Re: WinCE 6.0 BSP (CEPC) for Virtual PC

Not that I've ever heard of. The ability to ship all the pieces that you'd
need to ship to "sell" a VPC image of Windows CE would be a licensing
nightmare. You can't even redistribute a CE OS image without a CE license
and that's supposed to be tied to a piece of hardware, etc. It's just a big
pile for anyone who would try to do that, I think. The closest that there's
ever been was the old Standard SDK (you might still be able to download that
somewhere on www.microsoft.com/downloads). It represented a device that had
a display, had windows, had keyboard I/O, had certain application
development components, etc. No real device ever matched this set of
components, exactly, but it would get you past generating the OS image
yourself, for this case, if your target system will have at least that set
of components in it.

Because every single Windows CE device is different, you basically *are*
stuck looking at it as building the right OS for *you*, then writing
applications for it. There's no standard set of things (none at all; one
device might have a display, keyboard, Internet Explorer, etc. and the other
might not even have the Window Manager, so APIs like CreateWindow() don't
even work), so, unlike XP, where you always have a fairly functional set of
things, no matter what sort of hardware/device you're targeting, CE can be
anything. There's no lowest common denominator list of features.

Sorry,
Paul T.

"GJ" <GJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3499D880-FD97-4249-9350-D54D345DC89B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
My original intent of using a VPC has gotten lost amid all the strong
opinions. I do realize that I will be using hardware at some point, and
also
the emulator. I was hoping there was a way I could get to cutting and
testing some POC code without dealing with CE images and PB immediately.
I
was hoping there was a CEPC VPC out there... I don't want to create one,
but
would purchase one if it was reasonably priced (this would be #4 on your
list). Yeah, maybe I made the mistake of thinking I could wait until the
decision was MADE to go with WinCE before diving into the nuts and bolts.

I was looking at this VPC as one tool in the tool chest. I'm not a big
fan
of emulators, but they do have their place in the scheme of things, and I
will be using the WinCE emulator. Your hardware suggestion was valid, I
just
thought virtual was nicer (it's usually easier to talk Software Mgrs into
purchasing software than hardware).

I'm not going to try to use my years of experience in developing non-CE
systems as club. I can defend myself in any decision I make, and will
take
full responsibility for it. I would never tell anyone he/she is doing
something *wrong* without fully understanding the situation. If this is
indicative of what the WinCE community is like, I won't be joining the
ranks
soon.

And Paul, the only waste of time was posting here.

"Chris Tacke, eMVP" wrote:

There is no lack of a virtual environment. The emulator provides what
you
want: A virtualization of the platform that you can take anywhere. No
VPC
necessary, and a pretty low cost. I don't see what you feel the VPC
would
magically provide that the existing emulator does not. The suggestion for
hardware was because it's often even lower cost once you factor in the
time
involved in doing the other work and the opportunity costs involved in
that
time. The equation, IMO, looks something like this:

Which yields the lowest cost?

1: Purchase an eBox or similar low-cost hardware for each developer.
Pro: low cost, fast to get working
Con: physical device for each person, high number of devs would mean
higher cash cost
Time to running: Ship time + 1 day - 1 cal week
Cost: 1 dev day + hardware outlay

2. Use the emulator
Pro: BSP and platform readily available. Very portable result
Con: Have to learn how to generate CE images and use PB. Have to
deploy
and integrate for each dev.
Time to running: Eval download time, plus training - 2 cal weeks
Cost: 10 dev days

3. Create a VPC CE image
Pro: Very portable result
Con: No complete BSP available. No obvious representative sample.
Time to running: Learn how to build an OAL and BSP - 1-2 months easily
without experience
Cost: 20-40 dev days bare minimum

If I hold the purse strings, #3 would rarely win.


--

Chris Tacke, Embedded MVP
OpenNETCF Consulting
Giving back to the embedded community
http://community.OpenNETCF.com



"GJ" <GJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:DB1A62AC-3FE1-4956-B1D3-A02D92B21B93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Why?"... because we want to. Development has been done for XPE using
the
VPC as a target and it works VERY well. The VPC is just like the ICOP
box,
except it's virtual... no hardware to plug in or lug around; I can
easily
take it home with me, or send it to a colleague. I can store it away
and
easily retrieve it months (maybe years) later without the frustration
of
finding long lost cabling. Some folks like to have hardware sitting on
their
desk; me, not so much. Some folks like emulators; I think they are a
pain
in
the ***. I'm not saying a CEPC VPC is the perfect solution, but it's
more
useful and/or viable as a tool than you give it credit for.

I'm truly amazed at the lack of affinity for a virtual environment... a
larger question is "Why?".

"Chris Tacke, eMVP" wrote:

The large question is "why?" What purpose would this VPC server?
There
is
already an emulator that can be used as a target. Trying to get a CE
OS
running on a VPC would be a lot of work for seemingly little (or no)
benefit. Just install the emulator BSP, generate an image and have
the
devs
use the that emulator as a target. In many cases, it would be less
expensive to just go buy each developer an ICOP eBox target than to
even
spend the time trying to get the emulator builds generated and
deployed
to
the devs. They are inexpensive and have working CE images already
loaded,
plus you can adjust the contents down the road if you so choose with
PB.

The reality is that I've been doing non-WinMo CE development for a
little
while now and I haven't loaded up an emulator in years. The times I
have
were almost always to test something emulator related, not platform
related.
Emulators can be useful, but you really have to treat it as a product
itself
when developing your platform, and few OEMs go to that trouble since
the
payback is often negligible.


--

Chris Tacke, Embedded MVP
OpenNETCF Consulting
Giving back to the embedded community
http://community.OpenNETCF.com




"GJ" <GJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4982C5A8-C33C-48CD-B6EB-0591CD1D670D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks for the info. I do understand that CE doesn't support the
full
.NET
Framework, and exploring what is "missing" is one of our objects in
doing
this "pre" development work.

However, I do still believe that a CEPC VPC would be a valuable tool
to
have
at our finger tips. We may find that out differently once we get
into
full
development, but all avenues should be explored.

Is it that difficult to do that no one has done it, even as an
exercise?
I
did find a CE 5.0 VPC on the web, so it can't be that great of a
leap
to
produce a WinCE 6.0 VPC.

"Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]" wrote:

You won't be using .NET Framework 3.0 for CE development. The full
.NET
framework does not run on Windows CE. Windows CE can, optionally,
be
equipped by the device OEM with .NET *Compact Framework* 1.0, 2.0,
or
3.5.
VS2008 can be used for development with .NET CF 2.0 or 3.5, so your
tools
are fine, if your OS is set up correctly.

No, application developers don't need Platform Builder. Once
you've
generated an OS image and the corresponding emulator image,
Platform
Builder
allows you to generate a device SDK for that OS/device. This can
then
be
installed on any VS2005/2008-equipped system, where it can be used.

Paul T.

"GJ" <GJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5897EEBC-70F1-4722-A0B7-E41BF21C882A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks Paul for your message. The software development group is
using
VS2008
and developing in C# and .NET 3.0. So, each developer would have
to
have
VS2005 w/PB installed also, even though they have no intension of
building
images. Other non-software team members would have to have
VS2005
w/PB
installed to test drive or demo the applications. I do see the
value
in
using the emulator for some aspects of the software development,
but
in
other
aspects it's a hinderance. I would have a hard time convincing
non-software
developers into installing VS2005 + SP1 + PB just to look at our
applications.

"Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]" wrote:

Platform Builder has an emulator target. I think that makes more
sense
than
trying to run the OS on a PC within a PC. Download the Platform
Builder
evaluation version via the www.microsoft.com/embedded page,
install
VS2005
Pro and the evaluation and work through some of the tutorials in
the
help.
That will give you the ability to build some sort of an emulator
image
which
you can then play with to understand how application development
works.

There's also the no-Platform-Builder option, if you aren't going
to
be
building Windows CE for your target hardware later. Install
VS2005
Pro
or
better and one of Microsoft-provided SDKs. Something like
Windows
Mobile
6
would do. That would give you an emulator target that you could
play
with.
Some of the APIs in WM6 are not available to generic Windows CE
platforms,
but, if you carefully avoid those, you should be able to
familiarize
yourself with what you have to do.

Paul T.

"GJ" <GJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6C109E8C-4AB5-4DC1-9C66-463DC4EA9460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
We are considering WinCE 6.0 for a new project, and while the
hardware
guys
are out looking at/evaluating platforms, I would like to get
familiar
with
WinCE 6.0 application development. My thought is to run WinCE
6.0
in a
Virtual PC environment (or Vmware). I've searched the web and
found
vague
references to being able to do this. I will buy a commercial
product,
and
if
one isn't available I would attempt to build my own BSP (not
desireable
at
this point).

I can't imagine that I'm the only one who would like to do
this.
I
would
greatly appreciate any info on this subject.

Thanks!














.

Loading