Large post: full letter can be found: http://austechreview.zoomshare.com/files/Open_Letter/An_Open_Letter_WM.htm
AN OPEN LETTER:
TO the individuals working in the Microsoft Windows Mobile division, to the hardware vendors for the platform, to the many Windows Mobile communities, to the avid enthusiasts of the technology, to the new-comers, to the onlookers and especially to those frustrated users of old and new alike.
I address this discussion to you all, as diverse and wide ranging audience for we all share a common trend in our lives, which, regardless of the corner we examine, be it: our work environments; our social interactions; or simply our personal lives, we find ourselves using (or looking to use) what perhaps best represents the apex in the convergent technologies trend - the Windows Mobile device.
We are speaking of a device whose form today can take on the properties of a phone, a portable music player, a mobile media centre, a camera, a camcorder, a webcam, a high speed modem, a GPS navigation unit, a portable gaming device, a radio, a mobile CRM, web-browser, email client, information management center and as a mobile office. I don’t doubt more could probably be added to that list, but those are just some of the features these devices are largely capable of and all of this functionality rests right there populating our pockets, belts or briefcases.
Despite this unprecedented functionality in convergence and the leaps ahead these devices have made in quite recent times, the changes have been largely hardware driven and when they have been software driven it has largely been by third parties or by hardware manufactures doing the platform vendors job. It seems these changes have not gone unnoticed, consciousness in the community, due to years of the same pattern - in contrast with the events of this year - have finally began to demand answers to the why’s and where’s of the Windows Mobile platform. It is time for a discussion on the issues with this platform and where it’s heading [CSM forum discussion]. With that in mind let’s ask ourselves some whys:
Why is it 2007 and only now with the consumer rollout of Windows Mobile 6 this year (the later part for most of it) are we only now - after all these years - finally seeing support for VGA resolutions in Windows Mobile? It’s not like the technology to support it hasn’t existed, 3rd party workarounds are a plenty, but they are often tedious and have results which require the user to make compromises often combined with GUI deficiencies.Why is it that this is now supported in WM6, yet my HTC advantage with WM6 still requires me to load this 3rd party software? Is Microsoft not giving you the code to activate the resolution options HTC? Or Microsoft do you not feel it prudent to work with HTC to encourage them to adopt such a simple capacity as letting us use VGA on our VGA devices?
Why has it taken so many years to do something with the X button, despite an array of 3rd party applications demonstrating the productivity and ease of use gains from enabling options with this part of the software?Why have manufactuers like HTC had to release their own X button software? Why, have roll-out and constant updates been such a prevalent facet of Windows for PCs, yet you feel no need to roll-out updates for your WM line, contrary to the capacity of the platform to support it?
Why after all these years of Windows Mobile, are syncing issues still so prevalent?
Why, despite the obvious adoption of WiFi technology and its virtual inclusion in all WM devices can we still not Sync over WiFi? Did HTC not inform Microsoft that they had put WiFi onto virtually all of their Windows Mobile devices these days? I ask because from the hoops you often have to jump through to get wireless networking connection in WM one might wonder.Why, has it taken HTC and O2 to give limited users a Media Centre application despite the popularity of Media Centre software on PCs and in the home, and despite the capacity of these devices being capable of viewing, pictures, video, music, radio and more recently TV?
Why have hardware vendors had to produce this software?
Call it a crazy division of labour thing, but shouldn’t hardware vendors in this case be sticking to well, hardware?Why has Microsoft not worked with them then to release better versions of the software or encourage them to release such software to the wider community? Media integration of this kind has been such a Grand strategy across the rest of the Microsoft divisions, did the WM division not get invited to the meetings for this strategy?
Just because these devices are largely aimed at professionals doesn’t mean this functionality cannot be built on. Yes I largely use this device, like most, for its superior information management and touch screen functionalities. But that doesn’t mean I don’t want to enjoy or use its other capabilities. Why after so many years of this platform being around, after so many operators adopting its hardware and after the recent popular release of devices like the Touch or last year the HTC TyTN series, why after all this do so few people still know about the capabilities of Windows Mobile devices?
Is this a problem limited to Australia? Apparently, it might be. You’re advertising on behalf of the hardware vendors in India, which makes sense having the second largest market, but while your off advertising in India, the IPhone is advertising (if it even has to) across the rest of the Western World!
It never ceases to amaze me how few people know about these devices, even people in IT, if they do know about them they are largely unaware of there capacities, and secondarily associate them with all the bugs and problems of Windows.
This lack of awareness is largely a marketing and promotions issue, but heres the kicker it’s a two party problem. If the hardware vendors and Microsoft haven’t noticed you’re futures are tied together. It’s in both of your interests to promote these devices. Microsoft you especially, because there are multiple hardware vendors but only one software vendor in this game, and the devices are by name Windows Mobile devices, which people will aptly associate with……Microsoft.People have a million and one choices of mobile devices in the market, and more contemporarily a wider choice of touch based technology devices. People aren’t going to magically seek out the Windows Mobile products, especially with their price tag, if they aren’t aware of it, and further aren’t educated on its features.
Why Why, did you allow the iPhone to gain such a hype and pre-eminent status? Hardware vendors and Microsoft, your devices have been largely capable of everything the iPhone can do, sans multi-touch, and much much more as we have discussed. They have had this capacity for years, why did you allow the IPhone to capture the mass market like this?
The answer most likely lies in the marketing as we have already discussed, but surely by now you’re picking up on my pattern here. That being, both the hardware and software vendors need to work with each other to promote these devices, enhance its functionality and use of the convergent technology.
It’s a two way street too hardware vendors you need to encourage Microsoft, you both should be listening to users; hardware vendors chances are your hearing the gripes with WM more than Microsoft, are you communicating it back to them and encouraging these changes?Why after so many years of Windows Mobile do I still have to install or buy 3rd party software to get half-descent time-management functionality out of these devices? Why are the tasks and calendar options barely more customisable or expanded then they were in Windows 2002 or earlier?
Why after so many years of Windows Mobile do I still virtually have the same basic interface? Why despite all this hardware power and the fact that we are using touch-screens do I have an interface that has remained virtually unchanged for all these years?
I know these are aimed at enterprise users (hi) but do we not deserve a nicer interface? The interface isn’t even all about aesthetics; it’s also about productivity, look at how much more the devices can be enhanced through 3rd party software like Wisbar desktop etc.
Are there plans to change this? Or will I have to buy a “Zune phone” to get some nicer interfaces? Why did it magically take for the iPhone to come out before we finally got some hardware (and software from the hardware vendor no less) that actually takes advantage of the fact that we are using touch-screen devices – referring to the HTC Touch of course.
Why isn’t there more collaboration between Microsoft and even 3rd party software vendors?
One of the greatest benefits this platform has over the iPhone and over symbion is the range of software. Why isn’t this more widely, promoted and encouraged? This isn’t perhaps so much a serious question that needs answering, since there are many community based sites that review and promote WM software but it’s a key and crucial benefit of the Windows Mobile platform and one that needs to be more readily promoted, advertised and enhanced.I, like most fellow Windows Mobile users, have either enjoyed using my Windows Mobile device or had to use it because there was no alternative – most likely a mix. And the Why’s I have asked today are not likely to dissuade me or anyone else from buying a Windows Mobile device and I have no illusions that there are many more whys people would like answered.
The point has been to briefly illustrate the mediocrity and failings both Microsoft and its hardware vendors have settled for with this platform combined with a reiteration of the many benefits and possibilities of the platform as one of the pinnacles of convergent technology.
Furthermore as should be apparent now, encourage a closer and more importantly, public, strategic collaboration between the hardware vendors and Microsoft. Both of your futures are tied to this platform, it’s a robust hardware device with many software features and a tonne of uses, but these must be enhanced, visually and functionally.
Secondly the platform must be promoted. You have a technologically advanced and highly convergent device rivalled by no other platform. The devices despite being geared for enterprise have many features consumer users could gain from them, particularly since the cost of many of the devices has become comparably affordable (aka HTC Touch). Its time consumers were made aware from joint marketing between the hardware and software vendor.
The IPhone has done a good job (as was expected from the hype and the eye candy interface) of capturing the consumer market. Now despite a consensus that the IPhone isn’t ready for business use, don’t be naïve enough to think this will always be the case. I don’t want to give Apple any ideas, but it strikes me if they were to buy up Pocket Breeze or Agenda Fusion etc and adapt it to the IPhone platform, maybe add some functional word, excel and pdf viewing capabilities, and correct some limited (and quite fixable issues) with the interface, you would surely have a sleek stylish well known business rival to the Windows Mobile platform.
Apple has the easy job here, it’s the only face behind the iPhone, its not HTC producing a device and then powered by Windows, its just apple and its iPhone; it doesn’t have to worry about collaborating with a partner, only telecommunication carriers that are dying to supply the device to consumers.
It stands to reason that if Windows Mobile can do this and more, and without the restrictions of the iphone, it should be the HTC Touch et al, that carriers are dying to sell to consumers, yet its not is it?
More dangerously, as mentioned, the transformation to a business capable device is a lot easier than the task of making a business device (despite its many consumer features) appeal to the mass market, especially after Apple has stolen the thunder to appear like the pre-eminent technological device.
I hope this generates some discussion amidst the Windows Mobile users and perhaps even between the hardware vendors and Microsoft, who should together be hatching out a strategic direction for these devices and who perhaps would see fit to work more closely with the communities who use their devices, so that some of the basic issues mentioned at the start, aren’t taking years to respond to.
Regards,
Osiris.
Hello everybody,
I am currently using an android phone and consider to switch to WP8 after it has been release due to better hardware concepts etc.
I already read that WP7 apps are executed in a sandbox and therefore the whole process aint to be more "secure". Anyhow, Iam not concerned about a virus or malware.
My biggest aim is to keep my data private and to secure my privacy.
Regarding WP7 I could not find any hint about that topic. I cannot imagine that nobody cares about this topic around this OS !?
What I want is the following:
Set for each app what it is able to access (e.g. Access to contacts, location etc.)
Control internet access for each app
Maybe it already exists and therefore nobody talks about it, maybe it is technically not possible.... Just want to know
Thank you in advance for your help.
Regards.
WP7 (and presumably WP8) apps use a "Declared Capabilities" model for controlling access to resources like you mention. That is, if an app wants to access the network, it must declare ID_CAP_NETWORKING in its manifest. If it wants to access your contacts, it must declare ID_CAP_CONTACTS... etc. When you view an app in the Marketplace, you can see what capabilities it includes.
However, there's not really any fine-grained control over such things. For example, if you install an app that wants access to your contacts and your appointments, you can't tell it "OK on Appointments, but no Contacts access" short of modifying the app prior to installing (and if you did that, there's a good chance the app would crash when you ran it). Similarly, there's no user-controllable firewall on the phone; an app that specifies ID_CAP_NETWORKING can access anything that is available on the network.
I believe this is similar to the behavior of stock Android ROMs. The advantage that WP7 (and presumably also WP8, but it's too early to tell) has over Android in this regard is that apps go through a much more extensive review process. If an app needs to access your contacts, for example, it better have a good reason for this access and and it will (well, should) be rejected if it sends them off to some advertising company or something.
GoodDayToDie said:
WP7 (and presumably WP8) apps use a "Declared Capabilities" model for controlling access to resources like you mention. That is, if an app wants to access the network, it must declare ID_CAP_NETWORKING in its manifest. If it wants to access your contacts, it must declare ID_CAP_CONTACTS... etc. When you view an app in the Marketplace, you can see what capabilities it includes.
However, there's not really any fine-grained control over such things. For example, if you install an app that wants access to your contacts and your appointments, you can't tell it "OK on Appointments, but no Contacts access" short of modifying the app prior to installing (and if you did that, there's a good chance the app would crash when you ran it). Similarly, there's no user-controllable firewall on the phone; an app that specifies ID_CAP_NETWORKING can access anything that is available on the network.
I believe this is similar to the behavior of stock Android ROMs. The advantage that WP7 (and presumably also WP8, but it's too early to tell) has over Android in this regard is that apps go through a much more extensive review process. If an app needs to access your contacts, for example, it better have a good reason for this access and and it will (well, should) be rejected if it sends them off to some advertising company or something.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see. So basically this means, that I could edit the manifest file of any application myself and set the level of access I want it to have, but the application will probably not work anymore.
For instance, I have an navigation app that wants access to my contacts to offer me a direct navigation option to my friends place as well as internet access for current traffic information. Do I need to trust microsoft, that they reviewed this app so well that it does not send my contact list to the software company ?!
Moreover, this way I cannot prevent microsoft for example to collect whatever they want from my phone, right ?
It is correct, that stock Android does not offer this function, too. However there is the possibility to root it and have apps installed that control all traffic, even those of the OS itself.
ntech3333 said:
I see. So basically this means, that I could edit the manifest file of any application myself and set the level of access I want it to have, but the application will probably not work anymore.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes. Applications are expecting to see all CAPs they request, as this is an all-or-nothing thing in WP. If you'd edit their manifest, the application could behave arbitrarily, and it would likely crash because an essential assumption it made - that being either it has the CAPs it requires or isn't installed - isn't applicable anymore.
Moreover, this would require at least a developer unlock, for some applications (for instance Skype) an interop unlock and for some applications (all XBL ones at least I think) a custom ROM.
ntech3333 said:
For instance, I have an navigation app that wants access to my contacts to offer me a direct navigation option to my friends place as well as internet access for current traffic information. Do I need to trust microsoft, that they reviewed this app so well that it does not send my contact list to the software company ?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes. There is no way to partially grant permissions.
ntech3333 said:
Moreover, this way I cannot prevent microsoft for example to collect whatever they want from my phone, right ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Microsoft makes the system. If they wanted to hide something in kernel mode, and wanted to hide it from all user accessible APIs, this would be easily done. Simply spoken, if you question Microsoft's commitment to their EULA, WP is the wrong OS for you.
ntech3333 said:
It is correct, that stock Android does not offer this function, too. However there is the possibility to root it and have apps installed that control all traffic, even those of the OS itself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Without a kernel built from trusted sources, hiding data streams from all APIs is always possible for an OS maker.
ZetaZynK said:
Yes. Applications are expecting to see all CAPs they request, as this is an all-or-nothing thing in WP. If you'd edit their manifest, the application could behave arbitrarily, and it would likely crash because an essential assumption it made - that being either it has the CAPs it requires or isn't installed - isn't applicable anymore.
Moreover, this would require at least a developer unlock, for some applications (for instance Skype) an interop unlock and for some applications (all XBL ones at least I think) a custom ROM.
Yes. There is no way to partially grant permissions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A custom rom, unlocking etc. is not an obstacle as long as it is possible and serves the purpose
In general I would assume, that any application should be able to run without an internet connection, since it could be possible that you are just not connected to the internet for some reason ?? Therefore, removing the CAP for internet access by editing the manifest file should not lead to any unwanted behavior. Or is it more like that, that all apps check their CAPs they requested on startup and not only when they want to access some ressource ?
This way it would be possible to remove internet access for any application I do not want to send data somewhere without blocking others and without the necessity to remove other CAPs.
Microsoft makes the system. If they wanted to hide something in kernel mode, and wanted to hide it from all user accessible APIs, this would be easily done. Simply spoken, if you question Microsoft's commitment to their EULA, WP is the wrong OS for you.
Without a kernel built from trusted sources, hiding data streams from all APIs is always possible for an OS maker.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Generally spoken, I trust nones commitment to any EULA or something. Microsoft, Apple, Google, they all have such documents and every few weeks something comes out that they are tracking you, (anonymously ) etc. Everytime the answer is something like "oh, what a mistake, of course it was not intended to be..."
Of course I do want have the comfort of a smartphone, a tablet pc or a computer, but I want to perserve and control my privacy to such an extend that I am satisfyed with it.
Even on a Windows computer I have got the possibility to control network traffic, to limit access for certain software etc., even to limit access for the OS. So why the heck nobody is interested to have that on a smartphone, why an smartphone must be an free bazar of private information everybody can have and do what they want with it ?
What I want and hope is, that with WP8 (since it will be the same kernel than the PC version) something like that will be possible. Just like on a Andriod phone, too where you can grant internet access for everything, even for system components individually.
Removing ID_CAP_NETWORKING will result in an exception (access denied, essentially) when the app tries to call a networking API. Since the app is probably not expecting that particular exception, it will probably crash. Some apps may have very broad exception handling on their network code and simply assume that they don't have access, though.
You don't really have any control like you describe on a Windows computer. You can set the firewall, sure, but then you're trusting Microsoft to not have some leak or backdoor in the firewall. You can write your own drivers to hook it at the kernel level, but then you're trusting Microsoft not to have a direct access to the HAL that bypasses the network driver stack. You can re-write the HAL (OK, not practically, but let's say "you could install another OS" instead) but even then you're still trusting the manufacturers of your motherboard, your CPU, your network interface hardware, your router, your modem...
At some point, you have to trust somebody. A big, publicly-held corporation with many users, a clear privacy statement, and a lot to lose if they screw up fits the bill is your best bet in most cases. Microsoft fits that bill just fine.
GoodDayToDie said:
You don't really have any control like you describe on a Windows computer. You can set the firewall, sure, but then you're trusting Microsoft to not have some leak or backdoor in the firewall. You can write your own drivers to hook it at the kernel level, but then you're trusting Microsoft not to have a direct access to the HAL that bypasses the network driver stack. You can re-write the HAL (OK, not practically, but let's say "you could install another OS" instead) but even then you're still trusting the manufacturers of your motherboard, your CPU, your network interface hardware, your router, your modem...
At some point, you have to trust somebody. A big, publicly-held corporation with many users, a clear privacy statement, and a lot to lose if they screw up fits the bill is your best bet in most cases. Microsoft fits that bill just fine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, what should I answer ? If you use arguments like that you can extend it to what ever you want.
At some point you need to be realistic when looking at security and privacy. There always can be/is a way to bypass systems on a low level basis to do what you intend to. So what ? You cannot pervent this in any OS.
But when using a third party software firewall that comes with its own drivers, you can be sure to certain extend that you have your networktraffic under control.
This is actually not the point I wanted to make about WP7 and probably WP8.
I understand, that for example an navigation app wants to have access to your contacts to offer you the option to navigate to your friends place. I also see, that this app wants to access the internet to get traffic information. But I do not want this app to have neither access to my contacts nor to the internet since I cannot know what data will be transmitted to the software developer. I even to not want them to do some statistics with me gps positioning. NO. as simple as that. What I do with my information is what I decide.
So what I especially do not like is, that most people in the world do not care about such facts at all. They are running behind apple like lemmings, willingly giveing them all information they have and being happy that everything works so fine on their device !? What the... ?
Anyway, it does not matter, my questions got answered, I will have a closer look at WP8 when it is out and see if it possible to keep my stuff under my control or not.
First of all, EULAs are a binding contract for the first parties, which means that if such a thing were to come out, and it is not a very obvious (actual) bug in the software (Apple's local geolocation data retention bug and Microsoft's bug in WP7 that may have determined the location before you pressed "OK" in the dialog are definitely such - they give nothing of advantage to the two companies), they have a problem named "breach of contract": There will be legal action by activist in such a case.
Then, your argument is valid, a firewall would be effective if you trusted the hardware and software environment. However, I wouldn't hold my breath for it: Firewalls or capability removers are just not fitting in the image of a smartphone. On Android, you also require root for this (important point here: a 3rd party device unlock, it does not come built-in - and apps could also stop working if you withdraw rights from them, since the code might not be prepared for such a scenario either), on an iDevice and Windows Phone it's not possible. It's very much the contrary of how smartphone makers would like to market their devices, a scenario where you might possibly not trust your apps - this could even scare users away from smartphones.
Therefore it is unlikely that WP8 will come with such a capability built-in. Even though WP8 will be sharing the kernel with WinRT, it should be noted that both, WP8 and WinRT will require mandatory UEFI Secure Boot from OEMs. It's likely that this cannot be broken at all unless every a very significant hole can be found that permits to breach the chain of trust or the devices' firmware can be attacked. Hence, it isn't even said whether WP8 can be rooted. If WinRT does not come with Windows Filtering Platform (WFP), it would be the same situation as is on WP7.
You are right, of course the EULA is the first thing to mention But about what legal consequences are you talking ? They will be fined to pay some million dollar ?! Ok, nice, but they still have my data. In this case they bought the information, that's all.
Anyway, I do not want to be paranoid and of course also here at some point you need to stop
To have root access on a device that you own is natural for me. I bought it, it belongs to me, that's why I should be the master on my device. For sure, this does not fit in the global tendency of "not to care about your device, just make it run", too.
On a windows computer I can have administrator privilidges as well. Why they do not want to give me this on my smartphone that claims to be a computer somehow, too?
By the way, WFP is quite a useless piece of invention. I once experimented with WFP for some software project on a windows computer and found out, that the same way I can change every rule someone created for the firewall, everyone else can do. Means: I created a rule to pervent skype to access the internet. Guess what ? Right, Skype detected that and 2min later it deleted my rule and created an own one to grant access again. What use does such a system have ?
There's a rather simple reason, "root" is a badword for most mobile manufacturers: piracy. On Android, that's a different story because you typically can install side-loaded applications, but on the iPhone or Windows Phone you require unlocks to pirate. Typically, piracy is not a practical option on them until you have a root unlock. (If you take a look at WP7, you either require an interop unlock or a custom ROM to have more than 10 unsigned apps - if you wanted to pirate, that would impose a very tight limit on the extend you can do such. Students are even limited to 3 unsigned apps). Root is something that circumvents the control systems of the manufacturer - something that neither Microsoft nor Apple have interest in.
WP and iOS have - compared to Android - very low piracy rates, so this is paying off. (For that matter, WP is probably more locked down than iOS: It took 8 months to public availability of an unlock for my HTC Titan; iOS is usually broken much faster)
I think you're confusing Windows Firewall with WFP. The latter is just a programming interface in the network stack, which allows applications to inspect, filter and modify packets in the network stack. It does not have any rules you could set therefore. Windows Firewall comes with rules, and Skype will - if it has proper privileges to do so - attempt to automatically permit itself in the Firewall.
About the EULA, no. In literally any modern country, data found to have been obtained illegally will result in a sentence to delete the data, to pay a fine and likely to pay the victims damages.
You see, that is the point. The possibility to decide upon your own device is taken away from you due to fears and prejugdes of the manufacturer. Why it always must be connected with piracy ? It means that everybody who wants to have root access on his device is potentially criminal and therefore it is better not to ask for it. Nice.
If you buy a modern house with automatic controlled sun blinds, heating etc. Would you accept, that there is a control room in your cellar, where only the company that built your house has access to? You are only allowed to switch on and off the light in your house. Even the sun blinds open and close whenever they want and tell you when you are allowed to look out of the window and when not. Just because you have no "root" access to change that and you need to accept it.
Fur sure, it is nice to have such system where the user has not rights since most users are not experts and causing mostly only problems where in the other way the system runs smooth and stable...
About WFP, yes I just saw that with Win Vista and Win 7 they introduced such way of filtering platform. I really mixed it up with the windows firewall manager that is accessable via API.
I never saw in any case where data has been found somewhere that users got paid damages. Did Apple do when they tracked their users ? I think no. Did they delete the data ? No they did not, they excused and said something like "oh, what a pitty, we will change that in our next update" Quite safe, isn't it ?
What you fail to see is that android is riddled with issues due to its openness, it is suffering in exactly the same way WM did, you may laugh of WM but android owes its roots to WM. Apple and MS saw the issues, and did something about it.
Yes that restricts you, but you and those like you, are a tiny minority, simply put they have bigger things to worry about, and that is average jo an jane blogs. they do not need that level off access and giving it to them is one of the reasons 10,000s of computers out there are nothing but bots used for DDOS attacks
Remember, WM was slated for being buggy and slow, the reality was far from that, but the networks and OEMs had so much control over the OS they literally screwed it sideways and the magic effect was that they didn't even get the blame, MS did! (ring any bells with android!)
Why didn't WP take off as well as it could have? easy, because firstly it didn't have cool roots to an ipod, secondly because MS tightened up on the OS so much it pissed off the networks, im sorry to say, its little to do with apps and side loading, that's just the first thing people think of when they are talking about something they know nothing about.
Networks like to do things their way and I think you will see their influence in WP8 a lot more, and because of that more than anything else, the networks will like it more, if they like it they will sell it, then you will see a larger uptake in it and thus more apps
anyhow, that's off topic, fact is this, security will only get tighter and rightly so, as much a that is a pain in the arse for you an I, that is the reality, you may have perfectly legit reasons for full access, but I can promise that most who want it probably will use it for something dodgy, MS and Apple can not afford to have a time bomb on their hands in the shape of android.
I fully agree with you !
Just for the protocol: I liked WM very much and I never considered it as buggy and slow, but ok that's another topic.
The reason why Iam using android at the moment is quite simple. There was no satisfying hardware available for any other system. Iphones are useless, for WM almost nothing was there that could be used as a smartphone and WP was likely to be replaced by something else. I was waiting for years that some manufacturer releases a smartphone that has a 2.3" display like a normal mobile. I hate those laptops people try to use like phones with 4" display and what ever.
Since Iam quit unsatisfyed with the quality of my sony ericsson mobile, Iam looking forward to get a Nokia phone again. Moreover, Iam really no fan of open source software since compatiblity is quite bad and the functionality is mostly not really reliable. Iam a heavy MS Exchange user and I do appreciate nothing more than be completely synchronized with my phone laptop and everything. Only WP8 can provide that... So, Iam dealing with it.
Hi,
is there a displayLink Software for the RT?? I have an Dockingstation with an extern SCreen and i really would like to use it, but this will only work with DisplayLink Software. So is there a solution for the RT??
Thanks a lot
HandyBesitzer said:
Hi,
is there a displayLink Software for the RT?? I have an Dockingstation with an extern SCreen and i really would like to use it, but this will only work with DisplayLink Software. So is there a solution for the RT??
Thanks a lot
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope- no DDK for WinRT, so no one can make third-party hardware that doesn't fit the preloaded driver set:
http://www.displaylink.com/support/ticket.php?id=335
Well, no public DDK. There's (quite obviously) an internal one, and it has apparently been shared with certain partners, and a copy of it has leaked onto the Internet and been found (and occasionally used) in various places. That said, even if a commercial outfit were willing to entertain the use of such a thing, they would need to get the resulting driver signed by Microsoft for it to be installable on non-"jailbroken" RT devices.
this signing thing is really terrible. is there a chace to get such a driver in future??
GoodDayToDie said:
Well, no public DDK. There's (quite obviously) an internal one, and it has apparently been shared with certain partners, and a copy of it has leaked onto the Internet and been found (and occasionally used) in various places. That said, even if a commercial outfit were willing to entertain the use of such a thing, they would need to get the resulting driver signed by Microsoft for it to be installable on non-"jailbroken" RT devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right, so effectively no DDK for general peripheral manufacturers to use unless MS decides otherwise for that device-- hence the situation with USB Ethernet adapters (and the driver that Plugable released then had to pull).
I'm a bit puzzled by the situation-- if MS' concern is that poor drivers would affect the WinRT user experience, then presumably they could enforce a testing process (as they already have w/ WHQL) and only allow driver delivery through Windows Update.
As it stands, WinRT devices, running full-blown Windows, are ironically far less useful in custom applications than iPads, which have all sorts of accessories available. Why wouldn't MS want WinRT to be usable in, say, medical settings? (even iPhones, let alone iPads, can connect to hardware accessories like medical sensors).
Android's also catching up quickly in the accessories space, and it's only a matter of time before iOS/Android destroy any advantage MS had w/ hardware manufacturers, as happened so dramatically in the software space (there are now so many more devs who've worked with iOS and Android than have with modern MS platforms).
Well, for accessories that just need "traditional" data I/O - things like what you might have done over a serial port in days of yore - you can easily use either BlueTooth or the audio jack (although the latter is a real hack, usually used only for very small dongles powered by the audio signal). The iPad is definitely less extensible with third-party hardware (note, accessorizable != extensible) than RT, but I fully agree with you that Microsoft's stance on RT drivers is just plain weird. Keep the pool smallish and/or WHQL-test the crap out of them, but make them available! Those USB ports can and should be a killer feature.
The audio channels available on many consumer devices are often perfect for bit banging various communications protocols. UART "emulation" has often been done on the headset jack with a level shifter and some trickery, often on android devices much less powerful than the surface RT (seen a demo on an 800MHz single core ARMv6 handset). If your willing to sacrifice audio output from your application on the RT (as it is being used for bit banging the UART) then you essentially have a plug and play serial port without any special drivers needed, your application just needs to be able to generate an audio signal and analyse an input. the peripheral will need an external power supply but this is common on many legacy RS232 applications too.
There is the bluetooth serial port profile. Thats often used as a replacement for RS232 or UART. I dont know if windows RT supports it though (someone would have to check).
Another trick I have seen involves a microcontroller with USB capabilities. I have seen examples of people setting a microcontroller to appear as USB mass storage and having a small file system with 1 plain text file. Writing into this text file from windows or linux etc would then cause the microcontroller to perform a particular operation in response. Sensors can also be read by the microcontroller causing it to update the text file too. You essentially have file based GPIO without.
Its all rather hacky but it works technically.
There is also an i2c bus on the RT keyboard connector.