[seanp2k2]

Your comment may sound sarcastic on the first read, but I agree with the point; don't use Windows when what you needed could be done with a micro controller or a physical circuit. Not sure if the application here fits that at all, but I've definitely seen things like you-do-it check-outs, ATMs, billboards, etc running Windows. I would think that these systems would be much better off with something like a hardened micro controller running a remote display system vs a multi-gigabyte operating system.

With Windows 10, this problem will likely get a whole lot worse. What do you do when MS pushes a forced update to your deployed devices and it bricks some of them? http://m.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/06/microsoft_update_asus_...

What about when you can't disable Cortana (without breaking the start menu) and you're in a HIPAA / PCI environment? http://winaero.com/blog/how-to-uninstall-and-remove-cortana-...

As we've seen with things like SCADA, switching from Windows is not a silver bullet, but in terms of minimizing the complexity and attack surface, Windows seems to be starting at the opposite end of the spectrum.

[tremon]

Oh, I didn't even mean my comment to be about Windows vs dedicated OS, at least not directly. When administered correctly and properly fenced off, using a modern Windows system is not a cardinal sin. Although I will admit that Windows 10, with its non-optional feature cadence, brings additional uncertainty.

However, I do question "it looks like Windows" as a valid rationale for what appears to be a single-purpose machine. I don't think it's likely that staff are using the operating room equipment as a desktop machine, so presumably they only care about the in-app user interface. And an application interface can be made to "look like Windows" regardless of what OS it's running on.

[morgante]

Exactly.

If users are never meant to interact with the OS itself (airport terminals, ATMs, displays, etc.) then it makes absolutely no sense to use Windows.