09-12-2003, 04:00 AM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
PDA Corps Reviews DateLens
http://www.pdacorps.com/default.asp?key=pages/datelenscalendar.htm
"DateLens Calendar from Windsor Interfaces has been released, and unless I missed the party, it has snuck in to the market with not so much of a big bang as a muted whimper. In actual fact, it's my opinion that Windsor Interfaces have developed an interface here worth shouting about."
You can also read about the discussion we had a few weeks ago in this thread.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-12-2003, 05:27 AM
|
|
Contributing Editor
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 182
|
|
I have to agree with the conclusions of the review. DateLens is one of the most intuitive and unique interfaces around. It goes beyond being a mere program and into the realm of great interface design -- it adheres to most everything I have learned about good user interface design.
Within days of loading it I registered it.
If you haven't checked it out yet I recommend you do yourself a favor and do so now.
I can't wait to load the desktop version, too.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-12-2003, 06:36 AM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,768
|
|
Animated GIF images don't tell the real story of what the product does. You need to see a video or demo to fully understand.
__________________
Jonathan (JonnoB)
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke
|
| |
|
|
|
09-12-2003, 09:06 AM
|
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 541
|
|
Up til now I haven't wanted to install the Compact .Net runtime due to the large memory requirements but I did to try out this baby. Looks like another $15 gone - very intuative interface! A real contender for a Pocket PC Thoughts "whateverthenameis" award :!:
:grouphug:
|
| |
|
|
|
09-12-2003, 11:21 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 90
|
|
Why do they need processor specific versions?
I thought the .Net framework was supposed to hide the underlying processor architecture, like Java does. So why do they need separately downloadable .cab files for different processors?
|
| |
|
|
|
09-12-2003, 12:47 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
Re: Why do they need processor specific versions?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jwf
I thought the .Net framework was supposed to hide the underlying processor architecture, like Java does. So why do they need separately downloadable .cab files for different processors?
|
There is a difference between a common API and virtual machine. .NET is not the latter. 
|
| |
|
|
|
09-12-2003, 01:11 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 221
|
|
Re: Why do they need processor specific versions?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ed Hansberry
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jwf
I thought the .Net framework was supposed to hide the underlying processor architecture, like Java does. So why do they need separately downloadable .cab files for different processors?
|
There is a difference between a common API and virtual machine. .NET is not the latter. |
And neither is it the former, but it's very similar to both.
.NET applications compile to MSIL bytecode, which is then compiled to native code when it's run on the machine. Once Mono (.NET for Linux) is finished you'll be able to run the same .NET executable on both Linux and Windows. Unless MS have done something funny for the Comfact Framework, I can't see there being a difference here (apart from the bits that've had to be cut out to fit in the limited memory).
It is however also possible to pre-compile to native code (which can be both good and bad), which the developers might have done in this case. That would certainly explain the different downloads, and since it's suggested in the review that the app is slow to start up, they might have done this to shave a second or so off the startup time by having a pre-compiled binary.
Of course, there could also be some other explanation that I've missed somewhere.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-12-2003, 01:29 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 55
|
|
I may have to eat these remarks after I play with this a bit more, but it looks a lot like Pocket Informant's calendar. Am I missing something? Or is it just that DataLens is a bit less expensive and just does calendar functions?
|
| |
|
|
|
09-12-2003, 01:30 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 354
|
|
Re: Why do they need processor specific versions?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jwf
I thought the .Net framework was supposed to hide the underlying processor architecture, like Java does. So why do they need separately downloadable .cab files for different processors?
|
It does, however the minute you step outside the .NET Compact Framework and call external code you may be introducing platform specific code. In this example to integrate with Pocket Outlook requires a piece of native code because .NETCF cannot directly use the COM based Pocket Outlook Object Model API. Therefore a very small wrapper dll is required which exposes straight C functions which can be called from within .NETCF. This would explain the need for cpu specific cab files for the product.
Peter
|
| |
|
|
|
09-12-2003, 01:51 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 25
|
|
This UI is not new - PI has had it for many months
I'm still not certain what all the hype is about. PI has had an inline month view that provdes this style interface. You get the inline detail and the like. The nice thing about PI is that you get to choose what style you want. Some will love this interface, othgers not, and while it is great for a month view, there are times when an agenda are useful. The Day views appear to be the same. PI has the traditonal and graphical WV as well. And in PI, you can make the graphical WV a graphical 2 week view, etc.
But the *REAL* issue is that a PIM needs more then just a pretty WV. It is the richness ande capability of the TV (hierarchical tasks, group by, multi-level priorities, etc) and the contacts view, things like linking and fast global search and more that make a PIM worth more $$ then the built in stuff.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
