Arlen_Holder
news
alt.comp.freeware, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 09:26:01 -0000 (UTC), Arlen_Holder wrote:
With experience of 20:20 hindsight, even on old AMD CPUs, it's
that easy!
Woo hoo!
Now that I finally was able to get the Microsoft Emulator working
with Android Studio 3.2.1 on an old AMD-based Windows desktop, I
was able to easily run the official Google Android Studio "Your
first app" tutorial to completion:
That's great Arlen. It only took you over twenty (right?) repeat
installations of the software packages, likely hours spent online
'researching' your AMD based system so that you could eventually make
the proper adjustments, and, a sorted collection of completely
unnecessary posts to usenet, detailing your progress (or rather, lack
of for a considerable period of time).
For comparison, Arlen...
Someone who's interested and/or has developed software in various
other languages for sometime is likely to be familiar enough with the
host environment (that's a combination of the software and the
hardware, Arlen) to successfully install and make use of (very
important the latter, wouldn't you agree?) the programming
environment (let's just call it compiler for short, ok?) on the first
try.
I have a theory as to why it took you as much time as it did and as
much hand holding as you could acquire, here and elsewhere. It's
based entirely on prior/current interactions with you, here in
usenet. AFAIK, I don't know you in any way outside of usenet.
Here's my theory...
I believe that you're so arrogant that you feel as if it's never
necessary to read the instructions, or even give them so much as a
glance over before you jump right in, expecting excellent results, on
the first attempt.
Here's a simple example, Arlen. It's important, in some cases Arlen,
to *know* what the hardware is inside the box you're using. It *does*
matter. As you've discovered. Not only did you waste a significant
amount of your time, you wasted a small amount of mine as well... And
reinforced what I've been told since I was a child concerning making
assumptions about what someone does/doesn't know. I *assumed* you
(based on your boasting) atleast knew enough about the machine you
were doing this with to know what it physically did/didn't support
and had already made the proper configuration adjustments.
I made the mistake of thinking (not paying attention to the fact you
didn't know what HAXM is...*sigh*) that you were far enough along in
the program that you had the proper settings to match your hardware
and were still stuck. Had that been the problem and you were
experiencing what the registry key addresses, it *would have* got you
up and going. You forget Arlen, I work on systems for a living,
professionally. I don't have time to **** around or play games with
people, and, I'm not about to give you bad advice/information
intentionally in any way shape or form. I worked hard to regain some
trust by some people, and, I'm watched (hehehe) very closely by some
naysayers just to see if I try to do something shady to someone;
and/or talk them into screwing themselves.
You might very well have been on usenet for decades as you've
claimed, but, it wasn't in the newsgroups you've been haunting as of
late; You'd have (or should I think!) have a good idea who I am by
now and wouldn't be playing silly games with me...
The registry fix I suggested for you still applies, and, I'd still
advise for you and Bill to properly create it. A computer is a very
complex piece of machinery; the software is yet another layer of
complexity. Just because neither of you has or can find the key in
your registry and everything appears to be 'just fine', doesn't mean
nor should it be misunderstood to be the case.
--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
================================================== =
Murphy's Law only fails when you try to demonstrate it.