Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Operating Systems Transportation Windows

Ford Dumping Windows For QNX In New Vehicles 314

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the back-to-the-classics dept.
innocent_white_lamb writes "Ford has announced that their in-vehicle technology called Sync will be based on Blackberry's QNX operating system and will no longer use Microsoft Windows. My own 2013 Ford Escape has the Windows-based Sync system. I wonder if they will issue an update to change it to QNX." Anonymous sources inside Ford cited reliability problems with Windows and lower licensing costs for the switch to the classic realtime OS.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ford Dumping Windows For QNX In New Vehicles

Comments Filter:
  • Having used both (Score:5, Interesting)

    by phantomfive (622387) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @01:05AM (#46331489) Journal
    They made the right decision. QNX is one of the more enjoyable embedded OSes (IMO YMMV of course).
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @01:18AM (#46331543)

      Why is my mileage going to vary if they switch to QNX? Better navigation package?

    • QNX is one of the more enjoyable embedded OSes?

      It's just a unix style microkernel operating system. What they're buying is the Qt platform which is far more interesting than QNX... they'd have been equally well off with a Linux kernel and Qt on top.

      There is no size footprint or CPU footprint benefits to be had here... the point is, if you're not using Windows, a Qt based platform with proper driver support is the way to go.

      But... it will be in a Ford product which means they'll have to make it work like shi
      • Re:Having used both (Score:5, Informative)

        by ebno-10db (1459097) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @08:27AM (#46332741)

        QNX is an RTOS, Linux is not.

        • Re:Having used both (Score:5, Informative)

          by LoRdTAW (99712) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @10:04AM (#46333375)

          RTOS implies determinism, the ability to execute things in a timely manner. That means prioritizing interrupts and allowing high priority threads and processes to preempt the kernel and other core OS processes or threads. Many people mistake real time for processing something as it arrives into the computer e.g. a near latency free video image on screen from a camera or reading a stream of GPS coords from a serial port. Lets go with the camera example. While this sounds like real time, there is no software or hardware that guarantees that the image software and camera driver will always deliver an image to the screen in a guaranteed and timely manner. For example if you start the camera application and you play a video game, does the "realtime" video application retain its low latency? Or will it stutter as its process fights for CPU time with the video game process as the OS sees fit? In a true RTOS, the video software AND driver TELLS the OS their priority and the OS obeys. They can be assigned a high priority so any other software will have to wait until there is spare CPU time.

          Linux has two routes to achieve this:
          CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT [kernel.org]
          Patches to the Linux kernel which removed the various locks in the kernel (aka big kernel lock) which allows a process to be prioritized over the kernel itself. IRQ's are also prioritized. You can run various processes and assign them a priority.

          Xenomai [xenomai.org]
          Xenomai is a dual kernel approach where a vanilla Linux kernel is patched with Xenomai. It creates a separate kernel that allows its processes to preempt the Linux kernel and takes over handling interrupts through the I-pipe. This means all interrupts are handled by the Xenomai kernel and if an interrupt is destined for the Linux kernel, Xenomai passes them as a virtual interrupt. Xenomai also features its own HAL allowing hardware to be dedicated to Xenomai processes via RT drivers. You can also do things like dedicate a processor core to a specific task to guarantee there is ample CPU time. And Xenomai has a neat little trick, its kernel is a nucleus which can run various "skins" which are API's; e.g. you can use RT code using Native, POSIX, uITRON, VxWorks and a few other RT API's.

          YMMV but both solutions have tradeoffs. There is a paper published (https://www.osadl.org/fileadmin/dam/rtlws/12/Brown.pdf [osadl.org]) which compares the two popular Linux RT solutions. Preempt_rt is easier to implement as it is part of the mainline kernel, you only need to include a few headers and some gobals to define the process priority. But in tests it shows higher timing jitter than Xenomai. If you want maximum performance, then you need to look into Xenomai which requires a bit more setup, patching and using the various API's and RT hardware drivers.

          BTW, Windows also has RT dual kernel systems. So yes even windows can be an RTOS. Look up Ardence RTX and INtime.

  • QNX 6 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I miss QNX 6, damn you Blackberry!

  • Just think of the sales pitch to get people to in install the update now ma you don't want your brakes system to crash so for only $200 we can update your cars software.

  • Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

    by Neo-Rio-101 (700494) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @01:11AM (#46331527)

    http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/pnw... [harvard.edu]

    For all of us who feel only the deepest love and affection for the way computers have enhanced our lives, read on. At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."

    In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

    1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.

    2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.

    3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue.

    For some reason you would simply accept this.

    4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

    5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.

    6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.

    7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.

    8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

    9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

    10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off."

    • by jd2112 (1535857) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @01:24AM (#46331581)

      10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off."

      Actually, I do press the 'Start' button to turn the engine off on my car. (Nissan Altima with keyless ignition)

    • by jrumney (197329) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @01:35AM (#46331647) Homepage

      10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off."

      Cars do seem to be catching up with Windows on that one at least.

    • by BigDXLT (1218924)

      I know someone came up with that list to be snarky, but I'm fairly sure I've experienced everything in that list at one point or another with vehicles over the years.

      Yup, including pressing the start button to turn the engine off. :/

    • Re:Obligatory (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Nutria (679911) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @02:03AM (#46331761)

      6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.

      It's called the Idiot Light, and has been around for decades.

      • by dryeo (100693)

        My Fords have idiot gauges. The '88 introduced the idiot oil gauge as people panicked when the engine was hot and idling and the needle dropped, The '97 idiotized the voltmetre, I guess people also freaked out when, with everything on, at idle the voltage dropped down close to 12 volts. Really useful.

    • by bloodhawk (813939)
      Just about all those faults sound pretty standard in most GM cars. If it was ford the list would be even longer. funny how a joke from the 90's has actually turned on its head as tech has advanced, most OS's would be appalled to be as unreliable as most of the shit being churned out from GM or ford today.
    • 2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.

      Actually, if Apple had bought Tesla, the car would probably be compatible with only one brand of paint.

    • by Karellen (104380)

      The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.

      If only! Then Microsoft would finally start catching up with Unix, which got there first (as always):

      Ken Thompson has an automobile which he helped design. Unlike most automobiles, it has neither speedometer, nor gas gauge, nor any of the other numerous idiot lights which plague the modern driver. Rather, if the driver makes a mistake, a giant “?

  • by Etherwalk (681268) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @01:14AM (#46331537)

    I rented a Ford Fusion a few months back. The MSFT in-vehicle tech worked perfectly well.

    I know it's anecdotal, and I'm all for competition, but I wonder if this was a good decision. When the car company cites licensing costs that can't be much per vehicle as a reason to change a technology, you begin to feel they're cutting corners.

    • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @01:27AM (#46331603) Homepage Journal

      I know it's anecdotal, and I'm all for competition, but I wonder if this was a good decision. When the car company cites licensing costs that can't be much per vehicle as a reason to change a technology, you begin to feel they're cutting corners.

      Well, did you RTFA? Because that would give you a clue as to the logic behind such a move:

      In-vehicle technology is the top selling point for 39 percent of auto buyers, more than twice the 14 percent who say their first consideration is traditional performance measures such as power and speed, according to a study by the consulting firm Accenture released in December.

      See, Ford is going to put this sort of system in every car, sooner or later. There's no good excuse not to when you can get a tablet for a hundred bucks retail. Sure, vehicle electronics have higher requirements, make it a hundred bucks cost, a $400 (replacement) module and a $650 option and you're printing money. Cheaper and cheaper cars are now coming with iPod integration, bluetooth and so on, and sooner or later it's going to be every single car. How much do those licensing fees add up to?

    • by tji (74570)

      I have an aging '08 Ford, and the Sync system is quite impressive. It has good bluetooth integration with smartphones, voice control of everything and works quite well even compared to new systems in cars sold today.

      But, not long after the early success, they added more infotainment bells and whistles and started having reliability problems with Sync. This is at the time that they were releasing new models that had really good reliability ratings mechanically, but they were getting dinged badly for the Sy

    • by CBravo (35450)
      I did the same 2 years ago. It had issues and crashed quite a few times (when using a USB stick). For the rest I am not such a fan of the speach recognition (too slow imo).
    • by Tom (822) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @03:59AM (#46332083) Homepage Journal

      Costs are almost always a cover reason. It's what you say when you don't want to put out the real reasons.

      For example, Ford almost certainly has an ongoing business relationship with MS, for their office PCs, maybe they use Outlook, etc. - they probably don't want to sour that by saying in public that their car-OS is crap.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Carmakers optimize costs at sub-one-cent levels. "Can't be much" is the antithesis of the automotive beancounter mantra.

  • that anyone would use Windows for embedded/realtime. Is it easy to discover this for other makes of cars?

    • by Dracos (107777)

      I'm sure I'm not the only person to see a BSOD on the flight arrival/departure screens at an airport.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I had a flight where the entertainment system displayed RedHat 6.x (old one, not RHEL) boot messages repeatedly for three hours. Very entertaining.

    • by aussiedood (577993) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @01:40AM (#46331675)
      Windows Embedded has powered the ECUs in all Formula 1 cars (arguably the most technologically advanced race cars in the world) since 2008.
      • Isn't that because MS were selected as the sole supplier of ECUs by the FIA? Something makes me suspect the decision was made on how much the FIA were paid, rather than on the merit of Windows an an RTOS.

    • The Windows Embedded OS used for real-time is not based on the desktop Windows. Its a derivative of the old Windows CE and is a bit more stable.
  • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @01:19AM (#46331555)

    Ford has announced that their in-vehicle technology called Sync

  • If all you need is one application, switching OS is not as much of a deal for you or a statement on the underlying platforms than choices of consumers who use at least a dozen of apps. Software development costs are probably a very small part of general Ford R&D costs. If they found a more economical or convenient option, more power to them!

  • experience (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @01:22AM (#46331575)

    I rented a for focus, and drove it for about 2 months, the MSFT stuff installed in it was a total piece of junk. It would crash, hang,
    and reboot in the middle of navigating to the destination, just like a windows PC.

    • Well, at least it seems like they got the traditional Windows user experience right... they should at least get credit for that. It's nice to know that there is consistency between their products, so you can know what you're getting (into) ahead of time... even if the shared traits are 95% undesirable.

    • When was this? the first version(s) of Sync were buggy. This is where they got the bad reputation in the media. Later versions appear to have most of the kinks worked out and are stable.
    • Compared to the aftermarket leader in infotainment, Kenwood, I'd say that sounds about typical.

  • by ModernGeek (601932) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @01:32AM (#46331635) Homepage
    We need a better F/OSS Platform for this type of development. I would like to see something like GNU/Hurd finally come to fruition and become the one true operating system for embedded devices, upward to desktop/server. With the Mach Kernel, it stands to actually give us a unified kernel that can serve all these purposes without being a giant, sluggish monolithic blob. Once that platform is complete, everyone else can throw their own interfaces and such on top of it.

    Android is defective by design, and Ubuntu's solution is right up there with it. QNX is where it's at, but we need a Mach based F/OSS alternative.
    • by noh8rz10 (2716597)

      i'm excited to see what comes of apples iTunes in the car experience. but it's been in development for so long I wonder if it will ever actually come out?

    • by armanox (826486) <asherewindknight@yahoo.com> on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @01:46AM (#46331699) Homepage Journal

      And it would never sell. Really what we need is something like iOS/OS X running on it - everyone knows the interface, you don't have to play with it, it doesn't randomly fall over, and the applications are locked down. Android's mistake is being too fragmented - different features by different carriers. I don't see how Ubuntu is defective by design either. Consumers want something that works, and does what they want it to do. They don't care about ideological arguments over licenses.

      • by sjames (1099)

        It's not so much a matter of ideology, it's more a matter that someone out there knows what sort of onboard software will work well in a car and it is not MS or any of the auto makers. If the system is FOSS, that someone will have a hope to actually create that software. Apple might know how to do it, but the auto makers won't adopt it themselves since it won't match their dane brammaged idea of what it should look like.

      • by mjwx (966435)

        And it would never sell. Really what we need is something like iOS/OS X running on it

        That is the absolute worst thing that could happen.

        Convoluted touch gestures, a pathological hate of physical buttons. What we need to do is detach these horrible touchscreen devices from functions people use often, air conditioners, radio/CD/MP3 players and so forth and move them back to physical controls you can operate without looking at them.. Hell, its even a bad idea having a navigation system that cant be updated by anyone except the cars manufacturer.

        Ultimately we need a standard for in car co

    • by Nutria (679911)

      I would like to see something like GNU/Hurd finally come to fruition and become the one true operating system

      The OS that's been in alpha status for almost 25 years, and still only supports i386?

      That GNU/Hurd?

    • The only people who don't realise it are its developers. If an OS can't gain traction in a quarter of a century it never will. Also the hype about message passing microkernels died a decade back. They look great on paper but in theory they're slow and inefficient.

      "Once that platform is complete, everyone else can throw their own interfaces and such on top of it."

      What, you mean just like X Windows?

      • Also the hype about message passing microkernels died a decade back. They look great on paper but in theory they're slow and inefficient.

        But isn't that precisely what fast and efficient QNX is?

        • by Dr. Spork (142693)
          I don't have a ton of insight about this, but the way I thought of it, QNX is efficient in spite of all the message passing among the microkernel and the modules. The architecture was done that way for robustness, not for efficiency. That they achieved such efficiency is a testament to their coding skills, not the architecture.
      • What, you mean just like X Windows?

        Which is the best GUI bar none. Are you trying to praise or criticise?

  • by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @01:40AM (#46331673) Homepage Journal

    QNX is clearly a better choice for a system that should just work, all of the time. However, I doubt it's really all that unreliable, and the bigger problem with Sync is that the UI is horrible, among the worst I've ever seen. I've had a couple of rental cars with it, and the last time Hertz offered me a Ford, I told them I wanted a different car, it's that bad. And the UI isn't Microsoft's fault, I don't think.

    • by DrXym (126579)

      QNX is clearly a better choice for a system that should just work, all of the time.

      If SYNC is an entertainment system as it appears to be (I've never used it) then I don't see that it should make a damned bit of different what kernel or OS is powering it. All it has to do is play music, radio, maps, vehicle info, bluetooth and whatnot. ANY modern kernel could do it. Most of the complexity is in the multimedia framework and application software running on top.

      I don't see that switching to QNX implies that the software is any more reliable for the change. It's as easy to write shoddy, lea

  • That Blackberry isn't dead right? I get the feeling we're going to see a lot more QNX automotive 'infotanment' systems in the near future, and BB moving from the saturated mobile market to the automarket. If they were ever good at something it was directly specializing to what was demanded of the customer, until they fsk it up.

    • by freeze128 (544774)
      So it means that the embedded computer system in your car will soon have a physical keyboard....
  • Cheaper, really? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jhol13 (1087781) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @01:47AM (#46331703)

    I wonder if it is really true. I'd assume that full fledged OS with all the stuff included would be better infotaintment system than QNX.
    As I do not know which version of "Windows" they use, suppose they used Android. Now they would get, for free without any development costs or time, bluetooth, wifi, 3G, UI, development tools, etc. The system would work as a bluetooth handsfree[1]. The system would, with a SIM, work as a wifi-hotspot. You would get Google Maps, i.e. navigation. Games from Play store. Etc, for free (or the price of Android if they want maps&play).

    With QNX, what do they get?

    [1] I assume Android can work as a bluetooth "device", not only as a "host".

    • Re:Cheaper, really? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by narcc (412956) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @02:45AM (#46331887) Journal

      With QNX, what do they get?

      All of those things and a superior OS?

      Oh, sorry. That's not what you wanted to hear.

    • OK, you're clearly not familiar with the product. Sync with My Touch uses a version of Windows Embedded based on the old Windows CE.

      It already does work as Bluetooth hands free using a cell phone as a host. Sync connects seamlessly with my Android based phone every time I get into the car. It will read your text messages to you as they come through if you set that option (it's not the default)

      It will accept a USB based cell modem if you don't want to use the phone. It already works as a wifi-hotspot

    • With QNX, what do they get?

      You should have started there and ended with this [lmgtfy.com]. Seriously, QNX is probably more flexible than Android.....you can use QT, or HTML5 or other GUI toolkits, for example. It has bluetooth, wifi, 3G, quality development tools....really, do some research before posting things.

      • by jhol13 (1087781)

        Sure QNX is more flexible. And certainly more suited to motor control.
        But my point is Android is more powerfull, and "cheap enough" for infotaintment. Paying something like $10[1] for Android (including HW) is cheaper than developing a simple UI, unless the car is assumed to sell tens of millions.

        Last time I checked a commercial RTOS prices they were really huge and every single extra (audio, video, bluetooth, wifi, TCP/IP, ...) would cost more. Even then, if you would like something like wifi-hotspot it se

        • But my point is Android is more powerfull, and "cheap enough" for infotaintment.

          I'm really interested in what you mean by powerfull.

      • by DrXym (126579)
        You can use QT on Android too, not that I see that it boils down to using either QNX or Android. There are various flavours of Linux (or BSD) that could fit the bill for an in-car entertainment system. Maybe it's just the case that for the effort, risk and cost involved for Ford to produce one that fits their requirements that they may as well licence QNX.
    • by thegarbz (1787294)

      suppose they used Android. Now they would get, for free without any development costs or time, bluetooth, wifi, 3G,

      Almost. The rest of your sentence is correct but this one is quite wrong. Android does not include any drivers to interface with bluetooth wifi or 3G. Enabling these require both licencing costs as well as software development costs. This is one of the reasons why it is difficult to port Cyanogen to other devices if there isn't an existing device firmware available to reverse engineer.

  • by l3v1 (787564)
    " cited reliability problems with Windows and lower licensing costs for the switch to the classic realtime OS"

    Just say it, there's no shame in it: qnx is better. I'd welcome the change even if it were more expensive.
  • by sobiloff (29859) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @01:56AM (#46331733)

    I have SYNC in my 2013 F-250 and it blows. It keeps trying to re-index my SD card, so I can rarely use the voice commands to play music from it, and sometimes it'll switch by itself from playing SiriusXM to playing the SD card. It's also slow to respond sometimes (probably an artifact of it trying to re-index the SD card), and the UI to select music from the SD card is cumbersome.

    I guess most of my gripes are about the SD card functionality; the rest of the functionality seems to work OK when it isn't being screwed over by the SD card, but again I find the interface cumbersome to use. For example, scrolling through the SiriusXM stations takes way too many taps.

    My hope is that QNX, given its history as an RTOS, will be more responsive and robust. It might even give the developers a chance to improve the UI.

    • by rk (6314)

      I think they must have fucked up Sync at some point because I hear this from people with newer Fords but I had a 2010 Fusion Hybrid for two years and Sync worked pretty much perfectly in that thing.

  • Sync was so bad.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EmperorOfCanada (1332175) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @01:56AM (#46331737)
    Sync was so bad that I wouldn't buy a Ford. I rented a handful of 2013 model Fords with the Sync system. I had an iPhone 3GS and an iPhone 4. The stupid Sync system was a huge battle. Syncing just wasn't a clean process. It did work but smooth as silk is not how I would describe it. But then it got worse. It asked if I would like to set up the emergency something. I presume this was an automated 911 call if I crashed. Well actually no I don't want the computer calling the police; I'll make phone calls of that nature thank you very much. And in today's world it is unlikely that if I were to crash that there aren't 200 people with cellphones that will call anyway. But lastly the system was so crappy I doubt that it would call 911 but would call 912 or 999 thinking that we were in the UK.

    But you are probably thinking no big deal opt out and you are fine. But nope after opting out, every time the stupid car started a woman's voice would blah blah about the emergency system not being activated. I looked in the manual and found no solution, so I went on the net and found no solution. So there is no way on earth that I would buy a Ford. Plus my sister had minor damage (but enough to partially disable the car) in a recent model fusion hybrid that took nearly 5 months to get the parts in. So she was out a near new car for 5 months; the whole point of buying a new car vs nursing a 10 year old car along is that the new car saves you the stress of breakdowns and any maintenance issues that cost anything or at least are hard.

    But now Ford is leaving the abusive relationship they no doubt enjoyed with Microsoft and now they are getting into bed with the $2 whore that they found in a Ottawa brothel. I couldn't think of a technology company (after leaving microsoft) that I would rather partner with less than Blackberry. I fought with their stupid Playbook tablet and I have watched people fight with their stupid new QNX phones. I know people who are long term BB customers (often via work) who deeply resent the latest models. So why would you pick a company that is on the rocks and that people respect less than the aforementioned $2 whore?

    But oddly enough the main reason that I think that QNX is a complete bowl of stupid is that I have known exactly one programmer who loved QNX and he was a useless tool. Actually worse than a useless tool; he was one of those developers that management thinks is a rocket surgeon but all he does is make things way worse. So if he tells you to cut the blue wire, not only should you not cut the blue wire but you should assume that cutting any wires is probably the exact wrong thing to do. So keep in mind that this tool probably thinks that QNX in a Ford is a cool idea.
    • by narcc (412956)

      I fought with their stupid Playbook tablet and I have watched people fight with their stupid new QNX phones. I know people who are long term BB customers (often via work) who deeply resent the latest models.

      Odd, my experience has been completely different. My wife loves her PlayBook and Z10. Everyone I've shown either device to has been impressed. The slick UI, solid hardware, and fantastic dev tools ... I don't know what anyone could possibly complain about!

      But oddly enough the main reason that I think that QNX is a complete bowl of stupid is that I have known exactly one programmer who loved QNX and he was a useless tool.

      Consensus on Slashdot is meaningless, I know, but the sentiment here is quite clear: QNX is an excellent OS. What, specifically, do you dislike about it?

      • I'm not joking when I say that I don't like QNX because a guy I worked with who was a mega tool loved it so much. Basically he was exactly wrong about everything. His entire life is a logical not.

        To give an example, Nortel hired him so I told people who were invested in Nortel that they needed to sell their shares immediately (which all but one did, also not insider information as he posted this on his personal website). Any hiring process that didn't screen out this living parasite of oxygen was a deepl
  • Now I'm getting duped from Soylentnews [soylentnews.org].

    It's going to be hard to keep this shit straight.

  • Windows? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xfizik (3491039) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @02:48AM (#46331899)
    Who was the genius that decided to go with Windows to begin with? Don't get me wrong, Windows is fine on desktops (traditionally) and servers (more recently), but using it for essentially embedded development would be my very last choice.
  • I rented a Ford Taurus and I hated SYNC. It was slow, counterintuitive, and the screen was low-res.

  • You know, the cooperative relationship between the US government and Microsoft are more than established. The more recent revelations of Nokia phones sending data to Noka and to Microsoft coupled with the highly deceptive answers of Nokia when asked about it points fingers directly at Microsoft for violattions of basic trust.

    Anyone using Microsoft Windows in their devices right now can expect some feedback over their choice of OS right now.

    That said Blackberry... also close to governments world wide. I ju

  • Sync is on my Focus (Score:4, Informative)

    by RNLockwood (224353) on Tuesday February 25, 2014 @11:18AM (#46334189) Homepage

    I was really apprehensive when I discovered that Sync was powered by Microsoft after I purchased my Focus two years ago, and rightfully so. What did MS know about maps and routing? On reading the article's subject my first thought, too, was I wonder if there will be an update: probably not.

    Here are a few examples.

    Found that the voice commands lacked synonyms so one had to conform to Sync.

    It would lock up quite often for no apparent reason and the only way to re-boot it is to go to the side of the road, park, turn the ignition key to off, and then open the door for a few seconds. One could then restart and it would re-boot.

    On the occasions when I needed routing my wife and son would be reduced to hysterics as I tried to get it to give directions to the intersection of, say, Laguna Canyon Road and Pacific Coast Highway. It appeared that it didn't like street names of more than one word in this context.

    Use voice commands to make a call (this and some other errors of the type were repeatable) "Call Jenny Rechel home". Response was "No home number for John Litton, cell or work?"

    I took it to the dealer twice and got updates that have stopped the lockups and can now use it to call Jenny but some other, more fundamental, problems persist.

"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries

Working...