.NET Compact Framework; Past, Present and Future (Follow Up)

re: .NET Compact Framework; Past, Present & Future (Follow Up)

Daniel Moth — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:41:00 GMT

> ASP.NET is huge feature, and would consume most of my team for a major release.
It would also probably double the amount of your "users" (ok, developers using the NETCF)

> I'm surprised that no one beat me up for the difficulty of doing cross-process calls.
I would, but when/if my article gets published you'll see why I didn't :-)

> Headless support is something we planned that is close to being cut.
Now I am shocked! I am looking forward to this feature and we are in fact planning a product using it!! Please tell me "close to being cut" is a joke :-O

Headless support... cut!

Daniel Moth — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 14:05:00 GMT

Headless support... cut!

re: .NET Compact Framework; Past, Present & Future (Follow Up)

Chris Tacke — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:08:00 GMT

I really hope you look again at headless support and opt it *in*. The CF is cool and cutting it out of an entire set of vertical markets is no fun.

re: .NET Compact Framework; Past, Present & Future (Follow Up)

Steve Maillet — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 05:26:00 GMT

1) Headless support has been a major factor for the "embedded" crowd. Cutting that off is gonna piss off a whole lot of people and make them look to form a Mono for CE project just to get the ability to run managed code.

2) managed C++ is a huge benefit for building interop bridges for stuff that is not based on COM already. (PInvoke is just ugly and scares people away)

3) Hosting is how we'd implement services that are written in managed code AND a means for us to implement our own limited variations on ASP.NET until you implement it or someone adapts the mono code over to the CF.

Without these the only thing V2.0 has going for it is the COM interop - but that tool so long it's not nearly as important as it would have been for V1.0.

re: .NET Compact Framework; Past, Present & Future (Follow Up)

Dr. YSG — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:17:00 GMT

We are trying to open up all sorts of markets within the DOD wearable computing areas, and PDA type display does not cut it for a lot of this. We need to be able to have headless support for all sorts of embedded sensor gear.

Do you really want to through out this market?

Especially since PDA sales are down, if we don't come up with new ideas for PDA type devices, then all interfaces will end up on the cell phones, and Microsoft's penetration of that market is really not so great.

Sounds like poor tactics both on the long term and the short term.

Got feedback for .NET Compact Framework? | keyongtech

Got feedback for .NET Compact Framework? | keyongtech — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:55:57 GMT

PingBack from http://www.keyongtech.com/459856-got-feedback-for-net-compact