winmobile 2005

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

any news on backward compatibility of the new winmobile 2005 os with all my
other programs??

thanks,
bb

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Wassa matter Bobby - I understood perfectly

;-P

xfiler


>-----Original Message-----
>Can you be more specific...it's Friday the 13th and our
Crystal Balls are a
>bit cloudy today.
>
>HTH are we supposed to know what "all my other programs"
mean?
>
>Bobby
>
>"BlueBeard" <ramonours@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote in message
>news:%23zbMKa%23VFHA.2960@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> any news on backward compatibility of the new
winmobile 2005 os with all
>> my
>> other programs??
>>
>> thanks,
>> bb
>>
>>
>
>
>.
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Sorry couldn't help myself. To answer the OP, at this
extremely early date, I wouldn't care to guess. I have
apps that have worked fine on all previous OS'es, and I
have many that after the switch to WM2003SE either didn't
work at all, or didn't work well.

xfiler


>-----Original Message-----
>But didn't answer.
>
>
>"xfiler" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:2a9a01c557ed$d87a0c30$a401280a@phx.gbl...
>> Wassa matter Bobby - I understood perfectly
>>
>> ;-P
>>
>> xfiler
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>Can you be more specific...it's Friday the 13th and our
>> Crystal Balls are a
>>>bit cloudy today.
>>>
>>>HTH are we supposed to know what "all my other
programs"
>> mean?
>>>
>>>Bobby
>>>
>>>"BlueBeard" <ramonours@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote in message
>>>news:%23zbMKa%23VFHA.2960@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>> any news on backward compatibility of the new
>> winmobile 2005 os with all
>>>> my
>>>> other programs??
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> bb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>.
>>>
>
>
>.
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc,microsoft.public.pocketpc.developer,microsoft.public.smartphone,microsoft.public.smartphone.developer (More info?)

We've done a ton of testing and fixed several dozen app compat bugs during
the course of developing Windows Mobile 5.0. I'm really pleased with how we
did on this and hope that our customers will be as well. That said, the
goal of backwards compatibility is sometimes trumped by other objectives
(making the platform secure is the one that gets in the way most often) so
we're not at 100%. Over the past few months we've run a fairly large beta
program which enabled many ISVs to test thier applications, submit bugs to
us, and prepare for any necessary changes they need to make to be
compatible. Also, we have updated the Windows Mobile Migration FAQ for
Developers to call out the main breaking changes we found but could not
completely address on our side. I highly recommend that developers skim
over that document which is at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/ [...] rs_faq.asp
to see if anything in it relates to their applications.

-Robert Levy
Program Manager
Windows Mobile Developer Experience & Application Compatibility

"BlueBeard" <ramonours@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote in message
news:%23zbMKa%23VFHA.2960@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> any news on backward compatibility of the new winmobile 2005 os with all
> my
> other programs??
>
> thanks,
> bb
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc,microsoft.public.pocketpc.developer,microsoft.public.smartphone,microsoft.public.smartphone.developer (More info?)

Is there a hardware compatibility list? (Will there be?) I don't think my
Axim X5 even runs WM2003SE ;(


"Robert Levy [MS]" <rlevy@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
news:uRZSoaNWFHA.2700@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:

> We've done a ton of testing and fixed several dozen app compat bugs
> during the course of developing Windows Mobile 5.0. I'm really
> pleased with how we did on this and hope that our customers will be as
> well. That said, the goal of backwards compatibility is sometimes
> trumped by other objectives (making the platform secure is the one
> that gets in the way most often) so we're not at 100%. Over the past
> few months we've run a fairly large beta program which enabled many
> ISVs to test thier applications, submit bugs to us, and prepare for
> any necessary changes they need to make to be compatible. Also, we
> have updated the Windows Mobile Migration FAQ for Developers to call
> out the main breaking changes we found but could not completely
> address on our side. I highly recommend that developers skim over
> that document which is at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/ [...] -us/dnppcg
> en/html/migration_developers_faq.asp to see if anything in it relates
> to their applications.
>
> -Robert Levy
> Program Manager
> Windows Mobile Developer Experience & Application Compatibility
>
> "BlueBeard" <ramonours@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote in message
> news:%23zbMKa%23VFHA.2960@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> any news on backward compatibility of the new winmobile 2005 os with
>> all my
>> other programs??
>>
>> thanks,
>> bb
>>
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc,microsoft.public.pocketpc.developer,microsoft.public.smartphone,microsoft.public.smartphone.developer (More info?)

Thanks,
thats what I was looking for.
I just needed to know what criteria is needed for programs to run on the new
os.

thanks again,
bb

--
Get The CrashCart!!
http://www.rncrashcart.com
"Robert Levy [MS]" <rlevy@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uRZSoaNWFHA.2700@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> We've done a ton of testing and fixed several dozen app compat bugs during
> the course of developing Windows Mobile 5.0. I'm really pleased with how
we
> did on this and hope that our customers will be as well. That said, the
> goal of backwards compatibility is sometimes trumped by other objectives
> (making the platform secure is the one that gets in the way most often) so
> we're not at 100%. Over the past few months we've run a fairly large beta
> program which enabled many ISVs to test thier applications, submit bugs to
> us, and prepare for any necessary changes they need to make to be
> compatible. Also, we have updated the Windows Mobile Migration FAQ for
> Developers to call out the main breaking changes we found but could not
> completely address on our side. I highly recommend that developers skim
> over that document which is at
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/ [...] rs_faq.asp
> to see if anything in it relates to their applications.
>
> -Robert Levy
> Program Manager
> Windows Mobile Developer Experience & Application Compatibility
>
> "BlueBeard" <ramonours@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote in message
> news:%23zbMKa%23VFHA.2960@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > any news on backward compatibility of the new winmobile 2005 os with all
> > my
> > other programs??
> >
> > thanks,
> > bb
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc,microsoft.public.pocketpc.developer,microsoft.public.smartphone,microsoft.public.smartphone.developer (More info?)

"Robert Levy [MS]" <rlevy@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uRZSoaNWFHA.2700@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>Also, we have updated the Windows Mobile Migration FAQ for Developers to
>call out the main breaking changes we found but could not completely
>address on our side.


The biggest problem I see with 2005 so far is that there is simply not
enough gain with the new OS to warrant the possible expense of repurchasing
software that was originally bought due to the specific reason that the
included apps were not up to needed functionality.

On top of that did it really need an object model change in order to get
charts in Excel? Definitely not, too many 3rd party apps already did that
and much more than the 2005 version of apps will do. Yet it is a mysery if
you can use those purchased apps in the future, whether due to an OS
upgrade requirement for another piece of software that happens to
incorporate the security model of 2005 or a future purchase of a Windows
Mobile device.

Backwards compatiblity has been weak in Windows Mobile/Pocket PC, but it
could stand to get much worse if certain aspects of 2005 is adhered to. The
sad part is that the user's experience of the capable third party software
will not change, other than natural versioning of software from the
developer directly.

..02, FWIW.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc,microsoft.public.pocketpc.developer,microsoft.public.smartphone,microsoft.public.smartphone.developer (More info?)

A historical note...

When the pocketpc was first introduced, much of the forum discussions
related to the lack of software compared to the palm platform, then MS
released WinCE development tools available at no cost to developers that
allowed them to generate apps using embedded VB and VC+

A wealth of programs suddenly appeared for the platform which turned the
PPC into a much more powerful device almost overnight.

Since then, two circumstances have appeared to (imho) seriously threaten
this valuable pool of resouces for the ppc.

The first being the switch to .net as the targeted ppc app platform
which imposes a significant cost to individual developers which, in
turn, reduces the pool of freeware apps and tools. There is a no cost
VC+ tool that helps, but I don't know much about it.

The second is "application signing" which is required by some vendors of
cellular devices... the cost and headaches of getting software "signed"
is again significant to individual and small shops and this has to be
passed on to the end user.

This trend (again, imho) has the potential of both reducing the amount
of good software for the platform. Ironically, PPC users are somewhat
removed from the loop as the OEM's buy from MS and sell primarily to the
celluar vendors. Think everyone in the user and developer community
should think about getting the messages back to the policy makers...
i.e. feedback to the cellular providers or the oems the concerns..

Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc,microsoft.public.pocketpc.developer,microsoft.public.smartphone,microsoft.public.smartphone.developer (More info?)

On Tue, 17 May 2005 16:45:23 -0500, "Beverly Howard
[Ms-MVP/MobileDev]" <BevNoSpamBevHoward.com> wrote:

>A historical note...
>
>When the pocketpc was first introduced, much of the forum discussions
>related to the lack of software compared to the palm platform, then MS
>released WinCE development tools available at no cost to developers that
>allowed them to generate apps using embedded VB and VC+

Perhaps a nit-pick:
Microsoft provided free tools well before Pocket PC. I know eVB and
eVC were around at least since version 2 of the operating system (the
second version of HPC and the first version of Palm-size PC). But eVB
is really VB script. I don't use VB or eVB, but know I was hired to
use eVC because eVB was inadequate.


>
>A wealth of programs suddenly appeared for the platform which turned the
>PPC into a much more powerful device almost overnight.

If the number of apps appeared increased rapidly soon after the Pocket
PC came out, then it was because folks liked the Pocket PC more than
its predecessors and/or because Microsoft marketing finally succeeded
and/or because developers had finally learned how to use the available
tools.


>
>Since then, two circumstances have appeared to (imho) seriously threaten
>this valuable pool of resouces for the ppc.
>
>The first being the switch to .net as the targeted ppc app platform
>which imposes a significant cost to individual developers which, in
>turn, reduces the pool of freeware apps and tools. There is a no cost
>VC+ tool that helps, but I don't know much about it.

For C++ programmers, eVC is a fine tool. Very much like VC. And I am
confident it will remain useful for the foreseeable future even if
Microsoft stops supporting it. Microsoft has been pretty clear that
the Win32 API is not changing, so native code written to it will
continue to run. I haven't needed any support for eVC as such, so I
won't miss its absence.

But VB programmers have, and will have, a harder time. As I said
above, eVB never served VB programmers well. And now it is going away.
And I'm sure the runtime needed for eVB apps will not be on new
platforms.


>
>The second is "application signing" which is required by some vendors of
>cellular devices... the cost and headaches of getting software "signed"
>is again significant to individual and small shops and this has to be
>passed on to the end user.

This is definitely an issue for applications trying to run on phones.
It is not an issue for applications on other devices. As PDAs and
phones merge, this will become more of an issue. I assume this is
pushed by the phone companies, not Microsoft. And I assume that means
it will apply to all phones, not just those running Microsoft
operating systems.


>
>This trend (again, imho) has the potential of both reducing the amount
>of good software for the platform. Ironically, PPC users are somewhat
>removed from the loop as the OEM's buy from MS and sell primarily to the
>celluar vendors. Think everyone in the user and developer community
>should think about getting the messages back to the policy makers...
>i.e. feedback to the cellular providers or the oems the concerns..
>
>Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]

-----------------------------------------
To reply to me, remove the underscores (_) from my email address (and please indicate which newsgroup and message).

Robert E. Zaret, eMVP
PenFact, Inc.
500 Harrison Ave., Suite 3R
Boston, MA 02118
www.penfact.com

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc,microsoft.public.pocketpc.developer,microsoft.public.smartphone,microsoft.public.smartphone.developer (More info?)

On Tue, 17 May 2005 15:36:51 -0400, "xTenn"
<xTennREmoveThisPart@tds.net> wrote:

>
>"Robert Levy [MS]" <rlevy@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:uRZSoaNWFHA.2700@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>Also, we have updated the Windows Mobile Migration FAQ for Developers to
>>call out the main breaking changes we found but could not completely
>>address on our side.
>
>
>The biggest problem I see with 2005 so far is that there is simply not
>enough gain with the new OS to warrant the possible expense of repurchasing
>software that was originally bought due to the specific reason that the
>included apps were not up to needed functionality.
>
>On top of that did it really need an object model change in order to get
>charts in Excel? Definitely not, too many 3rd party apps already did that
>and much more than the 2005 version of apps will do. Yet it is a mysery if
>you can use those purchased apps in the future, whether due to an OS
>upgrade requirement for another piece of software that happens to
>incorporate the security model of 2005 or a future purchase of a Windows
>Mobile device.
>
>Backwards compatiblity has been weak in Windows Mobile/Pocket PC, but it

This definitely depends on the tools a developer uses. I've been using
eVC with straight Win32 (no MFC) for 6 years. I _do_ avoid controls
that are available only in some versions and on some platforms. And I
do hand code rather than use controls and/or code that is too
restrictive. I use the same source code for all platforms, including
"big" Windows. I think < 20% of my common library (and even less of my
application code) is platform-specific. And probably half of that is
related to menus. So far, I've encountered only a few compatibility
problems:

1) As of Pocket PC 2003 SE, the Pocket PC platforms no longer support
"emulation mode" (use google for details). So I now need to build for
Pocket PC and HPC Pro. The functions and resources used with Pocket PC
are definitely a pain, compared to "big" Windows, or even base Windows
CE.

2) As of Pocket PC 2003, I need to modify my inf files a bit to avoid
the spurious message about possible incompatibility that shows up
during installation.

3) Pocket PC 2003 introduced an error in the SetWindowText function
for edit boxes. The workaround is simple (avoid passing a NULL
argument)

When I started 6 years ago, I was very worried that I would need to
build and distribute an ever-increasing number of cab/exe files. I
have been very pleasantly surprised to find out that my fears were
mostly unfounded.

Although I only distribute HPC Pro and Pocket PC builds, I regularly
build for all the Microsoft SDKs from HPC through Smartphone 2003.


>could stand to get much worse if certain aspects of 2005 is adhered to. The
>sad part is that the user's experience of the capable third party software
>will not change, other than natural versioning of software from the
>developer directly.
>
>.02, FWIW.
>
>

-----------------------------------------
To reply to me, remove the underscores (_) from my email address (and please indicate which newsgroup and message).

Robert E. Zaret, eMVP
PenFact, Inc.
500 Harrison Ave., Suite 3R
Boston, MA 02118
www.penfact.com

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc,microsoft.public.pocketpc.developer,microsoft.public.smartphone,microsoft.public.smartphone.developer (More info?)

Is it possible that the free tools you refer to allowed owners of other
visual sdk's to generate WinCE apps?

I distinctly remember the announcement and release of a free stand alone
development package for WinCE after the first PPC's were in use, and I
also remember the stir that the release created... course... my bio
memory cells don't have parity checking, so I could be wrong.

Seem to remember that before that release, the minimum cost for WinCE
software was several hundred dollars.

Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Reply to message from r_z_aret@pen_fact.com (Wed, 18 May 2005 17:20:57)
about "Re: winmobile 2005":


> Although I only distribute HPC Pro and Pocket PC builds, I regularly
> build for all the Microsoft SDKs from HPC through Smartphone 2003.

With the inclusion of a new object model in 2005 you may find that it is
more daunting than before. That is, if you use such options, and the clock
is ticking as to the time you can avoid them, the same for such controls
that do not work well between builds. It is great that you have managed so
far, and I do wish you luck, but I think you will find it an increasingly
uphill battle.

On top of that is the signed app model, which of course would change
matters greatly. Already there is talk of signed apps helping with piracy
issues (debateable), but once that bridge is crossed the requirement is in
place for 2005, upgrade mechanics notwithstanding... Even something as
simple as a good virus scare could push development on the ppc hard into
the realm of signed apps, rapidly escalating the upgrade path for users
with established (and purchased) software solutions. This again would do
much to change the development environment away from a simpler multi-build
environment, requiring work to maintain a wider source variation.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc,microsoft.public.pocketpc.developer,microsoft.public.smartphone,microsoft.public.smartphone.developer (More info?)

>> But I'm inclined to say _you_ are right about the timing. <<

Ahh... good... I'll cancel my reservation at the home ;-)

Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]