They claim support of Raspberry Pi (all models), add support of guest Ubuntu 14.04, Debian and Raspbian. Also improved performance and sound support.
Would you like to run skype on your Raspberry?

Heater wrote:No, it will be slow as hell. Worse than normal.
Besides, it's just a horrible idea.
All performance benches on the company's websites are under ideal conditions, can be faked easily and are almost never true. If you really want to prove us wrong, try it. Still, any x86 to ARM emulation is going to be really slow.pUnK wrote:Heater wrote:No, it will be slow as hell. Worse than normal.
Besides, it's just a horrible idea.
Not so slow as you might think. Look on the performance bench on website.
Sure, it is better to believe anonymous kusti8 who claims that it is slow and never tried itkusti8 wrote: All performance benches on the company's websites are under ideal conditions, can be faked easily and are almost never true. If you really want to prove us wrong, try it. Still, any x86 to ARM emulation is going to be really slow.
Yeah, I've never tried it. Go ahead and try it. You haven't tried it either, simply believing whatever the company website says.pUnK wrote:Sure, it is better to believe anonymous kusti8 who claims that it is slow and never tried itkusti8 wrote: All performance benches on the company's websites are under ideal conditions, can be faked easily and are almost never true. If you really want to prove us wrong, try it. Still, any x86 to ARM emulation is going to be really slow.
Please read carefully. There are comparisons with native mode too.kusti8 wrote: It's a fact that emulation is slow. You can't get around in and it's especially slow going cross architecture. It's still going to be slow. They say that it's 4.5 times faster than QEMU. That doesn't mean much considering how slow QEMU is.
If it was ""FREE"" then it would be better, jeez. $14.95 (was $24.95) !pUnK wrote:Please read carefully. There are comparisons with native mode too.kusti8 wrote: It's a fact that emulation is slow. You can't get around in and it's especially slow going cross architecture. It's still going to be slow. They say that it's 4.5 times faster than QEMU. That doesn't mean much considering how slow QEMU is.
Overhead is around 0%-50% comparing to native.
Judging by pUnK posts he has tried it because he works for the company that is selling it.kusti8 wrote:Yeah, I've never tried it. Go ahead and try it. You haven't tried it either, simply believing whatever the company website says.pUnK wrote:Sure, it is better to believe anonymous kusti8 who claims that it is slow and never tried itkusti8 wrote: All performance benches on the company's websites are under ideal conditions, can be faked easily and are almost never true. If you really want to prove us wrong, try it. Still, any x86 to ARM emulation is going to be really slow.
It's a fact that emulation is slow. You can't get around in and it's especially slow going cross architecture. It's still going to be slow. They say that it's 4.5 times faster than QEMU. That doesn't mean much considering how slow QEMU is.
Might be worth you getting in touch with the MagPI, and see if they want to do a review.pUnK wrote:Guys, you can blame me all the deadly sins for sure.
I just shared the news that might be interested for somebody.
For example Odroid community was very interested in initial release and even published review in their monthly Odroid Magazine. I guess the same might be here.
Really? Flash is dead. Nobody wants to run it anymore, and people only used it the past because either a) they had to, or b) it was there.Joe Schmoe wrote: For the record, the two big Holy Grails of the Pi are:
- Flash
- Being able to run Windows (x86) apps.
Whose record? There seems to be millions of happy Pi users out there with no such dreams.For the record, the two big Holy Grails of the Pi are:
Flash
Being able to run Windows (x86) apps.
Well... Not exactly. I've run a bunch of the earlier "Wizardry" games on a Pi, an early (256MB) Model B, at that. Granted, those games were published long enough ago that they pre-date Win95 by a good margin, but they are "x86" programs and they run fine under DOSBox.Joe Schmoe wrote: Being able to run Windows (x86) apps.
Neither seems possible, and nobody really wants to spend $15 to be disappointed yet again.
From your description, these sound like DOS, not Windows, games.Well... Not exactly..
Windows NT x86 may be a better choice ?Joe Schmoe wrote:From your description, these sound like DOS, not Windows, games.Well... Not exactly..
But in any case, I don't really consider pre-Win95 to really be Windows.
Maybe I should have said "32 bit Windows (x86) apps".
(Yes, I'm aware that there were sorta, kinda, ways to run 32 bit before Win95, things like Win32s, etc, but that doesn't really count...)
Defining the exceptions away...a "No True Scotsman" argument. Yes, those programs ran on DOS, and they are definitely compiled for x86. I did; on the other hand, run several of them on a Win98 system.Joe Schmoe wrote:From your description, these sound like DOS, not Windows, games.Well... Not exactly..
But in any case, I don't really consider pre-Win95 to really be Windows.
Maybe I should have said "32 bit Windows (x86) apps".
(Yes, I'm aware that there were sorta, kinda, ways to run 32 bit before Win95, things like Win32s, etc, but that doesn't really count...)