[Simh] SIMH on Windows CE

[Jason Stevens]

Ah good point.... And I think CE 3.0 and above support massive disks....?

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Dave <dave.g4ugm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: simh-bounces at trailing-edge.com
>> [mailto:simh-bounces at trailing-edge.com] On Behalf Of Jason Stevens
>> Sent: 20 December 2010 20:37
>> To: Ian King
>> Cc: simh at trailing-edge.com; Gregg Levine
>> Subject: Re: [Simh] SIMH on Windows CE
>>
>>
>> NT Lite would be .. nice.. then again just look at NT 4.0 and
>> it's perfect for embedded space, it's so TINY by modern
>> requirements....
>
> Yes but MT4 lacks USB support...
>
>>
>> What always bothered me about CE is that the x86 cpu is so...
>> second class, I know it was going to be a brave new RISC
>> world, but wow is building x86 exe's outside of Platform
>> Builder such a PITA.... Like in this project I'm hoping to
>> 'borrow' nethack's windows console, and it's taken me all day
>> to get an x86 version.... Then again it could be me too....
>> Funny how the x86emu wouldnt build on embeded VC 4, but it
>> does on 3.... Oh well.
>>
>> I'm just glad I didn't toss my 2.11 stuff, it's been a lifesaver!
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Ian King <IanK at vulcan.com> wrote:
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Jason Stevens [mailto:neozeed at gmail.com]
>> >> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:30 AM
>> >> To: Gregg Levine
>> >> Cc: simh at trailing-edge.com; Ian King
>> >> Subject: Re: [Simh] SIMH on Windows CE
>> >>
>> >> The MS pages really vary wildly in quality, the 'tech'
>> stuff seems to
>> >> miss major details, and the blog stuff seems include major
>> details in
>> >> passing...
>> >>
>> >> Luckily for me this site, hpcfactor
>> (http://www.hpcfactor.com/) has a
>> >> lot of the old VC toolkits for CE.. which has been a
>> massive help.  I
>> >> just hate how MS pretends old products never existed... But at the
>> >> same time, I'm kind of liking the setup... I must be
>> weird, I guess.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You think MS is bad?  Try HP....
>> >
>> > I was the test manager for the Windows CE core in the 4.2 and 5.0
>> > days.  Even between those two releases there were breaking changes
>> > that typically required app code changes.  No, it wasn't signed
>> > packages or anything like that, just lots of API changes.  That was
>> > also the early days of the .Net Compact Framework as it was
>> called, so
>> > "managed code" was just coming into vogue as 5.0 was shipping.
>> >
>> > Since then, they've completely restructured the kernel -
>> essentially
>> > "NT Lite."  I have no idea how that impacted product development in
>> > the environment (I left Microsoft in 2008).  But it can't be good.
>> > :-)
>> >
>> > There was also a lot of confusion and conflict as to the purpose of
>> > CE.  By the 5.0 timeframe, the "smart phone" folks thought
>> they were
>> > the only customer and all development should focus on making them
>> > happy (even though they had not a clue just what they wanted or
>> > needed).  Sad, really: there were a lot of folks who worked hard to
>> > make a good embedded (soft) real-time OS that was
>> subsequently hacked
>> > into a series of geeky toys that existed primarily to sell
>> more copies
>> > of Windows.
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Simh mailing list
>> Simh at trailing-edge.com
>> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
>>
>
>