Talk:Embedded system/Archive 1

message: I have done a major trimming of the more lengthy and opinionated parts of this article. It still seems too long, but at least it no longer shows the "too long" warning from Wikipedia itself. Some parts might be better split into other articles, such as the discussion on reliability.
I expect I added lots of mistakes too, please feel free to correct :)
Aaron Lawrence 23:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: There seems to be a bit of anti-RTOS bias here.
Add little pro-RTOS text to bring the balance back to NPOV.
-- DavidCary
There do tend to be two camps regarding the use of an RTOS in embedded systems.  However, it really comes down to the overall complexity of the system being developed.  Using an RTOS in more simplistic systems (one with very few tasks to perform and possibly with a lower powered processor or very limited memory) would probably just make the entire system slower and more complicated than it needs to be.  However, in more complex systems (with higher powered processors such as an MPC82xx), an RTOS actually makes development simpler.  I've developed extensively in both environments and am quick to take either point of view, depending on design goals of the system.
-- JimWilliams57
I added a bit to explain the rising popularity of embedded linux.
Amnonc 22:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-RTOS bias?

message: Someone added:
A common scheme is to have the electronics turn off the LED(s) at reset, whereupon the software turns it on at the first opportunity, to prove that the hardware and start-up software have performed their job so far.''
Actually, the smart play is to rig the hardware so that power-on reset illuminates all the LEDs and the software then starts changing things from that pattern. This serves as a lamp check and also tells you that +5 (or whatever) is present in the system. If the LEDs are all extinguished by power-on-reset but the software is stone cold dead, you can't tell whether it's missing +5, dead LEDs, or a software failure.
Atlant 15:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagnostic LEDs

message: The style of this article sucks like a vacuum-cleaner. I wish I had the time to do something about it, but it will have to wait. In the meantime, I encourage everyone to not only add info, but also to improve the style and flow. Bye, Shinobu 20:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix it.  If others had the time or desire to fix the article, it would have already been done. -- uberpenguin 18:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: "System" is a very general term that is applicable to many fields.  This article definitely talks about embedded computer systems, and I think the title should be changed to reflect that.  Thoughts? -- uberpenguin 04:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change title to "Embedded computer" 

message: What, exactly, is meant by an "office-style" operating system, or "office work"? The section seems to talk mostly about Linux, which is by no means restricted to office or business use, and the author seems to imply that screen+keyboard == office work.
On the other hand - if this means I can justifiably say that I'm performing office work when I have UT2004 up onscreen... Cammy 17:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be talking about the use of WinXP etc. for ATMs and the like.
Actually this confused me too, I am of the opinion that this entire section regarding the architecture should be changed. There is no discription of a RTOS architecture (except a throw-away line and link) and I have never heard of an "office style embedded operating system" before. If the author's intention was to refer to OSes like Win CE or Embedded Linux, perhaps that should be more clear. I am not really sure if anyone has ever referred to those operating systems as "office-style" which tends to conjure up images of Office 2003 for I'm sure many people. -thomaslw 4:39 PST 2/17/06
i think that this part of the artical does not conform to the npov policy
Someguyonearth 19:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Office-style" operating system? 

message: Can we have a cleanup tag for this article? There's a lot which reads like a tutorial, course notes, a collection of design ideas, or as the work of one person, perhaps suitable for a wikibook rather than the encyclopedia entry.  Plus lots and lots of really strange phraseology, e.g.:
* "There are well-known tricks to construct [safe, timely, reliable] systems: e.g. Hire a real system programmer."
* "Hardware events fail about once in a trillion times" without explanation of what that means
* "Developers should insist on debugging which shows the high-level language, with breakpoints and single-stepping, because these features are widely available."
* "If a design needs a screen, many designers use plain text. It's preferred because users have been reading signs for years." - it seems mobile telephone designers didn't get that memo...
Ojw 15:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you ask. I have added the tag for you. This article is in pretty bad shape, starting from the lead section (typos such as "electo-mechanical", repetitions etc.) --Gennaro Prota 17:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "In the opinion of at least one author of this article" is a terrible thing to say in an encyclopaedia, as well! I don't really have the knowledge to fix this though. -- Mithent 12:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: After scanning this article, I see no basis for the above 'In your Face' template to remain. It seems like the above talk indicates it was dealt with long ago, and no-one had the gumption to remove it. If I missed something—I'm sorry— by all means, put it back, but do so with a detailed renewed assesment of why you are doing so. The Anti-RTOS bias last September, seems a bit weak as a reason for such a damning tag.  Best regards, <B>Fra</B>nkB 17:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: REMOVING POV Template