06-28-2003, 12:30 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,177
|
|
Download the Windows Mobile 2003 SDK
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/downloads/list/pocket2003.asp
The Software Development Kit for Windows Mobile 2003-based Pocket PCs was released a few weeks ago to registered partners. Now it is available as a free download to anyone. (You'll need eMbedded Visual C++ 4.0 (with Service Pack 2), or Visual Studio .NET 2003.)
I am very excited about the combination of .NET Compact Framework, the new operating system and hardware. My preliminary tests indicate that most business solution features (XML management, Windows Forms, database access and so on) run more than twice as fast! Read on for more details from Microsoft!
"Windows Mobile 2003-based Pocket PCs offer a great wireless experience with zero-config Wi-Fi and native Bluetooth support; always up-to-date email synchronization; and enhanced imaging functionality plus a new version of Windows Media Player. Pocket PC 2003 also features a rich development platform, enabling application and solution developers to:
Develop .NET applications for devices: The Microsoft� Windows� .NET Compact Framework is in ROM in all new Pocket PC 2003 devices and enables a whole new host of benefits for developers, such as rapid application development, native XML Web services support, enterprise class connectivity and performance, and IDE support from Microsoft Visual Studio� .NET 2003.
Leverage new core Operating System and improved Pocket PC APIs: Pocket PC 2003 devices run on the new Windows CE .NET 4.2. Enhancements include APIs for device management, networking, and telephony APIs, such as utilizing Short Message Service (SMS) messages.
Develop, test and deploy applications faster: The emulation environment is more robust and now supports Pocket PC 2003, Pocket PC 2003 Phone Edition with support for radio, and Pocket PC 2003 Phone Edition with Virtual Radio. The emulator also offers new features, including virtual switch support, drive mapping, GAPI support, and performance improvements."
|
| |
|
|
|
06-28-2003, 02:10 AM
|
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 516
|
|
I was unable to purchase a copy of VS.NET 2003 a while back through work so I'm in the dark on some things. Andy, with CF and this SDK is POOM now available? If not, how does one easily hook in to the Pocket Outlook data?
Also, two of the things that bugged me about eVB was the lack of a menu editor and no built-in support for tap-and-hold, which, IMHO, could have been handled simply by treating it as a mousedown (with a right mouse button) event. One of the big things I like about VB is the RAD capabilities, yet eVB lost much of that due to having to work around bugs or lacking features. Do VS.NET 2003, CF, and this SDK fill in those gaps?
Thanks,
Scott
__________________
Tapland
|
| |
|
|
|
06-28-2003, 05:27 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 164
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scott R
Also, two of the things that bugged me about eVB was the lack of a menu editor and no built-in support for tap-and-hold, which, IMHO, could have been handled simply by treating it as a mousedown (with a right mouse button) event. One of the big things I like about VB is the RAD capabilities, yet eVB lost much of that due to having to work around bugs or lacking features. Do VS.NET 2003, CF, and this SDK fill in those gaps?
|
From what amount I've used .NET 2003 CF, there is definitely a menu editor, but the tap-and-hold still requires manual computation of times, etc. I think you might be able to use .NET's PInvoke to call an API function or two, but I've not dabbled with that part myself.
The .NET CF is definitely a step up from eVB, though. I've used eVB to create things for my company that...well, eVB wasn't meant for. :mrgreen: In all, I've done about 3 meg of coding in eVB to my dismay (and some in eVC++). .NET CF is much, much better if you're a programmer and much worse if you're a business analyst or the like. 
Finally, you'll find quite a few methods, properties, etc. in the full framework missing from the compact framework due to size issues. Allegedly, the functionality removed was entirely reproducible without painful coding. But the framework is so huge, I couldn't begin to assess the validity of that remark.
Again, it's a huge improvement over eVB so far. I guess I'll see over the next few months.
*Phil
|
| |
|
|
|
06-28-2003, 05:33 AM
|
|
|
06-28-2003, 11:01 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 204
|
|
any wm2003 webcasts comming from ms?
|
| |
|
|
|
06-28-2003, 11:23 AM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 354
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
06-28-2003, 02:09 PM
|
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 516
|
|
While I hope that the InTheHand folks make a million dollars on their Pocket Outlook .NET wrapper (at $40), I can't help but say that I find it quite ridiculous that I should have to buy an add-on component to do this. IMO, this should come "in the box" with VS.NET 2003 with their CF stuff. I'm also disappointed to hear about the continued lack of built-in tap-and-hold support (though I wouldn't be surprised if someone has posted the source code to a function which can be dropped in to utilize this without much pain).
I guess I'm still of the opinion that VB was a great language because of the RAD functionality. It seems like much of that has been lost, at least in the case of Pocket PC development.
Scott
__________________
Tapland
|
| |
|
|
|
06-29-2003, 12:35 AM
|
|
Theorist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 307
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scott R
I guess I'm still of the opinion that VB was a great language because of the RAD functionality. It seems like much of that has been lost, at least in the case of Pocket PC development.
Scott
|
I don't know about much of that having been lost.
I used to be a VB/VB Script etc. developer until I started using C# 20 months ago (back in the beta days) - I don't feel that any true RAD functionality was lost in the shift to fully object-oriented languages.
As for C# or VB.NET compared with embedded Visual Basic: in every area other than the lack of COM interop I think RAD capabilities are if anything enhanced (for instance, by the excellent intellisense capabilities, sophisticated debugger, and rich class library). eVB was seriously limited by being VB Script with a Forms interface, and I used to find development with it frustrating to say the least.
With the Compact Framework and VS.NET 2003 I was able to create a client application for Amazon's web services, including features such as the ability to display cover art (quickly). Doing this in eVB would have been vastly more difficult (and almost certainly would have required a 3rd party libary such as Pocket Soap).
So things aren't perfect, but they're certainly not that bad. I fully understand that including COM interop capabilities would have bloated the CF to an unacceptable size, so I can live with the compromise, and even the thought of learning C++ for those few jobs the CF won't handle yet.
I strongly suspect (and fervently hope) that the next major Pocket PC (sorry, Windows Mobile <insert year> For Pocket PC) release (Magneto is it?) will integrate managed code much more closely with the operating system, and will hopefully provide a managed interface to POOM (or Son of POOM) as standard.
We haven't arrived yet, but i really think we're on the way. 0X
|
| |
|
|
|
06-30-2003, 04:15 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 25
|
|
you can do COM in .NETcf with this add-on:
http://www.odysseysoftware.com/cfcom_main.html
(they have POOM wrappers as well)
else you can write an eVC wrapper that does the COM calls,
and is pInvokable by .NETcf.
(eVB will not work because it's not pInvokable)
tap-and-hold behavior does not require pInvokes,
and can be done entirely with managed code (real simple).
casey
|
| |
|
|
|
07-07-2003, 07:37 PM
|
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 516
|
|
Casey, sorry for the delay in responding. For some reason I don't think I got an email notification that there was a response to this thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kcchesnut
|
Thanks Casey, but the cheapest option they have for POOM (with unlimited distribution) is $45. Again, if I was shelling out $1000+ for VS.NET 2003, I wouldn't care about giving these guys (or InTheHand) $40-45 of my money, but I also don't like that I even need to. Let's look at this another way:
- Microsoft is trying to get corporations back on board with their Visual development tools. A lot of them jumped ship and switched over to Java (either exclusively or at least put most of their focus there). I don't think the $1000 price tag is an issue for them, but in some of the more beauracracy-laden corporations (like the ones I've worked for), they frown upon any "non-standard" purchases, which includes third party controls, etc. The bottom line is that if MS wants to sell corporations on the ease of doing in-house apps for PPCs with their Visual tools, they need to be able to handle the basics of hooking into the PIM apps easily right out of the box.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kcchesnut
tap-and-hold behavior does not require pInvokes,
and can be done entirely with managed code (real simple).
|
You wouldn't happen to have a link handy would you? It won't do me much good unless and until I get a hold of VS.NET 2003 through work (or MS sees fit to offer the CF for the standalone $99 dev tools), but I'd like to take a look anyway. I still say this functionality should be built-in easily such that I just plug my code into a MouseDown event.
Scott
__________________
Tapland
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
