``PITTSBURGH, July 28 /PRNewswire/ -- TimeSys� Corporation, a leader in Embedded Linux� and development tools, announced today a technical agreement with IBM to deliver TimeSys Linux RTOS and TimeSys' Linux- and Windows-hosted development tools on IBM's PowerPC� 440 family of System-on-a-Chip embedded processors.''
TimeSys Teams with IBM for Real-Time Embedded Linux(R)
Begin with the fact that personal computer microprocessors like the Pentium 4 are only 1%-2% of worldwide microprocessor sales, while the other 98%-99% are embedded microprocessors. The average American home has 40-50 of them (washers, dryers, VCRs, DVD players, remotes), a PC about 10, and a new car 50 or more, according to Jim Turley of ExtremeTech.
Fool.com: World Tech Domination? [Commentary] July 1, 2003
Did you take moron lessons or have you learned it on your own?
RTOS are processor specific. The process of adaption takes long period for higher levels and they are virtually useless on smaller embedded systems.
So, if you have a $4000 watch with that processor, you might need a high level system. Other than that, you might consider just writing it yourself and save the royalty expense.
Don't post what you don't understand.
So you're saying that Microsoft isn't interested in 98%-99% of the microprocessor market, but will remain writing to a 1%-2% niche of it (Pentium-class only) while their OS continues to get commoditized.
By jove I think he's got the point!
<<Do you have a RTOS definition you'd like to share before I show you? >>
Too funny. Nice Catch. Get that definition FIRST. Or the Basher will change it mid thread...
I was going to let click keep harping on RTOS, before I showed him his folly.
>Or did IBM have a MONOPOLY on the PC?
Yes, that's what I just said you idiot. For the OS portion of the PC+OS package, they gave the monopoly to MSFT.
I don't know how else to make you understand -- you are THAT stupid.
<< The "customer" is the one who decides how much to spend, and it's nobody else.
Ah- but it's the USER who determines if a system will work for the BUSINESS...and if that USER will be able to USE such a system to do HIS/HER job.
Using your model - IT could just go out and buy a barrel full of horse manure and load it onto the users desktops... and tell them to use the horsepoop to do their jobs.
Think of all of the money they'd save on electricity costs alone!
<< Microsoft just keeps ignoring the CUSTOMER and targets the USER >>
No - Microsoft recognizing that the CUSTOMER IS the USER... not IT, not the accountants, not procurement. The USER is the person who is doing the BUSINESS of the company... they are the ones who MAKE THE COMPANY MONEY.
IT, and everyone else, needs to answer to the BUSINESS USER... because without them, that business doesn't make any money. And if you give that user crappy tools, they'll be less productive and the BUSINESS will make less money.
Imagine giving a thin-client interface to a broker on a trading floor... or a graphics designer... or a structural engineer... or a layout design artist... or a research author... they'd all chew it up and spit it back in your face... and you wouldn't be able to do a thing about it because they are the people who RUN THE BUSINESS.
IT, accounting, procurement are just OVERHEAD. They are NOT the customers. They do NOT run the business.
Until you realize that, Microsoft will continue to whoop your hineys.
>>"Whoopdee friggin doo...Has Microsoft ever INNOVATED more than IBM, HP, Sony, or Apple? Nope. Name one software INNOVATION unique to Microsoft and that hadn't been used somewhere else first that is used throughout the computer industry. "<<
Oh yeah, and we're still waiting for an answer to this question. And yes, it must fit the criteria in order to be accepted. Tablet PCs and Ink were used elsewhere before Microsoft decided to clone them. Also, the lie PC tablets are UNIQUE to Microsoft doesn't cut it.
<These are exactly the type of businesses where MSFT isn't successful. >
Do you have a link on MSFT's lack of success in this space? My understanding is that Great Plains and Navision (now acquired by MSFT) are both leaders in this space (one in NA; the other in Europe). Additionally, everything I've seen suggests MSFT is as ubiquitous in this space as it is in any other. I also saw stats the other day that said it's brand reputation is actually higher in this space that it is in LORGs. What is different is that they make a lot less per desktop (~$50-70 vs $200 in LORGs). I guess you could read that as lack of success. Personally, I think it's more likely attributable to lack of focus and in particular higher piracy rates (inadvertent and otherwise) as many of these companies are running the same apps as their LORGs counterparts (except things like SMS which obviously are less useful in smaller desktop populations). All of which likely explains MSFT's new focus on this area and visible decisions like putting Orlando Ayala in charge - it's huge upside for MSFT because of the large number of desktops and the current low$/desktop.
>It is your, and the Linux and UNIX communities', failure to understand that computing starts with the USER... not IT... that will always keep you relegated to a eencie-weencie market share.
Click likes a world of safe rooms full of conditioned mainframes, card readers, white coats, pocket protectors.
Click is a control freak. No power to the end user in his world.