Related
Apparently, some emulator developers (besides the MAME dev, which is great) are starting to pick up on Open GL and put our GPU to some good use. The Doom port has already done so and runs perfect 3D and the MAME emu. is coming along nicely. Well thats great and all but where is our SNES emulator?! It's coming apparently and it appears to let you search for you own ROMs (an earlier NES emulator stuck you with a very limited and illegal amount of ROMs, lol) Well, enough talk! Here's the link...
http://www.supergnes.com/blog/
(I don't work for these folks. I merely searched for NES/SNES emulators for Android. I thought more would be around now and soon since Open GL was added to 1.5 These folks and future developers deserve some recognition, I believe)
Looks promising! An SNES emulator is exactly what Android needs!
Sounds great hope they make an nes emulator too!
Yeah, I am also looking forward to a NES emulator. I think it will just run better. May be with a 600 mhz processor (and OpenGL plus GPU) we could run SNES/Sega just as fast though...
I appreciate the efforts, but they are a little rough on the eyes without a fit to screen option, since everything is real small. I hope the SDK allows for scaling without killing the frame rate - especially with sound on.
As soon as the MAME emu has scaling- I will donate $20 to it.
If you google android gpu acceleration, you'll see numerous threads on other sites of people asking for it and others saying there hardware is smooth enough.
I don't want to discuss the merit of gpu acceleration as I think it's a given. What I'd like to know is a list of apps that do. But also, if these apps can, why isn't it utilized system-wide? Other threads mentioned older hardware could only have one opengl layer, so if your launcher was gpu accelerated, then a game wouldn't launch. I doubt this is the issue now with more recent hardware.
Is there any side project trying to add this to say cyanogen?
Anyway, I know launcher pro is accelerated. The scrolling through applications is like night and day with other launchers. Also the latest Opera is accelerated. It seems like the built-in gallery app is accelerated. I'm not sure about any of the pdf viewers. ezpdf seems the smoothest, but again, it might be just more optimized over other pdf readers.
So is there a list of apps that utilize the gpu? (besides games obviously)
I'm not sure if it's a video driver issue from device to device, but if that's so, how can a small app like launcher pro work accelerated on numerous devices?
sark666 said:
But also, if these apps can, why isn't it utilized system-wide?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because a lot of Android phones can't take it.
Other threads mentioned older hardware could only have one opengl layer, so if your launcher was gpu accelerated, then a game wouldn't launch. I doubt this is the issue now with more recent hardware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, but Android's target is a huge range of hardware- some very crappy. Read up on Android's "fragmentation problem."
Is there any side project trying to add this to say cyanogen?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A composite based GUI is a HUGE project. It is WAY beyond the scope of this community. It is what delayed Windows Vista for so long, and was a huge reason why many people didn't like Vista (as hardware around its launch couldn't handle the interface).
It took the Linux desktop over three years to add a decent composite GUI, and that was with MANY large companies working on it.
Composite based GUIs are VERY VERY difficult to get right. The only reason Apple has it right is from the get go that was the best part of OSX. Apple's engineers somehow got its composite GUI (called Quartz) on old low-MHz PowerPC machines, and that miracle of technology has not been duplicated anywhere else. In fact, that was the competitive advantage that Apple took with it to the phone market once phones were as powerful as old PowerPC machines.
Other OS's that use a GPU accelerated GUI just have to have very strict minimums for hardware. For example, look at the minimums for Window's phones. Any one of those would be high-end in the Android market.
I'm not sure if it's a video driver issue from device to device, but if that's so, how can a small app like launcher pro work accelerated on numerous devices?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Run Launcher Pro on an older Android device like a Droid 1 and you would be singing a different tune as to how smooth it is. The fact of the matter is that the Android eco-system isn't ready yet....
Hmm, compiz made huge improvements quite rapidly so I don't know about 3 years to get it right. The benefits were immediate; maybe refinements as it went along.
Regardless if it is huge undertaking, google has to address this. I've read articles where they say it's more garbage collecting vs an accelerated gui. Here's a brief but good article on it: http://www.satine.org/archives/2011/01/01/the-care-and-feeding-of-the-android-gpu/
And linux is a good example, the initial beginnings of compiz were a very small group of developers and features were being added very rapidly.
It turns a lot of people off android when they see a sluggish OS, or the appearance of a sluggish OS.
At any rate, my question still stands. you mention older devices needed to being supported. Then how does an app like launcher pro do it? I'm sure it doesn't have custom drivers for all the various gpu's out there? Same with Opera.
And I'd still like a list of (if there is one) of gpu accelerated apps. If the OS doesn't have it, then it would be nice to have it at the app level. Although I see that causing more headaches down the road instead of the OS doing it.
Anyway, google doesn't sound like they are taking this issue seriously. Or dismissing it as not necessary, but I think that's a mistake. On a traditional desktop OS, it's a nice to have but not really necessary, as most things are static. But given the size of the these devices, menus/icons etc are usually moved about cascade and expand etc. Items are dragged and moved etc. All this calls for an interface that maintains a high fps or otherwise it gives the perception of feeling laggy.
Trust me...rewriting Android to do automatic compositing is a huge undertaking. This would be very difficult to do while maintaining compatibility which existing applications. Honeycomb has compositing but it isn't enabled in applications by default because it can break applications with custom drawing. I don't see any reason for us to attempt to implement composting when its already done about as well as anyone can do it in Honeycomb.
sark666 said:
Hmm, compiz made huge improvements quite rapidly so I don't know about 3 years to get it right. The benefits were immediate; maybe refinements as it went along.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GPU GUI acceleration on the Linux desktop didn't start with Compiz. GPU GUI acceleration started in 2004 when Keith Packard added the composite patch to Xorg. David Reveman began working on XGL and Compiz around that time, and didn't release a workable beta version until 2006.
Yet that beta version relied on XGL, which was basically running the Linux desktop like you would a video game. It wasn't until AIGLX became stabilized in open source and closed source drivers in 2007 that GPU GUI acceleration on the Linux desktop was finished (I am huge Xorg junkie, that is why I know these random facts).
Regardless if it is huge undertaking, google has to address this. I've read articles where they say it's more garbage collecting vs an accelerated gui.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I have heard, Honeycomb supposedly has a GPU accelerated GUI. But we don't know till we can see the code.
It turns a lot of people off android when they see a sluggish OS, or the appearance of a sluggish OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would say that the sluggishness is only obvious next to iOS- other mobile OSes also lack such abilities. Compared to iOS Android has mostly targeted the lower-end user segment where quality of experience is less important than raw price (hence the many underpowered Android phones).
Eventually due to attrition the baseline will increase in power and old phones will be cut off for new features such as this. I have already heard that Gingerbread runs terrible on a Droid 1, which is barely a two year old phone.
Then how does an app like launcher pro do it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same way games do it- they just run like crap on older phones. Google can't afford to take that approach with the entire OS.
And I'd still like a list of (if there is one) of gpu accelerated apps. If the OS doesn't have it, then it would be nice to have it at the app level.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Me too.
Anyway, google doesn't sound like they are taking this issue seriously.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think that is an accurate assessment. I think Google believes that in time the hardware itself wil cover this inadequacy- it matters less on dual core phones. Its all those poor people that bought early Android phones that have had to suffer the most...
I'm sure it's not trivial, but again standalone apps seemed to have done it. I know OS wide is another issue. But really, honeycomb is really late when it comes to this. It really should have been a 2.x feature. I"m the exact opposite of an apple fan boy, but the first iphone in 2007 had this. That set the bar right there. What 4 years later and google is almost on it? And yes iphone is a fixed device, but still. An abstraction layer should have been worked on so if a device has a gpu it's used, otherwise fallback to software.
And on a side note, It would still be nice to know apps that do implement this now.
sark666 said:
An abstraction layer should have been worked on so if a device has a gpu it's used, otherwise fallback to software.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am a huge fan of this stuff (I actually had a blog about composite back in the day) and I can tell you after hacking on many devices and OSes, only ONCE have I seen a decent software-based compositor. OSX. That is it, in the whole world.
In fact, Apple's entire "magic" empire of devices is built on that unique competitive advantage. Part of what has made it work is that composite was there from day one- unlike a Linux, Windows or Android, OSX/iOS has ALWAYS had composite so applications had to work with it.
And it wasn't a painless process. Early OSX versions (until Tiger I think) all had major composite bugs (to the point I am good at spotting them). Part of Apple's advantage is that initially the OSX base was so small that it didn't matter what broke and what didn't.
So essentially it is not a 4 year gap, but is more like a 10 year advantage. All those old PowerPC Mac users paid out the nose to make modern Apple phones the pleasant experience they are.
To me the saving grace of Android is that Google allows developers to replace major parts. So maybe the entire OS will never have real GPU acceleration, but Google doesn't stop the Operas and Launcher Pros of the world to replace essential functions with apps that CAN leverage that ability. That way different parts of the OS get fixed up by those who are best at that part, and those with weaker hardware can do without.
So yeah, a list would be nice.
Well even Windows XP seems to dust Android's best. For example, browsing these very forums on my pathetic netbook is smooth but on NC it is extremely slow unless Opera Mobile is used. Even Honeycomb's browser is slow scrolling these forums. It is pretty mind blowing that in 2011 there would be 2D GUI inadequacies like this.
But the reason is as has been said: there are phones with really poor GPUs running Android. So Google basically set the bar too low in order to probably lower the cost to develop an Android device and now they don't want to break compatibility. Although I don't see why 3.0 couldn't have been more ambitious.
Not Quite A List of Android GPU Apps
GPU Acceleration will be system wide when Ice Cream Sandwich is released. I stumbled upon this thread hoping to find specific apps. I am of the Nvidia Bootcamp, so that influenced me to get a Droid X2. There are some killer apps that work perfect with GPU acceleration. I am rather surprised to find that this thread became a history lesson, much which I knew and Wikipedia could tell me.
I am using a Movie Player on Android called MX Video Player (FREE and Free Codec Download Required). It works extremely well. This app is an excellent example of quality software taking advantage of GPU acceleration, before a system wide implementation. I doubt "MX" will get better when ICS is here.
As for CyanogenMod none that I know of other than the ICS port they are cooking up. Has to do with ICS SDK API 14, that is the framework for it?
When I find more I will add to the list here, that is if I dont forget.
Oh and that snyde XP comment.... Let me know how the android gui and os is when it has had ten years in the limelight, with patches and bug fixes!
Just wanted everybody to know, that Robert Bruglia, who also ported Snes9X and other Emulators to Android, released his vba-m port GBA.emu.
As you expect from his emulators, it's running great, and especially with our keyboard, and disabled linear filtering, it's a real pleasure to play GBA games on this emulator.
You can find it in the market: https://play.google.com/store/apps/...sMSwxLDIxMiwiY29tLmV4cGx1c2FscGhhLkdiYUVtdSJd
How does this compare to something like gameboid?
Also are there any playstation emulators than can be used in the background? I have FPse which works good, but whenever I press the home button it closes, and I have to restart from my last save point.
does it have link cable connection emulation?
i've been looking for an app with that function
I don't know, unfortunately. But please consider contacting the developer!
I miss yongzh. his EMUs were top-notch and he was a speedy and proficient developer!
Serk102 said:
How does this compare to something like gameboid?
Also are there any playstation emulators than can be used in the background? I have FPse which works good, but whenever I press the home button it closes, and I have to restart from my last save point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
The main reason why I first switched to GBA.emu is that Yongzh refuses to develop Gameboid any further, since it was removed from the Android Market back in 2011. Then the main reason is the unbelievably ugly linear filtering that made games look so blurry and ugly.
But there is a new kid on the block, it's name is "My Boy!" and has some benefits over GBA.emu. It's much faster than GBA.emu and needs far less battery. I tested it with Final Fantasy Advance, which is a time intese game. With GBA.emu my battery drained within 3 hours, with My Boy! it lasts at least double the time.
Every emulator is worth buying, because their developers are working hard to get the best performance and compatibility. So I think you should buy My Boy! AND GBA.emu.
To disable linear filtering in My Boy! go to Video settings and change the Backend rendering mode to Canvas instead of OpenGL ES.
EDIT:
I'd like to share the information, which emulators the Android versions are based of:
Gameboid: gpSP
GBA.emu: VBA-M r1097
My Boy!: NO PORT - own development
Rotkaeqpchen said:
The main reason why I first switched to GBA.emu is that Yongzh refuses to develop Gameboid any further, since it was removed from the Android Market back in 2011. Then the main reason is the unbelievably ugly linear filtering that made games look so blurry and ugly.
But there is a new kid on the block, it's name is "My Boy!" and has some benefits over GBA.emu. It's much faster than GBA.emu and needs far less battery. I tested it with Final Fantasy Advance, which is a time intese game. With GBA.emu my battery drained within 3 hours, with My Boy! it lasts at least double the time.
Every emulator is worth buying, because their developers are working hard to get the best performance and compatibility. So I think you should buy My Boy! AND GBA.emu.
To disable linear filtering in My Boy! go to Video settings and change the Backend rendering mode to Canvas instead of OpenGL ES.
EDIT:
I'd like to share the information, which emulators the Android versions are based of:
Gameboid: gpSP
GBA.emu: VBA-M r1097
My Boy!: NO PORT - own development
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does this emulator support cable link emulation then?
If it supports link cable emulation, the emulator would be quite interesting.
I had a conversation with the developers of "My Boy!" and it seems pretty much impossible to add this feature. But they also claimed that they might get back to that topic in the future.
My conclusion by the way is: MyBoy! offers very high fps even on low-end devices and saves battery the most. I recommend GBA.emu especially for x86 devices, as there is a native version for that platform and it's very fast.
I am currently running My Boy! on my tablet.
But when I stretch out the image and put the app in fullscreen! the image looks blurred.
Is this still the best app in regards to image quality?
(When it comes to GBA of course)
link cable emulation
My boy just released an update for link cable emulation but I'm finding it hard to figure out how to work it. And for that other guy I think the image will always be the same but will be blurrier if it is stretched
when remix os will support AMD chipset?
Maybe they're bought by Intel. Can't imagine/remember any software on this planet not functioning on only one of those two without the interference of the programmer.
Yeah, I wanted to try it today and was super dissapointed because it doesnt work on my PC. Im wondering if they will add AMD support in the future.
I am also a little put off by this. Does not make much sense to support only one chipset... especially when you are cutting out a major chunk of the market
AFAIK The player requires Intel HAXM because it is based on the Android SDK emulator, which also requires HAXM.
Hello, the opinion should be made on these points:-
1) performance ( relative both are same but according to you which feel fast on laptop)
2) battery life (optimization)
3) experience (look and feel)
4) satisfaction (do you enjoy using it on your laptop) (tell why?)
5) is it good for android development.
this tread will help all those who want to use either one and are confused, which to try,
give opinion from your heart.
1) Almost same performance on both OS
2) Pop os In my testing had better battery life
3) Pop os has a slightly refined UI
4) I don't know what you meant by this, but you will be satisfied by either of them
5) ANY linux based OS is great for android development.
Pop!_OS because of Flatpak.
Ubuntu uses snap and snap a proprietary development of Ubuntu. That's why it is better to use Pop!_OS.
- Performance almost same.
- Battery almost same? idk...
- Experience Pop!_OS over Ubuntu because of the new COSMIC desktop environment.
- Satisfaction??? What you mean?
- yes? xD
chratoc said:
1) Almost same performance on both OS
2) Pop os In my testing had better battery life
3) Pop os has a slightly refined UI
4) I don't know what you meant by this, but you will be satisfied by either of them
5) ANY linux based OS is great for android development.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
satisfaction means are you happy with that os. thanks for valuable opinion. what are your laptop specs ?
1. PopOS 10-20% faster than Ubuntu.
2. PopOS saves atleast 15% more battery than Ubuntu
3. PopOS feels stock. Less bloat, more work.
4. Yes I am satisfied with both of them.
5. TBH, Arch & NixOS is way faster than Ubuntu/Debian/APT based distros. PopOS has an advantage over memory usage here.
My laptop is an Asus X555LF with 8GB RAM, i3 5010U and an NVIDIA GeForce 930M.
Pop OS *is* Ubuntu, under the hood. It has a different desktop UI as the main difference. Extra software, development tools, drivers, etc will be identical, and come from the same sources (Ubuntu's repositories)
claydoh said:
Pop OS *is* Ubuntu, under the hood. It has a different desktop UI as the main difference. Extra software, development tools, drivers, etc will be identical, and come from the same sources (Ubuntu's repositories)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But the bloat is a lot less. Also telemetry is removed.
Otus9051 said:
1. PopOS 10-20% faster than Ubuntu.
2. PopOS saves atleast 15% more battery than Ubuntu
3. PopOS feels stock. Less bloat, more work.
4. Yes I am satisfied with both of them.
5. TBH, Arch & NixOS is way faster than Ubuntu/Debian/APT based distros. PopOS has an advantage over memory usage here.
My laptop is an Asus X555LF with 8GB RAM, i3 5010U and an NVIDIA GeForce 930M.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wow great, thanks for the info. i am sure it will help. thanks again.
[email protected] said:
satisfaction means are you happy with that os. thanks for valuable opinion. what are your laptop specs ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was pretty satisfied with pop os. So it's great!
The one I am using right now is a really old laptop.
Intel B815 2 core 1.6GHz with integrated graphics
4GB RAM.
I use manjaro-Gnome, although it's a bit heavier compared to other desktop environments, I love the customization on gnome. I don't use much apps other than telegram, spotify, media players and a web browser. It's smooth and stutter-free most time and the fans stay low pretty much all time. 1080p60 videos play like a charm without frame drops on twitch and youtube, so I am pretty satisfied with it given it's age.
Although I do have another laptop running Windows 11
i3 dual core (Not sure about the generation but it's pretty old too)
8GB Ram
chratoc said:
I was pretty satisfied with pop os. So it's great!
The one I am using right now is a really old laptop.
Intel B815 2 core 1.6GHz with integrated graphics
4GB RAM.
I use manjaro-Gnome, although it's a bit heavier compared to other desktop environments, I love the customization on gnome. I don't use much apps other than telegram, spotify, media players and a web browser. It's smooth and stutter-free most time and the fans stay low pretty much all time. 1080p60 videos play like a charm without frame drops on twitch and youtube, so I am pretty satisfied with it given it's age.
Although I do have another laptop running Windows 11
i3 dual core (Not sure about the generation but it's pretty old too)
8GB Ram
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
great. i also love manjaro.(KDE)
[email protected] said:
Hello, the opinion should be made on these points:-
1) performance ( relative both are same but according to you which feel fast on laptop)
2) battery life (optimization)
3) experience (look and feel)
4) satisfaction (do you enjoy using it on your laptop) (tell why?)
5) is it good for android development.
this tread will help all those who want to use either one and are confused, which to try,
give opinion from your heart.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1) Hard to tell but I feel like Ubuntu is very slightly heavier and hence Pop OS wins in this
2) I found battery life to be awesome on Pop OS though I didn't test very thoroughly
3) That is something I changed on POP OS right away with a WhiteSur theme and Big Sur icons. Ubuntu Icons are anyday better than POP OS icons though i like the pop shell more and the dock makes sense on pop os 21.04 though ubuntu is getting that on 21.10 afaik
4) Yep, i am satisfied coming from Windows which was, ahem, a resource hogger, slow, battery hogger and was bad in general. I still need to dual boot for Premiere Pro and to test Windows 11 Dev builds on baremetal.
5) I don't do android development so not commenting on that but in general it is good for development I am learning web development and do python stuff occasionally and everything good so far. It is better than Windows anyday
[email protected] said:
Hello, the opinion should be made on these points:-
1) performance ( relative both are same but according to you which feel fast on laptop)
2) battery life (optimization)
3) experience (look and feel)
4) satisfaction (do you enjoy using it on your laptop) (tell why?)
5) is it good for android development.
this tread will help all those who want to use either one and are confused, which to try,
give opinion from your heart.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1 Ubuntu has slightly more bloat out of the box, but it is about the same. PopOS is better tuned to System76 hardware, but those drivers can also be brought into Ubuntu. But Ubuntu has more projects testing against it, and more support.
2 Will depend on hardware and drivers. You can tweak this with either and get better performance with both.
3 Personal preference. I use Ubuntu with gnome-pannel and the old gnome 2 look and feel.
4 I love useing Linux on my laptop! (Either)
5 You can install all of the same tools on either.
Pehpe said:
Pop!_OS because of Flatpak.
Ubuntu uses snap and snap a proprietary development of Ubuntu. That's why it is better to use Pop!_OS.
- Performance almost same.
- Battery almost same? idk...
- Experience Pop!_OS over Ubuntu because of the new COSMIC desktop environment.
- Satisfaction??? What you mean?
- yes? xD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can install flatpak on Ubuntu. sudo apt install flatpak and it works. But frankly I do not like either, and remove snapd myself.
houstonbofh said:
1 Ubuntu has slightly more bloat out of the box, but it is about the same. PopOS is better tuned to System76 hardware, but those drivers can also be brought into Ubuntu. But Ubuntu has more projects testing against it, and more support.
2 Will depend on hardware and drivers. You can tweak this with either and get better performance with both.
3 Personal preference. I use Ubuntu with gnome-pannel and the old gnome 2 look and feel.
4 I love useing Linux on my laptop! (Either)
5 You can install all of the same tools on either.
You can install flatpak on Ubuntu. sudo apt install flatpak and it works. But frankly I do not like either, and remove snapd myself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i agree with you after trying both for my main workstation i also felt the same way
i have heard ppl said pop os have better support for laptop and optimus, they also have separated iso for nvidia. they sell laptops after all. and i do have to spend hourss to get rid of screen tearing on ubuntu.