I read a comment during the Chat this afternoon that Version 2 of the
Compact Framework will only run on Windows Mobile 2003 devices or future
versions of the Windows Mobile OS and that it will not run on existing older
PPC 2000 and 2002 devices like the current version of the CF does.

Is this for technical or strategic reasons?

If it is a strategic decision, personally I think it poor one.

I assume the reason is technical. The 2003 devices run CE 4.2, which is more
performant than CE 3 which is the basis for PPC2000 and PPC2002.
--
Ginny Caughey
..Net Compact Framework MVP

"www.mobidogs.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:uH5D$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I read a comment during the Chat this afternoon that Version 2 of the
> Compact Framework will only run on Windows Mobile 2003 devices or future
> versions of the Windows Mobile OS and that it will not run on existing
older
> PPC 2000 and 2002 devices like the current version of the CF does.
>
> Is this for technical or strategic reasons?
>
> If it is a strategic decision, personally I think it poor one.
>
>

Seems like a shame to rule out millions of devices that would make a great
low end user base of devices simply because they might end up being slower.

Performance doesn't cut it in my books as a technical reason to limit our
target audience even more.

The Palm guys still get a lot of mileage out of claiming the numbers of
devices they have in the market, even though most of them are only a little
more performant that a calculator.

"Ginny Caughey [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> I assume the reason is technical. The 2003 devices run CE 4.2, which is
more
> performant than CE 3 which is the basis for PPC2000 and PPC2002.
> --
> Ginny Caughey
> .Net Compact Framework MVP
>
> "www.mobidogs.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:uH5D$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I read a comment during the Chat this afternoon that Version 2 of the
> > Compact Framework will only run on Windows Mobile 2003 devices or future
> > versions of the Windows Mobile OS and that it will not run on existing
> older
> > PPC 2000 and 2002 devices like the current version of the CF does.
> >
> > Is this for technical or strategic reasons?
> >
> > If it is a strategic decision, personally I think it poor one.
> >
> >
>
>

on the other hand you could do as many company does.
restrain your development to CF.NET 1 functionalities for a long while

"www.mobidogs.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:uH5D$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I read a comment during the Chat this afternoon that Version 2 of the
> Compact Framework will only run on Windows Mobile 2003 devices or future
> versions of the Windows Mobile OS and that it will not run on existing
older
> PPC 2000 and 2002 devices like the current version of the CF does.
>
> Is this for technical or strategic reasons?
>
> If it is a strategic decision, personally I think it poor one.
>
>

My guess is that it's using something introduced in CE 4.2 (which *is* quite
different than 3.0 under the hood) and backward compatibility of 2+ years on
a PDA probably isn't viewed as being worth the work for early OS support.

-Chris

"www.mobidogs.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> Seems like a shame to rule out millions of devices that would make a great
> low end user base of devices simply because they might end up being
slower.
>
> Performance doesn't cut it in my books as a technical reason to limit our
> target audience even more.
>
> The Palm guys still get a lot of mileage out of claiming the numbers of
> devices they have in the market, even though most of them are only a
little
> more performant that a calculator.
>
> "Ginny Caughey [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message
> news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I assume the reason is technical. The 2003 devices run CE 4.2, which is
> more
> > performant than CE 3 which is the basis for PPC2000 and PPC2002.
> > --
> > Ginny Caughey
> > .Net Compact Framework MVP
> >
> > "www.mobidogs.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:uH5D$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > I read a comment during the Chat this afternoon that Version 2 of the
> > > Compact Framework will only run on Windows Mobile 2003 devices or
future
> > > versions of the Windows Mobile OS and that it will not run on existing
> > older
> > > PPC 2000 and 2002 devices like the current version of the CF does.
> > >
> > > Is this for technical or strategic reasons?
> > >
> > > If it is a strategic decision, personally I think it poor one.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

As a "Palm guy" and a ".Net guy" I can tell you that Palm has been
impressive in working with their developers to allow for backward
compatibility. They have made it relatively simple to support all OS's from
Palm OS 3.0 up to the latest Cobalt OS using a single SDK. Palm OS devices
are far from calculators. I think both devices have their strong points and
weak points.

Jamie
"www.mobidogs.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Seems like a shame to rule out millions of devices that would make a great
> low end user base of devices simply because they might end up being
slower.
>
> Performance doesn't cut it in my books as a technical reason to limit our
> target audience even more.
>
> The Palm guys still get a lot of mileage out of claiming the numbers of
> devices they have in the market, even though most of them are only a
little
> more performant that a calculator.
>
> "Ginny Caughey [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message
> news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I assume the reason is technical. The 2003 devices run CE 4.2, which is
> more
> > performant than CE 3 which is the basis for PPC2000 and PPC2002.
> > --
> > Ginny Caughey
> > .Net Compact Framework MVP
> >
> > "www.mobidogs.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:uH5D$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > I read a comment during the Chat this afternoon that Version 2 of the
> > > Compact Framework will only run on Windows Mobile 2003 devices or
future
> > > versions of the Windows Mobile OS and that it will not run on existing
> > older
> > > PPC 2000 and 2002 devices like the current version of the CF does.
> > >
> > > Is this for technical or strategic reasons?
> > >
> > > If it is a strategic decision, personally I think it poor one.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

I guess this is certainly worth considering, especially when you take into
account that the carriers all seem very reluctant to allow for easy and
timely upgrades of either the OS or the CF for platforms like the
smartphone.

It just seems a shame that it would mean holding off on both the new
features of the CF and VS, not to mention missing out on the benefit of all
the little fixes to annoying things like how many of the controls do not
expose keystrokes and the like.

"Lloyd Dupont" <net.galador@ld> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> on the other hand you could do as many company does.
> restrain your development to CF.NET 1 functionalities for a long while
>
> "www.mobidogs.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:uH5D$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I read a comment during the Chat this afternoon that Version 2 of the
> > Compact Framework will only run on Windows Mobile 2003 devices or future
> > versions of the Windows Mobile OS and that it will not run on existing
> older
> > PPC 2000 and 2002 devices like the current version of the CF does.
> >
> > Is this for technical or strategic reasons?
> >
> > If it is a strategic decision, personally I think it poor one.
> >
> >
>
>

I agree, I would like to see CF .Net as a single robust development path
that allows us to target the broadest number of CE based devices as
possible. Selling mobile apps is a numbers game and it would be nice to see
better numbers.

My intention was not to knock Palm devices or "Palm guys" with the
calculator performance remark. However, you must admit that there are an
awful lot of low end Palm devices out there that do not have the processing
power of even the oldest Pocket PC or any Mobile Device SmartPhone
available. Those many millions of cheap, old-generation-processor palm
devices (that would not be capable of running even CF v1) certainly make up
a significant part of the claimed user base of Palm.

"Jamie Macleod" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:#nqU#(E-Mail Removed)...
> As a "Palm guy" and a ".Net guy" I can tell you that Palm has been
> impressive in working with their developers to allow for backward
> compatibility. They have made it relatively simple to support all OS's
from
> Palm OS 3.0 up to the latest Cobalt OS using a single SDK. Palm OS
devices
> are far from calculators. I think both devices have their strong points
and
> weak points.
>
> Jamie
> "www.mobidogs.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Seems like a shame to rule out millions of devices that would make a
great
> > low end user base of devices simply because they might end up being
> slower.
> >
> > Performance doesn't cut it in my books as a technical reason to limit
our
> > target audience even more.
> >
> > The Palm guys still get a lot of mileage out of claiming the numbers of
> > devices they have in the market, even though most of them are only a
> little
> > more performant that a calculator.
> >
> > "Ginny Caughey [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> message
> > news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > I assume the reason is technical. The 2003 devices run CE 4.2, which
is
> > more
> > > performant than CE 3 which is the basis for PPC2000 and PPC2002.
> > > --
> > > Ginny Caughey
> > > .Net Compact Framework MVP
> > >
> > > "www.mobidogs.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:uH5D$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > I read a comment during the Chat this afternoon that Version 2 of
the
> > > > Compact Framework will only run on Windows Mobile 2003 devices or
> future
> > > > versions of the Windows Mobile OS and that it will not run on
existing
> > > older
> > > > PPC 2000 and 2002 devices like the current version of the CF does.
> > > >
> > > > Is this for technical or strategic reasons?
> > > >
> > > > If it is a strategic decision, personally I think it poor one.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

As someone told before, WM 2003 hasn't brought 'much' to the user
experience, but with the new core on a similar shell, the performance on
similar hardware based on XScale is much better than with PPC2002.

I'm sure you don't think that CF shouldn't take this way just because older
hardware won't support it. Besides the comercial side from the companies who
manufacture PDAs, this is what we ask everyday: more, more, more!

Alberto Silva

"www.mobidogs.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:O0rvGr%(E-Mail Removed)...
> I guess this is certainly worth considering, especially when you take into
> account that the carriers all seem very reluctant to allow for easy and
> timely upgrades of either the OS or the CF for platforms like the

> My guess is that it's using something introduced in CE 4.2 (which *is*
quite
> different than 3.0 under the hood) and backward compatibility of 2+ years
on
> a PDA probably isn't viewed as being worth the work for early OS support.

Chris,

See, I see that as a strategic decision. "isn't viewed as being worth
the work".
Sure, there are limited resources on the mobility dev team (also a strategic
decision in my books), so if the extra work involved to support CE 3.0
(Pocket PC only) were to take up so much time as to cripple the efforts on
CF 2.0 it would then be a resourcing question more than a technical one.
However, they did accomplish the task of supporting CF V1 on CE 3.0 (Pocket
PC only) already, I would expect that CF V2 is an evolution of CF V1 and
would have expected them to build on there previous progress.

>
> -Chris
>
> "www.mobidogs.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Seems like a shame to rule out millions of devices that would make a
great
> > low end user base of devices simply because they might end up being
> slower.
> >
> > Performance doesn't cut it in my books as a technical reason to limit
our
> > target audience even more.
> >
> > The Palm guys still get a lot of mileage out of claiming the numbers of
> > devices they have in the market, even though most of them are only a
> little
> > more performant that a calculator.
> >
> > "Ginny Caughey [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> message
> > news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > I assume the reason is technical. The 2003 devices run CE 4.2, which
is
> > more
> > > performant than CE 3 which is the basis for PPC2000 and PPC2002.
> > > --
> > > Ginny Caughey
> > > .Net Compact Framework MVP
> > >
> > > "www.mobidogs.com" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:uH5D$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > I read a comment during the Chat this afternoon that Version 2 of
the
> > > > Compact Framework will only run on Windows Mobile 2003 devices or
> future
> > > > versions of the Windows Mobile OS and that it will not run on
existing
> > > older
> > > > PPC 2000 and 2002 devices like the current version of the CF does.
> > > >
> > > > Is this for technical or strategic reasons?
> > > >
> > > > If it is a strategic decision, personally I think it poor one.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>