Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Handhelds Microsoft Operating Systems Programming Software Windows Hardware IT Technology

Windows Mobile Development No Longer Free 75

Posted by timothy from the listen-to-your-inner-rms dept.
Jacco de Leeuw writes "Windows Mobile developers have enjoyed free development tools like the eMbedded Visual Tools and that in turn has helped popularize Windows Mobile devices and a number of free or cheap applications. But now the SDK for the upcoming Windows Mobile 5.0 has a number of 'technical (not political) dependencies' on Visual Studio 2005, which starts at $299. Is it time for an open source Windows Mobile toolchain?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows Mobile Development No Longer Free More

Windows Mobile Development No Longer Free

Comments Filter:

  • You do realize... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Johnny Doughnuts ( 767951 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @09:03PM (#12608703)
    You can get Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Beta 2 for free right now.

    • Yeah, free with an MSDN subscription. Or a "nominal fee" if you're not a subscriber. You're probably confusing it with the beta Express editions, which currently are free for the downloading. But it'll still cost you $50 per product when they're released.

    • Re:You do realize... (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      1. It is a beta.
      2. The EULA forbids distributing apps built with it.
      3. It is time limited (or it builds apps that are time limited, can't remember).
      4. People in some countries still have to pay S&H.

    • Re:You do realize... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by arkanes ( 521690 )
      Of course, if you actually read the EULA for the Beta (including the Express edition Betas), you'll see that they're distributed for informational and testing purposes only, and you're specifically excluded from distributing anything you compile with them, or for using them for commercial applications. So while you may be able to (for a limited time) get the software for "free", you most certainly cannot use them as a free platform for Windows Mobile development.
    • This is only for the IDE. As posted on the Windows Mobile Team's Blog [msdn.com]:
      SDKs, command line tools, and emulators will continue to be free downloads.
  • When is it not time for open-source anything?

  • No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @09:07PM (#12608730) Homepage Journal
    Is it time for an open source Windows Mobile toolchain?"


    No, it is time to get developers to realize that there are other platforms one can use for a mobile computing platform that are NOT Windows.

    • Re:No (Score:2, Insightful)

      by flawedgeek ( 833708 )
      No, it is time to get developers to realize that there are other platforms one can use for a mobile computing platform that are NOT Windows.


      Too bad windows is where the users are. It's the same reason I can't find cheap, reliable terminal emulation for my client's powerbook. There's not sufficient user base to make those sorts of apps profitable.

      • Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)

        by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @09:34PM (#12608894) Homepage Journal
        And you, sir are a part of the problem.

        This is about mobile computing - i.e. palm-top computers, PDAs, and other almost embedded systems - not your client's Powerbook, or your client's x86 computer.

        But Microsoft has brainwashed you into believing that all desktop computing is all computing, and that all computing is desktop computing - the idea that a mobile platform is different than a desktop is suppressed - is an "un-idea".

        And before you respond "but porting software from Windows to Windows Embedded is easy" - no, it is not. There are enough differences between Windows Desktop and Windows Embedded that the effort of maintaining one code base between the two is non-trivial - and is about the same as porting your program to Qt or GTK and using that to build both the desktop version and the mobile version.

        This is the great triumph that Microsoft has won - it is not merely a question of them being "The Only Choice", but rather that the whole idea of "choice" is suppressed.
        • The reference to the powerbook was an example, you insensitive clod. And regarding your comment about how all computing is desktop computing, well, I never said that, did I?

        • Re:No (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          This is the great triumph that Microsoft has won - it is not merely a question of them being "The Only Choice", but rather that the whole idea of "choice" is suppressed.

          And your problem is you can't accept that he willingly chooses Microsoft. Microsoft isn't "The Only Choice" but he thinks it's "The Best Choice" and make ad hominem attacks because you disagree.
      • Too bad windows is where the users are.

        Not on embedded devices. On embedded devices, Linux is where the users are.

        It's the same reason I can't find cheap, reliable terminal emulation for my client's powerbook. There's not sufficient user base to make those sorts of apps profitable.

        Well, you can get cheap and reliable terminal emulation for Linux, so just install that.
  • What about everything else besides embedded Linux? It's no simple task to make software for blackberry, qualcomm phones, palm, symbianos, ngage or any other mobile computing platform. Some have freely available dev kits and some don't. But none of them are simple, free and open simultaneously. If they were then cell providers wouldn't be able to rip people off by selling them Tetris.

  • Nah... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by i58 ( 886024 )
    It's just time to stop supporting those platforms that reach into your pockets both directions if thats important to you. If you don't like it, use a platform that has more alternatives like Palm. Eventually they'll get the message.
  • Before the eMbedded Visual Tools v3.0 came out, the toolset was actually a set of Visual Studio 5.0 add-ons that integrated with a base VS installation. From 3.0 until now, the tools have been separate from Visual Studio (mostly because of major compatibility problems with the internal eVC database and VC6).

    However, the plug-in architecture seems to have been fixed in the latest VS.Net bits, so the original plan (to let the VS team do all the heavy lifting and the Mobile team to reap the benefits of a ded

    • I've not really done much Windows Mobile development (I dabbled briefly a while back, but the app I wrote was just a quick hack to get a job done) but from what little I know I can't really see how it could require Visual Studio.

      I suspect Visual Studio will give some extra added features, like the ability to remotely debug and to deploy directly at the click of a button, but all you really need to do development for the platform is the header files, libraries and a version of cl.exe that can build for the

      • Using eMbedded Visual C++ 4.0 right now, and I can tell you that remote debugging as well as directly deployment are built into it directly.

        What Microsoft has done is just set some of the libraries in the WM 5 dev kit to be unable to be used with eVc4 (which supports WM 2002 and 2003/SE).

        The grandparent has it correct though, the GUI and built in functionality of VC6 and eVc4 are virtually identical, (screen shots of the two compared side by side differ only by the icon, and only one line varies in there

  • $299 is expensive? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ednopantz ( 467288 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @10:14PM (#12609109)
    In a universe where programmers cost at least $50 an hour, there are still people who think a $300 IDE is expensive. A good tool saves you that much in labor costs in the first week of use.

    • The part that's expensive is not that $300. The part that's expensive is that now you have placed your future in the hands of that commercial vendor. It's the rewrites and ports you have to do when Microsoft decides to change the OS. It's the workarounds you have to come up with for bugs in the IDE or compiler until Microsoft gets around to releasing the next version. Proprietary software is risky in the long run.
      • Huzzah! You seem to be one of the few people posting who understand the implications of a closed source toolchain. By placing yourself at the mercy of a vendor, any vendor, you are begging to be screwed. When the old compiler is no longer available, and the new compiler is slightly incompatible, and only has support for new devices, you are forced to jump through all sorts of hoops to try and support old platforms with your software. This is in $Vendor$'s best interests because people will spend money o

    • Re:$299 is expensive? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by etnoy ( 664495 )
      Why do people so often think that quality and price goes hand and hand in the software market?
      • > Why do people so often think that quality and price goes hand and hand in the software market? Because they often do. I have rarely seen an open source program that is as easy to use as the pay equivalant. If you don't pay programmers, they have a tendency to do what is fun (making the program work) then to do what is a pain in the butt (like make the UI good). Open source has many advantages, like being free (in both senses), but it also has disadvantages.
    • In a universe where programmers cost at least $50 an hour

      You're paying your Indians too much. Time to move on to China.

  • Sooo... (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Creepy Crawler ( 680178 )
    How do you Windows users/developers like being nickel-and-dimed?

  • The end of the line for Windows Mobile and me. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22, 2005 @10:25PM (#12609174)
    Well, that's it then. Since my hobbist software development budget is approximately zero - I'm going to have to give up on Windows Mobile development. A $300 machine that I can develop for is fine, a $300 machine that requires $300 worth of tools to develop for is not.

    Charging for the OS, then charging for development tools is just getting ridiculous. Either developers producing for their platform is beneficial to them - or it isn't. The free command-line tools for Windows 32-bit were an awesome move (although I personally prefer MingW32 for cross-platform similarities). If Microsoft can update their free command-line tools to build for the Windows Mobile platform, I'll probably stay. Or if I can figure out how to build Windows Mobile apps with GCC (although I'm not looking forward to that mess).

    Otherwise, I'll be looking for a new platform for my next handheld. And this was after me moving on from Palm. iSteve iJobs and Apple, please come out with a handheld pocket computer. Pretty please! I'll even take back everything I said about the splintered mess of APIs on OSX. Hello?

    • Look inside your "eMbedded VC++" directory. In there somewhere is a version of Microsoft's C++ compiler which targets ARM (called CLARM.EXE if memory serves) which you can use independently of the IDE. You then just need the header files and libraries, which you can find by checking where the IDE is configured to look for them.

      There's also the obvious option of just continuing to use the version you already have. It's not suddenly going to stop working just because there's a new release.

    • Hobbyist Software? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mensa Babe ( 675349 ) on Monday May 23, 2005 @06:13AM (#12610618) Homepage Journal
      Well, that's it then. Since my hobbist software development budget is approximately zero - I'm going to have to give up on Windows Mobile development. [emphasis added]

      As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid? Is this fair? ... One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft. Bill Gates, An Open Letter to Hobbyists, February 3, 1976.

      It has been thirty and you still can't realize that you are non grata? Your patience is unbelievable but why won't you just get over it and go somewhere [gnu.org] else [linux.org] where people actually want you? Crazy idea, isn't it?

      • It is amazing the stark differences between Bill Gates's attitude about software and Steve Wozniak's attitude. Gates wanted people to not share software and was in favor of proprietary software, and called hobbyists thieves. Wozniak, on the other hand, made hardware and software that was marketed to the hobbyists. The Apple II came with full schematics, and the source (well, the BASIC or assembly source) was fully available to some of the programs; I've read a story about somebody interactively changing

  • Every time a company gives something away for 'free' eventually it is reigned in, usually after it becomes the defacto standard or has eliminated all the competition. Political or not the point is that they have control, not you.

    Perhaps next time you won't put all your egg into a basket you don't even control.
  • MSFT has a proven history of doing this to coders and customers.

    Until developers realize that past performance DOES indicate future results, they should reap what they sow by using MSFT products.

  • $299 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SteveX ( 5640 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @11:54PM (#12609571) Homepage
    Chances are if you're a software developer writing software for a Windows CE device, you're already going to buy a copy of Visual Studio.

    If you're not, well, then the tool costs $299. Doesn't seem all that unreasonable. It's not like they're charging you a per-device licensing fee like some embedded tool vendors do.

  • Looks like a false alarm (Score:4, Interesting)

    by abelikoff ( 412709 ) on Monday May 23, 2005 @12:09AM (#12609624) Homepage
    I find the argument flawed for a number of reasons. If we look at the trend, there are actually many more free development tools available from Microsoft compared to the past. In fact, looking specifically at CE development tools: in order to develop for Windows CE some 3-4 years ago one had:
    • To acquire a Visual C++ development system, and
    • To purchase an add-on for Windows CE development.
    Nowadays, one just has to spend 15 minutes downloading eVC++ 4 for free. Same goes for Windows-oriented development. Same for dozens of other SDKs. There are ways to develop for each and every Microsoft platform using free tools from Microsoft.

    What is going to happen actually, in my opinion, will be similar to the situation with development tools for .NET framework:

    • There will be a freely available SDK with a set of tools allowing free development for Windows Mobile 5.0 platform just like there is a free .NET SDK with a set of compilers and tools allowing developers to create .NET applications.
    • VS.NET 2005 will be positioned for Windows Mobile 5.0 development in the exactly same manner VS is positioned for Windows and .NET development. That is, it will not be the only tool available for such development but the sheer convenience, integration and automation will appeal to a broad segment of ISVs compelling them to purchase it instead of going with free tools.

    Now on a personal note. I think, I am willing to pay $299 if this would give me a single tool that would provide coverage for all Pocket PC and Windows Mobile target platforms without the sheer madness of having to install eVC++ 3, eVC++ 4, VS 6, and VS.NET 2003 (let alone a half dozen of platform SDKs). This alone is well worth $299. ;-)

  • this is so contrary to the industry (Score:4, Insightful)

    by yagu ( 721525 ) <{yayagu} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday May 23, 2005 @12:46AM (#12609778) Journal

    I find this interesting because Bill Gates himself actually uses as anecdotal evidence in the computer industry what would be the result if prices and productivity increased in, say the car industry at the same rate as the computer industry. Yet, I'm surprised more don't find Microsoft's pricing the most damning indictment of either Mr. Gates' thesis, or of Microsoft's pricing practices.

    The gist of Gates' anecdote (and I'm just thumbnailing, there are far more accurate and detailed analyses available) is that if cars progressed as computers have, a car that cost $10,000 back in the early 80's today would cost about $100, would get four or five hundred miles per gallon, etc. Accordingly a glimpse at the progress in computers is quite amazing, but I find it curious why OS' prices haven't shown the same trend. Could Gates' anecdote apply ONLY to hardware? I don't think so.

    Anyway, food for thought. I think this Mobile example is a pretty good indicator though of what happens when Microsoft continues to control so much of so many pieces of the industry. They put themselves out there as the benevolent "helpers", even going so far as to make it appear they will give things away..., but when noone is looking, and all of the competition has finally cried "Uncle", the kid gloves come off, and Microsoft can pretty much define the marketplace any way they want... as they've demonstrated yet again. Sigh.

  • The point is that commercial products are developed on VS which costs $300+.
    But, on the other hand- there's still VS that can be found on sharing networks and warez sites. For personal use- it's more than enough.
  • How about an open source Windows "stationary" toolchain? Like GCC cranking out Win2K-XP apps?

  • Aim, pull trigger... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Fizzl ( 209397 )
    ...Shoot(foot);

    Ah yes, charging money for SDK's is the sure fire way to make your platform popular.
    What the hell are they thinking?
    • Perhaps they were thinking "we have a virtual monopoly in desktop software, most average users trust Microsoft products and it is almost guaranteed we'll have a monopoly in the portable devices market. Let's capitalize on this by making some money". All MS' decisions make sense when they end with

      4) PROFIT!!!

    • Ah yes, charging money for SDK's is the sure fire way to make your platform popular.

      When you want people to buy your over-priced sun-hats in Florida in the summer, you offer them free water to lure them in. 90% will just take advantage of you, but water costs (almost) nothing, and the other 10% count as sales you might have otherwise missed.

      When you have a monopoly on water (or more accurately, people don't realize they can get water from anyone but you), you charge an arm and a leg for the water, and
  • use 'orca' from the platform sdk ( see orca.msi )

    to edit the 'Property' table, and change 'SupportOnlyWhidbey' to '0'

    then it will install without requiring vstudio 8.0
  • As much as I hate M$ for doing this kind of move, I am also old enough to remeber a time where you didn't got any compiler with your OS.

    Yes boys and girls in the old days of DOS, Windows 3.X and Mac System X. We had to BUY our tools, there were good free alternatives available.

    Even products like DJGPP were out of reach for many of us in Europe without BBS access.

    So, again, even though I don't like their move. I do understand it.

    And just think what OS vendors do offer their development environments for f
  • Is it time for an open source Windows Mobile toolchain?
    No its not. Its time for open source to help open source projects, not help M$ keep their dominance in the market using their usual tactics.
    If O.S. people want to contribute to mobile development there are several O.S. platforms they can target where the overall good to the open source cause will be much better than working on the enemy territory.

  • You can get it for less (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jbplou ( 732414 )
    If you buy just the C# or VB.NET ide instead of the complete Visual Studio. I believe they start at about $100.
  • As I recall, OpenBSD 3.7 [openbsd.org] now supports the Zaurus. You can run X on it.

    OpenBSD may not be your cup of tea, but if there is a port, it means they did it without signing any NDAs (they don't ever sign them). So the information required to do the port is freely available, implying that you'll probably also have good Linux support.

    I've noticed that a lot of mobile hardware sellers will sell you a Linux SDK, but they charge a disgusting amount of money ($900 or so).

    But if you go with the Zaurus (commodi

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why can't we ever attempt to solve a problem in this country without having a 'War' on it?" -- Rich Thomson, talk.politics.misc

Close