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 ...
Take that up with the people that wrote the definitions - I did not create the definitions. Technically, write-able firmware is not firmware (read the definitions of the word).
My dog in this fight is "firmware=software" - not whether or not read/write-able firmware is really firmware.
Firmware is a subset of software. It is incorrect to say firmware=software.
Repeating a false statement only makes you look like a moronic parrot. Read the definitions of the word - each and every one clearly states firmware=software. If you don't like the definition - take it up with the people that run those technical resources - stop parroting nonsense.
Better yet - answer the simple question - one simple question that will support your position: when is firmware not software? If you can't answer that (and you can't) - your position is nonsense.
You position is merely this: software stored in read-only memory is not software.
The question is, when is software not firmware? Lots of times.
Since that is the case, they are not the same thing, and thus, firmware=software and software=firmware (being the SAME statement) are both false.
I know these days most BIOSes are on EEPROMS, I just couldn't remember whether what type of chip the original IBM PC BIOS was on. I don't remember anybody flashing a BIOS in the early days, so I guess either ROM or PROM.
Second: EPROM's are PROM's
Wrong again. You truly do not know this subject you accused me of not knowing. Remember that you're talking to somebody who used to program these.
PROMs (Programmable Read-Only Memory) are written by overloading fuses built into the chip. When shipped, all the fuses are intact, representing 1s. Selectively overloading the fuses will blow them, thus changing them to represent 0s. Thus in the end you have a bunch of 1s and 0s representing what you wanted to be in the chip. This is a one-time only process, as you can't un-blow the fuses.
EPROMs (Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory) use floating gates and capacitors to hold charges even when no power is applied. When erased, each cell holds a charge, counting as a 1. Writing is accomplished by applying high voltage to the various gates, dissipating the charge, and a gate with no charge is read as a 0. The erasing is done by exposure to UV light, which re-charges all of the gates. This is why if you you've ever seen an old chip with a quartz window on the top, it was an EPROM, the window being there to expose the chip to UV light (and no, opening your case and leaving an EPROM exposed to office light for a few days isn't enough to erase one).
There is a slight exception, as some people have packaged EPROMS in windowless cases, making them effectively PROMS in function only, but not design. The reason for this is that PROMs are cheap, while EPROMS are expensive, but lots of people with EPROM burners didn't always need the chips to be reprogrammable. Enter a cheaper, windowless EPROM, cheaper than an EPROM (that quartz window isn't cheap), and definitely cheaper than buying a PROM burner in addition to your EPROM burner. These are called OTP (One Time Programmable) EPROMs. They are not PROMs because the underlying technology is different, and you could still pop open the case and erase the chip with UV.
So you can't play logic games later: PROM and EPROM technology are radically different. The set PROM is distinct from the set EPROM, with no overlap.
BTW, EEPROMs (Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory) can be erased using electrical signals, and are what's normally used today for BIOSes. Acutally, BIOSes tend to use a subset of the set "EEPROM," called a "flash EEPROM," because bits aren't erased selectively, but all at once.
Not true. First, the IBM bios was proprietary - it was not a published specification.
Absolutely true. It was published in IBM technical manuals for all to read, and most engineers in the PC hardware business had read them. This put a kink in Compaq's attempt to reverse-engineer, because they had to find engineers for the second team who had never come into contact with the published manuals and could faithfully swear an affidavit stating so.
You made an incorrect statement when you claimed Compaq reverse-engineered that hardware
And I've already told you that I admit that was technically incorrect, although the general meaning (Compaq freed the hardware through reverse engineering) is correct. I wan't careful with the exact words I used, and you jumped all over it.
And lastly, would you please quit making PROM and EPROM possessive with those apostrophes. It's annoying.
HINT: EEPROMS are equivalent to CR-R/W
He has already said that, in 665. That doesn't mean he understands it.
My position is: the statement firmware=software and the statement software=firmware are both false. They are equally false because they have the same meaning.
Firmware is merely another term for software - software stored in read-only memory. Like ALL the definitions say, firmware is software.
Either abandon your disproved position or answer the simple question: when is firmware not software.
Or: if all the definitions say firmware is software, why do you claim firmware<>software?
Funny, the firmware on my computer's BIOS, video card BIOS, phone and Linksys is all writeable, and it's called firmware.
Like I said, I did not write any of the definitions for the word "firmware" - you need to take that up with those that wrote the definitions.
The OS has specialized software (explorer.exe, cmd.com) running in it that allows you to write to the drives
Yeap, that is what I said.
The flash program is another piece of specialized software running in your OS that allows you to write to firmware.
What do you mean by "specialized" software? Is there such a thing as "non-specialized software" or software that does not really do anything? All software is "specialized" to do a specific task or tasks - firmware in not unique is this attribute. What is the difference between "specialized software" and "non-specialized software". What is an example of "non-specialized software" ?
Which included PROMS, EPROMS and EEPROMS. You're losing it.
Only one definition says firmware includes EEPROMS (and does not mention read-only) - all the others say firmware is read-only (HINT: EEPROM are not read-only). Read the definitions first to avoid the embarrassment of posting poorly reasoned statements.
I see now you what to change the subject to whether or not firmware has to be read-only - I have no interest in that tangent. My point was to prove firmware=software.
I have always understood that firmware was a type of software that acted like a permanent or semi-permanent installation, such as a means of upgrading hardware by enhancing or replacing its fundamental operating instructions. Not quite acting like software, but not something you could unscrew and remove, either. Not soft, not hard - firm.
So you are saying firmware<>software
If firmware is not software what is it? Stuff that acts identical to software but is not software?
What about the fact all definitions of the word firmware state firmware=software or firmware is software? Hmmm? Guess you need to contact all those dictionaries and technical resources and tell them they are all wrong and you have the correct definition.
100% of the subgroup firmware = software
The logic flaws happens when you equate the superset with the subgroup. A circle within a circle diagram explains your error.
Answer the simple question (that helps to exposes your error): When is firmware not software? If firmware is always software, you statement is in error.
Unless your position is something like this:
firmware=software does not mean the same thing as firmware is software - which is nonsensical.
Of course (and that was not the question)
100% of firmware is software
100% of software is not firmware
Since that is the case, they are not the same thing, and thus, firmware=software and software=firmware (being the SAME statement) are both false.
WRONG.
You really like demonstrating your faulty logic.
Unless you can explain when firmware is not software, your position is in error.
The circle within a circle diagram demonstrates your error.
100% of firmware is software (firmware=software).
The ONLY way Firmware=Software is not true is if there are situations where Firmware is not software - this is not the case.
I guess the circles diagram is too complicated for you to understand
Try this:
I go the beach.
I take a cup.
I fill the cup with ocean water
The contents of my cup = ocean water
But the following is not true:
ocean water = the contents of my cup.
100% of the contents of my cup is ocean water
100% of ocean water is not the contents of my cup.
...that is why it is faulty logic to try and equate the superset with the subgroup.
observe your error. learn. move on.
I'm talking about Apple stuff overall, so the list could get quite long. For the iPod, let's start with great industrial design (feels right in your hand), smaller package without various openings (like for batteries), excellent user interface (VERY important to me because a bad one can make owning a player painful), great audio, and excellent integration with the PC.
No, you're unconsciously comparing the Elise to cars which aren't in the same category.
Actually, I had the 350Z and Boxter in mind.
You can't legitimately argue that 85hp > 405hp because you "feel" it is, subjectively.
But I can argue that 190hp may be greater than 405hp because the car is far lighter and handles better. :) On Top Gear an Exige, the Elise's track-oriented brother, beat a Carrera GT3's time on their track -- and it was on wet pavement.
But you're still going on specs. What about the looks, the driving feel, how big of a grin you get when you step in? The market assigns those value, which is why the original 120hp Lotus Elise was selling as fast as they could make them despite cheaper, more powerful cars being on the market.
The only things that you can point to, in justifying your choice, are intangible subjective criteria (perceptions of "quality" look, interface, etc)
And sometimes those are the most important. Acutally, UI isn't subjective, as there are many scientific studies nailing down various aspects of how humans interact with devices.
Market demand does not equate to quality.
I never said that. I said the market dictates the price. Your personal opinion may be that the price is too high, that it is over-valued, and that's a perfectly valid thing for an individual. But you cannot go against the market and say that the price is too high in general, because the market already set the perfect price, where Apple is selling millions of them.
Part of it is marketing, "These go to eleven."
So you agree with me.
Not quite acting like software
In what way does firmware not act like software? Software is merely a series of instructions.
but not something you could unscrew and remove, either.
Not true. As I pointed out many times the ROM-BASIC was part of the IBM PC firmware - it was later reverse-engineered as an executable so clearly firmware can be unscrewed and removed. Some firmware can not be executed like a regular programs because it addresses low level function (like disk io) or it controls a specific device. It is still software - a series of instructions.
Unless you have a flash EEPROM.
And it has been demonstrated many times you are half-right.
By "unscrew and remove", I meant in the sense of a piece of hardware. I agree with you that firmware is a set of instructions, hence, software. The intent of firmware, however, is to be treated differently on a day-to-day basis from other types of software, which are routinely started up, shut down, and generally used as applications. Firmware, on the other hand, seems to me to operate on more of a fundamental level, directly instructing and controlling hardware or systems on how to be that particular hardware or system.
You really are dense. I'll try it again. Let's say I have a vehicle, it is used to transport people around for pay. While it is still technically a vehicle (as firmware is still technically software), people now call it a taxi because of its current use (just as people now call that software firmware). I never said firmware isn't software in a technical sense, I said we call it firmware when it's put on the chip.
Like I said, I did not write any of the definitions for the word "firmware" - you need to take that up with those that wrote the definitions.
Which included writeable EPROMs and EEPROMs against what you said.
What do you mean by "specialized" software?
You're trying to go off on a tangent to escape losing again. Your original point was that ease of writing somehow differentiated the two. I just pointed out that the ease of writing is the same, depending on the software you have in your computer. You are wrong.
I see now you what to change the subject to whether or not firmware has to be read-only - I have no interest in that tangent.
Don't look at me. You're the one who brought up the erroneous requirement for firmware to be read-only in a quest for a tangent, I didn't.
BTW: this analogy makes no sense. Hardware is not hard software and software is not soft hardware. Hardware is the physical device (or components of the device) that is constructed to execute instructions. Software are the instructions. Firmware is not in-between hardware and software - it is software. "firm" refers to software that is harder to change - at no time is firmware the device (or component of the device) that is constructed to execute instructions. Firmware is always the instructions executed by the hardware which is the definition of software .
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.