Jump to content

Talk:Embedded system

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amnonc (talk | contribs) at 05:49, 17 September 2005 (remove reference to using MS-DOS as an embedded OS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The 1st embedded system

Regarding the first emdedded system: wasn't it actually the Whirlwind? -- Jörgen Nixdorf

Hmmm. I suppose you're thinking of SAGE. It all depends on the definition, of course, but machine room located "big iron" computers making up part of large networked systems tend to be considered as computers as such, being visibly important parts of the greater system, as opposed to "unseen parts" of an embedded system operated via a restricted UI (and display, sometimes) instead of computer terminals. So I would still say the AGC qualifies as the first real embedded system. --Wernher 19:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anti-RTOS bias?

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)[reply]

PDA's are NOT Embedded Systems

PDA's (PocketPC) aren't really considered Embedded Systems anymore. They have become as generic as Personal Computer with a very large user space. -Abe

Not sure about that.IMHO, PDAs are included on embedded systems, as they are based on ARM, M68K, MIPS, H8, PPC, ... processors. They need cross-compilation support and they are specific use circuitery. For me they are Embedded systems. -Hector

Diagnostic LEDs

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)[reply]

Style

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)[reply]

A copy or ...?

http://embedded-system.fulldisclosure.dyndns.org

Hmmm. Shinobu 06:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki content is licensed for re-use. Lots of sites mirror some or all of the article space.
Atlant 12:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that dude... When I last looked at that link it (probably) contained a very old version of this article to the point that I couldn't tell wether we had copied the content and reworked it or something else. Since it didn't contain proper attribution (as required by GFDL) at the time I didn't know it was a mirror. These problems seem to have been fixed, so all's well. Shinobu 15:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

remove reference to using MS-DOS as an embedded OS

I have removed the reference to MS-DOS as an embedded OS because:

  • It is not used in any embedded products I am aware of.
  • It only runs on x86 processors and can not be ported
  • MS-DOS's main functionality is basically a file system, so is of little use to diskless embedded systems.

Amnonc 05:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]