> If you do not agree a VirtualBox solution is a more convenient
> and efficient solution, then I don't think there's anything I can say to
> convince you otherwise.
If it would work, it might be. However, I doubt that it will work,
since it does not solve the graphics acceleration problem. The mere
fact that VirtualBox might expose hardware graphics acceleration
capabilities does not mean that Honeycomb will be able to exploit them
without significant work. I would expect that performance of a
Honeycomb VirtualBox to perhaps be incrementally better than a
Honeycomb qemu. Or, to put it another way, I would expect the ratio of
pain between 2.3 and 3.0 to be roughly the same on qemu and
VirtualBox. Furthermore, I recall suggesting this very solution to Xav
at Google I|O and being told that it did not help.
There is also the minor issue that VirtualBox is owned by Oracle. :-)
Personally, I wish that the Honeycomb source code had been released,
specifically so that the community could work on this sort of thing
and see if we can come up with something.
> Are you speaking for Google?
Nope.
--
Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)
http://commonsware.com | http://github.com/commonsguy
http://commonsware.com/blog | http://twitter.com/commonsguy
Android App Developer Books: http://commonsware.com/books
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
android-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment