Question about Symbol MC1000 and compact framework 2.0

[Mitch Wheat]

Hi

Is anyone successfully using CF 2.0 SP1 (or 2) on a Symbol MC1000
(running Windows CE 4.2) ?

Regards,
Mitch

 

[Guest]

It's definitely a supported scenario.

 

[Mitch]

Hi Chris

Everything I've read points to that being the case, but I can't get
cgautil.exe to run even after installing to RAM after a cold boot. When I try
to run it, it says "cgautil is not a valid Windows CE application"

I must be missing something obvious somewhere!

 

[Mitch]

sorry I meant to say after installing the Compact Framework 2.0 SP1 (or
indede SP2)...

 

[Guest]

What CAB file did you install?

 

[Mitch Wheat]

Hi Chris

I've tried several!

From cold boot I installed this one:
C:\Program Files\Microsoft.NET\SDK\CompactFramework\v2.0\WindowsCE
\wce400\x86\NETCFv2.wce4.x86.cab and cgautil.exe won't run (as
above)

I tried the updates from the Symbol site but they end in a .pkg
extension which the device does not recognise.

I know I'm doing something wrong here. There does not seem to be any
definitive advice on how to upgrade a MC1000 to CF 2.0 SP1 (or 2)
anywhere on teh Symbol site.

Regards,
Mitch

 

[Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]]

Well, unless I'm missing something, x86 is *not* the processor type on that
device. Don't all of Symbols devices have ARM processors in them?

Paul T.

Hi Chris

I've tried several!

From cold boot I installed this one:
C:\Program Files\Microsoft.NET\SDK\CompactFramework\v2.0\WindowsCE
\wce400\x86\NETCFv2.wce4.x86.cab and cgautil.exe won't run (as
above)

I tried the updates from the Symbol site but they end in a .pkg
extension which the device does not recognise.

I know I'm doing something wrong here. There does not seem to be any
definitive advice on how to upgrade a MC1000 to CF 2.0 SP1 (or 2)
anywhere on teh Symbol site.

Regards,
Mitch

 

[Mitch Wheat]

Thank you Paul!

I'm an idiot! I saw the processor listed as "Intel XScale PXA 320MHz"
and assumed (wrongly) that was x86. I can't recall seeing anything on
the Symbol site that makes this clear.

Regards,
Mitch