What is hardware? What is software?
SG
> but. the lines between Hardware and software, have begin to melt
> closer together.
Not really.
> Example.:
> The transmeta CPU, is as much hardware as it is software, and i still
> dont believe the Transmeta Cpu is Firmware.
The bottomline is this:
If each 1/0 that comprises a -program- are the result of direct,
unchangable (from within the running system) connections to the PSU's
+5V/GND, then the program is simply hardware. All computers used to
run programs that were pure hardware--mechanical switches and plug in
wires that manually set each 1/0 in memory while the system was turned
off. Firmware programs are essentially the same thing, except the
process has been automated.
If the 1s/0s (+5v/GND) that comprise a -program- are the result of
-output leads- of powered logic gate arrays, or clock refreshed
capacitors, and the bits are are thus togglable (i.e. read/write
memory) and set by the processor itself during runtime, that volatile
program is called "soft"ware.
This couldn't possibly be simpler.
--
Steve.
Kirk Strauser
At 2001-03-04T15:05:34Z, "SG" <sg...@erols.com> writes:
[snip stupidly wrong explanation of hardware vs. software]
> This couldn't possibly be simpler.
...or more incorrect. If it's a set of instructions that a
processor will execute, then it's software. If you can pick it
up and throw it at the village idiot, then SG will have a lot of
hardware thrown at him.
Software == instructions
Hardware == physical components
Anything else is wrong, incorrect, and just plain dumb.
Sorry, Steve, but you're either 1) stupid, 2) ignorant, or 3)
lazy. Pick any two.
--
Kirk Strauser
SG
> At 2001-03-04T15:05:34Z, "SG" <sg...@erols.com> writes:
>
> [snip stupidly wrong explanation of hardware vs. software]
>
> > This couldn't possibly be simpler.
>
> ....or more incorrect. If it's a set of instructions that a
> processor will execute, then it's software. If you can pick it
> up and throw it at the village idiot, then SG will have a lot of
> hardware thrown at him.
>
> Software == instructions
Hillarious.
So ENIAC processed a software-program, 20 years before software was
was invented. Nice.
Princeton University Comp Sci...
software -- (computer science) written programs or procedures or
rules and associated documentation pertaining to the
operation of a computer system and that are stored in
read/write memory
firmware -- (computer science) coded instructions that are stored
permanently in read-only memory)
hardware -- the mechanical, magnetic, electronic, and electrical,
devices making up a computer system
> Hardware == physical components
No kidding. You got 1 of three right for a score of 33%.
F-
> Anything else is wrong, incorrect, and just plain dumb.
You just need to repeat CS101. You haven't the slightest idea what
you are talking about.
> Sorry, Steve, but you're either 1) stupid, 2) ignorant, or 3)
> lazy. Pick any two.
I choose Princeton and Webster's definition.
--
Steve.
Kelli Halliburton
>
> So ENIAC processed a software-program, 20 years before software was
> was invented. Nice.
Actually, it was more like firmware. Effectively, ENIAC was a programmable
computer. The sequence of instructions it carried out was a program, and
since the program was determined by the physical arrangements of wires and
relays, and not a volatile memory store, it was firmware. It was very
difficult to *re*program ENIAC, but it did in fact run many different
programs during its lifespan.
> Princeton University Comp Sci...
>
> software -- (computer science) written programs or procedures or
> rules and associated documentation pertaining to the
> operation of a computer system and that are stored in
> read/write memory
Read/write memory being what makes it 'soft.'
> firmware -- (computer science) coded instructions that are stored
> permanently in read-only memory)
Read-only memory being what makes it 'firm,' and any non-volatile storage
that is not easily changeable can be considered ROM.
> hardware -- the mechanical, magnetic, electronic, and electrical,
> devices making up a computer system
>
> > Hardware == physical components
The fun part is that software and/or firmware is STORED ON hardware. They're
by no means synonymous. However, certain configurations of hardware can
result in firmware.
Hardware is a concrete, tangible thing. Software and/or firmware are not;
they are simply representations of various combinations of 1's and 0's. If I
have a bank of eight switches, and I flip them in the following pattern:
off on off off off off off on
That doesn't change the hardware from being a bank of switches. All it
changes is the configuration of it, making it REPRESENT the hex value 0x41,
the decimal value 65, or the ASCII character 'A', depending on how you look
at it.
Kirk Strauser
At 2001-03-04T18:04:48Z, "SG" <sg...@erols.com> writes:
> Princeton University Comp Sci...
Steve, old buddy, that's among the largest of the loads of crap
you've dropped in this august forum. Princeton would probably
prosecute under charges of involuntary involvement in the
perpetration of an idiocy. Please don't drag their respected
name in the mud by trying to mangle their words into something
that validates your humorously wrong mindset.
> You just need to repeat CS101. You haven't the slightest idea
> what you are talking about.
But I'm sure you'll teach me, right, Steve-o? BTW, where *do*
you have your professorship? It wasn't at my school, thank God.
> > Sorry, Steve, but you're either 1) stupid, 2) ignorant, or 3)
> > lazy. Pick any two.
> I choose Princeton and Webster's definition.
And I choose a Llama, which is no more relevant to the matter at
hand than the out-of-context snippets that you posted.
I'm sorry, but you're obviously incapable of continuing this
conversation. *Plonk*
--
Kirk Strauser
SG
>
> At 2001-03-04T18:04:48Z, "SG" <sg...@erols.com> writes:
>
> > Princeton University Comp Sci...
>
> Steve, old buddy, that's among the largest of the loads of crap
> you've dropped in this august forum. Princeton would probably
> prosecute under charges of involuntary involvement in the
> perpetration of an idiocy. Please don't drag their respected
> name in the mud by trying to mangle their words into something
> that validates your humorously wrong mindset.
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn/?stage=1&word=firmware
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn/?stage=1&word=software
> > You just need to repeat CS101. You haven't the slightest idea
> > what you are talking about.
>
> But I'm sure you'll teach me, right, Steve-o?
Done.
--
Steve.
Keith Blakemore-Noble
is hardware? What is software?"...
> If each 1/0 that comprises a -program- are the result of direct,
> unchangable (from within the running system) connections to the PSU's
> +5V/GND, then the program is simply hardware.
Cool.
So that rules out all modern computers then.
(Hint - they don't run off 5V and haven't for ages. Looks lik ea
certain troll needs to get its facts straight, again.)
Bill Hoggett
>Kirk Strauser<ki...@strauser.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> At 2001-03-04T18:04:48Z, "SG" <sg...@erols.com> writes:
>>
>> > Princeton University Comp Sci...
>>
>> Steve, old buddy, that's among the largest of the loads of crap
>> you've dropped in this august forum. Princeton would probably
>> prosecute under charges of involuntary involvement in the
>> perpetration of an idiocy. Please don't drag their respected
>> name in the mud by trying to mangle their words into something
>> that validates your humorously wrong mindset.
>
>http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn/?stage=1&word=firmware
>http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn/?stage=1&word=software
Princeton have already disowned any responsibility for producing this
claptrap.
--
Bill Hoggett
No prejudice. I hate Microsoft without prejudice...
SG
> > Hillarious.
> >
> > So ENIAC processed a software-program, 20 years before software was
> > was invented. Nice.
>
> Actually, it was more like firmware. Effectively, ENIAC was a programmable
> computer.
I was asking a rhetorical question there, t odemonstrate how silly it
is to think that all computer programs are software. Obviously it
was not running software 20 years before software was invented, and
obviously it was programmable.
<snip>
> The fun part is that software and/or firmware is STORED ON hardware. They're
> by no means synonymous. However, certain configurations of hardware can
> result in firmware.
>
> Hardware is a concrete, tangible thing. Software and/or firmware are not;
> they are simply representations of various combinations of 1's and 0's. If I
> have a bank of eight switches, and I flip them in the following pattern:
>
> off on off off off off off on
>
> That doesn't change the hardware from being a bank of switches. All it
> changes is the configuration of it, making it REPRESENT the hex value 0x41,
> the decimal value 65, or the ASCII character 'A', depending on how you look
> at it.
You are getting closer...
Consider designing simple processor (something all CS101 students
should do for homework on night one) to add two 2-bit numbers,
by guiding the input voltages though a series of logic gates to output
LEDs (go to RadioShack, buy a simple 100 in 1 project, and go for
it, its ridiculously easy to do). You have input bits that go into
the gate array, the gate logic, and output bits that light
up 5V LEDs to represent a binary number.
If you wire the input bits of the processor logic gate array,
directly to 5V or GND, the bits are set in hardware, and thus, the
answer simply lights up when you turn the computer on. Note, this
isn't complex enough to be program yet, just data, but the idea is
the same.
+----------------+
| |
Input Bit1---------| |-------Output Bit1 (LED)
Input Bit2---------| |
| Logic Gates |-------Output Bit2 (LED)
Input Bit3---------| (Processor) |
Input Bit4---------| |-------Output Bit3 (LED)
| |
+----------------+
The logic gates guide the current through so that: 01 + 01 = 010, etc.
Or, to draw that in action...
+----------------+
| |
GND ---------| |------- GND (LED off)
+5V ---------| |
| Logic Gates |------- +5V (LED on)
GND ---------| (Processor) |
+5V ---------| |------- GND (LED off)
| |
+----------------+
The abve data being processed is ROM, pure hardware.
You might even make it easier, like ENIAC, by making each ROM bit a
switch, now you can easily change the memory contents, and you have
pretty usable 2-bit computer.
Now, if you take the Input Bits 1234, and replace them with logic
gates that the processor can ping to latch to a voltage while running,
like this...
+----------------+
+-------+ | |
| |-------IB1---------| |-------OB1 LED
+5V--| Logic |-------IB2---------| |
| Gates | | Logic Gates |-------OB2 LED
GND--| |-------IB3---------| (Processor) |
| |-------IB4---------| |-------OB3 LED
+----+--+ | |
| +---+------------+
| |
+--------------------------+
Now you can process soft/volatile data, much like data in RAM.
Take that concept, and apply it to entire loadable (present in
read/write mem) programs, not just data, and you see the difference
between a computer that can execute software programs, and single
purpose/dedicated computers one that can only run a hardware program
like ENIAC, though it did have ROM switches for "easy" manual
reprogramming.
Same applies to all programs resident in ROM/RAM, the programs are
hardware/software.
--
Steve.
Timothy A. Seufert
wrote:
> The bottomline is this:
>
> If each 1/0 that comprises a -program- are the result of direct,
> unchangable (from within the running system) connections to the PSU's
> +5V/GND, then the program is simply hardware. All computers used to
> run programs that were pure hardware--mechanical switches and plug in
> wires that manually set each 1/0 in memory while the system was turned
> off. Firmware programs are essentially the same thing, except the
> process has been automated.
Ah, so you now admit that programs stored in ROM are not hardware.
Hint: ROM doesn't work how you think it does. There is no direct and
unchangeable connection to +5V or ground for each bit location.
As an aside, almost nothing runs off +5V any more. Your aging and soon
to be antique Amiga motherboards probably do, but modern computers have
shifted to 3.3V and several lower voltages, with 5V used mainly on the
PCI interface (for legacy reasons -- too many 5V-only PCI cards out
there to switch to 3.3V PCI on the motherboard yet).
-- Tim
To mail me unsolicited advertisements: Move to Siberia. Wait until I
say it's OK to send. Everybody else, remove "noUCE." from my address.
Thomas Richter
> So ENIAC processed a software-program,
Yes.
> 20 years before software was was invented. Nice.
...before the term "software" was invented to fix this
concept, yes. The word did not exist, but that didn't
stop Eniac from computing by a hard-wired program which
I call software. That this software is represented by
a set of wires instead by electric charges in RAM didn't
make it less software.
So long,
Thomas
______________don't_cut_here,_it_could_damage_your_terminal____________________
_______ _____ _____
/ / / / / / / EMAIL: th...@einstein.math.tu-berlin.de
/ /____/ / / /____/ http://www.math.tu-berlin.de/~thor/thor/index.html
/ / / / / / \ PGP available on request, finger print:
/ / / /____/ / / 11 FC 46 B0 7F 42 43 AC 38 A4 78 9A 24 BC 77 BE
_______________________________________________________________________________
SG
> In comp.sys.amiga.misc SG <sg...@erols.com> wrote:
> > Kirk Strauser<ki...@strauser.com> wrote:
>
>
> > So ENIAC processed a software-program,
>
> Yes.
>
> > 20 years before software was was invented. Nice.
>
> ....before the term "software" was invented to fix this
> concept, yes. The word did not exist, but that didn't
> stop Eniac from computing by a hard-wired program which
> I call software.
Ah, now we get to the crux of the issue...
*You* call it software, 20 years before software was invented.
They did not.
They called it a program.
It was.
It is today.
In hardware.
>That this software is represented by
> a set of wires instead by electric charges in RAM didn't
> make it less software.
>
>
> So long,
> Thomas
>
> ______________don't_cut_here,_it_could_damage_your_terminal____________________
> _______ _____ _____
> / / / / / / / EMAIL: th...@einstein.math.tu-berlin.de
> / /____/ / / /____/ http://www.math.tu-berlin.de/~thor/thor/index.html
> / / / / / / \ PGP available on request, finger print:
> / / / /____/ / / 11 FC 46 B0 7F 42 43 AC 38 A4 78 9A 24 BC 77 BE
> _______________________________________________________________________________
--
Steve.
Ed Dana
> Kelli Halliburton<kell...@crosswinds.not> wrote:
>
> > > Hillarious.
> > >
> > > So ENIAC processed a software-program, 20 years before software was
> > > was invented. Nice.
> >
> > Actually, it was more like firmware. Effectively, ENIAC was a programmable
> > computer.
>
> I was asking a rhetorical question there, t odemonstrate how silly it
> is to think that all computer programs are software. Obviously it
> was not running software 20 years before software was invented, and
> obviously it was programmable.
Give it up, Steve.
The terms Software, Firmware and Computer Program are all synonyms for the same
thing, the only difference being how they are instantiated. Saying that "Software"
did not exist in Eniacs day is like saying that "corn" did not exist before the
invention of "maize".
Or to quote Uncle Shakey (as I am often fond of doing): "That which we call a
Rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet".
The rest of the argument, below, was snipped because: slice it as thin as you
like, it's still baloney...
--
Sincerely, | Good and bad I defined these terms,
Ed Dana | Quite clear, no doubt, somehow...
Software Developer | Ah, but I was so much older then,
Amiga Enthusiast. | I'm younger than that now!
| -- Bob Dylan, My Back Pages.
=========== http://OurWorld.CompuServe.com/Homepages/EDanaII ===========
Ed Dana
An excellent explanation, Kelli.
You're exactly right. Software and firmware are two of many different methods
used to instantiate computer code.
We all know it, except for Steve.
Now, let's all give him this years I'm Not Gonna Lose This Argument For Nuthin'
award and move on. :)
SG
SG
> On or around 4 Mar 2001 09:05:34 -0600, SG wrote something about "What
> is hardware? What is software?"...
>
> > If each 1/0 that comprises a -program- are the result of direct,
> > unchangable (from within the running system) connections to the PSU's
> > +5V/GND, then the program is simply hardware.
>
> Cool.
>
> So that rules out all modern computers then.
Never heard of ROM?
> (Hint - they don't run off 5V and haven't for ages. Looks lik ea
> certain troll needs to get its facts straight, again.)
The motherboard logic indeed runs at 5V. Why do you think your PSU
has a 5V supply?
Duh.
--
Steve.
SG
> In article <3AA2049C.MD...@erols.com>, "SG" <sg...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The bottomline is this:
> >
> > If each 1/0 that comprises a -program- are the result of direct,
> > unchangable (from within the running system) connections to the PSU's
> > +5V/GND, then the program is simply hardware. All computers used to
> > run programs that were pure hardware--mechanical switches and plug in
> > wires that manually set each 1/0 in memory while the system was turned
> > off. Firmware programs are essentially the same thing, except the
> > process has been automated.
>
> Ah, so you now admit that programs stored in ROM are not hardware.
No I didn't actually.
> Hint: ROM doesn't work how you think it does. There is no direct and
> unchangeable connection to +5V or ground for each bit location.
Wow. Now programs stored permantly in a hardware device are
changable. Do you really want to start arguing with Webster now too?
Main Entry: firm暈are
Pronunciation: 'f&rm-"war, -"wer
Function: noun
Date: 1967
: computer programs contained permanently in a hardware device (as a
read-only memory)
> As an aside, almost nothing runs off +5V any more. Your aging and soon
> to be antique Amiga motherboards probably do, but modern computers have
> shifted to 3.3V and several lower voltages, with 5V used mainly on the
> PCI interface (for legacy reasons -- too many 5V-only PCI cards out
> there to switch to 3.3V PCI on the motherboard yet).
You've lost, and you know it.
--
Steve.
Craig Blackman
Please.
_____________________________________________________________
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion."
| mailto: (2cr...@home.com) |
Cheers from Craig of Tucson, Arizona, USA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand.
Eelke Blok
"SG" <sg...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3AA293DF.MD...@erols.com...
> They called it a program.
>
> It was.
>
> It is today.
>
> In hardware.
There's no such thing as a program in hardware, a program is merely a
description. There's a program *stored* in hardware (and that means each and
every program is stored in hardware, unless you learned the code of one by
heart, then it's stored in wetware). A program is *by definition* software,
even if the term wasn't invented yet. You could very well call the scrolls
run through an automatic piano (in Holland we call it a "pianola", not sure
if it's an English word) software. Very few people would argue against it
(you would, probably), although it's a somewhat untraditional use of the
term. A program isn't anything but the positions of holes in a piece of
carboard, the charge of a bunch of RAM-cells or the exact location of where
wires were soldered. It's possible to change these charges and locations in
a way that makes the device that is programmed with it perform a different
function, it doesn't stop it from working. A programmable device *by
defintion* processes software.
Cheers,
Eelke
SG
>
> "SG" <sg...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3AA293DF.MD...@erols.com...
>
> > They called it a program.
> >
> > It was.
> >
> > It is today.
> >
> > In hardware.
>
> There's no such thing as a program in hardware, a program is merely a
> description. There's a program *stored* in hardware (and that means each and
> every program is stored in hardware, unless you learned the code of one by
> heart, then it's stored in wetware). A program is *by definition* software,
"Program" is not synonymous with "software."
Thats the Nintendo generation not understanding that
programmable computers were around -long- before digital electronic
computers. The were, guess what, hardware. Thats all computer
programs were (just like WWI wasn't WWI until WWII), until software
was invented on or about 1960. Because thats all computers could do,
they were single program dedicated pieces of hardware during runtime.
> even if the term wasn't invented yet. You could very well call the scrolls
> run through an automatic piano (in Holland we call it a "pianola", not sure
> if it's an English word) software. Very few people would argue against it
> (you would, probably), although it's a somewhat untraditional use of the
> term. A program isn't anything but the positions of holes in a piece of
> carboard, the charge of a bunch of RAM-cells or the exact location of where
> wires were soldered. It's possible to change these charges and locations in
> a way that makes the device that is programmed with it perform a different
> function, it doesn't stop it from working. A programmable device *by
> defintion* processes software.
Silliness.
So all the (non-electric) -purely- mechanical programmable computers
that literally won WWII were running software, when various gear
ratios were inserted to change the program)?
Computers existed long before Nintendo (which is actually a bad
example, since runs only dedicated hardware too during runtime).
--
Steve.
SG
> Kelli Halliburton wrote:
> > The fun part is that software and/or firmware is STORED ON hardware. They're
> > by no means synonymous. However, certain configurations of hardware can
> > result in firmware.
> >
> > Hardware is a concrete, tangible thing. Software and/or firmware are not;
> > they are simply representations of various combinations of 1's and 0's. If I
> > have a bank of eight switches, and I flip them in the following pattern:
> >
> > off on off off off off off on
> >
> > That doesn't change the hardware from being a bank of switches. All it
> > changes is the configuration of it, making it REPRESENT the hex value 0x41,
> > the decimal value 65, or the ASCII character 'A', depending on how you look
> > at it.
Already shot down in another post.
> An excellent explanation, Kelli.
>
> You're exactly right. Software and firmware are two of many different methods
> used to instantiate computer code.
>
> We all know it, except for Steve.
And Princeton University, and Webster.
Intersting that you didn't reply to any ideas directly, just insults.
--
Steve.
SG
> SG wrote:
>
> > Kelli Halliburton<kell...@crosswinds.not> wrote:
> >
> > > > Hillarious.
> > > >
> > > > So ENIAC processed a software-program, 20 years before software was
> > > > was invented. Nice.
> > >
> > > Actually, it was more like firmware. Effectively, ENIAC was a programmable
> > > computer.
> >
> > I was asking a rhetorical question there, t odemonstrate how silly it
> > is to think that all computer programs are software. Obviously it
> > was not running software 20 years before software was invented, and
> > obviously it was programmable.
>
> Give it up, Steve.
Sorry, thats completely accurate.
--
Steve.
Eelke Blok
"Ed Dana" <EDa...@CSI.com> wrote in message
news:3AA2E643...@CSI.com...
> Now, let's all give him this years I'm Not Gonna Lose This Argument For
Nuthin'
> award and move on. :)
LOL. Yeah, it's one guy that insists on using the defintion differently from
the rest of us. No problem, it's him that won't be able to make himself
understood. Not our problem, is it?
Cheers,
Eelke
SG
No takers Nintendo majors?
Hmmm, I wonder why?
(I think this is about the time where the immaturity begins to
surface, and the Nintendo majors, realizing they cannot compete
intellectually, resort to personal insults to comfort their crumbling
young egos)
> Kelli Halliburton<kell...@crosswinds.not> wrote:
The above not intended for you Kelli, as you are the only one to
engage in intelligent debate thus far.
--
Steve.
Eelke Blok
> "Program" is not synonymous with "software."
>
> Thats the Nintendo generation not understanding that
> programmable computers were around -long- before digital electronic
> computers.
No need to start any name-calling... :)
But to stay in the fashion of my generation, I'm right and your not.
...
Am too.
...
Am too.
...
Am too.
(Feel free to fill in the dots, it might save a few posts in this thread).
> So all the (non-electric) -purely- mechanical programmable computers
> that literally won WWII were running software, when various gear
> ratios were inserted to change the program)?
Hey, you're getting the hang of it, very good. There might be hope for you
after all!
Cheers,
Eelke
Ed Dana
The problem is *not* Princeton and Webster's definitions. The problem is
_your_ interpretation of them.
Your examples:
======================================================================
> software -- (computer science) written programs or procedures or
> rules and associated documentation pertaining to the
> operation of a computer system and that are stored in
> read/write memory
======================================================================
"Programs", "Procedures", "Rules" and "Documentation" are all
represented within the computer as bits. They are, ergo, synonymous. Or,
more specifically, they are different sub-classes of the same class.
Let's call that class "Computer Code", for the sake of argument. These
sub-classes are "stored" (a method) within the computers memory. Now,
let's not forget that this "Memory" has a classification too. It is
called "Hardware".
Also:
======================================================================
> firmware -- (computer science) coded instructions that are stored
> permanently in read-only memory)
======================================================================
"Coded Instructions" are also represented as bits. Which makes it, too,
a sub-type of the same class that owns "Programs", "Rules", "Procedures"
and "Documentation". The only difference between the two definitions is
where "Coded Instructions" are stored: in read-only "Memory" which is of
class "Hardware" and only contains methods for reading.
So to translate:
* Software is a class of Computer Code that is stored within a class of
Hardware that has Read/Write methods.
* Firmware is a class of Computer Code that is stored within a class of
Hardware that has Read methods, only.
But this is not the point.
Subtracting the definitions for Hardware and their methods, we are left
with this:
* Software is a class of Computer Code.
* Firmware is a class of Computer Code.
Ergo, they are the same thing.
Which *is* the point.
> Intersting that you didn't reply to any ideas directly, just insults.
At this time, there is no point in replying to your arguments, not
because they are right or wrong, but because _many_ people have given
you valid arguments and you choose to ignore them.
As to the insult, you can look at it that way if you wish...
SG
Accordings to the Nintendo majors...
software = computer programs.
Clearly thats *completely* wrong.
> Also:
> ======================================================================
> > firmware -- (computer science) coded instructions that are stored
> > permanently in read-only memory)
> ======================================================================
> "Coded Instructions" are also represented as bits. Which makes it, too,
> a sub-type of the same class that owns "Programs", "Rules", "Procedures"
> and "Documentation". The only difference between the two definitions is
> where "Coded Instructions" are stored: in read-only "Memory" which is of
> class "Hardware" and only contains methods for reading.
Exactly what I said.
> So to translate:
> * Software is a class of Computer Code that is stored within a class of
> Hardware that has Read/Write methods.
> * Firmware is a class of Computer Code that is stored within a class of
> Hardware that has Read methods, only.
Exactly what I said. Welcome to my position.
> But this is not the point.
>
> Subtracting the definitions for Hardware and their methods, we are left
> with this:
> * Software is a class of Computer Code.
> * Firmware is a class of Computer Code.
>
> Ergo, they are the same thing.
>
> Which *is* the point.
You completely misunderstand their point. The say programs =
software. You, I, Princeton, and Webster are correct, however, as
computer programs need not be held in software, but may also be
placed directly in unchangable hardware.
> > Intersting that you didn't reply to any ideas directly, just insults.
>
> At this time, there is no point in replying to your arguments,
Because you agree with me without even realizing it.
--
Steve.
Ed Dana
*LOL*
Steve. You are *too* much.
I am now going to concede this argument, not because you are right, but because I have
no desire to bang my head against the wall.
You definitely deserve the INGLTAFN award. And with reasoning like the above, maybe even
a lifetime membership. =)
Oh, and BTW, you're still wrong...
SG
>
> "SG" <sg...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3AA3678D.MD...@erols.com...
>
> > "Program" is not synonymous with "software."
> >
> > Thats the Nintendo generation not understanding that
> > programmable computers were around -long- before digital electronic
> > computers.
>
> No need to start any name-calling... :)
>
> But to stay in the fashion of my generation, I'm right and your not.
> ....
> Am too.
> ....
> Am too.
> ....
> Am too.
>
> (Feel free to fill in the dots, it might save a few posts in this thread).
>
> > So all the (non-electric) -purely- mechanical programmable computers
> > that literally won WWII were running software, when various gear
> > ratios were inserted to change the program)?
>
> Hey, you're getting the hang of it, very good. There might be hope for you
> after all!
It is par for the course, you fail to address the content of the post,
you obviously realize you've been wrong from the start, and have no
legs left to stand on.
--
Steve.
SG
>
> "Ed Dana" <EDa...@CSI.com> wrote in message
> news:3AA2E643...@CSI.com...
>
> > Now, let's all give him this years I'm Not Gonna Lose This Argument For
> Nuthin'
> > award and move on. :)
>
> LOL. Yeah, it's one guy that insists on using the defintion differently from
> the rest of us.
Yeah, that crazy Webster.
--
Steve.
SG
> SG wrote:
>
> > Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> >
> > > So to translate:
> > > * Software is a class of Computer Code that is stored within a class of
> > > Hardware that has Read/Write methods.
> > > * Firmware is a class of Computer Code that is stored within a class of
> > > Hardware that has Read methods, only.
> >
> > Exactly what I said. Welcome to my position.
> >
> > > But this is not the point.
Lets hope not for your "argument's" sake, as the above is a *perfect*
description of my, Websters, Princeton's, and every single other
source posted, without a single exception.
> > > Subtracting the definitions for Hardware and their methods, we are left
> > > with this:
> > > * Software is a class of Computer Code.
> > > * Firmware is a class of Computer Code.
> > >
> > > Ergo, they are the same thing.
Right, both a class of programs. Is this obvious or what?
> > >
> > > Which *is* the point.
> >
> > You completely misunderstand their point. The say programs =
> > software. You, I, Princeton, and Webster are correct, however, as
> > computer programs need not be held in software, but may also be
> > placed directly in unchangable hardware.
> >
> > > > Intersting that you didn't reply to any ideas directly, just insults.
> > >
> > > At this time, there is no point in replying to your arguments,
> >
> > Because you agree with me without even realizing it.
>
> *LOL*
>
> Steve. You are *too* much.
>
> I am now going to concede this argument, not because you are right, but because I have
> no desire to bang my head against the wall.
You just agreed with me to the letter, what are you conceding, we
agree?
> You definitely deserve the INGLTAFN award. And with reasoning like the above, maybe even
> a lifetime membership. =)
Right, me, Webster, and every single source posted including
Princeton U.
Even you.
Ok fine.
> Oh, and BTW, you're still wrong...
But you agree with me. That makes sense.
--
Steve.
SG
No takers Nintendo majors?
Hmmm, I wonder why?
(I think this is about the time where the immaturity begins to
surface, and the Nintendo majors, realizing they cannot compete
intellectually, resort to personal insults to comfort their crumbling
young egos)
> Kelli Halliburton<kell...@crosswinds.not> wrote:
The above not intended for you Kelli, as you are the only one to
engage in intelligent debate thus far.
> > > Hillarious.
> > >
> > > So ENIAC processed a software-program, 20 years before software was
> > > was invented. Nice.
> >
> > Actually, it was more like firmware. Effectively, ENIAC was a programmable
> > computer.
>
> I was asking a rhetorical question there, t odemonstrate how silly it
> is to think that all computer programs are software. Obviously it
> was not running software 20 years before software was invented, and
> obviously it was programmable.
>
> <snip>
> > The fun part is that software and/or firmware is STORED ON hardware. They're
> > by no means synonymous. However, certain configurations of hardware can
> > result in firmware.
> >
> > Hardware is a concrete, tangible thing. Software and/or firmware are not;
> > they are simply representations of various combinations of 1's and 0's. If I
> > have a bank of eight switches, and I flip them in the following pattern:
> >
> > off on off off off off off on
> >
> > That doesn't change the hardware from being a bank of switches. All it
> > changes is the configuration of it, making it REPRESENT the hex value 0x41,
> > the decimal value 65, or the ASCII character 'A', depending on how you look
> > at it.
>
Timothy A. Seufert
wrote:
> Timothy A. Seufert<t...@mindspring.noUCE.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <3AA2049C.MD...@erols.com>, "SG" <sg...@erols.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The bottomline is this:
> > >
> > > If each 1/0 that comprises a -program- are the result of direct,
> > > unchangable (from within the running system) connections to the PSU's
> > > +5V/GND, then the program is simply hardware. All computers used to
> > > run programs that were pure hardware--mechanical switches and plug in
> > > wires that manually set each 1/0 in memory while the system was turned
> > > off. Firmware programs are essentially the same thing, except the
> > > process has been automated.
> >
> > Ah, so you now admit that programs stored in ROM are not hardware.
>
> No I didn't actually.
>
> > Hint: ROM doesn't work how you think it does. There is no direct and
> > unchangeable connection to +5V or ground for each bit location.
>
> Wow. Now programs stored permantly in a hardware device are
> changable.
Did I say that? No.
I said that a ROM contains no direct and unchangeable connection to +5V
or ground for each bit location.
Are you too stupid to understand this? Weren't you paying attention
when I gave you a free education about how ROMs actually work recently?
> Do you really want to start arguing with Webster now too?
>
> Main Entry: firm暈are
> Pronunciation: 'f&rm-"war, -"wer
> Function: noun
> Date: 1967
> : computer programs contained permanently in a hardware device (as a
> read-only memory)
Now look up the definition of computer programs.
(Hint: whether that edition of Webster's says so or not, computer
programs are software. They're always stored in some kind of hardware
device, too.)
> > As an aside, almost nothing runs off +5V any more. Your aging and soon
> > to be antique Amiga motherboards probably do, but modern computers have
> > shifted to 3.3V and several lower voltages, with 5V used mainly on the
> > PCI interface (for legacy reasons -- too many 5V-only PCI cards out
> > there to switch to 3.3V PCI on the motherboard yet).
>
> You've lost, and you know it.
You've lost, and you don't even know it, if we're to take your
blatherings at face value. Which most of us don't, since it's long been
obvious that (even if at one time you were honest in your Amiga advocacy
and spinoff issues like this one) you're mostly just trolling...
Eelke Blok
> It is par for the course, you fail to address the content of the post,
> you obviously realize you've been wrong from the start, and have no
> legs left to stand on.
Well, no, I actually felt there was little point in continuing the
discussion (for various reasons, which I will not list here because they
don't make you look too good). However, since you insist, I'll give it one
final try, not in the least because I think you're showing signs of panicing
because you are loosing the argument. You're now concentrating on the detail
of whether or not software and computer code are equivalent - which is
largely irrelevant for your original argument that a program can be hardware
or software. In another part of the thread (where you "accuse" Ed Dana of
supporting your point), you exchanged the term "hardware" for the term
"firmware", probably because you too see that you can not win the argument
that a computer program can *be* hardware.
So, to set the record straight, I was wrong in saying a (computer) program
and software are equivalent terms, because one should also distinguish
firmware. Fair enough, let's use that knowledge. Apparently, the distinction
is that firmware is computer code stored in read-only memory and software is
computer code stored in read/write memory. Fine. I still think firmware is a
somewhat bogus term in many contexts and the distinction only makes life
more complicated, but that's another story.
However, your claim was a program can *be* hardware, and that is never true.
Firmware and software both are *stored in* hardware and I haven't seen you
give any defintions or examples that proof a program can *be* hardware (and
I strongly believe that is because it actually is impossible). In the case
of gear-ratios, the program isn't the actual, solid metal gears, it is
defined by the ratios that are created by making specific combinations of
gears. In the case of the automatic piano, or for computers using
punch-cards, for that matter, the program isn't the piece of cardboard that
is fed to them, it is *defined by* or stored in the specific positions of
holes in the cardboard.
In short, as was the pinnacle of my original argument, the way a program is
stored doesn't define it as being hardware, in some case, and as software in
others. If you exchange "firmware" for "hardware" in all of your arguments,
you are spot on, as it turns out. You must have realized that yourself,
judging from the sudden shift in another part of this thread.
Cheers,
Eelke
SG
>
> "SG" <sg...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3AA56E11.MD...@erols.com...
>
> > It is par for the course, you fail to address the content of the post,
> > you obviously realize you've been wrong from the start, and have no
> > legs left to stand on.
>
> Well, no, I actually felt there was little point in continuing the
> discussion (for various reasons, which I will not list here because they
> don't make you look too good). However, since you insist, I'll give it one
> final try, not in the least because I think you're showing signs of panicing
> because you are loosing the argument.
But you finally concede, below. That makes sense.
> You're now concentrating on the detail
> of whether or not software and computer code are equivalent - which is
> largely irrelevant for your original argument that a program can be hardware
> or software. In another part of the thread (where you "accuse" Ed Dana of
> supporting your point), you exchanged the term "hardware" for the term
> "firmware", probably because you too see that you can not win the argument
> that a computer program can *be* hardware.
He himslf agree that both firmware and software are mutually
exclusive subsets of programs. Thats agreement, soory, whether he
realized it or not.
> So, to set the record straight, I was wrong in saying a (computer) program
> and software are equivalent terms, because one should also distinguish
> firmware. Fair enough, let's use that knowledge. Apparently, the distinction
> is that firmware is computer code stored in read-only memory and software is
> computer code stored in read/write memory. Fine. I still think firmware is a
> somewhat bogus term in many contexts and the distinction only makes life
> more complicated, but that's another story.
Ok fine, so you agree now too.
> However, your claim was a program can *be* hardware, and that is never true.
Not quite, a "program in read only mem" is firmware/hardware.
A "program" is just what I've posted -many- times now (throughout the
course of this never ending thread)...
Main Entry: 1pro·gram
Pronunciation: 'prO-"gram, -gr&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French programme agenda, public notice, from Greek programma, from prographein to write before, from pro- before + graphein to write -- more at CARVE
Date: 1633
6 a : a *plan* for the programming of a mechanism (as a computer)
[My emphasis added]
> Firmware and software both are *stored in* hardware and I haven't seen you
> give any defintions or examples that proof a program can *be* hardware (and
See above.
But to think that a single purpose dedicated machine (the program in
ROM combined with the processor, unchangably) may not be purely
hardware seems strange to me.
> I strongly believe that is because it actually is impossible). In the case
> of gear-ratios, the program isn't the actual, solid metal gears, it is
> defined by the ratios that are created by making specific combinations of
> gears. In the case of the automatic piano, or for computers using
> punch-cards, for that matter, the program isn't the piece of cardboard that
> is fed to them, it is *defined by* or stored in the specific positions of
> holes in the cardboard.
>
> In short, as was the pinnacle of my original argument, the way a program is
> stored doesn't define it as being hardware, in some case, and as software in
> others. If you exchange "firmware" for "hardware" in all of your arguments,
> you are spot on, as it turns out.
I know.
> You must have realized that yourself,
> judging from the sudden shift in another part of this thread.
Its not how the program is stored, its how its executed.
See the Webster definition above. A "plan" can be stored basically
anywhere, but it won't run ("program" a computer) until its in
computer mem attached to a processor.
How it gets into computer memory is the key, if the system is general
purpose, that is, capable of writing (<--key word) any program into
its own memomy and then executes it, it is software porgrammable. If
the machine is simply a single purposed peice of hardware, and thus
must have the program placed in memory by some other one time
process, its not software programable.
Obviously, there are machines, like Amigas, that are programmed using
both hardware and software methods at the same time.
--
Steve.
SG
> In article <3AA29CE8.MD...@erols.com>, "SG" <sg...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Timothy A. Seufert<t...@mindspring.noUCE.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3AA2049C.MD...@erols.com>, "SG" <sg...@erols.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The bottomline is this:
> > > >
> > > > If each 1/0 that comprises a -program- are the result of direct,
> > > > unchangable (from within the running system) connections to the PSU's
> > > > +5V/GND, then the program is simply hardware. All computers used to
> > > > run programs that were pure hardware--mechanical switches and plug in
> > > > wires that manually set each 1/0 in memory while the system was turned
> > > > off. Firmware programs are essentially the same thing, except the
> > > > process has been automated.
> > >
> > > Ah, so you now admit that programs stored in ROM are not hardware.
> >
> > No I didn't actually.
> >
> > > Hint: ROM doesn't work how you think it does. There is no direct and
> > > unchangeable connection to +5V or ground for each bit location.
> >
> > Wow. Now programs stored permantly in a hardware device are
> > changable.
>
> Did I say that? No.
>
> I said that a ROM contains no direct and unchangeable connection to +5V
> or ground for each bit location.
Based on the fact that the voltage may vary--thats intelligent.
> Are you too stupid to understand this? Weren't you paying attention
> when I gave you a free education about how ROMs actually work recently?
You mean from the link I posted?
--
Steve.
Eelke Blok
[Big Snip]
I give up. I do not agree with you. I don't understand why you refuse to see
the point software and firmware both are *stored* in hardware and neither
actually *is* hardware.
Cheers,
Eelke
bme...@cs.monash.edu.au
>Bill Hoggett<bill_h...@lineone.net> wrote:
>> Princeton have already disowned any responsibility for producing this
>> claptrap.
>Right.
Posted before, on July 2nd, 2000, and Jan 28th, 2001. Reposted due to
the short attention span of one individual:
> Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 14:19:53 +1000 (EST)
> From: Bernd Bernie Meyer <bme...@cs.monash.edu.au>
> To: wor...@princeton.edu
> Subject: Wordnet question
[...]
> c) In particular, was the definition of "firmware" written by someone
> from the Princeton CS department?
No--I have no record at this time of the source of that definition
> d) If the anser to (c) was no, was the definition for "firmware" checked,
> proofread or in any other way validated by anyone from the Princeton
> CS department?
No
> e) Does Princeton University, as an entity, in any way endorse the
> definitions contained in WN? I.e. would one be justified to say
> "Princeton university defines X as ABC" based on finding such a
> definition in WN?
No
> f) Do any of the linguistics professors involved with WN in any way endorse
> the actual content of the definitions contained in WN (i.e. would
> it be justifiable to claim those professors held a certain opinion
> about the meaning of a word based on the definitions contained in WN)?
The professional linguists and computational linguists involved with WN are
not Professors of Linguistics at Princeton University.
g...@clarity.princeton.edu
Pay special attention to the answer to (e).
Bernie
--
You see things, and you say 'Why?' But I dream things that never were,
and say 'Why not?'
George Bernhard Shaw
Irish playwright, 1856-1950
bme...@cs.monash.edu.au
>At 2001-03-04T15:05:34Z, "SG" <sg...@erols.com> writes:
>[snip stupidly wrong explanation of hardware vs. software]
>> This couldn't possibly be simpler.
>...or more incorrect.
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
- A. Einstein
'Nuff said.
Bernie
--
The chief distinction of a diplomat is that he can say no in such
a way that it sounds like yes
Lester Pearson
Canadian Prime Minister 1963-68
SG
> SG<sg...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> No takers Nintendo majors?
>
> Hmmm, I wonder why?
>
> (I think this is about the time where the immaturity begins to
> surface, and the Nintendo majors, realizing they cannot compete
> intellectually, resort to personal insults to comfort their crumbling
> young egos)
<snip>
> > The logic gates guide the current through so that: 01 + 01 = 010, etc.
> >
> > Or, to draw that in action...
> >
> > +----------------+
> > | |
> > GND ---------| |------- GND (LED off)
> > +5V ---------| |
> > | Logic Gates |------- +5V (LED on)
> > GND ---------| (Processor) |
> > +5V ---------| |------- GND (LED off)
> > | |
> > +----------------+
> >
> > The above data being processed is ROM, pure hardware.
And while we're at it, why not add a "display copy" feature by burning
the required circuitry permanently into hardware:
+----------------+
| |
GND ---------| |---+------- GND (Red LED off)
+5V ---------| | |
| Logic Gates |-----+----- +5V (Red LED on)
GND ---------| (Processor) | | |
+5V ---------| |-------+--- GND (Red LED off)
| | | | |
+----------------+ | | |
| | |
| | |
+------- GND (Green LED off)
| |
+----- +5V (Green LED on)
|
+--- GND (Green LED off)
As any Nintendo major can plainly see, now its copying the display via
software.
--
Steve.
SG
> "SG" <sg...@erols.com> writes:
> >Bill Hoggett<bill_h...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> >> Princeton have already disowned any responsibility for producing this
> >> claptrap.
>
> >Right.
>
> Posted before, on July 2nd, 2000, and Jan 28th, 2001. Reposted due to
> the short attention span of one individual:
>
> > Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 14:19:53 +1000 (EST)
> > From: Bernd Bernie Meyer <bme...@cs.monash.edu.au>
> > To: wor...@princeton.edu
> > Subject: Wordnet question
> [...]
> > c) In particular, was the definition of "firmware" written by someone
> > from the Princeton CS department?
>
> No--I have no record at this time of the source of that definition
Here it is for you...
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn/?stage=1&word=firmware
--
Steve.
K.S. Henderson
Code is software. If you can touch it, ie a chip, a hard drive, a disk or a
board, it is software.
K.S. Henderson
SG wrote:
> S...@BodyCount.dk<s...@bodycount.dk> wrote:
>
> > but. the lines between Hardware and software, have begin to melt
> > closer together.
>
> Not really.
>
> > Example.:
> > The transmeta CPU, is as much hardware as it is software, and i still
> > dont believe the Transmeta Cpu is Firmware.
>
> The bottomline is this:
>
> If each 1/0 that comprises a -program- are the result of direct,
> unchangable (from within the running system) connections to the PSU's
> +5V/GND, then the program is simply hardware. All computers used to
> run programs that were pure hardware--mechanical switches and plug in
> wires that manually set each 1/0 in memory while the system was turned
> off. Firmware programs are essentially the same thing, except the
> process has been automated.
>
> If the 1s/0s (+5v/GND) that comprise a -program- are the result of
> -output leads- of powered logic gate arrays, or clock refreshed
> capacitors, and the bits are are thus togglable (i.e. read/write
> memory) and set by the processor itself during runtime, that volatile
> program is called "soft"ware.
>
> This couldn't possibly be simpler.
>
> --
>
> Steve.
Bill Hoggett
Steve, in this context "source" means author. Once again you provide
the wrong answer.
--
Bill Hoggett
No prejudice. I hate Microsoft without prejudice...
Stot
> Consider designing simple processor (something all CS101 students
> should do for homework on night one) to add two 2-bit numbers,
> by guiding the input voltages though a series of logic gates to output
> LEDs (go to RadioShack, buy a simple 100 in 1 project, and go for
> it, its ridiculously easy to do). You have input bits that go into
> the gate array, the gate logic, and output bits that light
> up 5V LEDs to represent a binary number.
>
> If you wire the input bits of the processor logic gate array,
> directly to 5V or GND, the bits are set in hardware, and thus, the
> answer simply lights up when you turn the computer on. Note, this
> isn't complex enough to be program yet, just data, but the idea is
> the same
Can I ask why this isnt a program yet?
A program doesnt become a program because of its complexity. Take the Hello
world basic program
10 print "hello world"
20 goto 10
You take an input, process it, display an output. Thats makes it a program.
I agree that you can have a program that runs on hardware that doesnt need
computer software. The program is implimented by the way the hardware is
assembled and how it works together i.e. the hardware is coded to run its
program.
I do think that if something runs a program, the program its running,
wherever it comes from, is termed as software.
Stot
--
600/020,25/8F/2C/800HD/16xCD/Squirrel
500/030,50/32F/1C/840HD/(trying to get picasso working)
--
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/boystot/
ICQ: 35995895
Ed Dana
> Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
>
> > SG wrote:
> >
> > > You completely misunderstand their point. The say programs =
> > > software. You, I, Princeton, and Webster are correct, however, as
> > > computer programs need not be held in software, but may also be
> > > placed directly in unchangable hardware.
> > >
> > > > > Intersting that you didn't reply to any ideas directly, just insults.
> > > >
> > > > At this time, there is no point in replying to your arguments,
> > >
> > > Because you agree with me without even realizing it.
> >
> > *LOL*
> >
> > Steve. You are *too* much.
> >
> > I am now going to concede this argument, not because you are right, but because I have
> > no desire to bang my head against the wall.
>
> You just agreed with me to the letter, what are you conceding, we
> agree?
>
We do not agree.
I agree with "them".
Programs = Software. They are synonymous. It is a Program if it is in ROM, RAM, Disk, Tape or
Paper. It is Software if it is in ROM, RAM, Disk, Tape or Paper, with the exception that if it
is in ROM it can also be called Firmware.
> > You definitely deserve the INGLTAFN award. And with reasoning like the above, maybe even
> > a lifetime membership. =)
>
> Right, me, Webster, and every single source posted including
> Princeton U.
>
> Even you.
>
> Ok fine.
>
> > Oh, and BTW, you're still wrong...
>
> But you agree with me. That makes sense.
*LOL*
One more time: I do not agree with you.
You are wrong.
A Program is a program regardless of where it resides. Your argument that a program is not
software is splitting hairs so fine that even bacillus are buying Rogaine (tm).
SG
A program is a program.
Thanks so much for your contribution.
--
Steve.
Greg Tallent
> Yeah, that crazy Webster.
Why bring Webster into this? he didn't do anything wrong, I just talked to him
last week and he didn't seem crazy then.
Now that Steve guy on the other hand...
<tsb>
Greg Tallent |Amiga2000 GVP 040/33mhz/3.5 72 megs,9 gig/BuddhaIDE|
gwt at gte.net |Zoom 56k, Syjet, Zip, Picasso II 2Meg, Plextor CD-R|
Never leave diskettes in the disk drive, as data can leak out of the disk and
corrode the inner mechanics of the drive. Diskettes should be rolled up and
stored in pencil holders.
SG
> Hi
>
> > Consider designing simple processor (something all CS101 students
> > should do for homework on night one) to add two 2-bit numbers,
> > by guiding the input voltages though a series of logic gates to output
> > LEDs (go to RadioShack, buy a simple 100 in 1 project, and go for
> > it, its ridiculously easy to do). You have input bits that go into
> > the gate array, the gate logic, and output bits that light
> > up 5V LEDs to represent a binary number.
> >
> > If you wire the input bits of the processor logic gate array,
> > directly to 5V or GND, the bits are set in hardware, and thus, the
> > answer simply lights up when you turn the computer on. Note, this
> > isn't complex enough to be program yet, just data, but the idea is
> > the same
>
> Can I ask why this isnt a program yet?
> A program doesnt become a program because of its complexity. Take the Hello
> world basic program
>
> 10 print "hello world"
> 20 goto 10
>
> You take an input, process it, display an output. Thats makes it a program.
I actually agree with that, but I'm trying to keep things extra simple
here. See below.
> I agree that you can have a program that runs on hardware that doesnt need
> computer software. The program is implimented by the way the hardware is
> assembled and how it works together i.e. the hardware is coded to run its
> program.
>
> I do think that if something runs a program, the program its running,
> wherever it comes from, is termed as software.
Ok, then plz address my earilier example...
Your hallway:
Switch Light Switch
(ROM) (DISPLAY) (ROM)
0 0 0
1 1 0
0 1 1
1 0 1
(Ok, so there's no display to show the carried one, add an AND gate
and a second light if you really want it)
So given what you said above, your hallway runs software.
Correct?
--
Steve.
SG
> Back on 07-Mar-01 00:17:27 SG sg...@erols.com Wrote:
> > Eelke Blok<e.b...@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> "Ed Dana" <EDa...@CSI.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3AA2E643...@CSI.com...
> >>
> >> > Now, let's all give him this years I'm Not Gonna Lose This Argument For
> >> Nuthin'
> >> > award and move on. :)
> >>
> >> LOL. Yeah, it's one guy that insists on using the defintion differently
> >> from the rest of us.
>
> > Yeah, that crazy Webster.
>
> Why bring Webster into this? he didn't do anything wrong, I just talked to him
> last week and he didn't seem crazy then.
>
> Now that Steve guy on the other hand...
I find myself wondering if anyone who disagrees with the Webster
defintion is ever going to post anything intelligent and lucid that
actually supports their position? Is immaturity really the best
defense you've all got?
--
Steve.
Timothy A. Seufert
wrote:
> Timothy A. Seufert<t...@mindspring.noUCE.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <3AA29CE8.MD...@erols.com>, "SG" <sg...@erols.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Wow. Now programs stored permantly in a hardware device are
> > > changable.
> >
> > Did I say that? No.
> >
> > I said that a ROM contains no direct and unchangeable connection to +5V
> > or ground for each bit location.
>
> Based on the fact that the voltage may vary--thats intelligent.
No, based on the fact that there is no direct and unchangeable
connection from a bit cell in a ROM to any power or ground rail, whether
it be 5V, 3.3V, 2.5V, 1.8V, or anything else.
> > Are you too stupid to understand this? Weren't you paying attention
> > when I gave you a free education about how ROMs actually work recently?
> >
>
> You mean from the link I posted?
No, I mean when I gave you a free education about how ROMs really work.
In my own words, not through a link. You weren't listening.
Short remedial course: they are not wires permanently connecting things
to power and ground.
Timothy A. Seufert
wrote:
> SG<sg...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> No takers Nintendo majors?
>
> Hmmm, I wonder why?
Eh, I thought about responding, but it's all too obvious that it's
pointless. You'll just wallow on in your ignorance as usual.
Since you really insist, none of those diagrams can be considered a
"processor" (i.e. a Turing complete device). They are just simple logic
circuits; the fact that you have chosen to label a 2-bit adder a
"processor" doesn't make it so.
Why don't you go back to arguing that a light switch circuit is a
processor? That was far more entertaining.
Edwin
Your stupidity has got to be willful. I refuse to believe that anyone who
is capable of getting themselves onto Usenet can also be retarded enough to
read everything above and come away with the 'conclusion' all that was said
is "A program is a program."
Edwin
John Sheehy
"Edwin" <varma_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Your stupidity has got to be willful. I refuse to believe that anyone who
>is capable of getting themselves onto Usenet can also be retarded enough to
>read everything above and come away with the 'conclusion' all that was said
>is "A program is a program."
Intelligence is not necessarily a catalyst for arriving at truths. It
can also be used to design impenetrable defense mechanisms.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Stot
it is doing what the term software was coined for.
The lighting is programed via its installation to turn the light on in
certain conditions.
Course the software is the processes not the physical entities involved.
: )
Ed Dana
And hardware is hardware.
But a program is not hardware, even if it is _Firmware_.
SG
> > Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> > A program is a program.
>
> And hardware is hardware.
Thanks so much for that contribution.
> But a program is not hardware, even if it is _Firmware_.
Of course it can be, a computer program need not even require
electricity.
--
Steve.
SG
> I guess yes my hallway is running software. Its not computer software but
> it is doing what the term software was coined for.
Oh my gosh....
I have to disagree. Your hallway is a dedicated piece of
hardware incapable of running software, because it cannot program its
own memory contents.
> The lighting is programed via its installation to turn the light on
> in certain conditions.
Correct, via dedicated hardware alone. This is exactly why a program
in hardware is not considered software, the capability to run software
implies programmability from within the normally running system, not
dedicated single purpose machines.
> Course the software is the processes not the physical entities
> involved.
> : )
Where is this software in your opinion?
--
Steve.
SG
> In article <3AA58F8A.MD...@erols.com>, "SG" <sg...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> > SG<sg...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > No takers Nintendo majors?
> >
> > Hmmm, I wonder why?
>
> Eh, I thought about responding, but it's all too obvious that it's
> pointless. You'll just wallow on in your ignorance as usual.
>
> Since you really insist, none of those diagrams can be considered a
> "processor" (i.e. a Turing complete device). They are just simple logic
> circuits;
...that process data.
> the fact that you have chosen to label a 2-bit adder a
> "processor" doesn't make it so.
>
> Why don't you go back to arguing that a light switch circuit is a
> processor? That was far more entertaining.
Done.
If it processes data, its a processor.
Simple.
--
Steve.
SG
> In article <3AA61221.MD...@erols.com>, "SG" <sg...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Timothy A. Seufert<t...@mindspring.noUCE.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3AA29CE8.MD...@erols.com>, "SG" <sg...@erols.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wow. Now programs stored permantly in a hardware device are
> > > > changable.
> > >
> > > Did I say that? No.
> > >
> > > I said that a ROM contains no direct and unchangeable connection to +5V
> > > or ground for each bit location.
> >
> > Based on the fact that the voltage may vary--thats intelligent.
>
> No, based on the fact that there is no direct and unchangeable
> connection from a bit cell in a ROM to any power or ground rail, whether
> it be 5V, 3.3V, 2.5V, 1.8V, or anything else.
Ridiculous.
It makes no differenece how circuitous or the method, the connection
is in hardware and unchangable.
You are intentionally wasting time becasue you know your position has
been utterly demolished.
--
Steve.
Greg Tallent
What's the problem, you have yet to post anything even remotely lucid or
intelligent, why should the rest of us?
When someone, quite rightly, posts a reply to you stating why your opinion as to
what is hardware and what is software is wrong, the only thing you can say in
reply to back up your statement is to quote a dictionary...
This is intelligent???
Isn't it curious that nobody has yet to reply to you and say "Yep, you're right
Steve"? doesn't it seem strange that all of the dozens of people who have
replied to you ALL say that you're wrong?
Could this possibly be part of the world conspiracy to keep Steve quiet? COULD
IT BE?
<tsb>
Greg Tallent |Amiga2000 GVP 040/33mhz/3.5 72 megs,9 gig/BuddhaIDE|
gwt at gte.net |Zoom 56k, Syjet, Zip, Picasso II 2Meg, Plextor CD-R|
It's amazing your knuckles don't bleed when you walk.
Patrick Ford
>
> They did not.
>
> They called it a program.
>
> It was.
>
> It is today.
>
> In hardware.
There is simply no other way to store a program but in hardware. Everyone
else understands this. Why can't you?
--
--
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Patrick Ford Auckland, Aotearoa (New Zealand)
Harvesters, send spam directly to:
ro...@127.0.0.1,abuse@!--#echo var,postm...@nsa.gov
postmaster@localhost,abuse@localhost,ro...@mailloop.com
cat/dev/zero/tmp/...`@localhost,halt@localhost.C:\con\con@localhost
news.admin.ne...@myriad.alias.net
Patrick Ford
> Kirk Strauser<ki...@strauser.com> wrote:
>
> > At 2001-03-04T15:05:34Z, "SG" <sg...@erols.com> writes:
> >
> > [snip stupidly wrong explanation of hardware vs. software]
> >
> > > This couldn't possibly be simpler.
> >
> > ....or more incorrect. If it's a set of instructions that a
> > processor will execute, then it's software. If you can pick it
> > up and throw it at the village idiot, then SG will have a lot of
> > hardware thrown at him.
> >
> > Software == instructions
>
> Hillarious.
>
> So ENIAC processed a software-program, 20 years before software was
> was invented. Nice.
Yes, just as a caveman's fire oxidised fuel thousands of years before the
nature of combustion was understood.
Tx
> > defintion is ever going to post anything intelligent and lucid that
> > actually supports their position? Is immaturity really the best
> > defense you've all got?
>
> What's the problem, you have yet to post anything even remotely lucid or
> intelligent, why should the rest of us?
>
> When someone, quite rightly, posts a reply to you stating why your opinion
as to
> what is hardware and what is software is wrong, the only thing you can say
in
> reply to back up your statement is to quote a dictionary...
>
standard English dictionary. Steve, this is the definition from a more
appropriate dictionary (the Academic Press Dictionary of Science and
Technology):
"software - any computer instructions written to be executed on hardware,
including operating systems,utility programs, and application programs"
Note that there is no reference to where the software is stored, which
unsurprisingly lines up with everyone elses definition of the term.
Tx
Ed Dana
> Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> > > A program is a program.
> >
> > And hardware is hardware.
>
> Thanks so much for that contribution.
>
> > But a program is not hardware, even if it is _Firmware_.
>
> Of course it can be, a computer program need not even require
> electricity.
Wow!
Have they finally perfected water-powered computers?
Ed Dana
> Back on 07-Mar-01 23:04:23 SG sg...@erols.com Wrote:
>
> > I find myself wondering if anyone who disagrees with the Webster
> > defintion is ever going to post anything intelligent and lucid that
> > actually supports their position? Is immaturity really the best
> > defense you've all got?
>
> What's the problem, you have yet to post anything even remotely lucid or
> intelligent, why should the rest of us?
>
> When someone, quite rightly, posts a reply to you stating why your opinion as to
> what is hardware and what is software is wrong, the only thing you can say in
> reply to back up your statement is to quote a dictionary...
>
> This is intelligent???
>
> Isn't it curious that nobody has yet to reply to you and say "Yep, you're right
> Steve"? doesn't it seem strange that all of the dozens of people who have
> replied to you ALL say that you're wrong?
>
> Could this possibly be part of the world conspiracy to keep Steve quiet? COULD
> IT BE?
Presently, the US is leading the charge, with Britain and Israel not too far behind.
The official US line is "We cannot allow Mr. Gionovella to think, even for a moment,
that he is right, as it is a threat to world security. The realization that Firmware
is Hardware that can run without electricity will cause airplanes to fall out of the
sky, missiles to launch prematurely, and Arabs to live in peace with Jews. The world
is simply not read for this."
[Evil Grin]
Edwin
>SG wrote:
>
>> Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
>> > > A program is a program.
>> >
>> > And hardware is hardware.
>>
>> Thanks so much for that contribution.
>>
>> > But a program is not hardware, even if it is _Firmware_.
>>
>> Of course it can be, a computer program need not even require
>> electricity.
>
>Wow!
>
>Have they finally perfected water-powered computers?
The first computers were mechanical. I suggest that you read about Charles
Babbage.
Edwin
Timothy A. Seufert
wrote:
Projecting again, Steve? What a lame way to argue. Look up the message
where I gave you your remedial lesson and actually read it this time.
I can't be bothered to teach you again.
Ed Dana
I was being a smart-ass. Work with me here, Edwin. :)
Edwin
"Ed Dana" <EDa...@CSI.com> wrote in message
> Edwin wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 08:37:17 -0700, Ed Dana <EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> >
> > >SG wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > > Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> > >> > > A program is a program.
> > >> >
> > >> > And hardware is hardware.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks so much for that contribution.
> > >>
> > >> > But a program is not hardware, even if it is _Firmware_.
> > >>
> > >> Of course it can be, a computer program need not even require
> > >> electricity.
> > >
> > >Wow!
> > >
> > >Have they finally perfected water-powered computers?
> >
> > The first computers were mechanical. I suggest that you read about
Charles
> > Babbage.
>
> I was being a smart-ass. Work with me here, Edwin. :)
D'oh! :-)
Edwin
"John Sheehy" <jsh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7e2gato6dkvvu26h8...@4ax.com...
> In message <988i1d$otcl$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Edwin" <varma_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Your stupidity has got to be willful. I refuse to believe that anyone
who
> >is capable of getting themselves onto Usenet can also be retarded enough
to
> >read everything above and come away with the 'conclusion' all that was
said
> >is "A program is a program."
>
> Intelligence is not necessarily a catalyst for arriving at truths. It
> can also be used to design impenetrable defense mechanisms.
Yes, this is true. Intelligence "used to design impenetrable defense
mechanisms" is what I call "willful stupidity." A person who is simply
stupid lacks the mental faculties to gain knowledge or to analyze situations
and derive the 'correct' answer. I don't believe Steve is simply stupid.
I believe Steve is willfully stupid. He uses his intelligence to avoid
acknowledging facts or situations that are not to his liking. In so doing,
he makes it impossible for himself to come to the same conclusions as normal
intelligence would dictate. His mental processes have led him to the same
results that a simply stupid person would achieve, although he is not simply
stupid. Hence, he is willfully stupid. He has turned his intelligence
back on itself, so that intelligence is negated and becomes stupidity, by
willful choice.
Edwin
SG
> Edwin wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 08:37:17 -0700, Ed Dana <EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> >
> > >SG wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > > Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> > >> > > A program is a program.
> > >> >
> > >> > And hardware is hardware.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks so much for that contribution.
> > >>
> > >> > But a program is not hardware, even if it is _Firmware_.
> > >>
> > >> Of course it can be, a computer program need not even require
> > >> electricity.
> > >
> > >Wow!
> > >
> > >Have they finally perfected water-powered computers?
> >
> > The first computers were mechanical. I suggest that you read about Charles
> > Babbage.
>
> I was being a smart-ass. Work with me here, Edwin. :)
Because you know you've lost this argument very, very badly.
You actually thought you knew what you were talking about, but as it
turns out, you literally don't know the first thing about computers.
--
Steve.
SG
IOWs, you are doing the old Tim Sueufert hit and run...
Jump in without reading the thread and knowing whos arguing what
position, argue the very person's poisition that you are picking a
fight with, when you figure out that you had the sides mixed up, crawl
back into the wood work.
--
Steve.
SG
http://AmigaPro.com/Support/FailedToQualify.html
Rule 2) Lack of maturity/No intellectual content.
--
Steve.
Edwin
I think you've mistaken your posts for Ed's.
> --
>
> Steve.
s...@bodycount.dk
>Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
>
>http://AmigaPro.com/Support/FailedToQualify.html
>
>Rule 2) Lack of maturity/No intellectual content.
>
>
This post wherent directed to you Steve. are you now a moderator
too???
if you cant stand people making fun at you, just kill the tread.
SCA at Bodycount.dk
Greg Tallent
> SG wrote:
>> Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
>> > > A program is a program.
>> >
>> > And hardware is hardware.
>>
>> Thanks so much for that contribution.
>>
>> > But a program is not hardware, even if it is _Firmware_.
>>
>> Of course it can be, a computer program need not even require
>> electricity.
> Wow!
> Have they finally perfected water-powered computers?
Yup, it's called a Brain...
Pity that Steve doesn't use his very much.
<tsb>
Greg Tallent |Amiga2000 GVP 040/33mhz/3.5 72 megs,9 gig/BuddhaIDE|
gwt at gte.net |Zoom 56k, Syjet, Zip, Picasso II 2Meg, Plextor CD-R|
I may look busy, but I'm just confused.
Ed Dana
> Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
>
> > Edwin wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 08:37:17 -0700, Ed Dana <EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >SG wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > > Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > A program is a program.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > And hardware is hardware.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks so much for that contribution.
> > > >>
> > > >> > But a program is not hardware, even if it is _Firmware_.
> > > >>
> > > >> Of course it can be, a computer program need not even require
> > > >> electricity.
> > > >
> > > >Wow!
> > > >
> > > >Have they finally perfected water-powered computers?
> > >
> > > The first computers were mechanical. I suggest that you read about Charles
> > > Babbage.
> >
> > I was being a smart-ass. Work with me here, Edwin. :)
>
> Because you know you've lost this argument very, very badly.
>
> You actually thought you knew what you were talking about, but as it
> turns out, you literally don't know the first thing about computers.
Good Lord! But you're arrogant!
I've lost nothing but patience with a man who listens to no other arguments than his
own. Everybody here is posting against you. More people than just myself have posted
solid arguments and sound definitions that contradict yours. You have no supporters
in this at all. And yet, you still insist that you are right.
A humble man would at least accept that the other definitions are just as factual as
yours but you can't even gracefully do that.
SG
> SG wrote:
>
> > Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Edwin wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 08:37:17 -0700, Ed Dana <EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >SG wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > > A program is a program.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > And hardware is hardware.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks so much for that contribution.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > But a program is not hardware, even if it is _Firmware_.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Of course it can be, a computer program need not even require
> > > > >> electricity.
> > > > >
> > > > >Wow!
> > > > >
> > > > >Have they finally perfected water-powered computers?
> > > >
> > > > The first computers were mechanical. I suggest that you read about Charles
> > > > Babbage.
> > >
> > > I was being a smart-ass. Work with me here, Edwin. :)
> >
> > Because you know you've lost this argument very, very badly.
> >
> > You actually thought you knew what you were talking about, but as it
> > turns out, you literally don't know the first thing about computers.
>
> Good Lord! But you're arrogant!
Well now, you are the one who had no idea that programmable computers
could be purely mechanical (and were a "smartass" about your own
ignorance, by your own admission above).
> I've lost nothing but patience with a man who listens to no other arguments than his
> own. Everybody here is posting against you.
Somehow, I think there is more to the word "everyone" than 3 or 4
completely clueles Nintendo majors who slept though CS101, or went to
a school so bad, they russled up someone equally incompentent to teach
the class.
The fact is, every single definition posted here (from prestigious,
hallowed institutions that hire competent help, to the plain old
dictionary, which by definition is correct), agrees with me to the
letter and beyond any serious debate.
> More people than just myself have posted
> solid arguments and sound definitions that contradict yours. You have no supporters
> in this at all. And yet, you still insist that you are right.
>
> A humble man would at least accept that the other definitions are just as factual as
> yours but you can't even gracefully do that.
There have been none posted that disagree with my position, you just
don't know how to use a dictionary (as if your computer knowledge
wasn't bad enough).
Here's a hint for you:
(1) word - (2) defintion of word
Part 1 is the term being defined by part 2. The individual words
in part 2 are not being defined.
Everyone is actually thinks they've posted something that supports a
position other than mine, has made this 1st grade mistake, without a
single exception. I guess thats what you get from the few people who
don't have the attention span to beat CS101.
--
Steve.
SG
> Back on 10-Mar-01 10:37:17 Ed Dana EDa...@CSI.com Wrote:
> > SG wrote:
>
> >> Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> >> > > A program is a program.
> >> >
> >> > And hardware is hardware.
> >>
> >> Thanks so much for that contribution.
> >>
> >> > But a program is not hardware, even if it is _Firmware_.
> >>
> >> Of course it can be, a computer program need not even require
> >> electricity.
>
> > Wow!
>
> > Have they finally perfected water-powered computers?
>
> Yup, it's called a Brain...
Correct, and its programs are not software either.
Main Entry: wet暈are
Pronunciation: 'wet-"war, -"wer
Function: noun
Etymology: wet + software
Date: 1977
: the human brain or a human being considered especially with respect
to human logical and computational capabilities
--
Steve.
SG
http://AmigaPro.com/Support/FailedToQualify.html
Rule 2) Lack of maturity/No intellectual content.
> On 12 Mar 2001 20:08:06 -0600, "SG" <sg...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> >
> >http://AmigaPro.com/Support/FailedToQualify.html
> >
> >Rule 2) Lack of maturity/No intellectual content.
> >
> >
>
>
> This post wherent directed to you Steve. are you now a moderator
> too???
>
> if you cant stand people making fun at you, just kill the tread.
>
>
> SCA at Bodycount.dk
--
Steve.
Claudio Di Martino
> The fact is, every single definition posted here (from prestigious,
> hallowed institutions that hire competent help, to the plain old
> dictionary, which by definition is correct), agrees with me to the
> letter and beyond any serious debate.
nope
> There have been none posted that disagree with my position, you just
> don't know how to use a dictionary (as if your computer knowledge
> wasn't bad enough).
Merriam Webster Online disagrees, and I already posted its definition.
> Here's a hint for you:
> (1) word - (2) defintion of word
> Part 1 is the term being defined by part 2. The individual words
> in part 2 are not being defined.
> Everyone is actually thinks they've posted something that supports a
> position other than mine, has made this 1st grade mistake, without a
> single exception. I guess thats what you get from the few people who
> don't have the attention span to beat CS101.
Main Entry: soft暈are
Pronunciation: 'soft-"war, -"wer
Function: noun
Date: 1960
: something used or associated with and usually contrasted with hardware: as
a : the entire set of programs, procedures, and related documentation
associated with a system and especially a computer system;
specifically : computer programs
b : materials for use with audiovisual equipment
Computer programs are software by this definition. You won. Too many
were trolled. Cya.
Claudio Di Martino cla...@unige.it
-------------------------------------------------------------
Unsolicited and/or junk e-mail to this address isn't accepted
s...@bodycount.dk
On 13 Mar 2001 22:11:49 -0600, "SG" <sg...@erols.com> wrote:
>S...@BodyCount.dk<s...@bodycount.dk> wrote:
>
>http://AmigaPro.com/Support/FailedToQualify.html
>
>Rule 2) Lack of maturity/No intellectual content.
>
>
>
So you now admit you think your a moderator of this group,
thank you
SCA at Bodycount.dk
Greg Tallent
Curious that you state that it's not software either and yet the definition you
use here says "Etymology: wet + software", note that the word "Hardware" isn't
anywhere in that.
Actually a brain is just a biological computer that stores software(memories,
thoughts) in a chemical/electrical storage medium. if you die then the software
is lost(just like cutting the power in a normal computer RAM).
Naturally you won't agree with this(like I care).
BTW, I noticed that you had surgery and had your humor gland removed, was it
painful?
<tsb>
Greg Tallent |Amiga2000 GVP 040/33mhz/3.5 72 megs,9 gig/BuddhaIDE|
gwt at gte.net |Zoom 56k, Syjet, Zip, Picasso II 2Meg, Plextor CD-R|
Protect your bagels -- put lox on them.
SG
> > > SG wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> > > >
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > > I was being a smart-ass. Work with me here, Edwin. :)
> > > >
> > > > Because you know you've lost this argument very, very badly.
> > > >
> > > > You actually thought you knew what you were talking about, but as
> > it
> > > > turns out, you literally don't know the first thing about
> > computers.
> > >
> > > Good Lord! But you're arrogant!
> >
> > Well now, you are the one who had no idea that programmable computers
> > could be purely mechanical (and were a "smartass" about your own
> > ignorance, by your own admission above).
> >
>
> Smart Ass != ignorance. :)
You said you were a Smartass -about- your own ignorance. Must you
even argue that?
SG
> Stephen Burgoyne Coulson wrote:
> > software != program
> >
>
> Also very true.
Wow, we sure are making progress with you guys, pretty soon you'll
actually have this incredibly simple stuff all figured out.
> But this _is_ Comp.Sys.Amiga.Misc. So guess what type of program we are
> referring to?
>
> Let's not confuse the issue, now shall we? It's confused enough as it is
> already. :)
>
> > though it is probably fair to say that software is a proper subset of program
>
> But Steve has been claiming that Firmware = Hardware.
Close. I'm saying Firmware -is- hardware. Saying "firmware =
hardware" would be like saying "screwdrivers = hardware."
Its a Set (computer programs in memory), Subset (firmware, software,
hardware) relationship.
> So what's your point? Other than to digress. :)
>
> --
> Sincerely, | Good and bad I defined these terms,
> Ed Dana | Quite clear, no doubt, somehow...
> Software Developer | Ah, but I was so much older then,
> Amiga Enthusiast. | I'm younger than that now!
> | -- Bob Dylan, My Back Pages.
> =========== http://OurWorld.CompuServe.com/Homepages/EDanaII ===========
--
Steve.
SG
> SG wrote:
>
> > Eelke Blok<e.b...@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "SG" <sg...@erols.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3AA56E11.MD...@erols.com...
> > >
> > > > It is par for the course, you fail to address the content of the post,
> > > > you obviously realize you've been wrong from the start, and have no
> > > > legs left to stand on.
> > >
> > > Well, no, I actually felt there was little point in continuing the
> > > discussion (for various reasons, which I will not list here because they
> > > don't make you look too good). However, since you insist, I'll give it one
> > > final try, not in the least because I think you're showing signs of panicing
> > > because you are loosing the argument.
> >
> > But you finally concede, below. That makes sense.
> >
> > > You're now concentrating on the detail
> > > of whether or not software and computer code are equivalent - which is
> > > largely irrelevant for your original argument that a program can be hardware
> > > or software. In another part of the thread (where you "accuse" Ed Dana of
> > > supporting your point), you exchanged the term "hardware" for the term
> > > "firmware", probably because you too see that you can not win the argument
> > > that a computer program can *be* hardware.
> >
> > He himslf agree that both firmware and software are mutually
> > exclusive subsets of programs. Thats agreement, soory, whether he
> > realized it or not.
> >
>
> Oops. I just saw this today. Been to busy to read this whole silly thread.
>
> And no, Steve, I never said that firmware and software are mutually exclusive. I said that they are two subtypes of the _same_class_. I also said that they are
> synonymous.
And you've also said...
Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> Stephen Burgoyne Coulson wrote:
> > software != program
> >
>
> Also very true.
You have no idea what you own position is.
> This would pretty much rule out any notion of exclusivity.
> You are (once again) practicing creative interpretations.
>
> But as Eelke points out and you still choose to ignore, this is all irrelevant as Firmware is not Hardware, any more than Rider equals Horse.
>
> > > So, to set the record straight, I was wrong in saying a (computer) program
> > > and software are equivalent terms, because one should also distinguish
> > > firmware. Fair enough, let's use that knowledge. Apparently, the distinction
> > > is that firmware is computer code stored in read-only memory and software is
> > > computer code stored in read/write memory. Fine. I still think firmware is a
> > > somewhat bogus term in many contexts and the distinction only makes life
> > > more complicated, but that's another story.
> >
> > Ok fine, so you agree now too.
> >
>
> Creative Interpretations, yet again.
>
> > > However, your claim was a program can *be* hardware, and that is never true.
What a joke.
*All* computer programs originally were pure hardware, and hardware
alone. Computers didn't originate when you were born.
Computers don't even need electricity, its just a convenient medium
that is used to power modern ones; because its not only a very fast
flowing medium (amps) under pressure (voltage), but it can also easily
be used to power the required logical gates at a micro level. There
is by no means any *requirement* to use electricity as the medium, you
could use water, or even beer (<--cheap attempt to wake up the dozing
members of the Nintendo generation).
Its incredibly simple to do, provide a medium under pressure (water
from your faucet; electricity from your outlet) and guide it through
logical gates to ultimately power a display in some desired way.
For homework tonight, why don't you design an "AND" and an "OR" gate
for a water powered digital computer. I'll get your started, here's
the OR gate:
water in ------------+
|
+------------ water out
|
water in ------------+
A simply "Y" in a pipe will do. If either input is under pressure,
the output is pressurized. Just like a flow of electrons, if either
input has a higher voltage (pressure), the ouput bit has the same
higher voltage.
Now, you tell me how to design an "AND" gate, using the water
under pressure itself to power the required switches/relays.
Come on now, you can do this...
Next, show me how to build a display for the output bit (1/0;
voltage/no-voltage; pressure/no-pressure), also powered by only the
water medium itself.
Electrons flowing though wires are *no* different. Your Nintendo is
not magic, nor can it think, it simply directs/redirects a flowing
medium under pressure through logical gates, which are powered by the
medium itself, to achieve a desired display, also powered by the
medium itself. I.e. its a plain old piece of, non-thinking,
non-magical, *hardware.*
> > Not quite, a "program in read only mem" is firmware/hardware.
> >
> > A "program" is just what I've posted -many- times now (throughout the
> > course of this never ending thread)...
> >
>
> Mostly 'cause you won't let it end.
I'm not the one arguing with Webster.
> > Main Entry: 1pro搽ram
> > Pronunciation: 'prO-"gram, -gr&m
> > Function: noun
> > Etymology: French programme agenda, public notice, from Greek programma, from prographein to write before, from pro- before + graphein to write -- more at CARVE
> > Date: 1633
> > 6 a : a *plan* for the programming of a mechanism (as a computer)
> >
> > [My emphasis added]
> >
> > > Firmware and software both are *stored in* hardware and I haven't seen you
> > > give any defintions or examples that proof a program can *be* hardware (and
> >
> > See above.
> >
>
> Nothing you've added refutes everyone's point that Firmware is not Hardware.
You just read Webster, added emphasis, then let the point sail right
over your head...
The *program* is the plan, not firmware. Firmware is a program
represented by some configuration of hardware.
Note Webster agreeing with me here...
Main Entry: firm暈are
Pronunciation: 'f&rm-"war, -"wer
Function: noun
Date: 1967
: computer programs contained permanently in a hardware device (as a
read-only memory)
Did they say "/software/ permanently in hardware?"
No.
That would be oxymoronic, and M-W isn't written by oxymorons.
> > > In short, as was the pinnacle of my original argument, the way a program is
> > > stored doesn't define it as being hardware, in some case, and as software in
> > > others. If you exchange "firmware" for "hardware" in all of your arguments,
> > > you are spot on, as it turns out.
> >
> > I know.
> >
> > > You must have realized that yourself,
> > > judging from the sudden shift in another part of this thread.
> >
> > Its not how the program is stored, its how its executed.
> >
>
> All programs are executed in exactly the same way. The _only_ thing that differentiates Software vs. Firmware is where it is stored.
Bzzzt, its how it got into memory.
> Your point is irrelevant.
>
> > See the Webster definition above. A "plan" can be stored basically
> > anywhere, but it won't run ("program" a computer) until its in
> > computer mem attached to a processor.
> >
> > How it gets into computer memory is the key, if the system is general
> > purpose, that is, capable of writing (<--key word) any program into
> > its own memomy and then executes it, it is software porgrammable. If
> > the machine is simply a single purposed peice of hardware, and thus
> > must have the program placed in memory by some other one time
> > process, its not software programable.
> >
>
> What is the difference between ROM and RAM? Other than the obvious Read/Write issue?
Thats it.
A software program is written into a machines memory by the machine
itself during runtime. I.e. the computer is user programable;
software capable.
A firmware program is simply the medium flowing through a fixed
hardware configuration. Which is why trying to delete it, is like
trying to "delete" the water pipes above, it cannot be done.
--
Steve.
Patrick Ford
> >
> > What is the difference between ROM and RAM? Other than the obvious Read/Write issue?
>
> Thats it.
>
> A software program is written into a machines memory by the machine
> itself during runtime. I.e. the computer is user programable;
> software capable.
>
> A firmware program is simply the medium flowing through a fixed
> hardware configuration. Which is why trying to delete it, is like
> trying to "delete" the water pipes above, it cannot be done.
I see where your problem lies. You simply don't realise there is a
difference between hard-wired logic gates in hardware and software stored
in ROM. There is a big difference, and further study might enable you you
understand it.
--
--
My domain contains .co, not .com as appears in the header.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Patrick Ford Auckland, Aotearoa (New Zealand)
Harvesters, send spam directly to:
ro...@127.0.0.1,abuse@!--#echo var,postm...@nsa.gov
postmaster@localhost,abuse@localhost,ro...@mailloop.com
cat/dev/zero/tmp/...`@localhost,halt@localhost.C:\con\con@localhost
SG
> On 14-Mar-01 16:52:36, Greg Tallent typed concerning:
> /Re: And this years award goes too.../
> >Back on 13-Mar-01 22:57:04 SG sg...@erols.com Wrote:
> >> Greg Tallent<g...@nospamme.gte.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Back on 10-Mar-01 10:37:17 Ed Dana EDa...@CSI.com Wrote:
> >>> > Wow!
> >>>
> >>> > Have they finally perfected water-powered computers?
> >>>
> >>> Yup, it's called a Brain...
>
> >> Correct, and its programs are not software either.
>
> I'd agree with that, but I wouldn't call its programs "programs" either.
>
> >> Main Entry: wet暈are
> >> Pronunciation: 'wet-"war, -"wer
> >> Function: noun
> >> Etymology: wet + software
> >> Date: 1977
> >>: the human brain or a human being considered especially with respect
> >> to human logical and computational capabilities
>
> >Curious that you state that it's not software either and yet the definition
> >you use here says "Etymology: wet + software", note that the word "Hardware"
> >isn't anywhere in that.
>
> That etymology is spurious at best. It is not by extension of software per se,
> but by extension of the set of associated words hard- soft- firm- ware, of which
> software was coined in contrast to hardware, firmware was invented to fill the
> grey area (software that doesn't go away when the power dies) and wet was invented
> by wags as a humerous term for operators (obviously because they are 80% H2O).
>
> >Actually a brain is just a biological computer that stores software(memories,
> >thoughts) in a chemical/electrical storage medium. if you die then the
> >software is lost(just like cutting the power in a normal computer RAM).
>
> >Naturally you won't agree with this (like I care).
I certainly don't agree that brains run software. Though clearly they
can execute programs.
> Calling a brain a computer is a tenuous analogy. Certainly a brain computes but
> its resemblance to a digital electronic computer in its mode of operation is
> virtually nill. It certainly can't be said to store software. Rather, the hardware
> addapts to the information it is subject to.
>
> When the brain dies, it is the machine that disappears, not the memories (at least not
> right away) as they are still present in the physical configuration of the synapses.
> Without the machine running, it is of course impossible to get them out.
Wow...
You know this for sure Stephen?
The brain is clearly a computer, in addition to other things, in fact
*all* computer programs first ran in wetware, however slowly, by the
person that wrote them.
Its chemical driven operation is obviously a completely different
mechanism than a digital electronic computer though, which simply
flows a medium through logic gates in some completely predicatble
fashion.
For example, if I pour coffee in my computer, it doesn't get all
giddy.
--
Steve.
SG
> SG wrote:
>
> > >
> > > What is the difference between ROM and RAM? Other than the obvious Read/Write issue?
> >
> > Thats it.
> >
> > A software program is written into a machines memory by the machine
> > itself during runtime. I.e. the computer is user programable;
> > software capable.
> >
> > A firmware program is simply the medium flowing through a fixed
> > hardware configuration. Which is why trying to delete it, is like
> > trying to "delete" the water pipes above, it cannot be done.
>
> I see where your problem lies. You simply don't realise there is a
> difference between hard-wired logic gates in hardware and software stored
> in ROM. There is a big difference, and further study might enable you you
> understand it.
I'll refer you to my previous post...
groups?q=IB1+author:sgio%40erols.com&lr=&safe=off&scoring=relevance&as_drrb=quick&as_qdr=&as_mind=15&as_minm=8&as_miny=2000&as_maxd=16&as_maxm=3&as_maxy=2001&rnum=1&seld=918277176&ic=1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelli Halliburton<kell...@crosswinds.not> wrote:
> That doesn't change the hardware from being a bank of switches. All it
> changes is the configuration of it, making it REPRESENT the hex value 0x41,
> the decimal value 65, or the ASCII character 'A', depending on how you look
> at it.
You are getting closer...
Consider designing simple processor (something all CS101 students
should do for homework on night one) to add two 2-bit numbers,
by guiding the input voltages though a series of logic gates to output
LEDs (go to RadioShack, buy a simple 100 in 1 project, and go for
it, its ridiculously easy to do). You have input bits that go into
the gate array, the gate logic, and output bits that light
up 5V LEDs to represent a binary number.
If you wire the input bits of the processor logic gate array,
directly to 5V or GND, the bits are set in hardware, and thus, the
answer simply lights up when you turn the computer on. Note, this
isn't complex enough to be program yet, just data, but the idea is
the same.
+----------------+
| |
Input Bit1---------| |-------Output Bit1 (LED)
Input Bit2---------| |
| Logic Gates |-------Output Bit2 (LED)
Input Bit3---------| (Processor) |
Input Bit4---------| |-------Output Bit3 (LED)
| |
+----------------+
The logic gates guide the current through so that: 01 + 01 = 010, etc.
Or, to draw that in action...
+----------------+
| |
GND ---------| |------- GND (LED off)
+5V ---------| |
| Logic Gates |------- +5V (LED on)
GND ---------| (Processor) |
+5V ---------| |------- GND (LED off)
| |
+----------------+
The abve data being processed is ROM, pure hardware.
You might even make it easier, like ENIAC, by making each ROM bit a
switch, now you can easily change the memory contents, and you have
pretty usable 2-bit computer.
Now, if you take the Input Bits 1234, and replace them with logic
gates that the processor can ping to latch to a voltage while running,
like this...
+----------------+
+-------+ | |
| |------- IB1 ---------| |-------OB1 LED
+5V--| Logic |-------IB2---------| |
| Gates | | Logic Gates |-------OB2 LED
GND--| |-------IB3---------| (Processor) |
| |-------IB4---------| |-------OB3 LED
+----+--+ | |
| +---+------------+
| |
+--------------------------+
Now you can process soft/volatile data, much like data in RAM.
Take that concept, and apply it to entire loadable (present in
read/write mem) programs, not just data, and you see the difference
between a computer that can execute software programs, and single
purpose/dedicated computers one that can only run a hardware program
like ENIAC, though it did have ROM switches for "easy" manual
reprogramming.
Same applies to all programs resident in ROM/RAM, the programs are
hardware/software.
--
Steve.
--
Steve.
Ed Dana
> >
> > > Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> > >
[snip]
> > > > I was being a smart-ass. Work with me here, Edwin. :)
> > >
> > > Because you know you've lost this argument very, very badly.
> > >
> > > You actually thought you knew what you were talking about, but as
> it
> > > turns out, you literally don't know the first thing about
> computers.
> >
> > Good Lord! But you're arrogant!
>
> Well now, you are the one who had no idea that programmable computers
> could be purely mechanical (and were a "smartass" about your own
> ignorance, by your own admission above).
>
Smart Ass != ignorance. :)
Once again, you are guilty of (very) creative interpretation.
BTW, while I have attacked your argument, calling it baloney. I have not
attacked you. Nor have I called your knowledge of computers into play,
or have I told you what you really meant.
This is pure arrogance, telling other people who they are and what they
think.
OK, that UN thing might of been a bit much. But I was kinda rolling with
Greg's flow. =)
> > I've lost nothing but patience with a man who listens to no other
> arguments than his
> > own. Everybody here is posting against you.
>
> Somehow, I think there is more to the word "everyone" than 3 or 4
> completely clueles Nintendo majors who slept though CS101, or went to
> a school so bad, they russled up someone equally incompentent to teach
> the class.
>
> The fact is, every single definition posted here (from prestigious,
> hallowed institutions that hire competent help, to the plain old
> dictionary, which by definition is correct), agrees with me to the
> letter and beyond any serious debate.
>
Creative Interpretations, yet again.
So why does the debate still continue?
> > More people than just myself have posted
> > solid arguments and sound definitions that contradict yours. You
> have no supporters
> > in this at all. And yet, you still insist that you are right.
> >
> > A humble man would at least accept that the other definitions are
> just as factual as
> > yours but you can't even gracefully do that.
>
> There have been none posted that disagree with my position, you just
> don't know how to use a dictionary (as if your computer knowledge
> wasn't bad enough).
>
Just about everyone has disagreed with you. Greg T. Kelli H. Bill H.
Bernie M. Kirk S. Eelke B. Patrick F. The list goes on...
> Here's a hint for you:
>
> (1) word - (2) defintion of word
>
> Part 1 is the term being defined by part 2. The individual words in
> part 2 are not being defined.
>
> Everyone is actually thinks they've posted something that supports a
> position other than mine, has made this 1st grade mistake, without a
> single exception. I guess thats what you get from the few people who
> don't have the attention span to beat CS101.
Oh, I /love/ this!
Everybody is wrong. And you are right. Now, what are the odds of this?
Stephen Burgoyne Coulson
/Re: And this years award goes too.../
>> Greg Tallent a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually a brain is just a biological computer that stores
>>> software(memories, thoughts) in a chemical/electrical storage medium. if
>>> you die then the software is lost(just like cutting the power in a normal
>>> computer RAM).
>>>
>> Haha, but then, who wrote the brain software?
>Copyright 10,000,000 BC - 10,000,000 AD GOD Designs, Inc.
>All rights reserved
At least there is somebody to take to court then. This will be good news to
Steve as it seems many here think he got a bad one. (Actually, there are
probably enough people with defective thinker units to launch a class action).
Mind you, GOD Designs, Inc probably has one of those sneaky licenses that says
"If you have been born, then you have already agreed to the accept the product
as is and absolve the manufacturer from all liability" with the added mention
that you aren't covered for "acts of God" anyway.
Nicolas Richard
>
>
> Actually a brain is just a biological computer that stores software(memories,
> thoughts) in a chemical/electrical storage medium. if you die then the software
> is lost(just like cutting the power in a normal computer RAM).
>
Haha, but then, who wrote the brain software? Okay, I guess there's a
zip (or is it lha?) archive somewhere in DNA.
Damn, gotta get me an upgrade quickly...
Nr
Greg Tallent
>>
>>
>> Actually a brain is just a biological computer that stores
>> software(memories, thoughts) in a chemical/electrical storage medium. if
>> you die then the software is lost(just like cutting the power in a normal
>> computer RAM).
>>
> Haha, but then, who wrote the brain software?
Copyright 10,000,000 BC - 10,000,000 AD GOD Designs, Inc.
All rights reserved
> Okay, I guess there's a zip (or is it lha?) archive somewhere in DNA.
Well I suppose you could try rebooting and see though it might take a large
sledgehammer to the side of the head to initialize the reboot process...
Ask Steve, apparently he's done this several times.
> Damn, gotta get me an upgrade quickly...
Just don't upgrade to Win 3.1.
<tsb>
Greg Tallent |Amiga2000 GVP 040/33mhz/3.5 72 megs,9 gig/BuddhaIDE|
gwt at gte.net |Zoom 56k, Syjet, Zip, Picasso II 2Meg, Plextor CD-R|
Computers can never replace human stupidity.
Ed Dana
synonymous. This would pretty much rule out any notion of exclusivity. You are (once again) practicing creative interpretations.
But as Eelke points out and you still choose to ignore, this is all irrelevant as Firmware is not Hardware, any more than Rider equals Horse.
> > So, to set the record straight, I was wrong in saying a (computer) program
> > and software are equivalent terms, because one should also distinguish
> > firmware. Fair enough, let's use that knowledge. Apparently, the distinction
> > is that firmware is computer code stored in read-only memory and software is
> > computer code stored in read/write memory. Fine. I still think firmware is a
> > somewhat bogus term in many contexts and the distinction only makes life
> > more complicated, but that's another story.
>
> Ok fine, so you agree now too.
>
Creative Interpretations, yet again.
> > However, your claim was a program can *be* hardware, and that is never true.
>
> Not quite, a "program in read only mem" is firmware/hardware.
>
> A "program" is just what I've posted -many- times now (throughout the
> course of this never ending thread)...
>
Mostly 'cause you won't let it end.
> Main Entry: 1pro·gram
> Pronunciation: 'prO-"gram, -gr&m
> Function: noun
> Etymology: French programme agenda, public notice, from Greek programma, from prographein to write before, from pro- before + graphein to write -- more at CARVE
> Date: 1633
> 6 a : a *plan* for the programming of a mechanism (as a computer)
>
> [My emphasis added]
>
> > Firmware and software both are *stored in* hardware and I haven't seen you
> > give any defintions or examples that proof a program can *be* hardware (and
>
> See above.
>
Nothing you've added refutes everyone's point that Firmware is not Hardware.
> > In short, as was the pinnacle of my original argument, the way a program is
> > stored doesn't define it as being hardware, in some case, and as software in
> > others. If you exchange "firmware" for "hardware" in all of your arguments,
> > you are spot on, as it turns out.
>
> I know.
>
> > You must have realized that yourself,
> > judging from the sudden shift in another part of this thread.
>
> Its not how the program is stored, its how its executed.
>
All programs are executed in exactly the same way. The _only_ thing that differentiates Software vs. Firmware is where it is stored.
Your point is irrelevant.
> See the Webster definition above. A "plan" can be stored basically
> anywhere, but it won't run ("program" a computer) until its in
> computer mem attached to a processor.
>
> How it gets into computer memory is the key, if the system is general
> purpose, that is, capable of writing (<--key word) any program into
> its own memomy and then executes it, it is software porgrammable. If
> the machine is simply a single purposed peice of hardware, and thus
> must have the program placed in memory by some other one time
> process, its not software programable.
>
What is the difference between ROM and RAM? Other than the obvious Read/Write issue?
--
Stephen Burgoyne Coulson
/Re: And this years award goes too.../
[...]
>> software != program
>>
>Also very true.
>But this _is_ Comp.Sys.Amiga.Misc. So guess what type of program we are
>referring to?
umm.... How long do I get?
>Let's not confuse the issue, now shall we? It's confused enough as it is
>already. :)
>> though it is probably fair to say that software is a proper subset of
>> program
>But Steve has been claiming that Firmware = Hardware.
If he was really claiming that, then I would say he is wrong. That is
liable to result in a mysterious failure and should have generated
a compiler warning (if he has them turned on). What he probably
intended was:
Firmware == Hardware.
This can simply be replaced with:
false
but most compilers will spot this and optimise accordingly.
>So what's your point? Other than to digress. :)
Just the joy of typing.
Actually, I was trying to add a little discipline to the argument. A
more pedantic attention to terms was in order, I thought. But then,
no-one really cares too much about terminology and it changes when you
aren't looking anyway. Who has time for that kind of trifling detail
when you've been asked to fix by Thursday a system you couldn't possibly
understand in a decade!! So little time, so many bugs (to make!!)
Timothy A. Seufert
wrote:
More projection. This was old before it began, Steve.
-- Tim
To mail me unsolicited advertisements: Move to Siberia. Wait until I
say it's OK to send. Everybody else, remove "noUCE." from my address.
Ed Dana
> On 07-Mar-01 17:48:17, Ed Dana typed concerning:
> /Re: And this years award goes too.../
> >SG wrote:
>
> >> Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> [big snip]
>
> >*LOL*
>
> >One more time: I do not agree with you.
>
> >You are wrong.
>
> >A Program is a program regardless of where it resides. Your argument that a
> >program is not software is splitting hairs so fine that even bacillus are
> >buying Rogaine (tm).
>
> OK, this thread looks like so MUCH fun, I'll dip my toe in!
>
> Software is a representation of a program that can be executed on some (computing) hardware.
>
> A program is any sequence of things (operations whatever) that are to be done in a given order
> (with possible conditions that lead to alternate sequences being followed).
>
> Software encodes a program in a machine readable form for execution on a machine.
> A program can be represented in software.
>
Very true.
> Program include:
>
> The order of events for an evening at the symphony.
> The daily activities at the old folks home.
> The order in which to play the songs on the CD.
>
> The word "program" used to describe a television show comes about from several generations of
> radio listening (and TV watching) kids hearing the phrase "on tonights program" meaning "the
> order of events for tonights show" and misattributing program as a synonym for show in much
> the same way that todays kids have misheard the phrase "I don't like your attitude" and have assumed
> that attitude, in and of itself, is a thing that you can have or not have.
>
> So, crawling back from that digression:
>
> software != program
>
Also very true.
But this _is_ Comp.Sys.Amiga.Misc. So guess what type of program we are
referring to?
Let's not confuse the issue, now shall we? It's confused enough as it is
already. :)
> though it is probably fair to say that software is a proper subset of program
But Steve has been claiming that Firmware = Hardware.
So what's your point? Other than to digress. :)
--
Ed Dana
> Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
>
> > SG wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > He himslf agree that both firmware and software are mutually
> > > exclusive subsets of programs. Thats agreement, soory, whether he
> > > realized it or not.
> > >
> >
> > Oops. I just saw this today. Been to busy to read this whole silly thread.
> >
> > And no, Steve, I never said that firmware and software are mutually exclusive. I said that they are two subtypes of the _same_class_. I also said that they are
> > synonymous.
>
> And you've also said...
>
> Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
>
> > Stephen Burgoyne Coulson wrote:
> > > software != program
> > >
> >
> > Also very true.
>
> You have no idea what you own position is.
>
Your desperation is showing, Steve. You are now engaging in Creative Snipping (tm). Let's put the argument back in context:
==========
> The word "program" used to describe a television show comes about from several generations of
> radio listening (and TV watching) kids hearing the phrase "on tonights program" meaning "the
> order of events for tonights show" and misattributing program as a synonym for show in much
> the same way that todays kids have misheard the phrase "I don't like your attitude" and have assumed
> that attitude, in and of itself, is a thing that you can have or not have.
>
> So, crawling back from that digression:
>
> software != program
>
Also very true.
==========
Stephen had broadened the definition of "Program" to include entertainment. And I was agreeing with him in _that_ context.
You left out the relevant portion of the argument just to make it look like I was contradicting myself.
Your argument is weak and it is showing.
> > This would pretty much rule out any notion of exclusivity.
> > You are (once again) practicing creative interpretations.
> >
> > But as Eelke points out and you still choose to ignore, this is all irrelevant as Firmware is not Hardware, any more than Rider equals Horse.
> >
> > > > So, to set the record straight, I was wrong in saying a (computer) program
> > > > and software are equivalent terms, because one should also distinguish
> > > > firmware. Fair enough, let's use that knowledge. Apparently, the distinction
> > > > is that firmware is computer code stored in read-only memory and software is
> > > > computer code stored in read/write memory. Fine. I still think firmware is a
> > > > somewhat bogus term in many contexts and the distinction only makes life
> > > > more complicated, but that's another story.
> > >
> > > Ok fine, so you agree now too.
> > >
> >
> > Creative Interpretations, yet again.
> >
> > > > However, your claim was a program can *be* hardware, and that is never true.
>
> What a joke.
>
> *All* computer programs originally were pure hardware, and hardware
> alone. Computers didn't originate when you were born.
>
[Steve's irrelevant argument about Logic Gates, snipped]
_All_ of this does not dispute the fact that computers are Hardware that you can program. If you can't program it, it ain't a computer. So logic gates are completely
irrelevant. All that matters is: if you can program it, it is a computer. Nor does it do anything to support your assertion that Firmware is Hardware.
Why?
Take a computer that only has firmware. It does one thing and one thing only. Switch your firmware for new firmware, now your computer does something different. You've
_reprogrammed_ the computer by changing the hardware that contains a program, and replacing it with hardware that contains another program. In the end, the only thing
that has changed, is the program.
> > > Not quite, a "program in read only mem" is firmware/hardware.
> > >
> > > A "program" is just what I've posted -many- times now (throughout the
> > > course of this never ending thread)...
> > >
> >
> > Mostly 'cause you won't let it end.
>
> I'm not the one arguing with Webster.
>
And I'm not the one misinterpreting Webster.
> > > Main Entry: 1pro搽ram
> > > Pronunciation: 'prO-"gram, -gr&m
> > > Function: noun
> > > Etymology: French programme agenda, public notice, from Greek programma, from prographein to write before, from pro- before + graphein to write -- more at CARVE
> > > Date: 1633
> > > 6 a : a *plan* for the programming of a mechanism (as a computer)
> > >
> > > [My emphasis added]
> > >
> > > > Firmware and software both are *stored in* hardware and I haven't seen you
> > > > give any defintions or examples that proof a program can *be* hardware (and
> > >
> > > See above.
> > >
> >
> > Nothing you've added refutes everyone's point that Firmware is not Hardware.
>
> You just read Webster, added emphasis, then let the point sail right
> over your head...
>
> The *program* is the plan, not firmware. Firmware is a program
> represented by some configuration of hardware.
>
All programs are plans. Even Stephen's definition of Entertainment Programs means "Plans". And Firmware, as with Software means "plans".
But that does not make Hardware the "Plan". Hardware contains the "Plan" just as paper may contain a plan. That does not make the paper, by itself, a plan.
> Note Webster agreeing with me here...
>
> Main Entry: firm暈are
> Pronunciation: 'f&rm-"war, -"wer
> Function: noun
> Date: 1967
> : computer programs contained permanently in a hardware device (as a
> read-only memory)
>
> Did they say "/software/ permanently in hardware?"
>
> No.
>
> That would be oxymoronic, and M-W isn't written by oxymorons.
>
The only thing I am noting here is, once again, your Creative Interpretations (tm).
And for the millionth time. Software is Program (aka a Plan), Firmware is a Plan. The only difference is where they are stored. A Computer is Hardware that can follow a
Progam/Plan. It uses Software or Firmware to find that plan.
What it does say about Firmware, and I quote, is "computer programs contained permanently in a hardware device". Or in other words Firmware is a Program contained by
Hardware.
But nowhere, Let me repeat: NOWHERE, in the above definition is ANYTHING that says Firmware is Hardware. That is your interpretation of it, and yours alone.
> > > > In short, as was the pinnacle of my original argument, the way a program is
> > > > stored doesn't define it as being hardware, in some case, and as software in
> > > > others. If you exchange "firmware" for "hardware" in all of your arguments,
> > > > you are spot on, as it turns out.
> > >
> > > I know.
> > >
> > > > You must have realized that yourself,
> > > > judging from the sudden shift in another part of this thread.
> > >
> > > Its not how the program is stored, its how its executed.
> > >
> >
> > All programs are executed in exactly the same way. The _only_ thing that differentiates Software vs. Firmware is where it is stored.
>
> Bzzzt, its how it got into memory.
>
ROM and RAM _both_ go directly to memory. What's your point?
> > Your point is irrelevant.
> >
> > > See the Webster definition above. A "plan" can be stored basically
> > > anywhere, but it won't run ("program" a computer) until its in
> > > computer mem attached to a processor.
> > >
> > > How it gets into computer memory is the key, if the system is general
> > > purpose, that is, capable of writing (<--key word) any program into
> > > its own memomy and then executes it, it is software porgrammable. If
> > > the machine is simply a single purposed peice of hardware, and thus
> > > must have the program placed in memory by some other one time
> > > process, its not software programable.
> > >
> >
> > What is the difference between ROM and RAM? Other than the obvious Read/Write issue?
>
> Thats it.
>
> A software program is written into a machines memory by the machine
> itself during runtime. I.e. the computer is user programable;
> software capable.
>
> A firmware program is simply the medium flowing through a fixed
> hardware configuration. Which is why trying to delete it, is like
> trying to "delete" the water pipes above, it cannot be done.
Yes, there is no difference other than how they got there.
The computer reads RAM directly, just as it reads ROM directly. So by your definition RAM is as much hardware as ROM is. And it is. But your argument completely ignores
the fact that RAM and ROM both contain a program. And the computer only cares about that program, not how it got there.
Stated simply, without all the smoke and mirrors you are putting up: Firmware is a Program contained by Hardware. Just as Software is a Program contained by Hardware.
You are still confusing a Program contained in Hardware with the object that contains it. All of which is based on your faulty interpretation of what Firmware is.
Firmware is not Hardware. Water is not Bucket. Rider is not Horse. Person is not House... Etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum...
Ed Dana
> Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
>
> > Stephen Burgoyne Coulson wrote:
> > > software != program
> > >
> >
> > Also very true.
>
> Wow, we sure are making progress with you guys, pretty soon you'll
> actually have this incredibly simple stuff all figured out.
>
Lord, but your an ass. Here you go again, telling us what we think.
And yes, I'm now getting insulting. Why? Because of your creative snipping, that
conveniently makes it look like I'm contradicting myself.
Stephen was talking about "Entertainment Programs" and I was agreeing with him that
they were not software.
Your desperation is showing.
> > But this _is_ Comp.Sys.Amiga.Misc. So guess what type of program we are
> > referring to?
> >
> > Let's not confuse the issue, now shall we? It's confused enough as it is
> > already. :)
> >
> > > though it is probably fair to say that software is a proper subset of program
> >
> > But Steve has been claiming that Firmware = Hardware.
>
> Close. I'm saying Firmware -is- hardware. Saying "firmware =
> hardware" would be like saying "screwdrivers = hardware."
>
Baloney.
"Is" and "equals" in this context mean the same thing. You are getting overly
creative in your interpretations, once again.
And BTW, a screwdriver *is* (and therefore equals) a subclass of hardware.
> Its a Set (computer programs in memory), Subset (firmware, software,
> hardware) relationship.
Incorrect.
Hardware is not a subset of Program. It will never be. A program, whether it is
Software or Firmware cannot exist without Hardware. It is a symbiosis. All computers
(mechanical, analog, or digital) are instantiated in hardware that includes the
ability to store and run a program. Remove the hardware and there is no program.
Remove the program and the hardware still exists.
So how can Hardware be a subset of a Program when Hardware is required to exist
before the Program can? A program is a _property_ of hardware, not a subclass. Or are
you telling me that Hardware "is it's own Grandpa"? To use the Time-travel analogy.
Hardware creates Program which then creates Hardware?
Ed Dana
> Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
>
> > > > SG wrote:
> > > >
> > > Well now, you are the one who had no idea that programmable computers
> > > could be purely mechanical (and were a "smartass" about your own
> > > ignorance, by your own admission above).
> > >
> >
> > Smart Ass != ignorance. :)
>
> You said you were a Smartass -about- your own ignorance. Must you
> even argue that?
No.
I said I was being a smart ass. I said nothing about ignorance, you added
that because you _assumed_ I did not know what you were referring too.
Creative Interpretations (tm), yet again.
I reacted because it was irrelevant to the point at hand.
A mechanical computer is still programmable. That program is still
changeable. Because this is so, its programs could be effectively classed as
"Software".
Now, if this mechanical computer's program was unchangeable, it could be
argued that it was Firmware. But that would still not mean that the program
is hardware. The program is stored in hardware that is not read/write.
But this has nothing to do with your argument that Firmware = Hardware. As
the majority of today's computers are digital. How many mechanical computers
are seeing practical use today? I'll bet you I can count the number on my
left hand, with all fingers down.
All of this makes your point irrelevant.