Linked by David Adams on Thu 24th Jun 2010 16:42 UTC, submitted by fran
Microsoft This is getting ridiculous. Windows Embedded Handheld? And to make it worse, there are two different versions of Windows Embedded Handheld coming out, each based on a different underlying OS.
Thread beginning with comment 431408
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: ...
by Soulbender on Fri 25th Jun 2010 01:56 UTC in reply to "..."
Member since:

So I guess all the different mobile Linux systems isn't a problem either then.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by Nelson on Fri 25th Jun 2010 02:15 in reply to "RE: ..."
Nelson Member since:

So I guess all the different mobile Linux systems isn't a problem either then.

I don't think it is. However, these are two different situations, unless you specifically talk about a commercial distribution having multiple confusing commercial Linux offerings.

Most of the variations of non Desktop Windows are focused at very specific hardware partners, and like I said, only two are ever exposed to the everyday user. Windows Phone (and Windows mobile under that umbrella)

The rest are specialized solutions, and the variations exist because WinCE is built for ARM and WinNT is built for x86. Overtime I expect that line in the sand to disappear as NT is written with portability in mind, but that's probably why.

Some embedded hw partners need x86 and the legacy support (plus running the plethora of desktop windows apps), and others like arm for the power efficiency among other things.

Can some consolidation be done? Sure, but it's not as bad as it seems.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Linux != Windows
by ricegf on Fri 25th Jun 2010 12:20 in reply to "RE: ..."
ricegf Member since:

It's not the *same* problem.

IMHO, Microsoft has far too many operating systems aimed at the mobile market for a single company. The various Linux operating system products are, for the most part, produced by different companies.

Here are the mobile OS products of which I'm aware, based on the article as well as Wikipedia's "smartphone" entry. Linux-based OS are asterisked:

Google - *Android*, *Chrome*
HP - *webOS*
Nokia - *MeeGo*, Symbian
Samsung - *bada* (LiMo)
RIM - Blackberry
Apple - iOS
Microsoft - Windows Embedded Compact (formerly Windows CE), Windows Mobile 6.5, Windows Phone 7, Kin, Windows Embedded Handheld I, Windows Embedded Handheld II, Windows Embedded Compact 7, and Windows Phone Classic.

If my list is correct (and the fact that I'm struggling with it just emphasizes the problem), Microsoft has more mobile-targeted OS products than mobile Linux has major forks among the rest of the major players - 8 to 5.

Yes, 5 mostly incompatible Linux products from 4 companies isn't optimal - but Linux is free, so it's *normal*. Having 8 mostly incompatible products from 1 company is just puzzling.

(The "I" and "II" I added to distinguish the two versions of Windows Embedded Handheld mentioned in the article as having the same name but different cores and APIs. I can't find any other way to differentiate them. Hope I missed something.)

Not trying to troll. Feel free to point out errors in the above. I'm really just puzzled by Microsoft's shotgun approach. They've always excelled at two things IMHO, developer relations and marketing. This looks like poor marketing, at best. Or maybe I'm just getting old. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Linux != Windows
by JeeperMate on Fri 25th Jun 2010 19:00 in reply to "Linux != Windows"
JeeperMate Member since:

Having 8 mostly incompatible products from 1 company is just puzzling.

Should they be compatible with one another?

Is Android compatible with Chrome OS/BlackBerry/iOS/MeeGo/whatever? I don't think so.

Thing is, as some have mentioned (at least someone has), while other companies are trying to sweep specific markets, Microsoft is trying to grab them all, from handhelds to mobile portables, from consumer devices to industrial, from set-top boxes to in-car navigation devices. It wants all the pie for itself -- I'm not trying to pass judgment here.

I don't think it will make any sense to build a single operating system that's meant to be run on different form factors and/or purposes, neither will to make several operating systems meant for different form factors and/or purposes while still maintaining compatibility with each other. What would the point be?

Unless you want to manufacture smart 'utensils' (e.g. a microwave oven that does video streaming, a mortar that does video calls and satnav and whatnot), you only need to keep your eyes on two: Windows and Windows Phone.

Edited 2010-06-25 19:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1