Posted on 03/08/2005 12:06:04 PM PST by r5boston
Nearly a decade ago, just a few months after Microsoft shipped Windows 95, I asked Bill Gates if it was a conscious decision in the development of that product to give Windows more of a Mac look and feel. Of course I knew he'd say it wasn't, but I couldn't resist asking. "There was no goal even to compete with Macintosh," Gates proclaimed. "We don't even think of Macintosh as a competitor."
That was a crock, so I pressed the issue a little. I asked him how he accounted for the widespread perception that Windows 95 looked a lot like Mac 88, and whether the similarity was just a coincidence. I didn't expect a sobbing confession of mimicry, but I thought it would be cool to see how he'd respond. Surprisingly enough, Gates shifted gears and became more forthcoming.
(Excerpt) Read more at macworld.com ...
You totally missed the point Grasshopper, it is not algebra.
It is fallacious logic to try and equate the subset with the whole. To overcome this Petronski was forced to make absurd statements (rather than simply correct the faulty logic). Some people simple refuse to admit they are wrong.
So when my CD burner manufacturer says the firmware can be upgraded via a download, they are lying? Or my firewall/router?
Yadda, yadda, yadda (and you can quote me on that)
Actually none of that is true - it is pretty obvious you are blow-hard that really does not understand the subject. Compaq did not take the bios out of the machine. Compaq used two groups of software engineers - one that had access to the source code for the bios (software) and one that did not and wrote a bios (software) that functioned like the IBM bios (by observing the functioning of an IBM PC). Compaq reverse-engineer software, not hardware. The bios software is written to ROM chips - all software is written to some form of hardware.
Let's repeat the first line of the definition:
In computing, firmware is software that is embedded in a hardware device, that allows reading and executing the software, but does not allow modification, e.g., writing or deleting data by an end user.
Now will you stop trying to claim firmware<>software. The only difference between the subgroup firmware and the superset software is firmware is read-only - all software is contained on a hardware device.
Last example:
Draw circle the size of a diner plate.
That is group A
Draw a circle inside of the group A circle the size of a quarter.
That is group B
The area inside of group B is 100% group A
B=A
The area inside of group A is not 100% of group B - only a small percent of A is within group B
A<>B
Group A is software and group B is firmware.
So stop doing it.
Every time you type software=firmware or firmware=software, YOU are equivocating and/or equating the two. For seven straight days I've been trying to explain to you that YOU are equating them. Whenever I type "firmware=software is false," I am directly contradicting your equation/equivocation of the two.
In the first sentence, you implore him to stop saying they're different. In the second sentence, you outline a difference. LOL
Then why do manufacturers routinely make speakers that respond up to 20,000 Hz? And I'm not talking about high-end audiophile stuff, either. I'm talking about average-quality speakers designed for the mass market. Why build in that capacity if no one will notice it?
Swordmaker: I disagree... Software resides on MEDIA...The media might be a part of a piece of hardware...
So what you are saying is software does not reside on hardware it resided on media that is hardware. Did you also major in doublespeak? You are claiming "media" might be part of hardware - really - when is media not hardware Mr Einstein.
Software also resides in RAM and inside the CPU - do you call RAM and the CPU media? Oops, you didn't think of that.
All software resides in hardware.
Different types of hardware in which software resides: PROM, EPROM, RAM, hard disk, floppy disk, core memory, flash memory, drum memory, various silicon chips. Some of the hardware is read/write and some is read-only - when the software is stored on read-only hardware it is firmware.
If you wish to push this to absurdity - there is one state of software where it is not residing on hardware and that is when software is in the ether - now it takes hardware to send it into the ether and it takes hardware to return the software to your computer hardware but when software is in the ether between two wireless points, it is not contained in hardware.
Again, you are wrong. A CD that contains data does not have to fit the definition of "firmware" unless its content is designed by a company to direct the operation of a piece of hardware the firm has built or designed.
You really don't understand much about computer technology and you do have problems with reading comprehension - notice I said "software on a CD" - not data.
All software directs the operations of hardware. Software does nothing without hardware and vice-versa (unless you include uses like paper weight)
Lets review a definition of firmware:
firmware: n : (computer science) coded instructions that are stored permanently in read-only memory (WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University)
Question: Is a CD (not a CD-RW) read-only permanent memory?
Answer: yes.
You fingers are writing checks your knowledge can not cash
EPROM's are not equivalent to CD-R/W (similar but not equivalent). You can not Read/Write to an EPROM. An EPROM can only be erased in totality. E = erasable.
Thank you for pointing that a CD is actually a CDROM meaning it is read-only memory and what makes software firmware - say it with me - "when it is stored in read-only memory".
antiRepublicrat: Duh, that's the definition of a PROM.
Actually you are confused on two counts.
First I was replying to your statement:
antiRepublicrat: ...to be placed on a ROM (or EPROM, can't remember)
Second: EPROM's are PROM's
Actually, they reverse-engineered an entire published specification, of which the software was a part.
Not true. First, the IBM bios was proprietary - it was not a published specification. Second, the hardware was a published standard so reverse-engineering was not needed.
This all started because you wanted to make a mountain out of a molehill. You lost the main argument, so you started delving into semantics and definitions.
You made an incorrect statement when you claimed Compaq reverse-engineered that hardware and you have spent days unsuccessfully trying to spin it into truth - bringing use to the core nonsense statement of firmware<>software.
A mountain has been made, but is looks like you were the builder.
Yes, that has been my point all along. Firmware=software stored in read-only memory.
The software on an EEPROM isn't read-only and it's easily changed.
EEPROM is not read-only memory therefore software stored on it is not firmware (based on all definitions).
Flashing my Linksys firmware is as easy as writing to my hard drive. It's not the "easy" that counts.
No it is not. The OS allows you to read/write to the harddisk, you must use a specific application to read-write firmware. NOTE: technically firmware that is read/write-able is not firmware (please review the definitions)
Like all technical terms, the meaning is not concret and can change over time. One thing we know for sure is firmware is not hardware like you first claim.
Read the definitions and decide for yourself.
At which point you call it firmware, not software. That's my point.
EEPROM is not read-only memory therefore software stored on it is not firmware (based on all definitions).
Funny, the firmware on my computer's BIOS, video card BIOS, phone and Linksys is all writeable, and it's called firmware.
The OS allows you to read/write to the harddisk
The OS has specialized software (explorer.exe, cmd.com) running in it that allows you to write to the drives. The flash program is another piece of specialized software running in your OS that allows you to write to firmware.
please review the definitions)
Which included PROMS, EPROMS and EEPROMS. You're losing it.
Not true.
In theory I could lay out the PROM in MAGIC and produce a fixed VLSI chip that can replace the firmware.
VLSI chips can contain firmware.
Photoshop on the hard drive is only there as a form of storage not so it can function there.
Firmware "functions" in the same place Photoshop "functions" - the CPU. Firmware does not "function" inside read-only memory. Hard disks and read-only memory are merely two ways to store software.
AR is right in that the reason its not called system software and was given the name firmware is that it functions in a way fundamentally different than other software (and yet for the same purpose
That statement is simply not true. Software on the hard disk "functions" in the exact same way as firmware. Firmware is merely a method of storage - like a hard drive only firmware is read-only. All software "functions" in the same way - within the CPU. One of the ONLY reasons the bios is not on the hard disk is the bios tells the computer how to use the I/O so until the bios software is executed, the computer cannot use the hard drive. The computer has embedded boot-strap routines (more firmware) that tell it to read and execute the software in the read-only memory (firmware). The firmware provides basic disk I/O (BDOS) so the computer can then read the software off the hard disk and load the OS which provides extended disk I/O and other cool stuff but it is all software and it all "functions" the same (where "functions" means used by the computer)
NOTE: Part of the IBM-PC ROM BIOS (firmware) was something called ROM-BASIC. This was later reverse-engineered into a standard executable.
If you spent more time reading and less time laughing, you would not make such a fool out of yourself.
100% of the subgroup (firmware) is made up of the superset (software). The differences I pointed out were related to where the software was stored, not whether or not firmware is software. Read closely before you post and you will save yourself some embarrassment.
Read what I said and try again.
Your argument boils down to something like this: Apples in the store are different from apples in my house because apples in my house are stored in my house and apples in the store are stored in the store (even though the apples in my house came from the store). Therefore Store Apples<>My Apples. If all you want to argue is where the software is stored, you might have a leg to stand on but you extrapolated to absurdity and claimed firmware is not software.
Firmware does not EQUAL software. Stop equivocating them. they are NOT equal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.