New Microsoft Tech Makes Battery Changes a Breeze
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: need ur help for my Masters project(TASM project)
Next: Full-featured Controller Area Network simulator available for free
From: Rod Speed on 6 Jul 2010 14:36 Andrew Smallshaw wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >> John Tserkezis wrote >>> You need to appreciate that this type of cost for the >>> feature you're getting, is way more than gross luxury. > Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start. > Yes, even when it's designed right in from the start. Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter when the extra is included in the special purpose ic. > Do you want to change the habit of a lifetime and start _justifying_ > your pronouncements instead of simply endlessly repeating them > as if that alone is enough to make them true? You're so stupid that it isnt worth the trouble. >>> So technically it's certainly very possible, but >>> the economics will be below ordinary at best, >> Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start. > Yes, even when it's designed into the device right at the start. Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter when the extra is included in the special purpose ic. > Not that it really matters, It happens to be what is being discussed. > this kind of circuitry is basically invisible to the rest of the > system aside from any voltage drop. You can put it in at > the start or before laying out the final production board > - it doesn't make that much difference It makes a considerable difference when its all in a special purpose ic. >>> and broke at worst. >> Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start. > Yes, even when it's designed into the device right at the start. Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter when the extra is included in the special purpose ic. >>> When you're trying to drill that last few cents out of >>> a product that's destined for serious mass production >>> at a minimal cost, every fraction of a cent counts. >> Have fun explaining the led thats included anyway etc. > Because a cost/benefit analysis (however informal) shows that LED is worth including. Just as true of allowing the batterys to go in any way the user likes. > It's a standard design trade off, cost vs. functionality. So his original claim is just plain wrong, as I said. > For some devices, those indicator LEDs are the _only_ > sign of life that is not dependent on connected equipment. And they are included anyway even when they arent. So much for his stupid claim. >>> It's just not worth it. >> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one is >> actually stupid enough to employ you to design anything that matters. > It was more of a proof than simply spouting "not when > it's designed in right at the start" in parrot-like fashion. Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ? > The way I'd do this would use four transistors and four resistors, plus a bit > of board space, extra soldering, possibly extra drilling, more faults etc. Anyone with even half a clue would include whats needed in the special purpose ic. > I don't see it costing much less than about 8p even with a reasonable production run. And it wouldnt cost anything like that when its included in the special purpose ic. > For some sectors that is unacceptable even on equipment going for three figures. > If the device is supposed to sell for a fiver it is unacceptable anywhere. Have fun explaining how the absolute vast bulk of those have a led or lcd.
From: Andrew Smallshaw on 6 Jul 2010 16:19 On 2010-07-06, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter > when the extra is included in the special purpose ic. So, the 99.9+% of designs (including, for example, most computer motherboards) that use no custom ASICs are a complete irrelevence, are they? > Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter > when the extra is included in the special purpose ic. Adding _power_ transistors to your typical ASIC will certianly not be free. I suspect you would be looking long and hard for a foundry to even entertain the idea. It is competely impossible with the sea of gates ASICs for a start. > Andrew Smallshaw wrote >> Not that it really matters, > > It happens to be what is being discussed. It was your assertion that when it is designed in is somehow pivotal to how much it costs. If you had continued to read the very sentence you truncated you would have seen that _that_ makes no real difference. >> Because a cost/benefit analysis (however informal) shows that >> LED is worth including. > > Just as true of allowing the batterys to go in any way the user > likes. The user is accustomed to ensuring battery polarities are correct. How many devices out there have this kind of any-way-will-do circuitry? If there was a massive demand for it it would have been addressed long ago. >> I don't see it costing much less than about 8p even with a >> reasonable production run. > > And it wouldnt cost anything like that when its included in the > special purpose ic. No, of course it wouldn't cost anything like that. Instead it would probably be at least a capital cost of �100,000 for the ASIC and another �1 per unit to accommodate those on chip power transistors. >> For some sectors that is unacceptable even on equipment going >> for three figures. If the device is supposed to sell for a fiver >> it is unacceptable anywhere. > > Have fun explaining how the absolute vast bulk of those have a > led or lcd. I already have. You chose to invent a new economic reality instead of reading it. Now I remember why you were in my killfile. -- Andrew Smallshaw andrews(a)sdf.lonestar.org
From: robertwessel2 on 6 Jul 2010 16:29 On Jul 2, 6:55 pm, Paul Gotch <pa...(a)at-cantab-dot.net> wrote: > In comp.arch.embedded Tim Wescott <t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: > > > It doesn't quite meet the "not obvious" criteria -- it makes you wonder > > why Microsoft is even bothering with a patent. > > Because they can and because they appear to be only licensing it > royalty free for certain classes of devices. That is to say certain > ones that don't compete with the thing they developed it for which > appears to be wireless keyboards and mice. At least MS appear to be willing to license it. Unlike Apple's MagSafe*, for example. *Apple's magnetically attached laptop power cords, which are a great idea - who hasn't accidentally yanked on the power cord of their laptop?
From: Rod Speed on 6 Jul 2010 17:00 Andrew Smallshaw wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >> Andrew Smallshaw wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >>>> John Tserkezis wrote >>>>> You need to appreciate that this type of cost for the >>>>> feature you're getting, is way more than gross luxury. >>> Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start. >>> Yes, even when it's designed right in from the start. >> Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter >> when the extra is included in the special purpose ic. > So, the 99.9+% of designs (including, for example, most > computer motherboards) that use no custom ASICs Those use ASICs designed for motherboards, stupid. > are a complete irrelevence, are they? They certainly are to the BATTERY POWERED devices being discussed. >>>>> So technically it's certainly very possible, but >>>>> the economics will be below ordinary at best, >>>> Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start. >>> Yes, even when it's designed into the device right at the start. >> Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter >> when the extra is included in the special purpose ic. > Adding _power_ transistors to your typical ASIC will certianly not be free. No one said a word about free except you. > I suspect you would be looking long and hard for a foundry to even entertain > the idea. It is competely impossible with the sea of gates ASICs for a start. Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that the BATTERY POWERED devices actually being discussed dont actually use those much. >>> Not that it really matters, >> It happens to be what is being discussed. > It was your assertion that when it is designed in is somehow pivotal to how much it costs. Everyone can see for themselves that I said nothing like that. > If you had continued to read the very sentence you truncated I did that, and replied to that bit as well. > you would have seen that _that_ makes no real difference. Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter when the extra is included in the special purpose ic. >>> this kind of circuitry is basically invisible to the rest of the >>> system aside from any voltage drop. You can put it in at >>> the start or before laying out the final production board >>> - it doesn't make that much difference >> It makes a considerable difference when its all in a special purpose ic. >>> When you're trying to drill that last few cents out of >>> a product that's destined for serious mass production >>> at a minimal cost, every fraction of a cent counts. >> Have fun explaining the led thats included anyway etc. >>>>> When you're trying to drill that last few cents out of >>>>> a product that's destined for serious mass production >>>>> at a minimal cost, every fraction of a cent counts. >>>> Have fun explaining the led thats included anyway etc. >>> Because a cost/benefit analysis (however informal) shows that LED is worth including. >> Just as true of allowing the batterys to go in any way the user likes. > The user is accustomed to ensuring battery polarities are correct. And that patent was about allowing the user to ignore that and allows for little kids not needing to be taught that etc. > How many devices out there have this kind of any-way-will-do circuitry? Irrelevant to the obvious advantage with that approach. > If there was a massive demand for it it would have been addressed long ago. The same stupid claim could have been made about all sorts of things that have only recently become common. >>> I don't see it costing much less than about 8p even with a reasonable production run. >> And it wouldnt cost anything like that when its included in the special purpose ic. > No, of course it wouldn't cost anything like that. Instead it would > probably be at least a capital cost of �100,000 for the ASIC and Not when the device needs that already, fool. > another �1 per unit to accommodate those on chip power transistors. Not when the device has some already, fool. >>> For some sectors that is unacceptable even on equipment >>> going for three figures. If the device is supposed to sell >>> for a fiver it is unacceptable anywhere. >> Have fun explaining how the absolute vast bulk of those have a led or lcd. > I already have. Like hell you have. > You chose to invent a new economic reality instead of reading it. Everyone can see you are lying, as always. > Now I remember why you were in my killfile. Put me back, then we wont have to see any more of your pathetic excuse for mindless bullshit.
From: David L. Jones on 6 Jul 2010 20:23
tim.... wrote: > "Meindert Sprang" <ms(a)NOJUNKcustomORSPAMware.nl> wrote in message > news:4c318b3e$0$22937$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >> "bigbrownbeastie" <bigbrownbeastiebigbrownface(a)googlemail.com> wrote >> in message >> news:8e23fff9-b39f-4ed4-bd01-5765a0f4db8d(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >>> isn't this a solution to a non-problem. How many people see the >>> embossed image and still get it wrong? >> >> Well, if I have to replace the four batteries in my digital camera >> in a dim >> environment, I really need my reading glasses to see where the + and >> - markings are. Being able to just "throw" the batteries in the hole >> would be >> a great thing. > > If you are "replacing" batteries isn't it just simpler to remember > how the ones you have just taken out were positioned? Not in an emergency situation for instance where you just need to replace the batteries as fast as possible and you might be under some stress in a less than ideal environment. Not everyone replaces batteries whilst sitting at their desk sipping a caffe latte :-> Dave. -- --------------------------------------------- Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast: http://www.eevblog.com |