Windows Mobile Development No Longer Free

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?"

Comments

The end of the line for Windows Mobile and me.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:The end of the line for Windows Mobile and me.

[Nurgled]

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.

Looks like a false alarm

[abelikoff]

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. ;-)

the part that's expensive...

[cahiha]

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.

Re:All hail the 6 dollar IBM JVM!

[den_erpel]

I guess it depends on what you're doing; for embedded development on battery dependent platforms; I would not suggest or rely on Java. This is even more the case with embedded algorithms. A small example I came across last week:

AES energy efficiency:

(in Gb/s/W)
C: 0.0011
Java: 0.0000037

There were more figures on the slide I got this from; but since they were done on different architectures, they do not really compare. There are valid reasons not to rely on Java for everything; just try to explain this to the latest generation of engineers :-/

how to circumvent install restriction

[itsme]

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

Re:You do realize...

[Quill_28]

I got it free, shipped in 1 week time. I do not have a MSDN subscription.

It is not the Express version.

Came with some SQL server software also.

Re:You do realize...

[arkanes]

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.

You can get it for less

[jbplou]

If you buy just the C# or VB.NET ide instead of the complete Visual Studio. I believe they start at about $100.