"Hilton" wrote in message
. net...
Road Dog wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:

"If Microsoft built the X-Box the way Garmin built the 496, they'd
have sold about five of them..."

Actually, I've tried GPS and EFB applications on one
of MS' platforms - the Samsung Q1 - which has a whole
lot more computing power than the 496, and it's a dog.

Or more correctly put, the software that I used was a dog. I hear folks
blaming the hardware and the .NET framework continually when it really is
a application software problem. With care, attention, and good design, we
have our product running just great on a Smartphone, using .NET, on a
200MHz CPU using an SD card transfering 1-bit at a time and we are able to
access any approach in the US in about one second. Anyway, I just wanted
to ensure that the blame was correctly directed.

Hilton



Agreed. .NET is not to blame but it is an enabler. Like JAVA and other
quick-to-build platforms. One can create very good applications that are
reliable, quick user response, etc. But, the race to market is, apparently,
overwhelmingly tempting. The result is bulky applications that are rid with
bugs.

Comparing the Garmin 496 to a household video game is not fair. As someone
posted - apples to watermelons. The problem with comparing it to something
like the PSP is that there is a huge difference in market. Garmin could have
created a fantastic device that was priced beyond reason. Every development
effort must find the balance between features, response time, and quality.

That's what the next generation is for.
--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK