<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:osnews="http://osnews.com/rss2#">
	<channel>
		<title>OSNews: </title>
		<link>http://www.osnews.com/story/19840/Windows_Embedded_Quebec_Due_in_2010</link>
		<description>Exploring the Future of Computing</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams</copyright>
		<webMaster>adam+nospam@osnews.com</webMaster>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:31:23 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		
		<item>
			<title>Not the biggest fan, but activation on an embedded win?</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?317817</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?317817</guid>
			<description>Not a big fan of the the embedded windows systems, as ive seen far to many of these BSOD. <br />
<br />
However the bit i really don't understand is the last paragraph, why the heck would you create an embedded system that has to be activated. I thought the whole idea was that these systems are placed into kiosks and other small devices which nine times out of ten don't have an internet connection. So all of these embedded systems will need to be activated off the production line.<br />
<br />
sometimes i really wonder who makes these sort of stupid decisions. I can understand to stamp out piracy they would stick it in the client (not a massive fan of having it in servers, but i can understand a little), but an embedded system??? <br />
<br />
Oh well, just keep pushing people over the linux.</description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (REM2000)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>activation?</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?317824</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?317824</guid>
			<description>This just proves microsoft has gone off the deep end. Activation of an OS that is burned into the unit? How would people pirate this? What would you install it on? I mean, where do you find a Windows mobile capable device without a version of Windows mobile already on it? DUMB!!!</description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:39:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (bolomkxxviii)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>activation/embedded</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?317826</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?317826</guid>
			<description>They are probably trying to protect against pirated versions of their software being _shipped_ on devices, i.e. a Chinese market only phone using unlicensed Windows Mobile isn't that uncommon....</description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (Ithamar)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>This is an insult</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?317828</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?317828</guid>
			<description>Woohoo! Another slow bloatware OS for a laptop/phone near you.<br />
 <br />
 On another note, It's kind of an insult to the citizens of QuÃ©bec(or even the whole province of QuÃ©bec) to be associated to something as crappy as Windows. I'd like Microsoft to stop choosing cities as codenames for their products and leak to the web.Edited 2008-06-09 12:26 UTC</description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (shadow_x99)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>OS X</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?317829</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?317829</guid>
			<description>This is sooo desperate in need of something to show the market before Jobs introduces the new OS X - without &quot;Mac&quot;.</description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:31:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (Network23)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>XP Embedded</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?317831</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?317831</guid>
			<description>A lot of people seem to confuse XP/Vista Embedded with Windows Mobile/CE. Embedded XP/Vista are just desktop versions stipped out of unnecessary components, you can run regular Windows apps on them, and usually vice-versa - although then can be some protection, for example for games from arcade machines (modern ones seem to mostly use XP Embedded these days) so that you can't run them on unauthorized machines.<br />
There's still little point to have whole activation scheme but I guess OEMs will get the deals that let them skip it.</description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (miscz)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Nice code name!</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?317834</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?317834</guid>
			<description>Nice code name, still it should have been better used for a product going out this year, as it's Quebec City 400th foundation anniversary. (400equebec.com)</description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:08:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (werfu)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE: OS X</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?317839</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?317839</guid>
			<description>This is just an update to XP embedded, which has been around for ages (and succeeded NT embedded). You do realize this is mainly used in industrial, mostly single-purpose applications, not for your phone or tablet, right?</description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (pxa270)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>vista &amp;lt;-&amp;gt; embedded</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?317843</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?317843</guid>
			<description>This is somewhat funny, albeit in a slightly frustrating and unnerving way.<br />
<br />
Maybe vista &quot;embedded&quot; will run as fast as XP does on a regular machine huh?<br />
<br />
Will they require dual core processors in thin terminals now?<br />
<br />
Come on, give me a break.<br />
<br />
- Kevin</description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:42:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (p13.)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE: Nice code name!</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?317857</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?317857</guid>
			<description>Or ... with a code name like that this project is poised to end up an expensive failure.</description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:17:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (chiwaw)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE: This is an insult</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?317895</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?317895</guid>
			<description>As a resident of New Brunswick (the province next door to Quebec), it seems pretty appropriate to me <img src="/images/emo/smile.gif" alt=";)" /></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (StephenBeDoper)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE[2]: This is an insult</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?317932</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?317932</guid>
			<description>Charming...Edited 2008-06-10 00:15 UTC</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:10:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (shadow_x99)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE[2]: Nice code name!</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?317933</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?317933</guid>
			<description>Charming...Edited 2008-06-10 00:15 UTC</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:11:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (shadow_x99)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE[3]: This is an insult</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?317938</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?317938</guid>
			<description>I guess it's a good thing I didn't post a comment about the Plains of Abraham...</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:39:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (StephenBeDoper)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE[2]: This is an insult</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?317941</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?317941</guid>
			<description>ROFL!<br />
(lived in quebec for 12 years, just moved back to toronto)</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:19:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE: XP Embedded</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?317986</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?317986</guid>
			<description>Why is it called embedded if it isn't embedded into the device? Way to go MS!</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:28:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (bolomkxxviii)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
