http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=8488
Who can beat down Microsoft in the embedded systems market?
Started by ●October 8, 2004
Reply by ●October 8, 20042004-10-08
On 2004-10-08 10:13:59 +0200, robertwlkao@pchome.com.tw (Robert) said:> http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=8488Looks like a posting by some troll, obviously :-). Well I don't believe MS have any significant market share in the embedded systems area... -- Stephan M. Bernsee http://www.dspdimension.com
Reply by ●October 9, 20042004-10-09
Robert wrote:> http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=8488Actually Microsoft has been doing a fine job of beating down Microsoft in the embedded systems market. They do this by telling you they're experts, then proving that they haven't a clue ("Windows is real-time because it has _priorities_!"). The question is, who can beat down the Linux trolls when there are any number of fine alternatives for embedded systems, including task loops with no separate scheduler at all? -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●October 11, 20042004-10-11
Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message news:<10mg7ls1huj23e@corp.supernews.com>...> Robert wrote: > > > http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=8488 > > Actually Microsoft has been doing a fine job of beating down Microsoft > in the embedded systems market. They do this by telling you they're > experts, then proving that they haven't a clue ("Windows is real-time > because it has _priorities_!"). > > The question is, who can beat down the Linux trolls when there are any > number of fine alternatives for embedded systems, including task loops > with no separate scheduler at all?Rather odd to hear that Microsoft has "any" say in the embedded market. I've worked for some time on embedded solutions, and Microsoft isn't the keyword anywhere. Having Linux might sound "cool" but has its own set of issues. Think about it... why are companies like Wind River and QNX even existing if Microsoft is on the upsurping the market (along with the new competitor). The article only emphasizes GUI, Internet (that too web), and drivers. Well most embedded applications don't require any of the above. Having IP connectivity seems good, but at a premium. GUIs; well I haven't seen them (other than on my cell-phone and PDA). Drivers; again same issue, what if my system has custom built ASIC or FPGA on-board (pretty usual these days)... I don't think Microsoft (or for that matter any OS vendor) is going to reach out a limb to do the work for me. From what I see, embedded systems will still continue to have simple in-house developed OSes or some simple OS (like avrX or uC/OS) or commercial stuff (like VxWorks or QNX) depending on requirements. The RT performance of any of Microsoft's OSes or Linux is at present under a magnifying glass. And yeah... for big projects like a smart cell phone or a PDA, Microsoft may have an edge by promising similar GUIs and APIs to the desktop OSes. Same story with Linux. But how much do such projects contribute either volume or revenue wise in today's embedded market --- imho, not much. Aditya Sane Graduate Student EE / Systems Viterbi School of Engineering University of Southern California PS: For all those curious... I do use a Windows XP machine and develop POSIX compliant applications using Cygwin... and I do use a primitive Nokia cell-phone... and have a Palm OS based PDA... and lastly have written drivers for ARM based Linux boards
Reply by ●October 11, 20042004-10-11
Jupitersally wrote:> Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message news:<10mg7ls1huj23e@corp.supernews.com>... > >>Robert wrote: >> >> >>>http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=8488 >> >>Actually Microsoft has been doing a fine job of beating down Microsoft >>in the embedded systems market. They do this by telling you they're >>experts, then proving that they haven't a clue ("Windows is real-time >>because it has _priorities_!"). >> >>The question is, who can beat down the Linux trolls when there are any >>number of fine alternatives for embedded systems, including task loops >>with no separate scheduler at all? > > > Rather odd to hear that Microsoft has "any" say in the embedded > market. I've worked for some time on embedded solutions, and Microsoft > isn't the keyword anywhere. Having Linux might sound "cool" but has > its own set of issues. > > Think about it... why are companies like Wind River and QNX even > existing if Microsoft is on the upsurping the market (along with the > new competitor). The article only emphasizes GUI, Internet (that too > web), and drivers. Well most embedded applications don't require any > of the above. Having IP connectivity seems good, but at a premium. > GUIs; well I haven't seen them (other than on my cell-phone and PDA). > Drivers; again same issue, what if my system has custom built ASIC or > FPGA on-board (pretty usual these days)... I don't think Microsoft (or > for that matter any OS vendor) is going to reach out a limb to do the > work for me. > > From what I see, embedded systems will still continue to have simple > in-house developed OSes or some simple OS (like avrX or uC/OS) or > commercial stuff (like VxWorks or QNX) depending on requirements. The > RT performance of any of Microsoft's OSes or Linux is at present under > a magnifying glass. > > And yeah... for big projects like a smart cell phone or a PDA, > Microsoft may have an edge by promising similar GUIs and APIs to the > desktop OSes. Same story with Linux. But how much do such projects > contribute either volume or revenue wise in today's embedded market > --- imho, not much. >Microsoft presents Windows CE as the embedded OS for all seasons (without acknowledging the existence of headless systems, or systems with just two buttons and a light). But CE is only a presentation layer and a file system -- if you want a real-time scheduler you have to build CE on top of it, running as a task. In fact CE, Linux and NT can all be made real-time by hijacking the processor, and running the OS as a task. Any real-time features run strictly under the real-time OS, and one communicates with the "higher-level" OS through a driver. This is easiest and best supported under Linux (and darn near impossible under NT), which is why Linux is a good candidate for a larger system. There are also file system and presentation layer modules that can be purchase separately, however, which have the advantage of being real-time themselves. I don't think that any one RTOS is going to dominate the embedded market; the key reason that Windows has taken over the PC market is because of the difficulty of porting applications. This has given the aggressive marketeers at Microsoft the wedge they need. Both Microsoft and WindRiver are very aggressive at trying to capture the embedded market, but it lacks the commonality of platforms and the need to use 3rd-party software that are necessary for such dominance. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●October 12, 20042004-10-12
Tim Wescott wrote: ...> I don't think that any one RTOS is going to dominate the embedded > market; the key reason that Windows has taken over the PC market is > because of the difficulty of porting applications. This has given the > aggressive marketeers at Microsoft the wedge they need. Both Microsoft > and WindRiver are very aggressive at trying to capture the embedded > market, but it lacks the commonality of platforms and the need to use > 3rd-party software that are necessary for such dominance.Tim, you are right down comp.dsp alley: the best RTOS is still While-One (TM)! :-) Regards, Andor
Reply by ●October 12, 20042004-10-12
Andor wrote:>Tim Wescott wrote: >... > > >>I don't think that any one RTOS is going to dominate the embedded >>market; the key reason that Windows has taken over the PC market is >>because of the difficulty of porting applications. This has given the >>aggressive marketeers at Microsoft the wedge they need. Both Microsoft >>and WindRiver are very aggressive at trying to capture the embedded >>market, but it lacks the commonality of platforms and the need to use >>3rd-party software that are necessary for such dominance. >> >> > >Tim, you are right down comp.dsp alley: the best RTOS is still While-One (TM)! > >:-) > >Regards, >Andor > >Depending on the compiler, that can sometimes be slightly less efficient than for (;;), and efficiency is critically important in real time systems. :-) NoOS - the popular choice amongst embedded developers everywhere. Regards, Steve
Reply by ●October 12, 20042004-10-12
Steve Underwood wrote:> Andor wrote: > >> Tim Wescott wrote: > Depending on the compiler, that can sometimes be slightly less efficient > than for (;;), and efficiency is critically important in real time > systems. :-) >But if it's an infinite loop, who cares how fast it is? It's not gonna get done any faster. ;-) -- Jim Thomas Principal Applications Engineer Bittware, Inc jthomas@bittware.com http://www.bittware.com (603) 226-0404 x536 The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present - Hobbes
Reply by ●October 12, 20042004-10-12
Steve Underwood wrote:> >Tim, you are right down comp.dsp alley: the best RTOS is still While-One (TM)! > > > >:-) > > > >Regards, > >Andor > > > > > Depending on the compiler, that can sometimes be slightly less efficient > than for (;;), and efficiency is critically important in real time > systems. :-)Yeah, but in the light of easier marketing, While-One makes for a much better name than For-(;;). The kids of today (the embedded developers of tomorrow) might be wondering what the meaning is of this new emoticon (a wink-smiley looking at itself in the mirror?).
Reply by ●October 12, 20042004-10-12
On 12 Oct 2004 07:56:38 -0700, Andor <an2or@mailcircuit.com> wrote:> Steve Underwood wrote: >> >Tim, you are right down comp.dsp alley: the best RTOS is still While-One (TM)! >> > >> >:-) >> > >> >Regards, >> >Andor >> > >> > >> Depending on the compiler, that can sometimes be slightly less efficient >> than for (;;), and efficiency is critically important in real time >> systems. :-) > > Yeah, but in the light of easier marketing, While-One makes for a much > better name than For-(;;). The kids of today (the embedded developers > of tomorrow) might be wondering what the meaning is of this new > emoticon (a wink-smiley looking at itself in the mirror?).I remember being told that, given two logically equivalent constructions, that the first was "more efficient" than the second. I recall that the language was FORTGI, but I don't recall what the constructions were. But that's seldom true any longer with modern compilers. I used to be able to out-optimize the 'c40 compiler--at least through version 5.x, it seemed to think the 'c40 only had as many registers as the 'c3x did. Then the c6x came out and I could only do that for tiny smidgeons of code and it was seldom worth the effort.
