Talk:Embedded system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Use of the first picture[edit]

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)

The picture clearly is inadequate: "An embedded system is a computer system with a dedicated function within a larger mechanical or electrical system". May I ask what the mechanical or electrical system is in which the router is embedded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction in list of example embedded systems[edit]

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)

B Class[edit]

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)

Secondary Pages should be created[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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). 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)

New External Link Suggestions[edit] Article on tools used to develop code for Embedded Systems could also serve as a reference for some of the debugging/software sections of Wikipedia ES article. - Embedded System News Digest, Embedded System Industry News in a concise format.

Cwatti (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Software vs hardware[edit]

An "embedded system" is a bit of hardware that does something. A "virtual machine" is a software programming concept. Maybe Java virtual machines are used to program embvedded systems, but at most shoulnd't that be mentioned under "software architectures", if at all? And it needs a reference (and the rest of the article needs references). --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

More specific than title[edit]

Shouldn't this article be titled "embedded computer system?". I know there isn't much in the way of alternate usage of the term, but there's no point in the title being broader than what the article is discussing. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I decided to go for WP:BRD rename since I will be linking more pages to this article. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You could have waited more than a few minutes for a response. A day or two is customary.
Per WP:NAME the appropriate article title is the most commonly known name, not necessarily the most technically correct name. If you can present evidence that embedded computer system is widely used, then the rename can remain. Otherwise, it should be changed back. —EncMstr (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no evidence that either is the most commonly used. I don't know how to change it back. I know how to change it forward. Might I suggest "Embedded systems (computing)" ? Oicumayberight (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Correction: It wouldn't need to be plural. The primary link could be "Embedded system (computing)" and the plural can direct to it. Oicumayberight (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Embedded system (computing) might be appropriate if we had other articles about non-computing "embedded systems". (But even then, the computing sense would probably qualify as the primary topic, with no disambiguation phrase required.) I have moved the page back to the more common name for now. Hqb (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Computer system vs system with a computing function[edit]

I think it's more accurate to say that an embedded system is a computer embedded in a system or embedded computing function within a system. Saying it's a computing system sounds like computing is its primary function. It's a lot like calling a car a "motor." Oicumayberight (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a computer system (i.e., processor, memory, and I/O units, together with suitable software/firmware) that is embedded into some larger system, whose main purpose will usually be something other than computation. As far as I can tell, that's essentially what the current article lead is is saying. Note that the focus of the article is the embedded system itself, not on any larger system (such as a car) that it might be a part of. Hqb (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
A general purpose computer is a computer system too, but it's distinguished from an embedded system. What's unique about an embedded system is that it's part of a larger system. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's arguably what "embedded" means. But it doesn't really have to be part of a larger system. For example, a typical small router is little more than a computer with a larger-than-usual number of network interfaces. What makes it an embedded system is not so much that it's part of a larger system. but that it's performing a very specialized function – even though the hardware is often perfectly capable of running a full general-purpose operating system like Linux and a complement of apps. Likewise, a typical consumer GPS navigation device is essentially also just a small tablet computer, only equipped with a GPS receiver, and constrained to run a particular map/navigation application. Again, I think the current version of the article lead explains the distinction quite well. Hqb (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
So if I were to designate a general purpose computer to serve only one function (like streaming music), would it be an embedded system? Oicumayberight (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Embedded Instrumentation[edit]

very closely related overlapping subjects., best handled together DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Clearly different topics. Your hot tub controller is an embedded system, which might use a microprocessor with embedded self-test instrumentation in it - but that's on a chip scale, not on a system scale. Embedded instrumentation is for testing chips - embedded systems are computers that control devices. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Strong Oppose It appears to be closer to Joint Test Action Group. • SbmeirowTalk • 18:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated "98 % of all microprocessors" claim?[edit]

The article states that "Ninety-eight percent of all microprocessors are manufactured as components of embedded systems.[4]", where [4] refers to . I was not able to find any support for the claimed fact on the referenced page. If there are no other sources to back it up, I would remove it. Fuyu5ama (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)