Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Throws Down Embedded XP Gauntlet
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."
flame on...
Gosh, maybe "not being held hostage by the business requirements of your single vendor" qualifies as a valid response...
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
any chance we can get a link to the microsoft document in question?
"I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
Is there a revival going on in troll-land?
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/embedded/xp/evalu ation/compare/notlinux.asp.
rOD.
Rod Begbie done this, and he's not
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?
Pain(n): when you're telnetting into a box doing somethin cool, and some luser calls for help with a 'critical error' ad
Okay, I haven't finished reading the Microsoft document yet, but these people have been hitting the crack pipe WAY too much!
/proc filesystem to complement it; also, the GNU development toolchain is quite standard, and I've seen many compilers and cross-compilers for 8-bit systems that are based off of GCC.
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?
Bush Lies Watch
Hold up guys. Just keep in mind all that shocking Microsoft XP is better than Linux propaganda is followed by this classic Microcruft waffle: This document is provided for informational purposes only, and Microsoft makes no warranties, express or implied, with respect to this document or the information contained in it. So their lawyers don't want their marketing folks to stand by their words, even if they publish them like they are fact. Just wait until we'll have a new Mindcraft comparison at the embedded level.
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.
...that you're a True Believer trying to "shake off" the faith...
This reads like it was written by a clueless marketing droid.
"Open Source does not an ecosystem make."
/. next...
Guess that means they will try to take over
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Embed Bill Gates in my soundcard?
I tried to read the Microsoft document, but when I reached the line "There is no common integrated device electronics (IDE) for Linux" I had to stop ... I couldn't stop laughing. Strangely I could swear my Linux boxes are full of IDE drives. Of course they were talking about software development infrastructure. p>
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
I would expect CEO's of tech companies to be less susceptiple to this sort of tactic than those of a company whose tech budget is all under the 'expense' column.
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.
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?
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.
With XP:
There are no hidden or unknown legal and development costs from managing your intellectual property around the GPL.
With EL:
An OEM is required to sort through a potential legal morass of licensing issues around the GPL if it wants to protect its intellectual property rights... [eg] A NVIDIA programmer, in the course of developing a driver for one of its products, used a portion of code from a freely available video driver. The developer failed to realize the code was licensed under the GPL and would therefore require NVIDIA to release the source code for its entire driver. Because NVIDIA did not want to release the source code to its commercial software, the company incurred substantial costs to develop a new driver that did not contain the GPL code.
So there you have it! Embedded XP developers will be able to incorporate GPL code in their product without any legal issues, thereby cutting development costs and dramatically reducing time to market.
Seriously though, I find this document a bit of a shame. Microsoft needs to gain the respect of embedded developers if it wants to push this stuff. These kind of "marketroid" arguments just make the product appear ridiculous.
Why one bloated PC desktop OS crammed into an embedded computer instead of a different bloated PC desktop OS interface crammed into an embedded computer? Who knows.
I punch its' face, no pain results and my knuckles are coated with a nice soft squashy material for a while. I don't have to worry about washing my mitts as everything associated with "mr" gates falls to pieces in under 2 mins.
Lucius Sour
Embedded linux is so great because it comes entirely in source. The embedded market is the embedded market so you could do things to the drivers to adjust the operating system to your needs.
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. 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.
i'm not making this up. this is on the M$ document, as a reason AGAINST Linux.
"Developers must either build their own tool-chain from piecing together Open Source tools or opt for a specific vendor's costly toolset."
they most have forget that THEY(M$) are the costly VENDOR?!
Sure this is probably flame bait but I'm going to post it anyway. I've got plenty of feul to back up my claims.
I'm a VB programmer by day (it pays the bills) I've written COM+ apps, desktop apps and web apps using VB. It works. Well, mostly. In this last project I've run into so many bugs in MS's line of tools its been nearly unbearable. I've had to throw out or rework lots of code just to get around these bugs. So when I see MS go and talk about how good their stuff is I get a bad taste in my mouth and have to look away. Yeah the integrated tools may get you there faster but you'll spend an awful lot of time figuring out where you're at. Then you'll have to figure out how to get to where you really should be.
MS needs to listen to that old saying about how people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
In Republican America phones tap you.
*sigh*
I can barely stand to read this good old Microsoft propaganda. I just dont know how they get away with it.
I aint going to post a reply - plenty of other people will already write what I want to say.. as someone else said, I hope Lineo or somone similar can blow apart m$'s checklist of babble.
Stupid f'in Microsoft..
...it's difficult to get compatable worm development in heterogeneous enironments that seldom have compatible, redundant, overlapping bugs....
But why can't they just _state_ it in those terms in the first place, and spare us all that confusion!
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
I guess the statement "me, too!"
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.
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
Does anyone know if MS compares XP Embedded to other OSes besides Linux? I'd really like to hear what they have to say about VxWorks, VxWorksAE, OSE Delta, Nucleus... (heck, I'd almost like to see how they stack up to pSOS, but that would just be insane)
As someone who works in the embedded networking area, we laugh at Microsoft. One reason embedded Linux is making inroads is that it supports a wide variety of processors and architectures. Windows XP will not run on Power PC, Mips, or a variety of other platforms. Also, it is much easier to write embedded code for Linux just because it is open source.
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
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
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 of embedded operating systems can be found at Dedicated Systems. Some reports are free, some cost money. Annoying registration required.
Okay so M$ makes a case for why embedded XP is better embedded Linux.
/. One of these days they will make some bizarre claim, and then take over the world while /.ers complain about how bad M$ is.
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
Not possible under linux; you will need to replace the kernel to do better than soft realtime. Doesn't really matter, though... why would you want to run a hard realtime system on a processor with a cache? Embedded windows won't stack up any better, of course.
Anyway, not to disagree with you too much, because source is very important in embedded arena, that's just why embedded xp comes with source.
It seems that Microsoft is attempting to maintain a small niche in the embedded systems market and for the is not a major player. XP is mainly for PDA's, internet appliances, and mabe web-enabled phones. (areas in which linux is not particularly strong. Lets face it, linux doesn't have quite as good a GUI- X is a inappropriate for embedded systems, and other alteratives are not fully developed.)
I'm a little surprised that they are going after linux instead of Palm OS which would seem to be a more closely matched competitor. Linux is more on par with QNX and VXWorks which are ideal for hardware interfacing, but require custom GUI's. Microsoft isn't to my knowledge taking pot-shots at those companies. Why are they so defensive about linux?