Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Emulator Now Runs x86 Apps On All Raspberry Pi Models

Posted by Soulskill on from the onward-and-upward dept.

DeviceGuru writes: Russia-based Eltechs announced its ExaGear Desktop virtual machine last August, enabling Linux/ARMv7 SBCs and mini-PCs to run x86 software. That meant that users of the quad-core, Cortex-A7-based Raspberry Pi 2 Model B, could use it as well, although the software was not yet optimized for it. Now Eltechs has extended extended ExaGear to support earlier ARMv6 versions of the Raspberry Pi. The company also optimized the emulator for the Pi 2 allowing, for example, Pi 2 users to use automatically forwarding startup scripts.

82 comments

  1. Re: Spider dick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ... Spider dick. RadioACTIVE spider dick!

  2. And the news is... by gwolf · · Score: 0

    What's the difference between this and, say, Bochs 20 years ago?

    Emulating x86 is not hard. It's not efficient either.

    1. Re:And the news is... by John+Bokma · · Score: 2, Informative

      In August, Eltechs said ExaGear Desktop ran 4.5 times faster than the open source QEMU VM. With new performance improvements, the software is 5 to 10 percent faster, or about five times faster than QEMU, claims Gimpelson.

      Emphasis added

      --

      Perl Programmer for hire
    2. Re:And the news is... by eltechs457 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ExaGear is extremely fast. You can achieve almost native performance. Take a look on benchs on http://eltechs.com/product/exa...

    3. Re:And the news is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it's a big deal to Russia since they don't have access to Intel/AMD cpu's, so they're basing their homegrown computers on ARM. Anyone using an ARM based computer probably wants to run some x86 software sometimes. I think the design goals for Boch's and ExaGear is different, people using ARM based computers would like access to all the x86 software available. It doesn't seem like Boch's is compiled for ARM/Android yet so that's a huge group that's not being serviced, so it's kind of a big deal.

    4. Re:And the news is... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sounds about right... QEMU isn't designed to be fast, it's designed to be accurate and portable. so writing a pipelined JIT x86 emulator specifically for ARM should get around a 4x speedup over QEMU even if it is solely based on QEMU code and a JIT engine, prior to optimization.

    5. Re:And the news is... by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      The "news" is the Raspberry (again...), not so much the emulator (i don't try to belittle it, i just agree with you that... o.k., emulating x86!)

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    6. Re:And the news is... by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 2

      In August, Eltechs said ExaGear Desktop ran 4.5 times faster than the open source QEMU VM. With new performance improvements, the software is 5 to 10 percent faster, or about five times faster than QEMU, [according to Eltechs CEO Vadim Gimpelson in an email to LinuxGizmos].

      Emphasis added

      Emphasis and extra quote added

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    7. Re:And the news is... by dosius · · Score: 3, Informative

      Huh? Last I checked, qemu WAS designed to be fast - or at least compared to Bochs, which isn't saying much, it was intended to be fast. Or are you confusing the two?

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    8. Re:And the news is... by John+Bokma · · Score: 2

      Oops, Slashdot ate my emphasis. Also, I think it was clear that those figures came from Eltechs as the first sentence I quoted states "In August, Eltechs said" ;-).

      --

      Perl Programmer for hire
    9. Re:And the news is... by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      Oops, Slashdot ate my emphasis. Also, I think it was clear that those figures came from Eltechs as the first sentence I quoted states "In August, Eltechs said" ;-).

      No, I did that... i just wanted to emphasize even more what you already mentioned... sorry!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    10. Re:And the news is... by sjames · · Score: 2

      Qemu was fast compared to Bochs when running on the same architecture it was emulating in part because Bochs used full emulation all the time IIRC.

    11. Re:And the news is... by Zymergy · · Score: 2

      I'd like to ask if QEMU is a newer version of the Quarterdeck Expanded Memory Manager? (sarcasm)

  3. I'm having flashbacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm having flashbacks to Windows NT 4.0 on the alpha running X86 apps. Oh God those were terrible times!

    1. Re:I'm having flashbacks by Major+Blud · · Score: 2

      I could never figure out why DEC even bothered with FX!32, or why MS bothered with Alpha for that matter. I mean, PowerPC OS X Apps didn't run that slow on Intel when using Roesetta.....how did FX!32 get it so wrong?

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    2. Re:I'm having flashbacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FX!32 Rocked!

    3. Re:I'm having flashbacks by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

      FX!32 ran programs at about 66% of their normal speeds. It wasn't that bad. They bothered because there wasn't any native Alpha NT programs at the time.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    4. Re:I'm having flashbacks by Major+Blud · · Score: 2

      "They bothered because there wasn't any native Alpha NT programs at the time"

      Yeah that was kinda my point though....DEC had VMS and Tru64, which smoked NT 4.0. I blame Compaq ;-)

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    5. Re:I'm having flashbacks by KGIII · · Score: 2

      I blame Digital. They had no business selling themselves, whores... Really, they should not have sold their dirty, sexy, selves...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:I'm having flashbacks by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I mean, PowerPC OS X Apps didn't run that slow on Intel when using Roesetta.....how did FX!32 get it so wrong?

      Emulating RISC instructions on an x86 is typically much easier than emulating x86 instructions on RISC. Particularly if you have to emulate the clunky, convoluted PC hardware, too.

    7. Re:I'm having flashbacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got it backward, emulating x86 on RISC is typically easier because RISC chips like ARM and PowerPC tend to have a busload of general purpose registers. Emulating such a RISC chip on x86 means juggling registers in and out of cache to cover them all.

  4. YAE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this different?

    https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=13161
    http://mamedev.org/

    What sort of IPC are we seeing from this emulator?

  5. 1987 called by Nukem,Duke · · Score: 2

    They want their Sidekick and Lotus 123 back!

    1. Re:1987 called by halivar · · Score: 2

      No, they do not.

    2. Re:1987 called by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      LOL ... don't speak for 1987, it hates that.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:1987 called by halivar · · Score: 1

      I forgot that years hate being anthropomorphized..

    4. Re:1987 called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your name is probably going to be the compatibility/performance litmus test...

    5. Re:1987 called by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      It's OK, 1987 is too busy snorting cocaine and being a selfish bastard to notice.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:1987 called by bobbied · · Score: 1

      They want their Sidekick and Lotus 123 back!

      No, no, no.. Word Perfect and Borland C.... Unless Windows 3.1 is more your style..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  6. APPS? x86 *APPS* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I guess *EVERYTHING* is an 'app' now!

    HANG ON, I GOTTA GO THE THE APP (toilet)

    1. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by sexconker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      App the apps while apping apps!
      What the fuck ever happened to "program", "application", "software", or "code"?

    2. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern app appers know that apps are better than luddite software!

      But why app apps on a Raspberry Pi? That's for luddites. App appers only app apps on other apps!

      Apps!

    3. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apps is a abbreviation of applications.

    4. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apps is just a shorthand for application. And I distinctly remember shortening program to prog in my youth. Code is too nerdy for mainstream consumers and software is what happens as you get older :(

    5. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I guess *EVERYTHING* is an 'app' now!

      You make it sound like calling a program/application an 'app' is a new thing...

      Take a look at the article from 1992 "Running you apps under OS/2" in PC mag

      https://books.google.com/books?id=uummfdS7yF8C&pg=PT28&dq=windows+apps&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SqVoVeS0AdbqoASRsoL4Cg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=windows%20apps&f=false

    6. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Apps can also be shorthand for aperitifs or appetizers. As in, "I grabbed the new Google app last night while eating an app at the bistro."

    7. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This feels like a "Yo, Dawg!" moment...

    8. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just a program or application anymore.
      It's also barbers: http://www.hairapp.nl/

      There's one in my city.

      captcha: regret

    9. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What the fuck ever happened to "program", "application", "software", or "code"?

      It's never been unusual to call a program an application even in the Unix or PC world, but it's been standard to call programs "apps" in the Mac community since forever, because they have been known as "applications" in the official MacOS system parlance since forever - hence the file type flag of APPL and not PROG, SOFT, or CODE.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That used to be true, but after the rise of iphone and its appstore, it seems slightly different. :/

    11. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Agreed - apps are what you get at Chili's.

    12. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by sexconker · · Score: 1

      APPL was chosen for a different reason.

    13. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by CODiNE · · Score: 2

      Memory around here is so short.

      Apple had long called their programs "applications" while Windows used "Programs" and DOS used "executables".

      Then came the iPhone with the "App Store" which Apple Trademarked, quickly everybody else started using the same term to ride on high consumer awareness of the term. Apple sued, and Amazon and finally gave up on it.

      Since then "Apps" has become a widespread generic term, and Tim Cook cries a little inside every time he sees it used for non-Apple software.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    14. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can find mentions of "DOS apps" in 1989, and "killer app" dates to 1988.

    15. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

      In RISC OS (operating system running on an ARM processor, several decades ago) applications where stored in an Apps folder ... E.g. see: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi... RISC OS had also drag & drop installation and several other nifty ideas, some which still live on. One can run a modern version on the Pi.

      --

      Perl Programmer for hire
    16. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      App is coming out now!

      KGIII

      (Posting as AC which means I probably won't see a reply. I would not post AC but /. is insane and says I have been a bit too prolific with my posting. Absolutist ninnies.)

    17. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by JustOK · · Score: 2

      core dumps, more like.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    18. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by bmarkovic · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as file type flag in OSX tho, it uses the NeXT concept of bundle directories (which NeXT actually borrowed from RiscOS). The extension that marks applications is .app and "app bundle" is quite common name for it. Pretty sure it's where the "app" shortening for "application" got it's ubiquitousness that then spread with popularity of iOS.

      But I distinctively remember even back in the 90s that the term Application was the "proper" term for software installation - as Application can consist of multiple Programs, but not vice versa.

    19. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, never mind the fact that he was talking about the origin of the term (well before Mac OS X), there is in fact a type code in Mac OS X. Although it's deprecated, it's part of HFS and won't go away unless Apple stops using the filesystem.

    20. Re:APPS? x86 *APPS* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would not post AC but /. is insane and says I have been a bit too prolific with my posting.

      I'd post as my identified account except that Slashdot's fucked cookie management means it only knows who I am on slashdot.org and none of the sub-domains.

  7. k.., by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does this compare, clock to clock, with an intel atom core?

  8. LOL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure it's _blazing_ fast, too.

  9. History repeats itself... by John+Bokma · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The first ARM desktop computer, the Acorn Archimedes, got quite early on a PC emulator which, if I recall correctly, emulated a 80186. The ARM 2 processor, running at 8 MHz could emulate this processor at close to 5-6 MHz (again, if I recall correctly).

    --

    Perl Programmer for hire
    1. Re:History repeats itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia... ARM SBC emulates YOU!

    2. Re:History repeats itself... by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      The first ARM desktop computer, the Acorn Archimedes, got quite early on a PC emulator which, if I recall correctly, emulated a 80186. The ARM 2 processor, running at 8 MHz could emulate this processor at close to 5-6 MHz (again, if I recall correctly).

      From: http://chrisacorns.computinghi...

      "In use the Archimedes PC Emulator program gives quite acceptable performance if you don't want to go too fast. While the hard disk access is extremely fast, the computing speed is only average and the screen display speed is slow."

      And it gives the 'computing index' performance as about 1/10 of an AT PC. That's pretty much my experience of PC emulators; for apps that spend most of the time waiting for user input, it's fine, but anything that requires real computing power needs a CPU that's about 10x the performance of the CPU you want to emulate.

    3. Re:History repeats itself... by John+Bokma · · Score: 1
      This was in the late 80s when (slow) XTs where still very common. I recall running software like PSPICE and WordPerfect without much trouble. The processor emulated was a 80188 (not 80186 as I mentioned earlier), which was used in the XT line of PCs. So comparing it with an AT PC is a bit unfair. I do think it was quite an achievement to emulate a processor at close to the same speed in software.

      Of course I had bought the Acorn Archimedes for its ARM processor; I did program in assembly back in the day, and loved the very simple but powerful instruction set. Anyway, thanks for the link. I am quite sure I read the original back in the day.

      --

      Perl Programmer for hire
    4. Re:History repeats itself... by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "The processor emulated was a 80188 (not 80186 as I mentioned earlier), which was used in the XT line of PCs."

      No, it was not.

    5. Re:History repeats itself... by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

      Oops, my bad, I originally wrote "The processor emulated was a 80188 (~8086)" But then noticed that in my first comment I mentioned 80186, not 80188 so I replaced the part between parenthesis, but left of the 8086. Thanks!

      --

      Perl Programmer for hire
    6. Re:History repeats itself... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I remember that program - I had it many many many years ago, on an Acorn for which I can't even recall the model*. I also recall that the PC emulator was painfully, unusably slow - even just entering commands you could see the delay between keypress and character.

      * You could run Cannon Fodder on it, and that is what it mostly got used for.

    7. Re:History repeats itself... by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

      You're sure it was an Acorn with an ARM processor? Because I can't recall it being that slow. Or maybe the PCs (XTs) I used back in those days where equally slow.

      --

      Perl Programmer for hire
    8. Re:History repeats itself... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      I remember it ran RISC OS. Looking at pictures of Acorn machines, th A3010 looks like the one I remember - I may be wrong, but not by far. The label on top I remember as quite distinctive.

      I found it very useful for media convertions: My IBM had a 2.88MB floppy drive, my other PCs had conventional 1.44MB, and my Atati used some weird Atari thing. The Acorn machine was able to read all of them and so, when not being used for Cannon Fodder (Which I never did manage to finish), it served to exchange data between them.

    9. Re:History repeats itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was much more painful to use than that - I doubt it hit 1-2MHz equivalent

    10. Re:History repeats itself... by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      Acorn's PC emulator emulated an 8086 (not 80186). There are a couple of extra instructions added in the later 80186. Not much software uses them but apparently the game Star Trek 25th Anniversary did. Dave Lawrence's FasterPC emulator provided a virtual 80186 (though the CPU emulation was still just as slow, the video support was faster and PC speaker emulation much better, so it could play many DOS games that used 320x200 res in 256 colours. Like Civilization...)

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  10. FOSS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need a FOSS solution like this. It will be the 'Rosetta' for Linux. Commercial apps are sparse on ARM Linux but more present on X86 Linux.

  11. First thought is Netflix by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

    I imagine it would require connecting too much non-x86 R-Pi plumbing but it would be nice if it could run the PC version of Netflix.

    1. Re:First thought is Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These days you can just get Netflix running on Linux by installing Chrome which tries to keep itself somewhat neatly self contained. That said, it is going to be extremely slow. My quad core Atom has some trouble running Chrome/Netflix, an emulated less powerful machine stands almost no chance of decent performance.

    2. Re:First thought is Netflix by eltechs457 · · Score: 1

      Chrome is not available for R Pi. Only Chromium

    3. Re:First thought is Netflix by quenda · · Score: 1

      Chrome is not available for R Pi. Only Chromium

      Thats why the GP is talking about running the x86 version of Chrome in an emulator. What did you think this conversation was about?

  12. why do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mini-itx systems are only $100 these days. Why emulate?

  13. No source, no future by morgauxo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wouldn't bother. Just use QEMU. It's slower but it works.

    I don't think proprietary software is worthwile on Linux. No, I'm not an RMS type that would completely boycott proprietary anything on philosphical grounds. It's just that my experience is that if I can't compile it from source on Linux it sucks.

    First... you have to be running the same distro as the author or.. no support and maybe a 40% chance it will even work.

    Ok, for the Pi everything is probably Raspbian so that might not be a problem.

    But.. a year later... it doesn't work if you download any updates because it is dependant on some old library version or the distro has moved some file or something like that.

    If you get source code... just recompile and it works. You get about 5 years before Linux has changed too much to use that same source code without modification.

    Get a community to maintain the source code... it's more like 25 years.

    Now.. proprietary software on Windows.. 10 to 20 years before you can't use it anymore.

    1. Re:No source, no future by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      eh?

      You know of a version of QEMU that runs on ARM? Last I checked the choices were sparc, ppc and x86

    2. Re:No source, no future by qIroS · · Score: 1

      Sure. qemu will run on ARM/Linux. I installed and ran Windows ME in Qemu when I first got a 512MB raspberry Pi.

    3. Re:No source, no future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eh?

      You know of a version of QEMU that runs on ARM? Last I checked the choices were sparc, ppc and x86

      As far as I know it can be build on a just about POSIX-like / Unix-like system that has a recent gcc version. QEMU supports ARM processor as a guest as well as a host. (ref: qemu Introduction: Features)

    4. Re:No source, no future by caseih · · Score: 1

      Not sure where you're checking. ARM has been supported as a target for some time now, and as a host. Of course we aren't talking about the ARM target; we're talking about the x86 target on an ARM host. And it will definitely compile and run on an ARM system. Both full system emulation (a virtual machine) and user-mode emulation, though it's not really that fast yet. The latter mode is closer to the software described in the article. Years ago I used the QEMU x86 user mode system on my PowerPC to run a few x86 binary-only linux programs and even browser plugins (Adobe PDF reader, Adobe flash, and wine). User mode emulation often appears faster because only the program itself is running through the emulator. All calls to the kernel are thunked through to the real kernel. So you get native I/O speed, for example.

  14. Yes, but does it crawl Windows? by davidwr · · Score: 2

    Obviously it doesn't run the 32-bit version of Windows 8, but does it at least crawl it?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  15. Software, not "apps" by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 1

    > apps

    No.

  16. What for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why bother running x86 sw on arm? It is so much easier to recompile for arm. And don't give me "what if I don't have the source". The open-source world cover every need now - no need for proprietary.

    Also note that you normally won't have to recompile for arm - distro maintainers have already done it for you.

    1. Re:What for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The open-source world cover every need now - no need for proprietary.

      How about a nice, open-source program that will successfully connect to Skype and allow me to carry on a video chat? An audio chat, at least? Hmmm...OK, let's try Teamspeak!....ummmm, no chance. And people are complaining when I try to get them to move to Mumble. Something about "the 50 of us in the guild switching to your software we've never heard of".

      OK, let's watch some TV online. Netflix? Nope, doesn't seem to work. Flash video on Hulu? grrrrr, again, same problem. My boss sent me these Office documents...and they're all mangled up when I open them in LibreOffice. Also, our VPN is handled by some Cisco-built authenticator, and there's no open version of it. I'd really like to be able to work from home, instead of driving in through the snow.

      I think what you mean is: No need for proprietary software, limited to the things you want to do, and assuming that everyone around you is using either free/oss software, or using something closed that the libre stuff has implemented perfectly. Frequently, the rest of us have to take a more reasonable position. There are some things that are more difficult in real life if you don't touch closed software every now and again.

    2. Re:What for? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Many of those things are available on ARM via the popular Linux distro, Android.

  17. Chromium and Netflix by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Only Chromium

    You can google around and find several tutorial explaining how to compile chromium with support for Widevine turned on (That's the DRM module used by Google Chrome to play the HTML5 EME/VIDEO streams of netflix).

    Now the question is:
    - are there Widevine binaries available for ARM ? (Not sure. I might remember having read somewhere about such)
    - or, alternatively, can similar JIT emulator as TFA's one run the x86 plugin at a sufficient speed, while leaving enough processing power to handle the remaining of the video playing ? (Luckily, there's some hardware acceleration on the Pi, so maybe it's possible to achieve).

    You could do the same using a Firefox compile with support for CDM plugins, and using the Adobe CDM plugin for Firefox.
    (With the same limitation, either wait until Adobe does an ARM version for all the various mobile incarnation of Firefox, or hope that the plugins can be emulated fast enough).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]