I don't think the report adequately accounted for project complexity.
If you are going from 7.9 engineers with Winblows to 14.2 for Linux,
I would suggest that the projects with linux were substantially more
complex, and knowing that, the engineers chose a tool that would be
more likely to work. And being more complex it would also take longer.

The correct comparison would be to look at SIMILAR projects under
each environment. Averages are meaningless in this context.

And of course the report didn't look at real time O/S's like QNX
since Microsloth doesn't see that as much of a threat.

Apples vs oranges.
If all you have to use is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Robert

Mike Singer wrote:
>
> Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > > My question to you is whether the PIC is suitable for this
> > > Real-time operation? Am I likely to be able to get a PIC
> > > to sample at 50Hz with a 1% error margin of frequency? Or
> > > should I be looking elsewhere for solutions?
> >
> > A PIC or any other microcontroller should be fine at such
> > speeds. With a crystal you should be able to get a timing that
> > is much more accurate than 1%. The PIC can just send its data
> > to the PC, make sure the PCB has some buffering on the serial
> > port.
>
> Jon Hulatt's wrote:
>
> "The main problem they're having is the way windows
> works. It's not a Real Time Operating system..."
>
> and:
>
> "I had considered that a solution to the problem might be to
> use a PIC."
>
> Why PIC, why not "Real Time Operating system" such as Linux,
> Win CE, Win Embedded. Was not it Wouter who asked about Linux
> on SBC?
>
> To make your choice between Linux and embedded Windows you
> can read (beware, funded by MS):
> "Total Cost of Development. A comprehensive cost estimation
> framework for evaluating embedded development platforms."
> By Jerry Krasner, Ph.D., MBA, July 2003.
>
> Just randomly chosen phrase:
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> The average Total Cost of Development for embedded Linux designs is
> substantially greater (3.17 times) than for Windows Embedded operating
> systems, resulting from the fact that OEMs using Windows Embedded have
> both a faster time to market (8.1 month average for Windows Embedded and
> 14.3 months for embedded Linux) and smaller average software engineering
> teams (7.9 software engineers on average for OEMs using Windows Embedded
> and 14.2 software developers for embedded Linux).
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body