Talk:Embedded system/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Links deleted - Why?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Start with this Paragraph

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External link: OK to post ESD magazine? 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK, I have done this. Is it OK? Aaron Lawrence 09:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PDA's are (still) NOT Embedded Systems (discussion reloaded) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed merge from Embedded System Design in an FPGA