Database Info

Advice on a new hobbyist phone?

Hello XDA-dev community
For the past couple of months i've been thinking about getting a Pocket PC for a new phone instead of a Symbian Nokia [ah my old 6630, may she rest in pieces...]. Anywho, I think i've decided on the HTC Touch Pro / Raphael. At ~AU$600 it's the highest I was trying not to pay (i'm not rich), however it seems to be a pretty powerful and full featured device.
I do have a few questions I hope some of the kind experts/veterans here might be able to answer for me though
1) I written a few things in Java and PHP and other even-more-basic languages, but am interested in learning a new language with hopes to create software for both Windows PC and Windows Mobile. What choices do we as end-users have here? .NET is an obvious one [I own a copy of Visual Studio 2008 Pro], but are there any other languages of note?
2) From the Raphael specs on the Wiki here, it lists it as an ARMv6 architecture-based processor. This comes from the ARM11 family, which is the successor (I think) to the XScale family (ARMv5TE). Are these ARMv6 processors backwards compatible with 'XScale accelerated' binary builds of software? I.E., a PPC application has two versions for download/purchase - a 'Generic ARM Release' and an 'XScale optimized release' - would the Raphael ARMv6-based device be compatible with these XScale-optimized binaries? Or do ARM do things differently and ARMv6 is not backwards compatible?
3) Has anybody ever heard any rumors or made any talks about porting Android to the Raphael? Just curious. I'd prefer a Windows Mobile device (not a Linux user) but I can see all this OpenSource stuff does have a future... EDIT: Nevermind, I found the page at http://wiki.xda-developers.com/index.php?pagename=RaphaelLinux
4) How does the device perform with 3D-heavy applications? Does it make use of any sort of acceleration (I assume no, not like the iPhone for example).
OK thats all... thanks a lot for your replies, if there's anything else you think is worth mentioning to a soon-to-be-first-time owner of a Windows Mobile device, please do say so Cheers.

In reply to 2) VS 2005 Pro onwards targets code at ARMv4I, basically generic ARM processors also capable of running the Thumb (16 bit) instruction set. Thumb represents a limited set of ARM 32 bit instructions coded as 16 bit instructions. It allows much smaller code sections, but with megabytes of memory available these days who cares? If you code in .NET none of this matters anyway, as the code is created as IL byte code, the .NET runtime sorts it out.
If you code in Embedded Visual C++ 3 or 4 the target chipset is ARMv4. When you use the IDE to create the code on a WinMo 5/6 machine it complains that the target machine cannot run the code. It's lying, what it really means is it does not recognize the processor class. As it is ARM 32bit code only it will work.
It is not worth targetting the code for a specific, (read non generic), ARM chipset. You are just making a rod for your own back when it won't work on something else.

Thanks for the reply stephj. There will indeed be a bit of research for me to do as to which language and/or IDE I decide to choose to train myself in then it seems. Specifically though...
stephj said:
It is not worth targetting the code for a specific, (read non generic), ARM chipset. You are just making a rod for your own back when it won't work on something else.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...what I was referring to is - I've seen some freeware PPC software, mainly emulators, that have two versions - a 'generic ARM' one and an 'XScale Compatible' alternative version. On the ARMv6 based phones, assuming the software was released back when XScale was the newest ARM family, would both work on the Raphael? If so, which would be faster?
Obviously though, for a developer, creating the most compatible/generic code to work on the widest range of devices is the main focus - later possibly implementing optimiziations or hacks that are specific to a certain platform - but I'm just wondering if these already built, older 'specifically optimized' builds are compatible with the succeeded chipsets.
P.S. Do you know where I could find some resources on choosing between Visual C++ or .NET? I.e. pros and cons of each?
Thanks a lot!

jonusc said:
Hello XDA-dev community
...
1) I written a few things in Java and PHP and other even-more-basic languages, but am interested in learning a new language with hopes to create software for both Windows PC and Windows Mobile. What choices do we as end-users have here? .NET is an obvious one [I own a copy of Visual Studio 2008 Pro], but are there any other languages of note?
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since you have VS2008Pro, C++/win32 if you want fast and lightweight applications

"P.S. Do you know where I could find some resources on choosing between Visual C++ or .NET? I.e. pros and cons of each?"
.net pros
easy to get something running fast even if one is a n00b
got a lot of components meaning less time to develop
can be programmed with c# and c++ and even eeeeewww basic
.net con
slow as in sloooooowww
require one to install the framework if the app
require a newer version then what ones phone came with and the framework is pretty big
and people don't seem to have success with installing it on sd cards
compact framework is also limited in features vs. .net on pc so apps don't just port always
limited in features unless one do unmanaged code
c++ pro
fast
require no extre stuff
small in size and again fast
have access to every feature in the phone
c++ con
one have to do everything and that mean msg loop
and a lot of leg work just to get a dialog with a button
steaper learning curve
more risks of mem leaking
harder to debug as stacktrace is not just there
like on .net

Very nice, thanks for the replies guys
So from what I can gather, a basic .NET application would be ideal for RAD (quick and dirty), particularly GUI-centric applications, but tend to be bulky; whereas C(++) is a more native / low-level language and is thus faster, but very hardcore as most functions need to be done from scratch.
I should have assumed it's pretty much the same as a Windows PC
What about C++ versus C#? And does VS2008 have a decent API/IDE set for mobile development i.e. does it have many libraries for C(++/#) already included or are more easily available?
Thanks again for the answers guys... it's obvious i'm keen to learn about it, but i'm a little worried that someone like me going from stuff like PHP and VB to C might be biting off more than I could chew....? Ah well if .NET is gonna cause problems down the line, then I guess I have no choice

Don't bother with the C++ version of .NET, the casts that you have to make, to get it to work makes the code very hard to read, and besides it only compiles to the IL level anyway, it's just not worth the effort.
So, under .NET use C#, or VB if you prefer, there is not much difference between them, but in my opinion, C# is a bit more elegant.
Under C++ you have the choices of WIN32, ATL (Active Template Library), or MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes), programming models.
WIN32 is the simplist but the hardest to code, the other two add progressively more objects to make things easier, but you need to distribute the run time libraries with them. A simple WIN32 app can be distributed as a single .EXE if the DLLs it already uses are part of the CE/PPC operating system.
PS When it comes to running code compiled for a specific ARM class on your device, just give it a go. If the CPU hits an instruction it can't run, it will throw an exception and stop anyway.

stephj said:
Don't bother with the C++ version of .NET, the casts that you have to make, to get it to work makes the code very hard to read, and besides it only compiles to the IL level anyway, it's just not worth the effort.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fair enough. So C++ in VS2008 is a bad idea
stephj said:
So, under .NET use C#, or VB if you prefer, there is not much difference between them, but in my opinion, C# is a bit more elegant.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought VB was dead? Wasn't VB6 the last one they made? Or is VB just what they call generic/common .NET Framework apps? Anyway, yeah i've read good things about C#, especially compared to .NET in general. EDIT: Oh, .NET is not the program language but VB is *facepalm* I get it, nevermind
stephj said:
Under C++ you have the choices of WIN32, ATL (Active Template Library), or MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes), programming models.
WIN32 is the simplist but the hardest to code, the other two add progressively more objects to make things easier, but you need to distribute the run time libraries with them. A simple WIN32 app can be distributed as a single .EXE if the DLLs it already uses are part of the CE/PPC operating system.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, same as a Windows PC. That makes sense.
Thanks for the answers I think I might take a look at C sharp.

C++ in VS2008 is fine, use the smart device WIN32 ,ATL, or MFC models take your pick.
Sorry my mistake, the C++ .NET version is not available for smart devices. Its the three models above only.

After additional research, I don't really want to be tied down with the proprietary C# system. So is VS2008 a decent IDE for WIN32 C++ development on Windows Mobile? Or are there better alternatives?

VS 2005/2008 Pro takes some beating. After you have installed about 3 CD's worth of MSDN libraries all the help is on tap. The IDE also looks at MSDN online if you have an internet connection to see if there are any forums on the same topic you are inquiring about.
The code is generated as ARMv4I and can be tested/debugged on the images provided by the WinMo 5 or 6 SDK. The emulators are that good you only put it on your phone when you have tested it to death on the emulator.
EVC 3 and 4 use a previous method where the emulators run a x86 version of the code. I still use EVC 4 for code that has to run on anything, Windows Mobile 2003 for example.
It's all pretty proprietory, when it comes down to it, but I guess we're stuck with it.

Java (jre) on Surface RT

So I have a question?
Is there a way to enable java on the surface rt.
Because for my remote access to work I need JRE.
Thanks

I wanna know this too. Need to be able to play Yahoo Games when I'm bored ?

Not yet but Java exists on everything pretty much... I'm sure at some point someone will recompile it for Windows RT

There's two ways I could see this happening.
The simplest would be for somebody to take the Java source code, build it for Windows but target ARM, then sign it and tell people to go through the hoops needed to run third-party desktop-mode apps on RT. This would probably actually be pretty easy, if Java has a target for "use ARM instructions" in its JIT. If not, it would have to interpret the bytecode, which is very slow (although usable).
The second way is for the JRE to be built as a Metro-style app. It would probably have to hook a bunch of native APIs that aren't allowed in Store apps, so it would remain as homebrew, but it could be packaged as an APPX and would be easy enough to install. It would be both more difficult to port and possibly more of a hassle to use, though. With care and luck, it might even be possible to get it submitted to the Store, though, which (combined with setting it up as a file handler for .JAR) would make it widely usable. I doubt MS would approve it, though.

GoodDayToDie said:
There's two ways I could see this happening.
The simplest would be for somebody to take the Java source code, build it for Windows but target ARM, then sign it and tell people to go through the hoops needed to run third-party desktop-mode apps on RT. This would probably actually be pretty easy, if Java has a target for "use ARM instructions" in its JIT. If not, it would have to interpret the bytecode, which is very slow (although usable).
The second way is for the JRE to be built as a Metro-style app. It would probably have to hook a bunch of native APIs that aren't allowed in Store apps, so it would remain as homebrew, but it could be packaged as an APPX and would be easy enough to install. It would be both more difficult to port and possibly more of a hassle to use, though. With care and luck, it might even be possible to get it submitted to the Store, though, which (combined with setting it up as a file handler for .JAR) would make it widely usable. I doubt MS would approve it, though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess that the source isent available. And the open source version for Linux would be quite hard to port right?

filfat said:
I guess that the source isent available. And the open source version for Linux would be quite hard to port right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, it is available.
---------- Post added at 10:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 AM ----------
GoodDayToDie said:
There's two ways I could see this happening.
The simplest would be for somebody to take the Java source code, build it for Windows but target ARM, then sign it and tell people to go through the hoops needed to run third-party desktop-mode apps on RT. This would probably actually be pretty easy, if Java has a target for "use ARM instructions" in its JIT. If not, it would have to interpret the bytecode, which is very slow (although usable).
The second way is for the JRE to be built as a Metro-style app. It would probably have to hook a bunch of native APIs that aren't allowed in Store apps, so it would remain as homebrew, but it could be packaged as an APPX and would be easy enough to install. It would be both more difficult to port and possibly more of a hassle to use, though. With care and luck, it might even be possible to get it submitted to the Store, though, which (combined with setting it up as a file handler for .JAR) would make it widely usable. I doubt MS would approve it, though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oracle do now offer ARMv6 hard float (which is then compatible with ARMv7) as a JIT option, it is standard software in raspbian on the raspberry pi as of a few weeks ago, in fact that is why they added that support. Now if only regular ARMv7 code worked on RT instead of THUMB_2. Don't know if java will actually build under visual studio either, funnily enough googling for any combination of "compile" "java" and "visual studio" gets you results for compiling java source code to the JRE under visual studio rather than compiling the JRE itself
---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 AM ----------
binnym said:
So I have a question?
Is there a way to enable java on the surface rt.
Because for my remote access to work I need JRE.
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You would need a jailbroken RT, that isn't hard (look in windows RT development and hacking, pinned thread right up top).
Then you would need the JRE which doesn't exist.
Its slow and incompatible with a fair amount of software but if you get as far as jailbreaking your RT you could *try* IKVM, its a java virtual machine running ontop of .NET and does work on RT. It can't be used as a browser plugin though so your remote access would need to be a standalone .jar rather than a web applet.

SixSixSevenSeven said:
Actually, it is available..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, Do You Have Any Links? Want to test if I can get it to compile... yes I know, im giving away freedom

Why yes, I have a link:
http://letmebingthatforyou.com/search?q=get+jre+source+code
Rule number one of the forum, please follow it!

GoodDayToDie said:
Why yes, I have a link:
http://letmebingthatforyou.com/search?q=get+jre+source+code
Rule number one of the forum, please follow it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let me bing that... lol, seen the google version before but not the bing one.

GoodDayToDie said:
Why yes, I have a link:
http://letmebingthatforyou.com/search?q=get+jre+source+code
Rule number one of the forum, please follow it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I cant find it, that's why I asked. I have ofcourse already searched

SixSixSevenSeven said:
... you could *try* IKVM ....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He is right. I was suprised, how well that works
I run the Jdownloader with IKVM and only the initial loading time is long (about 2-3min). After that it runs very smooth.
Its def. worth a try, bro :good:

I wonder if IKVM would be fast enough to run Minecraft on the SRT or S2...
It would be ironic if the only major tablet platform that Mojang refuses to support ended up being the only platform with the complete game.

I wonder if people will *ever* learn to do even a cursory search before posting? People have been talking about that literally since the first release of the jailbreak. The forums are littered with it.
Speed is the least of many problems (although I suppose the OpenGL issue has sort-of been resolved, albeit with yet another hit to performance).

GoodDayToDie said:
I wonder if people will *ever* learn to do even a cursory search before posting? People have been talking about that literally since the first release of the jailbreak. The forums are littered with it.
Speed is the least of many problems (although I suppose the OpenGL issue has sort-of been resolved, albeit with yet another hit to performance).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LWJGL doesnt load in IKVM on x86 though.

Hey everyone,
There is already a version of Java for ARM-based architectures. I don't know if it will run with Windows, but
as soon as i'm gonna get the RT, i'm gonna try it

TheRinseM said:
Hey everyone,
There is already a version of Java for ARM-based architectures. I don't know if it will run with Windows, but
as soon as i'm gonna get the RT, i'm gonna try it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just because there is java for ARM based architectures doesnt mean its for windows, it specifically has to be for windows actually (which it isn't).

Not to mention it's compiled for the ARM instruction set, rather than the THUMB2 instruction set that RT actually uses. The CPU can run both, but RT will make non-THUMB code crash.

GoodDayToDie said:
Not to mention it's compiled for the ARM instruction set, rather than the TUMB2 instruction set that RT actually uses. The CPU can run both, but BT will make non-THUMB code crash.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Icedtea has a thumb2 JIT, but its for linux of course

Huh. That's still a bit promising. We would still need to recompile it for Win32/NT, but at least we wouldn't have to re-write the whole JIT.
Major project anyhow. Even if somebody with the requisite knowledge stepped up to start this right now, it would be a while before it bore fruit. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted, but don't hold your breath. In fact, don't expect anything at all, unless somebody says they're able to take this on.

Anyone here wants to team up and try?
i would really love Java on my Surface.
edit: http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/icedtea6/rev/748156804502

Hacking possibilities

So after playing with my Surface for 5 days now, it is obvious there is a lot of capability in the back end through the Desktop. II have networked printers, and drives at both home and office going, streaming content etc. It is very capable for what it is, way beyond any other Ipad and Android tablet out there. So it seems to me it is just a matter of time before some XDAer figures out a way to unleash it and possibly load other programs (non-RT) programs some way. We know the official MS word is no, but it seems to me it is a fully capable Win8 machine that just has some goierners on it and limited processing power, just waiting to be cracked.
Am I just dreaming?

I would love to see this happen. The one thing holding me back from purchasing one. I'd love a Windows 8 Pro version tablet at the Surface RT pricing but wouldn't we all...

I dont think rt can run x86 app properly. Because the cpu is not as good as x86 core. I am interested in porting rt to compatiable device such as tergra 2 and 3 pad.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda app-developers app

liu2002 said:
I dont think rt can run x86 app properly. Because the cpu is not as good as x86 core. I am interested in porting rt to compatiable device such as tergra 2 and 3 pad.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think it's necessarily about the Tegra being "as good" as an x86 - the issue is that you'd need an emulator, or the source for the x86 app which you'd then need to re-compile for ARM. I believe MS made a developer toolkit available that allows simpler conversion from x86 to ARM but it's still up to the app vendors to do it.

In theory, the same code could compile for both x86/64 and ARM (RT), but VS2012 will not allow you to compile an ARM desktop app. There is no legit way to write/compile a desktop app on RT. Its an arbitrary BS limitation put in place by MS. You cannot side load apps, everything must come through the MS store, RT enterprise being an exception... which doesn't help us. And the MS store will only offer Metro apps. MS office shows that's desktop apps are fully possible, albeit recoded/recompiled for ARM, but MS will not allow it. In an ideal world, RT would be a fully supported OS, and the likes of Adobe and others could release desktop apps for RT, but sadly it won't happen.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Skitals said:
In an ideal world, RT would be a fully supported OS, and the likes of Adobe and others could release desktop apps for RT, but sadly it won't happen.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why do you say that?

Because its not allowed, only metro style apps published through the app store are allowed. Even if you compile compatible desktop software, the OS won't run it. Its a closed sandbox.
At best we can hope for a "homebrew" community to compile open source software, and find some hacks to get it running.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Hello,
I’m a happy owner of the Surface RT and I just wanted to add my 2c.
I think that Metro UI is great for tablet, but lacks apps !
So I cannot understand why Microsoft didn’t include .Net on this platform ! I think the main goal and the first “Homebrew” must be recompilation of Mono for ARM. As this will allow us develop a lot of programs, quickly and using “good” tools (Visual )
I just started to study WinRT and I’m already hitting a lot of blocks (For instance, I cannot find a way to open Shared Socket ! So if any other app listen on 1900 port, I lose my SSDP discovery... )
But I think recompilation of Mono is definitely a way to go ! I think i’ll try it this week-end, if I have some time, but It’s sure I will not be able install on my surface  As for now it seems to be impossible to enter Testing Mode on it.
Jurion

jurion said:
So I cannot understand why Microsoft didn’t include .Net on this platform !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think people seem to be missing something here (well, not just here, on other threads/forums.blogs too). MS have essentially (it’s really quite impressive) ported over the entire Windows OS to run on ARM – and this includes all of .NET v4 with supporting libraries/DLLs.
You only have to pop to C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319 on your Surface RT to see – all the same libraries for the same version of .NET a x86 desktop seem to be there - including Linq, SQL, reflection etc.
Now, this could be really great news! I’d bet that it would be entirely possible for standard .NET applications (by standard, I mean programs that only use managed code and nothing legacy) to be reasonably easily recompiled to run on ARM - ideally as easyily as changing a drop-down!
Furthermore, this is all supported in Visual Studio, it’s just locked down a bit - I’ve been able to compile, with VS2012 (and a minor tweak to remove the ARM compile block) a simple command line EXE for ARM (using .NET calls – though only in C++ which is a shame). The problem is, as soon I open it on Surface, I get an error saying the ‘digital certificate’ couldn't be validated – a common issue which has a simple fix documented online. The catch... that the instructions to remove this block don’t work with secure boot enabled, and - at present - we can’t disable this on the Surface (on normal PCs this can be turned off in the bios).
So – the key to all this, is for MS to open it up (not impossible, but who knows if or when) or for someone to get round this secure boot/certificate requirement. I’m sure there’s some smart people on here with abilities to work on, and hopefully succeed in doing this. Even if people aren't able to work a way round this block, I'm hopefully that eventually MS may release some firmware update tools that someone can hack to switch off UEFI secure boot. Or perhaps someone at MS or a partner may leak some file/app/boot that unlocks this for dev/enterprise purposes.
I look forward to it happening!
T

Skitals said:
In theory, the same code could compile for both x86/64 and ARM (RT), but VS2012 will not allow you to compile an ARM desktop app. There is no legit way to write/compile a desktop app on RT. Its an arbitrary BS limitation put in place by MS. You cannot side load apps, everything must come through the MS store, RT enterprise being an exception... which doesn't help us. And the MS store will only offer Metro apps. MS office shows that's desktop apps are fully possible, albeit recoded/recompiled for ARM, but MS will not allow it. In an ideal world, RT would be a fully supported OS, and the likes of Adobe and others could release desktop apps for RT, but sadly it won't happen.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everything doesn't have to come through the MS store, you can install applications that you build in Visual Studio 2012 for Windows Store, create an appx package and choose not to publish it in Windows Store. VS2012 then creates an appx package as well as a PowerShell script that you can run on Surface, accept security warning, get the developer's license on the device (it's free) and that's it!

It is fairly obvious why MS does not allow installation of "Desktop" apps on ARM tablets. Otherwise dev's would get lazy and just recompile desktop apps for ARM. The experience on a touch tablet would not be great on (unmodified) Desktop apps, hence Microsoft set this constraint on Windows RT in order to push dev's towards making a proper touch friendly app. The result is of course the lack of apps initially, but in the long run the benefits will be a greater experience as the apps would be optimized for touch.
Sure there are obvious downsides to this strategy, but the decision itself makes a lot of sense from a useability standpoint. You already read the complaints in reviews about "Office" not being Metro-style and unfriendly to touch. However this is naturally a decision due to time constraints, because MS would have also preferred to not include a desktop on RT. Office is the selling point now, to gravitate people towards RT and when there is enough demand, the touch friendly (Metro) apps will flow in eventually

Backflipping said:
I think people seem to be missing something here (well, not just here, on other threads/forums.blogs too). MS have essentially (it’s really quite impressive) ported over the entire Windows OS to run on ARM – and this includes all of .NET v4 with supporting libraries/DLLs.
You only have to pop to C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319 on your Surface RT to see – all the same libraries for the same version of .NET a x86 desktop seem to be there - including Linq, SQL, reflection etc.
Now, this could be really great news! I’d bet that it would be entirely possible for standard .NET applications (by standard, I mean programs that only use managed code and nothing legacy) to be reasonably easily recompiled to run on ARM - ideally as easyily as changing a drop-down!
Furthermore, this is all supported in Visual Studio, it’s just locked down a bit - I’ve been able to compile, with VS2012 (and a minor tweak to remove the ARM compile block) a simple command line EXE for ARM (using .NET calls – though only in C++ which is a shame). The problem is, as soon I open it on Surface, I get an error saying the ‘digital certificate’ couldn't be validated – a common issue which has a simple fix documented online. The catch... that the instructions to remove this block don’t work with secure boot enabled, and - at present - we can’t disable this on the Surface (on normal PCs this can be turned off in the bios).
So – the key to all this, is for MS to open it up (not impossible, but who knows if or when) or for someone to get round this secure boot/certificate requirement. I’m sure there’s some smart people on here with abilities to work on, and hopefully succeed in doing this. Even if people aren't able to work a way round this block, I'm hopefully that eventually MS may release some firmware update tools that someone can hack to switch off UEFI secure boot. Or perhaps someone at MS or a partner may leak some file/app/boot that unlocks this for dev/enterprise purposes.
I look forward to it happening!
T
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmm, sorry my bad, didn't look enougth to find .Net assemblies.
As for open it for MS, may be, maaaay be it's the same scheme which they followed with Windows Phone 7.
No native developpment for 7.0 -- 7.8
But they open it for 8.0
May be they just want to force people developp Metro app to populate the store first.

So where's the best place to get one?
I'm looking into buying one very very soon, I found some on ebay for $585 with the cover, That sounds like a win to me. I wish QVC had it, That'd be lovely.
I'm praying we get a work around for all this, But still If the device isn't made for it, I can't be mad that it doesn't do it, That's like being angry that my car doesn't fly.
But it's such a tease, it worries me that I'll have an entire desktop, Sitting, Obselete, With nothing but Office, which I wont even use.

Can't_Live_Without_My_Evo said:
I'm looking into buying one very very soon, I found some on ebay for $585 with the cover, That sounds like a win to me. I wish QVC had it, That'd be lovely.
I'm praying we get a work around for all this, But still If the device isn't made for it, I can't be mad that it doesn't do it, That's like being angry that my car doesn't fly.
But it's such a tease, it worries me that I'll have an entire desktop, Sitting, Obselete, With nothing but Office, which I wont even use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is made for it. It has the full desktop, and the full desktop Office suite. Its a big tease. The whole "do more" campaign advertises you can "click in" and have full laptop productivity with touchpad and mouse/keyboard. Except the only software to take advantage of it is desktop IE and Office.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[APP] Wolf3d

I've attached the Windows RT binaries for NewWolf and EcWolf, both of which are Wolfenstein 3D ports.
NewWolf features OpenGL rendering, but does not have any sound support because the port uses a proprietary (ie: no source code) sound engine. To run NewWolf use the included batch file as there is an issue with 16bit color depth (the batch file will force 32bit).
more info -> http://newwolf.sourceforge.net/
EcWolf is straight up software rendered using SDL with full sound support and is very true to the original. Simply run ecwolf.exe.
more info -> http://maniacsvault.net/ecwolf/
I have also included the original Wolf3D 'demo' game files so people should be able to play this straight away. If anyone has concerns about this, let me know and I'll remove the game data.
These are also on the SVN repo, so feel free to pull it from there if you like.
Cheers!

The original game files were shareware I think, I dont think anyone can complain about you throwing in shareware files for an old game.
Nice work yet again. I was just about to ask if you had considered doom, but it seems you've already done it

Offtopic.
SixSixSevenSeven, i see you know a lot of about Windows RT and porting apps, and i have a Little question. I need a C Compiler for my Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Engineering, and i don't have any laptop for running a C Compiler. I'v tried searching a C Compiler for Windows RT (I'v only seen a C# Compiler) and i want to know if will be possible to run something like gcc in Windows RT, saving money buying a laptop.
Thanks

comandospi said:
SixSixSevenSeven, i see you know a lot of about Windows RT and porting apps, and i have a Little question. I need a C Compiler for my Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Engineering, and i don't have any laptop for running a C Compiler. I'v tried searching a C Compiler for Windows RT (I'v only seen a C# Compiler) and i want to know if will be possible to run something like gcc in Windows RT, saving money buying a laptop.
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not yet. MinGW might run under the x86 emulator but anything it produces will also only run under the x86 emulator, and that emulator isnt 100% reliable and it is rather slow.
You would be best off with a laptop, sorry.
Also not really something to be discussed here.

SixSixSevenSeven said:
Not yet. MinGW might run under the x86 emulator but anything it produces will also only run under the x86 emulator, and that emulator isnt 100% reliable and it is rather slow.
You would be best off with a laptop, sorry.
Also not really something to be discussed here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried MinGW under Win86Emu but the setup doesn't work properly. I found a Little C compiler (Tiny C Compiler) and works perfectly with Win86Emu (at least some simple code), so i think that this could save me temporarily from buying a laptop.
Sorry for asking about this here, but thanks so much for the Win86Emu idea

Already exists?
There is a Wolfenstein port in the Windows app store called Wolf.

Surface-RT said:
There is a Wolfenstein port in the Windows app store called Wolf.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looks like it only has the 1st level based on the comments... a Demo of sorts I guess. These ports would allow you to play the complete game, assuming you have access to the game files. I have no idea if you could use the complete game files with this Store version.
I haven't actually tried either of these ports yet. But I am curious on whether they are an improvement over the original DOS game? I've played that a bit using DOSBox on my Surface...

domboy said:
Looks like it only has the 1st level based on the comments... a Demo of sorts I guess. These ports would allow you to play the complete game, assuming you have access to the game files. I have no idea if you could use the complete game files with this Store version.
I haven't actually tried either of these ports yet. But I am curious on whether they are an improvement over the original DOS game? I've played that a bit using DOSBox on my Surface...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This port is running natively, otherwise it is essentially the same as the dos version. But running natively means it requires less CPU power (no x86 + DOS emulation) which might help keep the tablet cooler and prolong battery.

Office RT on Surface dump

Can anyone copy the Office RT folder on the Surface, compress it, and upload it?
I want to fool with it and make it work on a AMD64 computer.

mr_verystock said:
Can anyone copy the Office RT folder on the Surface, compress it, and upload it?
I want to fool with it and make it work on a AMD64 computer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then you have a lack of understanding on how processors can be incompatible. Without emulation it wont work on AMD64.

This is also a really weird thing to want to do... it's just a slightly crippled version of Office 2013, compiled to the THUMB2 instruction set for ARM processors. Take a standard Office install, remove the ability to run VBA macros, and you've basically got Office RT. Nothing exciting or special to it...

GoodDayToDie said:
This is a really weird thing to want to do... it's just a slightly crippled version of Office 2013, compiled to the THUMB2 instruction set for ARM processors. Take a standard Office install, remove the ability to run VBA macros, and you've basically got Office RT. Nothing exciting or special to it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks. But I want an activated version of Office, so I looked at the Office RT. But I'll keep that in mind.
SixSixSevenSeven said:
Then you have a lack of understanding on how processors can be incompatible. Without emulation it wont work on AMD64.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nothing from you, 6677. PLEASE LOOK AT MY POST AGAIN BEFORE TELLING ME THAT. Didn't I say I want to mess with it and get it working on AMD64 instruction? If GoodDayToDie tells the truth about MS compiling Office to THUMB2, then it could be done vice versa. PLUS, I'll learn more about programming.

mr_verystock said:
Thanks. But I want an activated version of Office, so I looked at the Office RT. But I'll keep that in mind.
Nothing from you, 6677. PLEASE LOOK AT MY POST AGAIN BEFORE TELLING ME THAT. Didn't I say I want to mess with it and get it working on AMD64 instruction? If GoodDayToDie tells the truth about MS compiling Office to THUMB2, then it could be done vice versa. PLUS, I'll learn more about programming.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually you just reiterated my point.
Software is compiled from a human readable plain text representation to machine code, in this case THUMB2. You cannot take that THUMB2 code and port it to x86 or AMD64 and will learn nothing in the process.
To me it sounds more like you are after a copy of office for free and trying to disguise your reasoning for pirating the software behind claims you want to port it to AMD64.

In a very, very technical sense, dynamic recompilation (converting from one machine code to another) is possible, but it's a slow process that produces slow code, the effort it requires is wholly un-worthwhile, and it would teach very little about programming in the conventional sense (although it's a fun concept from a general computer science perspective, recreating an abstract syntax tree from optimized machine code is only very rarely useful).

GoodDayToDie said:
In a very, very technical sense, dynamic recompilation (converting from one machine code to another) is possible, but it's a slow process that produces slow code, the effort it requires is wholly un-worthwhile, and it would teach very little about programming in the conventional sense (although it's a fun concept from a general computer science perspective, recreating an abstract syntax tree from optimized machine code is only very rarely useful).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, I understand.
But I am still in need for a dump to analyze. Anyone?