Talk:Embedded system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, which aims to create a comprehensive computer science reference for Wikipedia. Visit the project page for more information and to join in on related discussions.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale
Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents

[edit] Use of the first picture

The first picture displayed in this article details the internal architecture of a router. It would be more useful if that picture is inserted in the article about router. User : Anoop anooprs 14:51, 04 November 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Contradiction in list of example embedded systems

The third paragraph explains that cell phones and handheld computers are not truly embedded systems, but the list of example embedded systems includes these items. Also, by the same explanation of being too general in purpose, game consoles and PDAs probably don't qualify as embedded systems.

Is it OK now? Please sign your discussion edits. Aaron Lawrence 15:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B Class

How exciting! B class! Hm ... I wonder what it needs to be A class ... probably more references. "has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage and/or clarity, balance of content," Can't disagree with that. Aaron Lawrence 11:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secondary Pages should be created

This page is definately more organized than before, but the content is so superficial for many of the topics that it would not be a bad idea to link to secondary pages for many of them. For example, reliability in embedded systems could definately use its own page, as it is it gets a paragraph. Anyone with experience in ES will have to agree, the overall ES content in wikipedia is weak. While I don't advocate making this page into a WWII size megapage, I do think that many of the areas should have their own pages. Thomaslw 22:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Reliability has more than one paragraph now though. If you have the knowledge to write the page, go ahead and do so! I would guess that it is quite a niche area. Plus it's the old problem of finding engineers who can write well :) Aaron Lawrence 14:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are many whole books dedicated to the subject of Embedded Systems. The majority of additional sub topics within Embedded Systems should probably be their own pages. See the discussion below on debugging. Are we really writing a book here? ;) EM1SS&CSE 15:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
hehe yeah I don't advocate making a book, but it would be nice to see ES having its own section of wikipedia so to speak! Plus all of us in ES know how misunderstood our domain is. I mean people use cell phones, Ipods, berries, video game systems, whatever, and think it's some magic box. And then when you go 'oh I work in embedded systems' they give you a blank stare. "What's that?" You guys know what I mean! Anyway I would definately like to expand this section to contain comprehensive content for the major sections, and perhaps just enough detail to give experienced engineers enough of a background where they can go 'oh okay." As it is the only other major subpage I can find is RTOSes, or embedded OS, but there is just so much in embedded systems! Thomaslw 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomaslw (talk • contribs) 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm not opposed in making this into a 'book' per se, might actual be a career enhancement.  ;) I’m not sure we would all be able to agree on some of the terminology, as I’ve heard things differently in each industry involved with embedded systems. I think it might be an interesting collaborative effort. Plus having it in the open domain ensures it will be updated for more timely items as the industry changes. Who hates reading an outdated book? (raises hand). 199.64.0.252 19:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, looks like not too much interest in this regard. ;) How do you guys propose we break up the sections to more meaningful Wiki subjects? EM1SS&CSE 15:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. I'm not sure this is all fit content for WP. Bearing in mind WP:NOT#IINFO perhaps we don't need much more because it starts to stray into training manuals and such.Aaron Lawrence 09:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)