Windows Mobile 2004 and .NET Compact Framework v 2.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kevin Daly
  • Start date Start date
K

Kevin Daly

Does anybody know whether Microsoft will definitely be releasing .NET CF v 2
as part of Windows Mobile 2004 (or whatever it ends up being called), or
whether they're going to release WM 2004 with CF v1 and rely on the OEMs to
upgrade the ROMs later (i.e. on their current form, never)?

I'm sleepy now so I'll point you to
http://dotnetjunkies.com/weblog/kevdaly/posts/6432.aspx where I ask this
question in slightly more detail (and with extra angst...)
 
Compact Framework v2.0 will debut alongside the Whidbey version of Visual
Studio later this year. No announcements have been announced regarding the
exact featureset of Windows Mobile v.Next though some details were announced
at PDC. I would expect more information will be released during MDC 2004 in
March (http://www.microsoftmdc.com).

Peter
 
Kevin,

I haven't seen any specific announcments about the timing of releases of WM
2004 and CF v. 2. Of course it would be nice if things work out that way,
but there's always the possiblity of service patches (such as we've had with
CF v.1) that would require updating whatever version of the Compact
Framework is on the device in any case.
 
I do understand this of course.
My point is partly that the process of applying patches to the CF where it
is installed by default in ROM is currently profoundly unsatisfactory, since
you are forced to install the patch in RAM, masking out the ROM version,
since the OEMs have shown absolutely zero interest in incorporating the SPs
in a ROM update (to be fair, the CF v.1 has been something of a work in
progress as regards service packs, but the same behaviour with regard to the
much more stable [in terms of code base] but recently critically patched
Reader and Messenger looks like a pattern). It's possible that this is a
Microsoft issue rather than an OEM issue, but either way it is incentive for
releasing a fully-tested and feature-complete version of CF 2 as part of WM
2004, thereby preventing anyone who purchases the latter (or machines with
it pre-installed) from finding themselves waiting for a ROM upgrade that is
unlikely to appear within any of our lifetimes.

I'm sorry about the whiney tone of these posts: I have a lot of enthusiasm
for the technology, I've seen what it can do (and mused on what it *could*
do, if only...), I've attended the PDC presentations and come away very
positive about the future.

It's just that in my humble (OK, slightly humble. -ish) opinion, releasing
WM 2004 without CF v.2 would be like releasing Longhorn without WinFX (OK,
the latter would not actually be possible so I'm exaggerating slightly, but
you see what I mean).
Aside from the frustrations I've already mentioned in relation to installing
upgrades in RAM, it would also slow the uptake of CF v.2 once it arrived to
a trickle, since there would not be a large installed base for applications
to target. And yes know we could always include the redistributable, but as
I think everyone knows that's likely to encounter much more user nervousness
and resistance.
 
Kevin,

I do understand what you're saying, and I'm sure every effort will be made
to have everything working right together. But at least upgrading the .NetCF
to a new version is something that customers can do themselves. Upgrading to
a new version of the OS can be much more of a pain since it requires
cooperation from the OEM.
--
Ginny Caughey
..Net Compact Framework MVP

Kevin Daly said:
I do understand this of course.
My point is partly that the process of applying patches to the CF where it
is installed by default in ROM is currently profoundly unsatisfactory, since
you are forced to install the patch in RAM, masking out the ROM version,
since the OEMs have shown absolutely zero interest in incorporating the SPs
in a ROM update (to be fair, the CF v.1 has been something of a work in
progress as regards service packs, but the same behaviour with regard to the
much more stable [in terms of code base] but recently critically patched
Reader and Messenger looks like a pattern). It's possible that this is a
Microsoft issue rather than an OEM issue, but either way it is incentive for
releasing a fully-tested and feature-complete version of CF 2 as part of WM
2004, thereby preventing anyone who purchases the latter (or machines with
it pre-installed) from finding themselves waiting for a ROM upgrade that is
unlikely to appear within any of our lifetimes.

I'm sorry about the whiney tone of these posts: I have a lot of enthusiasm
for the technology, I've seen what it can do (and mused on what it *could*
do, if only...), I've attended the PDC presentations and come away very
positive about the future.

It's just that in my humble (OK, slightly humble. -ish) opinion, releasing
WM 2004 without CF v.2 would be like releasing Longhorn without WinFX (OK,
the latter would not actually be possible so I'm exaggerating slightly, but
you see what I mean).
Aside from the frustrations I've already mentioned in relation to installing
upgrades in RAM, it would also slow the uptake of CF v.2 once it arrived to
a trickle, since there would not be a large installed base for applications
to target. And yes know we could always include the redistributable, but as
I think everyone knows that's likely to encounter much more user nervousness
and resistance.





Kevin,

I haven't seen any specific announcments about the timing of releases
Click to expand...
of
WM
2004 and CF v. 2. Of course it would be nice if things work out that way,
but there's always the possiblity of service patches (such as we've had with
CF v.1) that would require updating whatever version of the Compact
Framework is on the device in any case.
Click to expand...
CF
v OEMs
to
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
More info at VS Live in Bill's keynote speach.
"...Gates will also present more detail on Visual Studio "Whidbey", as
well as development for mobile devices."
 
Back
Top