PocketPC 2002 and PocketPC 2003 are two different OSs!

Chudrik169 · Post by **Chudrik169** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:06 am

From the description on the Download page:

"Windows Mobile 5 ARM package for Pocket PC 2002, Pocket PC 2003, Pocket PC 2003 SE, Smartphone 2002, Smartphone 2003, and Windows Mobile 5"

Now why on Earth did you decide that if you compile a program for Pocket PC 2003 it will run under Pocket PC 2002?! Of course it won't!!

The reason is the simple fact that PPC 2002 etc. are just marketing names. The real version numbers of Windows CE are:

Version 3.0 is Pocket PC 2000 and 2002.
Version 4.2 is Pocket PC 2003
Version 5.0 is Windows Mobile 5.0
etc.

That's why people with PPC 2002 are complaining that they can't run ScummVM .

Of course, if you compile it for PPC 2002 it should run on PPC 2003, but not vice versa!

I had been waiting for the next release of ScummVM for almost a year... just to find that neither 0.73 nor 0.80 didn't run on PPC 2002.
I'd suggest that you remove PPC 2002 from the list of platforms on the download page, or compile it for that platform for real.

Post by **sev** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:04 am

I don't think your message has a proper tone. Actually this is a violation of Forum Rule #4.

Eugene

Chudrik169 · Post by **Chudrik169** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:31 am

Well I don't know. I just wanted to attract your attention to the problem which apparently went unnoticed since this spring. The previous official release (0.73) already had only one version, namely PPC 2003, but listed it as PPC 2002 compatible. It didn't run on PPC2002 as well.

As for the rule #4, it says
"4) Be nice to each other and respect the moderator. Profanity and insults will not be tolerated. If you have a problem with another member turn to the respective moderator."

If you think I violated this rule, then any error report will violate it as well. Developers usually are gratefull for error reports. If you think reporting error is a profanity or being not nice, then I am sorry for reporting this error.

Anyway, I didn't mean to offend anybody. Thank you for the great program, I had a lot of great time with it (with it's pre-0.73 releases, that is). Sigh.

Oh, and could you move this thread to the WinCE subforum? Sorry for posting it here.

knakos · Post by **knakos** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:04 pm

Well, I was frustrated myself with scummvm not running on my 2002 device. So I've rolled my own:

http://users.uoa.gr/~knakos/scummvm_PPC ... _12_04.zip

Best,
Kostas

PS. It wasn't until scummvm came out with this problem that it was pinpointed (by me at least). It's hard for the developers to own devices with different versions of the OS. [/url]

Post by **sev** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:17 pm

knakos, if you're willing to contribute to ScummVM, you could become an official PC2002 builder for us

. I.e. right now you could build 0.8.0 release, wrap it into .zip file with ScummVM README, give me your email address (via PM) and your real name, so we could contact you near release, and submit your zipped build. I'll put it to our downloads page then.

Eugene

fingolfin · Post by **fingolfin** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:11 pm

Chudrik169 wrote: As for the rule #4, it says
"4) Be nice to each other and respect the moderator. Profanity and insults will not be tolerated. If you have a problem with another member turn to the respective moderator."

If you think I violated this rule, then any error report will violate it as well.

Nope. Because most people manage to stay polite when filing report, though. You didn't actually use any swear words, but your initial post quite clearly conveyed the message "Hey you idiots, why on earth are you so stupid?". Maybe that wasn't your intention, but that's how it came across...

We are always happy about proper bug reports, but like most other people on earth, we don't really like being insulted. So a report actually has much higher chances of being taken serious as long as it stays polite.

htefs · Post by **htefs** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:54 am

Hm. I think, the problem is the description of the download (like already said here). "Windows Mobile 5 ARM package for Pocket PC 2002, Pocket PC 2003, Pocket PC 2003 SE, Smartphone 2002, Smartphone 2003, and Windows Mobile 5" is a little bit awful. Better to say "Windows CE package for..." because "Windows Mobile 5 ARM package" assumes that PocketPC 2002 and the other named OS are based on Windows Mobile 5...
But the main problem with this build seems to be the used compiler. Like Microsoft said is eVC 4.0 only able to generate code für Windows CE 4 or higher. So this build will never work on PPC 2002 (with Windows CE 3.0)...
Kind regards, Helge

knakos · Post by **knakos** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:43 pm

While on the subject, it seems that the executable is just fine from the dll dependency/binary perspective, but it's not executable on the 2002 subsystem. It might be that MS changed something in the executable header (a magic?) produced when building for mobile 5. It could be that changing a few bytes in the PE header might allow it to run.

Kostas

Chudrik169 · Post by **Chudrik169** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:24 am

fingolfin wrote:You didn't actually use any swear words, but your initial post quite clearly conveyed the message "Hey you idiots, why on earth are you so stupid?". Maybe that wasn't your intention, but that's how it came across...

Let me assure you, it most certainly was not.

Chudrik169 · Post by **Chudrik169** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:26 am

knakos wrote:Well, I was frustrated myself with scummvm not running on my 2002 device. So I've rolled my own:

Thank you, Kostas, I'll try it...