Re: Why did/does MS make it so difficult and confusing?
- From: r_z_aret@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:31:58 -0400
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:41:45 +0200, Markus Humm
<markus.humm1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Sorry that I disagree to your opinion.
>
>I think one could have (or even has) a common cernel with some APIs ALL
>mobile devices based on CE do have (e.g. all have file management and
>battery management, synchrosisation as well...) so a basic SDK for all
>of them would be okay.
Windows CE is the base operating system. But it is explicitly modular,
so each OEM can choose which pieces to include. And some OEMs _add_
functions. This is very important for specialized devices such as DVD
players, cell phones, automatic milking machines, calculators, and the
message displays on some highways, automotive navigation systems, etc.
(all real devices based on Windows CE). Thus, no truly universal
kernel exists.
Microsoft itself has defined several "platforms" that are based on the
Windows CE operating system. And OEMs that produce devices can get a
Microsoft logo for their devices only if they adhere to the
specifications from Microsoft. So there is a significant uniformity
among all devices for each platform defined by Microsoft. And that
means that each SDK from Microsoft works very well for all devices of
the corresponding platform. However, I think Microsoft has made excess
incompatibility among the platforms they defined. In particular, I see
_no_ advantage to the strange menu structure, etc., used with Pocket
PCs (oops, pet peeve).
I also think it would be possible to define some sort of minimal
kernel that would cover most industrial devices from Symbol, DAP, HHP,
and others. Many of these devices are close to Microsoft platforms,
but not quite, so the minimal kernel would not be so minimal. I don't
know how big a political and/or technical problem this might be.
Microsoft could work with a few companies to define a pseudo platform
and build an SDK for it. And then OEMs could say they conform to that
platform, plus extras. With more effort (said casually by someone who
hasn't dealt with these issues), the SDK might provide some sort of
checklist so developers and OEMs could each choose features.
The API for the Windows CE operating system is based on the Win 32
API. For at least some of us, that is a Very Good Thing, because we
can use large chunks of code for "big" Windows and CE. But the Win 32
API evolved over many years, with at least some attempts to support
older apps. So the Win 32 API by itself can be overwhelming. I think
Microsoft could have and should have exerted more constraints over the
chaos, but even I have some sympathy for them.
>
>Another thing: if done properly with useable emulator images ONE single
>emulator would suffice, not one seperate for each SDK!
Microsoft is at least approaching that. They now have an ARM emulator
that will run apps built for real devices. I haven't tried it, but
think it is still tied to specific platforms, at least as visible to
outside developers. I think that at some level, it is modular, so
other devices can be emulated.
I actually think one emulator per SDK is OK. That way it is more
likely to emulate real hardware (CPU _and_ the Microsoft-specified
platform).
I do wish the IDEs would let us debug code built for one platform on
another. I build for Pocket PC and HPC Pro: Pocket PC for all the
Pocket PC versions, and HPC Pro for everything else. So I would really
like to debug a Pocket PC app on a Pocket PC 2003 device. Or a Pocket
PC 2003 emulator.
>
>Yes, VS and SDK people can't wait one on another, but they could package
>the stuff in a way so that there aren't too different toolsets within
>different SDKs for the same or nearly the same purpose etc.
In The Beginning, support for mobile devices was provided by tools
that worked within Visual Studio. Starting with the original Pocket
PC, Microsoft produced separate compilers for Mobile. Starting with
Visual Studio 2003, Microsoft started to support mobile development in
Visual Studio. As of Visual Studio 2005, Microsoft will support native
code development for mobile in Visual Studio, and the separate
compilers are no longer supported.
>
>I think they could have streamlined it much better. There are different
>products okay, but in my opinion the difference is mostly between
>smartphones and PDA style devices and that is mostly the ability to do
>phone calls.
>
>Greetings
>
>Markus
-----------------------------------------
To reply to me, remove the underscores (_) from my email address (and please indicate which newsgroup and message).
Robert E. Zaret, eMVP
PenFact, Inc.
20 Park Plaza, Suite 478
Boston, MA 02116
www.penfact.com
.
- References:
- Why did/does MS make it so difficult and confusing?
- From: Markus Humm
- Re: Why did/does MS make it so difficult and confusing?
- From: <ctacke/>
- Re: Why did/does MS make it so difficult and confusing?
- From: Markus Humm
- Why did/does MS make it so difficult and confusing?
- Prev by Date: Re: Probably a Pocket PC shell bug: NavBar not restored after a fullscreen app exits or dies
- Next by Date: Re: configuration issue
- Previous by thread: Re: Why did/does MS make it so difficult and confusing?
- Next by thread: Re: VStudio release date
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
