Alec Saunders <email@example.com> wrote:
QNX Momentics is more than just an IDE.
Yeah, that’s the problem. The name “Momentics” has no meaning, and relates
to no product. It is closer to the name of a product line than any product
itself. The REAL product names are NC, SE, and PE, and those are just
The correct answer to “What is Momentics” is… “Momentics is the name for
ALL of the QSSL provided developmentenvironments, commercial and non-
commercial, it is not a single specific thing.”
Momentics is designed to be a complete development environment for embedded
That isn’t quite right Alec, since the NC version does not contain all the
tools required for embedded development, nor is Momentics a single thing as
that sentence implies.
So, for instance, it also includes cross-hosted tools for Solaris and Windows targeting x86,
SH4, ARM, StrongArm, xScale, and PowerPC.
Wrong again. The SE and PE models of Momentics include these, the NC does not,
so that makes it incorrect to make a blanket statement that “Momentics” itself
includes them as well.
The SE version is the same as PE, except that it has no IDE, and a limited
i set of BSP’s.
Why does the IDE identify itself as “Momentics” when you start it then? Does
that mean that the IDE is ALSO called Momentics? If it is, then why is the
command to start it “eclipse”?
I also don’t understand why paying customers that only opt for SE get penalized
by not recieving all the examples? I can understand PE having additional
tools for the purpose of allowing customer to create a new BSP as opposed to
a customer with SE only being able to use an existing BSP, but the additional
examples just baffles me. That sounds more like a penalty for the “cheap”
Similarly, the NC version has some of these tools – it can target both x86
and ARM, and has an image available for the Compaq iPAQ.
So, they are all Momentics, and they are all different, so tell me, again
what is Momentics? This is still confusing and I know what Momentics is,
but it took a lot of questions to get there. That is not what I call a
success in terms of marketing, aren’t product names supposed to help identify
a product, rather can obfuscate what the product actually is?
It’s different from the old RTP.
It doesn’t look like it.
NC looks like a stripped-down version of the old RTP
SE looks like the old RTP
PE looks like the old RTP with a new product thrown in called an IDE
Hope that helps.
Not at all. As igor points out, this is just another incarnation of the
confusion around names that occured with “RTP” when the QDN website listed
it in the list of QNX OSs… “QNX4, QNX Neutrino, and QNX RTP”. That was
a mess, this isn’t quite the same, but its a mess none-the-less.