ROM Upgrades & Hard Resets...

[petvas]

Every time a new ROM upgrade appears (for any device, it doesn't really matter) the users are forced to make a Hard Reset in order to avoid issues that may come up with conflicting versions of files in RAM...
I find that very annoying because it is always very time consuming to bring back my device to the status it was before the upgrade. Software registration makes the whole procedure even worse. Some programs generate a unique id every time they get installed so the user has to contact the developer to get a new reg. code...
Hardware companies definitely do not respect us consumers, the user community who buys all these devices, accessories and software. There is no sense of upgrade, just delete all info and let's start from the beginning... :evil:
If you also consider the fact that most ROM upgrades solve bugs that are the manufacter's fault, then.... :evil: :evil: :evil: :twisted: :devilboy:
What are your thoughts about this situation?

[WyattEarp]

Software registration makes the whole procedure even worse. Some programs generate a unique id every time they get installed so the user has to contact the developer to get a new reg. code...


Just a question. What programs generate a different unique id every time they get installed. I've never heard of that.

[Jerry Raia]

Even if none of them did the point is well taken. It shouldnt take hours to restore your device after an "upgrade"

[stitics]

Just a question. What programs generate a different unique id every time they get installed. I've never heard of that.

If I recall correctly, I've had that experience with PocketTV. Admittedly, it is a free program, but it's still a little annoying.

[Pony99CA]

Every time a new ROM upgrade appears (for any device, it doesn't really matter) the users are forced to make a Hard Reset in order to avoid issues that may come up with conflicting versions of files in RAM...

I find that very annoying because it is always very time consuming to bring back my device to the status it was before the upgrade. Software registration makes the whole procedure even worse. Some programs generate a unique id every time they get installed so the user has to contact the developer to get a new reg. code...

Hardware companies definitely do not respect us consumers, the user community who buys all these devices, accessories and software. There is no sense of upgrade, just delete all info and let's start from the beginning... :evil:

If you also consider the fact that most ROM upgrades solve bugs that are the manufacter's fault, then.... :evil: :evil: :evil: :twisted: :devilboy:
What are your thoughts about this situation?
NOTE: Blue font removed because blue on blue is difficult to read, and carriage returns added for readability.

I agree with the underlying theme of your rant -- it should be easier to get going after a hard reset. However, I don't think you should blame the hardware makers for this.

So who should you blame? Well, the creator of the Pocket PC OS -- Microsoft. They could provide a Settings folder, similar Windows XP, to provide a standard place for programs to store their settings so they could be easily backed up. This has been discussed before in the "Where Should Application Settings be Stored?" thread (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7055).

Microsoft could also provide a registry backup tool which backed up non-Pocket PC entries. That way, after a hard reset, you could restore your registry safely and your applications wouldn't each have to be customized again. If it was really smart, it could also restore user-customizable parts of Pocket PC (like connection settings).

Microsoft could implement a standard program registration API, too, that would provide the most common options for registering programs -- a certain number of days or runs.

Hardware and program vendors could also collaborate on some of these items and publish a standard. However, given many program vendors are small companies, I don't see them doing it. And why should several hardware vendors do this when one company -- Microsoft -- could?

So how exactly is this the hardware vendors' fault?

Steve

[petvas]

Who's fault is it when I need a Hard reset after a ROM upgrade?

All Settings are stored in the Registry, just like Windows OSes. All Backup programs that exist can also restore the OS after a Hard Reset.

If you used Cash Organizer Deluxe, then you should know of its unique product id.... I really hate it...(I love the program, I just hate the registration procedure)
Microsoft has provided XIP technology for the WM2003 OS (XIP can be used on PPC2002 also) but the Hardware manufacters never utilized that. XIP technology allows Just in Place upgrades of the OS (ROM and OS Upgrades)
Only the Hardware manufacters are to blame here...

[Pony99CA]

Who's fault is it when I need a Hard reset after a ROM upgrade?
Quite often, a program vendor's or Microsoft's.

Microsoft has provided XIP technology for the WM2003 OS (XIP can be used on PPC2002 also) but the Hardware manufacters never utilized that. XIP technology allows Just in Place upgrades of the OS (ROM and OS Upgrades)

Only the Hardware manufacters are to blame here...
I don't think so. I don't know whether hardware vendors use XIP or not, but my understanding is that XIP allows swapping components of the ROM without affecting other components. If those new components include new updates to the registry, XIP won't help there.

Because the registry is in RAM, you have to hard reset to get the new registry information in ROM to propagate to the registry in RAM. I suppose a program could go in and change the registry, too, but that's also a Microsoft issue (at least for EUUs).

As you work for Microsoft, I can understand why you're reluctant to blame them, though. (Not that blaming their hardware partners in a public forum would likely go over well, either. :twisted:)

Steve

[petvas]

As you work for Microsoft, I can understand why you're reluctant to blame them, though. (Not that blaming their hardware partners in a public forum would likely go over well, either. :twisted:)

Steve

Yes, I do work for Microsoft but here I express my personal opinion and only that. I have the right to express it as much as you do. I do believe that the OEMs are not helping Microsoft as they could but this is another story...

You seem to forget that Microsoft has to create an OS that must live under the Hardware limitations. The whole idea with Flash ROM and RAM is very difficult to implement. The XIP technology can be used to make ROM upgrades... I can assure you of that, I just can't tell you where I've seen it being implemented!!!

Let us not forget also that Windows Mobile 2003 is a great OS and when the Hardware matures we will see even greater things from Microsoft, HP, Dell and all other partners!!!

[Pony99CA]

Yes, I do work for Microsoft but here I express my personal opinion and only that. I have the right to express it as much as you do.
I agree you have the right to express your opinion, and never said you didn't. All I was pointing out was that you have a conflict of interest that could lead to a bias in favor of Microsoft.

Here's another view. Jason is the VP of Marketing for Spb Software. If he gave a glowing review to an Spb product, or a negative review to a competitor, wouldn't your opinion of that review take his job into consideration? That's why Jason almost always indicates his affiliation with Spb if he posts about them.

You seem to forget that Microsoft has to create an OS that must live under the Hardware limitations.
Where did I forget that?

How difficult would it be to create a Settings folder in the OS, document that software vendors should store program customizations there and require that for Pocket PC (or Windows Mobile) certification? A new folder name would only take up a few bytes in the file structure, hardly enough to worry about hardware constraints.

My other suggestions about backup programs aren't taxing to the hardware, either. HP includes Sprite's backup program in ROM, for example. How big would a registry backup tool or change logger be? They could have done that instead of Jawbreaker. :roll:

The XIP technology can be used to make ROM upgrades... I can assure you of that, I just can't tell you where I've seen it being implemented!!!
I don't doubt that XIP can make ROM upgrades. In fact, don't Microsoft's EUUs use XIP? The EUU3_ENG.rtf file for EUU3 contained the following, which led me to infer XIP support:

Appendix A: Improvement Details

Note that these improvements are grouped alphabetically by XIP region.
My point was that, even with XIP, I believe you still have to recreate the registry. If I'm wrong about that, and XIP can dynamically add settings to the registry without requiring a hard reset, please tell me. Otherwise, I'm still not sure why you're blaming the hardware vendors.

Steve

[petvas]

The Registry is just a file and can be overwritten. The problem lies in the technology that exists. Software could easily do what you propose; the fact is that the Hardware hasn't matured to such levels yet. (I am not blaming the OEMs for that. They are making progress).
I started the thread just to point out that a ROM upgrade doesn't mean also a Hard Reset. The upgrade utility could (in theory) make the hard reset and then restore the HKEY_Current USer Hive in the Registry. This is the place that all applications should store their config. This is the Settings Container as you mentioned it.
When I was using the 3850, after a ROM upgrade I would never make a Hard Reset (despite Compaq's recommendation) and never had any issue...
It is feasible. The OEMs just play it on the safe side. I agree that it is not perfect and hope that it will improve in the forthcoming years...

[Pony99CA]

The upgrade utility could (in theory) make the hard reset and then restore the HKEY_Current USer Hive in the Registry. This is the place that all applications should store their config. This is the Settings Container as you mentioned it.
Restoring the HKEY_CURRENT_USER part of the registry won't always work, will it? Doesn't the system store some settings there, too?

Also, some programs store data applicable to all users in the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE section of the registry.

As for using the registry for all settings, that works for simple settings. However, if you have a large configuration file, I'm not sure storing it in the registry is the best thing.

Personally, I like INI files -- they're easy to edit, easy to back up and easy to restore. They just should get their own folder, like Settings\Microsoft\Pocket Streets. If you look at Windows XP, even Microsoft stores settings in C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Microsoft instead of in the registry. There should be a place on the Pocket PC like that, too.

Steve

[petvas]

Personally, I like INI files -- they're easy to edit, easy to back up and easy to restore. They just should get their own folder, like Settings\Microsoft\Pocket Streets. If you look at Windows XP, even Microsoft stores settings in C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Microsoft instead of in the registry. There should be a place on the Pocket PC like that, too.

Steve

Windows XP stores user data specific to applications there, not system wide data...
INI files have been abandoned a long time ago. The Registry is the repository for all system and user settings. When Windows XP loads, it loads the user settings into the registry (after a User logon)...It is the same with WM2003 (almost...)

[Pony99CA]

Windows XP stores user data specific to applications there, not system wide data...
INI files have been abandoned a long time ago. The Registry is the repository for all system and user settings. When Windows XP loads, it loads the user settings into the registry (after a User logon)...It is the same with WM2003 (almost...)
So please tell me the difference between "user data specific to applications" and "user settings". How does a programmer decide to store something in the registry versus in the C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data folders? While you're at it, please tell me how items in the All Users folders differ from "system wide data".

By the way, saying INI files were abandoned (at least, by Microsoft) isn't really helpful. You didn't refute one of the three reason I gave for using INI files.

Steve

[petvas]

Microsoft stores by default (in the Application Data folder) the pst files for Outlook. It also stores Temp files, everything that is specific to an application. They are not settings, they are Data, files...
System Settings are something completely different: They are all the details that describe how an app should work. It doesn't have anything to do with Data..I don't knwo why you have mixed up both...
INI Files were heavily used until Windows ME and they were abandoned after. There usage proved tricky to the user and everybody blamed Microsoft for not providing a central repository for Settings in the OS (just like you do know for WM2003 :wink: ). Microsoft made the Registry that central location and almost eliminated INI file usage (there are still being used but in a limited way).
I believe that asking for a Central Settings location and insisting on INI files doesn't make any sense. INI files do not provide a central location. They make always a mesh and very few really liked them...

[petvas]

I think that we have gone far with this discussion and it really doesn't make any sense to both of us. We agree to disagree!!! I respect that and I would really like to get back to the original thread discussion...

[Pony99CA]

Microsoft stores by default (in the Application Data folder) the pst files for Outlook. It also stores Temp files, everything that is specific to an application. They are not settings, they are Data, files...
System Settings are something completely different: They are all the details that describe how an app should work. It doesn't have anything to do with Data..I don't knwo why you have mixed up both...

Simple -- because user settings are data. Why do they need to be stored in two separate locations? Data that isn't required to get the program working like it was before a crash (like a browser cache) should be stored separately, but crucial files should be kept with user settings for easy backup and restore.

For example, consider an E-mail client. User settings are probably stored in the registry, while the E-mail messages themselves are stored in the Application Data folder. I think they should be kept together.

INI Files were heavily used until Windows ME and they were abandoned after. There usage proved tricky to the user and everybody blamed Microsoft for not providing a central repository for Settings in the OS (just like you do know for WM2003 :wink: ).
I didn't say there should be a central repository for data; I said there should be a standard for storing that data to prevent files from being stored in My Documents, the program's folder or the Windows folder.

Storing settings for multiple programs in one file is a recipe for disaster, I think. Look at the Pocket PC's registry -- it doesn't just have user settings there, but also critical system settings (like driver information, install information, etc.). Granted, they may be stored in system.dat and user.dat files on some systems, but they are still intermingled from a user and programming point of view.

The only advantages that I think the registry has over INI files are that it may be faster to access than INI files, and INI files require exact formatting of brackets and other markup characters that the registry doesn't require (although INI files are no different from XML in that regard).

Steve

[Pony99CA]

I think that we have gone far with this discussion and it really doesn't make any sense to both of us. We agree to disagree!!! I respect that and I would really like to get back to the original thread discussion...
We can stop discussing the registry vs. application data folders, if you wish. However, I believe I was addressing the original thread topic.

You blame the OEMs for the difficulty in getting back up and running, and I think you're placing the blame on the wrong companies. That is a pretty central issue in the thread. I have also given constructive suggestions for making things easier to backup and restore, which is again on topic.

You disagree with my suggestions, which is fine, but I still don't understand why you blame the OEMs instead of Microsoft.

Steve

[petvas]

I think that we have gone far with this discussion and it really doesn't make any sense to both of us. We agree to disagree!!! I respect that and I would really like to get back to the original thread discussion...
We can stop discussing the registry vs. application data folders, if you wish. However, I believe I was addressing the original thread topic.

You blame the OEMs for the difficulty in getting back up and running, and I think you're placing the blame on the wrong companies. That is a pretty central issue in the thread. I have also given constructive suggestions for making things easier to backup and restore, which is again on topic.

You disagree with my suggestions, which is fine, but I still don't understand why you blame the OEMs instead of Microsoft.

Steve

That is why I said that we agree to disagree!!!
Your feedback is constructive and it is certainly appreciated. Why I don't blame Microsoft? Well, because in this particular issue they are not to blame. I know the difficulties the OEMs have, I understand them but it is their issue...
I would blame Microsoft for other things, not for that (The absence of Pocket Office for example).

[petvas]

What do all other people believe? What are your thoughts about it?