Blogs | Technical Articles | Videos

In the dynamic landscape of embedded systems, the foundational decisions developers make often determine the trajectory of the entire project. One such pivotal choice lies between employing a Real-Time Operating System (RTOS) or venturing down the direct and unlayered path of bare metal development. While the former offers a structured environment with built-in functionalities, the latter boasts unparalleled control over hardware, free from any OS-induced overhead. But how does one determine which is more suitable for a particular project? Through this article, we'll delve deep into the nuances of performance metrics, confront the intricacies of development complexity, and unravel the maze of power efficiency considerations inherent to each approach. By the journey's end, you'll be equipped with a clearer perspective, empowering you to make an informed choice for your next embedded venture.


The Primary Difference

Embedded systems can be designed to operate with or without an operating system. The primary difference between a Real-Time Operating System (RTOS) and bare metal systems lies in their architecture, capabilities, and implementation.

In a bare metal system, applications run directly on the hardware without any intermediate software layers. There is no operating system to manage the resources, and the application code must handle everything, from setting up the hardware to scheduling tasks. Such systems can be extremely efficient, as they are often optimized for specific tasks and don't have the overhead of an operating system.

On the other hand, an RTOS offers an environment where multiple tasks or threads can be executed concurrently. The RTOS manages hardware resources and ensures tasks meet their deadlines, optimizing for real-time response. The introduction of an RTOS simplifies the development of complex applications by providing APIs and services for inter-task communication, scheduling, and resource management.

In essence, while bare metal systems promise efficiency and direct control, RTOS solutions provide a structured environment that can simplify complex applications and ensure real-time constraints are met.


Task Scheduling

Task scheduling is pivotal in embedded systems, dictating the order and priority of operations to ensure optimal performance. The manner in which tasks are scheduled can drastically alter the system's behavior, especially in real-time applications.

In bare metal systems, the developer manually determines the sequence of task execution. There isn't a scheduler in the traditional sense. Instead, tasks might be organized in a super loop, or interrupt-driven, with the most critical operations given top priority. While this offers a direct and potentially efficient model, it becomes complicated as system complexity increases.

Conversely, an RTOS provides a built-in scheduler that manages task execution based on predefined priorities. The RTOS scheduler can preemptively or cooperatively switch between tasks, ensuring that higher-priority tasks get executed before lower-priority ones. This capability ensures that real-time requirements are consistently met, without the developer having to manually sequence every operation.

In summary, while bare metal systems provide developers with full control over task scheduling, an RTOS offers structured, automated, and reliable scheduling, especially beneficial for intricate or real-time applications.



While there are numerous factors to consider, the overhead introduced by each choice is particularly significant.

Bare Metal Overheads:

In a bare metal scenario, the software runs directly on the hardware without any operating system layer. Because of this, the overheads are typically minimal and restricted to the code written by the developer. Each operation's efficiency and speed are in the hands of the developer, who directly manages interrupts, peripheral operations, and memory allocations. This can result in streamlined, efficient performance for simpler applications, but as the complexity scales, so too does the potential for unmanageable overheads caused by poorly optimized code or unforeseen interactions between tasks.

RTOS Overheads:

Deploying an RTOS introduces another layer between the application and the hardware. This layer manages tasks, memory, peripherals, and other system operations, inevitably leading to additional overheads. These overheads manifest in several ways:

  1. Memory Consumption: An RTOS requires memory for its kernel, data structures, and stacks for each task or thread.

  2. Task Switching: Context switching, wherein the system saves the state of a currently running task to switch to another, consumes both time and resources.

  3. API Calls: Invoking operating system services through API calls might be slower than direct hardware operations.

  4. Predictability: Although RTOSs are designed to offer predictable response times, the inherent complexity can sometimes introduce unanticipated latencies.

However, it's important to note that these overheads don't solely represent a cost. The capabilities provided by an RTOS—like multitasking, inter-task communication, and advanced memory management—can be invaluable in complex systems. While they introduce overheads, they also offer scalability, maintainability, and robustness.

The choice between RTOS and bare metal should be informed by the application's requirements and anticipated future complexities. While bare metal promises high efficiency for simpler applications, the overheads of an RTOS are often a worthy trade-off for the advanced capabilities and scalability they offer in multifaceted embedded systems.


Code Maintenance

The realm of embedded systems often finds itself at the crossroads of performance and maintainability. As systems evolve and their lifecycle extends, the importance of code maintenance comes to the forefront. How does the decision to use an RTOS versus a bare metal approach influence this crucial aspect of development?

Bare Metal Code Maintenance:

In bare metal systems, developers have full control over the codebase, executing directly on the hardware. This direct control allows for potentially lean and efficient code, tailored to the specific needs of the application.

However, there are challenges:

  1. Scalability: As the system grows, the complexity of the code can escalate. Without the inherent structure that an operating system provides, maintaining and expanding the codebase becomes more challenging.

  2. Dependency Management: Every change can have cascading impacts. Without the isolation between tasks that an RTOS provides, a minor tweak might have unintended consequences elsewhere.

  3. Documentation Burden: A lack of standardization means that thorough documentation becomes critical, ensuring that future developers can understand and modify the code without unintentional side effects.

 RTOS Code Maintenance:

An RTOS introduces a structured approach to development. This structure can significantly benefit code maintainability:

  1. Modularity: RTOS-based applications tend to be more modular. Tasks or threads can be developed, tested, and maintained independently, ensuring clearer boundaries and reducing interdependencies.

  2. Standard APIs: An RTOS provides standardized APIs for system operations, reducing the variability in code and making it easier to understand and maintain.

  3. Built-in Tools: Many RTOS solutions come with diagnostic tools, profilers, and debuggers tailored to the system, facilitating maintenance and troubleshooting.

  4. Community Support: Popular RTOSs have active communities. Common issues, best practices, and updates are frequently discussed, making it easier for developers to find solutions and maintain their codebase.

While the choice between an RTOS and a bare metal approach will depend on numerous factors, from a code maintenance perspective, an RTOS often offers advantages in terms of structure, modularity, and support. However, it's essential to weigh these against the needs of the application, the team's familiarity with the chosen platform, and long-term project goals. 


System Security

In today's increasingly interconnected world, embedded system security has transitioned from being an afterthought to a primary concern. As developers wrestle with the decision between an RTOS and a bare metal approach, security ramifications often come to the forefront. How do these two paradigms fare in the security arena?

Bare Metal Security:

A bare metal system, where applications run directly on the hardware, offers a simple environment. This simplicity can sometimes be a boon for security:

  1. Reduced Attack Surface: With fewer layers and components, there are fewer opportunities for vulnerabilities.

  2. Direct Control: Developers have absolute control over the hardware, ensuring they can apply specific security measures precisely where needed.

  3. Predictability: The behavior of bare metal systems can be more predictable, making it easier to validate and verify security properties.

However, there are limitations:

  1. Lack of Built-in Features: Without an operating system, developers have to implement all security features from scratch, increasing the chance of errors.

  2. Scalability Issues: As security requirements grow, implementing and managing them on a bare metal system can become increasingly challenging.

RTOS Security:

An RTOS introduces an intermediate layer between the application and hardware but brings along a suite of features that can be leveraged for security:

  1. Memory Protection: Many RTOSs offer hardware-enforced memory protection, ensuring that tasks can't accidentally (or maliciously) interfere with one another.

  2. User and Kernel Modes: By segregating operations into user and kernel modes, an RTOS can restrict sensitive operations, reducing the potential for malicious exploits.

  3. Secure Boot: Some RTOS solutions support secure boot mechanisms, ensuring that only verified and trusted code is executed upon startup.

  4. Regular Updates: Popular RTOS platforms often receive regular updates, patching known vulnerabilities and enhancing security features.

  5. Standardized Security Practices: With an RTOS, there's often a standardized approach to security, guided by community or vendor best practices and documentation.

While both bare metal and RTOS systems have their security merits, an RTOS typically offers a more comprehensive suite of built-in security features. However, it's crucial to note that the mere presence of these features doesn't guarantee security. Proper configuration, continuous monitoring, and regular updates are essential, regardless of the chosen paradigm. The decision should be based on the specific security needs of the application and the development team's expertise in securing the chosen platform.


Real-Time Response

When developing applications that require precise and timely responses, such as medical devices or automotive systems, real-time behavior becomes paramount. Both RTOS and bare metal paradigms offer real-time capabilities, but they present different trade-offs.


Bare Metal



Direct Hardware Access:
Developers can craft code tailored for specific hardware characteristics, ensuring optimal and consistent response times.

Scaling Complexity:
As the application grows, maintaining consistent real-time responses in a manually managed environment becomes increasingly challenging.

Deterministic Behavior:
Without any OS-induced overheads, operations are typically predictable and consistent, provided the code is efficiently crafted.

Interrupt Management:
Developers need to manually manage interrupts, which, if not efficiently handled, can introduce unpredictable delays.

Reduced Latencies:
The absence of an OS layer means there's no context switching or OS-induced delays, ensuring swift response times.






Preemptive Scheduling:
Most RTOSs use preemptive scheduling, ensuring that high-priority tasks are executed promptly and aren't unduly delayed by lower-priority tasks.

The very nature of an operating system introduces overheads. While these are deterministic, they can still affect the maximum achievable response speed.

Interrupt Handling:
RTOSs often have advanced interrupt handling capabilities, ensuring swift responses to external stimuli.

Configuration Nuances:
An improperly configured RTOS can lead to non-deterministic behaviors, jeopardizing real-time guarantees.

Timing Services:
An RTOS typically offers precise timing services, like timers and time-triggered operations, which aid in meeting exact timing requirements.


Deterministic Delays:
While there are inherent delays in task switches or system calls, these are usually deterministic, allowing developers to account for and manage them.


While both RTOS and bare metal systems can meet real-time requirements, the decision often boils down to the nature of the application and the future scalability requirements. For simple applications with tight real-time constraints, a bare metal approach might be more suitable. In contrast, complex systems with multiple interacting real-time tasks might benefit more from the structured environment that an RTOS provides. 


Cost Implications

In the world of embedded systems, the decision between using an RTOS or a bare metal approach is not purely a technical one. Costs, both direct and indirect, play a significant role. By examining the cost implications of each approach, developers can make more informed decisions that align with project budgets and overall objectives.

Bare Metal Systems Cost Implications:

At first glance, bare metal systems seem to be the economical choice:

  1. No Licensing Fees: There's no need to pay for a commercial operating system, thereby saving on upfront costs.

  2. Optimized Hardware Utilization: Without the overhead of an RTOS, applications might run on less powerful (and potentially cheaper) hardware.

  3. Streamlined Development Tools: Developers may not require specialized (and often expensive) development tools or IDEs tailored for a specific RTOS.

However, there are potential hidden costs:

  1. Development Time: Implementing functionality from scratch can be time-consuming, leading to longer development cycles and higher labor costs.

  2. Scalability: Future requirements or changes might necessitate substantial rework, leading to increased costs down the road.

 RTOS Cost Implications:

While an RTOS might seem costlier initially, the long-term perspective can be more nuanced:

  1. Licensing Fees: Some RTOS options come with licensing fees, especially the commercial ones offering extensive support and features.

  2. Hardware Requirements: The overhead of the OS might necessitate more powerful hardware, potentially increasing costs.

  3. Development Tools: Specialized tools for an RTOS might be pricier than generic ones.

However, these costs might be offset by:

  1. Reduced Development Time: An RTOS provides numerous built-in services and functionalities. These can accelerate development, reducing labor costs.

  2. Easier Maintenance: With a modular and structured approach, an RTOS can make maintenance simpler and cheaper in the long run.

  3. Scalability: As the project grows, an RTOS can adapt more easily to increased complexity without substantial rework.

The choice between an RTOS and a bare metal approach, from a cost perspective, isn't straightforward. While bare metal might offer savings initially, an RTOS might prove to be more cost-effective in the long run, especially for complex projects. It's crucial to evaluate not just the immediate costs but also the projected expenses throughout the system's lifecycle. Additionally, factors like development team expertise, project timeline, and expected future changes should also influence the decision.



Embedded systems often need to handle multiple tasks simultaneously, whether it's reading sensor data, managing communications, or controlling actuators. The capability to manage these tasks efficiently is crucial. While both RTOS and bare metal approaches offer multitasking solutions, their methods and efficiencies vary.

Bare Metal Multitasking:

Bare metal systems operate without an OS, and multitasking in such systems is generally cooperative or based on simple interrupt-driven designs.

  1. Interrupt-Driven Tasks: Tasks can be triggered by hardware interrupts. For example, a data reception from a UART interface can trigger a data processing task.

  2. Simple Task Loop: A common approach in bare metal systems is to have a main loop where different tasks are checked and executed sequentially based on flags or conditions.

  3. Full Control: Developers have absolute control over task execution order and timing.

However, challenges emerge:

  1. Task Starvation: Without preemption, if one task consumes more time or enters an infinite loop, it can block other tasks, leading to potential system failure or missed deadlines.

  2. Complexity with Scaling: As the number of tasks grows, managing them manually becomes cumbersome and error-prone.

RTOS Multitasking:

RTOS, as the name suggests, is tailored for real-time operations and inherently supports multitasking.

  1. Preemptive Multitasking: An RTOS can preempt a currently running task to run a higher-priority task, ensuring timely execution.

  2. Task Prioritization: Tasks can be assigned priorities, ensuring critical tasks get CPU time first.

  3. Inter-Task Communication: RTOS offers mechanisms like semaphores, queues, and message passing, facilitating efficient communication between tasks without contention.

  4. Time Slicing: Some RTOSs allow tasks of equal priority to share CPU time through time-slicing.

However, there are considerations:

  1. Overhead: Context switching between tasks consumes resources and time.

  2. Potential for Deadlocks: Improper use of inter-task communication mechanisms or resource locks can lead to system deadlocks.

When it comes to multitasking, an RTOS typically provides a more structured and scalable environment, especially beneficial for complex systems. The built-in mechanisms for task scheduling, prioritization, and communication make managing multiple tasks efficient and less error-prone. On the other hand, a bare metal approach might suffice for simpler systems with limited multitasking needs, where the overhead of an RTOS is unjustifiable. The choice should be based on the system's requirements, projected complexity growth, and the team's expertise in managing multitasking in the chosen environment.


Development Complexity

Development complexity can be a significant determinant in the success of an embedded project. While both RTOS and bare metal strategies can be used to craft sophisticated applications, each approach has its nuances regarding the complexity of the development process.

Bare Metal Development Complexity:

Bare metal development provides direct access to hardware resources, which can be both an advantage and a challenge:

  1. Direct Control: Without layers of abstraction, developers have an intimate connection with the hardware, allowing for finely-tuned optimization.

  2. Simplicity for Basic Tasks: For rudimentary applications, a bare metal approach can be straightforward and less convoluted.

  3. Predictable Behavior: There's usually no hidden behavior or background tasks that might introduce unexpected issues.

However, there are inherent challenges:

  1. Manual Management: All functionalities, including those that might be standard in an OS, have to be built from scratch, increasing the potential for errors.

  2. Scaling Concerns: As the system grows, managing various tasks, peripherals, and functionalities becomes increasingly intricate.

RTOS Development Complexity:

RTOSes offer a structured development environment, potentially easing some aspects of the process:

  1. Built-in Services: Standard functionalities like task scheduling, communication mechanisms, and file systems are readily available, reducing development effort.

  2. Modularity: The architecture of an RTOS encourages a modular approach, facilitating better code organization, and reuse.

  3. Community Support: Popular RTOS platforms usually have active communities and extensive documentation, aiding developers in navigating challenges.

However, there are caveats:

  1. Learning Curve: An RTOS comes with its architecture, APIs, and best practices. Newcomers to a specific RTOS might face a steep learning curve.

  2. Debugging: Issues can be more challenging to debug due to layers of abstraction and potential interactions between tasks.

Deciding between an RTOS and bare metal based on development complexity is contingent on the specific project requirements and the development team's expertise. For simpler projects with limited future expansion, the straightforwardness of a bare metal approach might be appealing. However, for more complex projects, especially those with evolving requirements, the structured and feature-rich environment of an RTOS can be invaluable. Developers should assess both immediate and future complexity concerns, and weigh them against their familiarity and comfort with the chosen development approach.


Power Efficiency

In the age of portable and IoT devices, power consumption is a pivotal concern. Every microamp saved can translate to longer battery life and more efficient devices. When comparing RTOS and bare metal from a power efficiency standpoint, understanding their respective characteristics can guide more energy-efficient designs.

Bare Metal Power Consumption:

Directly interfacing with the hardware, bare metal systems have distinct advantages and challenges regarding power efficiency:

  1. Optimized Code Paths: With total control over the execution flow, developers can craft highly efficient code paths, ensuring minimal energy wastage.

  2. Direct Power Management: Developers can directly manage power modes of microcontrollers, swiftly transitioning between active, sleep, or deep sleep modes as required.

  3. No OS Overhead: The absence of background tasks or OS-induced wake-ups means the system consumes power only for tasks explicitly defined.

However, potential downsides include:

  1. Manual Power Management: Without OS-level power management features, developers must manually manage all aspects, which can become error-prone.

RTOS Power Consumption:

RTOSes offer structured environments and features that can influence power consumption:

  1. Advanced Power Management: Many RTOS platforms offer power management features, allowing tasks to run efficiently and the system to enter low-power states when idle.

  2. Predictable Task Scheduling: The deterministic nature of RTOS task scheduling ensures tasks run only when needed, potentially saving power.

  3. Wake-up Mechanisms: RTOS can efficiently manage wake-up sources, ensuring the system wakes up only for necessary events.

However, challenges arise:

  1. Inherent Overhead: The very nature of an OS introduces overhead. Context switches, interrupt handling, and system management tasks can all consume power.

  2. Less Direct Control: The layers of abstraction might prevent ultra-fine-tuned power management, potentially leaving some energy savings on the table.

Neither RTOS nor bare metal inherently guarantees superior power efficiency. Instead, the efficiency often lies in how they are utilized. Bare metal systems offer granular control, ideal for simple applications where every microamp counts. Meanwhile, for more complex systems, an RTOS can provide powerful features to manage power consumption systematically, though there may be a slight trade-off due to OS overheads. As with many embedded system decisions, the choice should be based on a thorough understanding of the project requirements and the potential power profiles of the target devices.



In the vast realm of embedded systems, the dichotomy between RTOS and bare metal often centers around control, efficiency, complexity, and scalability. While bare metal development offers a siren song of direct control and high efficiency, particularly for applications that crave every ounce of power conservation, an RTOS emerges as the beacon for those navigating the treacherous waters of multifaceted applications with real-time, multitasking, and security demands. It provides a structured helm, with tools and capabilities that streamline development, ensuring both immediate and future requirements are robustly met. However, this does not eclipse the benefits of a bare metal approach for simpler systems that demand direct, no-overhead execution. Ultimately, the decision rests on a delicate balance of immediate needs, anticipated growth, team expertise, and long-term vision. Like any profound engineering decision, it requires foresight, a deep understanding of the project's core essence, and an unwavering commitment to its goals.