Mmmmmmm me want

[adolescent]

Trev wrote:

Microsoft, in its zeal to get Windows Mobile onto as many phones as possible, is left with a phone OS that no one wants to use, and more importantly, one that developers don’t want to code for. Developers, who have long been getting chump change for their apps, are starting to see that they can make quite a bit of money developing programs for rival platforms such as the iPhone. Compounding the problem is the sheer number of devices that run Windows Mobile. If I’m a coder who wants to develop for Windows Mobile, which phone specs will I be using when I sit down and try to hash out some code? Will the phone have an acceleromator? Will it have a touchscreen? How big will the screen even be?! The questions are endless, and the headaches for developers numerous.

Agreed.  As I've said about 5 times in this thread so far, developers really need to know their target (unless you're doing J2ME stuff but even then you still need to know what JSRs are supported).  

Anyway, iPod/iPhone developers aren't immune to this either (albiet to a lesser scale because of the devices infancy); GPS or no GPS?  FPU or no FPU?  CPU speed?  To make matters worse, AFAIK there is nothing in the SDK that allows you to determine device capabilities.  There's probably an undocumented API call somewhere, but we know how Apple likes developers using undocumented features.  :lol:

[adolescent]

Trev wrote:
I wasn't trying to say that they needed to know their target platform (which in this case is Windows Mobile and not the hardware itself, although having to compile for multiple CPUs does complicate performance analysis)--that's a given. What I was I trying to imply is that programmers need to be smarter than that.

See AmigaHeretic's message above.  Windows Mobile only supports a single CPU (family).  

Extending the GPS reference a bit, you don't write GPS code, you write location awareness code and let the operating environment worry about how the location is determined (GPS, cell tower triangulation, WiFi hotspot database, user input, etc.). It's unfair to blame the platform for your own design mistakes.

Not blaming the platform, I was only using the example of how the devices do not have the same performance and/or functionality.  That is, the iPod Touch uses Core Location very differently than any of the iPhones due to it's lack of GPS and GSM.  

The main point is that these gaps are only going to get bigger as new iPhone/iPod models are released.  Perhaps a new iPhone will have a better bluetooth profile, increased resolution, etc.  The criticism that Windows Mobile was difficult to develop for simply because there are so many varying devices available is likely to affect the iPhone/iPod too.

[adolescent]

@Trev

You're probably mixing up Windows Embedded Compact (previously known as Windows CE) with Windows Mobile.  Windows Mobile is based on Windows CE, but is ARM (family) only.

[adolescent]

bloodline wrote:

Trev wrote:
@AmigaHeretic

Yes, but that's just battery wasting eye candy.

Well if it's eye candy he wants the iPhone has far more impressive suff that 3D task switching :-D

If there is one thing he can't deny is that the iPhone has plenty of eye candy!

So what is the answer?  Yes?  No?  Or, the iPhone has "more impressive" battery wasting eye candy?   :roll:

[adolescent]

Trev wrote:
@adolescent

Which is why I said Microsoft must be getting stingy with their SKUs. The compiler itself still supports the various architectures. Microsoft must have decided not to sell Windows Mobile 6.x for anything than ARM (and probably x86 for testing).

That's because the compiler is for any Windows Embedded Compact device, not just Windows Mobile.  AFAIK, Windows Mobile has been ARM only from the beginning.  Not stingy... standard.