 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> We've managed to get Embedded Windows XP under 1GB.. ;) Of course, once
> you install the .NET framework, and all of the other things needed to
> run the machine, the install shoots up to 1.5-2GB.. :D
That's why there's a "compact" version of .NET.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Obviously there must be some sort of protocol, and the device's firmware
> probably only communicates the bare minimum to work with the host.
Well, the essential point was risk reduction. Sure, you *can* reverse
engineer it. Now tell me how long it'll take, with the same accuracy with
which I can predict how long it'll take to buy a copy of Windows.
--
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 11/3/2010 10:11 AM, Darren New wrote:
>
> That's why there's a "compact" version of .NET.
>
I thought that only applied to CE?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/3/2010 10:14 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Obviously there must be some sort of protocol, and the device's
>> firmware probably only communicates the bare minimum to work with the
>> host.
>
> Well, the essential point was risk reduction. Sure, you *can* reverse
> engineer it. Now tell me how long it'll take, with the same accuracy
> with which I can predict how long it'll take to buy a copy of Windows.
>
Hmm, thousands of dollars in programming hours, and the risk that you
get something critical wrong or, $75 per machine for a license.
Might make sense if you plan on manufacturing a huge amount of machines.
Even then, is it worth loss of revenue or risking a lawsuit because the
device malfunctioned, and the malfunction would have been easily avoided
had you used the libraries under windows?
Also, Time to market.... You have something cutting edge, and it takes
several more months to develop because you don't want to pay for a
Windows license. and you miss a window of opportunity. Not good.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Well, the essential point was risk reduction. Sure, you *can* reverse
>> engineer it. Now tell me how long it'll take, with the same accuracy
>> with which I can predict how long it'll take to buy a copy of Windows.
>>
>
> Hmm, thousands of dollars in programming hours, and the risk that you
> get something critical wrong or, $75 per machine for a license.
While these arguments seem sound, it still doesn't really address the
whole "you don't need an entire desktop OS just to run a trivial
embedded device like an ATM" angle.
Although, if our old dishwasher was running Windows, I guess that would
explain why it eventually stopped working. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/3/2010 11:19 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Well, the essential point was risk reduction. Sure, you *can* reverse
>>> engineer it. Now tell me how long it'll take, with the same accuracy
>>> with which I can predict how long it'll take to buy a copy of Windows.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, thousands of dollars in programming hours, and the risk that you
>> get something critical wrong or, $75 per machine for a license.
>
> While these arguments seem sound, it still doesn't really address the
> whole "you don't need an entire desktop OS just to run a trivial
> embedded device like an ATM" angle.
ATM's aren't exactly trivial. But, then they also have existed for years
with their own OS, no embedded Windows, but now they want to display
glitzy advertisements while you pull your money out.
I'll never forget the time I used an ATM machine, and as it was
processing the transaction I hears several of the characteristic IE link
click sounds as it finished up.. that was a bit worrying.
> Although, if our old dishwasher was running Windows, I guess that would
> explain why it eventually stopped working. :-P
It does. You forgot to install the latest security update. Good luck
reinstalling windows on that. :D
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 11/3/2010 10:11 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> That's why there's a "compact" version of .NET.
> I thought that only applied to CE?
Probably. It's on the xbox too, but I don't know what that runs.
I wasn't denying your experience. I was simply pointing out it's a known
problem with a known fix. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> I'll never forget the time I used an ATM machine, and as it was
> processing the transaction I hears several of the characteristic IE link
> click sounds as it finished up.. that was a bit worrying.
Many ATMs are just running a web browser with appropriate plug-ins for
running the hardware. It's much easier to add new features to 100,000
machines that way than it is to go around with secure storage operated by a
trained technician updating the machines. I.e., for all the reasons any
other business creates an intranet instead of a desktop app.
--
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 03/11/2010 08:04 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> I'll never forget the time I used an ATM machine, and as it was
>> processing the transaction I hears several of the characteristic IE
>> link click sounds as it finished up.. that was a bit worrying.
>
> Many ATMs are just running a web browser with appropriate plug-ins for
> running the hardware. It's much easier to add new features to 100,000
> machines that way than it is to go around with secure storage operated
> by a trained technician updating the machines. I.e., for all the reasons
> any other business creates an intranet instead of a desktop app.
...so what you're saying is that many ATMs are trivially hackable?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 04/11/2010 09:59, Invisible a écrit :
> ...so what you're saying is that many ATMs are trivially hackable?
That would be illegal (to crack an ATM), so it cannot happen.
You are also assuming the ATM is directly on the internet... I hope they
are just on a private network with better protection.
For instance, the train ticket vending machine of my country used to be
connected to the mainframe (or whatever that be, aka the mother system)
via an X.25 connection. So, to connect to it to crack it, you would have
needed to know its address (and it's far longer than 4 numbers ranging
from 0 to 255), get an X.25 access yourself and hope it was not in a
closed-group than your port as no chance to be in... Would you have been
successful, the network operator would have got evidence against your
port... not that you cannot have do it on a trojan-ed system.
X.25 access being soon to be decommissioned (you cannot get new one, old
ones are to be closed soon) by the main telecom operator here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
