On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 05:51:05PM -0400, Alexey Zaparovanny wrote:
> > 3. They still haven't really solved the multiple processor
problem. You have to create a different executable for each device to
make it all work.
> Universal (CPU independent) CEF format for executables is planned to be
> released in SP1 as far as I know.
Apple had to do the same thing, so they have fat executables. Aptly
named. Now your CE handheld that already has EXEs over 5x the size of
a palm EXE will bloat more... Having multiple processors on desktops
are bad enough (Linux runs on multiple platforms, but there are few
apps that will run without recompiling, and those that do are
interpreted). On a PDA handheld where portability is key is stupid.
Apple at least picked a superset processor (you can emulate an entire
68k easily in PPC space, and you can do a good job of x86 in 68k
space, but the embedded risc processors? No way, so they will require
unique object for each processor - do they handle endianness
gracefully?).
M$ hasn't figured out that people don't want to develop Windows
applications everywhere, especially not on a desktop. So it is easy
to develop Windows CE apps with VC++? So what? I don't want to port
my desktop program. It is better than a DOS CLI paradigm but still
the wrong one.
And VC++ is also really stupid for multiple processors. The answer
here is Java (can you say cross-platform? Not if your initials are
BG, at least not if they can't engage in proprietary pollution of the
language). Python, maybe, or even perl, but I don't expect it.
> > 4. The OS is still a pain to work with. There is no easy way to close an
> > application you have running (you have to open up a task switcher to
> > close it).
> I do not see how it is different from the palm. You have to press
> application launcher button and it CLOSES your application (Annoying
> thing some times since most apps loose temporary data). Microsoft
> just SWITCHES focus from your application. It took me 5 minutes to
> figure out how to switch and how to really close application.
> Compaq gives nice utility for IPaq to manage applications any way.
Switching focus (on a CE) still keeps all the system resources
allocated by the app being suspended busy. So you will eventually run
out of memory if you switch but don't close apps.
The Palm "zen" is to save your state and let go of everything. So one
small dynamic heap suffices for ALL applications.
CE devices need several times the memory and processor power to
accomplish the same things because they are (still) trying to shoehorn
a desktop bloatware OS onto a handheld.
> My thought that there is going to be tons of application
> switchers/closers soon.
To join the thousands of other existing CE applications? Don't hold
your breath. Unless you really like the hourglass cursor.
Maybe when I can X/Active/Direct/whateverSync it to my iMac.
The iPaq is really nice, but expensive and for a little more you can
get a REAL laptop with real keyboard and disk drive, and you can run
the uncrippled M$ applications on it. The iPaq is caught in the
middle - apps too complex for a handheld, but still not full versions
of the Desktop apps.
(Actually I am interested in the hardware because it is a Linux
platform, so that opens up a lot of different possibilities).
It is a swipe at the IIIc, but I think Palm can drop prices if it
comes to that (and would have if it was already a real threat). I'd
love to know the different profit margins on each. The iPaq has a lot
of complex fiddly advanced (read: expensive) hardware and has to pay a
M$ tax for the OS. The IIIc is a pager sans wireless on steroids.
> I forgot to mention really nice and lightweight Database engine.
> I mean engine that actually operates with fields and records instead of
> memory blocks.
You are merely confusing terminology here. A "Palm Database" is what
most people would think of as a file on a ramdisk.
--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see
http://www.palmos.com/dev/tech/support/forums/
