Rockbox.org home
Downloads
Release release
Dev builds dev builds
Extras extras
themes themes
Documentation
Manual manual
Wiki wiki
Device Status device status
Support
Forums forums
Mailing lists mailing lists
IRC IRC
Development
Bugs bugs
Patches patches
Dev Guide dev guide
Search



Donate

Rockbox Technical Forums


Login with username, password and session length
Home Help Search Staff List Login Register
News:

Thank You for your continued support and contributions!

+  Rockbox Technical Forums
|-+  Support and General Use
| |-+  Plugins/Viewers
| | |-+  Java Emu?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Java Emu?  (Read 7007 times)

Offline Llorean

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12931
Re: Java Emu?
« Reply #15 on: August 28, 2007, 02:43:17 PM »
We look forward to you making them work then.
Logged

Offline Mad Cow

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 445
Re: Java Emu?
« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2007, 02:45:39 PM »
It should be possible if you compare the processors and amounts of RAM to those on mobile phones. Most rockbox ports are much faster than alot of phones.
Logged
iRiver H10 5GB, Gigabeat F40, Gigabeat S60, all rockboxed. :P

Offline pink floyd

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Java Emu?
« Reply #17 on: August 28, 2007, 02:51:31 PM »
listen to mad cow, madcow's mad but a geeeeenius!!!!!!
Logged

Offline GodEater

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2829
Re: Java Emu?
« Reply #18 on: August 28, 2007, 03:08:23 PM »
Quote from: Mad Cow on August 28, 2007, 02:45:39 PM
It should be possible if you compare the processors and amounts of RAM to those on mobile phones. Most rockbox ports are much faster than alot of phones.

My phone is a 200Mhz ARMv1024, and has about a gig of "memory".

We have one target with a faster processor, and NONE with that amount of memory.
Logged

Read The Manual Please

Offline Llorean

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12931
Re: Java Emu?
« Reply #19 on: August 28, 2007, 03:10:45 PM »
Well the requirements for the phone edition are very well surpassed by most of our targets. The question isn't whether that'll run. It's nearly a given that it can be made to if someone spends the time and effort on it. The biggest thing to remember is that the requirements for the VM aren't the same as the requirements for the things that run on it, and many of those aren't going to work, especially dependent on how well optimized the VM is for our hardware, etc.
Logged

Offline Mad Cow

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 445
Re: Java Emu?
« Reply #20 on: August 28, 2007, 08:05:01 PM »
Quote from: GodEater on August 28, 2007, 03:08:23 PM
Quote from: Mad Cow on August 28, 2007, 02:45:39 PM
It should be possible if you compare the processors and amounts of RAM to those on mobile phones. Most rockbox ports are much faster than alot of phones.

My phone is a 200Mhz ARMv1024, and has about a gig of "memory".

We have one target with a faster processor, and NONE with that amount of memory.

Well my phone, a motorola KRZR is pretty slow, somewhere in the 50 mhz range, and it plays any J2ME game I've tried perfectly. And as far as I know, J2ME would never need more than a 32 mb of RAM, so that's no problem.

But I still think that a port would never happen because I don't think anybody will work on it because it's just so much work.
Logged
iRiver H10 5GB, Gigabeat F40, Gigabeat S60, all rockboxed. :P

Offline nimdae

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Java Emu?
« Reply #21 on: August 28, 2007, 08:15:56 PM »
I've actually expressed interest in Java in the past on IRC, but I don't have the programming skills to port J2ME or any of the profiles to rockbox. To be honest, I'm not even interested in playing java games. I'd just like to be able to make a couple apps and possibly release them, much like I'm attempting for my phone.

I think the intention is misplaced if you want this for games. I can think of far better uses, mostly because I'm a bit of a java developer.

BTW, even if J2ME is ported to rockbox, most games will not work properly with it out of the box, and good luck getting someone to adjust it.

I hope it's done, but I won't be disappointed if it's not. I'd honestly like to see other things fixed on the ipod 5g first ;) Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, I love rockbox, and it's making lots of progress.
Logged

Offline Mad Cow

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 445
Re: Java Emu?
« Reply #22 on: August 28, 2007, 08:52:47 PM »
I was using games as an example because they're probably the most processor-intensive J2ME apps. And why wouldn't games work? All of the games I've played used only 5 buttons: up, down, left, right and select, all capable targets have those. I can't think of any other reasons for incompatibility.
Logged
iRiver H10 5GB, Gigabeat F40, Gigabeat S60, all rockboxed. :P

Offline nimdae

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Java Emu?
« Reply #23 on: August 28, 2007, 09:35:36 PM »
Because for the most part, many of the game developers don't accommodate a wide array of devices very well. They are very screen size dependent. It's not that they won't technically work, but I've seen so many games that have several versions to choose from based on the device due to screen size.
Logged

Offline Mad Cow

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 445
Re: Java Emu?
« Reply #24 on: August 28, 2007, 10:42:39 PM »
Well I know for a fact that the sansa and gigabeat have screen resolutions that are the same as some phones. Not sure about landscape screen though, I never thought about that. That would be a problem for games, but I still think simple apps would work.
Logged
iRiver H10 5GB, Gigabeat F40, Gigabeat S60, all rockboxed. :P

Offline nimdae

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Java Emu?
« Reply #25 on: August 29, 2007, 08:31:57 AM »
Well sure, most simple apps, would. I know all of the apps I've transferred from phone to phone, each with different resolutions, worked fine.
Logged

  • Print
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »
+  Rockbox Technical Forums
|-+  Support and General Use
| |-+  Plugins/Viewers
| | |-+  Java Emu?
 

  • SMF 2.0.17 | SMF © 2019, Simple Machines
  • Rockbox Privacy Policy
  • XHTML
  • RSS
  • WAP2

Page created in 0.092 seconds with 14 queries.