Is WinCE 3.0 POSIX-compliant?

CE is Win32 (like NT/98). No POSIX.

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

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.

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

Thanks,
Ted

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.

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?

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.

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!

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!