Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Handhelds Hardware

Microsoft's Smartphone 2003 SDK Released 172

Posted by michael from the oxymoron dept.
cd_Csc writes "Microsoft's long awaited Smartphone 2003 SDK was released today. This free download is critical milestone for the Smartphone platform. For the first time, developers are now able to use the .NET Compact Framework to write Smartphone applications using Visual Studio. At Smartphone Thoughts, we have listed the details of what's new in the 2003 SDK along with some screen shots of enhancements to the Inbox and Internet Explorer applications."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft's Smartphone 2003 SDK Released More

Microsoft's Smartphone 2003 SDK Released

Comments Filter:

  • API Reference (Score:5, Funny)

    by SamBeckett ( 96685 ) on Sunday August 17, 2003 @05:22AM (#6716021)

    bool makeCall(long phoneNumber) - Calls phonenumber. Must be in (xxx)xxx-xxxx format. Returns true on success.

    void hangUp() - Hang up the phone. Has no effect if phone is already hung up.

    void blueScreen(double p) - Crash the phone with probability p, sampled every 100 cycles, or whenever the user is on phone with his boss. This is determined by the address book.

    • void hangUp() { char* device = 0; printf(device); }

    • Re:API Reference (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17, 2003 @05:49AM (#6716081)
      you've never seen an API made my microsoft before have you?

      that would be

      __fastcall bool CMobileDevice::MakeCall (long lPhoneNumber, const CString *StrOptions)

      void CCallerObject::PreformHangUp(void *objCaller)


      the BSOD is actually a template that they include with every application they develop. Recoding it everytime would take far too much time.. At this time, it's the only known example of succesfull code-reuse in any C++ project outside academia.

    • Re:API Reference (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      bool makeCall(long phoneNumber) - Calls phonenumber. Must be in (xxx)xxx-xxxx format. Returns true on success.

      How can a long be in "(xxx)xxx-xxxx" format?

      /pedant

  • ...pictures of "enhancements" the placeholder for spam and adverts?

  • Chicken and egg situation (Score:5, Informative)

    by Peter Cooper ( 660482 ) on Sunday August 17, 2003 @05:28AM (#6716035) Homepage Journal
    The XHTML support in these phones is great! As a bit of an XHTML/CSS advocate myself, however, I think browsing the Web from such space-limited devices could become a chicken and egg situation.

    A LOT of pages out there are poorly coded FrontPage (or even MS Publisher) not-even-HTML 3.2-compliant junk. There are a lot [fastcompany.com] of [inc.com] amazingly [adaptivepath.com] beautiful XHTML/CSS coded pages out there, and they all display well on the small screens.

    How many people will buy these phones, surf to their favorite page, and then discover they can't get anywhere fast? Will devices like smartphones and portable computers, with and 3G's ability to access the Internet at speed, force more Web designers to follow the chosen path and design in a fully backwards, and forwards, compatable way with XHTML and CSS? Or will we have a chicken and egg situation where people are turned off from using the devices because the content and pages available to them are so poor.. just like with WAP.

    • Re:Chicken and egg situation (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Talez ( 468021 ) on Sunday August 17, 2003 @05:58AM (#6716095)
      Frankly I'd just like to see mobile phone standards converge for once. As if the marketplace wasn't fragmented enough already making a developer's life hell.

      Sure its great having .NET tools to develop for mobile phones but its also another thing developers have to learn to code for just so they can get their product out to a market.
      • Java is where it's at for that sort of thing. The number of new phones that support java is very high.
        • It's all very nice to say that something supports Java but its no good when each device requires you to program in some bastardised dialect of Java.

          I've done a bit of coding for Nokia phones and it amazes me the amount of stuff that is purely Nokia brand Java. Most of the screen stuff is Nokia dialect.
          • So, should we be hating Nokia as much as Microsoft for that sort of thing? ;-)

            Nokia have always done this. The whole ringtone thing was completely proprietry to them. I'm a little shocked that they've done that with Java. Have they removed/disabled the normal Java display classes, forcing you to go with theirs?

            • Have they removed/disabled the normal Java display classes, forcing you to go with theirs?

              If that's all they did, what's the big deal? They didn't bastardize Java, they just provided their own API, which is reasonable. You want to code AWT or Swing? And then display it a smartphone? Yikes!

              As long as they didn't change the language, all they did is provide some classes. Are you arguing that the SAX XML parser is a bastardization because it's an API that hadn't yet been conceived when Gosling et al create

              • You want to code AWT or Swing? And then display it a smartphone? Yikes!

                Isn't that the point? The JRE turns the AWT/Swing objects into what you see. These phones have specially designed fonts so that they are readable, even at small sizes. Simply have the implementation of the libraries produce graphics that look good on the phone. Most of the applications that run on these devices are coded specifically for that kind of environment anyway, and the Java graphics libraries are more than capable.

              • If that's all they did, what's the big deal?

                Because every company provides their own platform specific implementation of classes instead of using a mobile standard.
                • If that's all they did, what's the big deal?

                  Because every company provides their own platform specific implementation of classes instead of using a mobile standard.

                  Fine. Maybe that's a "bad idea", but my point was that it isn't bastardizing the language. Java the language has NOT been modified at all...

    • This is probably why the Microsoft smartphones won't and haven't so far taken off. Other devices are using browsers like Opera and they have done some good work on making pages useable on small screens.

      Link to info [opera.com]
    • How do these pages display well on small screens?

      As with all of the pages that I've seen that use CSS for layout, if you take the text size up a few notches then it all overlaps and the end result is unreadable.

      I'm making a web app using CSS right now, and the lack of cross browser standardization (*all* of them are different) is a real pain.

      - Brian
    • Or you use Opera for Smartphones [opera.com] on your Symbian-based phone (Sony Ericsson P800, Nokia 7650 etc) and view each and every page there is without problems.

      Yes, I use it. It works just fine.
      • My problem with such a scheme is that it's a situation where a client overrules the intention of the person who created the page. This works in many cases, where the person who created the page was an anti-standards jerkwad, but what about situations where the page was specifically designed for small-screen situations? Opera might well smash up the page in the way it sees fit, and the page might not look how the author planned it to look on the small screen.

        However, I do not know the technical ins and outs
    • The history of computing and IT is full of chicken-egg situations. Some worked out sooner and some later. Many had to do with hardware capabilities vs. applications, or economics (PC's were once too expensive for home use, but they were expensive in part because there wasn't much of a market, etc.). As more people use small devices to surf (happening already), compliant sites will see more visits, and more sites will become compliant to compete for the squinched eyeball. Just one easy-to-use standards-compl
    • Easy to ask, why no such xhtml support in IE for windows (I know mac one).

      You just don't see why MS instantly joined to webstandards and why they need it...

      Just one word? Nokia rejected their OS?

  • DDOS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by chevelleSS ( 594683 ) on Sunday August 17, 2003 @05:28AM (#6716039) Homepage
    I imagine it won't be too long before someone will figure out how to write a worm to DDOS a companies phone system!

    • Re:DDOS (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ultrabot ( 200914 ) on Sunday August 17, 2003 @06:16AM (#6716118)
      I imagine it won't be too long before someone will figure out how to write a worm to DDOS a companies phone system!

      And such a worm would be a boon for operators that charge for calls. Expect the operators' share prices to skyrocket whenever a worm alarm is given :-).

      I think the phones should have a hardware "lock" that would require the user to explicitly allow doing an operation that will cost them money.
      • I think the phones should have a hardware "lock" that would require the user to explicitly allow doing an operation that will cost them money. Like in the good old 95' days when you had to reboot into DOS To do anything useful, like repartition or format the harddrive :) So the next SDK will have usefull functions like this.: C:\call /localtelephonenumber 555-LINUX /waitforcarrier /enablevoiceactivatedmicrophone /prayforopensdk

    • Re:DDOS (Score:3, Insightful)

      by glesga_kiss ( 596639 )
      Microsoft or not, the complexity of the new phones that are around now means that some cracks are likely to happen. They have an IP address, so are suseptible to the usual risks, as well as phone based attacks. Buffer-overflow in the 160-char SMS limit? I wonder who will be the first to fall due to that one!?!

      Some networks have choosen to only run signed code, unfortunatly this means you can't run your own code. Which defeats the point of having a smartphone!!

      • Re:DDOS (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Ryosen ( 234440 )
        I could be wrong about this but here is my understanding, at least where Sprint is concerned. Yes, the phone has an IP address but they are on an internal subnet belonging to the carrier. All surfing is done through a proxy, thus the phone is not visible to the outside Internet for random attacks. On my Sanyo 4900, applications (the browser being on of them) do not have any access to the phone book, nor the dialing function. As long as the phone manufacturers continue to maintain this level of data separati

  • BSOD (Score:1, Funny)

    by gaber1187 ( 681071 )
    Can't wait for that blue screen when trying to call a girl, just one more way microsoft is trying to screw us... :-)

    • Re:BSOD (Score:3, Funny)

      by tolldog ( 1571 )
      or they are protecting you from getting screwed...
      or they are keeping you from getting screwed

      all depends on how you look at it i guess
    • Is it the blue screen you're waiting for, or are you waiting for your opportunity to call a girl?
    • Don't worry - I've seen [interalpha.net] the design and they've made sure a blue screen will only be a temporary inconvenience ;-)
    • It's 2003. Blue screens haven't been commonplace since Clinton was in office.

      Seriously, get with the times. BSOD jokes in this day and age make you look like a fanatic.

      Next.

  • Smartphone lawsuit (Score:3, Interesting)

    by imnoteddy ( 568836 ) on Sunday August 17, 2003 @05:30AM (#6716046)
    Ah, the Smartphone that Sendo is suing Microsoft [theregister.co.uk] over.

  • Smartphone 2003 can use a security prompt for unsigned applications
    Smartphone 2003 can use a security policy that, when turned on, causes a prompt to appear that asks the user whether to accept the installation or execution of an unsigned application.

    Should read:

    Smartphone 2003 will likely fall victim to RedAlert, or MSBlast
    Smartphone 2003 can now replicate MS based virii and worms and send them to everyone listed on your phone. MS Where do you want to go replicate today!

  • Fsck security? Yes/No? (Score:3, Funny)

    by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Sunday August 17, 2003 @05:34AM (#6716054) Homepage
    Smartphone 2003 can use a security prompt for unsigned applications

    Smartphone 2003 can use a security policy that, when turned on, causes a prompt to appear that asks the user whether to accept the installation or execution of an unsigned application.

    Considering Microsoft's record of allowing users to bogger themselves by running(!) unsafe email in Outlook, with only the protection of a yes/no prompt, I'm sure we can look forward to many phone phollies in the phuture.

  • No VBScript? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by goranb ( 209371 ) on Sunday August 17, 2003 @05:43AM (#6716070)
    From Why Develop for Windows Mobile-based Devices? [microsoft.com]:
    Pocket Internet Explorer is a full Internet browser with support for HTML, XML/XSL, WML, cHTML, Jscript & SSL.

    What happened to VBScript? Not that I'm a fan of VBScript (I hate it for web pages, but it's great as a substitute for batch files...), but still... I have come across many web pages that give out VBScript code in pages when browsing with IE...

    • Re:No VBScript? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      VBscript is gradually being phased out from MS's web applications portfolio (actually, I think it's already gone!). ASP.NET has moved over to using any of the core .NET languages and VBS doesn't really have a place on the client. As you rightly say, some sites that are IE-friendly do use it, but I'd guess that number is in decline. As for batch files, I'm sort of hoping that I'll never have to run them on a phone, least of all type them in using T9 predictive text...

      Annoying not to see support for JavaScri
      • JScript is available... It's not exactly JavaScript, but I haven't had any compatibility issues until now...

        • JScript is an implementation of ECMAScript [ecma-international.org], which is also the standard with which Netscape's JavaScript is compliant.

          In other words, JScript and JavaScript are two proprietary implementations of the ECMAScript standard. As far as the core language is concerned, they should work the same.

          I identified a minor inconsistency in the implementation of certain kinds of closure a couple of years ago; it was difficult to tell from the standard (after poring over it for hours) which implementation was correct.

  • Really. The Qtek phone doesn't even get close to phones like Sony Ericsson P800, and even costs more.

    The one thing that guarantees that I will never, ever, EVER own a MS-phone is the simple fact that I actually have to pay for services that originate from that phone. When the first SmartPhone get infected with a worm and causes several hundred dollars in GPRS bills, I'll kiss my t68i and thank it for not being an insecure piece of crap.

    • Re:Why would anyone buy one? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Chanc_Gorkon ( 94133 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .nokrog.> on Sunday August 17, 2003 @06:34AM (#6716139)
      First, assuming Smartphone is like any other Microsoft os is stupid. Smartphone is of course based on the same os that runs Windows Mobile 2003. I have NEVER had a blue screen because there's no such thing on the platform. I have never had a crash take the whole device down either. It's much more robust and boots rather fast so a soft reset is bound to not annoy too much (although when your testing some unstable code to make things like a USB to Serial cable work on a Toshiba e740, it's kind of hairy! :) ). Smartphone has been reported to have problems. Non of these are verifiable to the US market because NOONE HAS THESE YET! By the time these are finally available, T-Mobile will end up being king of GPRS in the states because they have a 29.99 unlimited plan (or 19.99 with a voice plan). So your fear of having a several hundered dollar GPRS bill because of a worm is unfounded. BTW, Smartphone and WM 2003 are pretty locked down. No services run that are open all of the time. Sure, e-mail works so port 25 is open, but the e-mail program can't even understand html let alone the outlook virus code stuff. The e-mail client works best with straight text (e-mail should have never ventured into html or ActiveX code either).
      • First, assuming Smartphone is like any other Microsoft os is stupid.

        I'm not assuming that it is based on or identical to any other MS OS. What I AM assuming is that the SP OS is: Made by Microsoft. This has some qualities to it, as I have experienced. MS is a company that does not take security very seriously in my opinion. If they had, Outlook would never been released for example.

        I have NEVER had a blue screen because there's no such thing on the platform.

        I never said anything about a BSOD, but mo

      • Gotta agree with the parent. The P800 is the only phone near the Smartphone platform, and most would agree that the Smartphone is ahead. The selection of applications is outstanding, and in contrast to the parent's parent, everything is free (beer).

        Yes, that's right. With these phones, you can make your own ringtones as wav files, unlike this nonsense [bbc.co.uk], where users are being charged 1.50 UKP per pop. Ditto applications, just download the free developers kit.

        My phone has web, e-mail, IRC, MSN, java, mp3/w

  • Phone Sex (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17, 2003 @05:48AM (#6716078)
    Between the security flaws of MS and the morals of the porn industry, I think it would be unwise to use one of these phones for phone sex.

  • Long awaited (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ultrabot ( 200914 ) on Sunday August 17, 2003 @06:10AM (#6716111)
    Microsoft's long awaited Smartphone 2003 SDK was released today.

    Not a slashdot regular, are you?

    Really, it is critical that Smartphone not be allowed to succeed. We don't want Microsoft gaining a significant market share there also. If they happen to get something like 20%, they will start "integrating" a lot of proprietary interop stuff to Windows and aggressively wrestle up the marketshare. MSFT Windows/Offics business is winding down, so Smartphones are an excellent migration route because people actually buy new phones all the time.

    Symbian is not all that "open", but they have to support public standards, because they have no choice. Do the industry a favor and boycott handsets that run SmartPhone. I don't know how much it is going to help though, because MSFT has endless stash of money to throw to these "strategic" projects. They are not going to drop out even if they sold zero licenses in 10 year.

    Obviously multiple platforms means competition, which brings a little bit energy to the market. Smartphones will be a huge thing in a few years, so platform developers can't really be sitting on their asses for long.
    • Microsoft's market cap: about 280 Billion $.

      Market cap of Motorola, Lucent, Nortel, Nokia combined: = 105 Billion $.

      The telecomm industry is hurting, and Microsoft is using every dirty trick in the book to muscle in. They are using their tremendous market cap and huge cash reservers to cajole, bribe, threaten and intimidate the various players. They are doling out large amounts of cash to the service providers (esp 2^nd tier providers like Sprint) to support the Smartphones on the network, and the servi

    • The trouble is, the distribution points for these phones are just like the distribution points for new PC's with Windows. The smartphones aren't generally distributed the way most normal handsets like those manufactured by Nokia, Ericsson, and the other big-name brands are. From what I know, these phones are generally sold by a telco as part of their subscriber plans. From what I've heard, this is what Orange is doing, and out here in my country Smart Communications [smart.com.ph] is also distributing these phones alo

    • Did you read the EULA?!? (Score:4, Informative)

      by passthecrackpipe ( 598773 ) * <passthecrackpipe.hotmail@com> on Sunday August 17, 2003 @08:12AM (#6716353)
      Don't worry, personally, I don't think this will succeed. Microsoft still does not allow, for all their rethoric, GPL'ed or other Open Source Software to be created with this software. The EULA states:

      * No Identified Software. Your license rights to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT are conditioned upon you:
      • (a) not incorporating Identified Software into, or combining Identified Software with, the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or a derivative work thereof;
      • (b) not distributing Identified Software in conjunction with the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or a derivative work thereof;
      • and (c) not using Identified Software in the development of a derivative work of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
      "Identified Software" means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that directly or indirectly:
      • (i) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights in the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or derivative work thereof, or
      • (ii) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or derivative work thereof.
      Identified Software includes, without limitation, any software licensed pursuant to terms that seek to require that other software incorporated into, derived from or distributed with such software be:
      • (a) disclosed or distributed in source code form;
      • (b) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or
      • (c) be redistributable at no charge.
      With their Anti-Open Source software clauses still in place, the potential uptake for this platform is probably not going to be very high, especially among corporates that are increasingly looking for OSS.

      Then there is the "Spyware" clause:
      b. Consent to use of Data. You agree that Microsoft and its affiliates may collect and use technical information gathered in any manner as part of the product support services provided to you, if any, related to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. Microsoft may use this information solely to improve our products or to provide customized services or technologies to you. Microsoft may disclose this information to others, but not in a form that personally identifies you.
      These are just some of the EULA nasties. There is also, of course, the "can't use this to provide hosting or service" clause (because MS is seeking to corner that particular market). Good luck to all developers who agree to this. For those who do agree to this contract with MS, there is a large red man with cloven hoofs, horns and a funny tail that is mumbling something about "my contract is better".......

    • Re:Long awaited (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tealover ( 187148 )
      Really, it is critical that Smartphone not be allowed to succeed.

      Says who? I don't make my purchasing decisions based on whether the manufacturer holds a monopoly. I base it on whether the product gives me what I want.

      Not all monopolies are bad. This type of knee-jerk reaction to anything Microsoft is juvenile and self-defeating.

      • How about basing it, in part, on the behavior of the company? In this day and age, basing a purchasing decision solely on whether a company has a monopoly is ALMOST as foolish as basing it solely on whether it gives you what you want. If there aren't multiple companies offering the advanced features you want, you really have to wonder about the quality of the product as it was probably rushed out ahead of the competition.

        How anyone could not take Micro$ofts corporate behavior into account is beyond me.
    • It was appropriately

      Posted by michael on 17/08/03 3:15
      from the oxymoron dept.

      Very nice touch :)

  • I wonder... (Score:2, Funny)

    by norite ( 552330 )
    ...Does the phone have Ctrl Alt Del Keys? Think it would be mandatory for a MS phone!

  • I don't need this... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ..I still have an old Nokia 5110.. and guess what.. I can still receive or make phone calls!!!!

  • The sign of things to come (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BFKrew ( 650321 ) on Sunday August 17, 2003 @06:37AM (#6716145)
    As someone who earns his living off writing for the .Net framework (Linux at home though ;) I think this is really quite an impressive piece of kit which could have a lot of ramifications for how software is written for phones, web pages and on the desktop.

    With the latest release of Visual Studio, they have really blurred the difference between how you put together a Windows Form, a ASP.NET form and a Mobile form. Just to have the ability to write a few classes and get good, working output on a Windows Form, ASP.NET form and a mobile form you start to realise just how impressive it is, and also how relatively easy it will be to, for example, take an existing Windows Form app and get it working on a WAP Page, ASP.Net page, Smartphone or anything else. This alone is a huge step forward and is going to make new development a whole lot easier as well as being able to leverage existing software onto the phones.

    Sadly, most on here will totally dismiss it with the predictable BSOD 'gags' (again and again... dzz) but this is something which is very impressive. I know you can do similiar things in Java but with MS you will be talking about business applications being run on phones, not the games and utilities that are mainly found on the Java phones. I will add that I do like Java, but I am speaking from what I have seen here.

    So, I say to you: take the time just to read about .Net and the SDK, what it can do. We all know that MS gets a lot of things wrong, but every so often they get something right - as all companies do.
    • Sadly, most on here will totally dismiss it with the predictable BSOD 'gags'

      Sadly they are correct. I've been playing with such a smartphone and they are very unstable. Things like disconnects while calling and random crashes is not acceptable for a telephone.

      Orange (I think it was them) was supplying them here in the netherlands. They had to give some users back their money because some services were barely useable.
    • I know you can do similiar things in Java

      If that floats your boat, the Smartphone platform also supports Java.

    • Re:The sign of things to come (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I know you can do similiar things in Java but with MS you will be talking about business applications being run on phones, not the games and utilities that are mainly found on the Java phones. I will add that I do like Java, but I am speaking from what I have seen here.

      obvious you don't know jack about wireless apps. Back when WAP was the buzz, 90% of the companies tried to win the business world (common referred to as vertical market). 95% of them failed miserably. But now finally, wireless apps are star

  • Finaly (Score:4, Funny)

    by Biomechanoid ( 515993 ) on Sunday August 17, 2003 @06:48AM (#6716165)
    "Microsoft's long awaited Smartphone 2003 SDK was released today.

    For months I slept in a tent before a Microsoft office. I cant wait to pick up my smart phone and start using the SDK for days on end. I will be loosing sleep for whole weeks.

    When my first pieces of code are ready I will walk across the street screeming, jumping up and down and showing it to people so they can share the experiences I feel with the Microsoft Smartphone 2003 SDK.
  • Disclaimer: I have not used any of the SmartPhone SDKs before. "Applications can be woken via a WAP packet over SMS" is exactly the kind of mechanism that virus writers love. I hope this is not turned on by default, because it's exactly the wireless counterpart of the RPC DCOM exploit.

  • FREE (as in beer download) SDK Download (Score:3, Funny)

    by Proudrooster ( 580120 ) on Sunday August 17, 2003 @06:53AM (#6716202) Homepage
    I just tried it! The download is really FREE! I am glad to see Microsoft taking steps to joing the FREE Software Download revolution. Now, if we could just get them to include the source code.

  • Hmm J2ME owns SMartPhones (Score:3, Informative)

    by linuxislandsucks ( 461335 ) on Sunday August 17, 2003 @06:58AM (#6716214) Homepage Journal
    with 90% of smartphones inclduing MS powered ones running J2ME and J2ME applications ..

    is MS SamrtPhoneOS owned by J2ME and Sun?

  • SDK for Palm

    here [palmos.com]

    extra dev tools for Treo 600 needs a login from

    here [handspring.com]

    Tools from here [handspring.com]

    Cheers

    VikingBrad

  • All I can say is that I totally love it.

    I brought it back from Europe around a year ago and have not had a single problem with it, the interface is great, I have one or two apps that I've written for myself - one that tracks expenses and one that prevents me from buying the same DVDs over and over when I'm in Tower.

    Everything that I used to be able to do with my PocketPC can now be done with a single device.
  • Is a sure loser. If it wasn't they would be charging an arm and a leg for it.
  • I would bank that people would be using the phone, it would crash due to the "phone virus of the week" or some other "OEM-reposnsible" reason.

    many users would then of course say in an exastperated tone (you guessed it): "dumb phone!"
  • If M$ gets code in cell phones, I am sure hacking and spamming them will get easier.

    Plus, the J2ME already has the market cornered on wireless devices. M$ is wasting money and time in a new product when they should be spending that money and time fixing what they already sell.
  • I recently had the misfortune of trying to get some work done on one of these damned things.

    All I wanted to do was verify that the web pages I was producing for clients would be viewable on the Pocket PC 2003.

    Unfortunately the Pocket PC SDK claims to need version 4 of the Embedded Visual Tools (EVT, a free Visual C++ for developing pocket PC applictions) but only version 3 of the tools are freely available.

    This monstrosity requires over 300MB of disk space, and at least Microsoft Windows 2000 with Servic
  • Mobile phones and computers are very different animals. First and foremost a phone is a phone. It's not a laptop. It's not a gameboy. It's a phone...you call people with it.

    Because of this, people have an expectation that thier phones will have a very high degree of reliability and security. They see mobile phones as an appliance like microwaves, dishwashers, and radios...and any modern appliance that crashed twice a day would be totally unacceptable to most (especially non-techie) consumers. How many peop
  • long awaited Smartphone 2003 SDK was released today.

    I know I wasn't waiting for it at all....
    No news here... move along... until smartphone gets some market at least...
  • When publishing word for word a press release could they please be marked, "propaganda", or something similar?

  • ...when SmartPhone2003 debuts in the U.S., will Symantec release *Norton Antivirus for SmartPhone* on the same day? Because surely if they do, CompUSA will have a rebate available if you buy the phone and the software from them on the same receipt...

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close