Solved

Is WinCE 3.0 POSIX-compliant?

Posted on 2000-02-27
9
604 Views
Last Modified: 2013-12-27
Can anyone point me to some documentation that clearly states the POSIX compatibility of WinCE 3.0?
0
Comment
Question by:tdubroff
[X]
Welcome to Experts Exchange

Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.

  • Help others & share knowledge
  • Earn cash & points
  • Learn & ask questions
  • 5
  • 4
9 Comments
 

Expert Comment

by:CharlesDHManning
ID: 2613817
CE is Win32 (like NT/98). No POSIX.

You might find POSIX libraries for CE, but I would be very suprised.

0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:tdubroff
ID: 2614151
I've pretty much come to the conclusion that WinCE 3.0 is not POSIX compliant althuogh I can find no documentation anywhere saying yes or no.  However, an interesting tidbit of information is that WinNT _is_ POSIX compliant.
0
 

Accepted Solution

by:
CharlesDHManning earned 50 total points
ID: 2614208
Yes, that's true.

In the early days of NT, a lot of stuff was done to attract Unix server devs to port to NT. This includes POSIX and modualr STREAMS drivers (since dropped). I don't think Microsoft cares much about this any more.

POSIX is supported by NT, but with certain constraints. It also requires a POSIX conformance library (ie. it isn't inherently POSIX).

As an example of some of the gotchas/limitations heres an extract from the NT online guff...

 
"POSIX requires a certain amount of functionality from the file system, such as the ability for a file to have more than one name (or hard links) and case-sensitive file naming. Neither FAT nor HPFS supports these features, which is another reason why a new file system was required for Windows NT. NTFS supports both hard links and case-sensitive naming. If you want to run in a POSIX-conforming environment, you need at least one NTFS disk partition on your computer.

You can run POSIX applications from any Windows NT file system. If the application does not need to access the file system, the application will run with no problems. However, if the application does require access to the file system, it might not behave correctly on a non-NTFS disk partition"


Anyway, back to the question.... CE was severely cut down and POSIX support would not have been considered as a priority. I very much doubt anybody would attempt to build a full POSIX lib for CE.
0
[Webinar] Code, Load, and Grow

Managing multiple websites, servers, applications, and security on a daily basis? Join us for a webinar on May 25th to learn how to simplify administration and management of virtual hosts for IT admins, create a secure environment, and deploy code more effectively and frequently.

 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:tdubroff
ID: 2614239
I'll go ahead and give you the points, because I don't think anyone else will ever know this thread exists. :)

Thanks,
Ted
0
 

Expert Comment

by:CharlesDHManning
ID: 2614266
Reading between the lines, I would guess that you are considering CE as a substitute for an RTOS. I've beed in embedded for 18 years and have been porting CE kernels for nearly 3 years. I would suggest don't do it! CE is just too mickey mouse for any critical roles.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:tdubroff
ID: 2614280
Yes that is what I was thinking about.  I read some initial documentation that WinCE 3.0 is an RTOS.  The standard embedded RTOS's seem to be pSos or VxWorks (both are POSIX-compliant).  I'd like to stay POSIX compliant as my eventual customer is the Military and they seem to like things that way.

Have you taken a look at WinCE 3.0 yet?
0
 

Expert Comment

by:CharlesDHManning
ID: 2614318
I've been numbed by MS hype. CE 3.0 is already about 18 months late and I would not be suprised if it never achieves escape velocity. MS is definitely gearing down on CE.

CE sort-of supports Win32. Some of the services are there, but many function differently to their NT equivalents. I, and collegues, have encountered **many** problems.

Many services such as file systems and networking are watered down and lacking performance.

MS's proposal that 3.0 is an RTOS seems based on:
* Faster scheduling.
* More priority levels.
* Improved ISR latency.

These help, but are not the whole picture. There are a whole bunch of other performance issues that indicate that CE is unlikely to produce a robust, high performace system.

I would not be in any hurry to move off RTOS to CE.


0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:tdubroff
ID: 2614344
I started looking at CE because I'd like to create a compent-ized application. The engine and the OS would be responsible for interfacing to hardware, and they would provide services to the functional components.  The components themselves I would like to be plug-and-chugable like COM components are in the Win32 world.  

Since COM is not OS-based, but is rather a binary specification, I thought I could then use it anywhere.  However, after reading more about COM there are several nice support functions and features, run-time loading of components for example, as well as the Windows Registry which makes using COM much much easier on a Windows-based system.  So this led me to WinCE 3.0.

Of course I haven't really looked into this all too much.  This application would be a R&D project if the company ever decided to go with it.  But you never know when they'll say, Go!
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:tdubroff
ID: 2614347
I started looking at CE because I'd like to create a compent-ized application. The engine and the OS would be responsible for interfacing to hardware, and they would provide services to the functional components.  The components themselves I would like to be plug-and-chugable like COM components are in the Win32 world.  

Since COM is not OS-based, but is rather a binary specification, I thought I could then use it anywhere.  However, after reading more about COM there are several nice support functions and features, run-time loading of components for example, as well as the Windows Registry which makes using COM much much easier on a Windows-based system.  So this led me to WinCE 3.0.

Of course I haven't really looked into this all too much.  This application would be a R&D project if the company ever decided to go with it.  But you never know when they'll say, Go!
0

Featured Post

Free Tool: Site Down Detector

Helpful to verify reports of your own downtime, or to double check a downed website you are trying to access.

One of a set of tools we are providing to everyone as a way of saying thank you for being a part of the community.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Suggested Solutions

Title # Comments Views Activity
phone mike not working samsung 4 150
cell phone carriers - CDMA?  GSM? 4 68
Skill Development 15 202
Undo Sprint PCS iPhone 7 Plus iOS upgrade 4 59
With Windows Embedded Handheld, called Windows Mobile, Microsoft re-designed the user interface. The Start Icon moved down to the bottom, inside the menu bar area.   If you need to hide the Start Icon and/or the SIP (soft input panel, softwar…
Preface: This article is part of a series focused on cross platform mobile app development (specifically Android and iOS) using the Alloy framework and Titanium Studio made by Appcelerator (https://www.appcelerator.com/). This article presumes a wor…
Attackers love to prey on accounts that have privileges. Reducing privileged accounts and protecting privileged accounts therefore is paramount. Users, groups, and service accounts need to be protected to help protect the entire Active Directory …
Suggested Courses

751 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question