On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Jimen Ching <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
