PureBasic Forums - English

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by dige.

I really dont know, would it be possible?

cya dige

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fred.

Not easily, as it's another processor.

Fred - AlphaSND

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by tinman.

Originally posted by fred

Not easily, as it's another processor.

CE also runs on x86.


--
I used to be a nihilist but I don't believe in that any more.
(Win98first ed. + all updates, PB3.62, external editor)

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fred.

Hum, yes, but not all. Or I misunderstood something ?

Fred - AlphaSND

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by tinman.

Originally posted by fred

Hum, yes, but not all. Or I misunderstood something ?

It might just be CE 3 and above, I've never used CE 2. But I've got an x86 development kit which comes with CE 3 so I know that works

However, according to the MS website (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedd ... 212v30.asp), Windows CE 2.12 also works on x86.


--
I used to be a nihilist but I don't believe in that any more.
(Win98first ed. + all updates, PB3.62, external editor)

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by PB.

> would it be possible?

Apparently Microsoft has a FREE Pocket PC (WinCE) development kit (called eVB), but it's
a fairly big download, so you may want to order it on CD: http://tinyurl.com/6yot

UPDATE: I ended up downloading this eVB package, and it's basically (hehe) a version
of Visual Basic for Windows CE devices. That is, similar visual designer, similar
commands, similar API declarations and calls, and, unfortunately, similar runtime
file requirements.

I was going to start using eVB to code apps for my iPAQ 1910, but the fact that you
need to install runtimes is a major turn-off after coding in PureBasic for so long.
Plus, eVB apps can be decompiled back to source code again, as they're interpreted
p-code files. Fred, I don't know how much of a difference Windows CE is to normal
Windows, but if PureBasic could ever support Windows CE, then you'd make a lot of
money, because the only other BASIC for Windows CE so far is NSBasic, and even that
requires its own runtime files for its apps (http://www.nsbasic.com/ce/).
If money is all it takes for you to make PureBasic CE-compatible, just let us know!

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fred.

It's not really money, it's time... (I know, time is money ). If I find a descend 'emulator' or 'environment' which runs on a regular PC, why not.

Fred - AlphaSND

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by PB.

> If I find a descend 'emulator' or 'environment' which runs on a regular PC, why not.

The TinyURL link in my above post contains a Pocket PC emulator... But I'm not sure how
you pass a program to it for testing... (it's easy to do using the eVB environment,
but I'm not sure about external apps).

But I do understand you need time. No problem. I was just hoping the port wouldn't
be too much different to the current Windows PureBasic build, but perhaps it is.

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Eikeland.

Hi,

I did use the MS CE Toolkit with VB6 and Win CE v.2 for a few years ago.
That time it was far to slow and memory consuming compared to a compilled c app.
My guess is because of all the different processeors, they use precompiled libraries.
PB is right the program files is interpreted p-code.

MS .NET using IL (Intermediate Language) Compiled files, I was chocked to see how easy I could reverse enginere (decompile) my own compiled applications.
If you have a app written in .NET (VB or C#) try the link: http://www.remotesoft.com/salamander/
This is of course not an big issue if you write a web application, but if you write an distributed application it's not funy to get your app back decompiled 100% like your own source code.
This was also a big consern for me when I used MS CE toolkit.

So if Fred some day deside to to support windows CE, then he will have mine 100% support,
But I believe that is a huge job.

Richard