Slashdot Mirror


Run Win98 From 16MB Flash Disk

ksheff writes "Embedded Ware Technologies has come up with a product to run Win98 applications from a 16M Flash disk. This could be useful for companies that would like to use an existing Win9x application in an embedded system."

59 comments

  1. Additionally... by TitaniumFox · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... the folks at litepc.com offer small Win98 installations for flash cards, too.

    Cheers

    --
    -- I'd say your post was about 3 monkeys, 18 minutes.
    1. Re:Additionally... by 98er · · Score: 1

      Checked this lite PC website. Seems their solution requires both Windows 98 and Windows 95 license or perhaps neither as seems they will be modifying Windows 98 dlls. Also to make it really small, they charge something like $6,000 NRE for the work. Seems this TinyWin 98 company is offering more flexibility to the system integrators. I wondered what kind of performance will you gain to boot from a 32 bit RAMDisk...

  2. Disk-on-Chip by bobthemonkey13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    M-Systems makes a device called the Disk-on-Chip that I believe can do this. Although it doesn't interface through IDE, it can be made to emulate a hard drive at the BIOS level, using M-Sys's TrueFFS BIOS. Therefore, operating systems (like Windows 98, I believe) that use BIOS calls to access the hard drive can use the Disk-on-Chip as if it were a hard drive. Other operating systems like Windows NT and Linux need the proper drivers / kernel modules to access the disk. The upshot of all of this is that I was able to get my own hacked-up minidistribution of GNU/Linux (which I naturally called Asshat Linux), to boot and run off of the 16-Megabyte Disk-on-Chip in a Visara 1783 thin client machine (formerly running QNX). I believe that the same could be done for Windows 98. If anyone wants info on how I did this, email me or post a reply.

    1. Re:Disk-on-Chip by ObviousGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

      DOC can't be bought except in bulk and only by businesses. It's also extravagantly priced. And it's the only game in town, sadly.

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    2. Re:Disk-on-Chip by ran-o-matic · · Score: 1

      JK Microsystems resales M-Systems DiskOnChip 32MB for $78 in single units. Not too bad really.

  3. Wahuh? by zaad · · Score: 2, Informative

    If I remember correctly, some enterprising folks managed to do this a couple of years ago when hacking Virgin's Webplayer. I can't find any archives, but Google's cache (http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:nFk2b5yLOY8J :snoopy.net/pipermail/iopener/2000-May/thread.html +16mb+flash+webplayer&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) shows that someone managed to get WinMe to fit under 16MB back in May of 2000.

  4. Summary by cookd · · Score: 5, Informative
    Skimming through the website, they appear to have a process to create an instant-on OS image that is custom-fitted to your application. As far as I can tell, it does something like this:

    1. Analyze your application to determine which system components it needs to run properly (which DLLs, device drivers, COM components, etc.).
    2. Create a Win98 install set up to only load the minimum necessary components.
    3. Snap a memory image of the Win98 machine with your program loaded.
    4. Compress this memory image onto a flash card.
    5. At runtime, expand the memory image back into RAM and pass control back to Win98 as if nothing had happened.


    There would probably have to be a few device drivers involved, but it sounds like a pretty cool idea to me. This way, you don't have to rewrite existing apps or retrain the dev team to make them work in an "embedded" environment.
    --
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    1. Re:Summary by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      This way, you don't have to rewrite existing apps or retrain the dev team to make them work in an "embedded" environment.

      This might be a very specific solution for a small number of embedded applications, but for the most part a product "ported" this way will have a hard time competing in the marketplace.

      Embedded systems typically have less powerful CPUs, a lot less RAM, and frequently strict power consumption requirements. Running off a flash chip usually also means that you have to disable swap space. These are not constraints that can be ignored, in general. If production volume is a concern at all, then a competitor that doesn't have to use a Pentium 3 with 128 MB of RAM will have a much lower cost than you will.

  5. Win98? by Kris_J · · Score: 2, Funny
    OS always startup as it was brand new from factory
    Unpatched?

    I guess it means more photos like this and this.

    Seriously, why would someone use something so complicated as the basis for a limited-function embedded system? Can't anyone program in assembler anymore?

    1. Re:Win98? by ObviousGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Coding those widgets in assembler is pretty time consuming.

      As for crashing, they'd probably have a custom GPF handler that forced a hard reset. You'd never see the BSOD and the longest downtime you'd have would be 6 seconds.

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    2. Re:Win98? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you may be right about asm, using Forth in the embedded system, you can get very good results. Forth is a strange language, but is ANSI-standardised and easy enough to learn. It's somewhere between assembly and lisp.

    3. Re:Win98? by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1

      Knowing nothing about Forth, I will take your word for it.

      However, what are Forth's GUI libraries like? Can Forth be used with embedded Windows (CE, XP, or 98)? I haven't seen any compilers for CE except for C/C++ and VB.

      We can argue all day about what an embedded system should and shouldn't contain, but in the cases that an embedded Windows system makes sense, can Forth be used successfully? Or is Forth better used for implementing the whole embedded system (fuel injection systems for example)?

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    4. Re:Win98? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CLAIM FAILED!
      DEFAULT CATCH

  6. Huh? by fm6 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    OK, this is all very interesting. But what sane person uses Win98 for embedded applications? I seem to recall a slashback (some time in mid 2000, I think) that linked to a photo of one of those roadside displays that was displaying nothing but part of a "please insert driver disk" dialog!

    1. Re:Huh? by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      The obvious application would be an HTPC for playing DVDs, Divx, and all those other video files like Quicktime and Real. You get the fast boot time and don't have to worry about shutting down. DVD players are cheap now, but MPEG4 Divx players are still rare and expensive. However the no shutdown needed is less of an advantage since with the ACPI support in Win98SE, I can clean shutdown in 2-3 seconds by pressing the power button (on a 1Ghz Celeron, hardly a powerhouse).

  7. Reliability? by stu_coates · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Windows 98 in an embedded system?

    I always thought that embedded systems were about rock solid reliability - and I don't think that anyone (even Microsoft) would admit that Win98 qualifies.

    1. Re:Reliability? by skinfitz · · Score: 2, Funny

      I always thought that embedded systems were about rock solid reliability - and I don't think that anyone (even Microsoft) would admit that Win98 qualifies.

      At least Win98 is better than the uber sucky WinME.

      Truly never before has an "OS" sucked so bad. It must be the most unstable thing I have ever seen.

    2. Re:Reliability? by StarBar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I think you are thinking about a real-time system. An embedded system is anything that is special purpose as opposed to general purpose. Also it might lack normal user interfaces that we are used to, like keyboard and monitor. If I used Win-98 for an embedded system I would make sure that the system would be reset regularily, once an hour or so, by letting a timer power cycle the CPU board. So there I agree with you that Win-98 might limit what you want to do with it. ;-)

    3. Re:Reliability? by Chelloveck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agilent and Tektronix (and probably others) have been using Win9x in their oscilloscopes and analyzers for years now. The truly "embedded" part is running on a separate CPU on a PCI card. Windows is simply used as a front-end to render the user interface.

      It seems like a win all the way around. These companies can focus on what they do best, which is high-speed data aquisition and analysis. They don't need to get into GUI design. They can use off-the-shelf parts for the chassis and peripherals. And end-users don't have to figure out some obscure UI like on the older equipment.

      Windows is reasonably solid, as long as you're not mucking around with DLLs by installing new software. Typically these devices ship with the app pre-installed, and nothing else is ever run.

      I still don't think I'd trust it for an unattended (eg, ATM) application, though.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    4. Re:Reliability? by jyristys · · Score: 2, Funny
      It must be the most unstable thing I have ever seen.
      Obviously you haven't seen the Steve "monkeyboy" Ballmer video clips..
    5. Re:Reliability? by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      Obviously you haven't seen the Steve "monkeyboy" Ballmer video clips..

      Actually I have, which is why I started looking at BSD.

      I had to ask myself - did I really want to be dependant on a company run by a wanker?

    6. Re:Reliability? by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      Those videoclips only makes the person looking at them unstable.

  8. wine+embedded linux by JohnFluxx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What's the smallest you can get wine down to?

    It would be interesting to see if you can do this with embedded linux + wine.

    Advantages:
    * You can disable all the gui stuff (if it's embedded, then you might not need any gui)
    * You can hack it to make it smaller
    * You don't need a windows license

    Does anyone know how big wine is normally when compilied? libs and all.. I have no idea if it is a few MB, or 10's of MB's.

    1. Re:wine+embedded linux by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      Well, I just took a look at my developer build of Wine, and the DLLs alone take up an astonishing 113Mb. Yes, you read that correctly. Over one hundred megs of DLL. I suspect the vast majority of that code is debug symbols however, and for most apps not all of the DLLs would be needed.

      Considering that most RPMs are perhaps a few megs, I suspect you could trim Wine down quite a bit. Certainly feasable.

      I don't know how large embedded linux distros are though.

    2. Re:wine+embedded linux by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

      Without debugging info it's ~17M with the latest snapshot, still over 16M without including the Linux subsystem. We have to remember that Wine is still alpha so the code as it stands (and there's a lot of it) probably wasn't written with maintaining a small footprint in mind. The question is whether the fact that you don't need a license for W98 makes it cheaper to use a 32 or even 64M flash card with the savings.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    3. Re:wine+embedded linux by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      I think you can safely forget about that. WINE depends on X11 and we all know how space-efficient that is, right? And I don't think it stops there; apart from the kernel, you'd probably need a C-library, and considering you would be running win32 binaries, you may need a C++ runtime, too. Even if you manage to get it done, you wouldn't be able to run the bulk of win32 software, so why bother? Linux itself is much better suited to this, and QNX specializes on it.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    4. Re:wine+embedded linux by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Well I've seen X11 come on 3 floppies before (or is it 8?).

      Anyway, the idea is, that you see what libraries it does need, and just include them. Use a hacked version of wine that doesn't have any of the display code, use only the minimum of the X11 libraries, and so on..

      I think it could be done. Why? /me shrugs

    5. Re:wine+embedded linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and, if it's an embedded app, Wine could be scaled down.

      Either way, a port to WineLib and using a frame buffer w/o a window manager might be a better idea; no licence fees and it is entirely tunable.

    6. Re:wine+embedded linux by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

      Why try to turn a non-embedded app (ie. Win98 native) into a native app by using Wine? Wine wasn't designed to be embedded. I don't doubt that it might give a run for the money, but it just wasn't designed for it.

      No disrespect to the parent poster, but I think that designing an app to be embedded would be a lot easier than morphing and existing app into a Win98 / Linux+Wine pseudo-embedded-app.

      Develop it for *nix(Qnx included) and *BSD for maximum portability, and if necessary port it to the proprietary less stable systems.

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    7. Re:wine+embedded linux by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      oh I agree .. it was more of an accademic suggestion :)
      I'm curious to see if it someone can do it heh

    8. Re:wine+embedded linux by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

      I never challenged the original post. I just wanted to offer another viewpoint.

      Besides - I can't help but think if it can be done _at all_ it can be done with linux. But I'm just one of the enlightened ones. Your usage may prove otherwise.

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
  9. Windows CE is bad enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Microsoft can't make Windows CE stable (or PocketPC for that matter), so I don't believe that a 3rd party will be able to do the same with a custom product - particularly with an OS that has such a legendary stability record as Windows 98.

    The reliability of the Windows CE powered ticket machines at my local cinema is awful. At any one time, at least one or two machines have either locked up; are in the middle of rebooting (but stuck because they can't find the network - that's how I know it runs Windows CE); or worst of all.. about to crash.

    You know a crash is about to happen because the UI starts flaking out (text vanishes, on-screen buttons loose captions) while in middle of trying to buy tickets. This happened to me once - I was able to finish by guessing which button to "print tickets", but it locked up when the people next in line tried to use it.

    The only reason the machines are actually useful is because the short lines mean you can get your tickets fast - as opposed to the horrendously long queue to buy from the human ticket drones.

    The only reason the machines manage to sell any tickets at all is because there are 6 of them - "reliability" through numbers I suppose.

    1. Re:Windows CE is bad enough... by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      First, PocketPC 2k and 2002 is Windows CE 3.0, with some exta software. The core OS is the same.

      Second, WinCE has been pretty stable for me. Granted, I'm not running this crashy ticketing app. The only experience I have with WinCE is using it as a computer (not just a PIM) on various small computers, PDA sized devices. That is, I use my Jornada 720 and Axim for programming in Smalltalk perl/tk (not just writing code, testing it as well), writing papers in LaTeX, email, telnet/ssh, web browsing, and other stuff. While WinCE hasn't been rock solid, it's been quite a bit more stable for me than any Win95 or 98 installation has been. Which doesn't say much, granted, but it's also been more stable than Linux has been on the PDA for me.

      A month and a half ago, I bought a Zaurus SL-5500, which runs Linux. I had to reboot it far more than I have any WinCE or Newton OS PDA I've ever owned. So much for Linux's reliability... Should we extrapolate that this applies to all places Linux is applied?

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    2. Re:Windows CE is bad enough... by vasqzr · · Score: 1


      Maybe you should just run Linux on that Jornada.

      I use my Jornada 720 and Axim for programming in Smalltalk perl/tk (not just writing code, testing it as well), writing papers in LaTeX, email, telnet/ssh, web browsing, and other stuff.

  10. On the mac side by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yet, you can boot an entire Mac from an iPod.

    1. Re:On the mac side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to explain just how this is done? the iPods 32Mb RAM seems barely enough to load an early 8.x install, let alone the larger 9 or OSX jobs

      I see a lot of mac users talking the talk on this 'feature' but have yet to see it done. Or is this just another feature "in theory" that has no practical use.

    2. Re:On the mac side by longbottle · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can install OS 9/X directly onto an iPod and boot up any mac that has FireWire with it. Very handy for full system backups and disk fixing.

      You don't install onto the iPod's buffer RAM, you install onto it's hard disk (5GB-30GB, depending on model).
      The filesystem of the hard disk inside is actually HFS+ (the extended mac filesystem) so this really isn't that difficult. The cool part though, is the firmware. Open Firmware (it's in all the "new world" macs) makes it possible to boot from any device that can hold system software, not just iPods.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it!
    3. Re:On the mac side by Humpinate · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but their products amount to a crap shoot when ya boot (I wish I had a buck for every BSOD I'd ever seen). I bet the reason
      they are excited is the cool "small Kernel">16MB part. Oh well

  11. Embedded Systems by Detritus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Windows 98 has the advantage of allowing an application to directly access I/O ports and memory mapped registers on I/O cards. This means that you are not forced to write a device driver to do I/O. The system can be setup to run a single application, with Windows providing the GUI and network stack. The end-user only sees the provided application, and is never given the chance to run any other programs or to modify the system.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:Embedded Systems by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Please, I know what an embedded system is, and I understand that an embedded system user can't reconfigure the system. Problem is, Win98 assumes the user might want to reconfigure, and needs a lot of hand-holding to get it done. Which is why you sometimes see billboards like this one.

  12. I don't need embedded 98 but boot-from-flash 98 .. by TheLoneGundam · · Score: 1

    If I could boot a PC from a flash card (whatever size necessary) with Windows 98, yet have the swap file and any writable files be on the HDD, it would ease my tech support issues at home. My wife is a writer, and currently on a combination of Win98 and wordprocessing tools that she's comfortable with. You don't mess with her environment, because that means time re-learning stuff which means loss of income. The primary reason for booting from flash would be startup speed, for her. So - that said, I will be looking for whatever information is necessary to accomplish that.

  13. SoftMac on W98? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how big it will be for a bootable SoftMac on Win 98 with this TinyWin solution? It would be cool to boot emulated Mac off a 32MB USB flash disk from my notebook...

  14. This is nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    RISC OS has always sat in rom, ever since it was first released back in the late 1980s. A full gui desktop operating system in ~4mb of rom. And it is a heck of a lot more stable than Windows98.

  15. Re:I don't need embedded 98 but boot-from-flash 98 by Lester67 · · Score: 1

    I put a full install of Win98 on a 256mb Lexar Jumpdrive Pro. Works pretty good, although you need to install it on a hard drive first (so the USB driver can be installed), and ghost the image over.

  16. CompactFlash--Why not? by serial+frame · · Score: 1

    In the case of buying an adapter separate from the card itself, perhaps taking to this plan and buying in bulk may be more expensive. However, for do-it-yourself hobbyist projects, any CompactFlash card, combined with one of these from PC Engines, makes an ideal, tiny hard drive suitable for your embedded application.

    Whoah, I sound like one of those people who sells stuff.

    --

    -
    And the Angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots! The cries of the carrots!"
    1. Re:CompactFlash--Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.mydigitaldiscount.com/product_info.php? products_id=43

      I run Freesco using a CF in one of these, which not only fits a floppy bay, but also fits an IDE swap rack with the front panel knockout (for Zip/LS120 access)removed.

  17. Re:I don't need embedded 98 but boot-from-flash 98 by 98er · · Score: 1

    I have done this before as well but my compact flash dies after some months. I heard it is due to frequent write to boot sectors and other system areas by Windows 98. Can anyone confirm this?

  18. Re:boot from flash mac by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
    I happened to be messing around with this Idea on my old 100mhz powerbook 5300 last night. I copied the 8.5 system folder (minus some extentions) over to a 64 meg flash card. It worked fine, and faster than the slow as hell HD.

    I have also done this with a floppy disk version of 7.5 (+/-), on a 4 meg card, and that boot is almost instantaneous. Not a ton of functionality, but it is very cool to see your old hardware spring to life that fast... :)

  19. once... by 1qa2ws3ed · · Score: 1

    ...i got a win98 to boot from a cdrom (but less than 15meg occupied) without using floppy or hard disk. with 64meg of ram. i still have the cd somewhere... obviously it was crap... but a nice memory of when i was a windows user... fortunately time have passed, and and i finnally saw the light.

  20. Re:I don't need embedded 98 but boot-from-flash 98 by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

    Your saying you can't even update your wife's comp to WinXP Home without her getting all disorientated?

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  21. dos 3.3 by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    had a M$ enabled backdoor and was limited to 640kb of ram IIRC. Windos 5 never got such a backdoor, though NT5's upgrade policy is similar.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:dos 3.3 by operagost · · Score: 1
      DOS is wide open- what kind of back door are you talking about? And what is Windos? Is that troll speak for something? And it's called Win2K, not NT5.

      You could use up to 16 MB RAM in DOS 3.3 with either EMS or a third-party XMS driver, incidentally.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:dos 3.3 by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      DOS is wide open- what kind of back door are you talking about?

      I was thinking the same thing - I mean it's not like you needed a password to access a DOS machine.

      Maybe hes talking about a default BIOS password lol

  22. Re:I don't need embedded 98 but boot-from-flash 98 by bandy · · Score: 1

    I've been running W95 for years on a 220Mib PCMCIA ATA card, SanDisk brand - top-shelf. No problems.

    Are you using an off-brand CF card bychance?

    --
    "You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
  23. Re:I don't need embedded 98 but boot-from-flash 98 by 98er · · Score: 1

    It is a SanDisk 256MB I was using. When you say you are running from PCMCIA ATA card, does that mean you boot from something else? Normally PC does not boot off PCMCIA, isn't it?

  24. to ignore the marketing issues by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    I group everything as NT or DOS. Win2k identifies itself as NT5, so I call it that. XP identifies itself as NT5.1, so I call it that.

    "Windos" means a version of windows such as 3.1 or ME that is a direct descendant of MS-DOS rather than a VMS hybrid. When I want to insult Windows(NT or DOS) without a specific reason, I call it "Micros~1 Winshit".

    As I recall, it was some sort of remote-access dealy they sold the US government for DOS 3.3. If I remembered where I read it, I'd quote the specifics.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
  25. Re:I don't need embedded 98 but boot-from-flash 98 by bandy · · Score: 1

    It's a ThinkPad 730TE, which does normally boot off of the PCMCIA, as it has no internal drives at all, just 3 PCMCIA slots

    Even the floppy drive is external and hangs off of a cable from the port "replicator".

    .

    --
    "You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
  26. Re:I don't need embedded 98 but boot-from-flash 98 by TheLoneGundam · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying she'll get disoriented, I'm saying the down time and the time spent learning the new little quirks could be a problem. I don't know if you've ever been tech support for a significant other, but it can be thorny. And the last thing I want to hear when I come in the door after being tech support at work all day is "the damn computer's broken, fix it right away, I have a project due to the printer in the morning".