zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean) (03/01/91)
Problem: HP wants to fix bugs in their ROMs, but didn't allow any
way to replace them. Then they complain when people want the new
version.
Solution: They should have used EEPROMs. Yes, it would have cost
more, but so does throwing out a lot of calculators because they
can't change the ROMs. This is not meant as a criticism of HP--
20/20 hindsight, and all that. But now that it's happened,
there's no excuse for HP, or anyone else, to make the same
mistake again.
(Murphy's law: Every ROM has a bug in it, somewhere).
==================
zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean)
{harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphodTDSTRONG%MTUS5.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Tim Strong) (03/05/91)
> >Problem: HP wants to fix bugs in their ROMs, but didn't allow any >way to replace them. Then they complain when people want the new >version. > >Solution: They should have used EEPROMs. Yes, it would have cost >more, but so does throwing out a lot of calculators because they >can't change the ROMs. This is not meant as a criticism of HP-- >20/20 hindsight, and all that. But now that it's happened, >there's no excuse for HP, or anyone else, to make the same >mistake again. > Under the threat of showing my own stupidity. I always thought that as well as being more expensive EEPROMS were also very sensitive. I thought that they we very sensitive to static (then again so is ROM to an extent) and that the infomation written in them only lasted a certain number of read-write cycles. Doesn't that mean the 5 or 10 years in the future your EEPROM might not be readable anymore?????? Thats what I always though, however I haven't gotten far enough in my studies to confirm that belief. ====================================================================== ___ I__) _ _I _ _ TIM STRONG <TDSTRONG%MTUS5.BITNET@CUNYVM.EDU> I \ (_I (_I (_I I MICHIGAN TECH. HOUGHTON, MICHIGAN ======================================================================
slsw2@cc.usu.edu (03/06/91)
In article <9CA71B286000016D@gacvx2.gac.edu>, TDSTRONG%MTUS5.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Tim Strong) writes: > Doesn't that mean the 5 or 10 years in the future your EEPROM might not be > readable anymore?????? Thats what I always though, however I haven't > gotten far enough in my studies to confirm that belief. For that matter, EPROMs only last about 10 years. And, given that OTP EPROMs (EPROMs without a window; therefore not eraseable) are a lot cheaper than mask-programmed ROMs, they're being stuffed into just about everything. Ten years from now, a lot of things are going to mysteriously fail. We've had a TI printer suffer from EPROM leakage; never got it back up. -- =============================================================================== Roger Ivie 35 S 300 W Logan, Ut. 84321 (801) 752-8633 ===============================================================================
akcs.kevin@hpcvbbs.UUCP (Kevin Jessup) (03/06/91)
Just a quick thought (feel free to flame me if you want!)... What if HP had made the 48SX just a bit thicker and placed the entire OS in a plug in card. Then you could get ROM upgrades by simply sending in your old card an getting the latest release on another plug in rom card. I guess the added thickness of a third port would make the 48 just too fat and ugly looking. It would also make third party OS's possible and put the entire hardware and packaging of the 48 available to anyone that wanted to change it's functionality or even the entire purpose of the machine. Bad idea, right HP?
walter@hpsadle.HP.COM (Walter Coole) (03/06/91)
I wasn't involved in this product, but I would think that the main limitation with using EEPROMs or EPROMs was size. For a given technology and die size, MAX(ROM) ~ 4xMAX(EPROM) ~ 16xMAX(EEPROM). I think that most people are be more satisfied (actual needs filled) than they would be with an easily upgraded machine with 1/16 the functions. Not an official statement by Hewlett Packard.
umapd51@cc.ic.ac.uk (W.A.C. Mier-Jedrzejowicz) (03/14/91)
Kevin Jessup suggests the HP48SX operating system could have been on a plug-in card, and ends with "Bad idea, right HP?" Well, in fact, it's such a good idea that HP tried it with the HP-71B (the first HP handheld with the Saturn CPU which is now in the HP28 and HP48 etc). On the HP-71B you could plug in an alternative operating system on a plug-in module in port 1 (of 4 - how I wish they'd managed 4 in the 48 !) - the module needed an extra long connector on one pin to disable the OS inside the 71. The CMT MCII and CMT MCV also have the system ROM accessible from the outside. The problem with this method is that if you drop the handheld, any OS module which is plugged-in, not soldered in, might fall out! This is likely to be more of a problem in the wide world out there than perhaps we realise while discussing bugs on comp.sys.handhelds. Regards, Wlodek Mier-Jedrzejowicz, Space & Atmospheric Physics, Imperial College, London