Wow! Did I start all this? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I really don't know what .NET is exactly (and neither do any of the programmers that I've asked), but in the last decade of developing embedded products, we have had to interface to MS desktop devices, and our experiences have been "interesting". For example: USB. In 1998 (our first USB project) we wrote device drivers for Win'98 to talk to the embedded medical device that we designed. Based on MS's recommendations, we wrote for the WDM model instead of the Win'95 style drivers because "drivers written to the WDM spec will be compatible with future MS OSes" (read Win2k) So, we did as MS recommended, and sure enough, when Win2k came out NOTHING WORKED! MS changed the driver model (just a bit ... but a bit incompatible means nothing works). Fortunately, we got paid by our client to modify the device drivers (and the App) to operate correctly with Win2k. But we've come to expect that every new version of MS OS on the desktop will be incompatible with the previous ones. And they have to be ... they've created an HUGE industry of programmers and books and courses and instructional videos and certification all based on the fact that Windows is a moving target. Their entire business model is based on obsoleting next year what they sell this year. It creates demand. And consumers seem to like it (like body piercing, maybe?). But for embedded devices this can be a problem. So, will the embedded versions be any different? When you FINALLY get that .NET device working and loading APPs from the enterprise system, will it continue to load apps in a year from now from a system running the new Windows XYZ? My guess is that it will, but only after you Update your embedded device's OS with the latest version of embedded .NET that is out. (and send some cash to Redmond) And MS isn't the only one doing this. I'll be VERY happy when the Linux device driver model settles down. Sure, my programmers insist that 2.4 was a big improvement over 2.2 but will we have to redo everything again for 3.0? I may be in the minority, but I really favor stability over flashiness, and version interopability over features. I'd be much happier with MS if they'd just fix the stuff they shipped instead of coming out with a ton of new features that I'll never use, and breaking some of the code that used to be stable along the way. Maybe I'm just too old for this game ......... but I'd use ANY OS if they just promised not to change it for a few years! Brian PS: Did you hear about the TRUE embedded OS from MS ... it runs in only 600k of RAM ... its called Windows 3.0 !!! --friar wrote: > > Roger Gonzalez said: > >It just frustrates me to read such obviously incorrect M$ bashing. I mean, > >there are SO many REAL reasons to bash 'em! I'm not going to be a M$ > >apologist, but the core of .Net is actually pretty interesting. > > > >I'm fairly non-partisan these days - I have four Linux boxes in my house, > >and I use a dual-monitor W2K setup as my front end (the monitors are held up > >with a Dec Alpha and a Sparc IPX -- sad, but buying genuine monitor stands > >from Staples was going to cost me more than what I could get for hocking my > >ancient workstations on eBay!) and am seriously considering getting > >something to run OS-X. I do multiplatform C++ and I've done Java in the > >past (a bunch of my friends worked in the Java group at Sun), and if I've > >learned anything in my career, its that sucky software transcends all > >borders. :-) > > > >-Roger > > I have to grudgingly agree with this. I work in a primarily WinCE based > handheld software shop where most of our future strategy is targeted > toward .NET. So far, from my studies, .NET is not simply a repackaging > of M$'s pseudo-Java. > > Now, for some hearsay based (but hopefully better) M$ bashing... ;) > > I have yet to actually work with the .NET visual studio, but from what my > coworkers who have worked with it are saying, I'm under the impression > that the "CE.NET" implementation does NOT include many of the objects and > behaviors that the desktop 2K/XP/etc .NET provides. (Note: I am not sure > if they are working with the final "release" version, so things may still > change for the better) Basically this means that the M$ write-once, > run-anywhere-that-is-a-M$-OS propaganda isn't actually true. > > I'll give M$ a point or two for improving on some of Java's rougher edges, > but so far all I'm hearing are horror stories about .NET's handheld > implementation. Which, to me, means that the whole thing is still > typical M$ smoke and mirrors. > > --friar > -- Subscription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of "subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" toWear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.blu.org Please, *PLEASE* don't subscribe through a forward/expander/false domain
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail