To Close Or Not To Close - Summary [Archive]

View Full Version : To Close Or Not To Close - Summary

Ed Hansberry

06-16-2003, 05:00 PM

Well, I seemed to have hit on a nerve last week in my <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13223">To Close Or Not To Close</a> poll. There were over 80 replies and 681 of you voted in it. This is not a new issue by any means. Since the Pocket PC was launched in April 2000, one of the most popular, if not the most popular categories of applications installed are task switchers/killers. You can see the results of the poll below. To refresh your memory, the options were: • I never close applications. I let the Pocket PC handle it for me. • I occasionally close applications with a task manager, but not very often. • I only close "large" applications and even then, not all of the time. (I hear this a lot - define "large") • I manage my Pocket PC just like my desktop and close apps as I see fit. <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2003/20030612-toclose.gif" /> Figure 1: Poll Results As you can see, just over 86% of respondents want to be given full control over their device being able to close applications as desired. At one time, many software developers saw this need and either provided "Exit" within the menu structure somewhere or provided a preference for users to enable an "Exit" option. <a href="http://www.iliumsoft.com">Ilium Software</a> removed Exit from <a href="http://www.handango.com/brainstore/PlatformProductDetail.jsp?siteId=311&productId=9437">ListPro</a> several years ago and just this past month, both Resco and Conduits removed this function from their <a href="http://www.handango.com/brainstore/PlatformProductDetail.jsp?siteId=311&productId=11118">File Explorer 2003 4.20</a> and <a href="http://www.handango.com/brainstore/PlatformProductDetail.jsp?siteId=311&productId=11011">Pocket Artist 2.6</a> applications respectively. Why? To get logo certification from Microsoft. Well, stand back. :soapbox: <!> "Exit" In Your Menu? No Logo For You! From page eight of the "<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/mobile/assets/Design_PocketPC.pdf">Designed For Windows® For Pocket PC</a>" (PDF link) software development manual. Required: No User-Exposed Method for Closing the Application The Pocket PC automatically closes the least recently used application(s) as more memory is needed. The goal of this is to free the user from needing to worry about managing memory. Thus, applications must not expose a method for the user to manually close or exit the application. Note that it is typical for documents/items within an application to have a means for being closed(e.g. main application view is a list, items within the list may be opened or closed). When documents/items are opened and closed, the Pocket PC OK button should be used to close the document/item and return to the application list... Note: Support for the Power User shortcut Ctrl+Q to close the current application is permissible and recommended. However, this support should not be indicated on-screen. CTRL-Q? It is at least a three tap process in an application like Pocket Artist to bring up the SIP and press CTRL-Q. More if you use Transcriber or if you have to close the SIP when you are done. Exit on the menu is always a two tap process, and closing an app via a tap-and-hold or a gesture on the 'X' in the upper left is even easier. For some reason, I have this image of someone in the Microsoft certification labs looking at applications all day long. When they run across one with "Exit" in the menu, they say "No logo for you! Come back one year. Next!" in the <a href="http://www.pkmeco.com/seinfeld/nazi.htm">Soup Nazi</a> <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2003/soupyear.wav">voice</a>. Is this just a stubbornness on the part of the 591 of us that voted that we wanted to manage applications as we see fit? Does the Pocket PC effectively release us from the need to worry about managing memory? I would say no. If it did, we wouldn't experience sluggish systems and OEM partners like Compaq/HP wouldn't feel the need to release <a href="http://h71025.www7.hp.com/support/reference_library/viewdocument.asp?countrycode=1000&prodid=2183&source=MH020124_CW01.xml&dt=3&docid=13488">articles like this</a> which state "When running multiple applications on your iPAQ Pocket PC, you may notice that system performance has diminished. The iPAQ Pocket PC may appear sluggish. You may experience slow performance or delayed response time to screen taps up to and including lock-ups on the device" then wiggles around some and ultimately tells the user how to close applications. Start | Settings | System | Memory | blah | blah | blah." :roll: Furthermore, the large OEM partners that make these devices invariably include two applications to supplement the Pocket PC application set. A backup program of some sort to back your data up to a CF/SD card and (drum roll please) a TASK SWITCHER/KILLER! 8O Here's the kicker though. In trying to standardize how the user closes (or doesn't close) applications, Microsoft has inadvertently introduced non-standard user interfaces into the market for this. The Dell Axim has a neat task killer that is combined with a battery meter and screen brightness adjuster. It resides in the Start bar and is available from within any application. The iPAQs still rely on iTask which is available when assigned to a button. Jornada's have yet another method of closing applications that is only available from the Today Screen. Spb's <a href="http://www.handango.com/brainstore/PlatformProductDetail.jsp?siteId=311&productId=50351">Pocket Plus</a> has been on the Handango best seller list for months with over 13,000 downloads since it was released late last year, and names like Gigabar, WisBar and PocketNav are well known among Pocket PC enthusiasts. In fact, the number one all time Pocket PC download at Handango is <a href="http://www.handango.com/brainstore/PlatformProductDetail.jsp?siteId=311&productId=24948">Battery Pack 200x</a> with over 237,000 downloads. One of its key features is a task killer, or as it describes itself, "Close button actually closes programs." Just how many ways do we need to close an application? :? One possible solution would be for Microsoft to put in an option that the Smart Minimize button could be a close button via a tap-and-hold process. Just How Much RAM Do Applications Use? Yet Microsoft insists the Pocket PC will take care of memory management for you, obviating the need for task killers. Why then do devices get sluggish? Let's look at some memory requirements of some popular applications. Once you do, I think you'll see why, after a few hours of loading these or similar applications, your Pocket PC may run like it has molasses flowing through its veins. <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2003/20030612-toclose2.gif" /> Figure 2: RAM Requirements of Common Applications Figure two shows the RAM requirements of common applications. In all applicable cases, the application was opened but no file was loaded. Obviously applications like Pocket Artist or <a href="http://www.handango.com/brainstore/PlatformProductDetail.jsp?siteId=311&productId=51208">Repligo</a> would have variable RAM requirements once you loaded data. This essentially puts the application in the state the Pocket PC team wants it in. After you press the OK button, the loaded file is saved and closed leaving the application in this empty state. As you can see, some apps like <a href="http://www.laridian.com/ce/catpocketbible.asp?ref=apwzwtzws">Pocket Bible</a>, <a href="http://www.handango.com/brainstore/PlatformProductDetail.jsp?siteId=311&productId=10226">Pocket Informant</a> and <a href="http://www.adobe.com">Adobe Reader</a> consume over 2MB of RAM just by being loaded. Neither Pocket Bible nor Pocket Informant have this empty state. When they are open, they have something loaded. These results were obtained from an iPAQ 3970 with 64MB of RAM. The Pocket PC had allocated 32.02MB of RAM for program memory. The items on the second X Axis, or the numbers on the right, represent the percentage of this program memory the application was consuming by being open. My Pocket PC, after a soft reset, has 8.68MB of Program RAM used. Applications like Pocket Plus, <a href="http://www.handango.com/brainstore/PlatformProductDetail.jsp?siteId=311&productId=43793">GPRS Monitor</a>, a few Today plugins and overhead used by the Pocket PC OS itself made up that 8.68MB. When I was done with all of this testing and had closed all of my applications, I had 9.07MB consumed. I am not sure where the .4MB of RAM went. Isn't the Pocket PC memory management supposed to take care of that? Clearly some applications should never be closed. Contacts, Calendar, Resco File Explorer 2003 and many other applications consume very small amounts of RAM. I will admit I am guilty of closing applications like these down occasionally using Pocket Plus. This requires extra effort on my part to close them and results in a lag time to reopen them when I want to use them again. [Slaps wrist] I need to leave these alone. However, there are obviously some applications that should go away when you are done. I use Laridian's <a href="http://www.laridian.com/ce/catdailyreader.asp?ref=apwzwtzws">Daily Reader</a> every day, but only in the morning, usually while my Pocket PC is in the cradle doing its first sync of the day. I won't need it again for 24 hrs. Why should Laridian, or any other Pocket PC software developer, be forced to remove the Exit command from the menu structure should they decide to get the Pocket PC logo certification? How about <a href="http://rakonza.com/k-force/">Rakonza's K-ForCE</a>? I use that two to three times a week during my son's baseball season. Why should I load that up on a Monday night, use it for two hours then not be able to use Exit on the menu? Beyond Just Memory So far I have just talked about the memory and performance issues. It goes way beyond that though. Some applications are just plain broken when it comes to this issue. Windows Media Player for music and video and Microsoft Reader or <a href="http://www.audible.com">Audible</a> for Audible content. If you Smart Minimize those apps when you want them to just go away, they merrily continue to play. Now you must find them on the Start Menu, bring them back to the forefront and find the stop button. I also see at least one or two posts a month from a frustrated user that is unable to delete some MP3 or WMV file they copied to their Pocket PC to play. File Explorer keeps telling them the file is in use, but that isn't possible! They pressed the X in the upper right corner, right? Someone has to be pretty frustrated to then go to the trouble to go back to their desktop, open their newsreader and post a plea for help. I or some other newsgroup regular jumps in to help explaining how Windows Media is still open, how to go about closing it and then directing them to some popular task killers. Since August of 1995 Microsoft has told us that the big X in the upper right is close. Now, for one platform starting in October of 2001, they are trying to tell us it isn't close. My point is there are perfectly valid reasons for closing applications that have nothing to do with memory requirements, reasons the Pocket PC programming logic couldn't fathom. A Case For Power Users The poll should not be taken as an indication of how the total market feels. Many users could care less. A Pocket PC to them is no more cool than an electric toaster. I don't hang out at Toaster Thoughts and they don't hang out at Pocket PC Thoughts. They are not the power users and that's fine. But we are the power users. We are the ones who influence buying decisions. I have know I've influenced dozens of people directly to buy a Pocket PC and indirectly through this site and the Pocket PC newsgroups, possibly hundreds of people. So have the many prolific posters here and at other Pocket PC enthusiast sites. So why is Microsoft so intent on ignoring us? Read the comments in the <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13223">original thread</a>. This annoys me. Some of you are downright ticked off about it. It strikes me as arrogance in two ways. 1. Microsoft knows better than you. This ticks me off to no end and is just as offensive to me as Palm's "you don't need it until we have it" mentality. 2. That they are good enough at programming to actually make the concept of memory management work the way they claim in their logo requirements document. Now I am not disparaging their abilities one bit. I've met many of them and other programmers at Microsoft. Despite the FUD you hear on the Web about Microsoft applications, they are top notch, the Pocket PC included. All complex apps have bugs and everything has room for improvement. My question is, how realistic is it to expect an OS with all the capabilities of the Pocket PC crammed into a tiny 22MB footprint to manage memory so effectively? Take a look at Figure three below. This is a small test I ran. I rebooted my Windows XP Pro desktop and logged in. I let the hard drive stop to ensure that everything in the startup group had processed, login scripts had finished, etc. Once complete, 129MB of memory was being taken up by the OS and startup applications. I then worked all day long as I normally do, opening most Office applications, Internet Explorer, Citrix, etc. I then closed everything down at the end of the day, leaving startup items in the System Tray alone. Checking Task Manager, I saw there were 170MB in use. Where did that 41MB of used memory come from? I logged off then logged back on and once again let everything in the startup group finish loading. Now Task Manager is showing 145MB of memory used. That is better than the 170MB before logging off but not down to the 129MB used after booting. In all cases, I had 29 processes running, so there isn't some mysterious application that started and refused to quit running. <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2003/20030612-toclose3.gif" /> Figure 3: Windows XP Memory Management Now, I ask you, if an operating system that has a footprint of 1.4GB in my \Windows\ folder (note, this is a four day old fresh install so there isn't month's worth of accumulated junk in there) with hundreds of thousands of man hours invested on a kernel that dates back to the late 80s, and has the resources of 1GHz and 2GHz processors can't manage memory better than that, and it lets users close applications, how can we expect pocketable battery powered 200-400MHz machines with far fewer man hours invested in it do any better? Why is there this insistence to not only not provide a simple way for users to close applications, but to actively prevent developers from providing a simple "Exit" in the menu or deny the logo? :( There are so many things to love about the Pocket PC. I currently wouldn't consider switching for another mobile platform. This one area, though, puts a little dark cloud over what is otherwise a great end user experience. (Note: Almost all links above to products are affiliate links.)

Janak Parekh

06-16-2003, 05:16 PM

Ed: part of the memory "leak" in Windows XP is extra loaded DLLs that are cached in memory, part of it is real leaks. ;)

BTW, perhaps the biggest counterargument to MS's Smart Minimize policy: if you keep WMP running in the background, this will frequently mess with the midnight turn-on and drain your Pocket PC's battery when you wake up in the morning. Nevermind the slowdown your machine feels when WMP or Reader is running in the background. :?

Nice rant overall. :)

--janak

JvanEkris

06-16-2003, 05:31 PM

perhaps the biggest counterargument to MS's Smart Minimize policy: if you keep WMP running in the background, this will frequently mess with the midnight turn-on and drain your Pocket PC's battery when you wake up in the morning. Nevermind the slowdown your machine feels when WMP or Reader is running in the background. :?

--janakNot to mention the huge memoryleak that makes your PocketPC unstable after having WMP for a couple of hours unused in the background. Basically you will have to kill it with the taskswitcher and start it again. With a real close-button, you would not have to encounter this problem.....

Jaap

egoz

06-16-2003, 05:37 PM

Basics of Development (and that whole "Profit" thingy):

The customer is always (always) right.

Kaber

06-16-2003, 05:47 PM

Now let's just see if someone listens to us. :evil:

klinux

06-16-2003, 05:49 PM

Excellent coherent rant, Ed!

Jason Dunn

06-16-2003, 05:53 PM

I don't care as much about the whole "close" issue as I do about the lack of a real task switcher - that's the real crime here. They gave us a multi-tasking operating system without the ability to switch tasks, which is just silly. The little "last six apps" on the start menu doesn't count - if you have a config screen open and you need to switch to another app to get a password, there's no way to switch back. It defies logic that this is deemed "ok" by the powers that be at Microsoft. 8O

That said, a close button would be nice (I always install Pocket Plus now, so this isn't an issue for me). I ran a Pocket PC 100% stock for a month once, with only built-in applications, and found that I didn't really run into many memory or stability problems, so I think this is the scenario Microsoft is focused on. But who the heck runs a Pocket PC completely stock? Everyone is going to add a game or a utility to their device at some point...Microsoft seems to have their heads up in the clouds on this issue.

Foo Fighter

06-16-2003, 05:53 PM

Now let's just see if someone listens to us. :evil:

ROFLMAO!!!!! That's a good one. :onfire:

rhmorrison

06-16-2003, 05:55 PM

Figure two shows the RAM requirements of common applications.
You forgot to include Microsoft Reader which is a very common application for most of us and which is supposed to be a real memory hog after it's been running for awhile.

I am currently working on writing a game program and still haven't decided whether to include Exit/Help menu items or not (BOTH of which are prohibited by Microsofts logo requirements). The HELP menu item is not allowed because the user is supposed to use the PocketPC menu help item which works the same for all applications.

The EXIT is also handy to have although anyone that really wants to close applications already has one of the many task killers installed and can do the same by clicking on the MINIMIZE button (or tap and hold...).

Robert Levy

06-16-2003, 05:58 PM

We talk about this a lot on the Smartphone side because there is no built in way of stopping a running task on that platform... what many of us believe is that if apps are well-programmed then there is no need for an Exit menu option and the OS can do its thing properly. The problem is that most developers *don't* do the right thing. Tristan at Pocket TV did a great job in explaining this, so I'll point to him instead of trying to rewrite it:

http://www.mpegtv.com/wince/pockettv/smartphone-logo-bugs.html#3.15

I *highly* recommend reading item 3.15 on that page before going with the conspiracy theories.

Ed Hansberry

06-16-2003, 05:59 PM

I don't care as much about the whole "close" issue as I do about the lack of a real task switcher - that's the real crime here. They gave us a multi-tasking operating system without the ability to switch tasks, which is just silly.
These are, IMHO, inextricably linked. Including one without the other is silly and including neither is just a crime.

Ed Hansberry

06-16-2003, 06:02 PM

I *highly* recommend reading item 3.15 on that page before going with the conspiracy theories.
I talked to a well known PPC application developer about this before writing my ariticle. It is a huge issue on the Smartphone. It is not much of an issue with the Pocket PC as it allocates memory a bit differently. That is why I made no mention of it in my article.

Jonathon Watkins

06-16-2003, 06:21 PM

AMEN ED!

Now let's just see if someone listens to us. :evil:

ROFLMAO!!!!! That's a good one. :onfire:

Well, we have wallets and are not afraid to use them!

Trouble is we use them to buy task switchers and killers.

MasterOfMoo

06-16-2003, 06:25 PM

Excellent article, Ed! :clap:

Has anyone e-mailed M$ a link to the post yet?

Jason Dunn

06-16-2003, 06:26 PM

Has anyone e-mailed M$ a link to the post yet?

I'm going to wait until the comments have been made and it reaches a critical mass. 8)

06-16-2003, 06:49 PM

Another excellent article Ed.

I had not realized that MS actually pressure developers not to include an exit button in their applications, seems rather strange.

I like the task switcher/closer that is included in the new version of Battery Bar. Works great for me.

In some ways I like the fact that PPC2002 is a rather "bare bones" operating system. It allows plenty of choice in finding cool third party applications to make it work properly. There seems to be a thriving industry of small companies filling in the holes in the PPC system and it would be a shame if MS was to suddenly make their ideas obsolete.

cherring

06-16-2003, 06:52 PM

That's the single longest amount of time I've spent reading one article on this site. It was long, coherant, interesting and did you see all the pretty graphs?

Jason Dunn

06-16-2003, 06:53 PM

There seems to be a thriving industry of small companies filling in the holes in the PPC system and it would be a shame if MS was to suddenly make their ideas obsolete.

I agree with you for the most part (MS should never do a photo viewer for instance), but this one issue is so key, so core, that they need to address it. There will always be plenty of other flaws in the OS for 3rd party developers to fix. :wink:

Jonathan1

06-16-2003, 07:08 PM

Preach on brother Ed. Alas I fear your rant its falling on deaf, dumb, and just plain stubborn ears.

As I’ve ranted from day one: The Pocket PC is NOT a Palm. Duh!
MS needs to stop treating it as such or rename the blasted thing. The running of applications does NOT function the same as Palm. (I had read a really good article online somewhere on the memory architecture and the method of how programs run in both Palm and Pocket PC. Its worlds apart. MS needs to get a swift kick in the butt to get those mental gears turning again. I just can’t see ANY reason not to include a task closers\switcher in the device. (I lump that in the same reason not to include a 2 button mouse with a Mac.) Someone could chuck something out in a month given proper motivation.
Finally anyone want to place bets on if the development team for the Pocket PC run task closers\switchers? Bet ya 50 buck they do.

R K

06-16-2003, 07:14 PM

Tristan at Pocket TV did a great job in explaining this, so I'll point to him instead of trying to rewrite it:

http://www.mpegtv.com/wince/pockettv/smartphone-logo-bugs.html#3.15

I *highly* recommend reading item 3.15 on that page before going with the conspiracy theories.
Though it's only remotely Pocket PC related, that article hit the nail on the head. All the technical aspects of why the Microsoft's "No Exit" requirement doesn't work.

1. Applications must call SHCloseApps when memory allocation fails.
This is the reason why someone would get a low memory error when trying to open a new program.
3. Applications must close all files and release all global resources when they are inactive in the background, except when they do some active task that require otherwise (e.g. playing MP3).
4. Applications must stop all timers and not use any CPU resources when they are in the background, unless they perform some active task (e.g. play MP3)
This is probably the reason why the Pocket PC slows down at the end of the day.

After all that's been said, I want to go back to my original argument.
What is the purpose of being able to allocate more RAM to Storage or Program Memory when the OS just repositions it later?

For instance, I have 64MB of RAM on my Pocket PC, and I want to allocate 24MB to Program Memory and 40MB to Storage Memory. Now, when the Pocket PC gets close to using up that 24MB of program memory, I'd expect it to start closing applications automatically, but instead it just repositions my allocations so that Program Memory takes up 32MB of RAM. I think that defeats the purpose of it all, don't you?

Jonathan1

06-16-2003, 07:14 PM

There seems to be a thriving industry of small companies filling in the holes in the PPC system and it would be a shame if MS was to suddenly make their ideas obsolete.

There ARE some things you just expect to ship with an OS. Wouldn't the ability to close and switch an application in an easy manner be one of them?

This same thinking, not saying its right or wrong but this thinking, was used towards Pocket Word and Excel. To what level should 3rd party apps make an OS and its provided applets functional?

T-Will

06-16-2003, 07:19 PM

Excellent Article! I hope Microsoft is listening.

Cortex

06-16-2003, 07:30 PM

dont worry

i'm sure they corrected the application closing and memory management issues in Pocket PC OS 2003...

HAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHHHAHA

:roll:

Bill Gunn

06-16-2003, 07:40 PM

Who bases a software purchase on a Microsoft logo? I have never noticed if a program is "Microsoft Logo Certified". If I like a piece of software I don't really give a #$% what MS thinks about it.

Jonathan1

06-16-2003, 08:05 PM

Who bases a software purchase on a Microsoft logo? I have never noticed if a program is "Microsoft Logo Certified". If I like a piece of software I don't really give a #$% what MS thinks about it.

Those are the same people that base their purchase on if it’s a name brand devices or if it doesn't have "Pentium inside"tm its crap. Some people have to have pretty stickers. ;)

Kati Compton

06-16-2003, 08:10 PM

http://www.mpegtv.com/wince/pockettv/smartphone-logo-bugs.html#3.15
I *highly* recommend reading item 3.15 on that page before going with the conspiracy theories.
I glanced quickly over this, and I have mixed feelings. Yes, there should be a certain amount of care a programmer takes when creating an app. However, with all these requirements, it frankly gives me a headache. I think these restrictions could seriously hamper the hobbyist programmer (which could be solved by including a real close button and a task switcher).

So either the close/switch needs to be part of the OS (and people here seem to agree), or there needs to be a better framework with all that stuff automatically in the program, or the OS automatically intercepting failed memory allocations and closing programs. Frankly, stuff like reminding the OS to close programs shouldn't even be something that the programmer has to do. One of the goals with the way computers have evolved to execute programs is that each individual program (at least from the programmer's point of view) gets to act like it has it's own computer. The OS takes care of any negotiating for resources amongst applications. So why should that be any different here?

And this is separate from the fact that I wouldn't want the OS to close programs just because I hadn't used them recently - what if I *wanted* one of those open? Like if I don't access PI every day, but want it to be open so access is instant?

Someone mentioned a Least-Recently-Used (LRU) algorithm is used to close programs... LRU is only a reasonable algorithm for determining what to close if all apps take the same amount of time to reopen, they use the same amount of memory, and have the same likelihood that you'll be upset that they closed...

Frankly, I don't see an algorithm doing that. So I guess my summary is that if we have to do it this way, it should be done by the OS without the programmers having to do anything exept figure out what to do when they get a close signal. Programs should not have to worry about other programs!

But I really don't think that the OS should close programs for us anyway, and that should be at the user's descretion.

HTK

06-16-2003, 08:22 PM

At least we have Ctrl+Q... :lol:

Jeff Rutledge

06-16-2003, 08:28 PM

I am also baffled that this isn't included. It's O/S 101 to me. Windows does it: X to close, _ to minimize. The PPC O/S likes to combine functionality (ie. Tap to "left-click" and Tap-and-hold to "right-click"). It's not a huge leap to the little icon in the top left. Tap to minimize and Tap-and-hold to Close.

I also somewhat agree with Jason's statement to include a Task Switcher. That is, I agree as long as you can turn it off. The breadth of the third party task switchers out there show that there is a fair bit of disparity in user's wants and needs here.

Maybe that's what MS should do. A Tap is minimize. A Tap-and-hold brings up the Task Switcher, which allows you to close any running app as well. Not a complete Tap-to-Close solution, but pretty close. And for those that want the full meal deal, they can continue to support the third party developers.

Either way, as long as WISBar stays free, I guess I can't complain too much (even though I probably will). :D

bjornkeizers

06-16-2003, 09:18 PM

I really wish microsoft would stop treating us like babys. I'm experienced enough to decide on my own what I do and don't want to close. I want to be able to close stuff or keep it open as I damn well see fit. Give me my close button MS!

We're all experienced users, and I really don't see their argument in taking away a close button. New users expect the current X to close stuff, so why change it? They're only MAKING IT HARDER ON PEOPLE! We have to explain to the new guys how it works and why microsoft ****ed up, and us old guys sit around complaining about the lack of a damn close button in the first place!

06-16-2003, 09:38 PM

one of these days i´ll get rid of my iPAQ and buy a palm... so i can close apps. :devilboy: :devilboy: :devilboy: :devilboy:

mike6024

06-16-2003, 09:40 PM

I could see why the "No Exit" requirement was ok back when Microsoft was trying to be "the better Palm", but nowadays I think that most people who buy Pocket PCs don't want a better Palm, but more of a computer-in-your-pocket. I don't know, maybe that's just me. I just think Microsoft needs to leave those days behind them and update their requirements.

Kaber

06-16-2003, 10:12 PM

I bought a Pocket PC to have a PC in my pocket. If it begins to work less like a PC and more like a fancy cell phone, I will leave the platform for linux on iPAQ. I've already put it on my 3765 more than once, so don't temp me Microsoft.

Janak Parekh

06-16-2003, 10:12 PM

I think these restrictions could seriously hamper the hobbyist programmer (which could be solved by including a real close button and a task switcher).
Fortunately, the hobbyist programmer is not going for logo certification -- witness PocketMVP which has an exit option.

Frankly, stuff like reminding the OS to close programs shouldn't even be something that the programmer has to do.
Agreed. However, the reason it's there is to prevent the accidental closing while the program is eating up memory (perhaps doing some intensive task). By letting programs take the initiative, this is generally avoided.

And this is separate from the fact that I wouldn't want the OS to close programs just because I hadn't used them recently - what if I *wanted* one of those open? Like if I don't access PI every day, but want it to be open so access is instant?
Yup. My Pocket PC Phone, with 32MB, easily causes programs to "voluntarily" quit. If I'm reading a book in MS Reader, and a phone call comes in, MS Reader notices it's in the background, eating lots of memory, and quits on me. Gee, thanks. :roll:

But I really don't think that the OS should close programs for us anyway, and that should be at the user's descretion.
Yup, it's much simpler if people can make the decision, instead of worrying about all of the above. I know MS is trying to emulate Palm here, but everyone in Windows knows the significance of the "X". The concept of closure is not mentally difficult for anyone.

--janak

darrylb

06-16-2003, 11:27 PM

I know its not certified, but PocketBible, has an option to add an exit entry to the menu. By default it is turned off, but you can turn it on "When instructed to do so by technical support".

Is this allowed by the MS program or is this a grey area and possibly a loophole?

John C

06-16-2003, 11:45 PM

whydidnt

06-17-2003, 12:14 AM

Thank you Ed, for the taking the time to put together this summary. Please make sure MS gets a copy of it and all of these replys. I feel they are an accurate portrayal of what users want. Maybe someday the programming team will actually listen to its users. :soapbox:

06-17-2003, 12:35 AM

Fortunately, the hobbyist programmer is not going for logo certification -- witness PocketMVP which has an exit option.

And my choice for the best PPC app of all, Pocket Informant, has an exit option.

Ed Hansberry

06-17-2003, 01:15 AM

And my choice for the best PPC app of all, Pocket Informant, has an exit option.
And that does have the certification. :confused totally:

I think the certification goes more towards either enterprises which may only want certified apps on the devices or total noobs that are impressed by the logo in the software manufacturers adverts.

I am pretty indifferent. I can tell when software is crap within a few minutes of installing it.

ombu

06-17-2003, 01:54 AM

I love this thread, thanks Ed. :D

Certification if there's no exit/quit option? I wonder what's hiding behind this. :mrgreen:

Gremmie

06-17-2003, 02:34 AM

*Listens to Pearl Jam on Pocket WMP*
*
*
*
*
*Opens Inbox*
*Checks Email*
*
*
*
*Opens AIM*
*WMP quits halfway through favorite song*

"Mother F#*%er!"

Rob Alexander

06-17-2003, 03:28 AM

Microsoft seems to have their heads up in the clouds on this issue.

"...in the clouds." I would have had a different ending for that sentence! :devilboy:

I really hate the arrogance of MS on this issue (and others). They've totally lost sight of the idea that we're the customers and they're the ones who are supposed to be meeting our needs. It's not their job to tell us what our needs are, or should be... it's their job just to meet them.

What they overlook when they treat us like this, is that every company eventually finds themselves in need of their customers' loyalty. Apple wouldn't exist today without it... neither would Palm. The thing is, that when MS eventually reaches the point where any other company would be supported by customer loyalty, they will look around and ask 'where's everyone gone?'

MS today reminds me of the IBM of the 80's. They can't see how they could possibly be replaced. But once your customers actively dislike you and believe they're being taken advantage of by you, it's a whole new ball game. People are just waiting for a realistic option to MS, and when it comes, they'll move in droves. It may be 5 years, 10 years, 20 years.... but every company reaches that point eventually. When it comes, I for one, will remember how they treated the PPC community on issues like this.

Kiyoshi

06-17-2003, 05:32 AM

That was the longest time I've ever spent reading one web page EVER! 8O

I'd like to tell anyone who reads this that I support the inclusion of a close button on Pocket PC.

What kinda confuses me is that if an exit button is frowned upon, shouldn't OEM's task killer applications be discouraged too? I heard Ed say something about iTask, and I know my e740 has their "Home" application to make a customizable start menu and a memory manager.

Also, wouldn't apps to just close other apps be uncertifyable by M$?

ctmagnus

06-17-2003, 06:00 AM

Personally. I think the problem is MS spends too much time trying to cater to everyone's grandmother, who quite possibly has little-to-no computing experience. Maybe they could come up with something where the first time an app/OS fires up, the user is asked how much experience they have with computers (simple three to five item list) and from there the OS is adjusted to the user accordingly. This could even be one of the steps to go through whenever a hard-reset is performed. Of course, restoring from a backup would wipe out what ever was selected after the reset.

Christian

06-17-2003, 06:37 AM

I agree with others here in that this is one of the best articles/threads I've read yet - excellent job Ed. I couldn't agree more.

When I took human-computer interaction in college, the PocketPC smart minimize button was cited as one of the most obvious examples of horrible design, attributing a different and completely counterintuitive action to a control that most users have come to know and expect. Knowledge transfer of the worst kind. :| In all seriousness, how idiotic and technologically unsavvy does Microsoft consider the average PocketPC (expensive high tech gadget) user to be?

bjornkeizers

06-17-2003, 09:55 AM

Maybe they could come up with something where the first time an app/OS fires up, the user is asked how much experience they have with computers (simple three to five item list) and from there the OS is adjusted to the user accordingly.

I would like to point out that this is not exactly rocket science. I use a computer, and it has a ton of little icons, buttons, menus and whatnot. Do they really need to cater to the lowest common denominator? [practically brain dead granny who's never used a computer or even calculator, ever...]

If you can use a PC, you should be able to use a Pocket PC just fine. Do they really feel I can't handle the awesome power of a DAMN CLOSE BUTTON? I'm managing just fine on my PC!!

Besides, most of these devices are sold to guys like us: people who know the capabilities and know how to work with a PPC. They don't sell many of these to people without any tech knowledge!!

Pony99CA

06-17-2003, 01:33 PM

That was an awesome article, Ed. :way to go:

I can understand why Microsoft wanted the applications to minimize instead close -- it would make the devices seem more responsive, which is probably one rap they took in comparison with Palm devices. (Of course, that assumes the memory manager actually worked. :-D)

I don't mind that the icon minimizes applicatons, either; that's a reasonable default. However, as others have mentioned, Microsoft should have used another icon, not the "X" Microsoft themselves used for Close in Windows 95 (although, as I've mentioned before, I think I've heard Microsoft claim that the icon isn't the same -- it's an "X" in a circle, not in a square :roll:).

I don't even mind using a Least Recently Used (LRU) scheme to close applications when memory is exhausted -- provided I have an easy way to close applications before memory is exhausted. LRU is a reasonable default, but it's just a heuristic, and won't work for everyone.

Allowing an Exit action allows power users to control their applications, while still preserving the benefits of Smart Minimize for the less-knowledgable. If I can find the Exit action, I know that means my application will have to start from scratch, and I'm obviously willing to deal with that.

Steve

Pony99CA

06-17-2003, 01:37 PM

I agree with you for the most part (MS should never do a photo viewer for instance), but this one issue is so key, so core, that they need to address it. There will always be plenty of other flaws in the OS for 3rd party developers to fix. :wink:
I agree. At its core, an operating system should handle input and output, provide a hardware interface, manage memory, implement a file system, provide a tasking model and provide a platform for program development -- and that's about all. Task switching and application closing certainly fit in that model.

I don't have a problem if an OS includes a few simple applications (like Notepad, Solitaire, etc. on Windows). Howver, an operating system should never have applications integrated into the core. That includes things like browsers and media players, and is why Microsoft got into anti-trust problems. (Remember when Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player actually shipped separately? Microsoft had to actively work to integrate those.)

Yes, provide APIs for browsing and media. If you want, you can use those APIs to provide a browser and media player, too, but they shouldn't be bundled, just like Office isn't bundled.

Now a PDA is slightly different. We expect things like appointment scheduling, contact and task management, etc., so including those is OK. And, given Windows CE devices were originally referred to as "PC Companions", I can understand including Pocket Word and Excel. Also, given that Microsoft didn't have a monopoly in PDAs, bundling a browser, media player and eBook reader isn't problematic, either.

That makes it seem all the more strange that Microsoft would not include such a basic core OS function as task management.

Steve

Pony99CA

06-17-2003, 02:00 PM

And this is separate from the fact that I wouldn't want the OS to close programs just because I hadn't used them recently - what if I *wanted* one of those open? Like if I don't access PI every day, but want it to be open so access is instant?

Someone mentioned a Least-Recently-Used (LRU) algorithm is used to close programs... LRU is only a reasonable algorithm for determining what to close if all apps take the same amount of time to reopen, they use the same amount of memory, and have the same likelihood that you'll be upset that they closed...

Frankly, I don't see an algorithm doing that. So I guess my summary is that if we have to do it this way, it should be done by the OS without the programmers having to do anything exept figure out what to do when they get a close signal. Programs should not have to worry about other programs!

But I really don't think that the OS should close programs for us anyway, and that should be at the user's descretion.
I basically agree that LRU should not be the primary alternative. As my previous post indicated, though, I think it's a reasonable backup if the user hasn't used memory wisely. These are memory-constrained devices, and what would the alternative be?

Give the user an error message and not open the new application.
Pop up a message saying memory isn't available, with a list of running applicatons to select and a Kill and Cancel button.
Use a different algorithm than LRU to terminate applications, like Most Resources Used.

Frankly, I'm not sure I like any of the alternatives better than LRU. I'd get annoyed with the first two (although the second would be preferable to the first). The third would have similar problems to LRU -- being a simple heuristic, it can't possibly know what the user really wants to do.

I think the following would give us the best of all worlds, given the limitations of a memory-constrained device.

Provide a useful task manager as part of the core OS.
Change the Smart Minimize icon to something different, perhaps a down-arrow in a circle to indicate minimization.
Allow an Exit action in programs. With a good task manager, this isn't as important, but users expect it from their PC experience, I think.
Make the Smart Minimize icon tap-and-hold to allow a choice between minimizing and closing an application. Again, this isn't as important given #1 and #3, but I think it's a good metaphor.

What do you think?

Steve

06-17-2003, 07:10 PM

one of these days i´ll get rid of my iPAQ and buy a palm... so i can close apps. :devilboy: :devilboy: :devilboy: :devilboy:

But you can't explicitly close an app on a POS device - you just switch to another app, which closes the first app.

John

I know. This makes the POS even better on that. Just launch another app, and the one you were using is now closed.

Ed Hansberry

06-17-2003, 07:22 PM

I know. This makes the POS even better on that. Just launch another app, and the one you were using is now closed.
Why is that better? :confused totally: That isn't multitasking. I'll take the PPC implementation any day over not being able to multitask. The problem is the PPC implementation of multitasking (from the user standpoint) is flawed in the lame 6 item MRU list, no real task switching capabilities without a third party solution and no close feature.

Pony99CA

06-17-2003, 08:04 PM

The problem is the PPC implementation of multitasking (from the user standpoint) is flawed in the lame 6 item MRU list, no real task switching capabilities without a third party solution and no close feature.
Exactly. Even worse, that MRU list doesn't truly list the most recently used programs. It only catches those launched via the Start Menu or the Programs folder, I think.

When I launch a program from the Dashboard launcher, it doesn't show up in the MRU list. Even Microsoft's File Explorer doesn't put programs launched by clicking the executable file in the MRU list. :roll:

Maybe MRU in this case stands for "Mostly Rendered Useless". :lol:

Steve

Kati Compton

06-18-2003, 12:47 AM

Pop up a message saying memory isn't available, with a list of running applicatons to select and a Kill and Cancel button.

Actually, this is what I'd like in conjunction with a task switcher/killer. I would envision it saying how much memory was needed, and how much was in use by each running task. You could close what you wanted to close until the needed => 0. But that particular interface should be nearly identical to the task manager to prevent confusion.

Maybe there should be an option to use either LRU or this method. ;)

06-18-2003, 04:13 PM

Ed Hansberry

06-18-2003, 04:25 PM

you´re right, and i know isn´t multitasking, but it can close apps.
Well, it can't not close apps, which I think is a clear difference.

Roosterman

06-23-2003, 01:51 AM

Excellent article Ed. It seems that MS has forgotten the first article of effective marketing, the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) method. They write up this crazy agreement that programmers are supposed to follow and most of them probably don't even read it before getting on with their work. Freedom of choice is what has made the capitalistic world spin. This agreement of MS seems to fly in the face of that freedom. Give me an X that works the way I expect it to Microsoft!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :devilboy:

Kati Compton

06-23-2003, 02:35 AM

Excellent article Ed. It seems that MS has forgotten the first article of effective marketing, the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) method.
Actually, I think it's that they try to *oversimplify* it for the user...

ctmagnus

06-23-2003, 04:19 AM

Actually, I think it's that they try to *oversimplify* it for the user...

Or cater to the lowest common denominator. Wouldn't it be great if these things were so simple to use, a single-cell amoeba could run one?

Mobile Mike

06-24-2003, 02:23 AM

i haven't had a chance to read through everything out there on ppc 2003, does it include a close button?

Roosterman

06-24-2003, 02:44 AM

Actually, I think it's that they try to *oversimplify* it for the user...

This may have been their intention when specifying that no close function is allowed. However, as we have all be told since childhood, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And I think they have started us down the road to PPC Hell. One of the reasons I switched from a handspring to my AXIM was because I believed that it would function as I had become accustomed with my desktop, programs would close when clicking the X. This is the function that all window's users understand. Simple would have been to do the same thing. They didn't keep it simple when they assumed that developers would follow their crazy ideas to dispose of programs. I would venture to say most developers know how to make a program close several different ways and very few are by using the specifed methods. Why not keep it simple and let the people developing, work with what they know how to do.

There seems to be too much of a big brother/I know best syndrome on MS's part. Everything else they do almost gives you too many options on how to do something. Here they decided to not allow the obvious.

Having said all this, I still love my AXIM, big and bloated as some think it is. :D

Ed Hansberry

06-24-2003, 02:48 AM

i haven't had a chance to read through everything out there on ppc 2003, does it include a close button?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Good one Mike!

Pony99CA

06-24-2003, 03:27 AM

One of the reasons I switched from a handspring to my AXIM was because I believed that it would function as I had become accustomed with my desktop, programs would close when clicking the X. This is the function that all window's users understand.
While I agree that there should be a way to close programs, I don't mind too much that the "X" icon minimizes. What I mind is that it looks so similar to the Windows close icon.

However, let's not forget that the Windows close icon doesn't always close a program. Many times it just minimizes it (see Windows Messenger or the Xolox file sharing program, for example). Some programs will ask if you really want to close them or just minimize them (Norton System Doctor and Zone Alarm). So the metaphor isn't completely true on the desktop.

Steve

Ed Hansberry

02-11-2004, 01:59 PM

Hmmm... if we had a close button, articles like this would be unnecessary. How many like these and those at OEM sites have to be written before MS reponds?

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=291939

ctmagnus

02-11-2004, 11:20 PM

OT:

From http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=291939

When you try to delete an eBook in Microsoft Reader, you receive the following error message:

How does this even happen? If you're trying to delete the book from within Reader, the program obviously isn't running in the background, regardless of how much the current X implementation stinks. afaict, this could happen to Palm Reader, uBook, or any other reader software. Or image viewer/editor or audio player or...

It's just a matter of bad coding in this particular instance (again, afaict).

Ed Hansberry

02-11-2004, 11:27 PM

OT:

From http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=291939

When you try to delete an eBook in Microsoft Reader, you receive the following error message:

How does this even happen?
You skipped the two relevant points as to why a close button is needed - the point of this thread.
When you try to delete an eBook from your PocketPC device, you receive the following error message:

Unable to delete ebook from PocketPC device (access denied).

When you try to delete an eBook by using File Explorer, you receive the following error message:

Cannot delete 'filename.lit'

Access is denied

Make sure the disk is not full or write protected and the file is not currently in use.

Pony99CA

02-15-2004, 12:58 AM

Hmmm... if we had a close button, articles like this would be unnecessary. How many like these and those at OEM sites have to be written before MS reponds?

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=291939
Sorry, but this article would still be necessary. Reader might be running in the background because somebody started another program, not because they hit Reader's close/minimize button.

It's one of the "perils" of a multi-tasking operating system (something Palm users may soon get to enjoy :twisted:).

Steve

Ed Hansberry

02-15-2004, 05:43 AM

Pony99CA

02-15-2004, 06:44 AM

Sorry, but this article would still be necessary. Reader might be running in the background because somebody started another program, not because they hit Reader's close/minimize button
Then the article would consist of a sentence that said "Close the program." rather than a long convoluted explanation then the start|settings|system|memory|blah|blah|blah explanation on how to close an app.
That's certainly true, and I think we all agree there should be an easier way to close programs. It's still annoying that Microsoft thinks they know how to manage my system better than I do.

Maybe we'll be able to close programs more easily in Windows Mobile 2004 -- but I won't hold my breath. :D

Steve