Talk:Embedded system/Archive 2

Links deleted - Why?

This "59.93.95.186" removed almost all of the links in the body of the article with zero comment. Nobody noticed and there are now many revisions since then. This will require a serious effort to recover the lost information. Example: most of the examples are no longer linked. Some misguided attempt at improving style?

I have restored most of the links from an old version. And the nice photo of the Apollo guidance computer :) Aaron Lawrence 15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

ICD vs ICE deleted why?

They are not essentially the same. One is an external device connected to the pins of the processor while the other uses internal logic to perform a similar task. The ICE does not give true access to internal memory mapped register of the processor, while the ICD does. They are quite different and should not be confused with each other. An ice does not connect via JTAG or NEXUS it connects via the address/data and control lines of the processor.

Please sign your discusion edits with 4 tildes so we know who you are. I deleted the ICD because from the description you gave, it seems FUNCTIONALLY very similar to an ICE and the differences are only minor technical differences. We don't need to have every detail about tools for embedded systems. There are doubtless hundreds of other tools with minor differences. Also, I could not find any entry on Wikipedia about ICD.Aaron Lawrence 09:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No idea what you mean by 4 tildes EM1SS&CSE 15:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC) does what?

Hey, you did it :) It puts your Wikipedia user name and the date in, as you can see now in the discussion page. See Sign your posts on talk pages for more info. Personally the wiki discussion process seems extremely clumsy but thats how it is for now...Aaron Lawrence 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Functionally the ICE and ICD are quite different.

OK. Lets try to clarify the clear distinction. An ICD connects to real hardware to run a debugger, while an ICE replaces the real CPU hardware - is that it? There should probably be some discussion of this elsewhere in WP - perhaps under ICE.Aaron Lawrence 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

After review, it seems to me an ICD is a special case of a debugger. Note that there is already a link to debugger in the first paragraph.Aaron Lawrence 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Perhaps ICD warrants a new section in debugger? What do you think?

In the tools section should list 'various debugging methods are available’. Then in the debug section cover ICD/ICE and software background debuggers (like remote GDB). This i think would make sense structurally. Your thoughts? EM1SS&CSE 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Considering how much of a challenge debugging embedded stuff can be, it needs it's own section. OK ... feel free or I will try later ... Thanks. And especially, thanks for opening a discussion ... a lot of this article has been edited without any discussion, which is why I reverted many things without much qualm. Aaron Lawrence 11:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have restored ICD as a separate entry and generally expanded debugging. Tried to describe the relative benefits as I understand them. OK? Aaron Lawrence 09:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Embedded System Scaling deleted why?

There are very different applications of embedded systems they can not and should not be treated the same. I’m unclear why this was deleted.

Your description was far too technical for a wikipedia article. I could barely understand the point you were trying to make, and I work with embedded systems (sometimes). In addition, it is obvious from the introductory section about different (physical) sizes and applications of ES that they are going to be different. Aaron Lawrence

Part of the problem is that this article is basically too long. It has a lot of technical detail and adding more will make it less useful. Possibly, slimming down some of the lengthy discussion about architectures would help.

Clean-up?

OK, maybe this article still needs clean up. However, the tag alone is not all that helpful without some specific suggestions. Please go ahead and make some, or I suggest we remove the tag.

I archived the talk page so we can start with a clean slate. Aaron Lawrence 11:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably a down to earth explanation would work better.

Specific ideas please. In general Wikipedia aims for "down to earth" explanations, but what's there seems reasonable. And please sign your discussion edits with four tildes so it shows your name. Aaron Lawrence 14:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Start with this Paragraph

Replace this paragraph: Programmable controllers do not always come is separate blocks. Very often they are build in, in some devices which can be classified as field devices. They can be integraded into the field devices "housing", and even to be a part of a circuit board of the field device. That is why such systems are called embeded device.

With this one: Programmable controllers do not always come is separate blocks. Very often they are built into field devices. For example, controllers can be integrated with the field device's "housing" or incorporated into the circuit board of the field device--giving rise to the designation, "embedded"

65.34.238.234 22:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Steve R.

I removed most of this hard-to-read sentence, since it doesn't explain it's terms and really duplicates text in other sections. Aaron Lawrence 15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

External link: OK to post ESD magazine?

I'm the managing editor of Embedded Systems Design magazine (formerly known as Embedded Systems Programming). The magazine has been around for 20 years and is a well-respected, popular trade journal devoted to technical articles on creating embedded systems. I'd like to post http://www.embedded.com in the external links section of the embedded system entry, but it's a conflict of interest for me to do so. That's why I'm asking you for permission. The magazine's web site is free (as is the print magazine, to qualified subscribers). The web site has a good search feature so users can look by topic or author. Most of our articles are archived there.

Also of interest is the Embedded Systems Dictionary by Jack Ganssle and Michael Barr (a columnist and a former editor in chief, respectively). Here's a link to it on Michael Barr's web site: http://www.netrino.com/Books/Dictionary/index.html CMP (the publisher of ESD magazine) no longer owns the rights to this book, so we have no connection with it other than Jack Ganssle is still one of our columnists.

Any thoughts? Srambo 22:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems to be there now. Unfortunately this article is getting too heavy on the links and indeed content (again). Remember, more is not always better! But I'm not going to attempt to tidy things up again. Aaron Lawrence 14:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

PDA's are (still) NOT Embedded Systems (discussion reloaded)

After sleeping over it several times I still don't see a single reasonable argument why a PDA (e.g. my old beloved Palm 505) should be an embedded system. OK, it was "embedded" in my life & in my left shirt pocket. But was it embedded in anything else? I don't think so. Also, the fact that in a PDA all components of a computer (CPU, Memory, I/O) are embedded in one box doesn't make it an embedded system. The external reference [1] cited by FrankB in the old discussion to support why PDA's should be embedded systems does in fact support the contrary. The definition there is pretty strait forward: "Hardware and software which forms a component of some larger system and which is expected to function without human intervention." Even if the second prong (human intervention) is debatable, a PDA (by itself, of course, we are not discussing PDAs integrated in a Robot...) - like it or not - is not a component physically integrated of some larger system. If we drop this requirement, the definition gets empty and any computer is an embedded system which is absurd. None of the earliest PDAs (Apple's Newton, Xerox's PARCTAB, Psion) or a OQO have ever been categorized as embedded systems except here. Check on the respective Wikipedia sites as well their producers websites. Other distinctions like "general- v. special-purpose", "components used", "software used" are not critical to draw the line. A cell phone whose cell phone features dominate function, design & use may just scrape through as an embedded system. However, newer cell phones which also can be used as MP3 player, E-Mail/www-client, games, calculator, calendar, adressbook, etc, like a Treo or other Smartphones are already over the edge. If the line gets blurry, it's here! Our friends in the German, Spanish, French and Italian edition of Wikipedia adhere - as I do - to a strait forward definition and don't mix things. Some other versions most likely - and sadly enough - just copied from the English version. Let's get out of the "group dynamics"-trap and delete para 2! Dugong 02:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically, I agree. Perhaps leave a short note saying something like: "Handheld computers may share some elements such as operating systems, microprocessors, and storage technologies, but are not truly embedded systems themselves.". Aaron Lawrence 09:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have done this. Is it OK? Aaron Lawrence 09:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Embedded System Design in an FPGA

The article Embedded System Design in an FPGA appears to contain a mix of advocacy that is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and useful factual information which is (IMHO) better suited to being merged into this article. --Allan McInnes (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged. Embedded systems is a very large scope to start with, having FPGA related stuff in its own article reduces clutter. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 04:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There's already a fairly comprehensive article on FPGAs, which has significant overlap with the Embedded System Design in an FPGA article. Once you eliminate that overlapping material, there's not much left of the original Embedded System Design in an FPGA article, and I don't think that what little is left would contribute much "clutter" to this article. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)