Re: Tech question re: Windows CE

From: Jim March <jmarch_at_prodigy_dot_net>
Date: Thu Jun 22 2006 - 13:47:34 CDT

Ron Crane wrote:

>>
> The names of the source files do not necessarily have any resemblance
> to the name of the library file an app developer links to to call
> them. But, from the report you cite, it certainly does appear that the
> ITA examined only the source for Diebold's apps and not its
> configuration of (and quite possibly changes to) Windows CE.
>
> -R

We actually have some proof that it's Global/Diebold's "style" to name
executables the same as source code 'cept for the extension. Abasic.x
is an example, it means "accubasic" whether source code or executable.

But you're right, even a cursory glance at the files Wyle DID review
shows that there's nothing even remotely "Microsoftian" in there. It's
all Diebold application code. And per tons of sources, WinCE *must* be
modified to fit the hardware, including Microsoft's diagram of CE
components:

http://www.equalccw.com/windows_ce_architecture.gif

(That's from an MS website.)

Jim

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Fri Jun 30 23:17:10 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 23:17:12 CDT