Database Develop

why old processor?

why have they put an old model processor in there? why not the MSM8255?
i am holding out for a little bit, i am due an upgrade now, but dont want to rush into buying this phone if something better is coming.
Plus want to see what modding can be done to the software / themes, 3rd party apps etc

t3rm3y said:
why have they put an old model processor in there? why not the MSM8255?
i am holding out for a little bit, i am due an upgrade now, but dont want to rush into buying this phone if something better is coming.
Plus want to see what modding can be done to the software / themes, 3rd party apps etc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
because Microsoft only support the "old" snapdragon .

why apple customers don't ask them the same question , they use the same GPU as what is in 3gs a year ago ,
a second thing wp7 is developed on the snapdragon which is more than enough for now with it's improved drivers and direct x 9 support , it will perform even 2x better than a DHD with 8255 processor

t3rm3y said:
but dont want to rush into buying this phone if something better is coming.
QUOTE]
Sorry I'm the one that had to break the news, but there is always something better coming...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

hoss_n2 said:
why apple customers don't ask them the same question , they use the same GPU as what is in 3gs a year ago ,
a second thing wp7 is developed on the snapdragon which is more than enough for now with it's improved drivers and direct x 9 support , it will perform even 2x better than a DHD with 8255 processor
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 and 10char

t3rm3y said:
why have they put an old model processor in there? why not the MSM8255?
i am holding out for a little bit, i am due an upgrade now, but dont want to rush into buying this phone if something better is coming.
Plus want to see what modding can be done to the software / themes, 3rd party apps etc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have an HD7, it is lag free and very responsive, I think the processor will be up to the task as long as the coding is optimal.

Because having the next most powerful processor isn't important. It doesn't matter what kinda specs a device is running s long as the device runs well. Apple has proved that.
And from what I have seen, MP7 runs beautifully.

Lorddeff07 said:
Because having the next most powerful processor isn't important. It doesn't matter what kinda specs a device is running s long as the device runs well. Apple has proved that.
And from what I have seen, MP7 runs beautifully.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True that.

Old processor?
Maybe this is a bad news to you, but it's good to me cause of my hd2.

I probably would have been crying about the same thing, if technology was growing by leaps and bounds. But its not right now, technology is kinda stagnate as of lately. Yes, the HD7 has the same processor as its predecessor the HD2, but its not a bad thing. especially now that the new rom has came out for the HD2, it feels faster than ever (you can go on the HD2 and Leo boards to attest for yourself). Another thing to remember, is that the new Windows Phone 7, is not an OS that needs a 2Ghz processor to run buttery smooth. I think that we are used to the PC ideology that the next thing should have a higher number than the last, in order to be considered and respectable upgrade. But even those Intel and AMD processors, reached their, threshold for raw computing power (for now) and the companies are now refining their codes, and drivers, in order to utilize and maximize peak performance out of what they already have. (That's why 4Ghz desktop processors aren't mainstream yet)
Another thing is the WP7 is standardized with base set requirements for internal specs. I truly doubt that you'll find a noticeable difference between all the launch devices behavior with the OS, because of their processors. The mail screen might open up a little quicker on one device, but again, that could be a driver code magic for the display adapter in a particular phone, so the one that "wins" in our mind, should have been the "newer, speedier" processor but because of the refinement and more developed drivers, the one that displayed the inbox quicker was the "older" processor. (I hope you guys got that...lol)
So what I'm trying to say at the end of the day, is it really doesn't matter about the processor spec, because whats inside the HD7 is more than plenty to run the OS and its apps very very nicely.

Apps that use gpu acceleration?

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!

xpPhone 2

Not Android related by any means, but just perusing the net I stumbled upon an article about a phone called the xpPhone 2 running Win 7 & 8.
The thing that caught my eye though was its combined storage capacity of 112gb. & 18.5 hours of talk time and the ability to upgrade the ram, all within a 4.3" screen.
Currently it's only available in China.
http://en.xpphone.com/news/kuaibao/114.html

I spoke to them
I already spoke to them and it seems like a very interesting toy/weapon. Being a road warrior this would really lighten the load. Will follow how it develops closely!

1 inch thick Phone with extra battery and packing a Netbook processor.
Sounds severely underpowered for Windows but an Intel Atom would smoke any mobile processor lol.

I doubt it. At 1.6 single core. Thing blows. My phone is faster than my netbook.

CBowley said:
I doubt it. At 1.6 single core. Thing blows. My phone is faster than my netbook.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cores & GHz don't mean anything. x86 is a very fast, and faster than ARM. Arm just is better performance for power use. Plus you could install Androidx86.

Intel displayed something at ces that had a atom proc. If you watch mwc I bet they will have something about it too ...supposed to be bad ass
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

Please dont believe that you will get a smartphone with this device.
Using xpphone1 showed me that it is a UMPC with a small phone-function. There is no automatic sync with outlook and no calendar with a reminder-function. The phone-software is very unstable and so you are not always reachable like using a "normal" handy. The camera for skype and photos is not in place, under the lens there is simply nothing. These are only examples out of the long list of problems. Questions to ITG (even if these problems are solved with xpphone2) are not answered. So if you need more than a technical gimmick any other smartphone will do a better job.

this new samsung chromebook is looking awfully tempting

have you guys seen the new samsung chromebook?
its got that Exynos 5 5250 A15 chip, an above 720 screen, SSD, no moving parts so no need for a fan (wont suffocate sitting on your bed), 2GB ram, bluetooth, USB 3.0, HDMI, 6.5 hour battery life @4080MAh battery, only 11.6 inches, 2.5 pounds, and .8in thick. things stylish too. its like a netbook on crack.. its only 249, i cant see any reason you wouldnt buy it.. oh wait.. it only runs chrome OS..
well i dont think you can put windows on this thing. maybe linux, but id rather talk about actually keeping the chrome OS.
i have a few questions, if anyone who actually owns one could fill me in.
can you use torrents on a chromebook?
can you locally store pictures/movies/music on here?
if so, is there an offline video player? can it play all kinds of video formats?
if i plug in a flashdrive, can i move files around? is there a file manager in this thing?
can chrome os play minecraft?
can anyone who owns one tell me a little more about these little guys? thanks fellas

soraxd said:
have you guys seen the new samsung chromebook?
its got that Exynos 5 5250 A15 chip, an above 720 screen, SSD, no moving parts so no need for a fan (wont suffocate sitting on your bed), 2GB ram, bluetooth, USB 3.0, HDMI, 6.5 hour battery life @4080MAh battery, only 11.6 inches, 2.5 pounds, and .8in thick. things stylish too. its like a netbook on crack.. its only 249, i cant see any reason you wouldnt buy it.. oh wait.. it only runs chrome OS..
well i dont think you can put windows on this thing. maybe linux, but id rather talk about actually keeping the chrome OS.
i have a few questions, if anyone who actually owns one could fill me in.
can you use torrents on a chromebook?
can you locally store pictures/movies/music on here?
if so, is there an offline video player? can it play all kinds of video formats?
if i plug in a flashdrive, can i move files around? is there a file manager in this thing?
can chrome os play minecraft?
can anyone who owns one tell me a little more about these little guys? thanks fellas
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I own a cr-48.
You can locally store pictures and music (idk about movies, never tried). It does have some (limited) offline capabilities, like offline gmail, calendar, drive (read only IIRC). There is a file manager.
As for the rest of your questions...I have no idea, I have a real PC for all that crap.
Snowflake approved this message....

Two Linux distributions: openSUSE and Ubuntu have been already ported to the new Chromebook. You can't run Windows because it doesn't support ARM chips. Well Windows 8 RT supports but you need to be Microsoft's hardware partner for that.
Sent from my MB526 using xda premium

soraxd said:
have you guys seen the new samsung chromebook?
its got that Exynos 5 5250 A15 chip, an above 720 screen, SSD, no moving parts so no need for a fan (wont suffocate sitting on your bed), 2GB ram, bluetooth, USB 3.0, HDMI, 6.5 hour battery life @4080MAh battery, only 11.6 inches, 2.5 pounds, and .8in thick. things stylish too. its like a netbook on crack.. its only 249, i cant see any reason you wouldnt buy it.. oh wait.. it only runs chrome OS..
well i dont think you can put windows on this thing. maybe linux, but id rather talk about actually keeping the chrome OS.
i have a few questions, if anyone who actually owns one could fill me in.
can you use torrents on a chromebook?
can you locally store pictures/movies/music on here?
if so, is there an offline video player? can it play all kinds of video formats?
if i plug in a flashdrive, can i move files around? is there a file manager in this thing?
can chrome os play minecraft?
can anyone who owns one tell me a little more about these little guys? thanks fellas
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just purchased a Chromebook last night, have used it for probably 10 hours since and here's my rundown of it.
It is wonderfully fast, but what more can you expect from a linux system running an operating system based solely around the internet browser Chrome along with some perfectly functional "web apps". Now, by web apps I literally mean if you open an app on your taskbar at the bottom, it opens Chrome and goes to a website and performs as such. Think of it as a super fast epic computing system that works exactly as one would expect when Google presents an operating system.
IMO after 10 hours of use
Pros - Lightning fast, beautifully functional GUI; incredible and intuitive trackpad, takes 30 seconds to learn the strokes of it. there are no left and right buttons and it is a large pad (one finger click or tap selects, two finger click is a right click, click and hold with your forefinger and drag with your middle for selection and graphic movement, two finger drag to scroll down, up, left, or right. Its pretty awesome). Keyboard with separated keys so the lack of size is still spacious and not cluttered, because it isn't a windows keyboard there are no F1-F12 keys, windows keys, caps-lock, scroll-lock, delete, insert, pg up, pg dwn, so in short there is tons of saved space. MASSIVE selection of apps in general, like woah huge, and that's just the free ones. Once you link your google account to the pc you have over 160 gigs of storage on your google drive, as well as a 16 gb SSD that makes the performance kind of ridiculous, it boots in mere seconds, comes back from sleeping in the time it takes the monitor to come to life *which isn't long* and opens web pages faster than my PC. The wireless is a dual band (2.5 ghz and 5.0 ghz) b\g\n after a speed test it registered the peak speed of my connection through my Netgear N Dual band router. (30 meg down and 3.2 meg up, I have a screen shot, but I am a newb here so I cannot post it *which I understand not complaining just explaining* <3 ) The design is clean sleek, and odd. All the ports are in the back, which threw me back to old 2 inch think laptops, but it keeps the design very clean and easy to keep clean. lots of clean if you didn't notice the pattern. HDMI port, usb 3.0, usb 2.0. No fans, unless their silent, but I cannot hear ANYTHING its very quiet and manages to stay cool with no other visible ports other than the speakers. That's the odd part. It's really, wonderful. Oh, and I almost forgot (sorry I know this is going on forever I just wanted to make sure to be detailed) Chrome has a wonderful multi-device streamlined epic google machine. The Chrome that I use on my chromebook is the exact same browser that I'm using on my PC, other laptop, and HTC Evo3D. By that I mean same history *which isn't much because I'm usually incognito* same bookmarks, same apps.
The Perk about this is that it is a 100% fully functional and mobile device. It is ideal for businesses and students because it contains everything one needs to be productive and have fun in a VERY mobile device. It's the best new toy I've had for a while =)
Cons - Small, feels fragile. Some webpages have to be zoomed through the menu because the pages seem to be shrunk in some cases. Some apps available through the Chrome Web Store are not supported on the device yet, and without knowing until you install it, its a minor inconvenience. The customization is limited, its pretty much a what you see is what you get device. You can change the desktop background and the theme of Chrome but that's about it. There is no, like none at all, working and functional Spotify app for this, which is evil to me.
Overall 8 of 10, money well spent for sure.
Graphics - everything is low intensity for the most part so 8 of 10 cause its still crisp and beautiful, videos also look wonderful
Functionality - 10 out of 10. Period. Because Google.
Gaming - 2 of 10, that is not what this was built for, unless you like games on smartphone or flash than go for it.
Video - So far I've been able to play .mkv .avi and .mpeg4 videos fine. as for any other format I do not know. But with those three covered thats pretty much all of the digital movie formats. (I do not condone or endorse torrenting, and as far as I know it's not an option because you cannot INSTALL software, they are web based apps.)
Basically, as if I wasn't enough of one already Google has officially made me their fanboy, True story...
Yea, hope that helps. I know its lengthy but to me 249, is still 249. and therefore, well informed is better than going off of the very limited results on an actual review of this thing, I went and used it for about 20 minutes at best buy before I was too giddy to not own it. So yeah, my recommendation is get it, but only if you're not expecting a PC, cause that's NOT what this is.
:good::good::good::good:
Edit : Battery is epic. 8 hours of battery life if you don't need your screen bright as the sun. 6 and a half on full brightness. (the eight hour estimate is based on the fact that I have had it unplugged and powered on for the better part of 5 hours and the estimated time on the battery right now is 3 hours 43 minutes. So yeah, epic.

Please use the existing computer thread for this type of discussion, thanks. Thread closed.

Use CPU as help for main PC

As we can know, our phones have 8 cores, all Cortex 53, 64 bit.
Can someone make a program, to somehow make the phones cpu (or gpu/ram) to assist the PC through USB (wifi would be too slow..) Even if these 8 cores would work as one real cpu core, that would be nice I'm not the one who would use it + i can even pay if it's needed 5eu :d
Ideea seems to be easy, but in reality... I guess it is hard, cuz it need time for the information to go through usb-phone, to convert, to send it back etc... I read that it wasn't posibble some years ago, but now that we have ALL the same cpu (8 cortex 53 not 4a and 4b cores), + 64 bit

Usb port would be issue

Audriuskins said:
Usb port would be issue
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What would be the issue? Connection, i guess adb is good, too slow? Ahh

This is a joke, right?

BrainNotFound said:
This is a joke, right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya it is, BrainNotFound

You know that a single core of your pc is like 10x more powerful than all of those 8 cores right. Plus, sharing the core's tasks through USB wouldn't be feasiable.

myclarity said:
You know that a single core of your pc is like 10x more powerful than all of those 8 cores right. Plus, sharing the core's tasks through USB wouldn't be feasiable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What? 10x slower? But in some benchmarks it's actually really good, i believed that these 8 cores are at least as good as 1 cpu core... I mean secondary tasks, like ts/skype or something... Not main apps, like Photoshop or games

D1stRU3T0R said:
What? 10x slower? But in some benchmarks it's actually really good, i believed that these 8 cores are at least as good as 1 cpu core... I mean secondary tasks, like ts/skype or something... Not main apps, like Photoshop or games
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For that, you can easily install those apps on your phone.

myclarity said:
For that, you can easily install those apps on your phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right, but i can't ue some features + i need 2 headphones... One pc(hearing what i want) and one communicating

D1stRU3T0R said:
Right, but i can't ue some features + i need 2 headphones... One pc(hearing what i want) and one communicating
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just install them on your pc? Teamspeak's performance impact isn't noticeable, nor would a phone help it in any way, especially a low end phone like this one...

myclarity said:
Just install them on your pc? Teamspeak's performance impact isn't noticeable, nor would a phone help it in any way, especially a low end phone like this one...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was just an example...

I'm kind of amazed nobody's pointed out that this is not and could not be possible.
The CPUs in our phones are what is called ARM technology [which is, in short, a less powerful and portable type of processor chipset]
Your desktop, I would assume, uses x86 or amd64 (a.k.a x86_64) technology which has a completely different instruction set.
Essentially, the application in question, would have to be specially modified to run on an ARM chipset - but you might as well upgrade your PC.
Not only that, the apps you mentioned (TeamSpeak [and Skype?]) already have mobile versions anyway; so could you not just download an app and use it on your phone?
Finally, (if you run Windows), you might want to open Task Manager and check what's maxing out and upgrade that component, because I bet it's probably your RAM and not the CPU anyway...

gbmasterdoctor said:
I'm kind of amazed nobody's pointed out that this is not and could not be possible.
The CPUs in our phones are what is called ARM technology [which is, in short, a less powerful and portable type of processor chipset]
Your desktop, I would assume, uses x86 or amd64 (a.k.a x86_64) technology which has a completely different instruction set.
Essentially, the application in question, would have to be specially modified to run on an ARM chipset - but you might as well upgrade your PC.
Not only that, the apps you mentioned (TeamSpeak [and Skype?]) already have mobile versions anyway; so could you not just download an app and use it on your phone?
Finally, (if you run Windows), you might want to open Task Manager and check what's maxing out and upgrade that component, because I bet it's probably your RAM and not the CPU anyway...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi, i knowed all of this, but I didn't know that ARM can't process x86_x64 apps. My PC us giid enough, it's never running 100 ram or cpu, but still, little help won't be bad.