 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Look at a PC, someone had to design that north bridge, and the south
> bridge, and the bus arbitrators, and all of the little glue pieces that
> keep information flowing from one point to the other.
>
> Often if you look closely at what is going on in a PCB you'll find that
> there will be logic gates being used to manage signals in the device.
Well let's be serious now - look at the CPU. Somebody had to design
that! But, obviously, that won't ever be me.
>>> There may even be a customized chip on it.
>>
>> Only if it's a ROM, PROM or EPROM. :-P
>
> Generally ROM's are about as off-the-shelf as you can get.
Yes and no - the hard-wired ones are custom, but they're a custom
version of a standard component.
>> I found a picture online of the motherboard for a C64. There was a chip
>> with the Commodore logo on it... but it was a bulk standard 6510.
>
> I thought there were a few small additions to it...
It's the 6510, which is similar to the 6502 that everything else used
but with a few minor alterations. It's not a C64-specific chip though;
just a different model in the range.
>> Given the vast profusion of extremely low-cost off-the-shelf
>> microcontrollers in existence, this seems highly implausible.
>
> Until they realize they can take up less space by embedding a simplified
> version of the micro controller with some of the external logic they're
> using, which makes the device smaller and lighter and cheaper to ship.
This is the part I don't get. Mounting more chips on a board costs
money, but making an ASIC costs orders of magnitude *more* money.
>> We have a special machine. It's only purpose is to shake things. But it
>> must shake in a precisely-controlled, completely repeatable mannar. So
>> a license to print money!
>
> A lot of that is recouping the time their engineers spent designing that
> device. But, then they turn around and find ways to make the device less
> expensive (for them) to produce. They know what their clients will pay,
> and what a fair market rate is for the machine, so they'll charge that
> and pocket the rest.
More like, they know their clients need a shaker that's guaranteed to
work repeatably, so they can charge anything they like.
>> The most high-tech thing we have is the mass spectrometers - and that's
>> about physical engineering, not fancy electronics. The next thing on the
>
> I'm sure there's some electronics somewhere to translate the readings
> into something that is either plotted on a piece of paper or sent to a
> computer via serial communications
Oh, there *is* electronics. (The mass spec needs to generate several
kilovolts to ionise the sample, for example.) It connects to a PC via
GPIB. (No, I've never heard of it either.) So there's a GPIB interface
IC somewhere. And no doubt all sorts of self-diagnostic sensors and
stuff. Still, apart from a couple of CPUs dotted around the place and a
bunch of ADC chips, I wouldn't have thought there's must custom
_digital_ stuff.
>> list is the autosamplers - but they use a Z80 CPU to control a couple of
>> stepper motors. That's it. Somebody wrote the software, somebody
>> designed the mechanics, but no IC design involved.
>
> Maybe not, but they probably have some logic somewhere outside of the
> CPU to manage signals, enable and disable drives, and such.
You don't just do it all in software? That sounds much cheaper...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/06/2010 3:49 PM, Invisible wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> Do you remember a year or so back, you agreed to be less negative in
>> your outlook. It really is destructive.
>
> I've spent months looking for a job as a system administrator. Almost
> all companies who own more than 6 computers require such a person, and
> yet I can find almost nothing to apply for. So excuse me if I seem a
> little pessimistic about the probabilities of landing a job in a highly
> specialised field that only a tiny number of companies operate in...
I would excuse you for seeming a little bit pessimistic but you come
across as more than that. You sound like someone who has no faith in
but you can do things to stop making your self image worse. And one of
those things is stop running yourself down. It is counterproductive and
will turn into a self fulfilling prophecy.
You are personable and talented and there is no real reason why you
not to give into despair.
End of sermon.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I would excuse you for seeming a little bit pessimistic but you come
> across as more than that. You sound like someone who has no faith in
> himself.
Well, as I say, when you never achieve anything, it doesn't boost your
confidence very much. (And hell, even when I do manage to do something
moderately impressive, nobody seems to be impressed.)
> but you can do things to stop making your self image worse. And one of
> those things is stop running yourself down.
Easier said than done, of course...
> You are personable and talented and there is no real reason why you
Sure, other than my total inability to find anything to apply for.
> not to give into despair.
I don't know. Maybe it's just because it's Saturday morning and *yet
again* I'm sitting all alone in my bedroom feeling bored and lonely,
with nowhere to go and nobody to talk to. Perhaps I just need to go
listen to some more Neil Sekada or something...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/06/2010 11:57 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> I would excuse you for seeming a little bit pessimistic but you come
>> across as more than that. You sound like someone who has no faith in
>> himself.
>
> Well, as I say, when you never achieve anything, it doesn't boost your
> confidence very much. (And hell, even when I do manage to do something
> moderately impressive, nobody seems to be impressed.)
>
>> can do things to stop making your self image worse. And one of those
>> things is stop running yourself down.
>
> Easier said than done, of course...
>
Don't I know it.
>> You are personable and talented and there is no real reason why you
>
> Sure, other than my total inability to find anything to apply for.
>
From what I remember you were offered a job in the Netherlands. And
before you say it, you should pack your fears into a parcel and leave it
in the left luggage.
>> not to give into despair.
>
> I don't know. Maybe it's just because it's Saturday morning and *yet
> again* I'm sitting all alone in my bedroom feeling bored and lonely,
> with nowhere to go and nobody to talk to. Perhaps I just need to go
> listen to some more Neil Sekada or something...
>
My sympathies but Neil Sedaka?
Listen to something life enhancing like bagpipe music. :-P
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 12.06.2010 11:04, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
> Yeah, I'd heard about that. I guess if space is tight you need to put
> everything into a single ASIC. But otherwise, I'm not sure what the
> advantage is to integrating (say) an MPEG1 decoder into your chip is
> verses just mounting two chips on the board. Any cost saving in having
> to only mount one chip is surely dwarfed by the vast cost of making an
> ASIC.
Depends on the numbers we're taling about. At some volume, the one-time
cost of designing an ASIC is dwarfed by the per-device cost savings for
ICs (reducing total wafer surface by eliminating unnecessary bonding
pads, logic gates, and space lost due to cutting; reducing the number of
required bonding wires; reducing the number of IC packages), PCBs (again
reducing total PCB surface & drill holes - maybe even reducing the
number of layers - and simplifying testing, by eliminating unnecessary
IC-to-IC interconnections and solder pads; reducing the shipping costs
for the PCBs) and soldering (reducing the amount of solder needed;
reducing the number of potential points of failure; etc.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 12.06.2010 11:31, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>>> I wasn't aware that the iPhone has a touch-screen. (I hadn't really
>>> thought about it...)
>>
>> ZOMG, are you from Mars?!
>>
>> it's been its killer feature upon launch time!
>
> And since I don't own or want to own an iPhone, why would I know about
> this?
Maybe by keeping your eyes and ears open to what's going on around you?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> You know, every time you have one of these conversations, I can't help
>> but imagine your cutting edge technology is this:
>>
>> http://theradiokitchen.net/wp-content/uploads/image/80scellphone.gif
>
> Actually this:
>
> http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=nokia+2760
Advanced! This is mine:
http://www.google.com/images?q=nokia+1208
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 12.06.2010 12:57, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> I would excuse you for seeming a little bit pessimistic but you come
>> across as more than that. You sound like someone who has no faith in
>> himself.
>
> Well, as I say, when you never achieve anything, it doesn't boost your
> confidence very much. (And hell, even when I do manage to do something
> moderately impressive, nobody seems to be impressed.)
Don't expect others to boost your confidence.
And don't measure your achievements by looking at famous people, or
goals still far beyond your reach - instead, measure your achievements
by looking back at where you started from.
>> can do things to stop making your self image worse. And one of those
>> things is stop running yourself down.
>
> Easier said than done, of course...
Sure. That's why we keep telling you. (And don't think you're the only
one who needs to hear this every now and again.)
>> You are personable and talented and there is no real reason why you
>
> Sure, other than my total inability to find anything to apply for.
Seriously, STFU. That's the first step to more self-confidence: If you
can't find anything positive to say about yourself, don't say anything,
and just STFU. Or maybe say something positive about others, to get into
a habit of seeing positive things (but make sure not to go into jealousy
mode).
> I don't know. Maybe it's just because it's Saturday morning and *yet
> again* I'm sitting all alone in my bedroom feeling bored and lonely,
> with nowhere to go and nobody to talk to. Perhaps I just need to go
> listen to some more Neil Sekada or something...
Could it be that being a loser once used to be a way for you to gain
something? Attention perhaps?
Gee, and we're delivering just that right now...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 12.06.2010 13:11, schrieb Stephen:
>> I don't know. Maybe it's just because it's Saturday morning and *yet
>> again* I'm sitting all alone in my bedroom feeling bored and lonely,
>> with nowhere to go and nobody to talk to. Perhaps I just need to go
>> listen to some more Neil Sekada or something...
>
> My sympathies but Neil Sedaka?
> Listen to something life enhancing like bagpipe music. :-P
Yeah, I second this - punish yourself for your bad mood :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> ICs (reducing total wafer surface by eliminating unnecessary bonding
Plus, chips are so dense nowadays that you *can* fit a couple of CPUs,
enough RAM, a few USB connectors, an MPEG encoder and decoder, a few other
hardware media encoder/decoders, DTS and other surround sounds, a 3D
accelerated GPU, voice DACs, a GPS and GPM and CDMA modem, and interfaces
for keyboard input and video output all on one chip.
Qualcomm sells a single chip you could build an entire high-end netbook out
of, for example. All that stuff above is on one chip small enough to fit
comfortably in a cell phone.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
