Re: What are these targets for in eVC3?
From: Paul G. Tobey [eMVP] (ptobey_no_spam_at_instrument_no_spam.com)
Date: 04/16/04
- Next message: Rahul T.: "RE: why "#define DBG_printf(fmt,args...) printf(fmt,##args)" not work?"
- Previous message: Stefan Kuhr: "Re: What are these targets for in eVC3?"
- In reply to: Stefan Kuhr: "Re: What are these targets for in eVC3?"
- Next in thread: r_z_aret_at_pen_fact.com: "Re: What are these targets for in eVC3?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:20:46 -0700
Well, we sell various Windows CE (not Pocket PC), devices and we have SDKs
for each of them, yes. I can't speak for anyone else, but I can't imagine a
situation where it would make sense to sell a programmable device and not
give an SDK.
Yes, compiling against the basic Pocket PC SDK is probably adequate. You
won't get to use the full power of the PPC 2003 APIs, but perhaps you won't
need to. I think that the x86 compile target for PPC is for the PC-based
emulation environment, not for a 'real' device.
I would not say that Pocket PC is a flavor of Windows CE, no. Neither would
I say that Tablet PC is a flavor of Windows XP. Both are platforms which
run their respective OS versions and which have hardware and software
specifications associated with them which give them a relatively common
look, feel, and set of capabilities.
Paul T.
"Stefan Kuhr" <kustt110@gmx.li> wrote in message
news:40804609.844471A@gmx.li...
> Hi Paul,
>
> "Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]" wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > It's not that there aren't any SDKs which allow you to choose those
> > processors; it's just that you don't have any. None of the mass-market,
> > defined-by-MS, platforms use them. There are many devices running each
of
> > those processor combinations, but they are special-purpose devices.
They
> > might be industrial automation devices (we make one based on x86),
routers,
> > or whatever. You just don't have the right SDK.
>
> OK, now everything looks a lot clearer to me. What if some of our
> customers use barcode scanners or other industrial hardware and want
> them to be managed by our software (this is actually a scenario we might
> probably face!): Will the scanner manufacturer give us an SDK for the
> processor they are using if it is not one of those I already have
> downloaded and which are for those mass-market CE/processor
> combinations? Or is this just impossible (e.g. they are not allowed by
> MS to give away the SDK)?
>
>
> >
> > To do what you are talking about, building a device-side DLL, you need
to
> > decide what platforms you will target. You might say, "Well, this will
be
> > easier to maintain if we choose PPC2002 and later", in which case you
don't
> > have to worry about MIPS. Or you might say, "We need to support
everything
> > back to the stone age", in which case, you'll want to target the PPC
(base),
> > and recompile the DLL for all of the processors available with that
> > platform. In any case, it's the SDK that you select that will determine
> > which processors you can (and should), target.
> >
>
> "...to decide what platforms you will target.." is exactly my motivation
> for these postings of mine. So, what is your advice? We specifically
> want to target all mass-market CE-based PDAs that are in common use
> today. I would estimate, this means "All Pocket PC platforms running
> under WCE 3.0 and higher". Will it then be sufficient to use eVC3 and
> the "Pocket PC" device and compile four DLLs for MIPS, SH3, x86 and ARM
> (assuming this ARM DLL runs also on ARM-based "PocketPC 2002" and
> "PocketPC 2003" devices)? Or will we be missing one important
> platform/CPU combination if we have these 4 different binaries? (BTW:
> Are there really x86 based Pocket PC devices out there or is this just
> for the emulator on the development PC? Probably a stupid question...).
>
> As to the question "Is Pocket PC an OS?": Would it be accurate to say
> the following: "PocketPC" or "Pocket PC 2002" or "Pocket PC 2003" is a
> flavor of the Windows CE OS of the corresponding version number? Much
> like we can say "Tablet PC is a flavor of Windows XP"?
>
>
> Thanks a lot for sharing your expertise, Paul!
>
> --
> Stefan
- Next message: Rahul T.: "RE: why "#define DBG_printf(fmt,args...) printf(fmt,##args)" not work?"
- Previous message: Stefan Kuhr: "Re: What are these targets for in eVC3?"
- In reply to: Stefan Kuhr: "Re: What are these targets for in eVC3?"
- Next in thread: r_z_aret_at_pen_fact.com: "Re: What are these targets for in eVC3?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
