Complete XP-Pro using XP-Embedded ?

[Emanuil Achim]

Hi all !


I'm a XPE newbie.

Is it possible to make a complete XP-Pro using XP-Embedded ?
I red on the Microsoft web pabe in the XPE FAQ:

"Does Windows XP Embedded have the same features as Windows XP?
Yes, Windows XP Embedded is a fully componentized version of Windows XP
Professional. Windows XP Embedded enables you to utilize your choice of
Windows XP features in your reduced-footprint embedded designs. In addition,
Windows XP Embedded provides embedded features to enable a broad range of
device implementations"

Now, what I need is a "fully Windows XP Professional" as Windows XP
Embedded. (Why ? for customer industrial PC, no activation, lower price then
XP-Pro, no Office used and so on ... ). Is it possible to obtain this ? How
? I tried many things (XPProEmulation - from http://www.xpefiles.com/ too)
but at the end I allways missed something. I couldn't make on the target
system (XPE) the same things that I do on the XPPro target System (such a
special printer or modem installation for example).

I guess usually you will bild an XPE-Image from nothing adding more and more
components until you'll become your desired target system. But it's foolish
to add and add and add until you have the complete system. Is there such a
possibility, to have the complete system ?

Thanks a lot in advance for any idea.

Emil

 

[KM]

Emanuil,

Comments inline...

Is it possible to make a complete XP-Pro using XP-Embedded ?
I red on the Microsoft web pabe in the XPE FAQ:

Have you thought about the image usage then? Most likely it will not follow
XPe legal rules.

Now, what I need is a "fully Windows XP Professional" as Windows XP
Embedded. (Why ? for customer industrial PC, no activation, lower price

then XP-Pro

I am not sure what an "industrial PC" would need full XP Pro on it and all
its features.
As you closer to XP Pro as the application of your image/device is more
illegal (not legally proved formula but just a common sense). Don't forget
that MS does not put XPe as a XP Pro competitor (at least not directly).

, no Office used and so on ... ). Is it possible to obtain this ? How
? I tried many things (XPProEmulation - from http://www.xpefiles.com/ too)
but at the end I allways missed something.

What did you miss? If it were a software component I'd be supprised.
XP Pro Emulation project was created by an automated CMI script. Basically
the script has collected all the components under Software category. That
mean no human/manual errors.

I couldn't make on the target
system (XPE) the same things that I do on the XPPro target System (such a
special printer or modem installation for example).

Are you talking about some printer or modem drivers? Then XPProEmulation
will not help you as it has only Software components in it. Gathering ALL
the hardware components in one image (SLX) would take forever and would
probably eat too much RAM (way too more than 2G/4G available for an app).
Remember that there are 11,000+ components in XPE database and XPe Tools are
VB script based.
That would be much easier to just directly copy all the necessary driver
files to the appropriate image directories.

I guess usually you will bild an XPE-Image from nothing adding more and more
components until you'll become your desired target system. But it's foolish
to add and add and add until you have the complete system. Is there such a
possibility, to have the complete system ?

It is not foolish to "add,add,add" if you consider true embedded device
usage scenerios. Usually you have particular requirements you have to meet
creating an image. I have never seen an embedded requirement to support all
the XP Pro features.

KM

 

[Emanuil Achim]

Hi !

Thanks for your quickly answer. First of all: IT'S ALL LEGAL. I work (as
developer) for a big company which manufactures printing machines. This
machine are obsereved and manipulated from a "industrial PC" (not for
desktop usage), on the PC (currently Windows NT) runs only our software,
nothing else, no office and no other software. The operator works with only
one programm (ours). But for service purposes the costomer needs a modem
(VNC over RAS), or for some formulars needs a printer. We deliver the
printing machine and the configured PC, but not a printer or modem, so it
will be installed from the customer.

The idea with XPE comes from ... a Microsoft consultant. Today they have no
more NT license to sells, but NT-embedded. Th MS consultant together with
some company bosses analysed the situation and recomanded us XPE. Now, I
must analyse if this is the best way for us and for our customer (we deliver
in the whole world). We cannot say to our customer "please activate your
windows" for example, we talk about hundred or thousands of units. Of course
we don't need the IE, Outlook, MediaPlayer, the games and so on ...

What I missed ?
For ex. the modem was recognized and installed, but was not recognized as a
modem in Device Manager but was installed under "other devices" (question
mark), so I cannot use it. The "modems"-section is missed at all.
So I don't want to have all printers an modems in the world as components of
my XPE, but if the customer wants to install its own driver for any extern
hardware, it must be the same simplicity as in XPPro is. And we don't want
to have our custumor as our beta tester. It is not acceptable to change the
image evreytime a customer needs another periphery. The current (Windows NT)
image was changed last time on year 1999. This is legal, isn't it ?

Its true, this kind of usage is diffrent as the most, but is not unusual.

Best regards,
Emil

 

[Slobodan Brcin \(eMVP\)]

Hi Emanuil,

It might seem foolish to add and add and .... But this is how you should do it.

Also you won't need 1-2 GB of XP files but rather 200-400 MB to have all functions you will need.

Then there is one sentence you said: "Of course we don't need the IE, Outlook, MediaPlayer, the games and so on ..."

Without that you can use minlogon based images. 60-150 MB in size.
So you actually do not want to have full XP Pro like image after all. (Not even close)

Read thread you might find info from there useful for making similar thing to support all hardware or printers you can think of:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&[email protected]

Also you can have add new hardware wizards in your image. And have support for USB and non USB modem and printer devices. With some
work you can do this.

Also use http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...F-8&group=microsoft.public.windowsxp.embedded
for searching this NG you will find answers to many questions you might have.

Regards,
Slobodan

 

[KM]

Emanuil,

I see. Although if you get the idea with XPe from MS consultant it does not really mean it is the best choice for you (remember that
MS guys would try to solve their products to you).

I mentioned "illegal" not to say that your image application is illegal but rather to make a point that you have to think more about
that to prevent any legal problems in future. It seems you did

However, again, you are struggling with the hardware (driver) support, not software components. XPProEmulation (if you read its
Readme carefully) will not help you with the issue.
You can manually include all the Modem/Printers components to your configuration or make a CMI script that will do that (check out
Printers.slx project of mine on www.xpefiles.com for instance).

Or as I mentioned earlier and Slobodan sent you a link for, you can include all the drivers into your image (through a component,
manual copy, etc.) and have the hardware support this way.

Again, from what you have described below, XPProEmulation does not seem to really fit your needs. In your case I'd start a new XPe
project from scratch including all the hardware support you may need and only software components you really need in the field.
Choose between Minlogon/Winlogon, various Shells, etc. to meet your industrial PC requirements.

--
Regards,
KM, BSquare Corp.

PS. Sorry for repeating myself and Slobodan but I just don't really see a point of yours to use XPProEmulation that I have created
for different purposes.

 

[Jon Fincher]

Hi Emanuil

Who cares about if the System takes
space of 2GB when you're using a 40GB HD? Why isn't there a template
called "Full XP Pro"?

The reason is there are licensing restrictions on XPE runtimes that
prevents them from being used as general purpose desktops. Providing a
template that builds an embedded system as complete as a Pro system just
doesn't make sense in the face of licensing issues.

That being said, try going to www.xpefiles.com. You might find some
help there.

 

[Eberhard Schefold]

Jon Fincher schrieb/wrote:

The reason is there are licensing restrictions on XPE runtimes that
prevents them from being used as general purpose desktops. Providing
a template that builds an embedded system as complete as a Pro system
just doesn't make sense in the face of licensing issues.

I've read that several times now, but I don't really understand. Our
product, for example, is a digital video recording system with different
possible external triggers (also over network), Web server, various export
functions etc. It's definitely a dedicated system, but I possibly don't
know which XP Professional functionality I could remove from our image. And
even if I could, I would like to start with the /full/ set, and gradually
remove the components that I positively know are /not/ necessary. Doing it
the other way round is much harder.

The question seems to arise quite often. Your answer seems to suggest that
there's something fishy about demanding the full XPPro functionality in
terms of licensing. I really would like to know what is wrong with this use
in a case like ours. If there's /nothing/ wrong about it, I believe the
question for a "complete" template is a fully legitimate one.

 

[Slobodan Brcin \(eMVP\)]

Hi Eberhard,

There is nothing fishy about using "full XPPro" functionality. But does not it tell you that you are clueless about how your DVR
system works?

Do you need something like I do not know perhaps:
-.net framework?
-DirectX8/9 (Mainly Direct 3D, Direct Play, Direct Sound parts)
-Internet Explorer
-Outlook Express
-Messenger.
-All those cute little games included in XP Prof perhaps.
- Myriads of small tools and services.
- Perhaps support for all possible printers supported by XPP, or MS generic drivers for most old video cards.

All things like network support, and all hardware support, required codec support that you will need can fit in 64MB or at least in
100-150 MB if your DVR application is really needy.

Consider adding 5000+ components plus all driver components you made. Build time for this image would be offcharts. And considers
yourself just counting from 1..5000 it takes a long time. What would happen if you were actually to remove one component after the
other you would never complete this.

Your best bet is to write known stuff on paper that your application is using, and make an image based on that and try your
application. If some part is not working then use debuggers some third party utils etc to see what you have missed.

We wrote our drivers and DVR applications so it was easy to customize both XPe and application to make a best fit. If you are not
that lucky you should analyze app that your are using before making XPe image.

Best regards,
Slobodan

 

[Eberhard Schefold]

Slobodan Brcin (eMVP) schrieb/wrote:

There is nothing fishy about using "full XPPro" functionality. But
does not it tell you that you are clueless about how your DVR system
works?

I don't think I'm clueless about how our system works, thank you for
asking. But I cannot tell for every single of the thousands of XP software
components that it will /not/ be necessary for a certain configuration in a
given customer network, for a certain other configuration that the customer
has to make or for a certain device that the customer wishes to connect.
That would take man decades to find out for every possible scenario and the
documentation on the individual components -- understandably but
unfortunately -- is often very vague or non-existant.

And after all, there is simply no need for eliminating any components in
our case. You may have different requirements, but our system has disk
space to burn. Why should we put big efforts into eliminating anything when
there is no payoff at all?

As for the manageability, the XPEFiles solution (and our own) shows that
it's possible, so that argument doesn't really strike.

I realize that you have different requirements and are happy with your
solution. I also know that you are very experienced in this field. It's
unfortunate that our efforts make such a pathetic impression on you, and I
appreciate your suggestions. But after all, we have now a solution that
/we/ and /our/ customers are satisfied with. And still all I can say is, a
template with the full XP functionality certainly would have helped.

 

[Slobodan Brcin \(eMVP\)]

Hi Eberhard,

I don't think I'm clueless about how our system works, thank you for
asking.

Unfortunate choice of words, sorry for that I meant more about application internals, not about DVR system as a whole unit.
I was more trying to imply trough some probably bad examples that myriads of the things are not required to be there and that if you
don't need them you should not use them.

Why I'm saying this.

Space is not always an only reason. The more components you add you image the more potential security holes are present in it. Then
you must keep track of many security patches since it is higher probability that they will actually fix some bug in your image.

I wanted to say that if you don't have OE, or IE then you should not concern yourself or your customers with "OE or IE" critical
security patches, since they would not be relevant to you.
I hope that you can see my point with this.

Also the less services you have your image will consume less RAM memory, there are less things that can go wrong, etc. With
extremely small images you can easily use RAM EWF since number of log files is reduced and things that would like to write something
to your system partition is also greatly reduced.

You are using some EWF protection, right? It is not a must but it will give your system some resilience to power losses.

It's unfortunate that our efforts make such a pathetic impression on you, and I
appreciate your suggestions.

I never said that, I have just given my opinion why you and most other people would not want to use full XP Pro in final version of
product.

But I cannot tell for every single of the thousands of XP software
components that it will /not/ be necessary for a certain configuration in a
given customer network, for a certain other configuration that the customer
has to make or for a certain device that the customer wishes to connect.
That would take man decades to find out for every possible scenario and the
documentation on the individual components -- understandably but
unfortunately -- is often very vague or non-existant.

You are right. Also I have no clue what your system need to do support beside your application. I assumed that DVR config and
application are only two things that your user has do deal with.

I have no idea about the network that you are talking about. But network support is usually not a problem. IMHO Protecting it is
bigger problem.

As for the manageability, the XPEFiles solution (and our own) shows that
it's possible, so that argument doesn't really strike.

Yes it is possible to make XPP alike solution, and it is good quick start for most developers. But if MS made similar solution then
we all would expect it to be identical to XPP and people would probably complain why it is not same.
But most people usually really do not want exact XPP image, or it is my impression at least.

If there are enough legitimate reasons and requests why MS should do it, then they might make some template in the future, who
knows.

Best regards,
Slobodan

 

[Eberhard Schefold]

Slobodan Brcin (eMVP) schrieb/wrote:

Space is not always an only reason. The more components you add you
image the more potential security holes are present in it. Then you
must keep track of many security patches since it is higher
probability that they will actually fix some bug in your image.

I completely agree with this reasoning. In our case, however, we do need
IE, DCOM, .NET, LDAP and quite a few other things explicitly. Beyond that,
the system is offered more or less as "a DVR that you can connect any way
that you can connect XP Professional", be it Modem, ISDN, Token Ring, Null
modem cable or whatever, and it's very hard to tell what the customer might
come up with. OE we don't need explicitly, but we offer the possibility to
trigger an arbitrary script in case of errors, and it's not far fetched
that such a script involves the sending of eMails.

Again, I completely agree that the "adding" aproach is probably best for
many systems which are embedded in the stricter sense of the category.
However, the charm of XP Embedded as opposed to other platforms is the
richer and more flexible functionality, and some systems take full
advantantage of that, while still being dedicated in the sense of XPE
licensing. For those systems, a "subtracting" approach may work better.

 

[Slobodan Brcin \(eMVP\)]

Hi Eberhard,

Licensing is not a problem for you since this is truly embedded system, like you said you can add all components from XPP and still
be embedded. When you think about this you should thing about XPe from two levels.

One is functionality seen from user (non driver level), and second if from kernel (hardware level).

As you said you know that your DVR need IE, DCOM, .NET, LDAP, (Probably Direct Show), etc. This is look from your user point of view
and application needs. This is what you should add as MS components in TD.

Then there is hardware point of view:
You need chipset support, video adapter support, modem, ISDN, Cable, etc.
For these things you would not want to use MS provided components (even if you can find one) since these drivers are usually generic
and do not offer full functionality.
These drivers/support you will have to provide on your own. Like you would provide new drivers in XPP.

As you know only thing that you will need is to include class installer, network stacks, etc components/drivers from MS so you can
have all driver and file functionality for your new hardware to work.

I have no idea if you ever read agreement that you had to sign. Even if you had XPP all testing and making sure that your XPE
configuration and hardware will work is up to you. So you will have to at lest test all types of hardware that you mentioned. Or to
act if your user can't use some of them.

As you know there are things that are not componentized and registry keys missing especially for some of more exotic technologies,
so even if you had all components in your image it would not give you 100% guarantee that it will work as XPP.

XPe is something like testing, testing, testing and did I forgot to say testing?

Best regards,
Slobodan

 

[KM]

Eberhard,

Have you checked "Windows XP Professional with Embedded Restrictions" as an option for you?
https://microsoft.embeddedoem.com/content.asp?path=/downloads/winxp/qfe/winxppro
I don't know anything about licensing the product (runtime) but technically it may sound like what you want.
Although, you will probably have much less flexibility on software layer (not easy to remove IE, etc.)