On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Charles Lockhart wrote: >Hey Jimen, so where do you think the cutoff point is between an embedded >system and, uh, a non-embedded system (would that be just a pc?)? I >agree with you that a lot of the SBC's out there don't really fit into >the embedded category, as quite a few have more power than the system I >run at home, but I've never been real clear on what would be an >acceptable breaking point.
As systems shrink, we'll soon be able to boot linux off a wrist watch sized computer. So my definition of embedded system is not based on the size or the resources of a system. My definition of an embedded system is simple--any system where it takes the minimum amount of resources to perform a function. Put another way, if you can't tell the difference between the embedded system and a desktop, then that embedded system isn't embedded. A prime example is the Xbox. That is just a small Wintel computer that only plays games (for most people). On the other hand, a PS2 would be considered an embedded system. Since it was designed with a minimalist philosophy, it only includes what it absolutely needs. Running Linux, or other desktop OS's, on such a system is overkill. It defeats the minimalist philosophy. Of course, there is nothing wrong with designing a game system like the Xbox. Some people buy a desktop just to play games. But let's stop calling it embedded systems. If someone is able to develop a handheld device using Linux and it provides the same capabilities as a desktop, why must it be called embedded? Really, who are we trying to impress? --jc -- Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
