7 May
1998
7 May
'98
11:54 a.m.
On Thu, 7 May 1998, Tony Duell wrote:
I understand that, but I think my point is being missed. I'm saying think
of the distinction logically (virtually perhaps?) rather than physically.
You can be nitpicky on this but the point is to look at it abstractly,
disregarding the physical impossibility (at least as of now) of stripping
out the code section of a microcontroller and replacing it with something
else. Forget about that. Inside the microcontroller is a CPU and some
code.
Now contrast this with an analog filter, which performs a singular
function based on the laws of physics. No instructions, no codes, no
processing unit. Therein lies the distinction.
Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't blame me...I voted for Satan.
Coming in September...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0
See http://www.siconic.com/vcf for details!
[Last web page update: 05/05/98]
AHA! But I
anticipated this objection and already have a response. What
I meant in the sense that the function can be changed without physically
altering the computer (machine) is that there is a definite distinction
between the circuitry to drive the logic unit (CPU) and the circuitry
which defines the stored program (code). So while a masked ROM cannot be
Not if the masked ROM is on the same silicon die as the rest of the CPU
you can't. Think of microcontrollers.... I think we all agree that the
8048, 8051, PIC, etc are computers by any reasonable definition...