AN: Confirmed: Chrysler using MS for UConnect
Long ago, Chrysler standardized on the highly regarded QNX operating system for its in-car entertainment and control systems. QNX, a UNIX-based system, is used for robotics and other embedded systems, and is designed primarily for reliability and efficiency. Chrysler’s QNX-based UConnect system has gained industry-wide acclaim for its ease of use and reliability, in stark contrast to Ford’s and Fiat’s Microsoft-based systems. As Allpar reported last week, however, Fiat has “re-upped” its use of Microsoft’s embedded operating system, which it adopted around 2006; and Microsoft is advertising that its system will be used on Chrysler and Dodge cars as well. Allpar’s story was revised around a day after the original posting to reflect reader RVC’s belief that UConnect 5.0 would be the Fiat-Microsoft system, while UConnect 8.4 would be the Chrysler-QNX system. Automotive News’ Larry Vellequette appeared to confirm this split, noting that the 2013 Ram 1500 comes with..
View the original, full post
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Joined
·
2,527 Posts
Why use a mallet when you have a ball peen hammer? Each one has its strengths--you use the best tool for the job, not the one thats most ideologically pure.gezco said:
Joined
·
7,648 Posts
Please - clue me in...what's wrong with that statement? (Being serious here - how long has Chrysler been using Garmin-based NAVs?)
Joined
·
7,648 Posts
Ah...I thought that as well, but to be honest haven't been following it as closely as I could be.
It would be nice if they did standardize...but that's another discussion. It would be nice if Garmin's UI scaled to larger screens better, too.
It would be nice if they did standardize...but that's another discussion. It would be nice if Garmin's UI scaled to larger screens better, too.
Joined
·
4,285 Posts
: My point of view:gezco said:
the current system {?} QNX is fine and as far as I know operates equipment on distant space objects and planets. Used properly should be great.
Linux is free or inexpensive and easy to network, anyone who wants can write applications.
Microsoft is expensive and does not play well easily with other operating systems.
Apple is the first office computer I used and was emailing, writing documents and drawing circuit diagrams on an hour after I was showed how the mouse worked.
Not sure how that works today but its the most expensive and likes mostly other apples .
I like my Droid and find the iPad a bit less flexible.
Google will probably take over unless the two big players join forces.
It may be hard to chose what you want but finding apps people like is the key to success,
People should be able to plug in their favorite box for infotainment.
The cloud is a way to give ownership to others.
If it don't work like dial tone people will find issues.
Glad I'm back home where I can stay connected.
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
25,619 Posts
Apple computers aren't really expensive these days in their classes. Thing is, they don't make lower classes 
(Seriously, the big computer magazines have said that a few times. You can make something cheaper yourself, but compared with Dell etc., they're usually comparable in price, especially if you consider customer service to be an issue.)
The advantages of QNX are, over Linux ->
1. Highly secure
2. Optimized for embedded applications
3. Augmented for machine-to-machine communications
4. Better prepped for use under UConnect
5. Commercially supported (that is, formal help channels).
#2, being able to use it while driving, without hitting anything.
I don't think any iPad/Android solution would work for #2 at this time. You need physical knobs for that.
There are other issues, such as being able to endure for 200,000 miles in an automotive environment.
(Seriously, the big computer magazines have said that a few times. You can make something cheaper yourself, but compared with Dell etc., they're usually comparable in price, especially if you consider customer service to be an issue.) The advantages of QNX are, over Linux ->
1. Highly secure
2. Optimized for embedded applications
3. Augmented for machine-to-machine communications
4. Better prepped for use under UConnect
5. Commercially supported (that is, formal help channels).
To me, the #1 most important priority of a car entertainment/settings system is not screwing up the rest of the car.
#2, being able to use it while driving, without hitting anything.
I don't think any iPad/Android solution would work for #2 at this time. You need physical knobs for that.
There are other issues, such as being able to endure for 200,000 miles in an automotive environment.
Joined
·
4,285 Posts
I am adding my two cents in an attempt to accelerate what I see as something in its infancy.
I agree that a vehicle needs to be safe.I think having the Radio/DVD player/GPS/ Music Storage dedicated to a vehicle is a bad idea. The most current way of doing things is begging for rapid obsolesce. My friends 2005 300 had a GPS malfunction that costs him a whole bunch of money to fix and now even with a replacement system he still has the old stuff that depends on the DVD reader functioning. The malfunctioning electronic infotainment systems in a vehicle have become a part of warranty issues and the present system can't make everyone happy, just look here for the division in software choices. If I had a spot where I could connect my music box safely it would fill "MY" requirements, It may be as simple as having blue tooth connectivity to the standard radio. I have about a hundred cartoons that keep the grand kids happy on trips and still have room for my music. Having a pad floating around or having to swapping out disks is
not my idea of paradise and not safe.
My vote is for QNX in a vehicles operating system because even an amateur can crash Microsoft system, example Melissa virus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_(computer_virus)
I agree that a vehicle needs to be safe.I think having the Radio/DVD player/GPS/ Music Storage dedicated to a vehicle is a bad idea. The most current way of doing things is begging for rapid obsolesce. My friends 2005 300 had a GPS malfunction that costs him a whole bunch of money to fix and now even with a replacement system he still has the old stuff that depends on the DVD reader functioning. The malfunctioning electronic infotainment systems in a vehicle have become a part of warranty issues and the present system can't make everyone happy, just look here for the division in software choices. If I had a spot where I could connect my music box safely it would fill "MY" requirements, It may be as simple as having blue tooth connectivity to the standard radio. I have about a hundred cartoons that keep the grand kids happy on trips and still have room for my music. Having a pad floating around or having to swapping out disks is
not my idea of paradise and not safe.
My vote is for QNX in a vehicles operating system because even an amateur can crash Microsoft system, example Melissa virus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_(computer_virus)
Joined
·
7,648 Posts
About the simplest connection there is today is the "AUX" port - a standard 1/8" audio input jack. If you've got a music device that uses headphones, chances are quite high it'll work.
Has to be a balance though - there's only so much real estate available to the driver to place controls and screens for the various devices one might use.
Has to be a balance though - there's only so much real estate available to the driver to place controls and screens for the various devices one might use.
I don't know how feasible this is, but I'd like a system that when you don't have a smartphone would operate like a regular touchscreen radio, but that in the presence of a phone connected via wifi or blue tooth would allow you to function the phone on the screen as it was your phone.
Joined
·
7,648 Posts
If folks would stop thinking that Windows Automotive is the exact same Windows one runs on their home PC, maybe that would help.
Joined
·
20,402 Posts
When the only experience most people have with Microsoft is at home on a computer, it is to be expected. Doesn't help that Microsoft is clearly tying to standardize their *some* of their consumer products. The black eye Microsoft has inadvertently received from the Ford MyTouch doesn't help either.
Can a Window Automotive 7 version of uConnect function as well as the QNX version? Sure it can, as long as the program requires it.
Mike
Can a Window Automotive 7 version of uConnect function as well as the QNX version? Sure it can, as long as the program requires it.
Mike
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
