Ford Dumping Windows For QNX In New Vehicles

innocent_white_lamb writes "Ford has announced that their in-vehicle technology called Sync will be based on Blackberry's QNX operating system and will no longer use Microsoft Windows. My own 2013 Ford Escape has the Windows-based Sync system. I wonder if they will issue an update to change it to QNX." Anonymous sources inside Ford cited reliability problems with Windows and lower licensing costs for the switch to the classic realtime OS.

Comments

Having used both

[phantomfive]

They made the right decision. QNX is one of the more enjoyable embedded OSes (IMO YMMV of course).

Re:Having used both

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is my mileage going to vary if they switch to QNX? Better navigation package?

Re:Having used both

[mjwx]

They made the right decision. QNX is one of the more enjoyable embedded OSes (IMO YMMV of course).

Having rented a Ford Focus with the 4sp automatic "Sync by Microsoft" gearbox, if they had of punched themselves in the head until their eye fell out they still would have made the right choice.

The gearbox in a recent Focus can only be described as bone jarringly violent. Every time that thing changed gear the selector fork forcibly readjusted my spine whilst moving the cog.

Making a decent 4sp slushbox is so basic. even Great Wall and Tata can do it without screwing it up. The 4sp slushbox in recent Subaru Impreza is fine, why did Ford need to screw it up.

Even Ford's 6sp automatic in the Mustang was horrible. You'd click the plus button (stupidly placed on the gear knob, FFS even a Hyundai has flappy paddles this day and age) and you could go away and make a cup of tea before it realised it was a gearbox and moved a cog. I've never driven an automatic Ford I could call decent, even the much hyped ZF box in the Falcon (Australia only model) was a horror.

Re:Having used both

[certsoft]

The SYNC system has nothing to do with the powertrain. It's only used for infotainment and climate control.

Re:Having used both

[MikeBabcock]

Lower power requirements :)

Re:Having used both

[mjwx]

The SYNC system has nothing to do with the powertrain. It's only used for infotainment and climate control.

So you're saying it'll still have a shit transmission.

Ford seems to have their priorities seriously screwed up if that is the case. Shouldn't they make sure the powertrain works before working on the infotainment system.

Re:Having used both

[Lisias]

Ford seems to have their priorities seriously screwed up if that is the case. Shouldn't they make sure the powertrain works before working on the infotainment system.

The way I see it, Ford is doing it right. One must be entertained while awaits for rescue when the car bricks in the middle of the road! :-)

Re:Having used both

[Anonymous Coward]

beta stuxnet compatibility.............

Re:Having used both

[slackware 3.6]

I own 2 Fords and several in the past and evertime I smell smoke its like oh shit. Funny thing is I had 2 Dodges catch on fire while I was driving them.

Re:Having used both

[Monoman]

It's not just that. Don't forget

* Smaller footprint
* Lighter weight

Re:Having used both

[Christian Smith]

The SYNC system has nothing to do with the powertrain. It's only used for infotainment and climate control.

So you're saying it'll still have a shit transmission.

Ford seems to have their priorities seriously screwed up if that is the case. Shouldn't they make sure the powertrain works before working on the infotainment system.

Just curious, did you lift your foot from the gas while changing gear? I've never driven a (semi-)automatic gearbox car, and wondered if keeping the foot to the floor gas wise affected it's behaviour on when to change gear.

Personally, I'm happy driving stick, clutch and all. No computer to blame for bad gear changes.

Re:Having used both

[peragrin]

That's why i buy cars built in America, Like Honda, toyota, and Nissan.

You think I am joking. those three companies build more cars in the USA than Ford, GM and Chrylser.

Re:Having used both

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is my mileage going to vary if they switch to QNX? Better navigation package?

Those who were suckered into paying $2000 for what amounts to an in-car GPS and MP3 player should not be worried about mileage or gas costs, for their wallet navigated away from common sense long ago.

Re:Having used both

[LostMyBeaver]

QNX is one of the more enjoyable embedded OSes?

It's just a unix style microkernel operating system. What they're buying is the Qt platform which is far more interesting than QNX... they'd have been equally well off with a Linux kernel and Qt on top.

There is no size footprint or CPU footprint benefits to be had here... the point is, if you're not using Windows, a Qt based platform with proper driver support is the way to go.

But... it will be in a Ford product which means they'll have to make it work like shit to belong there.

Re:Having used both

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Stopping and stopping a car a lot decreases the mileage. That's why city mileage is always worse. With Windows your car needs to stop and reboot at bluescreens. With QNX you won't have that problem.

Re:Having used both

[ebno-10db]

No joke at all. My wife's Toyota Sienna has 85% value added in the US (that's 85% of the cost of building it, not just final assembly). That's a much higher percentage than most American cars. Engine & tranny made in WV, assembly in Kentucky, etc.

Why do the Japanese have more faith in American manufacturing than the "American" car companies? Maybe Motorola Mobility being bought by Lenovo is a good thing. They'll probably continue to design and build them in the US. If they'd continued under "American" ownership they'd probably have offshored everything.

Re:Having used both

[ebno-10db]

QNX is an RTOS, Linux is not.

Re:Having used both

[rickb928]

"selector fork forcibly readjusted my spine"

Stop sitting on the gearshift lever.

You're welcome.

Re:Having used both

[MachineShedFred]

I'm pretty sure there's one team that work on the cabin electronics and infotainment, and a completely different and separate team that works on the mechanical engineering of automatic transmissions. After all, there isn't a whole lot of crossover between coding embedded systems for MP3 playback, and torque converters.

But that might be just me.

Re:Having used both

[MachineShedFred]

One word: tariffs.

Japanese auto companies can dodge the import tariffs on completed autos if they are built in Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and North Carolina. American auto companies can also dodge the tariffs (and UAW strong-arming) by building them in Mexico.

Thanks, NAFTA!

Re:Having used both

[laffer1]

There is a delay shifting with the gas to the floor or not. I have a 2014 mustang that has the same issue when trying to "manually" shift the automatic.

I really don't understand why they put the buttons where they did. I like the setup in my wife's beetle better. You can actually use the shifter to change gears and it's much more responsive than my mustang.

Re:Having used both

[fsck-beta]

You bought an automatic Mustang?

Re:Having used both

[ebno-10db]

If the tariffs are what make them do it, then I'm all for the tariffs. However, the average tariff on finished cars is something like 2% - not exactly protectionist. "Light trucks" are another story - I think they have a 25% tariff. As for Mexico, if the "American" car manufacturers can dodge the tariff by building there, then so can the "Japanese" car manufacturers. It's the furriners who have more faith in "Made in USA" these days.

Re:Having used both

[ebno-10db]

Linux is an RTOS as long as you select the proper configuration.

No, it's not. They've done some very clever things to reduce Linux response latency, but it's not deterministic, and hence not (hard) real-time. I add the word "hard" only because some people have mistakenly conflated real-time with responsive, leading to the oxymoronic term "soft real-time". Also, even with the clever mods Linux's latency is much longer than many RTOS's.

I love embedded Linux, but if you need an RTOS, it's not the right tool.

BTW, why would Android even need to be an RTOS? What purpose would it serve?

And for entertainment based systems, you don't really need RTOS - just a reasonably fast system.

Yes. I only mentioned RTOS's to counter the common notion that there can be a universal OS for embedded work.

Re:Having used both

[LoRdTAW]

RTOS implies determinism, the ability to execute things in a timely manner. That means prioritizing interrupts and allowing high priority threads and processes to preempt the kernel and other core OS processes or threads. Many people mistake real time for processing something as it arrives into the computer e.g. a near latency free video image on screen from a camera or reading a stream of GPS coords from a serial port. Lets go with the camera example. While this sounds like real time, there is no software or hardware that guarantees that the image software and camera driver will always deliver an image to the screen in a guaranteed and timely manner. For example if you start the camera application and you play a video game, does the "realtime" video application retain its low latency? Or will it stutter as its process fights for CPU time with the video game process as the OS sees fit? In a true RTOS, the video software AND driver TELLS the OS their priority and the OS obeys. They can be assigned a high priority so any other software will have to wait until there is spare CPU time.

Linux has two routes to achieve this:
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
Patches to the Linux kernel which removed the various locks in the kernel (aka big kernel lock) which allows a process to be prioritized over the kernel itself. IRQ's are also prioritized. You can run various processes and assign them a priority.

Xenomai
Xenomai is a dual kernel approach where a vanilla Linux kernel is patched with Xenomai. It creates a separate kernel that allows its processes to preempt the Linux kernel and takes over handling interrupts through the I-pipe. This means all interrupts are handled by the Xenomai kernel and if an interrupt is destined for the Linux kernel, Xenomai passes them as a virtual interrupt. Xenomai also features its own HAL allowing hardware to be dedicated to Xenomai processes via RT drivers. You can also do things like dedicate a processor core to a specific task to guarantee there is ample CPU time. And Xenomai has a neat little trick, its kernel is a nucleus which can run various "skins" which are API's; e.g. you can use RT code using Native, POSIX, uITRON, VxWorks and a few other RT API's.

YMMV but both solutions have tradeoffs. There is a paper published (https://www.osadl.org/fileadmin/dam/rtlws/12/Brown.pdf) which compares the two popular Linux RT solutions. Preempt_rt is easier to implement as it is part of the mainline kernel, you only need to include a few headers and some gobals to define the process priority. But in tests it shows higher timing jitter than Xenomai. If you want maximum performance, then you need to look into Xenomai which requires a bit more setup, patching and using the various API's and RT hardware drivers.

BTW, Windows also has RT dual kernel systems. So yes even windows can be an RTOS. Look up Ardence RTX and INtime.

Re:Having used both

[martyn1807]

Does that mean now we removed the big kernel lock that we could just merge a lot of CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT?

Re:Having used both

[mrchaotica]

Why do the Japanese have more faith in American manufacturing than the "American" car companies?

Because "American" car companies are stuck using union labor, while Japanese ones aren't.

Re:Having used both

[mlts]

With some vehicles, it is even worse. The "chicken tax" forces Mercedes to assemble vans in Germany, partially dismantle them, send them over to the US for a final "re-assembly" (not sure how finished the fans are... could be just attaching the mirrors and calling that done.)

Re:Having used both

[UnknowingFool]

That's really not the only reason for them to build in the US and not Japan. Yes, tariffs are higher if imported from Japan but so are costs. Manufacturing and shipping costs are higher in Japan. In terms of manufacturing, realize that Japan is a small island and that they import much of the raw material from other countries (like the US) to build the cars. Japan also imports much of their energy so energy costs are higher. Then after the vehicle is built, the cost to ship the assembled vehicle to the US are higher than within the US. For this reason the luxury Japanese cars are still built in Japan as they command higher prices to offset higher costs.

The main difference in the US I see is that the Japanese automakers built their factories in non-union states and do not have the same labor costs. Detroit had the same option as the Japanese companies but instead decided to go to Mexico to reduce labor costs further. For whatever you think of Michael Moore personally, his early documentary, Roger & Me cast a light on what was wrong with the American auto industry. Their pursuit of more profit has decimated Detroit as well as turned generations of loyal customers and workers against them.

Re:Having used both

[Lumpy]

Because Japanese CEO's are not whoring out the company. American CEO's are some of the worst people on the planet, they do whatever they can to give themselves stellar salaries while crashing the company to give them even more gains. the CEO and Board should be LEGALLY liable for everything that a corporation does, IF they screw over the employees, they lose everything they personally own. EVERYTHING. They also spend time in jail for any laws broken.

Problem is the United states is OWNED by these corporations, your Senators and Represenatives all are bought and paid for by them.

Re:Having used both

[Lumpy]

Bullshit.

The Executives cause more damage to GM than all the unions combined.

Re:Having used both

[Lumpy]

People that buy paddle shifting automatics are silly.

If you dont have a clutch pedal, you drive an automatic.

Re:Having used both

[garyebickford]

Add to that the fact that the cost of management is part of that value - as I recall a majority of "American" content in a 1999 Buick was management, not actual manufacturing. IDK what it is now. But new technology (advanced robotics) and a gradually rebalancing world economy (mean pay scales in China have increased by a factor of five or more in the last decade or so) have, as expected, made manufacturing here much more viable. The cost reductions of manufacturing using advanced robotics have completely changed the relationship between cost of manufacture and the cost of shipping.

That doesn't necessarily mean a lot more jobs - plants with advanced robotics may be producing a billion dollars of goods per year with a staff of less than 100. And other factors, notably taxes, safety & environment, and litigation, will still tend to encourage manufacturing in Mexico vs. the US.

Re:Having used both

[wagnerrp]

While semantically you are correct, the "automatic transmission" when used with motor vehicles specifically means a hydrodynamic "slushbox". Systems that employ a clutch that that is controlled electromechanically or robotically for you, where shifting may or may not be computer controlled, are lumped together as "semi-automatic transmissions". While there are certain situations in which direct control over the clutch has its advantages, the automatically controlled clutch allows for much faster and more accurate gear shifts. The clutch pedal is really only used in racing these days to raise the level of skill required by a driver.

Re:Having used both

[garyebickford]

Indeed. I recall watching an American Chopper episode, where they built a chopper to be given away by Ford on stage at the annual Ford dealer convention, by a Ford VP. This would have been in the late 1990s? I don't recall when. I was amazed to see that the VP was a clone of Matt Foley's "Van down by the river" character - he appeared to be a big, fat, dumb, idiot, who I surmised had gotten where he is by saying "yes" to various bosses and schmoozing and boozing the dealers. To me, management of this caliber was the problem with Ford (which was not doing well at the time). I said at the time that if I ran the place I'd fire almost everyone in management and start over. That, of course, happened to be probably about the time that Ford was cutting a deal to have Microsoft software in the car.

Re:Having used both

[ebno-10db]

Because "American" car companies are stuck using union labor, while Japanese ones aren't.

Last time I checked there is no law against "American" car companies building plants in "right to work" states. In fact they have. You're making a BS excuse for the "American" car companies.

Re:Having used both

[LoRdTAW]

Yes, It was removed and is included in the mainline kernel. As to whether it is enabled by default is up to the distro. Steam OS is using it by default presumably for audio purposes (e.g. voice communication packets are guaranteed to be processed every XXXms). Or they could be using it for external inputs that needs some deterministic processing such as synchronizing the process for calculating the coordinates of accelerometers in a VR headset with the game. Other distros have no need to enable it as allowing random applications to specify priority could lead to disastrous performance.

To better explain real time and determinism:
If you *absolutely need* precision timing for interrupts or code execution then preempt_rt/xenomai/RTOS is what you need. So say if I have a mechanical switch on a machine that sends an interrupt to a PC with an I/O card. That interrupt and its handler/process needs to respond to it within 60us, no exceptions otherwise something very bad happens mechanically in the machine because of timing. You don't want the machine process to wait for the ssh daemon to finish. You want the OS to drop everything and service that interrupt/process, NOW.

If your video game needs to render frames as fast as it can then you don't need real time, you just need a really fast CPU/GPU. You don't care whether the frames are guaranteed every 20ms(50FPS), or that they sync with another process down to the us. You just want them rendered as fast as possible to the screen.

Re:Having used both

[garyebickford]

FTFY:
Some CEOs of all nations are some of the worst people on the planet, they do whatever they can to give themselves stellar salaries while crashing the company to give them even more gains.

Just as in all fields of endeavor, that type of person is a small minority. It's a bit larger in big companies - about 1 in 25 instead of 1 in 100. Those are real numbers - approximate incidence of sociopathy/psychopathy. Numerous studies have shown that companies that are run by those types are pretty well doomed to crash within three to five years. A good book to see how this goes is "Good to Great" by Jim Collins.

If you think American companies are worse in this regard, you're not paying attention.

Re:Having used both

[wagnerrp]

Why? The only advantage to a manual gearbox is it lets you rock out of a ditch or a rut in the snow. It may "feel" better to have direct control over that clutch, but it won't actually perform better. Computers do a much better job than your foot.

Re:Having used both

[mrchaotica]

Last time I checked there is no law against "American" car companies building plants in "right to work" states. In fact they have.

Although that's theoretically true, in practice American car company factories are apparently unionized even in right-to-work states. For example, the ones near where I live -- the Ford assembly plant in Hapeville, GA and the GM assembly plant in Chamblee, GA (both of which are closed now, perhaps not coincidentally) -- were union shops despite being in Georgia.

It's only a guess, but I suspect American car factories in right-to-work states ended up unionized because the workers in the other factories in union states forced them to be. (E.g. maybe Ford received the ultimatum that if the one Georgia factory became non-union then N Michigan factories would all go on strike, or something.)

Re:Having used both

[wagnerrp]

One of the other divisions at work runs Windows RTOS for machine control (the one I'm in uses QNX). I was under the impression those systems basically were a separate RTOS hypervisor, that then ran Windows as a guest OS on top of it.

Re:Having used both

[ebno-10db]

Windows also has RT dual kernel systems

I'm not as familiar w/ the Windows stuff, but I'd be surprised if it didn't work like Xenomai. Xenomai doesn't turn Linux into an RTOS - it allows Linux to be run under an RTOS. It's a clever solution for some designs, but it doesn't make Linux real-time. I have to wonder if it makes much sense in this era of cheap processors though. We typically run Linux and an RTOS (or even bare metal) separately, which makes things simpler. Smartphones do the same thing - the real-time stuff for controlling the wireless runs on a separate processor that's part of the wireless chip set, not the "main" processor that runs Android or whatever. Having worked on some of the lower levels of wireless protocols, I'd be very skeptical of running it on the same processor that people use for playing video game apps.

Re:Having used both

[wiredlogic]

Lets see here:

You've got the PREEMPT_RT patch which makes the Linux kernel fully preemptible.

Then you've got the RTLinux extension which runs Linux within a hard real-time hypervisor.

Nope. It's definitely impossible to do real-time work with Linux.

Re:Having used both

[colinrichardday]

But wouldn't those lead to lower variation? Of course, your mileage may differ. Your gas mileage may also vary, as you get better mileage on the highway than in the city.

Re:Having used both

[whitroth]

And, of course, qnx is based on Unix....

$170k? Really? Wish I knew a single programmer making 2/3rds of that - no one I know does, and I've been doing this in a number of cities for a lot of years.

                    mark

Re:Having used both

[phantomfive]

$170k? Really? Wish I knew a single programmer making 2/3rds of that - no one I know does, and I've been doing this in a number of cities for a lot of years.

Yeah, I can really only talk about Silicon Valley, though; that's what I know.

If you want to get that salary, I'll tell you one method that works.
1) Create a linked-in profile
2) Adjust it until you get a lot of recruiters contacting you. (tip: it helps to frequently make small changes in your profile).
3) Any recruiter that contacts you, tell them straight up, first thing, that you are not interested in any job under $160k.
4) That will get rid of 90% of the recruiters, but the remaining 10% are the ones you want to talk to. It trims it down to a manageable number.
5) When you get through the interview, whatever salary they offer you, don't accept it. Say, "That is a nice offer, but I was really hoping for more, because of reason [make up a reason]." Ask them to see what they can do to improve their offer, like signing bonus, stock, whatever. They probably will.

That's about it. Don't be too much in a hurry, find a company you like. GL.

Re:Having used both

[praxis]

I don't care if it takes me 2 seconds or 0.2 seconds to shift gears. That's not the performance I need from my car. What I need from my car is being able to downshift *prior* to needing to accelerate, like when anticipating a merge. What I need from my car is being able to use the clutch to apply just the right amount of power to the wheels to get traction on slippery surfaces, like when pulling out of an icy parking spot over snow onto a plowed road.

You are correct though, that a computer can control the clutch more quickly than I can, but it doesn't see (yet) when I need power and downshift before I need it or how to apply just the right amount of power to gain traction on surfaces that are not uniform (again, yet).

Re:Having used both

[LoRdTAW]

True, Xenomai is like having a separate OS but the processes it runs are native Linux processes as Xenomai is a kernel module. To illustrate, I use a stupid Xzibit Yo Dawg meme:
Yo dawg, I heard you like kernels. So we put a kernel in yo kernel so you can run deterministic processes while you normal process.

Xenomai isn't a totally separate environment. Xenomai processes can access anything a Linux process can (tread lightly here). Files, network etc. But hardware that needs to be controlled in a deterministic manner needs its own RT driver as that bypasses the kernel.

I never worked directly with windows RT development but I have used a CNC motion controller from Aerotech which does. They use INtime (older versions used Ardence RTX) to run their software motion controller (SMC) which communicated with intelligent drives over firewire. They supply RT drivers for common firewire chipsets like VIA and Ti as well as offer RT drivers for fieldbus cards like EtherCAT. They also offer a software PAC that runs alongside the SMC under INtime. User applications and their CNC HMI uses a C/C++ or .net library to talk to a communications library which in turn uses shared memory to talk to the real time processes. IPC using shared memory is fast and is also non blocking so there is no delay when an RT process needs to read or write shared memory.

disclaimer: I am not an RTOS expert but someone who dabbles in embedded hardware and software. I have done lots of research on the topic.

Re:Having used both

[Shark]

I hate windows as much as the next guy but I have to give it to Sync... The voice recognicion is by far the best I've ever used.

Re:Having used both

[Shinobi]

RTLinux as a solution is not (hard) realtime as they falsely claim it to be. Only the Hypervisor is realtime, but the Linux kernel running as a process is not, since it can't guarantee that it will respond in a deterministic manner. That's the problem with the PREEMPT_RT patch too.

With the Linux kernel, you get an average timeframe for an interrupt. With QNX or other proper realtime OS's, you get a Max timeframe.

Re:Having used both

[holmstar]

I remember hearing a story once about work vans (ie: no seats in the back) having a higher tariff than passenger vans, so a company (i don't remember which automaker) was installing temporary seats that were then removed and shipped back to the factory once the vans made it into the US.

Re:Having used both

[holmstar]

The automatically controlled clutch may be faster, but there's just something about doing it yourself that makes you feel more connected with the car, and just plain more enjoyable to drive. Plus, there's no nanny to get in the way. It would drive me crazy if I requested a shift and it refused, or if there was a noticeable delay.

Re:Having used both

[Tough Love]

RTLinux as a solution is not (hard) realtime as they falsely claim it to be. Only the Hypervisor is realtime, but the Linux kernel running as a process is not, since it can't guarantee that it will respond in a deterministic manner. That's the problem with the PREEMPT_RT patch too.

With the Linux kernel, you get an average timeframe for an interrupt. With QNX or other proper realtime OS's, you get a Max timeframe.

Factual inaccuacies galore. RTLinux does not use a hypervisor, it uses a microkernel. Nobody claims that the Linux API in RTLinux is realtime, only the microkernel API, which incidentally is hard realtime with latency guarantees measured in microseconds. The PREEMPT_RT patch does in fact attempt to provide hard realtime, for example, interrupts become preemptible with real time priority. The question of whether PREEMPT is actually hard realtime or not gets into a debate over what hard realtime actually is. If measuring latency and finding that it never goes outside of strict bounds counts, then yes, PREEMPT_RT is hard realtime. If a mathematical proof is required, then no, however... nontrivial hard realtime systems that are fully proved are vanishingly rare.

Re:Having used both

[dogandpants]

QNX has IMNSHO always been the best OS. Simple, extremely fast, easy to learn. Ford is making a good choice.

Re:Having used both

[mjwx]

People that buy paddle shifting automatics are silly.

If you dont have a clutch pedal, you drive an automatic.

I agree, anyone calling a paddle shifter a manual is an idiot.

A manual has a mechanical connection between the gearlever and selector fork as well as some form of clutch control. Automatic's with gear selection functions are still automatics, although they may be called manumatics for brevity's sake.

Re:Having used both

[mjwx]

The SYNC system has nothing to do with the powertrain. It's only used for infotainment and climate control.

So you're saying it'll still have a shit transmission.

Ford seems to have their priorities seriously screwed up if that is the case. Shouldn't they make sure the powertrain works before working on the infotainment system.

Just curious, did you lift your foot from the gas while changing gear? I've never driven a (semi-)automatic gearbox car, and wondered if keeping the foot to the floor gas wise affected it's behaviour on when to change gear.

Personally, I'm happy driving stick, clutch and all. No computer to blame for bad gear changes.

Keeping your foot on the accelerator has no effect on the gearshifting behaviour in an automatic, older auto boxes will have a cut-off, modern automatics are all electronic, so the accelerator pedal doesn't have a throttle cable any more so the accelerator response is entirely computer controlled.

In fact when racing an automatic car, you shouldn't lift off for gear changes.

Re:Having used both

[mjwx]

The automatically controlled clutch may be faster, but there's just something about doing it yourself that makes you feel more connected with the car, and just plain more enjoyable to drive. Plus, there's no nanny to get in the way. It would drive me crazy if I requested a shift and it refused, or if there was a noticeable delay.

Was driving an paddle shifter Camaro (rental), coming up to a tunnel and wanted to hear some noise so I shifted down...

Nothing reminds you that you're not in control of an automatic when you see the words "shift denied" when pressing the paddle.

Re:Having used both

[wagnerrp]

The automatic transmission (slushbox) is much better suited for providing partial torque, as you're not burning up a clutch when you let the transmission slip, you're merely moving a compressor and turbine closer or further apart. Traction control, stability augmentation, and all-wheel-drive systems do exactly what you are describing to various degrees, providing just the right amount of torque to the wheels to allow traction, but limit slip, and will do it with many more degrees of freedom than you will with a single clutch pedal. Many modern cars with automatic and semi-automatic transmissions allow you to select a gear with computer oversight, or even let you directly shift and only manage the torque coupling for you.

Re:Having used both

[Nothing2Chere]

Why do the Japanese have more faith in American manufacturing than the "American" car companies?

It's because of Japanese Engineering. They've got their procedures perfected, and it's cheaper (tariffs have already been noted) to do the engineering in Japan and the manufacturing in the USA.

n2ch

Re:Having used both

[RockDoctor]

The gearbox in a recent Focus can only be described as bone jarringly violent. Every time that thing changed gear the selector fork forcibly readjusted my spine whilst moving the cog.

Sorry, but I thought that synchromesh took care of that in the mid-1905s or so. Some time before I was born anyway. You never move the cogs, just disengage a clutch from one cog-pair before engaging a clutch on another cog pair. So as long as the friction pads and springs on the clutches aren't too violent, they only need to rotationally accelerate or decelerate the couple of kilos of the lay shaft, and then typically by only around 25-30% of their rotation speed.

Oh, hang on - are you talking about automatics?

Re:Having used both

[UnknowingFool]

GM had a choice and they chose to move to Mexico instead of a non-union state all in the name of profit (they were highly profitable at the time of the move). That does not sit well with the generations of loyal workers and customers.

Re:Having used both

[bhiestand]

It's probably also worth pointing out another huge cost: medical insurance. Lee Iacocca (former Chrysler chairman) complained that employee medical insurance cost ~$1250 per car, whereas Toyota Japan paid around $250 per car (read it a while ago and too lazy to get the exact figures right now). He also stated they paid out more to Blue Shield than they spent on steel, rubber, etc.

Re:Having used both

[praxis]

Maybe modern cars have better traction control, but I've always had to turn mine off when driving up snowy hills and use the clutch. I drive a ten-year-old VW though so perhaps the traction control is dated.

QNX 6

[Anonymous Coward]

I miss QNX 6, damn you Blackberry!

Ford Explorer

[liwee]

The future of the Ford ... Explorer is black, um ... bleak

Re:Ford Explorer

[Dracos]

There's a Firestone joke in there somewhere.

Re:Ford Explorer

[Concerned Onlooker]

Yes, a tired one.

Re:Ford Explorer

[macromorgan]

More Firestone jokes? Let's not tread there guys.

reliability problems??

[Joe_Dragon]

Just think of the sales pitch to get people to in install the update now ma you don't want your brakes system to crash so for only $200 we can update your cars software.

Obligatory

[Neo-Rio-101]

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/pnw...

For all of us who feel only the deepest love and affection for the way computers have enhanced our lives, read on. At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.

2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.

3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue.

For some reason you would simply accept this.

4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.

6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.

7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.

8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off."

Re:Obligatory

[jd2112]

10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off."

Actually, I do press the 'Start' button to turn the engine off on my car. (Nissan Altima with keyless ignition)

Re:Obligatory

[jrumney]

10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off."

Cars do seem to be catching up with Windows on that one at least.

Re:Obligatory

[BigDXLT]

I know someone came up with that list to be snarky, but I'm fairly sure I've experienced everything in that list at one point or another with vehicles over the years.

Yup, including pressing the start button to turn the engine off. :/

Re:Obligatory

[Nutria]

6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.

It's called the Idiot Light, and has been around for decades.

Re:Obligatory

[bloodhawk]

Just about all those faults sound pretty standard in most GM cars. If it was ford the list would be even longer. funny how a joke from the 90's has actually turned on its head as tech has advanced, most OS's would be appalled to be as unreliable as most of the shit being churned out from GM or ford today.

Re:Obligatory

[dryeo]

My Fords have idiot gauges. The '88 introduced the idiot oil gauge as people panicked when the engine was hot and idling and the needle dropped, The '97 idiotized the voltmetre, I guess people also freaked out when, with everything on, at idle the voltage dropped down close to 12 volts. Really useful.

Re:Obligatory

[mwvdlee]

Coincidentally, it's the only thing on the list Microsoft has changed.

Re:Obligatory

[StripedCow]

2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.

Actually, if Apple had bought Tesla, the car would probably be compatible with only one brand of paint.

Re:Obligatory

[Karellen]

The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.

If only! Then Microsoft would finally start catching up with Unix, which got there first (as always):

Ken Thompson has an automobile which he helped design. Unlike most automobiles, it has neither speedometer, nor gas gauge, nor any of the other numerous idiot lights which plague the modern driver. Rather, if the driver makes a mistake, a giant “?” lights up in the center of the dashboard. “The experienced driver,” says Thompson, “will usually know what’s wrong.”

-- The Unix Haters Handbook, Chapter 2 (p.17)

Re:Obligatory

[X0563511]

Ah, you mean the MIL.

It serves it's purpose. Cars are so complicated these days there's no way you can pack the dashboard with warning indicators and still have room for the essentials. While we can have arbitrary displays now, that's a pretty new thing. The idea with the MIL is/was to tell you something was wrong and to plug in the OBDII for details.

When you pay at least $18,000 for a car, spending less than $150 for an OBDII reader that can be used on any car is, well, something you should have no problems doing.

Re:Obligatory

[BlackHawk-666]

And that paint would come in a really fancy tin with incredible packaging, but still come out of the same factory as the generic brand stuff at 1/4 the price.

Re:Obligatory

[userw014]

We're there, in more than the Start Button (I have a Ford C-Max Energi with My Ford Touch.)

My own exploration of My Ford Touch has led me to consider it a "good first effort. For high school."

Given that My Ford Touch is supposed to be the high-end version of SYNC, the fact that My Ford Touch can NOT support "apps" the way that SYNC does probably makes this an easier decision. The existing SYNC App infrastructure is already doomed.

Re:Obligatory

[mlts]

The Ford oil gauges on my two vehicles have two points... full, and empty. It isn't an actual gauge. Similar with the voltmeter, and even though I've had the temptation to slap a Trimetric meter somewhere near the dash, I've not been bored enough to do so.

I do recommend for all Fords, getting a Scangauge II, because it gives meaningful info from the OBD II port.

Re:Obligatory

[schlachter]

i think it's called the "start/stop" button

Re:Obligatory

[ncc74656]

When you pay at least $18,000 for a car, spending less than $150 for an OBDII reader that can be used on any car is, well, something you should have no problems doing.

You don't even have to spend that much. A Bluetooth OBD-II dongle will set you back maybe $20, and you can use any computer, Android device, or jailbroken iOS device to talk to it.

Re:Obligatory

[nurb432]

Is it really "catching up" when its the wrong direction to head in the first place? "Both are falling behind" sounds better to me.

Re:Obligatory

[Lumpy]

Step 1 stop using stupid analog gauges. Honestly short of the Tach there is ZERO reason to have freaking needles. I prefer a digital speedo, my gas gauge showing that I have 6.5 gallons and 350 mile range remaining, Temp gauge is not needed but I like it. I wish they had a "turn on your heater" light when the temperature actually get's above arctic temperatures for the cars that dont have gauges.

On gauge I really want, Washer fluid level. or at least make the light come on when the damn thing is 1/2 empty and not when I have only 2 squirts left.

Re:Obligatory

[X0563511]

Yep, but I was considering standalone devices only. The computer/tablet/whatever did cost you, even if this isn't the primary use.

Re:Obligatory

[dryeo]

My idiot gauge is actually a gauge, witnessed by having a bad connection to the oil sending unit and the gauge giving different readings. As you say though, it is designed to only give 2 readings though in my vehicles cases it's zero and about 45%.
I did invest in an OBD II reader for my '97 but the '88 is OBD I and I've had to short out a wire and count flashes on the check engine light to get close to a useless diagnoses. EGR not working in my case, ended up being the temperature sending unit for the ECU.

MSFT seems to work...

[Etherwalk]

I rented a Ford Fusion a few months back. The MSFT in-vehicle tech worked perfectly well.

I know it's anecdotal, and I'm all for competition, but I wonder if this was a good decision. When the car company cites licensing costs that can't be much per vehicle as a reason to change a technology, you begin to feel they're cutting corners.

Re:MSFT seems to work...

[drinkypoo]

I know it's anecdotal, and I'm all for competition, but I wonder if this was a good decision. When the car company cites licensing costs that can't be much per vehicle as a reason to change a technology, you begin to feel they're cutting corners.

Well, did you RTFA? Because that would give you a clue as to the logic behind such a move:

In-vehicle technology is the top selling point for 39 percent of auto buyers, more than twice the 14 percent who say their first consideration is traditional performance measures such as power and speed, according to a study by the consulting firm Accenture released in December.

See, Ford is going to put this sort of system in every car, sooner or later. There's no good excuse not to when you can get a tablet for a hundred bucks retail. Sure, vehicle electronics have higher requirements, make it a hundred bucks cost, a $400 (replacement) module and a $650 option and you're printing money. Cheaper and cheaper cars are now coming with iPod integration, bluetooth and so on, and sooner or later it's going to be every single car. How much do those licensing fees add up to?

Re:MSFT seems to work...

[tji]

I have an aging '08 Ford, and the Sync system is quite impressive. It has good bluetooth integration with smartphones, voice control of everything and works quite well even compared to new systems in cars sold today.

But, not long after the early success, they added more infotainment bells and whistles and started having reliability problems with Sync. This is at the time that they were releasing new models that had really good reliability ratings mechanically, but they were getting dinged badly for the Sync problems. I'm surprised it took them this long to move on to a new partner.

I like QNX, but given all the uncertainty about Blackberry's viability, it's surprising that Ford would choose them as the partner.

Re:MSFT seems to work...

[CBravo]

I did the same 2 years ago. It had issues and crashed quite a few times (when using a USB stick). For the rest I am not such a fan of the speach recognition (too slow imo).

Re:MSFT seems to work...

[Tom]

Costs are almost always a cover reason. It's what you say when you don't want to put out the real reasons.

For example, Ford almost certainly has an ongoing business relationship with MS, for their office PCs, maybe they use Outlook, etc. - they probably don't want to sour that by saying in public that their car-OS is crap.

Re:MSFT seems to work...

[Anonymous Coward]

I rented a Ford Fusion a few months back. The MSFT in-vehicle tech worked perfectly well.

Not for me. Stupid touchscreen crashed while I was trying to adjust the AC. I ended up on the highway with full volume radio and full heat blasting in my face driving through Houston in August. The thing took about four minutes (it seemed like four hours) to reboot and work again. I got to my meeting half-deaf and drenched in sweat.

No fucking way am I ever touching that shit again. I'd rather walk...at least I'd keep my hearing.

Re:MSFT seems to work...

[ripvlan]

I also rented a Ford (a small car) with the MSFT system. While the car was fine - I was infuriated by the MS system.

I opened the car door and the dash showed a popup "Engine is running" with an "Okay" button on it. Really? What purpose was this? And how do I press "okay" (it wasn't touch screen). Staring at the steering wheel later I noticed that there were two buttons labeled Okay (and each worked separately).

The worst part was the radio. I had gotten into some menu deep down and decided I didn't want to do whatever I had started. So I tried pressing the "FM" and "Radio" button - nothing would "exit" and return me to the top level. Many minutes of fumbling around through menus and deeper sub-menus the UI would sit idle and finally show "okay / cancel" on the screen. There weren't any buttons near the screen! Finally I discovered that way down low on the dash near the shifter were 4 decorative buttons with lines on them. Turns out they lined up with the UI (though 18 inches away).

Between the software of the UI and the physical UI I couldn't stand it. Nothing made sense.

Re:MSFT seems to work...

[wirelessduck]

For example, Ford almost certainly has an ongoing business relationship with MS, for their office PCs, maybe they use Outlook, etc. - they probably don't want to sour that by saying in public that their car-OS is crap.

Possibly not

I'm just scared shitless

[aybiss]

that anyone would use Windows for embedded/realtime. Is it easy to discover this for other makes of cars?

Re:I'm just scared shitless

[Dracos]

I'm sure I'm not the only person to see a BSOD on the flight arrival/departure screens at an airport.

Re:I'm just scared shitless

[aussiedood]

Windows Embedded has powered the ECUs in all Formula 1 cars (arguably the most technologically advanced race cars in the world) since 2008.

Re:I'm just scared shitless

[confused one]

The Windows Embedded OS used for real-time is not based on the desktop Windows. Its a derivative of the old Windows CE and is a bit more stable.

Re:I'm just scared shitless

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but Formula 1 cars use lots of fragile parts that break all the time during races, quite a few cars every race doesn't make it to the end due to some failure.
One more fragile component doesn't change these statistics much.

Re:I'm just scared shitless

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a flight where the entertainment system displayed RedHat 6.x (old one, not RHEL) boot messages repeatedly for three hours. Very entertaining.

Re:I'm just scared shitless

[Anonymous Coward]

The components aren't fragile, but are rather at the extreme end of the performance curve, and with very tight tolerance margins, because building in redundancy and effort has the potential expense of costing them a win.

Re:I'm just scared shitless

[serviscope_minor]

Isn't that because MS were selected as the sole supplier of ECUs by the FIA? Something makes me suspect the decision was made on how much the FIA were paid, rather than on the merit of Windows an an RTOS.

Re:I'm just scared shitless

[rickb928]

So by your logic Formula One teams use Windows Embedded because it introduces one more small vulnerability.

No. They. Do. Not.

Every component on a Formula One car is chosen to win with. Even the driver.

Re:I'm just scared shitless

[MachineShedFred]

I had that too. Delta 757 with those crappy screens in the back of the headrest?

Re:I'm just scared shitless

[UnknowingFool]

For varying values of "more stable". Some Windows CE devices I had were horrendously less stable than XP after patches. Some were about as stable. It seemed from my experience the more the OS has to do, the less stable it became. I had both WindowsMobile 5 and 6 phones that were fine on standby. Making a phone call and looking up contacts ==> crash.

Re:I'm just scared shitless

[aussiedood]

Isn't that because MS were selected as the sole supplier of ECUs by the FIA? Something makes me suspect the decision was made on how much the FIA were paid, rather than on the merit of Windows an an RTOS.

That's quite possibly true. I was simply pointing out that the MSFT system was being used in F1 cars and making no judgments about the merits or otherwise of the selection process or its in-practice efficacy.

Re:I'm just scared shitless

[Megol]

A little hint: Windows embedded != Windows. It was designed as an RTOS and well, it is. But QNX is better IMHO.

Re:I'm just scared shitless

[drinkypoo]

Right, but the PCM has very few jobs. All it has to do is run the engine, maybe talk to the transmission, and comply with OBD-II. You're not going to be making phone calls on powertrain management.

The only time I get worried about Windows in a car is when the entertainment systems are talking on the same bus as or are connected to a read/write interface in the powertrain. The security considerations are considerable. Most PCMs will take a reset request without authentication, just in case they're having a problem with authentication — even while the car is running. Maintaining PCM security is a primary goal.

Re:I'm just scared shitless

[UnknowingFool]

From what I can tell the PCM has nothing to do with Sync and what Ford (or other car makers) do with it. From what I can tell this module has to manage the GPS and navigation, the infotainment, route your phone call from your phone if you have a bluetooth connection, and maybe interface with the environmental controls. That's what I mean by more things to do. On a PC, if system gets a little slow with one program, it's not that big a deal but each of these has to happen without interruption on a car. That's why QNX is better suited to this task than Windows CE. While MS can technically say Windows CE is a real-time OS, the real-world performance that some have seen question whether or not it is a good real-time OS.

Re: I'm just scared shitless

[rickb928]

In the absence of rules against it, best available is the choice - the criteria being most important. I suspect all other software is not as 'good'. And if the crashing IS caused a DNF or lost places, it would be changed out. F1 has a low tolerance for failure.

Re:I'm just scared shitless

[TechyImmigrant]

I used to work in an F1 team. Trust me, some of the parts are fragile. The trick is to find them before you get to a race and to make good tradeoffs between fragility, weight and weight distribution.

Re:I'm just scared shitless

[TechyImmigrant]

A very real time control system I designed for an F1 car rebooted about every 60ms, by design.
If there was some combination of conditions that screwed the pooch, it's ok. The conditions would change and the thing would reboot within 60ms.

Reliable systems have to cope with the idea that software is unreliable.

Re:I'm just scared shitless

[confused one]

You are correct, PCM and the MyTouch computer are two different computers. They can, however, communicate with each other via the CANbus link.

good thing ford does not make boats

[TheGratefulNet]

Ford has announced that their in-vehicle technology called Sync

Re:good thing ford does not make boats

[ChunderDownunder]

Ford manufacturing has sunk, at least in Geelong.

Perhaps they're producing a range of hovercraft?

Re:good thing ford does not make boats

[mjwx]

Ford has announced that their in-vehicle technology called Sync

Actually the Australian produced Ford Falcon, handles like a boat.

Don't make a big deal of OS choice in embedded

[iamacat]

If all you need is one application, switching OS is not as much of a deal for you or a statement on the underlying platforms than choices of consumers who use at least a dozen of apps. Software development costs are probably a very small part of general Ford R&D costs. If they found a more economical or convenient option, more power to them!

Re:Don't make a big deal of OS choice in embedded

[cheater512]

Erm they do only run one application. It has different modules but I'd be surprised if it isn't a single executable.

DOS has shit hardware support. QNX is similar but actively maintained and can handle the graphics and input aspects so Ford doesn't have to write a TCP/IP and touch screen driver from scratch. It is very cheap and light however.

Windows (embedded or not) is quite bloaty and expensive for running one app.

QNX had a demo awhile back. A full GUI OS with web browser that fit and booted from a 1.44mb floppy disk.
Windows 3.11 needed 13 floppies if I remember correctly. That is some perspective for you.

Re:Don't make a big deal of OS choice in embedded

[mlts]

I have a feeling that QNX may be a better choice, just because it is a true RTOS... and has been since the the 1980s.

However, call me crazy, but I wonder if Ford might have been off just a Linux based OS using CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT flipped on. This could be Android, could be a small distro of Linux, or even something completely different with a custom userland.

Of course, this brings a trade-off... QNX has established developer tools, so one can work with Linux in a pseudo-realtime mode, or pay the ticket to entry for QNX, and possibly save more time and man-hours with developers for writing the SYNC front end.

experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I rented a for focus, and drove it for about 2 months, the MSFT stuff installed in it was a total piece of junk. It would crash, hang,
and reboot in the middle of navigating to the destination, just like a windows PC.

Re:experience

[UltraZelda64]

Well, at least it seems like they got the traditional Windows user experience right... they should at least get credit for that. It's nice to know that there is consistency between their products, so you can know what you're getting (into) ahead of time... even if the shared traits are 95% undesirable.

Re:experience

[natron3030]

That's like blaming Microsoft because you're having problems with Firefox. Sync is an application running on Windows CE, developed by a company other than Microsoft. While QNX is a solid OS, it's not a given the next gen Sync while be any less buggy.

Re:experience

[confused one]

When was this? the first version(s) of Sync were buggy. This is where they got the bad reputation in the media. Later versions appear to have most of the kinks worked out and are stable.

Re:experience

[Anonymous Coward]

> the first version(s) of Sync were buggy

No. The Focus I rented in SF in January that the rental company bought new the first week of Dec was not fixed. It still took multiple minutes to change channels on the radio. I spent more time looking at Microsoft ads than I did listening to the radio.

Re:experience

[perlith]

I rented a for focus, and drove it for about 2 months, the MSFT stuff installed in it was a total piece of junk. It would crash, hang, and reboot in the middle of navigating to the destination, just like a windows PC.

Ford SYNC has a few different versions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

"
SYNC v1, which debuted September 2007, offered the ability to play certain entertainment media, the ability to connect to certain mobile phones and digital audio players and to utilize SMS.[3] In January 2008, SYNC v2 was released, which enabled two new Ford developed applications: 911 Assist and Vehicle Health Report.[3] SYNC v3, released in April 2009, enabled the Traffic, Directions and Information application. Later that month, Ford Work Solutions, a collection of five applications marketed towards professionals who buy Ford trucks, was added. The applications included in the Ford Work Solution were Crew Chief, Garmin Nav, LogMeIn and Tool Link.[3][3] SYNC v4 and v5 were released in January 2010 and January 2011, respectively,
"

Owning two different Ford vehicles with SYNC v3 I can say I'm quite pleased. I passed on purchasing a new vehicle with the v5 touch screen version as it was indeed garbage. YMMV.

Re:experience

[Overzeetop]

Compared to the aftermarket leader in infotainment, Kenwood, I'd say that sounds about typical.

Re:experience

[drinkypoo]

Kenwood has really gone downhill over the years, to the point where they're as bad as Bose... the leader in "premium" pre-installed auto sound. B&O is getting into that market more these days, so expect them to become Bose pt. II.

F/OSS Platform Needed

[ModernGeek]

We need a better F/OSS Platform for this type of development. I would like to see something like GNU/Hurd finally come to fruition and become the one true operating system for embedded devices, upward to desktop/server. With the Mach Kernel, it stands to actually give us a unified kernel that can serve all these purposes without being a giant, sluggish monolithic blob. Once that platform is complete, everyone else can throw their own interfaces and such on top of it.

Android is defective by design, and Ubuntu's solution is right up there with it. QNX is where it's at, but we need a Mach based F/OSS alternative.

Re:F/OSS Platform Needed

[noh8rz10]

i'm excited to see what comes of apples iTunes in the car experience. but it's been in development for so long I wonder if it will ever actually come out?

Re:F/OSS Platform Needed

[armanox]

And it would never sell. Really what we need is something like iOS/OS X running on it - everyone knows the interface, you don't have to play with it, it doesn't randomly fall over, and the applications are locked down. Android's mistake is being too fragmented - different features by different carriers. I don't see how Ubuntu is defective by design either. Consumers want something that works, and does what they want it to do. They don't care about ideological arguments over licenses.

Re:F/OSS Platform Needed

[Nutria]

I would like to see something like GNU/Hurd finally come to fruition and become the one true operating system

The OS that's been in alpha status for almost 25 years, and still only supports i386?

That GNU/Hurd?

Re:F/OSS Platform Needed

[sjames]

It's not so much a matter of ideology, it's more a matter that someone out there knows what sort of onboard software will work well in a car and it is not MS or any of the auto makers. If the system is FOSS, that someone will have a hope to actually create that software. Apple might know how to do it, but the auto makers won't adopt it themselves since it won't match their dane brammaged idea of what it should look like.

Re:F/OSS Platform Needed

[mjwx]

And it would never sell. Really what we need is something like iOS/OS X running on it

That is the absolute worst thing that could happen.

Convoluted touch gestures, a pathological hate of physical buttons. What we need to do is detach these horrible touchscreen devices from functions people use often, air conditioners, radio/CD/MP3 players and so forth and move them back to physical controls you can operate without looking at them.. Hell, its even a bad idea having a navigation system that cant be updated by anyone except the cars manufacturer.

Ultimately we need a standard for in car computers, but Ford and GM are dead against this (as are the likes of BMW, MB, VAG over in Europe)* because it takes away the dependence on the dealer/manufacturer network for updates, repairs and replacements because we can simply go out, buy our own and update and service it ourselves... which kills the $150 service charge for doing a simple radio update. Manufacturers cant even keep a standard DIN or Double DIN slot for the radio which is why you need to hunt for third party brackets and wiring looms when replacing a stereo.

But I'm not holding my breath, the US Govt mandated OBDII as a standard interface in cars but even then manufacturers got around this by making their own codes/protocols so you need manufacturer specific software/equipment to understand the data.

And I don't trust Japanese/Asian manufacturers to be any better either, but it's a lot easier to find something that understands Honda or Toyota ECU's (not to mention aftermarket Honda/Toyota ECU's).

Re:F/OSS Platform Needed

[MachineShedFred]

I can't agree more about the touch screens.

It seems that since the iPad, every damn thing needs to be capacitive touch, whether it makes sense or not.

Touchscreen interfaces in a car is about the worst idea I can imagine. Hey, let's put in a device that FORCES YOU TO TAKE YOUR EYES OFF THE ROAD in order to operate it. Oh, and it can also be a massive source of light while you're driving at night!

BMW's iDrive controller is really good - the jog wheel can be used without looking at anything, and it has contoured buttons around it for specific functions, also useable quite easily without ever looking. The new version has a capacitive trackpad thing on top of it too, for if you just absolutely have to have that "touch" bullshit.

Re:F/OSS Platform Needed

[BlackHawk-666]

I was expecting HURD to come out at the same time as Duke Nukem Forever and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Who would have thought Duke Nukem would be the first one out the gate from those three!

HURD will be too little, too late. Hell, it would have been too little too late a decade ago, now it's just a joke.

Re:F/OSS Platform Needed

[BlackHawk-666]

If it's like Apple TV it will require you to own a PC or Mac and have that turned on and running iTunes in order to play anything. Sure, it can connect to an Itunes Server, but you don't get any of the UI experience, in fact, it's measurably worse than DLNA. At least DLNA can play my MKV files.

Re:F/OSS Platform Needed

[ausekilis]

As someone who has done pretty extensive research into CarPC's I can say that the "state of the art" today doesn't really come close to what it truly needs to be to operate in a car. Full-fledged, or even half-fledged (intel NUC) PC's just aren't designed for a car environment. There's the vibration, the user interface, the power requirements, radio interface, speaker/amp connections, etc... Sure, there are some mitigations such as using an SSD, using something like Unity or a netbook or tablet interface, and some power conditioners, but that is all a kludge that your average consumer won't even consider.

Through all the research I did to try to find some solution to my older BMW's stock 1 cd changer and digital watch display, I came across these, which are drop-in replacements for your stereo and many come in two flavors. They all have a base embedded OS that offers bluetooth for hands-free calling, basic radio functions, media playback and even iPod interface. They also come with a second physical board within them purely for navigation, one runs Windows CE, the other runs Android. I can honestly say that the Android deck is pretty damned useful for navigation. I just downloaded CoPilot and all the maps I needed using the built-in wifi as I sat in my garage and I get a navigation solution much like a Garmin. Is it perfect? No, occasionally it will crash reading some music from the SD card input it has, the touch screen is a little inaccurate, and I can't completely customize the look and feel. However, it does what it needs to do 98% of the time.

Googles Android is defective by design since they only publicly release the bare-bones, no frills or shiny features code. A car doesn't really need all the fance Google App integration, I know if I'm driving I don't want gmail or google+ harassing me. Any car manufacturer could take that free source code and make a useful OS out of it... they would just rather shoehorn something somebody else made into something it wasn't designed to do, all in the name of saving money.

Re:F/OSS Platform Needed

[MrLogic17]

This.

I'd go one step further, and say that auto manufactures shouldn't even try - because they can't keep up with today's pace of change.

Just give me a dashboard touch screen that mirrors my phone/tablet/widget. Total pass-though. Then I can pick my platform & apps. Everyone wins.

Re:F/OSS Platform Needed

[sjames]

Such a ringing endorsement :-)

Re:F/OSS Platform Needed

[noh8rz10]

this is true for songs on your HD becuase there's no room for song storage on apple TV. But itunes radio you can stream directly through apple tv. Plus all the visual media - shows, movies, you can stream direct through apple tv, from all sources. this includes itunes, netflix, hbo, and all the other things. and I don't know about your personal collection that's uploaded to itunes cloud, if you can access playlists this way. so apple tv is more powerful than you give it credit for.

For ios in car, I'm much more excited about maps integration, siri integration, text messaging, and bluetooth phone calls. the phone is a bad UI for this while driving.

Re:F/OSS Platform Needed

[BlackHawk-666]

I'm in Australia, so Netflix, Hulu and most that other stuff won't even work without proxying and other trickey. My net connection during peak hours is now massively oversubscribed so any streaming service is worthless until I get backhaul relief. OTOH I have 4TB of movies and tv shows in a range of formats, mostly MP4 but some MKV and I can't watch any of those without leaving on my expensive power hungry main machine with iTunes open. Streaming radio I can get through my amp, so I'm not concerned about that.

The AppleTV could be a really cool little device, everything is in place except for the parts Apple deliberately didn't give us, mostly I think to protect copyright holders.

3 SYNC.

[Anonymous Coward]

I own a '13 Fiesta Titanium edition.

I've had zero problems with SYNC. It handily kicks the crap out of infotainment systems of luxury vehicles that cost several times the cost of my car*. Navigation has been flawless, voice recognition is superb - hell, the thing understands German and Japanese song titles.

(* Granted, said BMWs, Benzes and Infinitis tend to kick the crap out of me at red lights, but I digress.)

In fairness, I heard nothing but horrible, horrible warnings about buying a Ford solely because of SYNC - and as far as I can tell, earlier versions of it did suck large balls. So, QNX - not sure if want. Stuff's working. Stuff's working good. Will it work as well afterward, or do we get to look forward to years of Ford debuggery?

That'll fix half of the problem

[swillden]

QNX is clearly a better choice for a system that should just work, all of the time. However, I doubt it's really all that unreliable, and the bigger problem with Sync is that the UI is horrible, among the worst I've ever seen. I've had a couple of rental cars with it, and the last time Hertz offered me a Ford, I told them I wanted a different car, it's that bad. And the UI isn't Microsoft's fault, I don't think.

Re:That'll fix half of the problem

[DrXym]

QNX is clearly a better choice for a system that should just work, all of the time.

If SYNC is an entertainment system as it appears to be (I've never used it) then I don't see that it should make a damned bit of different what kernel or OS is powering it. All it has to do is play music, radio, maps, vehicle info, bluetooth and whatnot. ANY modern kernel could do it. Most of the complexity is in the multimedia framework and application software running on top.

I don't see that switching to QNX implies that the software is any more reliable for the change. It's as easy to write shoddy, leaky crap code over one kernel as it is over another. I expect the main motivating factor for Ford had less to do with the kernel and more to do with the price they got from RIM to licence and support it.

Re:That'll fix half of the problem

[userw014]

My Ford C-Max Energi (2013) with My Ford Touch has "Microsoft SYNC" stamped on the dashboard.

Microsoft can't escape being associated with SYNC.

My Ford Touch had very bad problems before summer 2013 when the most recent version came out. Now the problems are only bad. The problems I've noticed so far:

• FM radio doesn't come back on when starting the car - and requires changing stations in order to make it come back on.
• Configuration of MFT as WiFi CLIENT still present - even though there's no functionality gain there. And WiFi passphrase is limited to 10 characters.
• Unplugging one USB device (iPhone) causes car to forget other USB device (flash-drive)

There's other issues I'd consider "documentation" issues too. The "Vehicle Health Report" requires that the internal combustion engine (ICE) be on for several minutes - but the messages only require for the car to be "On", something that isn't the same for a plugin-hybrid as it is for an ICE-only car.

Re:That'll fix half of the problem

[grumpyman]

Sync is that the UI is horrible

.
Let me introduce you the new Sync with Tiles :D

So...guess that means...

[Mashiki]

That Blackberry isn't dead right? I get the feeling we're going to see a lot more QNX automotive 'infotanment' systems in the near future, and BB moving from the saturated mobile market to the automarket. If they were ever good at something it was directly specializing to what was demanded of the customer, until they fsk it up.

Re:So...guess that means...

[freeze128]

So it means that the embedded computer system in your car will soon have a physical keyboard....

Re:So...guess that means...

[Lazere]

"Introducing the new Ford Focus, the car with the best keyboard!"

Re:So...guess that means...

[Mashiki]

So it means that the embedded computer system in your car will soon have a physical keyboard....

Considering I can use a USB keyboard on my new car...I'd say yep.

Cheaper, really?

[jhol13]

I wonder if it is really true. I'd assume that full fledged OS with all the stuff included would be better infotaintment system than QNX.
As I do not know which version of "Windows" they use, suppose they used Android. Now they would get, for free without any development costs or time, bluetooth, wifi, 3G, UI, development tools, etc. The system would work as a bluetooth handsfree[1]. The system would, with a SIM, work as a wifi-hotspot. You would get Google Maps, i.e. navigation. Games from Play store. Etc, for free (or the price of Android if they want maps&play).

With QNX, what do they get?

[1] I assume Android can work as a bluetooth "device", not only as a "host".

Re:Cheaper, really?

[narcc]

With QNX, what do they get?

All of those things and a superior OS?

Oh, sorry. That's not what you wanted to hear.

Re:Cheaper, really?

[confused one]

OK, you're clearly not familiar with the product. Sync with My Touch uses a version of Windows Embedded based on the old Windows CE.

It already does work as Bluetooth hands free using a cell phone as a host. Sync connects seamlessly with my Android based phone every time I get into the car. It will read your text messages to you as they come through if you set that option (it's not the default)

It will accept a USB based cell modem if you don't want to use the phone. It already works as a wifi-hotspot with a host cell phone or the modem.

They offer it with a nav system option (although I chose not to pay for that option) and the nav. system is superior to Google Nav. Optionally you can use the Sync app via your phone to upload destination points and get turn by turn directions, even if you don't pay for the nav. option. I.E. not paying for the nav option basically means you're not paying for a local (in the car) copy of the map database.

Not having access to the Play Store is no loss because (a) you shouldn't be playing games on the center console while driving and (b) loading 3rd party apps is both a security risk and risks making the system unstable.

Finally... Android is not free. Yes, you or I can download the system and build a working image. I'm running Cyanogenmod on an old Galaxy S v1. However, some of the software is encumbered and if you're a corporation there are license fees. It's cheap, not free. Of course, Windows CE isn't very expensive either.

Re:Cheaper, really?

[phantomfive]

With QNX, what do they get?

You should have started there and ended with this. Seriously, QNX is probably more flexible than Android.....you can use QT, or HTML5 or other GUI toolkits, for example. It has bluetooth, wifi, 3G, quality development tools....really, do some research before posting things.

Re:Cheaper, really?

[jhol13]

Sure QNX is more flexible. And certainly more suited to motor control.
But my point is Android is more powerfull, and "cheap enough" for infotaintment. Paying something like $10[1] for Android (including HW) is cheaper than developing a simple UI, unless the car is assumed to sell tens of millions.

Last time I checked a commercial RTOS prices they were really huge and every single extra (audio, video, bluetooth, wifi, TCP/IP, ...) would cost more. Even then, if you would like something like wifi-hotspot it seemed you'd have to buy it from 3rd party or develop it.

[1] For example AliExpress has RK3066 sticks for around $20 - single quantity. Although it is low end and a bit outdated, it is capable of HD video.

Re:Cheaper, really?

[phantomfive]

But my point is Android is more powerfull, and "cheap enough" for infotaintment.

I'm really interested in what you mean by powerfull.

Re:Cheaper, really?

[DrXym]

You can use QT on Android too, not that I see that it boils down to using either QNX or Android. There are various flavours of Linux (or BSD) that could fit the bill for an in-car entertainment system. Maybe it's just the case that for the effort, risk and cost involved for Ford to produce one that fits their requirements that they may as well licence QNX.

Re:Cheaper, really?

[thegarbz]

suppose they used Android. Now they would get, for free without any development costs or time, bluetooth, wifi, 3G,

Almost. The rest of your sentence is correct but this one is quite wrong. Android does not include any drivers to interface with bluetooth wifi or 3G. Enabling these require both licencing costs as well as software development costs. This is one of the reasons why it is difficult to port Cyanogen to other devices if there isn't an existing device firmware available to reverse engineer.

better

[l3v1]

" cited reliability problems with Windows and lower licensing costs for the switch to the classic realtime OS"

Just say it, there's no shame in it: qnx is better. I'd welcome the change even if it were more expensive.

Hope there's an upgrade

[sobiloff]

I have SYNC in my 2013 F-250 and it blows. It keeps trying to re-index my SD card, so I can rarely use the voice commands to play music from it, and sometimes it'll switch by itself from playing SiriusXM to playing the SD card. It's also slow to respond sometimes (probably an artifact of it trying to re-index the SD card), and the UI to select music from the SD card is cumbersome.

I guess most of my gripes are about the SD card functionality; the rest of the functionality seems to work OK when it isn't being screwed over by the SD card, but again I find the interface cumbersome to use. For example, scrolling through the SiriusXM stations takes way too many taps.

My hope is that QNX, given its history as an RTOS, will be more responsive and robust. It might even give the developers a chance to improve the UI.

Re:Hope there's an upgrade

[rk]

I think they must have fucked up Sync at some point because I hear this from people with newer Fords but I had a 2010 Fusion Hybrid for two years and Sync worked pretty much perfectly in that thing.

Re:Hope there's an upgrade

[natron3030]

Have you tried updating the software since purchasing your truck? The Sync version that shipped with your vehicle was loaded with errors, but a significant suite of updates squashed a lot of bugs, possibly even the one you're experiencing.

Re:Hope there's an upgrade

[confused one]

I'll second this. While the UI isn't the best design in the world, my updated 2014 doesn't exhibit the issues the parent poster is describing.

Re:Hope there's an upgrade

[realinvalidname]

Exactly the same experience in a brand new 2014 Fusion, with the latest Sync software, and an iPhone 5s running iOS 7. The endless "indexing" (can take up to an hour, happens every time you add new music or podcasts), and the screen getting stuck on a "Please Wait" message when trying to browse music. I've also had it just drop the USB connection and switch to radio or Sirius for no damn reason. A lot better in our 2011 Edge, but I can see why Ford wants to drop this turd. Microsoft has hurt them dearly.

Re:Hope there's an upgrade

[sobiloff]

Yep, there was an upgrade released a couple months after I purchased my truck. I applied it. It did improve things, but only to the point that I described above. It really seems like there are significant problems with the support for SD cards that impact the rest of the system. I should probably give up on the SD card and try limiting myself to the music that's on my phone.

But even doing that won't fix the crappy UI...

Re:Hope there's an upgrade

[drinkypoo]

I have SYNC in my 2013 F-250 and it blows. It keeps trying to re-index my SD card [...] and sometimes it'll switch by itself from playing SiriusXM to playing the SD card

That sounds to me like the card detect is disconnecting intermittently. If so, it's a hardware fault and you should have the unit replaced under warranty while you still have one. I would wiggle the SD card with a knife or something and see if the problem crops up. I don't know how the card reader is connected to the unit or I would give you more specific advice.

Re:Hope there's an upgrade

[Mariner28]

I'll second sobiloff in that the most recent version of SYNC still blows. I have a 2013 Escape SEL with the My Touch SYNC system. I've updated to v3.5.1 last June, and to v3.6.2 in September. The audio portion still randomly completely freezes, the volume knob on the dash stops working while the volume button on the wheel still works, the system spontaneously spontaneously reboots at random times. The last time the system froze I had to resort to a factory reset to get it to work again. Heck, I'd take Ubuntu's Unity interface over this crap any day - which would make sense since Unity is really a touch interface and not really a mouse-driven desktop...

Re:Hope there's an upgrade

[Mariner28]

I should state that the integration with my Android smart phone does work pretty well...

Sync was so bad....

[EmperorOfCanada]

Sync was so bad that I wouldn't buy a Ford. I rented a handful of 2013 model Fords with the Sync system. I had an iPhone 3GS and an iPhone 4. The stupid Sync system was a huge battle. Syncing just wasn't a clean process. It did work but smooth as silk is not how I would describe it. But then it got worse. It asked if I would like to set up the emergency something. I presume this was an automated 911 call if I crashed. Well actually no I don't want the computer calling the police; I'll make phone calls of that nature thank you very much. And in today's world it is unlikely that if I were to crash that there aren't 200 people with cellphones that will call anyway. But lastly the system was so crappy I doubt that it would call 911 but would call 912 or 999 thinking that we were in the UK.

But you are probably thinking no big deal opt out and you are fine. But nope after opting out, every time the stupid car started a woman's voice would blah blah about the emergency system not being activated. I looked in the manual and found no solution, so I went on the net and found no solution. So there is no way on earth that I would buy a Ford. Plus my sister had minor damage (but enough to partially disable the car) in a recent model fusion hybrid that took nearly 5 months to get the parts in. So she was out a near new car for 5 months; the whole point of buying a new car vs nursing a 10 year old car along is that the new car saves you the stress of breakdowns and any maintenance issues that cost anything or at least are hard.

But now Ford is leaving the abusive relationship they no doubt enjoyed with Microsoft and now they are getting into bed with the $2 whore that they found in a Ottawa brothel. I couldn't think of a technology company (after leaving microsoft) that I would rather partner with less than Blackberry. I fought with their stupid Playbook tablet and I have watched people fight with their stupid new QNX phones. I know people who are long term BB customers (often via work) who deeply resent the latest models. So why would you pick a company that is on the rocks and that people respect less than the aforementioned $2 whore?

But oddly enough the main reason that I think that QNX is a complete bowl of stupid is that I have known exactly one programmer who loved QNX and he was a useless tool. Actually worse than a useless tool; he was one of those developers that management thinks is a rocket surgeon but all he does is make things way worse. So if he tells you to cut the blue wire, not only should you not cut the blue wire but you should assume that cutting any wires is probably the exact wrong thing to do. So keep in mind that this tool probably thinks that QNX in a Ford is a cool idea.

Re:Sync was so bad....

[narcc]

I fought with their stupid Playbook tablet and I have watched people fight with their stupid new QNX phones. I know people who are long term BB customers (often via work) who deeply resent the latest models.

Odd, my experience has been completely different. My wife loves her PlayBook and Z10. Everyone I've shown either device to has been impressed. The slick UI, solid hardware, and fantastic dev tools ... I don't know what anyone could possibly complain about!

But oddly enough the main reason that I think that QNX is a complete bowl of stupid is that I have known exactly one programmer who loved QNX and he was a useless tool.

Consensus on Slashdot is meaningless, I know, but the sentiment here is quite clear: QNX is an excellent OS. What, specifically, do you dislike about it?

Re:Sync was so bad....

[EmperorOfCanada]

I'm not joking when I say that I don't like QNX because a guy I worked with who was a mega tool loved it so much. Basically he was exactly wrong about everything. His entire life is a logical not.

To give an example, Nortel hired him so I told people who were invested in Nortel that they needed to sell their shares immediately (which all but one did, also not insider information as he posted this on his personal website). Any hiring process that didn't screen out this living parasite of oxygen was a deeply flawed process. Within maybe 3 months Nortel was in serious trouble. This guy later became a blackberry server expert; a sure sign that blackberry (riding high at the time) was in serious trouble.

So it might seem petty of me to not even look at QNX but it just that this guy is has a near superpower for getting involved with the exact wrong solution just before it explodes or is just always has been wrong.

But to be more analytical, Blackberry has always made fairly good technological things but they seem to focus on the wrong things. Their products, for instance, seem to have been built to please the telcos and big companies. This might seem like good business on the surface but the reality is that they are now selling well under 1% in the US. Without focusing on the consumer they were damaged by the first company that really did (Apple) and then finished off by all the subsequent companies(Samsung, HTC, etc) that realized that apple's customer focus was a good idea worth emulating. So I can envision a Ford computer system that when demonstrated will potentially rock our boats and the press will write things like "redefines the car computer interface." but once the reviewers get their own hands on it the lines will be more like "Takes the worst aspects of the iDrive and mixes in the worst aspects of Tuberculous."

On top of all that will Ford be able to keep Blackberry from taking one more kick at the can and somehow favour Blackberry phones as it seemed the early Sync system favoured Microsoft phones?

A great measure of the Playbook's true rating (in that people are still religeous about their RIM crap) is that one group found that almost zero people switch from a modern tablet to the playbook and those who did went back. And that everyone who switches from the playbook to another tablet stays away from RIM. The same with BB phones. This is well evidenced by their market share. I suspect that there will be a goodly number of diehards who will have to have their BBs pried from their dead cold hands but why would Ford think that such a tarnished brand is something they should associate themselves with?

Re:Sync was so bad....

[Megol]

I'm not joking when I say that I don't like QNX because a guy I worked with who was a mega tool loved it so much. Basically he was exactly wrong about everything. His entire life is a logical not.

Well you _do_ sound like a mega tool too.

(snip off topic rantings)

So care to tell us what that irrelevant drivel have to do with the quality of the QNX OS? Nah, I'll spare you the effort: Nada, zilch, nothing, nil, nichts.

Re:Sync was so bad....

[drinkypoo]

A stopped clock can be right occasionally. QNX's desktop preview release proved to all that QNX is stable, and the only reason why you wouldn't use it for that is the lack of software support. We know QNX to be a quality product for both realtime control and for infotainment or whatever we're calling it these days.

Re:Sync was so bad....

[Anonymous Coward]

Antoher person that only sees vision ob BB5 and BB6 phones.

I have a BB10 and it trumps Android and iOS as an operating system. If it weren't for the app gap, it would be the best phone on the market.

As for Infotainment systems, you better go watch some demos like the Bentley demo they did at CES. Just Google "QNX CES" and watch the videos. I can not wait for people to realize how good of an OS Blackberry has with BB10 and QNX.

Check your ignorance at the door and do some actual research.

Re:Sync was so bad....

[EmperorOfCanada]

This mega tool will make a prediction. Right now I think it is around 3 years from major design to deployment in the car industry. So let's say 1 year of fighting with QNX and BB, a portion of a year of thinking they are going to fix it and then QNX is taken behind the Ford woodshed and Old Yeller'd. So if somewhere around 18-24 months post deployment Ford wants QNX gone it will be at most 3 years before they have flushed it from their cars.

So I will make you a bet that roughly around 4 years after the first Ford has QNX that the same model car will not have QNX.

But I have a more logical reason for this. As cars become more automated and cruise control starts to take control (at least in straight lines on the highway) then the whole car as living room will become critical. But even before that the car companies will be thinking these thoughts about cars a few years down the road. QNX just won't have the apps and programming base that will make it an interesting platform (seeing that you can't get Netflix on a Playbook; and flix doesn't count) this sort of thing alone will push Ford to at least Android. I suspect that some cool car company will manage to partner with Apple to squeeze a super slick apple interface into their car at some point; but for now you can't have a car computer system as an important feature that is blown out of the water by someone's late model iPad. This is important as then people will not see an in car computer as a feature but as a waste of money and will spend their commute using their iPad to shop for their next non-Ford car.

So in other words, what they are describing is a:

[SmallFurryCreature]

Ford Motor Car.

Dupe

[pitchpipe]

Now I'm getting duped from Soylentnews.

It's going to be hard to keep this shit straight.

Re:My eyes...

[sjames]

Perhaps you should try propranalol.

Windows?

[xfizik]

Who was the genius that decided to go with Windows to begin with? Don't get me wrong, Windows is fine on desktops (traditionally) and servers (more recently), but using it for essentially embedded development would be my very last choice.

Re:Windows?

[rahvin112]

Microsoft and the big pile of money they handed Ford. Now the money is gone and MS is getting their pound of flesh through licensing fee's.

I hope the fix the other problems.

[BLToday]

I rented a Ford Taurus and I hated SYNC. It was slow, counterintuitive, and the screen was low-res.

Tenths of a cent, my friend

[Anonymous Coward]

Carmakers optimize costs at sub-one-cent levels. "Can't be much" is the antithesis of the automotive beancounter mantra.

Hurd is dead

[Viol8]

The only people who don't realise it are its developers. If an OS can't gain traction in a quarter of a century it never will. Also the hype about message passing microkernels died a decade back. They look great on paper but in theory they're slow and inefficient.

"Once that platform is complete, everyone else can throw their own interfaces and such on top of it."

What, you mean just like X Windows?

Re:Hurd is dead

[Stormwatch]

Also the hype about message passing microkernels died a decade back. They look great on paper but in theory they're slow and inefficient.

But isn't that precisely what fast and efficient QNX is?

Re:Hurd is dead

[Dr. Spork]

I don't have a ton of insight about this, but the way I thought of it, QNX is efficient in spite of all the message passing among the microkernel and the modules. The architecture was done that way for robustness, not for efficiency. That they achieved such efficiency is a testament to their coding skills, not the architecture.

Re:Hurd is dead

[serviscope_minor]

What, you mean just like X Windows?

Which is the best GUI bar none. Are you trying to praise or criticise?

Don't want a suicide car?

[erroneus]

You know, the cooperative relationship between the US government and Microsoft are more than established. The more recent revelations of Nokia phones sending data to Noka and to Microsoft coupled with the highly deceptive answers of Nokia when asked about it points fingers directly at Microsoft for violattions of basic trust.

Anyone using Microsoft Windows in their devices right now can expect some feedback over their choice of OS right now.

That said Blackberry... also close to governments world wide. I just have no idea how close or how vulnerable QNX may be. I have used QNX in the past and enjoyed it but that's pretty much the extent of it.

Have you driven a ford lately?

[kick6]

So you're saying it'll still have a shit transmission. Ford seems to have their priorities seriously screwed up if that is the case. Shouldn't they make sure the powertrain works before working on the infotainment system.

Ford hasn't built their own manuals in decades. They're either getrag or tremec. As to the automatics, the current crop are very, very good. Have you even driven a ford since......oh......'05? Or are you spouting off crap?

Re: Have you driven a ford lately?

[jo7hs2]

They're not THAT good. The valve body in my Ford Fusion's transmission (6F35 6-speed auto) wore out the pressure regulator valve, but Ford's initial solution was to update the software, so by the time they caught it the clutch pads (yes, automatics have clutches) had started to wear. At 10k miles the transmission required a rebuild including all new clutch pads, a new set of gears on the output side to the differential, and a new valve body. That said, it is a very clever transmission and the car otherwise completely satisfies me. But not *quite* as reliable as my rock-solid 2002 Taurus. But then, the Taurus wasn't using a new transmission design. The 6F35 was only three years old in 2012, and Ford usually takes a few years to get a new transmission worked out.

Re: Have you driven a ford lately?

[drinkypoo]

That said, it is a very clever transmission and the car otherwise completely satisfies me. But not *quite* as reliable as my rock-solid 2002 Taurus.

You may note that the junkyards are positively filled with ford tauruses and mercury sables. You got lucky, my friend. In particular, the electrical systems in Fords of that era with BCMs are crap.

Re:Have you driven a ford lately?

[wagnerrp]

My problem with automatics isn't how they work mechanically (hydraulically), but how they work automatically. Take the situation where you're in heavy traffic and want to merge into a faster lane. There's an opening in a few seconds, so you just keep your manual in low gear, and accelerate when the time comes. Or, your automatic upshifts to a more efficient gear, and when you stomp the gas to accelerate into the opening, the transmission downshifts, waffles a bit, downshifts again, panics because it's redlining, upshifts, and when your transmission finally engages and gives you torque to accelerate, the window has either already passed, or you've caused the person behind you to hit their brakes to avoid rear-ending you. It's a bad experience for all involved.

Now that said, paddle shifters and manual shifting modes completely alleviate this issue, and even in automatic mode, modern automatics behave far better than they did a decade ago.

Re:Have you driven a ford lately?

[mjwx]

As to the automatics, the current crop are very, very good. Have you even driven a ford since......oh......'05?

2013 Focus (in three different continents, all had the same terrible gearbox), 2013 Mustang, 2012 Falcon.

All of them have terrible automatic transmissions and it's not like their terrible just because their auto's... I've driven the following automatics that didn't have the same problems as the fords, 2008 Subaru Impreza (non turbo), 2013 Chevy Camaro, 2013 Toyota Corolla, 2006 BWM 320d, 2009 Nissan GTR, 1994 SAAB 900i.

Do you know how to drive? or are you just a hopeless Ford fanboy (erm... in my experience, these are the same thing).

The irony is, if not for the gearboxes, I think the Focus and Mustang are good cars in their respective classes (the mustangs handling surprised me for a car with a live rear axle) however a gearbox is such a key component is that they can ruin a car that is perfect in every other way.

Just pass the A/V from my phone already!

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Anything that the car industry puts in a car is ancient history by the time the car is released
2) You hardly ever get a manufacturer to upgrade hardware/firmware/software of entertainment systems in cars
3) Everybody wants to pair their phone for music and voice calls (almost everybody)
4) Navigation gets better all the time (Waze, etc)

Instead of putting all this crap in a car that is going to be outdated in 6 months, just pass the phone's data through to the screen!
Use HDMI and USB that every phone supports or can get an adapter for. Touchscreen can be limited when car in motion just like they are now, blah blah.

Car manufacturers need to stop foisting crap upon us. Focus on the car! Make it stop breaking down.

Re:Just pass the A/V from my phone already!

[jasper160]

I agree 100%. Automakers are about as qualified to make software as Microsoft is to make hardware.

Re:Just pass the A/V from my phone already!

[ebno-10db]

Automakers have been writing quality software for decades. It's used in engine and tranny controllers, ABS, and other things that are actually useful and, believe it or not, a part of making the car function.

The profusion of buggy "entertainment systems" and whatnot is the problem. What friggin' purpose do they serve? If you want to listen to music, or do just about anything else in a car, the last thing you want is some needlessly "clever" UI that varies from car to car. Thank goodness the people who design the functional parts of the car don't think that way.

Re:I have a 2013 Ford Fusion with the SYNC system

[laffer1]

But will the real slim shady please play back!

QNX, fantastic!

[necronom426]

About 15 years ago when I was still using my Amiga every day, there was talk of QNX being part of the Amiga's future. I got a demo on a 1.44Mb floppy and tried it out. It booted from the floppy into a GUI OS with a web browser, text editing program, demos, etc. I was amazed at what they'd squeezed onto one disk. Then of course nothing happened with that and the Amiga, but it's always been there in the back of my mind about how great this tiny OS was.

Fast forward to last week, and I get a new car. A 13 reg. Ford Fiesta. I flick through the Sync manual and was horrified to see the Microsoft logo. Seriously, Microsoft software is in my car!!!!? Arghhh! This is a nightmare I joked about decades ago.

Now my least favourite OS gets replaced by one of my favourites. I REALLY hope I can upgrade it, as I heard a few days ago that they are going to allow people to download the software themselves and install from the USB port.

Re:QNX, fantastic!

[drinkypoo]

Now my least favourite OS gets replaced by one of my favourites. I REALLY hope I can upgrade it, as I heard a few days ago that they are going to allow people to download the software themselves and install from the USB port.

It is virtually unthinkable that the system would not be field-upgradable, and unless switching modules is the real motivation for this decision they'll be sticking with the same module they've already spent development money on. Sounds plausible to me. Automakers occasionally even update the code in PCMs, though typically only warranty customers ever get the benefits of that. Still, you are one of those.

Re:A lot of it sucks

[ebno-10db]

crank my Windows down

Careful with that - I think you mean "crank my windows down". Also GPS can be useful, even if it takes some of the fun out of things, but GPS goes in your smartphone these days. The rest I completely agree with. These needlessly "clever" UI's, and the profusion of them for non-essential functions, are enough to make a real ergonomics designer wretch. I can't wait for the retro craze where you can tune the radio with hard buttons.

Wasn't this inevitable?

[rmdingler]

Mike Rowe kernel.

Not a bad idea

[gman003]

My car, a Fiat 500, also uses Windows (WP7 IIRC) for the entertainment system. It has some very odd problems with USB support - it plays files just fine, but the ordering of them ignores folders and filenames, going only by when the file was added to the filesystem. If you had multiple copy operations going on while loading up your USB drive, that means it will jump around folders in a seemingly random way. Further, it means navigating by folder is broken - you can only go forward or back by track. Navigating by folder DOES work on the CD drive, if you have a data CD full of MP3s (or WMAs, I guess, but who uses those?).

And this isn't on some weird filesystem or even a non-Microsoft - I had freshly formatted it as FAT32, under Windows. It's literally the most common denominator of filesystems, yet they can't read it properly.

I had an old GPS system that experienced similar problems with its media player, under Windows CE 6. So I think this is not an application-specific bug, but one general to CE-based systems. So that's even worse - a filesystem developed by Microsoft isn't properly supported by a Microsoft OS. That's a poor sign of quality IMO.

Can't it be like Star Trek

[jellomizer]

Where I can divert power from the AC to the powertrain to keep it working?

Re:Can't it be like Star Trek

[holmstar]

Yes, in fact pretty much every car in existence that has AC is able to do this. All you have to do is turn off the AC, and all of the power that was being used to cool you is now instead available to move the car. Amazing, huh?

Re:Can't it be like Star Trek

[EETech1]

Many fuel injected performance cars already do that. When the ECM detects you are at WOT, it will shut off the A/C compressor to get a few extra horsepower.

My 5.0L Mustang had A/C cut. I used to drag race it (:Yes with the A/C on:) and 12 seconds later, when I got to the "Big End" of the 1/4 mile it would be blowing warm air out of the registers, but as soon as I let off the gas, it would cool down again!

I tried running it with the A/C turned off as well, but it made no difference in my elapsed times. Changing to a shorty belt that bypassed the A/C and power steering was good for a tenth of a second or so, but it was not worth the hassle of changing the belt all the time, and sweating my butt off while I was having fun.

Cheers!

Reliable but cumbersome?

[wcrowe]

Wow. The Windows system must be pretty bad then. Because if my experience with Blackberry is any indication, it will now take seven button presses just to switch FM bands in your new Ford.

I have a 2012 Ford

[bravecanadian]

Sync works fine.

The part that was really buggy as hell was the MyFordTouch software/interface which was laggy, inconsistent, crashing etc.

After a couple of major updates issued by Ford it is finally working pretty well for the most part but there were so many complaints regarding the system that Ford actually extended the warranty on MyFordTouch for a couple extra years if I recall correctly.

The story I heard is that Ford decided they wanted to do it themselves so they wrote the MyFordTouch interface etc in house and disaster ensued.

The voice commands and Sync functions have worked pretty well for the most part -- as well as voice ever seems to anyways..

Now back to your regularly scheduled Microsoft bashing..

Sync is on my Focus

[RNLockwood]

I was really apprehensive when I discovered that Sync was powered by Microsoft after I purchased my Focus two years ago, and rightfully so. What did MS know about maps and routing? On reading the article's subject my first thought, too, was I wonder if there will be an update: probably not.

Here are a few examples.

Found that the voice commands lacked synonyms so one had to conform to Sync.

It would lock up quite often for no apparent reason and the only way to re-boot it is to go to the side of the road, park, turn the ignition key to off, and then open the door for a few seconds. One could then restart and it would re-boot.

On the occasions when I needed routing my wife and son would be reduced to hysterics as I tried to get it to give directions to the intersection of, say, Laguna Canyon Road and Pacific Coast Highway. It appeared that it didn't like street names of more than one word in this context.

Use voice commands to make a call (this and some other errors of the type were repeatable) "Call Jenny Rechel home". Response was "No home number for John Litton, cell or work?"

I took it to the dealer twice and got updates that have stopped the lockups and can now use it to call Jenny but some other, more fundamental, problems persist.

Blackberry owns QNX?

[nurb432]

When did this happen?

But back on topic, that is a good move on Ford's part as there is NO reason to be running a commodity OS on embedded hardware, like in a car. ( and no, Microsoft calling it an embedded OS is not enough to make it one ).

If you dont want to expend the cost to write your own, QNX is a good choice.

Oh thank God.

[roc97007]

I've been holding onto my older pre-Microsoft F150 because I really didn't want to have to make that decision. I'm still not in a hurry to trade up, but it's great news that I finally can.

Car makers are retarded.

[Lumpy]

Why make your own? Just freaking put Android in there and call it done. Ford,GM,Honda, all utterly SUCK at infotainment design. Partner with Google and just put freaking android on that damn double din display and have a fricking standard. I know they love raping people with the $250 map update CD every year, and utterly love charging people $1600 for a $290 device that does half of what most aftermarket devices do.

The automotive industry needs to stop applying their own flavor to everything because they suck at it.

Reliability

[Larry_Dillon]

It's not now well it works, especially under ideal conditions, its now gracefully it fails and everything eventually fails.

Remember the Navy ship that ran Windows and was stuck for days at sea? That's an example of not failing gracefully.

If it's purely infotainment, what's it really matter? It's not different then having a laptop with convenient mounting. But if it controls essential vehicle functions it needs to be very secure and reliable.
Maybe infotainment and vehicle control should be completely separate systems.

Re:slow down, cowboy.

[ebno-10db]

Linux corner cases have greater latency than many RTOS's have, but the average latency of occupied traces through the kernel are usually a LOT lower

Which is another way of saying that Linux is not real-time. In real-time only the max latency or execution time matters - average time is immaterial if you exceed the max times. The right design decisions for a general purpose OS like Linux are different from the right ones for an RTOS.

Android has RTOS requirements for the signalling. You know, that phone thingy stuff.

No, the level of signalling handled by Android is not that time critical. All the truly critical real-time stuff is handled by a separate processor that's part of the wireless chip set, and doesn't run Android or even Linux. Android doesn't even have to dial or answer a call any faster than you can.

Bluetooth OBDII Readers

[Guppy]

When you pay at least $18,000 for a car, spending less than $150 for an OBDII reader that can be used on any car is, well, something you should have no problems doing.

Definitely. Get a cheap Bluetooth OBD reader, pair it with a smartphone, then add one of several OBD Smartphone Apps out there -- I use Torque Pro for Android -- and you have a decent reader that will also do logging, although the information that you can get out of it varies with your reader, and the make and model of car.

I recently made emergency use of my reader just a few months ago, when my light came on. Some idiot-light problems can be post-poned for later, while others would have destroyed the the engine if I had kept driving. With a reader in the car, I was able to just pull over to the side of the road and make a quick determination that it was safe to finish my trip.

Re:slow down, cowboy.

[wagnerrp]

That's why you don't run things like signal processing on the same core that runs your general purpose UI and computing.

Re:A lot of it sucks

[garyebickford]

One side effect of GPS - we know less (nothing) about where we are or where we are going. We just follow the GPS and pretty much ignore the scenery, the route, etc.

Re:i think its far scarier

[garyebickford]

Why is this scary? I haven't kept up, but AFAIK all modern cars use CANBUS.

Useless stuff

[Alioth]

The car "infotainment" stuff is useless anyway, and I'd rather not have it. All I want in terms of car "infotainment" stuff is:

1. reasonable set of speakers
2. amplifier with Bluetooth, 3.5mm jack input, RDS radio

Nothing else. No CD-player, no GPS. The reason is - this stuff from the car makers always has a terrible user interface, it always costs four times what it should do, and it dates so very quickly, and in a few years it's often nearly impossible to keep that satnav up to date because it depends on you doing something that requires a version of Windows that you can't get any more. All the smart stuff in my car I'll have it on my smart phone. That way I get a GPS application that's cheap (or free) to keep up to date and keeps up to date over the air (such as the TomTom app), I get a music player that doesn't suck and can be used in places other than the car etc. The setup I have in my current car is pretty much like this (other than the redundant CD player) but because the manufacturer doesn't think to have any input methods - not even a 3.5mm jack - I needed to put in a Parrot bluetooth kit.

I'm sorry, Mr. Mulally.

[Lester67]

I'm afraid I can't do that.

I'm curious

[justthinkit]

I'm curious if there is a standard or definition of what real-time is. Seems to me this is a moving target -- I imagine today's RTOS are much better than ten years, that are much better than twenty years ago, etc.

I can see that you don't want major lags, but is this defined with a percentage? Or is there just a relative comparison -- this OS is better than that one?

For me personally I would want hard numbers -- "This OS has a guaranteed response time of xx msec." Is that done?