New BBX OS may be a Problem

**aha** · 12-04-2011, 09:50 AM

No need to be worried. it's all about execution and QNX is a well coded micro kernel OS, it's gona be fast

**xnwrx** · 12-04-2011, 09:58 AM

It seems somebody tries to push BBX out of the game by throwing silly and stupid rumours like that.
By the way, I'm working in real-time industrial systems, and I can say that QNX is today one of the best OS, and the way RIM integrates it is bright. And no way there can be any issue of any sort with ethernet applicatons and overloading. The opposite should apply, Androïd is by far less performant in such areas.
So stop listening at silly things ...

**grahamf** · 12-04-2011, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by john wang

The new Rim Operating System BBX may have problems for internet applications. This OS is based on QNX which is a real time OS and has a microkernel architecture. The problem with microkernels is that while it makes it easier to add new features and services, it has performance limitations compared to the monolithic kernel which is used by Linux, Microsoft Windows and Apple.
In a demanding network application like the Internet can be, this performance handicap of the microkernel architecture will cause delays and service stoppages. When you have parallel processing (multicore), multiuser, multitasking, multiapplication, multinetworking etc like the present network environment a monolithic kernel is essential for performance reasons. The load is too heavy for microkernels.

Click to view quoted image

Linux is a modular
Mac OS X is a hybrid kernel
Windows *IS* a Monolithic kernel (or at least XP was), but we all know how fast it really is

**david.e.crocker@gmail.com** · 02-02-2012, 10:45 AM

It's actually pretty important to clarify this distinction. Here's a graphic:

This link should also help explain the inherent benefits of a monolithic kernel. Monolithic kernel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's the key differentiator: The monolithic differs from other operating system architectures (such as the microkernel architecture) in that it defines alone a high-level virtual interface over computer hardware, with a set of primitives or system calls to implement all operating system services such as process management, concurrency, and memory management itself and one or more device drivers as modules.

**auditman** · 02-02-2012, 06:19 PM

what are you saying? present main stream os is not good enough to multitask? For now base on how the end users are using these devices they are more than enough.

**Reubechs** · 02-02-2012, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by auditman

what are you saying? present main stream os is not good enough to multitask?

No. The feature set can only go as far as the architecture will allow. It's not that it can't multitask, it can and quite ably. What it can't do is evolve past a certain point.

**Plazmic Flame** · 02-18-2012, 02:10 PM

Disadvantages in the microkernel exist however. A few examples are:
•Larger running memory footprint
•More software for interfacing is required, there is a potential for performance loss (note, the QNX system is extraordinarily fast).
•Messaging bugs can be harder to fix due to the longer trip they have to take versus the one off copy in a monolithic kernel.
•Process management in general can be very complicated.

Sounds like how the BB OS is now.... hope QNX doesn't have these issues when they launch on phones.

**JAGWIRE** · 02-18-2012, 08:34 PM

OMG i think my brain is going to explode with all this popcorn talk LOL. Im not a huge techy but i do understand stuff and know enough to get by and then some. but this is confusing me...can someone please dumb it down LOL. thanks.

**tharrison4815** · 02-19-2012, 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by tmelon

I hope the kernels don't end up at the bottom of the bag. If I leave it in the microwave too long it gets burnt, but if I take it out all the kernels end up at the bottom.

Try turning your microwave onto a lower power setting.

**siausin** · 02-19-2012, 03:53 AM

Sound like you have discovered an issue that RIM didn't discover.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9810 using Tapatalk

**six6xis** · 02-23-2012, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by john wang

The new Rim Operating System BBX may have problems for internet applications. This OS is based on QNX which is a real time OS and has a microkernel architecture. The problem with microkernels is that while it makes it easier to add new features and services, it has performance limitations compared to the monolithic kernel which is used by Linux, Microsoft Windows and Apple.

The Mac actually uses a hybrid Micro/monolithic kernel and I don't think the performance will be any problem judging by the Playbook.

**john wang** · 04-27-2012, 09:41 PM

I have learned a lot of practical things, thank you!

**app_Developer** · 04-27-2012, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by siausin

Sound like you have discovered an issue that RIM didn't discover.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9810 using Tapatalk

The disadvantages of microkernels have been known in the industry for quite some time. It's not an accident that so many companies choose against it. I have no idea if RIM considered these issues when choosing QNX.

But having said that, they can over time fix this by making the kernel more of a hybrid like that what NeXT/Apple have done.

**grahamf** · 04-28-2012, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by app_Developer

The disadvantages of microkernels have been known in the industry for quite some time. It's not an accident that so many companies choose against it. I have no idea if RIM considered these issues when choosing QNX.

But having said that, they can over time fix this by making the kernel more of a hybrid like that what NeXT/Apple have done.

The problem with microkernals is that it requires an efficient system of managing processes. QNX has that system.

**Bold9930** · 05-02-2012, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by six6xis

The Mac actually uses a hybrid Micro/monolithic kernel and I don't think the performance will be any problem judging by the Playbook.

I see tremendous potential with the playbook - both form factor and OS, however, having used one for a few months now, I'm left wondering if the OP is on to something?

When it works, it's great, but it's unpredictable and I have very few apps loaded and don't really multi-task - i.e. very few apps open at the same time. The Wifi goes in and out CONSTANTLY, no matter where I travel, so there have been times that I've wanted to throw it out the window. It seems I've done a lot of hoping with Rimm and I'm a loyalist. The benchmark that I use for any device OEM is Apple. Apple stuff just works, isn't buggy, doesn't crash, etc. It just works. If Rimm were to make up ground in this area with their nextgen devices, it's a game-changer in my eyes.

Now back to microkernals...So these new BB10 devices will be based on QNX, correct? If I understand the OP, this suggests I may be disappointed?

Thanks

**john wang** · 05-07-2012, 10:09 AM

Please give us your comments.

**morlock_man** · 05-07-2012, 03:29 PM

QNX is built around scalability and distributed networking.

The issues regarding performance hits discusses in the OP largely refer to IPC, which was why Mach ended up as a hybrid kernel rather than a micro in OS X. The research hadn't been completed yet.

Look up the L4 family of microkernels. QNX built their IPC system off of this research foundation. In a nutshell, they succeeded where Apple and Mach gave up, then patented their results.

**ajaxme** · 05-11-2012, 07:32 PM

What do I go to school for to understand microkernals n such things?

**grahamf** · 05-11-2012, 07:50 PM

Computer sciences.

**big bb** · 05-17-2012, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Bold9930

Apple stuff just works, isn't buggy, doesn't crash, etc. It just works.

You mean it seems to work. Apple is all about making to look like it works fast and doesn't crash. Its like a magician misdirection.

**john wang** · 05-21-2012, 09:46 PM

Thank you for your participation

**GTiLeo** · 05-22-2012, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by chrisgotabb

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with the OP.

Have you heard of IOS XR by Cisco? It is the QNX developed operating system used by the largest carrier routers in existance at the large switching hubs linking up the internet. Chances are that your internet data is being channeled to you by a QNX powered switch.

If anything, QNX is THE AUTHORITY on handling demanding internet traffic. So I would not worry or speculate based on what you have heard about micro-kernels.

true story, look at all the major servers around, look at youtube, twitter, facebook all based on QNX all heavy traffic, all commonly used by all with an internet connection

**MasterOfBinary** · 05-22-2012, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by john wang

The new Rim Operating System BBX may have problems for internet applications. This OS is based on QNX which is a real time OS and has a microkernel architecture. The problem with microkernels is that while it makes it easier to add new features and services, it has performance limitations compared to the monolithic kernel which is used by Linux, Microsoft Windows and Apple.
In a demanding network application like the Internet can be, this performance handicap of the microkernel architecture will cause delays and service stoppages. When you have parallel processing (multicore), multiuser, multitasking, multiapplication, multinetworking etc like the present network environment a monolithic kernel is essential for performance reasons. The load is too heavy for microkernels.

Click to view quoted image

Uh, OK. Linux is (was?) a mololithic kernel. Windows/OS X are both hybrid. So that's a bunch of BS. IOS is also a hybrid.

There are advantages both ways, and they've been known since forever. And Microsoft with Windows Vista went with more of a microkernel approach than previous versions of Windows - do you think they're stupid?

I don't think the microkernel will be a problem.

**GTiLeo** · 06-05-2012, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by MasterOfBinary

Uh, OK. Linux is (was?) a mololithic kernel. Windows/OS X are both hybrid. So that's a bunch of BS. IOS is also a hybrid.

There are advantages both ways, and they've been known since forever. And Microsoft with Windows Vista went with more of a microkernel approach than previous versions of Windows - do you think they're stupid?

I don't think the microkernel will be a problem.

thats not sayign alot windows vista was a garbage OS. windows 7 is based on the same kernel priciple as windows vista, but it fixed all the bugs caused by the OS. windows7 is a damn impressive OS, its pretty, its easy, its fast, its stable. it runs multi processes fast. its able to close one program if it decides to crash out where previous powerhouse, windowsXP, would crash out the OS and not allow you to move from one application to the next until the crashed one was closed