Newsgroups: comp.realtime,comp.os.qnx,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.robotics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!bagpiper
From: bagpiper@netcom.com (Michael Hunter)
Subject: Re: Real-time systems:  Windows-NT or QNX
Message-ID: <bagpiperCxtxpw.GMG@netcom.com>
Followup-To: comp.realtime,comp.os.qnx,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.robotics
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <FriOct14102309EST1994@eric> <PLM.94Oct17160537@nijmegen3.atcmp.nl>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 18:22:43 GMT
Lines: 30
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.realtime:7201 comp.os.qnx:2255 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:40696 comp.robotics:14472

Peter Mutsaers (plm@atcmp.nl) wrote:

[snip...]

: real-time parts very complex and give a lot of disturbance. It is best
: to use a cross-development system (like VxWorks) so that the real-time
: code can run on a simple embedded board without disk or other I/O.

no disk or other I/O =/> cross-development system
Take QNX for example.  I can develope under QNX on something like
my target platform and then when I finally distribute I can strip
away everything but Proc (the Process manager).  Since Dev (device
handler), Net (network interface), Fsys (File system), Socket
(TCP/IP support) all are *optional* tasks I do not have to distribute
them.  In addition QSSL has priceing that allows me to only pay for
what I use.

I personally perfer this type of development to cross-development.
In many cases the hardware I am using gets a better workout before
I ship it and debugging problems can often be done at my desk.

[snip...]

: Peter Mutsaers                  |  AT Computing bv,  P.O. Box 1428,
: plm@atcmp.nl                    |  6501 BK  Nijmegen, The Netherlands

	Michael Hunter

-- 
* Michael Hunter	bagpiper@netcom.com or QUICS: mphunter
