Compact Framework cab files for Pocket PC 2002 and Pocket PC 2003

[Asheesh]

Hi All,

I'm a bit confused here. I'd appreciate if some body could clarify my
doubts.

In the setup package I'm preparing, I'm including SP1 of CF. I've targeted
my application for ARM based processors.

For this the SP1 setup includes 2 cab files for ARM processors

1) netcf.core.ppc3.ARM
2) netcf.all.wce4.ARMV4

The first one is intended for Pocket PC2002 and 2000 devices, while the
latter one is for WM2003.
However, if I install netcf.core.ppc3.ARM to my WM2003 device, it installs
smoothly.
Though I do receive overwriting messages, but after pressing Yes to All, it
installs fine.

My application also executes fine.
My doubts are

1) Should I use the netcf.core.ppc3.ARM file for my WM2003 devices or do I
use the other one?

2) How come the cab file meant for WinCE3.0 devices get installed on WM2003
devices?

3) does installing netcf.Core.ppc3.ARM on WM2003 leads to any performance
issue or is it the same as with PPC2002?

Please help
Regards,
Asheesh

 

[Maarten Struys]

Just thinking loud. I noticed the same in the PPC 2003 emulator when I
accidentally installed the netcf.core.ppc3.X86 instead of netcf.all.wce4.X86
version of SP1. It is my guess that, even though the ppc3 version installs
and seems to run correct, the wce4 version should run with better
performance. First of all because this version of the SP is targetted to
Windows CE.NET 4.2 devices, but also because it might contain specific ARMV4
instructions. In my opinion the ppc3 version runs just as PPC 2002 apps
might run on PPC 2003, the other way around will definitely not work I
guess. I realize this is not a real "intellectual" and knowledge based
answer, but until somebody else reacts it is at least my experience and
thoughts .

 

[Asheesh]

Thanks a lot, Maarten. You're right about the fact that SP1 files meant for
PPC2003 definitely doesn't work in PPC2002 device.
But this is quite strange that there ain't any error message when ppc3 SP1
file is installed on PPC2003.
Also, there might be some performance benefits, but to me these doesn't seem
much.

I tested my app by installing the wce4 file onWM2003 device, but I couldn't
see any noticeable change performance wise.
You're right that since wce4 file is meant for WinCE.NET devices, there
ought to be a performance gain.
I'd really appreciate if any of the Microsoft guys answer this query.

Regards,
Asheesh

 

[Brian Chamberlain [MS]]

The ability to specify the processor that a CAB file targets (and doesn't
target) has always been a feature of the WinCE CAB format. The ability to
target a particular platform (PocketPC,WinCE,Smartphone), however, was only
recently added.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

--------------------
| From: "Asheesh" <[email protected]>
| References: <#[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
| Subject: Re: Compact Framework cab files for Pocket PC 2002 and Pocket PC
2003
| Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:28:51 +0530
| Lines: 86
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
| Message-ID: <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.compactframework
| NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.190.131.70
| Path: cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
| Xref: cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl
microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.compactframework:32155
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.compactframework
|
| Thanks a lot, Maarten. You're right about the fact that SP1 files meant
for
| PPC2003 definitely doesn't work in PPC2002 device.
| But this is quite strange that there ain't any error message when ppc3 SP1
| file is installed on PPC2003.
| Also, there might be some performance benefits, but to me these doesn't
seem
| much.
|
| I tested my app by installing the wce4 file onWM2003 device, but I
couldn't
| see any noticeable change performance wise.
| You're right that since wce4 file is meant for WinCE.NET devices, there
| ought to be a performance gain.
| I'd really appreciate if any of the Microsoft guys answer this query.
|
| Regards,
| Asheesh
| | > Just thinking loud. I noticed the same in the PPC 2003 emulator when I
| > accidentally installed the netcf.core.ppc3.X86 instead of
| netcf.all.wce4.X86
| > version of SP1. It is my guess that, even though the ppc3 version
installs
| > and seems to run correct, the wce4 version should run with better
| > performance. First of all because this version of the SP is targetted to
| > Windows CE.NET 4.2 devices, but also because it might contain specific
| ARMV4
| > instructions. In my opinion the ppc3 version runs just as PPC 2002 apps
| > might run on PPC 2003, the other way around will definitely not work I
| > guess. I realize this is not a real "intellectual" and knowledge based
| > answer, but until somebody else reacts it is at least my experience and
| > thoughts .
| >
| > --
| > Regards,
| >
| > Maarten Struys
| > PTS Software bv
| > ----
| > | > > Hi All,
| > >
| > > I'm a bit confused here. I'd appreciate if some body could clarify my
| > > doubts.
| > >
| > > In the setup package I'm preparing, I'm including SP1 of CF. I've
| targeted
| > > my application for ARM based processors.
| > >
| > > For this the SP1 setup includes 2 cab files for ARM processors
| > >
| > > 1) netcf.core.ppc3.ARM
| > > 2) netcf.all.wce4.ARMV4
| > >
| > > The first one is intended for Pocket PC2002 and 2000 devices, while
the
| > > latter one is for WM2003.
| > > However, if I install netcf.core.ppc3.ARM to my WM2003 device, it
| installs
| > > smoothly.
| > > Though I do receive overwriting messages, but after pressing Yes to
All,
| > it
| > > installs fine.
| > >
| > > My application also executes fine.
| > > My doubts are
| > >
| > > 1) Should I use the netcf.core.ppc3.ARM file for my WM2003 devices or
do
| I
| > > use the other one?
| > >
| > > 2) How come the cab file meant for WinCE3.0 devices get installed on
| > WM2003
| > > devices?
| > >
| > > 3) does installing netcf.Core.ppc3.ARM on WM2003 leads to any
| performance
| > > issue or is it the same as with PPC2002?
| > >
| > > Please help
| > > Regards,
| > > Asheesh
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
|
|
|