Ah good point.... And I think CE 3.0 and above support massive disks....?
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Dave <[email protected]> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Stevens >> Sent: 20 December 2010 20:37 >> To: Ian King >> Cc: [email protected]; Gregg Levine >> Subject: Re: [Simh] SIMH on Windows CE >> >> >> NT Lite would be .. nice.. then again just look at NT 4.0 and >> it's perfect for embedded space, it's so TINY by modern >> requirements.... > > Yes but MT4 lacks USB support... > >> >> What always bothered me about CE is that the x86 cpu is so... >> second class, I know it was going to be a brave new RISC >> world, but wow is building x86 exe's outside of Platform >> Builder such a PITA.... Like in this project I'm hoping to >> 'borrow' nethack's windows console, and it's taken me all day >> to get an x86 version.... Then again it could be me too.... >> Funny how the x86emu wouldnt build on embeded VC 4, but it >> does on 3.... Oh well. >> >> I'm just glad I didn't toss my 2.11 stuff, it's been a lifesaver! >> >> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Ian King <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Jason Stevens [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:30 AM >> >> To: Gregg Levine >> >> Cc: [email protected]; Ian King >> >> Subject: Re: [Simh] SIMH on Windows CE >> >> >> >> The MS pages really vary wildly in quality, the 'tech' >> stuff seems to >> >> miss major details, and the blog stuff seems include major >> details in >> >> passing... >> >> >> >> Luckily for me this site, hpcfactor >> (http://www.hpcfactor.com/) has a >> >> lot of the old VC toolkits for CE.. which has been a >> massive help. I >> >> just hate how MS pretends old products never existed... But at the >> >> same time, I'm kind of liking the setup... I must be >> weird, I guess. >> >> >> > >> > You think MS is bad? Try HP.... >> > >> > I was the test manager for the Windows CE core in the 4.2 and 5.0 >> > days. Even between those two releases there were breaking changes >> > that typically required app code changes. No, it wasn't signed >> > packages or anything like that, just lots of API changes. That was >> > also the early days of the .Net Compact Framework as it was >> called, so >> > "managed code" was just coming into vogue as 5.0 was shipping. >> > >> > Since then, they've completely restructured the kernel - >> essentially >> > "NT Lite." I have no idea how that impacted product development in >> > the environment (I left Microsoft in 2008). But it can't be good. >> > :-) >> > >> > There was also a lot of confusion and conflict as to the purpose of >> > CE. By the 5.0 timeframe, the "smart phone" folks thought >> they were >> > the only customer and all development should focus on making them >> > happy (even though they had not a clue just what they wanted or >> > needed). Sad, really: there were a lot of folks who worked hard to >> > make a good embedded (soft) real-time OS that was >> subsequently hacked >> > into a series of geeky toys that existed primarily to sell >> more copies >> > of Windows. >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Simh mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh >> > > _______________________________________________ Simh mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
