Migrating From eMbedded Visual Basic

[Janak Parekh]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsmobile/archive/2005/01/03/345995.aspx' target='_blank'>http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsmobile.../03/345995.aspx</a><br /><br /></div><i>"A few weeks ago James updated the download page for the eVB runtime to give users the option of first answering a few questions (anonymously) about why they need the runtime. The data we’re getting back from that simple survey has so far been incredibly helpful. Combined with other more scientific data we have, this puts us in a better position to target efforts at getting people migrated to .NET before the lack of eVB support in next release of Windows Mobile causes pain to developers and their users. The other changes to this download page are a few paragraphs at the top explaining the deprecation of eVB and a few links at the bottom to whitepapers that will help in migrating. I’ve probably mentioned all of those links here before but just in case you haven’t seen them yet, here they are..."</i><br /><br />It's important to note that the eMbedded Visual Basic Runtime will <b>not</b> run on future Windows Mobile devices. Fortunately, I've seen less and less software use it, and I can't remember the last time I've installed it myself. If you're a developer still using eVB, take a look at these white papers soon and begin migrating!

[Inventor]

> I've seen less and less software use it, and I can't remember the last time I've installed it myself

I have over 3,200 Pocket PC programs on my site that depend on the eVB runtime files.

Its a shame Microsoft wont update the runtimes or allow it to run on the newer devices.

So I guess we cant say PocketPC has more freeware then Palm anymore. dam!

[DaleReeck]

I think that eVB was breaking my CE.Net on Windows Mobile 2003 devices. I never had a probem with SE, but with regular WM2003, my devices always eventually broke CE.Net apps (they'd just fail to run with no errors or dialogs). Every WM2003 device of mine this happened to. I install a lot of apps so I figured either one app was breaking CE.Net or something in the environment (large registry size, low memory etc) was causing the problem. Again, SE devices never seemd to have the problem.

Recently, I decided to dump running eVB on my latest device since I only had one app that used it and it was easily replaced. On this device, installing all the exact same software (but, again, no eVB), CE.Net did not break. Circumstancial evidence, true, but this is the first WM2003 device I had where CE.Net didn't break after fully loading software up.

When it comes time to hard reset due to ROM upgrade or whatever, I may install eVB to see if it breaks CE.Net. To be truthful, I never really liked apps that used a secondary subsystem/runtime to work. That's just another thing that could break when troubleshooting. Writing self contained apps in C or whatever is prefferred IMO.

[dangerwit]

I've had difficulties similar to DaleR's experience. I'm evaluating three different CE device vendors at work for porting over an old, but critical, eVB app. The success of eVB is 100% dependent on the OEM's setup of the device.

Two devices, in particular, had identical, major-hardware specs: XScale 400, 64MB RAM, 64 MB non-volatile, ce.net 4.2, touchscreen, keyboard, integrated scanner, integrated wifi (same chipsets)... but eVB needed a LOT of help on one of the devices, largely due to some registry settings the vendor was using.

We are, of course, migrating... but for those running eVB, it may be expensive to migrate the code, but do it -- the stability and speed enhancements .NET provides FAR outweight the hit of development cost (in my industry, anyway).

*Phil

P.S. I agree Dale, I'm not a fan of needing runtimes either. But, you have to admit, makes it easier to upgrade the runtime environment.

[sheik]

At least one well regarded "hobbyist" developer has some good arguments as to why he isn't planning on upgrading:

http://www.pocketgamer.org/showthread.php?&amp;threadid=4429

The above thread is interesting, as it is this kind of "grass roots" developer that I believe MS would like to embrace .Net. A MS representative posts in the thread at one point too, which shows they are following web communities pretty closely.

Hopefully it isn't considered impolite to quote a small part of the thread here:

"So why can't I use VB.Net instead of eVB?
1. The price; all my games are free and so there is no way I can afford VB.Net. My total income of all my games is so far $10. eVB is for free.
2. I don't even think a game written in VB.Net would start on my Ipag 3630 and besides, the runtime files are huge. There are lots of old PDAs with PocketPC 2000 in use and I don't understand why a 4 years old PDA should not be able to run games simple as mine.
3. The language. I don't think VB.Net is the same as Visal Basic (6) and if I still have to learn a new language there are many to choose from.
4. Graphic libraries; With the help of Spritehand (that is also free) writing games in eVB is very fast and simple, I tried to understand the examples in "resources on writing games in NET CF" but to be honest I did not think it was that simple.

The really sad part is that in a few years nobody will be able to play my games due to the fact that there will be no eVB runtime libraries and I will probably not be able to port them to another language."
~ Max Tillberg


/\dam

[Charles Pickrell]

I went from VB5 to eMbeddedVB to VB6 to VB.net. The transition to .Net isn't all that tough. It is work, but it isn't impossible. And can't you use the $99 VisualBasic.net to author Pocket PC apps?

I'm sure that programmers will delight to all the new features that VB.net with the CF 2.0 will have compared to eMbedded VB.

[Mike Wagstaff]

I agree that the switch from VB to VB .NET isn't that bad. I'm afraid, however, that I think the death of a free development environment absolutely stinks. :evil:

Like it or not, hobbyist coders are still the mainstay of the PDA / Smartphone world. I remember the dark old days before eVB and eVC++ were released for free. Software was pretty much non-existent, and it felt like PalmOS apps (which could be developed for free) outnumbered PPC apps by a million to one.

If Microsoft make pots of money selling Visual Studio to PPC / Smartphone developers, so be it. I'm willing to bet, however, that they would do far better to offer a free development environment and encourage the continued proliferation of Windows Mobile software.

After all, it's not the hardware alone that makes the Pocket PC great.

[airpete]

Mike,

It's perfectly possible to develop for CE with the compact framework without VS.NET, in the same way as the full framework. You can use the desktop C# or VB.NET compilers, remove the default references, and reference the compact framework assemblies. This should be possible with a free IDE like SharpDevelop, too.

- Pete

[Toshi]

Very sad

[ghenne]

There's another option: convert to NS Basic/CE. It's very similar to eVB, enough so there is a conversion program that does most of the work:

http://www.nsbasic.com/ce/info/technotes/TN30.htm

The language has less bugs that eVB, runs faster, and is already running on Windows CE 5.0.

Disclaimer: I work for NS Basic. I'll be happy to answer questions.

George Henne
[email protected]

[sheik]

Disclaimer: I work for NS Basic. I'll be happy to answer questions.

I think it would be a nice gesture to offer a free development kit to Max Tillberg.
Of course, it would also be a good PR coup as well... ;)

/\dam

[Robert Levy]

[i]"So why can't I use VB.Net instead of eVB?
...
4. Graphic libraries; With the help of Spritehand (that is also free) writing games in eVB is very fast and simple, I tried to understand the examples in "resources on writing games in NET CF" but to be honest I did not think it was that simple.


It hasn't had much publicity, but SpriteHand does offer a .NET version of their excellent graphics library. http://www.spritehand.com/ASpriteNET.aspx

[Soyale]

I agree that the switch from VB to VB .NET isn't that bad. I'm afraid, however, that I think the death of a free development environment absolutely stinks. :evil:

Like it or not, hobbyist coders are still the mainstay of the PDA / Smartphone world. I remember the dark old days before eVB and eVC++ were released for free. Software was pretty much non-existent, and it felt like PalmOS apps (which could be developed for free) outnumbered PPC apps by a million to one.

If Microsoft make pots of money selling Visual Studio to PPC / Smartphone developers, so be it. I'm willing to bet, however, that they would do far better to offer a free development environment and encourage the continued proliferation of Windows Mobile software.

After all, it's not the hardware alone that makes the Pocket PC great.

As someone who remembers the "dark old days" you'll also remember what a horrible development experience VS 6.0 + Windows CE Tools was. With the introduction of eVC 3.0 and then eVC 4.0 we made huge improvements in the developer tools for mobile devices. Ultimately though, it doesn't make sense to create separate tools when we have very capable compiler, linker, framework etc developers working on Visual Studio who can bring the benefit of their experience to mobile devices. Integrating the tools will bring benefits to the whole development community.

I'm very confident that Visual Studio 2005 will be a stupendous release for device developers and will be very well worth the price. Bear in mind that device features will feature in Visual Studio 2005 Standard (as opposed to VS .NET 2003 Pro and above) which will make the tools much more cost effecitve. I see things like the true ARM emulator, rotatable IDE, intellisense for native developers and a completely rewritten debugger and I'm truly excited.

I don't agree that hobbyists are the mainstay of the mobile software industry. A glance at Handango, PocketGear etc shows you that people are making money developing applications for Windows Mobile based devices. And if you're getting into the space, there are often trial and eval versions of Visual Studio available. Right now you can order the Mobile Application Development Toolkit from http://msdn.microsoft.com/mobility/windowsmobile/howto/kits/default.aspx which contains a 60 day trial of VS.

If anyone wants to mail me on the subject of pricing for tools, I've updated my eMail address to my profile and look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

James
Product Manager, Windows Mobile Developer Platform
Microsoft