by Dan East » Apr 13, 2001 @ 5:09am
Well, let me throw my opinion in here. I think some of the statements made here have been off the mark. <br><br>I've been writing CE software since 1997 (Windows CE 1.0). There have been 4 major releases since then (1.0, 2.0, 2.11 and 3.0). Each of these represented a large, positive improvement from the previous version. Basically, new functionality was added in each version, providing greater support for the Windows API and other standard libraries (such as ANSI C standard I/O routines), as well as adding support for physically different devices (going from 480x240 Handheld, to 240x320 Palm-sized devices, to 800x600 and larger tablets and desktop machines).<br>Windows 3.0 (Pocket PC) brought by far the largest changes, particularly with the shell and windowing environment. Microsoft greatly simplified the windowing system and tuned it for the smaller screen of a pocket pc, and IMO they did so too much to a fault (for example, all dialogs are full screen, and have a single OK button to close the window. What if you make a mistake changing a setting, and want to Cancel? You can't.). They were just trying to make the gui simpler and more Palm-like. Nobody is going to take 5 years to write a new OS for a new platform, and then say "Here it is. It is perfect. We will never improve this OS." Yeah, that would be a good thing.<br><br>Same thing with the hardware. I still have Windows CE 1.0 devices. They are slow (33 mhz), have a 4 greyscale screen, 4 MB RAM, and run about an hour before the batteries are dead. That was the best hardware that could be produced in a commercially viable way in 1997. That was only four years ago. Oh, I guess they should have spent 5 years developing the hardware and said "Here it is. It is perfect. We will never improve this hardware." Yeah, that would be a good thing. Do you drive a Ford Model-T?<br><br>As for the "simpler is better" spiel; I am absolutely so sick of hearing that it isn't even funny. I look at Palm OS in one way; take the cheapest, late 80's / early 90's hardware that can be mass produced extremely inexpensively (because there is nothing cutting-edge about it). Weak hardware requires a weak, simplistic OS. Thus the Palm OS is the way it is out of necessity. This is evidenced with the color Palm device. Who would actually buy that underpowered "enhanced gameboy" over a Casio EM-500? You've got to be kidding me. <br><br>Just what are these "Cool" worthless Pocket PC features people keep referring to?<br><br>A screen with far higher resolution that allows for more information to be viewed at one time more clearly?<br><br>Multitasking capability, allowing many programs to be executed simultaneously?<br><br>More memory, to store much more software, user data, and allow the execution of large, non-trivial applications?<br><br>Portable versions of the word processor and spread sheet software used most on desktop machines?<br><br>The ability to pop harddrives, modems, ethernet cards, wireless networking, memory cards, and other standardized expansion cards into the device?<br><br>Hardware capable of playing MP3s and full-screen, full-motion video?<br><br>The production of hardware by several diverse companies, creating a competitive market that has produced truly cutting edge, distinct hardware in a variety of flavors giving the customers a real choice?<br><br>Yeah, the lack of all of those capabilities absolutely makes Palm infinitely better than Pocket PCs. You totally convinced me with that less is better argument. I'm going to throw my Dell Inspiron laptop in the trash and start using a 10 digit calculator. No, make that a slide rule.<br><br>If we were talking about anything else here, cars, homes, desktop computers, microwaves, DVD players, VCRs, whatever, the "Mine is better than yours because it does so much less" argument would be totally idiotic. Surprise, surpise, it is in this case too. Palm 1) got a head start in the pocket computing market, and 2) brainwashed a huge number of people into thinking that less capability is better. Boy, what a scam. I'm going to start selling rocks for pets, just because they sit there and do absolutely nothing. I'm sure millions of people would buy them. Oh yeah, that's already been done. My point; Palm Pilots are the Pet Rocks of the portable computing world. Enough people don't know better, or just can't afford the newer technology.<br><br>Dan East<br><br>Last modification: Dan East - 04/13/01 at 02:09:08
Great news about Windows CE 4.0
So what do they expect?<br><br>As for the ROM upgrade, that's up to the OEM and not Microsoft. If you were really serious about upgrading ROMs, then you should've went with an iPaq, as its ROM can be flashed via software without requiring any actual physical modification.<br><br>The Casio E-115 is the exact same device as the E-105, it just has the CE 3.0 ROM. So Casio could have made a ROM upgrade available to E-105 owners (at absolutely no effort on Casio's part). I may be wrong, but to my knowledge no such upgrade was ever offered. That demonstration of a lack of concern for their older devices does not bode well for Casio owners.<br><br>Dan East