> Everything's trivial if you aren't the one writing the code.

Well, that's true enough.

>> I guess the real question is "why are people manufacturing devices
>> that will only ever be used as part of an embedded system writing
>> drivers for it that won't work as part of an embedded system?"
>
> Except it *is* a driver working as part of an embedded system, obviously.

More specifically, given that Windows should never, ever, under any 
circumstances, be running on a single-function device like this, why are 
all the device drivers being written for Windows?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> More specifically, given that Windows should never, ever, under any 
> circumstances, be running on a single-function device like this, why are 
> all the device drivers being written for Windows?

What would you run instead?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

>> More specifically, given that Windows should never, ever, under any
>> circumstances, be running on a single-function device like this, why
>> are all the device drivers being written for Windows?
>
> What would you run instead?

How about just writing the few dozen lines of C is actually takes to 
prod a few bits in the framebuffer, write some stuff on the screen, talk 
to the card reader a bit, and make the dispenser chuck out some money?

OK, you're right, it probably *is* faster to take some code that 
somebody else already wrote. But I still think grabbing the relevant 
parts of (say) the Linux kernel is going to be quicker and easier than 
porting the entire Windows OS (most of which you don't need) to a new 
platform and trying to make it work...

Post a reply to this message

> I met someone who didn't know how to turn on a cell phone just a couple 
> years ago.

I'm pretty sure my grandmother wouldn't have a clue how to turn on my phone. 
Also my gf's grandparents have never used an ATM.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> porting the entire Windows OS (most of which you don't need) to a new 
> platform and trying to make it work...

It's not a new platform. It's just a normal x86 computer.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 10/29/2010 8:43 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> porting the entire Windows OS (most of which you don't need) to a new
>> platform and trying to make it work...
>
> It's not a new platform. It's just a normal x86 computer.
>
In this specific case, probably true, but then you have "phones" and 
other things running this OS too.. Gosh, my phone has 2GB memory. Gee, 
what apps do you have on it? Hmm, not much, I only have 200MB free, the 
rest is Windows. lol

Ok, ok, its not *that* bad, but still.. ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In this specific case, probably true, but then you have "phones" and 
> other things running this OS too.. 

No you don't.  The OS in the phones is not the normal Windows OS, any more 
than your Droid phone is running Ubuntu.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:49:18 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> In this specific case, probably true, but then you have "phones" and
>> other things running this OS too..
> 
> No you don't.  The OS in the phones is not the normal Windows OS, any
> more than your Droid phone is running Ubuntu.

However both run a Linux kernel.  I doubt that the Windows kernel is 
what's running on both the Windows platform and Windows Mobile platforms.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> However both run a Linux kernel.  I doubt that the Windows kernel is 
> what's running on both the Windows platform and Windows Mobile platforms.

It's hard to say. I would be very surprised if a majority of the OS code 
wasn't in Windows. Of course I'm sure a bunch of it gets chopped, but I 
would guess (uninformed, mind you) that the WinPhone OS is to normal Windows 
like BusyBox is to Ubuntu.  Lots chopped out and left hanging, but enough 
there to make porting stuff like .NET and silverlight and all that much 
easier than if they started over.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:22:53 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> However both run a Linux kernel.  I doubt that the Windows kernel is
>> what's running on both the Windows platform and Windows Mobile
>> platforms.
> 
> It's hard to say. I would be very surprised if a majority of the OS code
> wasn't in Windows. Of course I'm sure a bunch of it gets chopped, but I
> would guess (uninformed, mind you) that the WinPhone OS is to normal
> Windows like BusyBox is to Ubuntu.  Lots chopped out and left hanging,
> but enough there to make porting stuff like .NET and silverlight and all
> that much easier than if they started over.

Busybox is more to bash than to Ubuntu.  It's a shell, not a kernel.

I'm fairly certain that the Windows kernel code is not platform-
independent.  Microsoft stopped doing that back when they dropped support 
for RISC-based Windows to the best of my knowledge.

Jim

Post a reply to this message