Quake 3 is not way off...

[Moose or Chuck]

Let's see if my title has changed yet? I doubt it.

[Moose or Chuck]

righ?? yea i believe i agree with dan, the PPC world is getting to diverse. I hate to say it but the Palms have us up on that aspect. One version of one game will play on almost any version of a palm which could never happen here. I believe microsoft needs to start trying to get ppc manu.'s to start using standard processors, and or basic hardware, sure u can make the mem different the screen res. different get a faster or slower cpu , just the same chipset itself so they use the same instructions...

[Jaybot]

Hmmm.. I read that Pocket Linux (which sucks right now, I know) is able to be hardware independent ,not OS wise, but supposedly any piece of software that can run on pocket linux on an SH3 should be able to run on MIPS or ARM etc. without using a sepesrate compiler... can that be true?  If so, why couldn't win ce, implement something like that, since it seems to be an OS specific trait.

[Dan East]

Windows provides the same layer of hardware abstraction. A programmer never directly accesses the hardware. However, when it comes to accessing the display, no programmer wants their game to have to use the Operating System as the middle-man, which wastes a lot of time displaying the game screen. Thus Microsoft provided the Game API for Pocket PC, which gives direct access to the display buffer. The problem writing software for the various types of devices is simply the idiosyncrasies found between the hardware of the various devices. In truth, Microsoft has done a very good job, especially when you consider how vastly different each Pocket PC is (entirely different processors, etc). These same problems will plague Linux as well. I would say there are a large number of Linux applications that compile and run fine under Sun Workstations, but not under Intel X86 machines.<br>So, in short, the device-specific problems we've encountered with Quake have nothing to do with windows, but with the different compilers used for each device, and the way the direct screen access is handled by the hardware.<br><br>Dan East

[Dan East]

Oh, I didn't completely answer your first post. It's called Java. It's also called "5 times slower than applications compiled natively for the Pocket PC hardware".<br><br>Dan East

[David R.]

I got a reply to an e-mail i sent to that company, here's the response:<br><br><br>The graphics chip you are referring to is a joint development between ARM<br>and Imagination Technologies and is called MBX.  Here is the web address for<br>the release.<br>http://www.powervr.co.uk/PressReleases/2001/IMGAndARMAnnounceNewProcessorFor<br>MobileAndCommunications.htm<br><br>We will not be involved in the final implementation of a mobile device as we<br>would supply the processor and graphics engine only so cannot comment on<br>upgrade options but I believe this would be highly unlikely.<br><br>Susi<br>-------------------------------------------------<br>Susi Barrett<br>Vice President Communications<br>PowerVR Technologies, Ensigma Technologies, Metagence Technologies and<br>VideoLogic Systems are all divisions of Imagination Technologies<br>Tel: +44 1923 277353<br>Fax: +44 1923 270188<br>Email: susi.barrett@imgtec.com<br><br>

[Paul]

[Moose or Chuck]

well mister video logic u are depressing me and i believe that i will now kill myself since i DON'T have a stupid ARM device.

[SonicSilicon]

The worst part is that only the StrongARM prcoessor has built in support for graphics processors. Since that's true my 64-bit MIPS based E-105 should do dual processing of the 32-bit Windows CE. But no. Instead I get even slower processing. >:(