Posts by mne.sanders@gmail.com

    Hi all,


    Currently, we have a CF3.5, WEC7 based embedded application. Within this application, we are using transparent PNG applications. Since transparency by default is not supported by the Compact Framework, we were using parts of the OpenNETCF library for this, which had wrappers around the WEC7 ImagingFactory API (among others).


    Now however, we need to migrate this application to WEC2013 and CF3.9. Of course, CF3.9 still does not support transparency, but also the native ImagingFactory API is not supported anymore by WEC213. The (limited) documentation that can be found on the internet suggests that we should move to the Windows Imaging Component, but unfortunately no samples are given on how to use this within CF3.9. Does anyone on this forum has an example on how to produce transparent images on WEC2013 using CF3.9 ?



    Kind regards,


    Martijn Sanders

    Hi,


    We're currently using the efus starterskit (using WinCE7 image 'XIPIMX6_C7E_V130_BETA_150316'). The display in this starterskit (EDT ET070080DH6) uses a native resolution of 800x480. When I change the resolution in WinCE7, the entire OS seems to hang (only recoverable by resetting the device). Does this mean that the 800x480 resolution is the only resolution that this display supports ? Or is it an issue with this version of the OS ?


    Regards

    Hi,


    In the Efus A9 roadmap, I saw that the abovementioned issue was scheduled to be released in FSiMX6 - V1.50 (Scheduled For Release 2015-04-23). We're quite anxious to test this performance improvement but were wondering, since the planned release date was missed some time ago, when we can expect the next release containing this fix ?



    Kind regards,

    Hi,


    We recently received an EFUSA9-SKIT-W13 starterskit for our evaluations. One of the first tests that I performed was comparing the IO performance of the eMMC storage on our new starterskit to the NAND IO performance of the EFUSA9-SKIT2-W13 starterskit that we already owned. The test was executed by a simple C# application (Compact Framework) that writes increasingly larger files to the filesystem and measures the performance. All tests were executed on WinCE7 (OS image XIPIMX6_C7E_V100_150202).


    To my suprise, the eMMC read performance was drastically lower than the NAND read performance. Below are our figures:



    EFUSA9-SKIT-W13 eMMC (Read)
    6245 Kb/s


    EFUSA9-SKIT-W13 eMMC (Write)
    3547 Kb/s


    EFUSA9-SKIT2-W13 NAND (Read)
    11175 Kb/s


    EFUSA9-SKIT2-W13 NAND (Write)
    3657 Kb/s


    I expected the eMMC performance to be (at least) equal to the NAND performance, expecially since I've done tests with other eMMC systems that were significantly faster (for example 16000 Kb/s read speed). Is there a reason why I'm experiencing this level of read performance on the eMMC ? Is it for example the typical speed of the eMMC component used and is there also an option to fit other (faster) eMMC solutions to the module ?



    Kind regards,

    Hello,


    I'm currently running several performance tests using the Starterkit 2 efus™A9 Windows for evaluation purposes. During these tests, I first used the latest beta WinCE7 OS (XIPIMX6_C7E_V120_BETA_150218).


    While using the beta OS version, I experienced quite a lot of crashes. One of the performance tests involved running the application we're currently developing (C# Compact Framework) on the Efus board and performing TCP communication with a server. Each time the communication session ended, a crash occurred, resulting in the board rebooting itself.


    Due to these issues, I reverted to the last official OS release (XIPIMX6_C7E_V100_150202), since of course a beta version can contain these kind of issues. Using this official release resulted in super stable behaviour (no more crashes). But to my surprise, it also resulted in a considerable performance boost. One of the performance tests, involving running a transparent animation on the board, was 2x as fast as on the beta image. Now, this doesn't necessarily need to be an issue, but I was wondering if F&S were aware of any changes made in the beta version of the OS image that resulted in a 50 % decrease of performance using transparent images/animations ? Is it something we can expect to be fixed for the next official release ?



    Kind regards.