Slashdot Log In
QNX RTP Running on iPaq
Posted by
michael
on Sat Sep 01, 2001 11:46 AM
from the more-stuff-to-lose dept.
from the more-stuff-to-lose dept.
An anonymous reader sends in: "iPaq just got new gracious looks. QNX microkernel and the gracious Photon micro GUI did wonders to iPaq. Get a sneak preview here. If you are in Boston next week, be sure to drop by Embedded Systems Boston to try your hands at the qPaq... ;)"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More info? (Score:1)
Beautiful. (Score:2)
In another article, I had said that PDAs were pretty much useless.
I take it all back. :)
Where is the... (Score:1, Funny)
Question (Score:3, Interesting)
I see all of those hot little modifications and what-not.
Who can I write a check to right now to get one? I love cool things like that, but I generally do not have the time to sit down and make one of those things work. This is becoming a really angering a trend.
So please, could someone please do this and provide a retail, normal person outlet for them??
Gorgeous. (Score:1)
wow (Score:2, Redundant)
*wipe*,
*drool*...
*checks online checking balance*,
*cries*
E.
So when are they going to be *real* machines? (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, eventually we could have a setup where you would buy a full size monitor and keyboard for office and home, and then just buy one little Super PDA to plug the monitor and keyboard into to use as a full PC. If they can get wireless networking down into that size package (which I'm sure they will eventually) you'd even be able to network without current crappy PDA packet modems or anything like that.
Wow, wish I kept that iPaq now... (Score:2)
Now I find myself wishing I'd kept it for this. :(
The perfect world (Score:1)
Input How ? (Score:2)
I see for the shell that a keyboard popup is there
BUT for normal apps how is it done? for X their is Xscribble from the boys and girls at CRL (compaq) which is standard part of the handhelds.org distro and palm of course have the dedicated part of screen with WinCE vendors chouseing how they do it
how about voice input ?
now that would rock if only IBM recompiled their Linux ViaVoice for StrongARM I bet a bunch of vendors would be real intrested
WinCE already has this in their beta builds but its very much like the Apple Voice control (which is kind of funky) but I find that the Apple Implementation is sensitive to background noise and depends on what Mic you have: in my mind I can see the people shouting at their organisers to "mail, oh e-mail, post , arrrch how do I pick up mail ??" (-;
I really cant see how they are going to do it on QNX
any details ?
regards
john jones
Re: QNX, why bother? (Score:4, Flamebait)
Your laughter is borne out of ignorance. Everybody publishes OS times for their OS when running in kernel mode only (which offers zero protection from processes run amok). But CE and EPOC don't run in that mode--you can't on these platforms since they're open and could be running malicious code.
To wit, look at QNX (http://www.qnx.com/products/os/qnxrtos.html#Perfo rmance [qnx.com]) and On Time
(http://www.on-time.com/index.html?page=rtk45.htm [on-time.com]) . Great numbers, but only
for kernel mode operation.
For protected systems using the MMU, it seems all the big players don't publish numbers. Why? Because this is a tough environment and the numbers look like shit. QNX offers nothing on their site about their Neutrino product performance. Neither do Mentor or Wind River.
Even the RT Linux folks are flaky here. http://www.zentropix.com/support/document/helpdox/ rtai.pdf [zentropix.com] claims they can
deliver a 4 uS average interrupt response time with 13 uS of jitter,
resulting in 17 uS worst case interrupt response time. This is on a 233 MHz
Pentium II.
Microsoft are claiming 7.5 uS worst case ISR latency on a 90 MHz Pentium II for CE (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/techart/real_pe rf.htm [microsoft.com]). We're
seeing similar numbers on a StrongARM platform at a similar clock.
Clearly, CE is probably on par with the QNX/PSOS/VRTX crowd.
So, until Symbian actually publish some numbers on their interrupt performance, we can assume that, like code size, they are merely FUD'ing the industry.
As for the topic at hand, however, it's wonderful to see something like QNX running on iPac, maybe make one worth getting after all ;)
Re: QNX, why bother? (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, excuse me? (Score:4, Interesting)
Beautiful OS, but clearly not an organizer.
Hmmm (Score:1)
How fast is the bootup?
Gracious?? (Score:1)
Can anyone please tell me how the hell the adjective "gracious" is justified in this context??
the problem is installation (Score:2, Interesting)
The biggest problem I have had with running non-WinCE operating systems on the iPaq is the installation, which is a very laborious and slow process that takes hours to download stuff over the serial line. What is really needed is the ability to overlay a new OS from Flash and/or to install a new OS by clicking on an application in Flash memory. Or, of course, Compaq might finally preinstall Linux on the iPaq; even HP will be shipping a Linux PDA.
My gracious! (Score:1)
Hmmmm all this graciousness from an anonymous coward. Any chance they work for QNX?
Filesystem? (Score:2)
QNX? QPE! (Score:2)
QNX on iPAQ looks sweet...
But I don't see anything that the Qt Palmtop Environment [trolltech.com] doesn't do already, and with similar style and panache.
Not to mention that QPE has a web-browser available FAR in advance of anything on any other handheld platform - Konqueror/embedded [konqueror.org] which has the full KHTML rendering engine that normal desktop Konqueror has, but with a UI optimized for a handheld's screen.
Of course, I shouldn't have to mention that both QPE and Konq/e are fully-fledged GPL'ed projects, which I'm pretty sure QNX isn't, last time I looked...
Re:QNX? QPE! (Score:4, Interesting)
Firstly reasons to chose QNX over QPE for your iPaq...
(1) QPE has alot of legacy attached to it.
(2) Qt applications can already run fine in QNX so all they really need is a recompile to work.
(3) It's cheeper to develop on QNX then QPE.
(4) It's bulky, really bulky - QNX can run quite comfortably in 5 megs of RAM - QPE requires much more.
(5) It's prettier... sorry, it just is.
Now the GPL issue..
Sorry to tell you but the GPL is not a good thing (TM).
Software on the QNX version of the iPaq can use the GPL if the author desires, however many real embeded developers have a great dislike for it (for many reasons). In fact, I'd like to tell you a little story.
Back before QNX 6.0 was released to the public QNX uses ALSA for sound... for it seemed like a good idea at the time - "simply tweek the drivers and recompile for QNX" said the QSSL engineers "It'll make our jobs alot easier!" they said.
But it diddent! See, many of the big audio corporations had what is known as "propritary hardware", and in order to have a real, fully-accelerated driver they'd have to relase all their secrets to the public and their competition.
QSSL soon figured out the problems with this; Is it better to have an OS that has rocking sound with a few-closed source drivers or an OS with okay sound and a couple of problematic drivers beacuse big busness dosent wana share technical specs?
So, the poor old QSSL engineers rewrote the sound system from the ground up so it wouldnt be tainted (yes, thats the right word - tainted) by the GPL. Now big busness likes them! As they can make driver or submit secret information to QSSL under a NDA for them to make excellent drivers, plus most of the sound system is open-source (download the Audio DDK and see for yourself). It's really a win-win situation.
And remember - Many pats of QNX -ARE- open-source (not just the sound system!), and the open-source parts (for the greater part) can be used for both comercial and non comercial purpose, but are not GPL'ed.
One must NOT confuse the GPL and the open-source philosphy, as they are two different things.
Gorgeous (Score:1)
Only 1 App missing (Score:1)
mame and ssh are the only 2 apps i use on my ipaq. The only problem with ipaqs it doesnt handle multiple buttons pressed at the same time.
QNX is definitely cool (Score:2, Interesting)
Just no use at all .... (Score:3, Informative)
The quality of the OS is important for the end-user, but the power of the dev-kit is important for the dev costs (easiest is the dev time, cheapest is the application).
But this was yesterday statement
SavaJe (a Lucent spin-off) released betas of XE, their OS for StrongARM.
What's the difference
What's the trick ?
Just one word : it's Java !
Ok, i heard Java "friends" that says, : "but how can you expect to run a java application on such a device ?"
I will add, it is not simply a java platform compatible but GUIs applications are also written in Swing !
The same "sceptics", can say not : "Gosh ! Are you kidding ?"
And there i must add : and it is damned fast !
You don't trust me, just go to www.savaje.com and download the latest beta of XE and set it up to you iPaq
But beware, it's a drug-like : once you get into no way out !
Ok, so about the specs :
- It's fully Java2 SE 1.3 compliant
- It is also JNLP compliant (cf JavaWebStart and JNLP)
Just imagine : your develop you application, click on deploy as JNLP, the type-in the URL on your ipaq and voila : the application is running on it !!!
For those who still consider that Java is just one more stupid language and not a complete new way of programming
Of course XE still lack some features (only few CF & PCCard supports), no IRDA at this time
XE for me is quite interresting in a enterprise architecture as it offer a great opportunity to leverage all the skills and legacy systems available. Creating a mobile device application has never been so easy !
As a conclusion, XE just prove that when stilled peoples work on something then impossible things can became true.
Don't get me wrong, Linux is the greatest OS for PC desktop applications
Please note that i am sure this message will be moderate down as it will hurt the
4R34'.
Awesome!! (Score:1)
Those screenshots from the qPaq look totally awesome. That + Opera and that little thing will just rip!
QNX definitely has the art of making pretty interafces down, and the code behind it is super solid and interesting (too bad we don't get to see it...).
Open source? (Score:2)
VSTa would be nice too (Score:1, Interesting)
Its called VSTa, or Valencia Simple Tasker. One of the main features of VSTa and QNX is that of a true microkernel architecture. The entire kernel runs in on-chip cache in around 40k of memory.
VSTa has been around for a while and is GPL'd. It has an elegant design, but unfortunately it doesn't have a large group of developers working on the kernel and associated software. Too bad, I say.
As much as I love linux, I think that VSTa would be an ideal kernel for the iPaq and similar devices. Now someone needs to do a port for StrongARM.
If you're interested try www.vsta.org
jim burnes jburnes@vonu.net
Yes! (Score:2)
Re:MathCAD (Score:1)
You can do it yourself (Score:1)
Re:Why does QNX excite people? (Score:1)