The future of your Nokia Windows phone - Page 9 - maemo.org

slaapliedje | # 81 | 2011-02-25, 12:18 | Report

Originally Posted by ericsson View Post

Linux is comparable to Windows 7 (NT) in terms of RT, that is completely off the charts regarding RT but good at running tons of processes where exact timing is no issue, like on a PC.

For mobile phones, running tons of processes has limited advantage, but RT capabilities becomes increasingly important when the HW spec gets lower and simpler. Nokia is in the need for something that also work well in the sub 200$ range to replace Symbian, and that doesn't suck the life out of the batteries in a couple of hours.

That's also referring to the stock kernel. I wonder what the rt kernel is comparatively. I don't know myself, never bothered benchmarking them.

Either way, Linux can be shrunken down to being as minimalist as the hardware is. Why exactly a phone needs to support modules, for example, is beyond me. Compile in the things you want and the Linux kernel can become extremely small / adaptable to anything. Hell, I bet you could run damn small Linux on something with 16mb of ram.

In fact;

http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/486.html

slaapliedje

ndi | # 82 | 2011-02-25, 12:38 | Report

a) WP7 is not CE
b) Scaling up in the immediate future is fine. It already supports new stuff.
c) Scaling up in the long run is moot, since in a couple of years W8 will be out and it will run on x86 and ARM, so that's that. It scales up to a powerful desktop. And down to minimum WP7 reqs.

Personally, I'm going to guess that an OS rewritten in 2010, breaking compatibility is less of a fish out of water than an OS designed for desktop and scaled down. Not that most of what is being run today is just a scale or a straight recompile. Maemo is way faster that EasyDebian Debian.

The Following User Says Thank You to ndi For This Useful Post:
alcalde

wildwaldbiberhirte | # 83 | 2011-02-25, 13:22 | Report

Originally Posted by ericsson View Post

Linux is comparable to Windows 7 (NT) in terms of RT, that is completely off the charts regarding RT but good at running tons of processes where exact timing is no issue, like on a PC.

For mobile phones, running tons of processes has limited advantage, but RT capabilities becomes increasingly important when the HW spec gets lower and simpler. Nokia is in the need for something that also work well in the sub 200$ range to replace Symbian, and that doesn't suck the life out of the batteries in a couple of hours.

Windows NT is preemptive, not preemptible. Hard RT requires certain scheduling methods and a preemtible kernel, which stock Linux can provide, as well as win CE.
I think the main limitations are in footprint for tiny embedded systems (same as windows whatever), and limited time functions (same as windows whatever). And, of course, certification for safety critical systems.

Realtime capabilities have no direct influence on energy consumption and minimal hardware specs. Or, well, they do. Realtime sysems need high quality, stable clock sources.

daperl | # 84 | 2011-02-25, 13:56 | Report

I heard that Microsoft was gonna help Nokia maintain this site. In fact, there's an update expected today. I sure hope they don't fuc

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to daperl For This Useful Post:
alcalde, SubCore

slackve | # 85 | 2011-02-25, 14:17 | Report

Originally Posted by daperl View Post

I heard that Microsoft was gonna help Nokia maintain this site. In fact, there's an update expected today. I sure hope they don't fuc

Maybe they're going to make it only for internet explorer site or add a "verify genuine copy" button thingy

Copernicus | # 86 | 2011-02-25, 14:26 | Report

Originally Posted by ericsson View Post

Linux is nothing but a simplistic/brute force bloated piece of software, with the only real advantage of being simplistic. Works well on high spec HW (but so does Windows XP).

Anyway, tell me what kind of problems Windows Embedded Compact has with scaling up, other than including proper drivers for new HW. Then explain why this is any different for Linux.

Warning! What follows is a long opinion piece. I didn't expect I was going to write an essay when I started...

Anyway, executive summary: Linux is a general-purpose OS, thus very scalable; Windows CE is a specialized-purpose OS, therefore less so.

It is true that, at its heart, Linux is a fairly simplistic concept. Back at the very beginning, Linus Torvalds just wanted to create an operating system for himself to use on his own PC. He had no vision of running a graphical interface, or supporting a particular important application, or even of making money. It was, plain and simple, just a system for controlling the hardware of a PC.

Windows XP was not designed with quite the same goal. The core of XP is the Windows NT kernel, which is certainly powerful and flexible; however, the effort made to support legacy Windows software, the effort to integrate browser technology into Windows, and the effort to improve the look and feel of Windows have all complicated the core task of the operating system, to the extent that a given machine running XP will use more CPU and RAM when running a particular application than the same machine would under Linux. (Even more so under Vista or 7.) This isn't necessarily a bad thing! Users interested in running legacy software, or enjoying a lavish GUI, appreciate the choices Microsoft has made.

But this is why Microsoft created an entirely different OS for embedded hardware. Windows CE is a real-time operating system designed specifically for small devices. As such, it does make more efficient use of CPU and RAM than Linux does (even those versions of Linux optimized for embedded use and supporting real-time operations). The cost for this, however, is that CE doesn't support the same functionality that NT does. You can't just drop an NT-kernel application into a CE device and watch it run; you'll actually have to spend some time and effort porting it over.

Linux, to a very great extent, provides the same feature set everywhere it runs. So, the same Open Office that runs on a PC version of Linux also runs on the N900; no modification needed. Certainly, you don't get the kind of efficiency and real-time support you'll find on CE, nor all the bells and whistles crammed into XP, but applications written for Linux will work on Linux, pretty much wherever Linux works.

Linux has made the compromises necessary to allow it to run well in multiple environments; the kernel does not provide nearly the level of functionality you'll find in something like Windows XP. Microsoft could put in the time and effort to truly generalize the CE feature set for use with higher-end hardware, but I just don't see it; that would ultimately make it a competitor to the XP/Vista/7 world, which would be bad for their bottom line...

The Following User Says Thank You to Copernicus For This Useful Post:
alcalde

daperl | # 87 | 2011-02-25, 14:31 | Report

Originally Posted by slackve View Post

Maybe they're going to make it only for internet explorer site or add a "verify genuine copy" button thingy

We won't be able to post files here any more, because why would we need to?

ericsson | # 88 | 2011-02-25, 14:44 | Report

Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post

Warning! What follows is a long opinion piece. I didn't expect I was going to write an essay when I started...

Anyway, executive summary: Linux is a general-purpose OS, thus very scalable; Windows CE is a specialized-purpose OS, therefore less so.

It is true that, at its heart, Linux is a fairly simplistic concept. Back at the very beginning, Linus Torvalds just wanted to create an operating system for himself to use on his own PC. He had no vision of running a graphical interface, or supporting a particular important application, or even of making money. It was, plain and simple, just a system for controlling the hardware of a PC.

Windows XP was not designed with quite the same goal. The core of XP is the Windows NT kernel, which is certainly powerful and flexible; however, the effort made to support legacy Windows software, the effort to integrate browser technology into Windows, and the effort to improve the look and feel of Windows have all complicated the core task of the operating system, to the extent that a given machine running XP will use more CPU and RAM when running a particular application than the same machine would under Linux. (Even more so under Vista or 7.) This isn't necessarily a bad thing! Users interested in running legacy software, or enjoying a lavish GUI, appreciate the choices Microsoft has made.

But this is why Microsoft created an entirely different OS for embedded hardware. Windows CE is a real-time operating system designed specifically for small devices. As such, it does make more efficient use of CPU and RAM than Linux does (even those versions of Linux optimized for embedded use and supporting real-time operations). The cost for this, however, is that CE doesn't support the same functionality that NT does. You can't just drop an NT-kernel application into a CE device and watch it run; you'll actually have to spend some time and effort porting it over.

Linux, to a very great extent, provides the same feature set everywhere it runs. So, the same Open Office that runs on a PC version of Linux also runs on the N900; no modification needed. Certainly, you don't get the kind of efficiency and real-time support you'll find on CE, nor all the bells and whistles crammed into XP, but applications written for Linux will work on Linux, pretty much wherever Linux works.

Linux has made the compromises necessary to allow it to run well in multiple environments; the kernel does not provide nearly the level of functionality you'll find in something like Windows XP. Microsoft could put in the time and effort to truly generalize the CE feature set for use with higher-end hardware, but I just don't see it; that would ultimately make it a competitor to the XP/Vista/7 world, which would be bad for their bottom line...

Scalable for what exactly? Nokia is a the largest mobile phone manufacturer in he world, Nokia makes mobile phones, lots and lots of mobile phones. Clearly any scaling of that OS is to be done with a somewhat focus on phones. Surely you can shoehorn an old steam engine into a car and achieve great power, but a modern turbo engine would be a much better fit. In fact it is an excellent comparison. WP is a modern engine, fast, compact, reliable. Linux is the old smelly, noisy and inefficient steam engine.

slender | # 89 | 2011-02-25, 14:50 | Report

Originally Posted by ericsson View Post

Scalable for what exactly? Nokia is a the largest mobile phone manufacturer in he world, Nokia makes mobile phones, lots and lots of mobile phones. Clearly any scaling of that OS is to be done with a somewhat focus on phones. Surely you can shoehorn an old steam engine into a car and achieve great power, but a modern turbo engine would be a much better fit. In fact it is an excellent comparison. WP is a modern engine, fast, compact, reliable. Linux is the old smelly, noisy and inefficient steam engine.

Watson disagrees with you!
http://www.watson.ibm.com/index.shtml

btw.
http://felipec.wordpress.com/2011/02...-linux-scales/

.edit
Probably Google also disagrees with you

How about Tivo
Actually most DVR are running linux. Ohhh scary.
Little company TomTom has devices that run on top of linux
Or Garmin

Last edited by slender; 2011-02-25 at 16:08.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to slender For This Useful Post:
alcalde, misanthropisht

Copernicus | # 90 | 2011-02-25, 14:50 | Report

Originally Posted by ericsson View Post

Scalable for what exactly? Nokia is a the largest mobile phone manufacturer in he world, Nokia makes mobile phones, lots and lots of mobile phones. Clearly any scaling of that OS is to be done with a somewhat focus on phones.

You may not have noticed, but a device known as the tablet has recently entered the market, to a great deal of fanfare...

In any case, mobile devices are quickly reaching the computing power of desktop PCs. An operating system that can't actually perform everything that a desktop PC OS does will certainly suffer in that environment.