Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Windows Embedded

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Windows Embedded

    Anyone use Windows Embedded 2009?

    I was thinkin this or even 2011 might be a better alternative to XP.
    XP is almost 10 years old now, and after SPs and updates really is becoming quite a PITA to manage.

  • #2
    yes, myself and others have extensive experience with Windows Embedded. Unless you're building a commercial product, I don't think it's worth it due to costs. I'm currently testing Windows Embedded 2011 and it's great, much better development experience compared to 2009/XPe.

    Have you looked into nLite? It's a great tool for creating highly customized XP installations. Search the forums, because we've been working on this stuff for years now and there's lots of good info out there.
    EWF, HORM, MinLogon on XP.

    Zotac ION Atom N330, 2GB low-profile RAM, M3-ATX
    Win Embedded Std 2011 RC
    OCZ Vertex Turbo 30GB SSD
    Lilliput 629 Transflective, WRX Screen Mount
    BlueSoleil BT, i-Blue GM-2 GPS, DirectedHD Radio, Andrea Mic
    VoomPC 2

    Comment


    • #3
      I just dont want to use XP its old and outdated.

      So would it be worth my time to customize an embedded 2011 or should I just make stripped down Windows 7 install? I know 2011 is beta still, but it seemed pretty stable in my VMs

      I can get windows embedded for free so thats really a non-issue.

      Comment


      • #4
        *submarine*

        Interested to see how this goes for you.
        Tidder

        Try RevFE
        The best resurrected frontend I've ever used, period.


        I Wish I could ban people

        Comment


        • #5
          Old and outdated... I prefer to think of it as stable and well tested...
          "stop with the REINSTALLS, what do you think we got some lame-o installer!!!" - mitchjs
          RevFE
          My Shop

          Comment


          • #6
            Code:
            Old and outdated... I prefer to think of it as stable and well tested...
            ...not to mention faster and lighter still than windows 7.

            While you're considering an embedded OS, why not consider Linux? Penguins are harmless (unless running at you in excess of 60mph... yeah, you thought the cheetah was the fastest land mammal... think again: the penguins are fast! certainly pwns snow leopards for sure...).
            Former author of LinuxICE, nghost, nobdy.
            Current author of Automotive Message Broker (AMB).
            Works on Tizen IVI. Does not represent anyone or anything but himself.

            Comment


            • #7
              is 2011 vista based ???
              ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
              2007 Toyota Tundra Double Cab SR5
              >"Say what you mean and mean what you say"<

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by sergatiuk View Post
                is 2011 vista based ???
                Windows 7 based.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kev000 View Post
                  Code:
                  Old and outdated... I prefer to think of it as stable and well tested...
                  ...not to mention faster and lighter still than windows 7.
                  Faster? Im not so sure. My laptop boots Win7 Ultimate faster than XP MCE 2005

                  Lighter sure its definately a smaller footprint, but im not too worrie about that.
                  This Truckputer going to be getting the 1TB treatment.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by nitrobass24 View Post
                    Windows 7 based.
                    Windows 7 is vista based, yes. Vista is XP based. XP is 2000 based. 2000 is NT 4(?) based.

                    As for 7's boot speed: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QE9_cYAbQ4[/media]

                    This video suggests that XP is faster. However, just because windows has a desktop, doesn't mean that it's loaded everything yet. A better test would be to stop the clock when the cpu enters an IDLE state.

                    Compare that of course with a Linux install: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdmbVsqYjdc[/media]
                    Former author of LinuxICE, nghost, nobdy.
                    Current author of Automotive Message Broker (AMB).
                    Works on Tizen IVI. Does not represent anyone or anything but himself.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Lets face it, boot time is rarely a factor in carpc. Whats more important is hibernation/resume or standby/resume time. Regardless what you do, 99% of the time, your hibernation/resume time is faster than your cold boot time. So I say, worry about the UI that fits you well, and if it runs fast enough in the desktop environment, ie your hardware is fast enough, and worry less about the boot time. If you like the way win7 is organized (personally i don't), the way it look (i like this), drivers (hit/miss on this one, but its not even released yet so.... wait and see), and other neat features (better OSK, native ts support, ssd optimization...etc.) then use win7, otherwise absolutely nothing wrong with winxp.

                      I'm currently using win7 and i like it over all. Saying that its clearly better than winxp, i don't think so.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Punky View Post
                        Lets face it, boot time is rarely a factor in carpc. Whats more important is hibernation/resume or standby/resume time.
                        I disagree with you. Not all hardware is hibernate friendly.

                        With some tweaking sub-30 second boot times are easily achievable. Sub-15 seconds is doable with the right hardware mix.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yea I also agree that it's hibernation time which is most relevant to the CarPC use. Especially if you are using a more resource heavy front end like Centrafuse, where a fresh boot is pointless compared to hibernation. I can boot into XP faster than Centrafuse can load.

                          I have free access to Windows embedded version, so Im curious why go for it over a standard XP or windows 7 install? Isnt the embedded version a trimmed down version, sort of like TinyXP or Tiny7? Would that mean driver support is worse off? Driver support is crucial if you are using hibernation/standby because they can often break hibernation completely.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by nobb View Post
                            Yea I also agree that it's hibernation time which is most relevant to the CarPC use. Especially if you are using a more resource heavy front end like Centrafuse, where a fresh boot is pointless compared to hibernation. I can boot into XP faster than Centrafuse can load.

                            I have free access to Windows embedded version, so Im curious why go for it over a standard XP or windows 7 install? Isnt the embedded version a trimmed down version, sort of like TinyXP or Tiny7? Would that mean driver support is worse off? Driver support is crucial if you are using hibernation/standby because they can often break hibernation completely.
                            I never understood what takes CF so long to start up... nGhost parses every screen xml file into memory and loads every plugin before starting up, yet it displays almost instantly. WTH is CF doing that takes so long?
                            Former author of LinuxICE, nghost, nobdy.
                            Current author of Automotive Message Broker (AMB).
                            Works on Tizen IVI. Does not represent anyone or anything but himself.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kev000 View Post
                              I never understood what takes CF so long to start up... nGhost parses every screen xml file into memory and loads every plugin before starting up, yet it displays almost instantly. WTH is CF doing that takes so long?
                              I dunno but I have already come up with a solution to fix that.

                              http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813500019
                              +
                              16gb of RAM
                              +
                              SuperSpeeds SuperVolume

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X