Microsoft Throws Down Embedded XP Gauntlet 58
An Anonymous Coward writes: "Microsoft has published an online document entitled 'Why Microsoft Windows XP Embedded and Not Embedded Linux?', in which embedded XP is compared to Embedded Linux in eight ways. Given that fact that 'Embedded Linux' is not the product of a single dominant vendor, but rather is the result of the collaborative (and competitive) efforts of
an entire market consisting of dozens of large and small companies plus thousands of individual developers, LinuxDevices.com is inviting the Embedded Linux Community to respond to 'Why Microsoft Windows XP Embedded and Not Embedded Linux?' through guest editorials and talkbacks."
... (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:... (Score:1)
Quentin
Why? Why Not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Gosh, maybe "not being held hostage by the business requirements of your single vendor" qualifies as a valid response...
Re:Why? Why Not? (Score:1)
Believe it or not, that's actually one of the criticisms they try to bring _against_ Embedded Linux!
"Many OEMs find that to get the functionality they need, they must piece together Linux technology components themselves. Such an approach leaves the OEM to either self-support its "unique" version of Linux, or contract support from the commercial Linux vendor who may have helped build it. This defeats one of the OEM's key objectives in moving to a general purpose OS-to free up resources from ongoing OS support and maintenance. This "tie" to a particular Linux vendor, in turn, leaves the OEM exposed to the long-term financial viability of that vendor. Source code access may make the code available, but it does not solve the challenge of finding, keeping and paying for the expertise to maintain it."
They've obviously had so many accept their lies for so long that they now sincerely believe that they can pull just any thing out of their ass, post it on their website, and expect it to be accepted as truth!
The sad part is that the PHBs of even large tech corporations - people who should know better than to rely on a single source for information - apparently are ready to believe The Big Lie(tm)
hmm (Score:1)
Re:hmm (Score:1)
The Microsoft article can be found at (Score:4, Informative)
Just so long... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now that would give a whole new meaning to Blue Screen of Death. (Yes, I ripped that off someone else whose name I can't remember. :D)
Seriously... the problem that *I* see with using embedded Windows is the proprietary issues. With *nix, all you do is grab yourself a kernel at no charge, hire a C programmer, strip it down, and flash it into memory. Lovely, right?
But Windows... I don't see MS making the source to XP open so that people can make themselves good, small versions to embed into devices. Do you?
Re:Just so long... (Score:2, Informative)
Don't worry. Microsoft have enough law-suits on their hands already, so their Embedded XP license [microsoft.com] explicitely forbids such use. Good for them - and good for us emebdded developers because for most of the interesting uses (medical, automotive), we are simply not allowed to use Embedded XP. Minimum footprint at 4.8 MB? Yikes!
Re:Just so long... (Score:1)
Greg
Huh?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Consider, for example, this paragraph:
Embedded Linux offers a standard kernel but no standard device level application programming interface (API). There are multiple implementations of other major OS components so developers end up working with different programming environments and tools for each device, decreasing efficiency, limiting code re-use and increasing application development time.
So the claim here is that (1) there is no standard device API and (2) there are no standard development tools in Linux. Note that I'm not even considering the obvious contradiction about having a standard kernel, but no standard device interface (??!!).
Now, I disagree with both statements, because the ioctl interface has been around for about 25 years, and we have things like the
But the crack-smoking part comes here:
* For example, there are at least five different window managers and at least four competing browsers, increasing programming complexity and reducing the pool of available developers.
Huh? Huh?! Didn't they just talk about development tools and device API? What the hell is wrong with these people?
Re:Huh?! (Score:2)
Competing web browsers... (Score:1, Interesting)
So Microsoft is implying that there is absolutely no browser competition on Windows? That's not what they said at their trial.
I'm assuming that Opera and Netscape are two of these browsers, since they are mentioned later in the article. Those are both available on Windows, which means that Windows has at least 3 web browsers.
Re:Huh?! (Score:2, Funny)
Lets see:
- Integrated
- Comprehensive
- Unmatched
- Interoperability
- Proven
- Global
- Linux in Not Free
- OEM Licensing
Yours, fud@microsoft.orgMicrosoft[tm] is a monopolistic company known for kicking every competition out of business. Nothing is more integrated than a monoculture.
Everything an embedded device needs, like the Internet Explorer[tm] Technology, the Windows Media Player and cool looking themes are integrated in the core OS.
You won't find any other OS with as good support for the standards Microsoft[tm] invented and not telling anybody how they work.
Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm] XP embedded will work nicely with all other versions of Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm] XP.
There are no unknown or hidden license or development costs. Everyone knows Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm] is an overpriced piece of crap with the most abusive license ever thought of.
Everybody uses Microsoft[tm] technology. See also "Integrated".
The costs of buying/ downloading a Linux distribution can easily be avoided by using an illegal copy of Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm], just as everybody else does. Additionaly, the constant down time of Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm], be it due to crashes or to install the latest and greatest hotfix, has proven to save expensive bandwidth costs and, in the case of embedded devices, battery power. The Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm] license has no clause that urges you to make the source code available, so it has to be more free.
Given that Free Software comes with many different licenses, all basically granting the same freedoms, it is obviously better for Your Business Plan to have only one style of license (and only one OEM license, and only one business license...), allbeit the most restrictive you could dream of.
Re:Huh?! (Score:1)
8-)
Re:Huh?! (Score:1)
>increasing programming complexity and reducing the pool of available developers.
Huh? Huh?! Didn't they just talk about development tools and device API? What the hell is wrong with these people?
They mean to say that it's difficult to get compatable worm development in heterogeneous enironments that seldom have compatible, redundant, overlapping bugs. Some embedded linux solutions might not even have a web browser and scriptable email solution shove^H^H^H^H comingled. This clearly fragments the worm/trojan/virus development community and makes compatable worms much harder to write. Embedded Linux also lacks such M$ innovations such as VBScript and automatically run macros. You see, a browser really is a development tool, of sorts. Also, browsers are a good example of the positive uses of hidden APIs to keep the Netsca^H^H^H^H^H bad programmers out.
DOH!! Of course! Thanks for the clarification! (Score:1)
But why can't they just _state_ it in those terms in the first place, and spare us all that confusion!
I'm reassured by that last line: (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'm reassured by that last line: (Score:1, Informative)
Re:I'm reassured by that last line: (Score:1, Interesting)
M.A.T.
Thanks for saying that (Score:1)
is regarded as 'lame', but my story is the same.
I've wasted too much time and energy attempting to follow and support their poorly documented, poorly running, oppressively licensed proprietary crap.
I have Open Source(tm) and FREE(tm) software now, and will never consider looking back.
What a load of drivle (Score:1)
Yoda is one of them! (Score:1)
Guess that means they will try to take over
why not... (Score:1)
What bozo wrote this? (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously this was written by someone who has no idea what they're talking about, and not much about computers at all, perhaps the meaphorical room full of monkeys with typewriters, or a marketting person with an MBA
Re:What bozo wrote this? (Score:1)
Okay I'm being picky now, but they really *can't* speak English!
Re:What bozo wrote this? (Score:1)
Re:What bozo wrote this? (Score:1)
A month-long VBA course does not a programmer make.
Re:What bozo wrote this? (Score:2)
Re:What bozo wrote this? (Score:2)
Integrated Drive Electronics != Integrated Development Environment.
Marketroid speak is scary. (Score:4, Insightful)
A quick glance through the page set off my bullshit detector big time.
I mean some of these are gems:
Comprehensive:
Windows XP Embedded is the most reliable version of Windows ever. Comprehensive OS foundation with proven performance and reliability
On a brand new system. Where was this proven, in the imagination of MS marketing?
Windows XP delivers equivalent or better uptime than Windows 2000 Professional and three times the uptime performance of Windows NT® 4.0.
Compared to the crap we got you to buy before this thing rocks!
Across an average of industry-standard benchmarks (Winstone and Webmark), Windows XP system performance is 54% faster than Windows® Me® and equivalent to Windows 2000 Professional.
Windows XP is 34% faster on system startup and 21% faster on resume from standby than Windows 2000 Professional (700 MHz CPUs and above).
Application startup is 21% faster in Windows XP than in Windows Me and equivalent to Windows 2000 Professional (after first use).
Comparing this to our other products, rather than to the competition which we're trying to mislead you to believe we're doing in this document, this is faster, contrary to third party benchmarks.
Note: Windows XP Embedded was not tested directly. Internal Microsoft testing indicates that Windows XP Embedded exhibited similar or better reliability and performance characteristics than Windows XP Professional.
In fact we're not even really talking about what we say we are.
On the Linux side we have a big N/A. Meaning we don't want to compare to them in this category.
Windows XP Embedded supports a minimal bootable image of 4.8 MB.
I'm not an embedded developer, so I can't say how good this is.
Lineo sites a minimum footprint size of 2MB ROM / 4 MB RAM for Real Time Linux with an embedded Linux kernel (both are required). Red Hat, for its new version of embedded Linux, recommends 8MB RAM and 4MB Flash as minimum system requirements. The Red Hat Linux kernel alone uses approximately 1.5-2MB in ROM depending on configuration.
But I can say that comparing the minimum needed to boot versus the recommended usable system size isn't apples to apples. To actually have anything besides the OS it seems like Linux will take far fewer resources in any configuration.
Unmatched
Windows XP Embedded
An unmatched technology portfolio for building the next generation of devices
Buzzwords, zero content.
Windows XP Embedded delivers a feature-rich multimedia experience. Full support for DirectX® 8 provides superior graphics rendering and performance.Direct3D®-advanced support for interactive 3-D graphics applications.Windows Media 8 for industry-leading codecs and Digital Rights Management (DRM).Support for advanced graphical functionality including ClearType® fonts and multiscreen.DVD video support.
We will completely tie you in to MS proprietary interfaces making it call for a complete rewrite of everything you've done if you want to move to any other platform.
Embedded Linux
Linux is a follower, not an innovator
Arguable, but so is MS, but we won't mention that here.
To get the functionality, quality, performance, codec support and DRM delivered in Windows XP Embedded, OEMs will need to license an array of third party components including codecs, DRM and renderers (players) that generally come with incremental licensing fees. The MP3 basic decoder costs about $0.50 per-unit. If an OEM wants the enhanced functionality of MP3 Pro, it will pay an additional $2.50 per-unit royalty. For MP3 Pro encode and decode, costs can run an incremental $7.50 per-unit.
More FUD, usless comparison (Score:3, Informative)
And one of my favorite quotes:
Now, if you were, say, flying an aircraft, knowing Microsoft's track record, would you trust Windows XP Embedded to keep you in the air?
And frankly, they're trying to compare Windows XP to Linux. Window managers? Who the hell uses Window managers in *most* embedded devices? I'm not talking Palm pilots here - I'm talking refrigerators, toasters, watches, automobiles, TVs, stereos, etc. And no drivers for embedded architectures besides x86? How about StrongARM, PPC, and every other supported CPU?
Really, this is just sad. And the worst part is that many of the people who make decisions will believe this because they don't know any better. Anyone care to write up and post a VALID comparison? Lineo? Perhaps another embedded linux vendor? Embedded Linux Journal?
Re:More FUD, usless comparison (Score:3, Informative)
FWIW, they mention Lineo here;
and here; and here; and here; and here; and here; and here; and here; You're really not much better than Microsoft, are you?Re:More FUD, usless comparison (Score:1)
Gee, they really do talk quite a lot about Lineo and RedHat Embedded [redhat.com]. Where did you learn this "reading" thing you're talking about, though? Is it one of those funny things they teach in foreign schools?
P.S. more power to the Penguin, down with the Man^H^H^HBeast, M$, Bill Gates Sucks, Linux RuL3z0rz, etc., etc.
Now this I'd like to see... (Score:1)
Also some of the comparisons are ludicrous. Let XP be where it belongs, on some desktop of some users. The point is that NT is not (and will never be, IMHO) embeddable material. NT is desktop/workstation material, nothing more, nothing less.
But I'd like to see Microsoft try it and still have happy developers. My bet is lots will moan after they've worked with it. AFAIK, none of the embedded app developers I know are happy with Windows CE. Why? Because windows wasn't made with embedded applications in mind. AFAICU (can understand) from these people, the windows API makes too many assumptions and flexibility is limited.
But why does *nix work in an embedded environment then? Simple, flexibility. In fact, these OSses use a kernel, and the rest can be made custom, i.e. if you don;t need all the UNIX functionality, you don't have to implement/use it of you don't want it. Try that with the MS toolchain. Very difficult indeed...
Let XP remain where it belongs. On the desktop. It has no business in an embedded environment.
hmmm (Score:2)
Embedded linux (Score:3, Informative)
Let's say you want to build a hard-real-time audio processor, with windows such a thing is simply impossible, because adjusting the scheduler is not something you will be able to do. Furthermore the driver for the audio card IN SOURCE is required to test for problems there.
In my experience you can get an embedded linux kernel running on 3 megs of flash and 16 megs of ram (they didn't have anything smaller, so excuse me).
There are a lot of useful projects working with embedded linux (see opensource.lineo.com [lineo.com]. let's see them duplicate those first. Also software that works on linux can simply work, without modifications (although people tend to make it somewhat smaller) on embedded linux.
My Rant (Score:1)
I'm a VB programmer by day (it pays the bills) I've written COM+ apps, desktop apps and web apps using VB. It works. Well, mostly. In this last project I've run into so many bugs in MS's line of tools its been nearly unbearable. I've had to throw out or rework lots of code just to get around these bugs. So when I see MS go and talk about how good their stuff is I get a bad taste in my mouth and have to look away. Yeah the integrated tools may get you there faster but you'll spend an awful lot of time figuring out where you're at. Then you'll have to figure out how to get to where you really should be.
MS needs to listen to that old saying about how people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Other comparisons... (Score:1)
X86 only (Score:3, Informative)
VxWorks is also popular (but it's very $$$ with full source) because it can run from a very small footprint. The last project I worked on had a flash footprint of around 1.6MB and ran quite well with 8MB of RAM (this was a L3 switch with a lot of additional proprietary software).
Many embedded areas don't care about wiz-bang user interfaces or multimedia. Also, with embedded Linux there are some nice alternatives. There is an embedded version of QT and KDE that do not require X Windows that includes a full-featured web browser that better follows the standards than IE.
Also, getting close to the hardware is much easier in Linux than Windows. Writing kernel loadable modules is a trivial task for Linux, and setting up communications between user and kernel drivers is also trivial (through ioctls or even the proc filesystem).
Linux also comes with a wealth of sample code from which to base a driver or application. With Windows you get whatever comes with the DDK, whereas with Linux you get the source to every non-proprietary driver available.
Embedded developers also like to have the full source code to everything. When something goes wrong, we don't have time to wait for a 3rd party to fix a bug. Can you imagine waiting for Microsoft to fix a bug that only affects a few people?
-Aaron
Embedded development (Score:1, Insightful)
As an embedded developer, I have never found Microsoft's licensing fees or preconfigured notions of what the embedded software should do to be helpful in designing my applications. An Intel x86 processor, despite Intel's arguments to the contrary, is not always the best solution.
Even if Microsoft takes over every x86 embedded application, there will still be millions of ARM, PPC, and STAMP applications for which Microsoft is irrelevant.
Neutral evaluation reports (Score:2)
Missing the point (Score:2)
This is plain old good marketing. Linux should be so lucky (aka get better at marketing Linux).
Microsoft could have just as well targeted many other embedded OS venders including VxWorks or QNX. Shows that Linux is definitely on Microsoft's radar screen.
Whether M$ arguments are right or wrong is irrelevant. Embedded developers know that a product with an embedded OS maybe in use for decades (as demonstrated by Y2K). The opinions of Microsoft, VxWorks, QNX, and the Open Source community are just that. If in a few years I see a Aibo clone catching frisbees and its running embedded XP, that will impress me.
Until then M$ marketing must be rolling in the aisles reading