much more simple than CISC machines, so you can build a processor with much less transistors. This way you can make chips running "cooler" and smaller with less power consumption.

CISC arthitecture was good 20 years ago, but nowadays RISC arthitecture is much more superior. That is why you hardly see a new chip implemented with CISC arthitecture