what is the best obfuscator to buy

Discussion in 'Microsoft Dot NET Compact Framework' started by Guest, Jun 10, 2004.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    If I want an obfuscator that works with .Net CF and for Web Services which one should I buy?

    thanks,

    p
     
    Guest, Jun 10, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. picnic <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > If I want an obfuscator that works with .Net CF and for Web Services which one should I buy?
    >
    > thanks,
    >
    > p


    You may want to consider our Decompiler.NET product to meet your
    obfuscation needs. It is the only product whose obfuscated output can
    be recompiled or relinked and debugged. It is also much easier to use
    since it requires no configuration of exception cases like most of the
    competitive products. You can download a free trial version of the
    product from http://www.junglecreatures.com/ to see how well it meets
    your needs. It will work fine with .NET CF and Web Services code as
    well as COM Interop and Windows API calls. We bundle together full
    obfuscation capability and superior decompilation technology at a
    price lower than comparable competitive obfuscator products alone and
    provide free updates and far better support than any of our
    competitors.

    Jonathan Pierce
    President
    Jungle Creatures, Inc.
    http://www.junglecreatures.com/
     
    Jonathan Pierce, Jun 10, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    Alan Morgan Guest

    Demeanor from WiseOwl is the best managed code obfuscator (it is used by
    Reflector).

    Remotesoft has a tool for translating your code into unmanaged code which is
    more secure but comes with lots of issues (size increases, redistributing MS
    binaries, exposing a managed API)

    These two have been around for a while and work pretty well.
    Most of the new obfuscator products that claim to be cheaper are quite buggy
    and/or incomplete.



    "picnic" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > If I want an obfuscator that works with .Net CF and for Web Services which

    one should I buy?
    >
    > thanks,
    >
    > p
     
    Alan Morgan, Jun 13, 2004
    #3
  4. Guest

    Alan Morgan Guest

    >It is the only product whose obfuscated output can be recompiled or
    relinked and debugged.

    Wouldn't that be a reason to not even consider that product?
    An obfuscator is supposed to obfuscate my code, not to make it possible to
    decompile and recompile it?
     
    Alan Morgan, Jun 13, 2004
    #4
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Thanks for the replies so far.

    Does Demeanor also do the Compact Framework, I've had a look on the web site and could see no mention on it?


    picnic

    "Alan Morgan" wrote:

    > Demeanor from WiseOwl is the best managed code obfuscator (it is used by
    > Reflector).
    >
    > Remotesoft has a tool for translating your code into unmanaged code which is
    > more secure but comes with lots of issues (size increases, redistributing MS
    > binaries, exposing a managed API)
    >
    > These two have been around for a while and work pretty well.
    > Most of the new obfuscator products that claim to be cheaper are quite buggy
    > and/or incomplete.
    >
    >
    >
    > "picnic" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > If I want an obfuscator that works with .Net CF and for Web Services which

    > one should I buy?
    > >
    > > thanks,
    > >
    > > p

    >
    >
    >
     
    Guest, Jun 13, 2004
    #5
  6. Guest

    Alan Morgan Guest

    It should work on Compact Framework assemblies. You might want to verify
    this with the author.

    "picnic" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Thanks for the replies so far.
    >
    > Does Demeanor also do the Compact Framework, I've had a look on the web

    site and could see no mention on it?
    >
    >
    > picnic
    >
    > "Alan Morgan" wrote:
    >
    > > Demeanor from WiseOwl is the best managed code obfuscator (it is used by
    > > Reflector).
    > >
    > > Remotesoft has a tool for translating your code into unmanaged code

    which is
    > > more secure but comes with lots of issues (size increases,

    redistributing MS
    > > binaries, exposing a managed API)
    > >
    > > These two have been around for a while and work pretty well.
    > > Most of the new obfuscator products that claim to be cheaper are quite

    buggy
    > > and/or incomplete.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "picnic" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > >
    > > > If I want an obfuscator that works with .Net CF and for Web Services

    which
    > > one should I buy?
    > > >
    > > > thanks,
    > > >
    > > > p

    > >
    > >
    > >
     
    Alan Morgan, Jun 14, 2004
    #6
  7. > > These two have been around for a while and work pretty well.
    > > Most of the new obfuscator products that claim to be cheaper are quite buggy
    > > and/or incomplete.


    This is an absolutely unfounded statement and you would be wise to do
    your own evaluation. Our obfuscator is new, less expensive, more
    powerful, easier to configure, and there have been no bugs reported
    regarding obfuscation. In addition, we obfuscate our product with
    itself each time we ship it so any bugs would prevent the product from
    working at all. This is strong evidence that it works extremely well,
    and our customers are extremely happy with it. The best way to
    determine whether our claims are accurate is to try out our product
    yourself and compare it to our competitor's products by downloading
    our free trial version. We also provide support to our customers for
    free with free upgrades, and are far more responsive than our
    competitors. We also bundle both full obfuscation and full
    decompilation in a single product priced lower than either feature
    available from comparable competitors. Please download our trial
    version of Decompiler.NET and evaluate it yourself from
    http://www.junglecreatures.com/

    We will be happy to respond to any issues that you encouter using the
    product. Please attempt to keep these discussions based on facts and
    real examples, rather than unfounded opinions and inaccurate claims
    that interfere with developers interested in accurate information in
    order to make correct choices.

    Jonathan Pierce
    President
    Jungle Creatures, Inc.
    http://www.junglecreatures.com/
     
    Jonathan Pierce, Jun 16, 2004
    #7
  8. Jonathan Pierce <> wrote:
    > > > These two have been around for a while and work pretty well.
    > > > Most of the new obfuscator products that claim to be cheaper are
    > > > quite buffy and/or incomplete.

    >
    > This is an absolutely unfounded statement and you would be wise to do
    > your own evaluation. Our obfuscator is new, less expensive, more
    > powerful, easier to configure, and there have been no bugs reported
    > regarding obfuscation. In addition, we obfuscate our product with
    > itself each time we ship it so any bugs would prevent the product from
    > working at all.


    No - only bugs that affected obfuscation of your code would prevent the
    product from working at all, and not necessarily all of those bugs
    even. (If it incorrectly obfuscated a particular error case which had
    never cropped up, the bug in obfuscation wouldn't have been seen yet.)

    > This is strong evidence that it works extremely well


    Well, it's evidence that it works on your own code.

    > and our customers are extremely happy with it.


    That's certainly more convincing, as it'll cover a wider code base.

    > We will be happy to respond to any issues that you encouter using the
    > product. Please attempt to keep these discussions based on facts and
    > real examples, rather than unfounded opinions and inaccurate claims
    > that interfere with developers interested in accurate information in
    > order to make correct choices.


    Inaccurate claims such as the implied, "It works with our code
    therefore there can't be any bugs"?

    Note that no specific claims were made about *your* obfuscator in the
    passage you quoted - only about *most* new obfuscator products.

    --
    Jon Skeet - <>
    http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
    If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
     
    Jon Skeet [C# MVP], Jun 16, 2004
    #8
  9. Guest

    a Guest

    I was looking at your tool using ildasm and the obfuscated code in
    launcher.exe looks nice. However, one thing I noticed is that it seems to
    include an obfuscated version of #ziplib in every DLL to read compressed
    resource files?? The reason I'm asking: #ziplib comes with a GPL license
    with link exceptions. In my interpretation this says that any software which
    uses your tool could be claimed to be GPL as well?

    "Jonathan Pierce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > > These two have been around for a while and work pretty well.
    > > > Most of the new obfuscator products that claim to be cheaper are quite

    buggy
    > > > and/or incomplete.

    >
    > This is an absolutely unfounded statement and you would be wise to do
    > your own evaluation. Our obfuscator is new, less expensive, more
    > powerful, easier to configure, and there have been no bugs reported
    > regarding obfuscation. In addition, we obfuscate our product with
    > itself each time we ship it so any bugs would prevent the product from
    > working at all. This is strong evidence that it works extremely well,
    > and our customers are extremely happy with it. The best way to
    > determine whether our claims are accurate is to try out our product
    > yourself and compare it to our competitor's products by downloading
    > our free trial version. We also provide support to our customers for
    > free with free upgrades, and are far more responsive than our
    > competitors. We also bundle both full obfuscation and full
    > decompilation in a single product priced lower than either feature
    > available from comparable competitors. Please download our trial
    > version of Decompiler.NET and evaluate it yourself from
    > http://www.junglecreatures.com/
    >
    > We will be happy to respond to any issues that you encouter using the
    > product. Please attempt to keep these discussions based on facts and
    > real examples, rather than unfounded opinions and inaccurate claims
    > that interfere with developers interested in accurate information in
    > order to make correct choices.
    >
    > Jonathan Pierce
    > President
    > Jungle Creatures, Inc.
    > http://www.junglecreatures.com/
     
    a, Jun 17, 2004
    #9
  10. "a" <> wrote in message news:<#>...
    > I was looking at your tool using ildasm and the obfuscated code in
    > launcher.exe looks nice. However, one thing I noticed is that it seems to
    > include an obfuscated version of #ziplib in every DLL to read compressed
    > resource files?? The reason I'm asking: #ziplib comes with a GPL license
    > with link exceptions. In my interpretation this says that any software which
    > uses your tool could be claimed to be GPL as well?
    >


    The generic lauhcher code is inserted by our Deploy.NET tool which
    loads the main obfuscated app from an embedded compressed obfuscated
    resource. The Decompiler.NET product itself doesn't use compression.
    We do use our Decompiler.NET product to obfuscate the loader code used
    by Deploy.NET. We are removing the compression code and posting a new
    version in the next few days since the compression code isn't really
    needed by either product. We may add back compression in our loader
    when 2.0 ships using System.IO.Compression.GZipStream.

    Jonathan
     
    Jonathan Pierce, Jun 17, 2004
    #10
  11. "a" <> wrote in message news:<#>...
    > I was looking at your tool using ildasm and the obfuscated code in
    > launcher.exe looks nice. However, one thing I noticed is that it seems to
    > include an obfuscated version of #ziplib in every DLL to read compressed
    > resource files?? The reason I'm asking: #ziplib comes with a GPL license
    > with link exceptions. In my interpretation this says that any software which
    > uses your tool could be claimed to be GPL as well?
    >


    Thank you again for your compliments regarding our obfuscation
    technology, and for alerting us to your licensing concerns.

    To alleviate any further licensing concerns, we have removed all use
    and reference to the #ZipLib product including binary usage from all
    of our products and posted updated versions to our website.

    We no longer have any requirement to link or redistribute this library
    in any form in any of our products and have posted updated versions of
    all of our products so that they no longer reference the #ZipLib
    library in any form. Feel free to download the new versions and verify
    this statement.

    Users of older versions of our Decompiler.NET product would not be
    affected anyway since the Decompiler.NET product itself has never used
    #ZipLib in any form at any time other than the loader module inserted
    by older versions of our Deploy.NET product. This includes code
    generation, obfuscation, and runtime of user generated code.

    We appreciate your alerting us to your concerns.

    Best Regards,

    Jonathan Pierce
    President
    Jungle Creatures, Inc.
    http://www.junglecreatures.com/
     
    Jonathan Pierce, Jun 17, 2004
    #11
  12. "a" <> wrote in message news:<#>...
    > I was looking at your tool using ildasm and the obfuscated code in
    > launcher.exe looks nice. However, one thing I noticed is that it seems to
    > include an obfuscated version of #ziplib in every DLL to read compressed
    > resource files?? The reason I'm asking: #ziplib comes with a GPL license
    > with link exceptions. In my interpretation this says that any software which
    > uses your tool could be claimed to be GPL as well?
    >


    Thank you again for your compliments regarding our obfuscation
    technology, and for alerting us to your licensing concerns.

    To alleviate any further licensing concerns, we have removed all use
    and reference to the #ZipLib product including binary usage from all
    of our products and posted updated versions to our website.

    We no longer have any requirement to link or redistribute this library
    in any form in any of our products and have posted updated versions of
    all of our products so that they no longer reference the #ZipLib
    library in any form. Feel free to download the new versions and verify
    this statement.

    Users of older versions of our Decompiler.NET product would not be
    affected anyway since the Decompiler.NET product itself has never used
    #ZipLib in any form at any time other than the loader module inserted
    by older versions of our Deploy.NET product. This includes code
    generation, obfuscation, and runtime of user generated code.

    We appreciate your alerting us to your concerns.

    Best Regards,

    Jonathan Pierce
    President
    Jungle Creatures, Inc.
    http://www.junglecreatures.com/
     
    Jonathan Pierce, Jun 17, 2004
    #12
  13. a <> wrote:
    > I was looking at your tool using ildasm and the obfuscated code in
    > launcher.exe looks nice. However, one thing I noticed is that it seems to
    > include an obfuscated version of #ziplib in every DLL to read compressed
    > resource files?? The reason I'm asking: #ziplib comes with a GPL license
    > with link exceptions. In my interpretation this says that any software which
    > uses your tool could be claimed to be GPL as well?


    I believe that even if the obfuscator were GPL'd, files it produced
    normally wouldn't be. (For instance, files compiled with gcc aren't
    automatically GPL'd.)

    In this case, I don't believe the obfuscator's use of #ZipLib would
    affect anything, as it's covered by the exceptions.

    --
    Jon Skeet - <>
    http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
    If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
     
    Jon Skeet [C# MVP], Jun 17, 2004
    #13
  14. Guest

    a Guest

    Good to know, basically anybody using Deploy.NET is affected by this?

    When are you going to release the source code for the pervious version of
    Decompiler.net?


    "Jonathan Pierce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "a" <> wrote in message

    news:<#>...
    > > I was looking at your tool using ildasm and the obfuscated code in
    > > launcher.exe looks nice. However, one thing I noticed is that it seems

    to
    > > include an obfuscated version of #ziplib in every DLL to read compressed
    > > resource files?? The reason I'm asking: #ziplib comes with a GPL license
    > > with link exceptions. In my interpretation this says that any software

    which
    > > uses your tool could be claimed to be GPL as well?
    > >

    >
    > Thank you again for your compliments regarding our obfuscation
    > technology, and for alerting us to your licensing concerns.
    >
    > To alleviate any further licensing concerns, we have removed all use
    > and reference to the #ZipLib product including binary usage from all
    > of our products and posted updated versions to our website.
    >
    > We no longer have any requirement to link or redistribute this library
    > in any form in any of our products and have posted updated versions of
    > all of our products so that they no longer reference the #ZipLib
    > library in any form. Feel free to download the new versions and verify
    > this statement.
    >
    > Users of older versions of our Decompiler.NET product would not be
    > affected anyway since the Decompiler.NET product itself has never used
    > #ZipLib in any form at any time other than the loader module inserted
    > by older versions of our Deploy.NET product. This includes code
    > generation, obfuscation, and runtime of user generated code.
    >
    > We appreciate your alerting us to your concerns.
    >
    > Best Regards,
    >
    > Jonathan Pierce
    > President
    > Jungle Creatures, Inc.
    > http://www.junglecreatures.com/
     
    a, Jun 17, 2004
    #14
  15. Guest

    a Guest

    The scenario is different from gcc. They included a copy of #ziplib in every
    obfuscated assembly. So it is not only decompiler.net being affected by the
    link license but all the deploy.net obfuscated assemblies as well.

    I'm probably correct on this since it took them just a few hours to remove
    the #ziplib dependency. The impact this could have on their customers is
    quite scary.


    "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > a <> wrote:
    > > I was looking at your tool using ildasm and the obfuscated code in
    > > launcher.exe looks nice. However, one thing I noticed is that it seems

    to
    > > include an obfuscated version of #ziplib in every DLL to read compressed
    > > resource files?? The reason I'm asking: #ziplib comes with a GPL license
    > > with link exceptions. In my interpretation this says that any software

    which
    > > uses your tool could be claimed to be GPL as well?

    >
    > I believe that even if the obfuscator were GPL'd, files it produced
    > normally wouldn't be. (For instance, files compiled with gcc aren't
    > automatically GPL'd.)
    >
    > In this case, I don't believe the obfuscator's use of #ZipLib would
    > affect anything, as it's covered by the exceptions.
    >
    > --
    > Jon Skeet - <>
    > http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
    > If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
     
    a, Jun 17, 2004
    #15
  16. a <> wrote:
    > The scenario is different from gcc. They included a copy of #ziplib in every
    > obfuscated assembly. So it is not only decompiler.net being affected by the
    > link license but all the deploy.net obfuscated assemblies as well.


    Ah, I see. Sorry to misunderstand.

    > I'm probably correct on this since it took them just a few hours to remove
    > the #ziplib dependency. The impact this could have on their customers is
    > quite scary.


    I don't think so - surely the obfuscated assemblies would still be only
    linking to #ZipLib anyway, which is allowed by the licence.

    --
    Jon Skeet - <>
    http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
    If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
     
    Jon Skeet [C# MVP], Jun 17, 2004
    #16
  17. I don't think the GPL applied even to his earlier version, so I can see no
    reason he should release the source. See Jon Skeet's comments above.

    --
    Chris Tacke, eMVP
    Co-Founder and Advisory Board Member
    www.OpenNETCF.org
    ---
    ---
    Principal Partner
    OpenNETCF Consulting
    www.OpenNETCF.com



    "a" <> wrote in message news:...
    > Good to know, basically anybody using Deploy.NET is affected by this?
    >
    > When are you going to release the source code for the pervious version of
    > Decompiler.net?
    >
    >
    > "Jonathan Pierce" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > "a" <> wrote in message

    > news:<#>...
    > > > I was looking at your tool using ildasm and the obfuscated code in
    > > > launcher.exe looks nice. However, one thing I noticed is that it seems

    > to
    > > > include an obfuscated version of #ziplib in every DLL to read

    compressed
    > > > resource files?? The reason I'm asking: #ziplib comes with a GPL

    license
    > > > with link exceptions. In my interpretation this says that any software

    > which
    > > > uses your tool could be claimed to be GPL as well?
    > > >

    > >
    > > Thank you again for your compliments regarding our obfuscation
    > > technology, and for alerting us to your licensing concerns.
    > >
    > > To alleviate any further licensing concerns, we have removed all use
    > > and reference to the #ZipLib product including binary usage from all
    > > of our products and posted updated versions to our website.
    > >
    > > We no longer have any requirement to link or redistribute this library
    > > in any form in any of our products and have posted updated versions of
    > > all of our products so that they no longer reference the #ZipLib
    > > library in any form. Feel free to download the new versions and verify
    > > this statement.
    > >
    > > Users of older versions of our Decompiler.NET product would not be
    > > affected anyway since the Decompiler.NET product itself has never used
    > > #ZipLib in any form at any time other than the loader module inserted
    > > by older versions of our Deploy.NET product. This includes code
    > > generation, obfuscation, and runtime of user generated code.
    > >
    > > We appreciate your alerting us to your concerns.
    > >
    > > Best Regards,
    > >
    > > Jonathan Pierce
    > > President
    > > Jungle Creatures, Inc.
    > > http://www.junglecreatures.com/

    >
    >
     
    Chris Tacke, eMVP, Jun 17, 2004
    #17
  18. "a" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > The scenario is different from gcc. They included a copy of #ziplib in every
    > obfuscated assembly. So it is not only decompiler.net being affected by the
    > link license but all the deploy.net obfuscated assemblies as well.
    >
    > I'm probably correct on this since it took them just a few hours to remove
    > the #ziplib dependency. The impact this could have on their customers is
    > quite scary.
    >
    >

    Let me repeat that the Decompiler.NET product never used #ZipLib in
    any form. The Decompiler.NET product itself does not use any
    compression technology itself or for any code that it produces as
    output, obfuscated or not. Older versions were packages within a
    seperate obfuscated loader application for distribution that did use a
    binary version of #ZipLib consistent with it's license.

    You are arguing that if you use a GPL based installer or loader, than
    any program that it installs would be GPL as well. The license does
    not require this - See Jon Skeet's comments above. The Decompiler.NET
    application itself and other applications packaged with the Deploy.NET
    loader are treated as data by the loader and are not directly linked,
    but instead are launched in a seperate external process. The loader
    just serves to decrypt the packaged applications and launch them as
    seperate processes in memory. The loader source code is also fully
    obfuscated prior to being compiled so it's source would not be
    readable to anyone anyway. The loader application is a completely
    seperate application that dynamically loads the Decompiler.NET
    application which does not directly or dynamically link the #ZipLib
    assembly.

    We decided to remove the #Ziplib binary assembly from our loader
    distribution application to avoid further licensing discussions, since
    the loader itself didn't really require any compression technology. We
    could have repackaged our distribution to include the binary version
    of #ZipLib as a seperate file but wanted our distribution to be
    packaged as a single file with embedded resources. I don't think the
    license mentions anything regarding packaging of the binary version of
    the #ZipLib anyway, so we probably could have just included the
    unmodified binary version of it directly as an embedded resource.

    As far as Deploy.NET is concerned, so far we have only used it
    internally and shipped it in evaluation form so none of our customers
    have used it for distributing any of their products. Our updated
    loader does not reference #ZipLib at all although we still would be
    permitted to include the binary version of #ZipLib with our loader
    distribution produced by Deploy.NET, possibly even as an embedded
    resource. We decided that it wasn't really needed by the product
    anyway, and distributing a seperate file would be contradictory to the
    intended use of the product which is to package multiple dlls in a
    single file. A seperate file distribution of the #ZipLib DLL would be
    inconsistent with the product's design. The #ZipLib only served to
    reduce the file size of the distributed loader application with it's
    embedded dynamically linked sub-applications. We may add back
    compression support using System.IO.Compression.GZipStream when
    Whidbey ships but none of our products really require it.

    In general, the license is not intended to propagate from programs
    that package or manipulate other programs as data to these other
    programs which are not directly linked.

    I'm not sure whether the same would be true about using the ILMerge
    tool with GPL assemblies since it merges assemblies into a new dll
    that directly links them.
    Jonathan
     
    Jonathan Pierce, Jun 18, 2004
    #18
  19. Jon Skeet [C# MVP] <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > a <> wrote:
    > > The scenario is different from gcc. They included a copy of #ziplib in every
    > > obfuscated assembly. So it is not only decompiler.net being affected by the
    > > link license but all the deploy.net obfuscated assemblies as well.

    >
    > Ah, I see. Sorry to misunderstand.
    >
    > > I'm probably correct on this since it took them just a few hours to remove
    > > the #ziplib dependency. The impact this could have on their customers is
    > > quite scary.

    >
    > I don't think so - surely the obfuscated assemblies would still be only
    > linking to #ZipLib anyway, which is allowed by the licence.


    Jon,

    Thanks for the support and clarifying this issue.

    Decompiler.NET does not produce obfuscated assemblies, it produces
    obfuscated code that you recompile. String literals and other data
    used by your source code are encrypted, but are not compressed and the
    generated obfuscated code does not use #ZipLib in any form.
    Decompliler.NET also does not use #ZipLib or any compression
    technology in any form at any time. The binary version of #ZipLib was
    only used for the distribution of the Decompiler.NET application, not
    by the application itself or any compiled assemblies that you process
    with it.

    Jonathan
     
    Jonathan Pierce, Jun 18, 2004
    #19
  20. Jonathan Pierce <> wrote:

    <snip>

    > I'm not sure whether the same would be true about using the ILMerge
    > tool with GPL assemblies since it merges assemblies into a new dll
    > that directly links them.


    That would certainly be a significantly stickier situation.

    I'm sure you were fine as you were - but I can quite see how removing
    #ZipLib entirely pre-empts further questions :)

    --
    Jon Skeet - <>
    http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
    If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
     
    Jon Skeet [C# MVP], Jun 18, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. amy

    which pocket PC device to buy

    amy, Nov 21, 2003, in forum: Microsoft Dot NET Compact Framework
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    154
    Jonathan Wells [msft]
    Nov 21, 2003
  2. Al Ponomarev
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    232
    Al Ponomarev
    Dec 28, 2003
  3. Al Ponomarev
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    241
    Al Ponomarev
    May 3, 2004
  4. Morten Wennevik

    Which phone to buy?

    Morten Wennevik, Nov 19, 2005, in forum: Microsoft Dot NET Compact Framework
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    181
    Daniel Moth
    Nov 19, 2005
  5. Tomppa

    Managed SerialPort class fails buy HyperTerm and msCom.ocx works

    Tomppa, Aug 12, 2006, in forum: Microsoft Dot NET Compact Framework
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    336
    Dick Grier
    Aug 12, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page