HTC Adds Close Button To Its Devices

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.modaco.com/index.php?showtopic=247978">http://www.modaco.com/index.php?showtopic=247978</a><br /><br />MoDaCo is reporting that HTC is giving users what they want on their devices, a close button that actually <i>closes</i> applications. I know, sit down and take a breath. Yes, it is shocking that a button with a big "X" on it should actually close an application. 8O <br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2006/20031031-htcclosebutton.jpg" /><br /><br />This change will apparently be effective in AKU3.2 and later devices. Users can choose to enable the close feature and have it closed either by a tap or a tap-and-hold. Microsoft has maintained for years that users simply don't need to close applications. They really don't want to, they just want the application to go away, and so MS has refused to enable the close feature short going through the 7 tap process via the Memory control panel icon and close it there. Microsoft insists that the operating system's memory management is sufficient to manage what applications remain open given the devices resources. Many users maintain this isn't good enough as they watch their devices slow to an absolute crawl as low memory situations come up because too many applications are open and the device isn't doing much about it, or worse, the wrong application gets shut down as it is not always a least-recently-used-app-gets-closed decision. For me personally, Pocket IE is the worst offender as it is a memory hog and I've rarely seen my K-Jam shut it down, opting instead to close something I just used a few seconds ago before starting a new application. :evil: Just recently, the Windows Mobile development team <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsmobile/archive/2006/10/05/The-Emperor-Has-No-Close.aspx target=">defended the practice of not giving users a close button</a>. The defense goes something like this - ok, it goes <i>exactly</i> like this:<br /><div class="quote"> <span class="quote">Quote:</span> The base philosophy, that users shouldn't need to manage their memory, is pretty hard to argue against. Come on, tell me that users <i>should</i> be required to manage their own memory. I dare you. You can tell me that you can do a better job. You can tell me that we don't do a good enough job. You can tell me that in some cases we do a fine job, but in the cases when we don't, the world comes to a screeching halt, time goes backwards, and history is rewritten to be somehow more dark and foreboding than it already is. But you can't tell me that users should be required to manage their own memory. That’s like saying that car owners should be required to change their own oil. I don't think so. </div><br />Now, Mike is arguing against a strawman and does a pretty effective job of knocking it over. The problem is, I have never heard anyone argue that a user should be <i><b>required</b></i> to manage their own memory. We simply want to be <i><b>allowed</b></i> to manage our own memory by closing down applications that aren't needed any longer, that are huge resource hogs, or that prevent files from being moved/changed/deleted because some app, like Windows Media Player, is locking it open. What Mike is effectively saying is, you should not be allowed to manage your devices memory and car owners should not be allowed to change their own oil.<br /><br />Ironically, Microsoft has created confusion here as a number of device manufacturers include the ability to close applications but implement it in different ways, so for a user to close apps, they must figure out first how their particular device does it, if at all. :roll: Hats off to HTC for giving the user what they want! :)

[aroma]

The base philosophy, that users shouldn't need to manage their memory, is pretty hard to argue against. Come on, tell me that users should be required to manage their own memory. I dare you. You can tell me that you can do a better job. You can tell me that we don't do a good enough job. You can tell me that in some cases we do a fine job, but in the cases when we don't, the world comes to a screeching halt, time goes backwards, and history is rewritten to be somehow more dark and foreboding than it already is. But you can't tell me that users should be required to manage their own memory. That’s like saying that car owners should be required to change their own oil. I don't think so.

I just wanted to take 5 seconds out of my day to say that this is the most ridiculous argument I've read in quite some time.

[Craig Horlacher]

Good Job HTC! I hope other manufacturers follow suite. I like the tap and hold implementation option.

I agree with aroma that the argument given by Microsoft is week. As noted by Ed the argument is saying people should not be able to change the oil in their car. I think the argument shows that the people who make windows mobile don't really use it. Otherwise, the close problem would have been fixed when way back in time when I had my Nino Palm-PC. While I agree that users should not need to manage memory the unfortunate reality is that for anyone doing much work on a pocket pc they will need to do this.

Is anyone from the windows mobile group at Microsoft reading this? Can you give a better defense as to why I don't need a close button on any of my Windows Mobile applications? The biggest offender I've noticed is Media Player. When it's in the background and idle, it manages to take cpu or something so when I'm playing back video in other applications the frame rate drops significantly. This also hurts game performance of course as well as anything else that pushes the hardware at all. I have WM 2003se. Has this been fixed in any newer versions of Windows mobile/Media player?

[paschott]

I've always enabled it through some third-party app on all of my PPCs. Part of it is that I don't like seeing that little free memory. Mostly, I just don't trust the WM memory management to free up memory as needed. I use SPB Pocket Plus and watch that free memory counter drop as I use my device so I know I have memory leaks somewhere. I wonder how many of those would be eliminated/reduced if MS actually built-in Close functionality so that programs could terminate cleanly?

Maybe WM does do a better job managing memory, but I still should have an easier way to determine what programs I want open/running at any given time. This has been an issue for as long as I've followed/used the PPC/WM OS. People have kept asking for it and MS will not deliver. I agree with the poster earlier that the argument they present is one of the worst I've ever seen.

Now for the more important question - how can I get AKU 3.x for my HTC Wizard? :D

-Pete

[signothefish]

You know what's so funny? I have a 3rd party app installed on my Pocket PC that enables me to tap-hold on the X in order to kill a process. Problem is, I've been doing it for so long, and I have so many apps installed, THAT I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH APP IT IS. :lol:

I'm thinking it's one of the Dinarsoft applications (HandyMenu, HandyLauncher, or HandySwitcher), but I'm not for sure. Anyway, I'm certainly not going to uninstall my apps one-by-one to find out.

[Jason Dunn]

Great move by HTC, even if it might put some third party developers out a bit (they'll just have to be creative in solving other problems).

[uwaku]

I've been using Zapit! for so long on first my 6315 and now my Wizard that I cannot imagine not using it, but at least this change will give me that extra button back on my next device. I have it tied to the camera button on the lower right side and it kills whatever app I have running at the time. It's not even a TSR so it uses NO resources - it just kills whatever's running when I hit the button. Much better than Magic Button, et al.

[dstrauss]

Three cheers for HTC (leading the way again).

I've used Smartskey to enable this (plus softkey controls) for some time, but truly welcom an OS level setting for this. Way to go HTC.

[kiwi]

gee...

Microsoft, give us a break, the PPC is not a widely used consumer device, such as an Ipod etc., so stop trying to treat us like non technical users. For the most part, every PPC user/owner I know are reasonably technically inclined.

Non technical user who have used my PPC work in a one-app-at-a-time mode anyway! Open Solitaire. close Solitare. Open PIE. Close PIE.
etc

[disconnected]

I've been using Zapit! for so long on first my 6315 and now my Wizard that I cannot imagine not using it, but at least this change will give me that extra button back on my next device. I have it tied to the camera button on the lower right side and it kills whatever app I have running at the time. It's not even a TSR so it uses NO resources - it just kills whatever's running when I hit the button. Much better than Magic Button, et al.

I've also been using Zapit forever. I don't know what I'd do if I lost it, because it doesn't seem to be available anywhere now.

[alese]

I don't have a problem with Microsoft's reasoning. With one addition, if their memory management would actually work I would be happy to stop using task killer. But somehow after PocketPC 2000, PocketPC 2002, Windows Mobile 2003 and now Windows Mobile 5 all having same "not too good" memory management I somehow doubt it.

Oh and, yes it's a great move by HTC... :wink:

[paschott]

Just to present a small fragment of the argument from MS' side. They have time to develop new features. Ones that aren't currently available as a 3rd party app get slightly higher precedence.

I don't agree with their decisions on this one as I think a significant number of people are unhappy with the behaviour. However, I will say that their decision to loosen up the requirements to allow people to quit the app is a positive step. The discussion is interesting @ the msdn blog and MS isn't going to change anytime soon. (loosely translated - never)

For what it's worth, I agree with their decision to focus on new features rather than this (to an extent). While I'd love it if they could delay the next version of WM by a week or so to include this feature, that isn't my call and I'm not footing the bill for their salaries.

Back to WisBar or SPB (or whatever your favorite app to actually close running programs on WM/PPC may be).

-Pete

[Ed Hansberry]

I don't agree with their decisions on this one as I think a significant number of people are unhappy with the behaviour. …
For what it's worth, I agree with their decision to focus on new features rather than this (to an extent). While I'd love it if they could delay the next version of WM by a week or so to include this feature, that isn't my call and I'm not footing the bill for their salaries.
well, you have both sides covered. ;-)

there are some features that should bo core to the OS, both for stability and consistency, and this is one of them. apps that burrow into the UI like this can be the most problematic. And why should I have to keep installing this each time I change devices? it would be like having to install the red X on Windows, and that platform is far superior in memory management.

[paschott]

No real argument, Ed. Just trying to show a little of the core MS' argument (for those who may not have checked out the blog post @ msdn). I can see where they come from and will give them some credit for that. I understand the reasoning behind the original functionality of that red X. Unfortunately, it's pretty well set now because of those early decisions.

I agree that this belongs in the OS and liked the suggestion of minimize and close buttons - letting the user decide. I'd love to see that in a future release, but reading through the whole discussion, it sounds like this will not happen. I seem to remember the possibility that Mike offered was even worse - no close/minimize at all - just the ability to switch to other tasks. 8O

There are times I wonder if anyone's listening to the user-base and this is definitely one of them.

-Pete

[BrotherDave]

It bugs me when this is framed as as a “memory management” issue and try to make you choose between logical behavior (and ironically more memory) vs. no OS memory management at all.

The OS can and should manage memory when programs are consuming memory. The OS can intelligently swap out memory to free up more memory as needed. When multiple programs are running, the OS can help manage memory used between the programs to optimize memory usage. This memory management the OS must do and can do better than humans.

But when a user knows that they are done with an application and closes it, the OS doesn’t have to “manage memory”; it can just close the app and free 100% of the memory the app was using. The OS can’t do any better than 100% efficiency. Ironically, they’ve created a memory management problem where there wasn’t one and have done a bad job at solving it. In the model they’ve implemented, when a user presses the X thinking that they’ve closed the app, they will actually have less memory than if they closed the app.

I know this is complicated by the fact that if the user later restarts the app it will *take longer* to initialize since it will have to load the app among other things into memory. This manifests as a performance issue. An OS should attempt to optimize performance by caching certain closed application resources in memory. Most desktop OSes only cache static application resources like code. This is why on the PC the second boot of Word is faster than the first. MS Mobile goes beyond this and they cache the whole app with all its state (connections, file handles, application data.) Requiring you to reboot or get a third party solution to get these back (or get lucky and have the OS swap it out.)

Calling this “memory management” (which it involves but goes beyond normal usage) and forcing you to argue that you “should be allowed to do your own memory management” is winning by controlling the language of the debate. Hiding the distinction between the type of memory management that they should do and management they don’t have to do (and suck at.) Saying, “Why should the user manage their own memory” mixes together all forms of memory management – and suggests that making the X actually close the app (and free the memory and resources) is silly.

If they said they this is a performance optimization it would be more precise in terms of this debate but then they’d lose the club of the vacuous phrase “why should users do their own memory management” and (I guess) they fear that we would gladly trade this particular performance optimization for logical behavior and more memory.

At this point it seems that the current behavior seems an entrenched religious decision, because (IMHO) I don’t think it wins on the merits. MS may have some pride to lose on this but I don’t see any reason why they can’t give a power feature that allows us to change the behavior of the X or a hold-down option that invokes a pop-up to give the user the choice (I prefer the former.)

[Janak Parekh]

Nicely argued, BrotherDave.

--janak

[Deslock]

The base philosophy, that users shouldn't need to manage their memory, is pretty hard to argue against. Come on, tell me that users should be required to manage their own memory. I dare you. You can tell me that you can do a better job. You can tell me that we don't do a good enough job. You can tell me that in some cases we do a fine job, but in the cases when we don't, the world comes to a screeching halt, time goes backwards, and history is rewritten to be somehow more dark and foreboding than it already is. But you can't tell me that users should be required to manage their own memory. That’s like saying that car owners should be required to change their own oil. I don't think so.
This guy is framing the argument in a way that doesn't apply. It's dishonest and he should be fired. None of us are saying that users should be *required* to manage their memory, rather, we're saying that we want to be able to because WinCE does such a horrible job of it.

[Jason Lee]

:clap: :werenotworthy:

Nicely put.

[JKingGrim]

That is a BS excuse by MS. We are not asking to "manage memory" at all. I do not call simply closing a program "managing memory". I call it closing a program. If "managing memory" is such a difficult task suitable only for the OS to handle, then how come on my WINDOWS PC I can click the X button on this web browser (firefox), and it will completely termintate and release all the memory it is using until I open it again. Why the contradiction? Are mobile users less skilled at "managing memory"?

[ljclark]

Holy Something-or-Other! Are these guys from Microsoft idiots? Or do they just think that we are?

First: I like the "user is allowed" approach.

Second: The oil changing argument is pure rubbish. Try one of these instead.

-- "Once the user turns on the car radio, he/she shouldn't be required to turn it off." (Or substitute heater, dome light, sunroof, map light, window, windshield wipers, etc.)

-- "If the user loads some passengers or groceries, he/she shouldn't be expected to unload those passengers or groceries".

Another thing the droids at MS seem to miss is that some of us (me included) end up reseting out PDAs after watching that memory meter drift lower and lower through the day. I have one application where I must do a reset before I execute. I guess that is memory management, but it certainly doesn't seem like changing the oil (or maybe I AM supposed to take the used electrons to the recycling center).

Sheesh!

[jefito]

*sigh*

This has been such a non-issue for such a long time, it's dismaying to have it come up again. And again. And again.

Folks, you've always had the ability to manage your own memory, via Settings/Memory/Running Programs, since day 1, or at least since I had a Casio E-10. So all the handwringing about how you don't have that ability is just melodrama, pure and simple. Boo-hoo.

Ohhhh, so actually you're saying that it's not the ability to manage your memory that you're after, what you really want is the 'X' button to close an app, rather than shove it to the background? Uh, OK, so you go and find YourFavoriteTaskManager, install it and you're done. I happen to use WISBar for this -- it works great. It's not free, but there are free ones out there, I'm sure -- at least there used to be.

Now maybe I'm not a "power-user" like some of you out there -- I only run my PIM all the time, every day, usually for weeks on end without needing to reset my PPC -- that plus the occasional trip in and out of Excel, eWallet, StreetAtlas, Oxford Dictionary and other apps. But my setup just works for me, day in and day out. If I want to have several apps open at once (for copy/paste operations between programs), WISBar accomodates that; if I want to shut down an app, WISBar does that too. By the way, I am a very technically minded person, but just because I am doesn't mean that I automatically need to micromanage my PPC's memory. If I need to, I will, but most of the time I just don't want or need that.

I don't expect Microsoft to give me everything out of the box (I'm sure that Lakeridge Software and other task manager vendors don't mind either), so long as alternatives are available, as they are in this case. Honestly, with all of the bitter electrons spilled over this so-called issue, you'd think that Microsoft was setting people's houses on fire or raiding their bank accounts. Give it up, people. Get a task manager and get on with your lives. And let that poor dead horse you've been flogging for so long rest in peace.

[IpaqMan2]

In regards to the topic, this is just another example of how Microsoft feels the need to blanket every single person in the world and force each of them to use a product they've developed, their way! It doesn't matter that their are third party applications which does this, the OS should allow this easily if the end user wants this - end of story. We're not talking about some complicated implementation to add, but just to give us the same common sense use that we expect from every other Microsoft product with out feeling like we are a bunch of idiots.

After everything that has happened to the Treo 700w from Verizon, I would of thought having the ability to have users simply be able to close their application easily (without going into the running program list) would of been evident enough and could of lessing the blow of the 700w's short comming with it's memory than it has, but it's obvious that most of the people at Microsoft over the Windows Mobile department spend more time looking at Windows Mobile on paper and what it "should or could" do, than actually using it in real life to come up with their own common sense to conclude otherwise.

Again, another example... Windows ought to have a simple and easy to use built in task manager that can be accessed from any application and from every window if they want to advertise the true multi-tasking - without tapping 7 different times to get back to the application where we were just looking at. Again, use some common sense Microsoft.

[Gerard]

I've also been using Zapit forever. I don't know what I'd do if I lost it, because it doesn't seem to be available anywhere now.
I have had a copy for both MIPS (the older Casios and some other devices) and ARM (pretty much everything else, except the early HP Jornadas - I couldn't find an SH3 copy) on my webspace for a few years. It's no longer hosted by the developer, so I thought no harm having it available:
http://www.luthier.ca/other/forum/ZapIt!.zip

And yeah, what they said... I've been harping on this so long, again earlier in the month when that blog post appeared and folks here were discussing it. Such a lot of wasted breath and typing time. Miccrosoft is like the phone company in that old Lily Tomlin bit: "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company." Replace that last with 'we're the biggest software company in the world' and it fits like a glove.

(I've tried a few times, but something in the forum software won't allow the exclamation mark in my link. Just take out the spaces and it's a working link, if anyone needs a copy of ZapIt! - which was named as such, with the punctuation mark, by the author.)

[indiekiduk]

HP iPAQs never had this problem since they come with a decent task manager and a dedicated hardware button called iTask. This is a bit of a shoddy hack from HTC, why don't they bundle a proper task switcher? Its kinda annoying to install Handy Switcher and change a hardware button to get the same functionality.

[Sven Johannsen]

Great move by HTC, even if it might put some third party developers out a bit (they'll just have to be creative in solving other problems). I don't think that is going to be much of an issue. Most utilities that allow you to close an app do much more than that. Note that there really isn't much of an Alt-Tab feature in the OS either. You either have to 'close' repeatedly until you get back to the open app you want, or dig your way to the program menu and 'open' it again. Most closers also support some more direct task switching.

Now if MS changed the Start Menu's recently used programs list to a currently open list...and...provided the option to close apps, that could take a bite out of some third party offerrings.

[Gerard]

Note that there really isn't much of an Alt-Tab feature in the OS either. You either have to 'close' repeatedly until you get back to the open app you want, or dig your way to the program menu and 'open' it again.

Um, well, there's always... Start > Settings > System > Memory > Running Programs > highlight your application > tap Activate. Simple! Now that's a nice, clean, intuitive task switcher... Microsoft style. Of course, most Start Menu shortcuts are easier to find, but it's always nice to have options, just in the name of silliness if nothing else.

[Deslock]

*sigh*

This has been such a non-issue for such a long time, it's dismaying to have it come up again. And again. And again.

Folks, you've always had the ability to manage your own memory, via Settings/Memory/Running Programs, since day 1, or at least since I had a Casio E-10. So all the handwringing about how you don't have that ability is just melodrama, pure and simple. Boo-hoo.

Ohhhh, so actually you're saying that it's not the ability to manage your memory that you're after, what you really want is the 'X' button to close an app, rather than shove it to the background? Uh, OK, so you go and find YourFavoriteTaskManager, install it and you're done. I happen to use WISBar for this -- it works great. It's not free, but there are free ones out there, I'm sure -- at least there used to be.

Now maybe I'm not a "power-user" like some of you out there -- I only run my PIM all the time, every day, usually for weeks on end without needing to reset my PPC -- that plus the occasional trip in and out of Excel, eWallet, StreetAtlas, Oxford Dictionary and other apps. But my setup just works for me, day in and day out. If I want to have several apps open at once (for copy/paste operations between programs), WISBar accomodates that; if I want to shut down an app, WISBar does that too. By the way, I am a very technically minded person, but just because I am doesn't mean that I automatically need to micromanage my PPC's memory. If I need to, I will, but most of the time I just don't want or need that.

I don't expect Microsoft to give me everything out of the box (I'm sure that Lakeridge Software and other task manager vendors don't mind either), so long as alternatives are available, as they are in this case. Honestly, with all of the bitter electrons spilled over this so-called issue, you'd think that Microsoft was setting people's houses on fire or raiding their bank accounts. Give it up, people. Get a task manager and get on with your lives. And let that poor dead horse you've been flogging for so long rest in peace.
The built-in method of closing apps is clunky and time-consuming. The various 3rd party solutions I've used all have various downsides such as incompatibility and/or performance problems (I'm a registered user of Wisbar Advanced 2; it doesn't entirely play nice with my rx1955).

However, my complaint isn't really about how X works. It's about how badly WinCE/PPC/WM manages memory and processes; if it was better at that, "X" sending apps to the background wouldn't matter as much.

Sure, if you only use the standard PDA apps you probably won't have any issues. But with media playback and web browsing, I find that I often have to run memrelease to free up memory (and that doesn't always prevent problems).
Um, well, there's always... Start > Settings > System > Memory > Running Programs > highlight your application > tap Activate. Simple! Now that's a nice, clean, intuitive task switcher... Microsoft style. Of course, most Start Menu shortcuts are easier to find, but it's always nice to have options, just in the name of silliness if nothing else.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious since it takes so long to use Start > Settings > System > Memory > Running Programs. Even if I'm not running low on memory, navigating to the program manager that way takes 6-8 seconds. That may not sound like a lot, but it's annoying when I just want to quickly look something up. And if I am running low on memory, it takes so long it's sometimes less of a PITA do a soft-reset.

To be fair, I have a button assigned to the Today screen and since HP's Today plugin has a memory icon, it really only takes me a few seconds (when the device hasn't yet run low on memory and slowed to a crawl, that is).

But again the point is that I shouldn't have to do that, and the reason that the strawman argument has some of us "mildy enraged" is that it's only WinCE's horrible memory problems that makes us want to manage memory in the first place.

[Gerard]

Wow. Couldn't detect the sarcasm huh? And that was me pretty close to my most bitter. Thought it was so over the top with sarcasm that even the Redmond gang could detect it, thick-skinned though they may be. Oh well, move along, nothing to see here... just users wanting something logical and complaining when they don't get it. Nothing a megacorporation need worry about.

[Deslock]

Wow. Couldn't detect the sarcasm huh? And that was me pretty close to my most bitter. Thought it was so over the top with sarcasm that even the Redmond gang could detect it, thick-skinned though they may be. Oh well, move along, nothing to see here... just users wanting something logical and complaining when they don't get it. Nothing a megacorporation need worry about.
Heh. Ironically, I just recently I replied to someone who I'd assumed was joking around only to find out that their moronic post was actually serious.

It's sad, but with the nonsense that gets posted nowadays, it's not always clear when someone is being clever or being an idiot. It's just another example of why we need more Scorched Earth Party (http://www.armory.com/~crisper/Scorch/) candidates. :mrgreen:

[Gerard]

Heh. Ironically, I just recently I replied to someone who I'd assumed was joking around only to find out that their moronic post was actually serious.
Been there, done that, and yes, bought the t-shirt too many times. It can be confusing, when there are no facial expressions to give one clues. Without context - and holy cow, some people haven't the foggiest of clues as to what context is for! - there is sometimes a coin toss involved. I've mis-guessed that toss in most uncomfortable ways...

[Jason Lee]

Heh. Ironically, I just recently I replied to someone who I'd assumed was joking around only to find out that their moronic post was actually serious.

Well, I guess it is good then that Gerard's moronic post wasn't serious... ;)

*sorry couldn't pass that up*

[Jonathan1]

The thing is users aren't managing memory. If they were they would be going in and tweaking the memory slider all the time. No what they are managing is their applications. If they are not using it there is certainly no point in leaving it open in a system that has very few resources to begin with. Something that Microsoft needs to wrap their collective brains around is the fact that Pocket PC's are NOT Palm devices which is what they are trying to emulate. They are also not desktops. They are a half breed between both and need to be treated as such.
Quite honestly I've given up on them. Its obvious there is a directive not to put a true close button in there which IMHO is on par with Apple and the right button. Both are stupid, borderline retarded, arguments; and both are born from the idea that "my" way is the right way.

PS- Anyone care to wager on how many of the people who developed the Windows Mobile OS are also running app management tools? My money is on over half. :roll:

[Jonathan1]

But somehow after PocketPC 2000, PocketPC 2002, Windows Mobile 2003 and now Windows Mobile 5 all having same "not too good" memory management I somehow doubt it.


8O Did I miss something? MY original iPaq 3650 in all of its Pocket PC 2000 glory NEVER managed memory or apps all that well. Many a time I had to do a soft reset because the system was hosed. The birth of the app management tool was a godsend.

[Gerard]

The birth of the app management tool was a godsend.

For me that 'godsend' came in the form of GigaBar, late in 2000. I'd tried Snoopsoft's Banana for a few months, but had a couple of minor difficulties with that. I'd also tried a task manager made by bSquare, bTask I think it was called. That came as part of a $50 package of software which all eventually proved far to bug-riddled to risk using. I lost a fair bit of data to bSquare, especially thanks to their Device Doctor app. It claimed to repair the registry... only, it removed a lot of registry data if a program filled CF card happened not to be in the slot when run. Nice.
But back to topic; nothing made much sense before GigaBar. The plugin for GigaBar called GigaXOK was a piece of genius, a smart X/OK button which seemed always to know which was needed. Coupled with GigaBar's extensive tool set, this made managing a PPC with fewer soft resets a joy. I still feel a debt to Gene Knight for that program, even though I spent a great many hours testing versions of GigaBar and MOE for him. Miss that guy.

But GigaBar is no more, unless one runs an old device. No compatibility with WM2003SE and later. So WisBar Advance2 it is for me, and for many, and it provides much of GigaBar's functionality and a few neat tricks of its own. I miss the 10-item menus for every icon... but that's history.

Where's Mike Calligaro in all this? He pops his head into the odd discussion of Microsoft's foibles, right? Or is he keeping low these days, just posting his apologetics in the blog and leaving it at that? Seems to me the balloon he tried to float on this X thing has been popped. It'd be neat to see if he has more rational arguments than the ones so soundly beaten already in forums.

[jefito]

The birth of the app management tool was a godsend.

For me that 'godsend' came in the form of GigaBar &lt;...snip...> But back to topic; nothing made much sense before GigaBar. The plugin for GigaBar called GigaXOK was a piece of genius, a smart X/OK button which seemed always to know which was needed. Coupled with GigaBar's extensive tool set, this made managing a PPC with fewer soft resets a joy. I still feel a debt to Gene Knight for that program, even though I spent a great many hours testing versions of GigaBar and MOE for him. Miss that guy.

I used GigaBar for a long time too, certainly on the Casio E-115 that I had. Great app, the coolest actually, but eventually changes started dwindling away, and I moved on. Whatever did happen to Gene?

Where's Mike Calligaro in all this? He pops his head into the odd discussion of Microsoft's foibles, right? Or is he keeping low these days, just posting his apologetics in the blog and leaving it at that? Seems to me the balloon he tried to float on this X thing has been popped. It'd be neat to see if he has more rational arguments than the ones so soundly beaten already in forums.
Well, he certainly appears more in the comments to his blog post, replying to criticisms and other comments, and his replies are certainly worth reading, at least to me. Some nice information on why they might not even add Close functionality even if they decided it was a Good Thing. My take is that he is presenting the company's view (and he should if he's an employee), even if he disagrees (strong hints that he does disagree to some extent) while shedding light on some of their decision processes, design history, etc. All interesting to me at least, since I'm a software engineer by trade and find myself in a similar position when I go onto my company's forums and interact with customers who write in to criticize (constructively or not). Just because there's a company line doesn't mean that we all agree with it, but I *am* representing my company there, and I feel a duty to give my company its due.

I think his posts are good things -- he knows there are customer issues, and he's at least facing them directly; he knows he's not going to win many, f any, converts, and he could have just saved himself a lot of time and not posted at all.

[cbf]

Essentially everyone in this discussion, especially the Microsoft people has got this all wrong.

It's not about managing memory. It's about managing persistent state. There are two common models for managing persistent state, which for arguments sake I'll call the application loading model a la the desktop PC, and the PalmOS model. In the desktop PC model, the user has to understand concepts like starting and closing applications, and loading and saving application state (i.e. files -- think about loading and saving your work in Pocket Excel). In the PalmOS model, you just tap on the app (OK, imagine there's a Palm Excel) and it starts up -- exactly where you left it last time. If you need to switch to another application, you simply do so without so much as a thought about saving the state of your application, confident it will simply be there next time. You can have multiple Excel "files" in the PalmOS, and switch between them -- but you simply think about it as switching, not saving and loading.

Both are valid and consistent models, but in my opinion the PalmOS model is far simpler and better for most people, especially on a handheld device, where I may need to quickly suspend one app to start another (perhaps because I'm receicing a phone call). Of course, the Palm model puts more of a burden on the app developer to be able to quickly passivate an application, and once passivated, the application consumes zero resources. I claim this is actually an excellent discipline for app developers to have, but that's another large discussion.

The problem is that when Windows CE was originally implemented, it went with the explicit load &amp; save state model, which is too bad because the superior Palm model was already there to be copied. But then again, the WinCE API looks so much like a scaled down Windows that they probably felt they had no choice in making such a radical change to the predominant DOS/Windows paradigm.

But WinCE 1.0 and even 2.0 failed in the marketplace, and there was a lot of feedback that the devices were to "complicated" compared to Palm devices. One the results was that someone at Microsoft got the brilliant idea that they could "simplify" WinCE by making it seem more Palm-like by hiding the application close button.

The problem is that under the covers, WinCE apps are not designed the automatically passivate themselves. The result of not making it clear when apps are really closed (vs. just hanging around in the background) is confusion, poor performance, and loss of data. Very simply -- start up Excel. Do some work. Do not save the file (maybe you got a phone call on your device and forgot you had Excel in the background). Continue to use your device heavily for a while. Eventually WinCE will "manage memory for you" and close Excel. Poof your work is gone! This is a broken model. The user now has no idea when his in-memory copy of data is going to be randomly destroyed out from under -- something one needs to be acutely aware of in the load/save paradigm. (Would you hit the power button on your PC without saving your work? But your PocketPC goes to "sleep" all the time.)

Note that some applications -- like Pocket Outlook (or whatever it's called) really are Palm-like. There's no "loaded" file to save and there's no danger to closing them (you might lose your current position though). One of my favorite apps, Handmark Monopoly, is like this (because I think it was ported from Palm). But these are exceptions. The Palm *requires* all apps to be able to passivate, on PocketPC doing so goes against the normal system paradigm.

Someone in this post pointed out that the people who buy these devices have the technical understanding to know when to close their own apps. Quite right.

The kid at Microsoft making the argument about memory management is just trying to justify a decision he doesn't even understand -- probably made by someone who left the group years ago. (Disclaimer -- I am ex-Microsoft, but never the WinCE group.) It's time for Microsoft to give up on this and give us all a consistent way to manage the Load/Save model and stop trying to pretend that the OS really supports the Palm model when it doesn't and can't.

[Gerard]

Whatever did happen to Gene?
No idea. There were a couple of rumours about health, long ago, but I've nothing concrete to confirm nor deny that. He appeared once in a while, seemed to have sudden and strong attacks of GigaBar development fever, then would become impossible to contact again for months. He got GigaBar up to beta version 0.93, and took GigaPad (part of the GigaBar installation, and still the best Notepad out there, in my opinion) further in some versions he sent me - one allowing editing text files up to about 600KB. I've not heard a peep from him in over 3 years. Guess he's moved on.

GigaBar took a lot of flack from mainstream users. Many called it too complicated. Certainly not for the feint of heart in the configuration department, but it came with a pile of skins and schemes which offered dead simple operation and lots of options simple even for idiots. It was in the tweaking that things sometimes got confusing, for beginners. But as with WinCE/Pocket PC, as per this discussion of the 'X', even a little apparent complexity scares off a lot of people. It's similar across the North American culture. The majority do not want to read a manual, ever, period. In Japan, and some other places, it is exactly the opposite, with users of hardware or software frequently eager to read all the instructions before even cracking open the product. A developers dream!

But something in the water here makes it so that 'complicated' products such as GigaBar (freeware, so why all the complaints?!) or digital cameras or PDAs often spell support nightmares for the producers. I can't blame Gene for considering charging for GigaBar - he had the mechanism in place for online registration codes, but never charged a dime. He worked very hard making that program great, and GigaTask, StarTap and a few others besides.

[torgamm]

I've also been using Zapit forever. I don't know what I'd do if I lost it, because it doesn't seem to be available anywhere now.
I have had a copy for both MIPS (the older Casios and some other devices) and ARM (pretty much everything else, except the early HP Jornadas - I couldn't find an SH3 copy) on my webspace for a few years. It's no longer hosted by the developer, so I thought no harm having it available
I have a copy of the file too :
http://www.pocketpcfreeware.com/en/index.php?soft=101
(when a program has been tested by one of us, this reviewer usually keep a copy of the version he tested, so, when a site is down, just ask, we may make it available)

[Gerard]

I have a copy of the file too :
http://www.pocketpcfreeware.com/en/index.php?soft=101
(when a program has been tested by one of us, this reviewer usually keep a copy of the version he tested, so, when a site is down, just ask, we may make it available)

Thank you for that information Torgamm. One of my long-time favourite software sites too.

[pgh1969pa]

It bugs me when this is framed as as a “memory management” issue and try to make you choose between logical behavior (and ironically more memory) vs. no OS memory management at all.


Agreed...this old arguement is a false equivocation put out there to defend a pretty weak position on Microsoft's behalf. All or nothing...either or....but you can't have both.

I think these folks have made this arguement so long that they are not interested in a honest dialog but to just to keep repeating the same old line.

Truth be told...if I have multiple applications open and I'm running out of memory, I would like the OS to maintain the ability to kill some of them. I view this as a option of last resort. I would prefer to kill the ones I don't need before the OS kills the ones I do need.

[pgh1969pa]

Essentially everyone in this discussion, especially the Microsoft people has got this all wrong.


Did you ever concieve that maybe *you* got it all wrong? I *like* the ability to have multiple *active* applications running at the same time instead of...to use your terminology "passivate" them and switch between them. Please don't ask me to explain or justify why it is necessary for *my* use because I'm more than capable of doing so. Accept it and move on. This argument has been made time and time again and your attempt to rehash them leads this into a off-topic discussion of Palm vs WM memory management and true multitasking vs passivation;-)

If the Palm model works for you, great...but please don't come here and try to tell people they are "wrong" because they don't drink the same Kool-Aid as you. Just because you view the world thru a narrow prism doesn't confine the rest of us to that same fate.

Futhermore, I will provide you a "real world" example of why "passivation" does not work for me. During business travel, I may be in need of a particular service, business, or resturant while I'm away from my hotel. In the car I can fire up BT to connect to my phone, start my navigation software, and launch Internet explorer. While the navigation software is determining my location, I can connect to the Google. Using Internet Explorer/Multi IE, I can automatically extract my current coordinates into Google along with my desired search and then place the destination into my navigation software. I need to be able to run the GPS navigation software and Internet Explorer/Multi IE concurrently. "Passivation" will not allow the active navigation software while performing the internet search.

[Ed Hansberry]

Essentially everyone in this discussion, especially the Microsoft people has got this all wrong.


Did you ever concieve that maybe *you* got it all wrong? I *like* the ability to have multiple *active* applications running at the same time instead of...to use your terminology "passivate" them and switch between them. Please don't ask me to explain or justify why it is necessary for *my* use because I'm more than capable of doing so. Accept it and move on. This argument has been made time and time again and your attempt to rehash them leads this into a off-topic discussion of Palm vs WM memory management and true multitasking vs passivation;-)


I think the difference is, if close functionality was added to the "X" button (not mandated, but added), then we have a choice. I can close apps as I see fit and you can ignore the feature and never use it. With your method, I have no choice, other than to get a 3rd party app, and as I said, 3rd party apps that inject themselves into the UI like this can be problematic and unstable.

[davea0511]

What Mike is effectively saying is, you should not be allowed to manage your devices memory and car owners should not be allowed to change their own oil.

Hats off to HTC for giving the user what they want! :)
I couldn't have said it better myself.

What we need is an email campaign telling other device manufacturers to do the same. When all device manufacturers implement it as standard maybe then MS will allow us to manage our own memory ... just like car makers allow us to change our own oil.

[cbf]

Essentially everyone in this discussion, especially the Microsoft people has got this all wrong.


Did you ever concieve that maybe *you* got it all wrong? I *like* the ability to have multiple *active* applications running at the same time instead of...to use your terminology "passivate" them and switch between them. Please don't ask me to explain or justify why it is necessary for *my* use because I'm more than capable of doing so. Accept it and move on. This argument has been made time and time again and your attempt to rehash them leads this into a off-topic discussion of Palm vs WM memory management and true multitasking vs passivation;-)

If the Palm model works for you, great...but please don't come here and try to tell people they are "wrong" because they don't drink the same Kool-Aid as you. Just because you view the world thru a narrow prism doesn't confine the rest of us to that same fate.

Futhermore, I will provide you a "real world" example of why "passivation" does not work for me. During business travel, I may be in need of a particular service, business, or resturant while I'm away from my hotel. In the car I can fire up BT to connect to my phone, start my navigation software, and launch Internet explorer. While the navigation software is determining my location, I can connect to the Google. Using Internet Explorer/Multi IE, I can automatically extract my current coordinates into Google along with my desired search and then place the destination into my navigation software. I need to be able to run the GPS navigation software and Internet Explorer/Multi IE concurrently. "Passivation" will not allow the active navigation software while performing the internet search.

You obviously didn't understand my post, and you're quoting me out of context. I didn't say the load/save model for managing application was "wrong", I said labelling the discussion as a "memory management" issue was "wrong". It's really about the UI for managing persistent application state. How would you like it if by the time you switched back from getting your address information from Internet Explorer, your navigation application had been "closed" out from under you because the OS needed the resources? (Yes, this isn't too likely if you have enough memory, but the GPS app I run on my WM5 phone is pretty resource heavy, and if I've also got other apps going this could happen under the WM5 "memory management" scheme.)

You are defending Microsoft's decisision to not allow users to close applications on the grounds that you want to be able to quickly switch between applications. That makes no sense. Users of WinCE 1.0 could have more than one application active at the same time long before Microsoft removed the ability to manually close applications.

Yes, the old Palm OS couldn't support multiple processes running at once. This isn't the case with the current PalmOS (a Treo doesn't hang up the phone if you switch to another app to do something else), but that's beside the point. The essence of what I'm saying is that application state can be managed with explicit saves and loads. This is no way implies that only one application can be "active" (the confusion here is mostly from the fact that pocket devices don't typically have the screen real-estate to make it practical to have two applications *displaying* at once).

I'm simply saying that there is an alternative UI paradigm that relies on persistent state rather than saved and loaded files. Think Microsoft Outlook vs. Microsoft Word. When you start Outlook up, you don't "load" your email file, and you don't need to save it on exit. Extend this paradigm to Word. You'd still have a "new" command to create a new document, and you could have an unlimited number of named documents, but you never have to "save" them. You could "close" them -- but that would just mean they're not on the screen anymore. Effectively you'd always be editing in place. You no longer have to think about starting and stopping Word. You'd only think about looking at a particular document vs. not looking at a particular document. Note that none of this has to do with the OS's ability or inability to run simultaneous processes.

Also, please don't lecture me about "narrow prisms" when you don't even understand what I'm saying. There are very few systems out there since CTSS that I haven't used or studied.