To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I think it could. I think it could very easily in fact.
But that's not QNX's business plan. Far from it in fact. They have a small, highly functional and incredibly stable and scalable platform. They aren't going to risk that by venturing into the desktop and server space of the average home, small business or enterprise. That's been tried many times in the past decade and a half, and it's failed miserably every time.
Their main function is to act as that core piece of software that's so incredibly reliable that it's used in trains, planes and automobiles. (and nucyoular paar playnts!)
It's designed to do one thing and only one thing, and to do that thing really well. This doesn't mean it can't be made to expand—which I believe with it's architecture is fairly simple—but that's not what it's made to do, and if QSS decided to jump off the deep end they'd lose their current clients quite quickly.
And I don't doubt that their clients are probably a lucrative bunch.
Mission-critical, embedded systems work is *expensive*.
Actually it is not like that, Microsoft to my knowledge has pushed hard into the embedded area, and also during the big power failure in north america it came out that some of the monitoring terminals of a nuclear plant were running on windows.
Of course there always is the never use our soft in life critical situations, but in case of a huge desaster I just want to see how Microsoft will wind out of that, because there always must have been someone who sold that stuff into nuclear plants.
I'm no longer a fan of QNX the company, but I'd just like to point out that monitoring systems could run Windows or whatever you felt like putting on them... they're not mission-critical. The systems controlling the sensors and safety measures, now those are misison-critical.
It's best to isolate the embedded systems and send data off to workstations running whatever is convenient; display the data in a comfortable desktop environment, and control the important bits from a well-designed embedded system.
- chrish




Member since:
2006-01-02
I agree with you on this point. I don't think MSFT ever encourages the use of any version of Windows on life-critical stuff. In comparison to the RTOSs mentioned here, Windows is byzantine and messy. On the other hand, it's doubtful that the RTOS systems like QNX can really handle the loads of a modern desktop with myriad hardware and maintain its stability.
If it could, then QSS could make a lot of money in a new business venture...
Edited 2006-10-09 03:57