What OSes can I use if I want to use Intel Atom based board as an embedded system? [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance. Closed 10 years ago.

Im planning to use Intel atom on a开发者_开发问答 board for an embedded system. The embedded system will be running programs written in C for image processing. Since its an embedded system footprint is obviously a concern. I was thinking about using a modified version of the linux kernel. Any other options??

---

I've written my own O/S for embedded systems so I'm not too sure. But one project I've been wanting to try is uCLinux. Though that might not be enough for what you want to do. If you have more ressources you might want PuppyLinux or Damn Small Linux. They all should have a C compiler which will suit your need.

Hope this helps!

p.s. since I'm a new user, I can only post one hyperlink, you'll have to google the other two, sorry!

---

I don't know how much memory you have, but Windows CE might be another choice. Going this route lets you stay with Windows tools (if you like those) There is also a Micro edition of the .NET framework available for use on Windows CE

---

It depends what services you need form your OS. The smallest footprint will be achieved by using a simple RTOS kernel such as uC/OS-II or FreeRTOS; however support for devices and filesystems etc will be entirely down to you or third-party libraries with associated integration issues. Also the simpler kernels do not utilise the MMU to provide protection between tasks and the kernel - typically everything runs as a single multithreaded application.

Broader and more comprehensive hardware support can be provided by 'heavyweights' such as Linux or Windows Embedded.

A middle ground can probably be achieved with a more fully featured RTOS such eCOS, VxWorks, Neucleus, or QNX Neutrino. QNX is especially strong on MMU support.

---

"Image processing" in an embedded box almost always means real-time image processing. Your number one concerns are going to be maximizing data throughput and minimizing latency processing overhead.

My personal prejudice, from having done real-time image processing (staring focal plane array FLIR nonuniformity compensation and target tracking) for a living, is that using an Intel x86-ANYTHING for real-time embedded image processing is a horrible mistake.

However, assuming that your employer has crammed that board down your throat, and you aren't willing to quit over their insistence on screwing up, my first recommendation would be QNX, and my second choice would be VxWorks. I might consider uCOS.

Because of the low-overhead, low-latency requirements inherent in moving massive numbers of pixels through a system, I would not consider ANYTHING from Microsoft, and I would put any Linux at a distant third or fourth place, behind QNX, VxWorks, and uCOS.

---

If you are needing to do real-time image processing, then you will likely want to use a Real-Time Operating System. If that is the route you want to take, I would recommend trying out QNX. I (personally) find that QNX has a nice balance of available features and low overhead. I have not used VxWorks personally, but I have heard some good things about it as well.

If you do not need Real-Time capabilities, then I would suggest starting with a Linux platform. You will have much better luck stripping it down to meet your hardware limitations than you would a Windows OS.

The biggest factor you should consider is not your CPU, but the rest of the hardware on your board. You will want to make sure that whatever OS you choose has drivers available for all of your hardware (unless you are planning on writing your own drivers), and embedded boards can often have uncommon or specialized chipsets that don't yet have open-source drivers available. Driver availability alone might make your decision for you.