Related
Applications that were made for Windows Mobile 6 are compatible with Windows Phone 7 Series. The interface of the new mobile operating system has been changed though, so the user interface for these applications will have to be changed as well.
"So there is no reason why programs written for Windows Mobile 6 cannot run on the new version of the OS", said Maarten Sonneveld of Microsoft Netherlands to Tweakers.net. "The interface is complete different though, so the applications will have to be changed somewhat before being ready for Windows Phone 7 Series".
It is still unclear how developers can port their user interfaces to the new version of Windows Mobile. Microsoft will only disclose how applications can be developed and distributed at their developer event Mix2010.
Microsoft announced it’s new OS on Monday afternoon at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. The OS is primarily aimed at synchronisation and integration with Microsft-services like Windows Live, Bing, Zune and Xbox Live. Aside from those Windows Phone 7 Series can also synchronise with Google-accounts and facebook.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source
So in summary, while none of the current applications will run on it, the underlying non-UI APIs will be compatible. So if understand correctly, porting would just a case of redeveloping the UI then recompiling, rather than starting completely from scratch. This acts to filter out apps with no more developer support, and promote a consistent UI.
Doesn't sound too bad to me.
That might explain why TomTom was seen on that screenshot of WP7 running on the HD2 (although, it could be a fake!). TomTom takes control of the screen, so uses no WM interface elements. So, it might be able to run full-screen apps/games without changes.
But, who knows...
elyl said:
That might explain why TomTom was seen on that screenshot of WP7 running on the HD2 (although, it could be a fake!). TomTom takes control of the screen, so uses no WM interface elements. So, it might be able to run full-screen apps/games without changes.
But, who knows...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was just thinking the same except if you use the included .net controls, there's no reason that the OS couldn't just reskin them automatically to be at least somewhat more in line with the WP7 styling.
This would be excellent if it's true - and I can't see why it wouldn't be. The UI may be new but why throw away a perfectly good underlying core.
What would also be ideal is if the "multi-tasking" involved an app being set to pause in the background by default, but with a "keep me running" API call available for apps that needed it. I'm sure most apps hog resourses not because they need to but because the developer hasn't really thought about how the rest of the device performs when his app has been left running.
Makes sense, WindowsCE core is still the same
Zaim2 said:
Applications that were made for Windows Mobile 6 are compatible with Windows Phone 7 Series
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Absolutely wrong statement due to incorrect translation. Original: "De interface van Windows Phone 7 Series is totaal anders, waardoor er in elk geval iets aan de applicaties moet gebeuren voordat ze geschikt zijn voor Windows Phone 7 Series"
Even google translates it correctly:
"The interface of Windows 7 Phone Series is different, which in any case something should happen to the applications before they are suitable for Windows 7 Phone Series".
We have some "ms confidential" documentation dated January 2010 that proves that none of the existing apps would be compatible with WinPhone7. And the only programming suite that is available to "generic" application-writers is Silverlight+XNA. Native apps are prohibited. Only OEMs and MO are allowed to create them (and even they have a set of limitations).
We would not have even source code compatibility - as all our C++ apps have to be converted to .NET.
mamaich said:
We have some "ms confidential" documentation dated January 2010...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What the heck? And you say that only now? What else is in there? Any word about how background tasks are handled? Please give us some more information, or maybe, can you upload that documentation?
freyberry said:
maybe, can you upload that documentation?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Obviously I cannot. As it would reveal the person who provided it.
Just to prove that such info really exists - see attached screenshots.
I really hope that the community would force MS to change such a dumb idea to limit independent software vendors to create only managed apps. Prohibiting C++ as a developing language, and "hiding" Windows API from programmer would force lots of developers to abandon this platform. The main reason of success of old WinMobile OSes was the ability to recompile "desktop" apps to WinMobile with just a minor set of changes (ANSI->Unicode + some interface changes).
P.S. I don't read PMs.
Obviously I cannot. As it would reveal the person who provided it.
Just to prove that such info really exists - see attached screenshots.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, there's certainly a way to remove that information. But anyway, what about background tasks? Are third party applications allowed to run in the background?
mamaich said:
Obviously I cannot. As it would reveal the person who provided it.
Just to prove that such info really exists - see attached screenshots.
I really hope that the community would force MS to change such a dumb idea to limit independent software vendors to create only managed apps. Prohibiting C++ as a developing language, and "hiding" Windows API from programmer would force lots of developers to abandon this platform. The main reason of success of old WinMobile OSes was the ability to recompile "desktop" apps to WinMobile with just a minor set of changes (ANSI->Unicode + some interface changes).
P.S. I don't read PMs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, I can't believe noone has picked up on this
freyberry said:
Are third party applications allowed to run in the background?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OS itself supports multitasking, see attach. But "Windows Phone OS 7.0 Application Platform" that we'll be forced to use to create apps may force our application to be paused in background. I never programmed Silverlight and XNA and can't tell how multitatsking is made in them.
WinPhone 7 == Zune Phone. Both are based on CE kernel, and they should have lots of common in implementation of multitasking, clipboard, etc.
OS itself supports multitasking, see attach. But "Windows Phone OS 7.0 Application Platform" that we'll be forced to use to create apps may force our application to be paused in background.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The question is, can we write applications that are not automatically suspended when sent to the background? What are the policies on this?
It says multiple processes can run at the same time, but it does not say whether they get suspended automatically.
Is there any info on this? Maybe in the "Scheduling" section?
I’m not sure this is a big deal. I can see them saying a lot of native C++ apps may have compatibility issues. I could go either way on it with the limited amount of information I have on this. I’ll have a better opinion at and after MIX
Note that this could be old documentation, and it’s pretty annoying you're leaking confidential documentation. Personally, I hope you get into trouble for breaking your contract - they trust you and you're posting it? Yuck.
To be fair, though, every app we’ve written has been managed, and Microsoft hasn't t said P/Invoking is verboten, so what would be the problem?
There’s probably exceptions for games and the like, and the documents you've scanned even say a waiver is available to use the Native APIs. So I don’t know what you're complaining about…
Microsoft's dev teams have been listening to developers - why not get them to chime in and also give them a chance to hear you. Posting confidential Microsoft documents, assuming those are real, is not the way to get them to listen
Best,
-Auri
freyberry said:
The question is, can we write applications that are not automatically suspended when sent to the background? What are the policies on this?
It says multiple processes can run at the same time, but it does not say whether they get suspended automatically.
Is there any info on this? Maybe in the "Scheduling" section?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Personally, I like Android's approach to this, where Services can run in the background, but UI apps are allowed to be "put to sleep" while other apps run. But then again, we may see a lot of that come into play come MIX and "Answer Time"
Best,
-Auri
Well, I am now both excited and nervous -I think I will just cool my jets until MIX10 and just enjoy the eye candy for now. At worst - if the interface is nice, but the core is crap I am sure some of the boys here at xda will make us an inteface port for 6.5.x that acts and looks like the new hotness with the old compatibility. - lets see MIX
AuriRahimzadeh said:
Note that this could be old documentation, and it’s pretty annoying you're leaking confidential documentation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Docs are dated 2010.
I'm not leaking the documentation. I'm sharing the information that anyway would be opened in some days, maybe weeks.
And screens are posted here just as a confirmation of my words. You may think that these pics come from my mind and are made with photoshop - it is your opinion.
I really think that WinPhone 7 would be a failure similar to desktop Vista. Of cause some people would like it, but most would stay on WM 6.x and wait for the next version.
Regarding P/Invoke. As far as I've seen, "unsafe" operations are prohibited in XNA and Silverlight. Otherwise we would be able to call coredll funcs and run native apps (and do everything else that is allowed in our chamber).
mamaich said:
Docs are dated 2010.
I'm not leaking the documentation. I'm sharing the information that anyway would be opened in some days, maybe weeks.
And screens are posted here just as a confirmation of my words. You may think that these pics come from my mind and are made with photoshop - it is your opinion.
I really think that WinPhone 7 would be a failure similar to desktop Vista. Of cause some people would like it, but most would stay on WM 6.x and wait for the next version.
Regarding P/Invoke. As far as I've seen, "unsafe" operations are prohibited in XNA and Silverlight. Otherwise we would be able to call coredll funcs and run native apps (and do everything else that is allowed in our chamber).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mamaich any though of a WP7 ce6.0 bsp for all the current cortex A8 devices running on a ce5.2 bsp, will the new kernel support them natively or will extensive bsp/bootloader hacking be required?
P/invoke surely is a limitation of .NET CF, rather than Silverlight/XNA libraries?
I think it would be a bit stupid to remove P/Invoking, because it's just not realistic to rely on .NETCF alone which has soooo much stuff stripped out to minimize size.
Will we be seeing a whole new .NETCF so soon after 3.5? I highly doubt it...Unless MS have been working overtime the past year
Shame, time to stop mobile development altogether if this is true. When we developers are considered as dumb earning pipes for companies who in their arrogant big ways think they have all the wisdom, and app developers only make annoying software that makes their precious leaky OS'es crash, it's time to move on. i would have been talking about IPhone, Android etc, but sadly we must add Microsoft to the list also.
Then there's the $1195,- and airplane tickets we have to pay to get to the Mix2010 in oder to maybe maybe get to be a "partner" with access to limited native API's (probably only reserved for the big companies) and don't even bother talking about giving away 30% of our earnings to a company that last year made how many billions of profits was it ?
Time to start an XDA OS based on REAL Linux maybe ? NVidia have a nice dev-board available for $400,- with Tegra on it. That's what I call developer friendly.
Cheers !
Regardless of how this will play out, I'm pretty sure of two things:
1. Closing down the OS may be beneficial for the majority of users by bringing stability, ease of use, UI consistency, etc. Even though I don't like it.
2. Because the OS itself is multitasking, any and all restrictions may be hacked around, and a "jailbreak" will be possible.
Depending on how this whole thing will be implemented, jailbreaking and using "illegal" apps may be a major PITA (think iPhone 3GS/tethered jailbreak) or as easy as a few registry tweaks/installing additional certs/whatever. If Apple didn't chase JB with every update it would be a rather good platform for both mainstream "ordinary" users and those who want rather unusual things from their phones.
We'll have to wait and see how it evolves really to make a final judgment.
[SINGULARITY] -
Singularity
Singularity (and the language of such Sing#) is a Microsoft operating system currently on codeplex as RDK 2.0 which is now core to this project - getting Sing# and Singularity to run on ARM (hd2) then can easily boot NT or anything and everything - essentially, NT will happen, but is irrelevant, as need to here first give MAGLDR an d HD2 ability to run Common Language Runtime AND Singularity (.ARM ver of .X86) -
GOAL= make ARM Singularity Kernel run on HD2 then run apps using this core as native apps or strap out onto whatever...
See update on last page of this thread.
ntonhd2 said:
Cotulla: repsonse to your question along with basic test build, just for compile practice run (check for errors), was succesfull; this is for ARM low level bootloader (ARMLDR ) which runs on ARM (hd2, ultimately here) and then grabs LDR (ntldr) then all other files (see my reply) then NTOSKRNL.EXE -> its attached for you to download on next page - thanks again for your input .
NT on ARM:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2011/jan11/01-05SOCsupport.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/Features/2011/jan11/01-05SinofskySOC.mspx
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ion-of-windows-for-arm-chips-at-ces-show.html
http://thecoffeedesk.com/news/index.php/2009/04/23/net-could-be-key-in-windows-on-arm-netbooks/
http://www.osnews.com/story/24165/Windows_NT_on_ARM_It_s_a_Server_Thing
Please also read my last post regarding Xbox running NT.
And understand I AM TALKING ABOUT NTOSKRNL with Native CLI and not running full WindowsXP or 7 or watever! .
hi xda, put this in hd2 general as could be relevant to linux or wp7 or hd2. Thinking of starting project here of pretty grand scale if people are interested. Now that a lot of work has already been done i think it will not be as hard as it may appear or sound at first.
I am thinking about using new wp7 bldr +- oal +- nk.exe to set up emulation of bios expected on pc then trying to jump to 2003 server equiv ntoskrnl.exe. (and then probably just a native command line interface like alex ionescu tinykrnl project back in the day, a ncli for nt with usb keyboard and not much more to start with: Further dev much later).
Nk will handle underlying lack of pci, bios, ints, and addresses, (+is firmware) but actual switching to nt kernel is for real after that: To build a strapping kernel with ce7/wp7 architecture and initial drivers that goes on to then launch full nt kernel.
Yeah - i have \nt\private\ntos\ source code and no it is not the normal nt4 or other w2k leak- it is a complete and buildable kernel; pm me and i will give proof, or the code if you can build and want to work on this. This is not x86/x64 work obviously so is not for those without ability: Need to do some heavy lifting to get recompile build happening for arm, qualcomm ' snapdragon nt :d. Otherwise is only emulation and not a good idea. This is 2be real. As non-x86/x64 support for nt (nt4 did ppc, mips, and now ia64) this kinda porting is not a foreign concept: There is sufficient info out there with reference to everything from softpc.new (inside ms code) to wow64cpu.dll and other x86/x64 specific init routines, spinlock and interrupt handling, asm code samps, bochs methods, qemu methods, et.al. Which can be used in one way or another or taken over if required: If all taken into account to paint big picture: Use of emulation technology methods for non-emulation project just opens up underlying logic. That is it. This is also why i suggest using wp7/ce7 base 4 init. Do not want emulation. Real deal here only. I refer to all these items above as observations which could be taken into account if need be: From tinykrnl, reactos, bochs, wine, efi, and other such things can make porting over kernel easier: At the end of the day, ce7/wp7 ' bldr, oal, nk.exe (or whatever derivatives thereof) will be 'firmware' in big picture. Another reason i am considering wp7 as base to strap is drivers are there to make a ce+bios or efi-type (?) pre-loader that takes all ce7 initialization further and passes on to nt (nk.exe runs including all setup as would be done by ntldr, a fake or psuedo-real ntdetect.com, system.hiv then passes data structs to our ntoskrnl.exe) and do all that needs be done. I can handle pc side completely but need bit of help with someone who gets nkglobal and other structures and use of platform builder with experience prefered in creation of new bsp. Maybe other ways - instead of ce, ie- grub, linux, openbios, openefi, but either way just want to prove it could be done is all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
anybody here capable?
to quote Da_G:
Yup, RustyGrom pretty much has it covered. First, it's called "CE" for Compact Edition, and this is not a misnomer in any way. The system is designed to be as compact as possible (There are build-time switches for everything, so you can toggle off nearly all the components to acheive a very "light" image) obviously, including drivers for components not present would be a waste of space, as they would never get used. So there are none included. On the PC side of things the BIOS provides a basic level of functionality using a standard interface so generic drivers are created to bring the platform up to that level, and from there vendor-specific drivers can be loaded.
If you want to put an embedded device in terms of a desktop computer and loading Windows 7 on it, you start out with a fully assembled computer (video card, motherboard, cpu, ram, etc.) - power it on. It loads up the BIOS which initializes the basic hardware and begins to load the rest from the hard drive. The embedded device loads up the NAND XLDR, which provides only flash read/write support. The XLDR then loads the "EBOOT" or "IPL" into ram on typical devices. HTC doesn't use the EBOOT/IPL model as such (here already we're breaking away from the "standard" even further) and instead has that split out into mARM AMSS (a custom designed RtOS that loads and runs the Modem ARM CPU) and SPL. Once the AMSS loads the SPL into ram and executes it, the SPL initializes the aARM (apps ARM CPU), does various checks (are we in update mode? do we need to expose a flash interface to update the rest of the OS? do we just boot up the os and move aside?)
Then finally you get past the highly device-specific code and on to the (slightly) more generic CE Kernel/drivers which get copied into ram by the SPL and executed (Native Kernel/XIP partition)
So, how different is CE7/WP7 from that model? (Which is the model we have now in CE5.x/WM6.x) - The mARM AMSS provides a different interface and initialization proceedure. That means any of the WP7 drivers from a donor device we might port from would not work at all with our current AMSS. Which in turn means no boot without re-writing the drivers/kernel or AMSS.
So to compare it to a desktop PC once again, we need to write a BIOS, a Hardware Abstraction Layer, and a set of drivers for each component on the system (likely a good deal of the drivers would be usable once the rest is done)
Do I sound jaded yet? Yes, yes I am It's probably a factor of 10 more complicated than I thought it would be initially.
Here's the JTAG pinouts that need to be connected, btw. There are pins on both sides of the motherboard which also is truely a pain in my ****, as i originally intended to mount an external port on the HD2 so I could easily keep a JTAG connection with it, but you basically have to remove the entire motherboard to maintain a reliable connection, which really precludes running it on a live device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
JTAG working now .
Ummm expect to hear from Microsoft lawyers in 5....4....3....
RustyGrom said:
Ummm expect to hear from Microsoft lawyers in 5....4....3....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah i would be in breach of the non-disclosure-agreement i signed so removed.
But i am in inner city cbd wifi hotspot area and jump around unsecured cafe signals and other businesses and also use proxy servers and..... on top of that..... my own added tweaks for safe measure!
so, cafe+wifi+proxy, +other_anon, means there is absolutely no chance.
RustyGrom said:
Ummm expect to hear from Microsoft lawyers in 5....4....3....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
reading your stuff on ce7. is this a bad idea you think? or not possible? no interest? i think it can be done.
ntonhd2 said:
reading your stuff on ce7. is this a bad idea you think? or not possible? no interest? i think it can be done.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just don't think it's possible or worth it to bother trying to port NT to ARM while Microsoft is doing the same already. You're not going to be able to put together the team required meanwhile hiding from MS. It's just a stupid idea imo and really has no benefit. I mean what's your end goal here? To run Win7 on our devices?
Judging from this and other posts you have made, I suspect the most "source" you have is the "Windows Research Kernel", which is the source for a portion of ntoskrnl.exe from Server 2003 SP1, approximately. That would be no-where near enough, and it's not even enough to compile "just a kernel". It actually has a number of pre-compiled parts that it just pulls in.
Not to mention such a project is just asking to get shot down in a legal firefight. The WRK is given to academic institutions for studying the world's most popular desktop kernel, and is done so under a strict NDA.
ntoskrnl.exe by itself isn't enough to produce a workable OS anyway, especially one from the Server 2003 era.
hounsell said:
Judging from this and other posts you have made, I suspect the most "source" you have is the "Windows Research Kernel", which is the source for a portion of ntoskrnl.exe from Server 2003 SP1, approximately. That would be no-where near enough, and it's not even enough to compile "just a kernel". It actually has a number of pre-compiled parts that it just pulls in.
Not to mention such a project is just asking to get shot down in a legal firefight. The WRK is given to academic institutions for studying the world's most popular desktop kernel, and is done so under a strict NDA.
ntoskrnl.exe by itself isn't enough to produce a workable OS anyway, especially one from the Server 2003 era.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sigh.. why don't people read before they make these ridiculous and thoughtless posts? Realize that there are people from Microsoft ON these threads. Also, RESEARCH IN DEPTH BEFORE POSTING SUCH A THREAD.
snickler said:
Sigh.. why don't people read before they make these ridiculous and thoughtless posts? Realize that there are people from Microsoft ON these threads. Also, RESEARCH IN DEPTH BEFORE POSTING SUCH A THREAD.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are more microsoft people on xda than most realize .
RustyGrom said:
I just don't think it's possible or worth it to bother trying to port NT to ARM while Microsoft is doing the same already. You're not going to be able to put together the team required meanwhile hiding from MS. It's just a stupid idea imo and really has no benefit. I mean what's your end goal here? To run Win7 on our devices?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sure, sourcecode factor (nda) and secrecy/MS are complexities: but not as hard as people think here: it is TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS TO TRY AND GET WINDOWS7-ON-ARM to what I suggested (NT-CONCEPT-ON-ARM-WITH-Native-CLI) and no I would not use WRK sourcecode (lol) as part of my daywork i have access to (not ce) full sourcecode.
see my last post here,
can be done .
hounsell said:
Judging from this and other posts you have made, I suspect the most "source" you have is the "Windows Research Kernel", which is the source for a portion of ntoskrnl.exe from Server 2003 SP1, approximately. That would be no-where near enough, and it's not even enough to compile "just a kernel". It actually has a number of pre-compiled parts that it just pulls in.
Not to mention such a project is just asking to get shot down in a legal firefight. The WRK is given to academic institutions for studying the world's most popular desktop kernel, and is done so under a strict NDA.
ntoskrnl.exe by itself isn't enough to produce a workable OS anyway, especially one from the Server 2003 era.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What does this statement really mean?
might be a bad idea on hd2, fine, accepted, but your comment at the end doesn't make sense to me. so, ntoskrnl.exe for wp7 or nt4 (another era than 2003 .net) would make a difference? that is silly. besides, i made it clear that a psuedo-firmware setup would be required to setup the datastructures that NTLDR would prepare (along with NTDETECT.COM, and bios+pci_bus+ACPI interaction, (plus system or setupreg.hiv)), etc: so what are you saying exactly? my point was to not run any win32 or win64 gui or subsystem. never even mention win32k, gdi, etc. I was very clearly talking about native cli (ntdll.dll) and a prompt- maybe usb keyboard- as ARM NT Conceptual. Please, enlighten me . PS> yeah, I know the wrk and am fully aware of \prebuilt\ libraries and obj code: but, no, I was not intending on using this as base. I admit, hd2 nt prob bad idea: btw was ARM NT concept more than anything! and yeah, with the secrecy and legal issues it would be too complex and overwhelming to do so, accepted, but if I were truly to do this NO i would not use WRK lol .
And regarding Microsoft, yes, I accept that there are a LOT of employees on xda and it is crawled and watched for obvious reasons: covered that.
PPS> re WRK, no, would (if i were to try doing this that is) use what I already have access to as part of my work> under full NDA I have full source to a few different bases including all of 2003 and even HyperVServer and AzureOS trees. .
unfortunately I do not have windows phone 7 code access though! Thanks.
RustyGrom said:
I just don't think it's possible or worth it to bother trying to port NT to ARM while Microsoft is doing the same already. You're not going to be able to put together the team required meanwhile hiding from MS. It's just a stupid idea imo and really has no benefit. I mean what's your end goal here? To run Win7 on our devices?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep...... but there is a LOT of portability in the original nt4 and even w2k trees with alpha, mips, ppc, os2+posix, original softpc.new+ntvdm, and even newer, that would let this be done a lot easier than most realize: remember here that:
I AM NOT SAYING LETS RUN WIN32 ON OUR HD2: I AM SAYING LETS TRY RUN NTOSKRNL ON ARM.
big difference guys.
RustyGrom, I assume your talking about ARM-Cortex etc (msnt-2-arm)..... THIS is what i wanted to do but a much more lightweight and ms-testing-protocol-free-process; homebrew version in experimental state would ensure much speedier development: it is not that hard a concept to attempt to port over an earlier (nt4 or w2k) kernel FIRST then look at better (2003 & 7) memory management etc: the point here is PROOF OF CONCEPT NT ON ARM: that is it, like what you refer to. Read my first post: any remember tinykrnl.org? Alex Ionescu ? Reactos? it could be done a LOT easier than you all think!
only NT on ARM official stuff i am aware of is this (rumour/talk/concept/theory/design atm):
http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/Features/2011/jan11/01-05SinofskySOC.mspx
http://thecoffeedesk.com/news/index.php/2009/04/23/net-could-be-key-in-windows-on-arm-netbooks/
http://www.osnews.com/story/24165/Windows_NT_on_ARM_It_s_a_Server_Thing
If you know NT like i do- then you would see it could readily be done but yes, I admit I do not know enoug about 'phones'/ce-platform. That's why I started THIS THREAD HERE: to get some thought on the subject is all .
what then would be major problems to overcome then and this is assuming concept of say:
0). hd2 power on
1). ipl/equiv
2). hspl.
3). magldr
4). dft leo70 rom
5). bsp/oal, bldr/uldr, OS.NB ->(NK.EXE).
6). remap, reinit, load and place (prep) data structures expected by ntoskrnl.exe (osloader, detect, pci, bios, etc).
7). jump to ntoskrnl.exe
?
For the record, a few years ago i did this exact thing: ported nt kernel over to another platform. myself and others re-wrote ntoskrnl.exe (+hal+drivers) and integrated osloader.exe(ntldr), and all data structures as would be passed to kernel from ntldr, registry system hiv, ntdetect, missing bios, missing interrupt+dma+pci-bus+acpi+power, etc into one (debug/xdk) single DEFAULT.XBE.
it only worked on XDK debug kit xbox consoles with serial+scsi+128mbRAM (and a custom lpc debug mod) but it worked. using code from intel and tianocore EFI/UEFI toolkits (and bits and pieces from here and there) and concepts such as PALcode as used by non-x86 osloader (.exe not ntldr) for simulacrum bios/firmware you can pass a predefined set of structures to ntoskrnl and ensure processor regs etc ARE ALL GOOD AND SYSTEM IS READY then call into KiSystemStartup, ExpInitializeExecutive, and begin modified phase0 of NTOSKRNL.EXE.
similar thing was done with CE.NET for Xbox - a default.xbe with linux code b4 NK.NB0
worked and works .
anyway, how u wanna solve the next problems?
1)missing CL compiler for ARM with same set of features like CL for X86.
(CL version for ARM for WCE doesn't have all features supported and usually outdated)
2)this ARM compiler store exception info in other format (not SEH frames, but universal table for functions ".pdata")
3)which files u exactly wanna build for ARM? is it "ntoskrnl.exe bootvid.dll hal.dll"?
4)which final results u gotta got?
5)why u need touch WP7? u can just look to example code in Android kernel and implement something. so replace PC standard timer realization inside HAL.dll with QSD8250 specific timer code. it's much better to start.
how many ppl u have in ur team?
Cotulla said:
anyway, how u wanna solve the next problems?
1)missing CL compiler for ARM with same set of features like CL for X86.
(CL version for ARM for WCE doesn't have all features supported and usually outdated)
2)this ARM compiler store exception info in other format (not SEH frames, but universal table for functions ".pdata")
3)which files u exactly wanna build for ARM? is it "ntoskrnl.exe bootvid.dll hal.dll"?
4)which final results u gotta got?
5)why u need touch WP7? u can just look to example code in Android kernel and implement something. so replace PC standard timer realization inside HAL.dll with QSD8250 specific timer code. it's much better to start.
how many ppl u have in ur team?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
************************************************************
update: Attached is ARM low level bootloader just built; this could be used to load LDR and then ntoskrnl.exe .
************************************************************
Please let me know your thoughts and please try to get this to run with debug if you can and pass results & thoughts back to me - Cheers. Hopefully it built ok. What do you think of using this method then? but with FULL & PROPER NTOSKRNL.EXE!
************************************************************
Hi Cotulla, thanks for your reply: appreciate it here.
[also much thanks for hspl, magldr, dft android, leo70ROM. .]
ok, sorry if this is a bit all over the place, i have cut and pasted my answers around to try clean it up but it is late and i think my brain is a bit dead sorry, but answers are here anyway . hope makes sense. firstly please have a look at this video and let me know what you think .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFNuY2OFRjU
that is ARM..... i am going through build environment and sourcecode now..... thoughts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3v4YC9RT-g&feature=related
can learn a lot from wine. i agree with you on linux. same for virtualization, emulation, etc, like bochs qemu everything . sandboxing and hypervisor unveils a LOT . another thing i wanted to ask you was what do you think of FPGA technology for reverse engineering unknown systems? for example, if i were to start almost any project, like say leo70DFTrelease, or NT on Xbox, or whatever, doesnt matter, i think it is worth spending the time or money (for private company to do it for you) and have an FPGA version of the target device being hacked (hd2 in leo70rom case) and then undo the software problems from a hardware logic perspective. just the way i have worked on things many times and it works for me anyway. but I digress.......... . if i were to have done wp7hd2 (leo70rom) and magldr, then i would have had to have had (for me, not as good a dev as you) a FPGA based HD2 made up that ran in every way same but with which i could get right in there and do whatever i needed to do to see response& debug. let me know what you reckon... ok... digress now :
1)missing CL compiler for ARM with same set of features like CL for X86.
(CL version for ARM for WCE doesn't have all features supported and usually outdated)
what features specifically we need here?
what about tweaking this:
http://reactos.colinfinck.de/files/RosBE-Windows/RosBE-ARM-1.0.exe
2)this ARM compiler store exception info in other format (not SEH frames, but universal table for functions ".pdata")
http://www.reactos.org/wiki/PSEH
http://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5716
reading up on _IMAGE_CE_RUNTIME_FUNCTION_ENTRY. just going over stacks and frames and overall exception handling on ARM. are there any issues with reverse execute, virtual unwind? for this type of execution- how would you handle?
more to the point- how would you do this project lol.
problems with prolog/epi? what about moving over x86 asm code? i am right now typing this to you whilst getting updated on specifics on registerslooking at emulators to see this in action. i am reading these here. let me know if on right path and please put up links to whatev will make this project concept a reality . Cheers .
see here
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mwd24/phd/swarm.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/ARM-Options.html
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/threads/StackWalker.aspx?msg=2818356
can you recommend any compiler, emulator, os, setup, even equipment (JTAG etc etc) i should use, buy, try?
3)which files u exactly wanna build for ARM? is it "ntoskrnl.exe bootvid.dll hal.dll"?
depends on method: i agree (see below) that probably android or (htc-)linux is probably more likely to work but leo70_rom made me think maybe jump from (touch wp7) nk.exe? and are you saying use linux as in LinuxBios type setup?
would need emulated bios, pci bus fixed up (?), QSD timer HAL, ACPI (?), etc ,,, so probably would end up with the following:
a) BIOS (ce7 exe or linux ?): options here could be to make NT think it is running on PALcode, uEFI, or standard ACPI BIOS (your thoughts?). I think uEFI (tianocore/Intel) is best bet here perhaps. this would include MBR code (efi equiv or pal equiv depending) and any psuedo-real or "real" initialization i think.
b) mbr execution merged to and included in above, bootsect. in sim' 'firmware'.
c) $LDR$ @ OSLOADER.EXE (osloader.exe is non-x86 ntldr as im sure you know WITHOUT the code to run ntdetect.com and acts in PALcode architecture to pass on predefined data structues from firmware: tells NTOSKRNL.EXE where and what 2 execute).
d) HAL.DLL (timer, power/acpi, spinlocks, interrupts). another reason i leant towards WP7 as pre-NT launcher is because i assumed that something like BSP, OAL, etc, could be maybe used as base: if not for code, then logical base. what base(s) did you use to create WP7 if i may ask? ie: CE7? I have just installed Platform-Builder. but yeah, i here you regarding android/linux kernel example: ultimately are you saying better, easier, more logical, to go with android/linux you think Cotulla?
e) BOOTVID.DLL
f) KDCOM.DLL (if wp7 would make use of KITL?)
g) drivers as required including the following: ntbootdd.sys (?) might allow easier diversion from bios lack of INT13 and other support: remap to whatever can handle this properly. equivalents for ACPI.sys, filesystem drivers, other power, basics. how should i be looking at things from NT side of things, as in \ObjectTypes like \??, \Global?? etc .... and items like ROOT device in ARM (either CE or linux preloaded) context? any thoughts on how object manager would need to be brought up? for me, now, that is where it gets crucial and is core.
h)SMSS.EXE (NATIVE.EXE) but to begin with could just get drivers and all that working first and strap up into cmdcons (SPCMDCON.SYS). just blue-screen SMSS (windows setup) enough to prove kernel to run on ARM cpu. your thoughts?
i) SYSTEM reg key hive (setupreg.hiv etc?)
...
4)which final results u gotta got?
Tinykrnl type native CLI.
http://www.betaarchive.co.uk/imageupload/1193217573.or.99024.jpg
with USB keyboard support like htc-linux then go from there..... would love a prompt from which could just call any given call - be it CreateProcess or NtCreateProcess or ANYTHING: and it just does it (with debug/KITL) without question . but native NT command line is good for now. not going near win32.
5)why u need touch WP7? u can just look to example code in Android kernel and implement something. so replace PC standard timer realization inside HAL.dll with QSD8250 specific timer code. it's much better to start.
yeah....
I thought linux probably would end up being better: just liked symmetry of windowsCEx-strapping-windowsNTx: making a windowsCE-EFI/BIOS: but yeah, something like LinuxBios (android kernel etc) would be a lot easier in the end yeah? All this is overly simplified and very conceptual but there are basic answers. . once a solid idea has been formed then this could actually be done i think. and before Microsoft . Do you believe Reactos-ARM-build environment could be used? Am i missing anything? 9 people team+myself (+any help you can offer) would make 10 (+1). I think this is a good idea to at least try and i believe with your assistance, guidance, well, it would get done and then complete the HD2 line up fully. . In conclusion, right now, I need ARM emulator software, platform builder, and fully working Compact Edition 7 on HD2 to get some more thoughts and try few things out in platform builder debug then can get final decision, design, plan and start to get everything working. Even though will probably go with Linux/Android obviously as above, I still need 2see init on CE7 on HD2 and be able 2use this along with whatever else we can! have a look at all above links... thanks.
Cotulla, thanks again 4reply>please PM [email protected] something but not posting..... await your PM.
what about this ( http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/singularity/ ) could be of use to NT port with respect to CLR ? haha, or just outright hd2 port Microsoft RDK OS ' singularity ' ? .
************************************************************
update: Attached is ARM low level bootloader just built; this could be used to load LDR and then ntoskrnl.exe .
************************************************************
Please let me know your thoughts and please try to get this to run with debug if you can and pass results & thoughts back to me - Cheers. Hopefully it built ok. What do you think of using this method then? but with FULL & PROPER NTOSKRNL.EXE!
************************************************************
I don't have big knowledge of Windows NT system, but I think it's must be enough to provide basic stuffs for kernel start up.
I guess NT using only int13 services for reading data from disk, int15 services used to detect memory configuration and int10 for initial boot mode.
Because it's embedded hardware, the devices in the system are fixed and limited. So it's enough to provide fixed values for kernel, like available ram memory range.
No need of using any complex systems with CE / Linux.
About CE, you can get almost full kernel sources in PB6.0, trial can be downloaded from MS site.
afaik it's enough to load kernel and dependent modules (drivers) to ram and then run them. after this action kernel drivers should able to run properly on hardware.
About Reactos, I appreciate work of involved people, but I doubt that it's stable
About this project, I don't know yet if I will contribute. I am looking how much it's interesting for me
I always have interesting different things in my hobby as well, so I have choose that to do As well, me is part of DFT team, I need discuss it with them
Now I am asking you to understand more details about your idea(s)
Cotulla said:
I don't have big knowledge of Windows NT system, but I think it's must be enough to provide basic stuffs for kernel start up.
I guess NT using only int13 services for reading data from disk, int15 services used to detect memory configuration and int10 for initial boot mode.
Because it's embedded hardware, the devices in the system are fixed and limited. So it's enough to provide fixed values for kernel, like available ram memory range.
No need of using any complex systems with CE / Linux.
About CE, you can get almost full kernel sources in PB6.0, trial can be downloaded from MS site.
afaik it's enough to load kernel and dependent modules (drivers) to ram and then run them. after this action kernel drivers should able to run properly on hardware.
About Reactos, I appreciate work of involved people, but I doubt that it's stable
About this project, I don't know yet if I will contribute. I am looking how much it's interesting for me
I always have interesting different things in my hobby as well, so I have choose that to do As well, me is part of DFT team, I need discuss it with them
Now I am asking you to understand more details about your idea(s)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sure....... . anything ReactOS -freeldr, any arm code, whatever, is just to get basic idea up- to see the actual jump whilst watching (be it by jtag, kitl, usb, or telepathy interface to QD) and go from there; although im sure you could use ReactOS arm code lowlevel bootloader to jump into EITHER "freeldr" or proper "ntldr" or "osloader.exe" (modified of course to have no pci bus scan and the rest.....) that is the dilemma: either jump COMPLETELY like winmo6-android with all structures setup DIRECTLY INTO KERNEL and avoid the whole LDR side of things in that sense anyway; or, well, totally from scratch rebuild loader and subsequently deal with 'firmware' issues... i really do not care in the end if its a jump from one kernel to another (one os to another) because project here is to RUN NT ON ARM/HD2 and not to necessarily have it homogenous down to LDR.
as long as thread, memory, native api, other calls, all that, is truly ntoskrnl = you are running nt on your arm hd2! .
LDR does not matter.... total new rebuild or jump.... whatever comes first .
Thanks Cotulla, yes, we understand where your coming from re do not need linux, ce, and complexities there and i agree: just want to use these for initial testing and deployment of early code with some kitl, debug.... on other notes, trying to put all into organized groups, slowly but surely yes, with bit of faith we will get there in the end .
if totally up to me i would probably take intel/tianocore EFI specification as the base if this could somehow be easily made to run on ARM in this particular context. ie EFI on a HD2!
look at this raw control power!>>> http://www.ami.com/support/doc/AMI_Debug_UEFI_Dsheet_PUB_2008-06-10.pdf
also along these lines, just briefly (is helpful in concept design):
http://x86asm.net/articles/uefi-hypervisors-winning-the-race-to-bare-metal/index.html
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnu...orig.tar.gz/gnu-efi_3.0h.orig.tar.gz/download
http://x86asm.net/articles/introduction-to-uefi/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/efidevkit/
http://www.logic.nl/Products/Technology/BIOS-and-EFI.aspx
ok, summing up thoughts here>>>
0) object manager and objects; going over arm & ce7, as well as winmo6 and other ce, and comparing with nt and win32/64; just looking at how on final arm release, the \ObjectTypes will be different in the end. very interesting stuff.
1) LACK-OF. no pci bus which is highly expected by ldr/detect so make kernel prob see system in 'PALcode' or EFI mode. pass ldr data structs to kernel in that type of form. otherwise gets very messy and we are not going to hack around because you will end up with an emulator !. this will work but key is determing what 'firmware' passes this data to nt kernel - not from our perspective- but as NT.
2) BIOS. INT services are not used by kernel in that way after it becomes supervisor so will redo drivers unless preload remap somehow. INT only there during ntldr (or can load in ntbootdd.sys to supply these) and this is all pre-phase0 and is very early on.
3) HAL and clk
4) INT services are not used by kernel in that way after it becomes supervisor so will redo drivers unless preload remap somehow. INT only there during ntldr (or can load in ntbootdd.sys to supply these) and this is all pre-phase0 and is very early on.
5) kitl and kdcom
6) registry to pass on (setupreg).
8) filesystem, screen, other drivers
9) final native cli (ntdll.dll) or maybe initially just spcmdcon.sys.
above not in order ..... sorting it all out though .....
ok, looks daunting but like i said before you could get up an nt kernel in setup mode with setup ldr and drivers and old blue screen "dos" mode native subsystem which uses the SMSS.EXE and NTDLL.DLL that are seperately contained in \i386\system32\ or \cmdcons\system32\ - very limited subsystem but is full nt os at kernel . so........ if not ce and not linux preloading, WOW . it is quite an amazing project but doable; so basically just need to see how this armldr (low level strap - be it Reactos or my own clean job- will do both) code runs on the device itself and step by step add the rest in as required! but i still believe actual dev be better jumping from preexisting environment having kitl or some sort of serial or usb debug already there and then working way down to lowest possible level; so, basically, working backwards down to processor.
Doing it all from scratch and CLEAN . (in the end!). .
my brain just straight up exploded.
thanks a lot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKc_XGuvNIk .
for the record:
so far without any errors have successfully been able to build the ntdll.dll, hal.dll, smss.exe, bootvid.dll, fastfat.sys, for ARM with no modifications at all, but not yet done a build on the LDR or NTOSKRNL.
just testing compiler here is all and not writing new: this is very early on and i have changed absolutely nothing.
once fill in gaps will give it a go on hd2.
attached.
WP7 desperately need a 3g to wifi tethering app like myfi. I used to have an iphone but switched WP7 and now I need a 'myfi' like app badly.
Can someone some building this app ASAP.
at present it's not possible to even build one as there aren't any APIs for it. I'm sure this has been asked quite a few times on this forum already... please search... rather than just continually asking what people deem as a common requirement. also search the pinned threads as they're a good place to start for missing functionality...
There are APIs. Samsung phones can tether so yh APIs are there. WP7 is just CE with some changes/additions. Microsoft just isn't allowing access to the APIs...
Sent from my HD7 using Board Express
I would think that OEMs have a different set of APIs which provide them with native capabilities. I doubt the OEMs are writting their apps in just C# otherwise MS would have released those APIs as well.
also to note, those phones that can tether is done through the diagnostics, which would imply that they should be already in all windows phones and just dormant. i highly doubt it's specific to samsung phones. it may be that we only know how to do it with samsung phones now.
The Gate Keeper said:
I would think that OEMs have a different set of APIs which provide them with native capabilities. I doubt the OEMs are writting their apps in just C# otherwise MS would have released those APIs as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's my point. The APIs exist, as does the base Windows CE system.
We just don't have the development tools nor do we have access to that level of the system to be able to write those applications ourselves.
We're limited to sandboxed Silverlight-based applications, but Microsoft and OEMs can use Native Code and APIs we don't have access to.
They exist, we just don't have access to them. Apple does the same thing with iOS.
Thanks for agreeing with me, though
also to note, those phones that can tether is done through the diagnostics, which would imply that they should be already in all windows phones and just dormant. i highly doubt it's specific to samsung phones. it may be that we only know how to do it with samsung phones now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which also means WP7 supports tethering. The functionality just isn't exposed to users in the general user interface, that is why you have to dig for it. The same thing is true for Sideloading XAPs, among other things.
It's there. The OS is totally capable of it. WP7 did, in fact, inherit a ton of functionality from Windows Mobile. The difference is that the new UI doesn't expose it to the user, and applications (and the system) are managed in a totally different way.
There's a huge difference between "does not exist" and "exists, but functionality is not exposed in the UI."
Windows on a PC can access drives, etc. by device name, but that is not exposed in the UI - for example. The same is true for many features in WP7 that are there by virtue of it being based on CE and tied (although Microsoft would want you to think differently) to Windows Mobile. They just chose not to expose this functionality.
Not saying it's totalyl based on WM, since that's obviously untrue. If that was the case stuff like full Exchange support, Video support for MMS, etc. would be working.
But the fact that this stuff is there and they're dragging their feet to allow users to use it is what's keeping lots of users off of WP7 at the moment. It's taking them too long to make changes that seem too simple... Maybe for the sake of security, I don't know. They haven't really been transparent with early adopters, IMO.
EDIT: Also, you can call Native Code from managed languages (C#, VB.NET, Java, etc.), so I'm pretty sure they are writing their apps in C# and only calling native code/libraries when they need to. Writing it in straight C/C++ is [potentially] more dangerous than using a Managed Language with Interop. I can't see Microsoft going for that.
Full Article
http://justinangel.net/Win81APIs
Bluetooth 4.0 RfComm and GATT support
Point of sale: Barcode scanners and Magnetic card readers
Smart Cards
Lock screen Image Apps
VPN support for Metro apps
Scanner APIs and apps
Support for any External / USB device
Native PDF rendering in apps
Multiple screens projection support in apps
XAML/WinJS: New resolution scaling support / Super-high resolution tablets
Camera: Low-lag cameras / HDR
New Metro App Types: Appointments, LockScreen, Contacts and GeoLoc
New App Type: GeoFenced activation
New App Type: Lock screen call
New App Type: Appointments Provider
Text-to-speech
Read-write access to Camera roll, Saved pictures and playlists
XAML/WinJS: new SearchBox control
XAML/WinJS: Hubs for SemanticZoom
XAML: DatePicker and TimePicker
XAML: Flyout, MenuFlyout and SettingsMenuFlyout
XAML: AppBar simplification
XAML: DataBinding Improvements
Globalization: Currencies, Numeral systems and Numerical formatters
Other minor but important Win8.1 features
Be aware: these are new WinRT APIs, not Windows RT features. WinRT != Windows RT (I usually abbreviate the latter as "WRT" to avoid confusion and for similarity with things like WP8).
With that said, since WinRT is the only official API for developing WRT apps, and since Win8.0 and WRT_RTM support the same WinRT APIs, it's reasonable to assume that the same APIs are coming to WRT and therefore apps using these API features will be available on WRT devices.
Another interesting point is that WP8 uses WinRT as well (though only a subset of it). Hopefully at least some of these new APIs also become available on WP8.1; the obvious candidates are things like alarms and Bluetooth and such, though it'd be great to get *any* kind of VPN support in there...
"Support for any External / USB device"
Does that sound like unsigned (or testsigned, whatever) kernel mode code to anyone else?
Edit: Should probably read the thread closer, this is WinRT stuff.
It's not kernel mode. More accurate would be the ability to write (sandboxed, low-privilege) user-mode drivers using WinRT. That's still cool - it's the first official driver API of any kind, and from a security standpoint I'm way more comfortable about installing WWinRT apps than actual NT drivers - but it probably won't help with unlocks. It does mean you can talk directly* to USB devices, though, which is cool in many ways.
Given the ability to handle unrecognized devices, I'm guessing that apps will be able to register for specific USB IDs (in the same way that they can register for URI schemes and file extensions now) so that the app will auto-start when you connect a device, or so you can search the store for apps which can handle a specific device. This is big. The lack of third-party NT drivers for obscure hardware on RT has been an impediment (one of many) to progress on the platform. Asking people to write their own drivers is probably not going to fly for really complex hardware unless it's also quite popular, but I can see people doing things like writing an ADB app; there's no reason I know of why that needs to be a kernel driver.
* I'm assuming that the new WinRT APIs basically call into a generic NT driver that does the actual device IO. So, it's not literally directly talking to the device in the sense of sending bits down the USB port from your software, but it's still a lot closer to the metal than we could officially get before.
GoodDayToDie said:
* I'm assuming that the new WinRT APIs basically call into a generic NT driver that does the actual device IO. So, it's not literally directly talking to the device in the sense of sending bits down the USB port from your software, but it's still a lot closer to the metal than we could officially get before.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, it is probably just a Metro wrapper around the old well-known WinUSB API: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff540174(v=vs.85).aspx
And there is a strange question in the article:
Despite the plethora of new VPN APIs, an open question remains as to whether WinRT Win8.1 apps will work by default on VPNs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
VPN works fine on RT. At least I can connect to our company VPN with the built-in client and access all our internal resources, for example Sharepoint from the Internet Explorer.
Confusion of "Windows RT" and "WinRT" again*. VPN works "fine" on Windows RT, or on Windows 8, for desktop apps. However, WinRT apps, on either Win8 or WRT, are known to have problems tunneling through VPNs. These new APIs will hopefully help with that, but the question remains whether WinRT (Metro) apps will work *by default* over a VPN, or not.
* I swear, the entire Microsoft branding department, or at least any of them who can't provide proof they didn't argue against this idiocy, need to be stood up against a wall, slapped in the face, by everybody who ever got those two mixed up, and then fired. Much like Windows Phone... at least the complete retard who came up with "Windows Phone 7 Series devices" got the boot, but the result was merely slightly less awful and it hasn't gotten better since.
Being able to write drivers in WinRT level sounds very interesting indeed. I wonder how much integration into the OS will those drivers have, especially, if they are to remain active even when the parent app is not running.
I just hope they bring the entire IO interface of .NET on WinRT. That way we would be able to write drivers from scratch if we really wanted to...
I just want to access to COM ports. Seriously that was a dumb decision on microsofts behalf to block it. Only security threat it poses Tcp also poses so that can't be the reason.
I guess with raw usb access you can try a custom driver to a usb adaptor.
Oh hay there,
I've been tasked with making an app for windows 8, that has to fulfill the following specifications.
I've been wondering weather i should use the win RT (metro API) or the windows presentation foundation (WPF) API to do it.
requirements:
Needs to be fast (winRT has a slight edge here due to Ahead of Time compilation, but WPF can be compiled ahead of time too)
Needs to be optimized for touch (it's a draw here, WPF can be made touch friendly and supported touch from day one)
Needs to be able to communicate in background with a number of sensors (WPF has the edge here, as it can access low-level OS components, and is also not restricted should it go to the background)
Needs to be easily modified to support new technologies (This one is a bit tougher. Modifying a winRT app takes a while, it needs around 7 days just to process certification, while an update to WPF can be delivered right away. On the other hand, winRT will probably have high level APIs to handle new technologies, whereas WPF will likely be stuck with the lower end of the API, which will make it harder to modify, especially to those not familiar with windows/.net architecture.)
Needs to run on tablet (WinRT has the edge, as it can run on arm-based tablets as well).
Needs to communicate via NFC, get GPS coordinates and take pictures (WPF can do this, but again, it has lower level APIs, which might be hard to adapt in the future)
Needs to be resilient to outside tampering (virus, trojan, malware etc)(WPF is not 100% sandboxed, it has nice runtime security, but the files it creates are not protected, winRT has the edge here)
I need some opinions. I will make my own decision, but I would like to hear some of your opinions first.
Don't ask what the app does, I'm not gonna tell you.
One thing that immediately stands out, GPS. Is this using the tablets integral GPS, a USB unit or a serial/bluetooth unit? If its not integral or USB (and even then, some USB ones are USB>serial adaptors followed by a serial unit) then WinRT wont function with it. You dont get any access to serial ports, parallel ports or the onboard i2c interface via WinRT. Everything is a higher level abstraction wrapping up low level functionality, you get not raw access to it yourself. Most of these tablets out will be using a serial GPS as that is what is most common (or possibly an i2c one but thats something I have never seen before) and WinRT will provide a nice set of wrappers to let you interface with the integral GPS only, but it wont give access to the serial port or the bluetooth serial profile which means it will ignore bluetooth, external serial or certain USB GPS devices. So yes, WPF would certainly have the edge there. But if we are just talking the GPS chip built into the tablet, WinRT will suffice and provides easy access to all onboard sensors, its only external ones that will cause headaches.
WinRT vs regular .NET speed wise likely wont make much difference. I'm not sure that WinRT is fully AoT dependant for its apps (except C/C++), I think it still falls back on .NET, and even if it is AoT the .NET JIT is almost as effective (and with some kludging can be set to AoT I think, mono certainly can and can cope with WPF applications).
I dont own a tablet so cant say too much on touch, I have only handled display model tablets. Tbh, I found most desktop apps annoying on tablets. even if you enlarge buttons and fonts to make them more touch friendly you can run into additional issues, a menu thats too long to fit on screen cant necessarily be scrolled with a touch friendly gesture (well, you can try, but your probably going to have to write some of your own code, might not be that hard actually, I havent tried). If the app is purely meant for touch then I would go WinRT unless there is a specific reason not to.
Updating taking 7 days I dont see as a major problem, everyone else does it and on numerous platforms. It may well take 1 day to integrate a new tech into a WinRT app and 2 weeks on the WPF app in which case the WinRT guys still get the new tech before WPF, or vice versa is equally likely.
NFC communications, GPS and cameras are all easily done in WinRT (with the previous restriction, device only, non external, I assume a webcam works though).
WinRT is probably the more secure option too.
If I were you I would write down each little thing the app needs to do in order to function, ie access a specific type of GPS (you already said you wont share, thats fine). Then go down the list and start ticking off which ones WinRT has the technology to do. We can pretty much assume that eventually WPF will also do it so there is little reason for a WPF checklist. If you get to the bottom of the list and WinRT is fully ticked off, then go with a WinRT app. If there are a few things missing, well then start to weigh up whether it would be better to try and get a WPF app playing nicely with touch and implementing a few things at a lower level or alter the design specification to fit WinRT, I assume there is a client involved here, if there are issues sit down with them and discuss your thoughts and see if they are happy with changes to go one way or the other.
SixSixSevenSeven said:
One thing that immediately stands out, GPS. Is this using the tablets integral GPS, a USB unit or a serial/bluetooth unit? If its not integral or USB (and even then, some USB ones are USB>serial adaptors followed by a serial unit) then WinRT wont function with it. You dont get any access to serial ports, parallel ports or the onboard i2c interface via WinRT. Everything is a higher level abstraction wrapping up low level functionality, you get not raw access to it yourself. Most of these tablets out will be using a serial GPS as that is what is most common (or possibly an i2c one but thats something I have never seen before) and WinRT will provide a nice set of wrappers to let you interface with the integral GPS only, but it wont give access to the serial port or the bluetooth serial profile which means it will ignore bluetooth, external serial or certain USB GPS devices. So yes, WPF would certainly have the edge there. But if we are just talking the GPS chip built into the tablet, WinRT will suffice and provides easy access to all onboard sensors, its only external ones that will cause headaches.
WinRT vs regular .NET speed wise likely wont make much difference. I'm not sure that WinRT is fully AoT dependant for its apps (except C/C++), I think it still falls back on .NET, and even if it is AoT the .NET JIT is almost as effective (and with some kludging can be set to AoT I think, mono certainly can and can cope with WPF applications).
I dont own a tablet so cant say too much on touch, I have only handled display model tablets. Tbh, I found most desktop apps annoying on tablets. even if you enlarge buttons and fonts to make them more touch friendly you can run into additional issues, a menu thats too long to fit on screen cant necessarily be scrolled with a touch friendly gesture (well, you can try, but your probably going to have to write some of your own code, might not be that hard actually, I havent tried). If the app is purely meant for touch then I would go WinRT unless there is a specific reason not to.
Updating taking 7 days I dont see as a major problem, everyone else does it and on numerous platforms. It may well take 1 day to integrate a new tech into a WinRT app and 2 weeks on the WPF app in which case the WinRT guys still get the new tech before WPF, or vice versa is equally likely.
NFC communications, GPS and cameras are all easily done in WinRT (with the previous restriction, device only, non external, I assume a webcam works though).
WinRT is probably the more secure option too.
If I were you I would write down each little thing the app needs to do in order to function, ie access a specific type of GPS (you already said you wont share, thats fine). Then go down the list and start ticking off which ones WinRT has the technology to do. We can pretty much assume that eventually WPF will also do it so there is little reason for a WPF checklist. If you get to the bottom of the list and WinRT is fully ticked off, then go with a WinRT app. If there are a few things missing, well then start to weigh up whether it would be better to try and get a WPF app playing nicely with touch and implementing a few things at a lower level or alter the design specification to fit WinRT, I assume there is a client involved here, if there are issues sit down with them and discuss your thoughts and see if they are happy with changes to go one way or the other.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the response
The tablet picked for this job has the following minimum requirements:
Intel z2760 atom processor (apparently, they prefer x86 over ARM)
2 GB of RAM
NFC, GPS, Bluetooth (integrated, as in the tablet has no external USB adapted sensors or something)
mini USB
front camera 2 MP
back camera 8 MP
64GB storage
It's basicaly an asus vivo tab smart.
I suppose the GPS and NFC are built in. I haven't developed much with winRT, so i don't know all the ins and outs.
Btw, did Mono get WPF working? Last time I checked they said WPF was too large scale for them to port.
mcosmin222 said:
Thanks for the response
The tablet picked for this job has the following minimum requirements:
Intel z2760 atom processor (apparently, they prefer x86 over ARM)
2 GB of RAM
NFC, GPS, Bluetooth (integrated, as in the tablet has no external USB adapted sensors or something)
mini USB
front camera 2 MP
back camera 8 MP
64GB storage
It's basicaly an asus vivo tab smart.
I suppose the GPS and NFC are built in. I haven't developed much with winRT, so i don't know all the ins and outs.
Btw, did Mono get WPF working? Last time I checked they said WPF was too large scale for them to port.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think mono on windows gets WPF as it can fall back on the live already there, they haven't got a Linux or mac version for sure though, only winforms although there is a 3rd party lib that gives a few controls which look very much like the WPF counterparts which should work on mono. Or there are .net bindings of QT and GTK.
If its the integral GPS as you say, WinRT should cope absolutely fine. Did some more googling and it seems WinRT will only recognise GPS device with an actual device manager entry, that is what discounts serial devices, it may actually be possible to give a serial device a kick up the backside so its listed in device manager alongside the integrated one but in your case its not needed.
SixSixSevenSeven said:
I think mono on windows gets WPF as it can fall back on the live already there, they haven't got a Linux or mac version for sure though, only winforms although there is a 3rd party lib that gives a few controls which look very much like the WPF counterparts which should work on mono. Or there are .net bindings of QT and GTK.
If its the integral GPS as you say, WinRT should cope absolutely fine. Did some more googling and it seems WinRT will only recognise GPS device with an actual device manager entry, that is what discounts serial devices, it may actually be possible to give a serial device a kick up the backside so its listed in device manager alongside the integrated one but in your case its not needed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I heard 8.1 gives winRT extended device driver capabilities.
Maybe it will work fine by then...
SixSixSevenSeven said:
I think mono on windows gets WPF as it can fall back on the live already there, they haven't got a Linux or mac version for sure though, only winforms although there is a 3rd party lib that gives a few controls which look very much like the WPF counterparts which should work on mono. Or there are .net bindings of QT and GTK.
If its the integral GPS as you say, WinRT should cope absolutely fine. Did some more googling and it seems WinRT will only recognise GPS device with an actual device manager entry, that is what discounts serial devices, it may actually be possible to give a serial device a kick up the backside so its listed in device manager alongside the integrated one but in your case its not needed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, we decided to go for WPF^^
mcosmin222 said:
Well, we decided to go for WPF^^
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, if microsoft gets something right, that is the .net framework.
Kinda funny I can actually call winRT assemblies from WPF(non UI ones ofc).