looking for hardware source

Top posting is the preferred way of doing it, especially if
the article has got much-read and much-repeated and
much-seen-before material quoted which means that the
new contribution goes off the bottom of the screen.

When browsing the NG, you can idly sit on one key doing
next ....next ....next but if there's a great wadge of quoted material
then you have to move over onto the page down key. If you read
a large number of groups then you haven't time to do this and the
bottom posted article with much-repeated quoting just gets
passed over without being read, whereas the top-posted
articles all get read.

In any case, as each article is preceded by up to 30 lines of header
it is meaningless to claim that anything is ever top-posted.

Generally Usenet is a place of acadaemic learning and tolerance to new
ideas, but the obsessive way in which some are intolerant to what
is merely a difference of style is indicative of narrow-mindedness,

"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:477FAE54.EF7B1DFD@yahoo.com...
> John Adair wrote:
>>
>> You didn't say if this is a one off requirement or if you had a
>> volume application behind it. There are ways to attain equivalent
>> performance using FPGA technology as the processing element/s that
>> are worth considering if your application has some numbers for
>> manufacture. As a very rough guide against the boards you are
>> looking at applications with numbers equal to, or greater, than
>> 50 units it can be worth doing a semi-custom, or custom, hardware
>> platform.
>
> Please do not top-post.  Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
> with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
> irrelevant material.  See the following links:
>
> -- 
>  <http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
>  <http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
>  <http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
>  <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>  (taming google)
>  <http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/>  (newusers)
>
>
>
> -- 
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
> 

Personally I agree. I don't want to re-read the same material over and
over and more to the point have to search for the new information.  A
lot of people view through viewers that only show the top lines
initially and if you don't have all day to browse I find it useful to
only look at posts that might be of interest and tell me something
new. Whatever anyone else likes, or dislikes, I remain a convinced top
poster.

John Adair
Enterpoint Ltd.

On 5 Jan, 18:03, "Anonymous." <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Top posting is the preferred way of doing it, especially if
> the article has got much-read and much-repeated and
> much-seen-before material quoted which means that the
> new contribution goes off the bottom of the screen.
>
> When browsing the NG, you can idly sit on one key doing
> next ....next ....next but if there's a great wadge of quoted material
> then you have to move over onto the page down key. If you read
> a large number of groups then you haven't time to do this and the
> bottom posted article with much-repeated quoting just gets
> passed over without being read, whereas the top-posted
> articles all get read.
>
> In any case, as each article is preceded by up to 30 lines of header
> it is meaningless to claim that anything is ever top-posted.
>
> Generally Usenet is a place of acadaemic learning and tolerance to new
> ideas, but the obsessive way in which some are intolerant to what
> is merely a difference of style is indicative of narrow-mindedness,
>
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:477FAE54.EF7B1DFD@yahoo.com...
>
>
>
> > John Adair wrote:
>
> >> You didn't say if this is a one off requirement or if you had a
> >> volume application behind it. There are ways to attain equivalent
> >> performance using FPGA technology as the processing element/s that
> >> are worth considering if your application has some numbers for
> >> manufacture. As a very rough guide against the boards you are
> >> looking at applications with numbers equal to, or greater, than
> >> 50 units it can be worth doing a semi-custom, or custom, hardware
> >> platform.
>
> > Please do not top-post. =A0Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
> > with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
> > irrelevant material. =A0See the following links:
>
> > --
> > =A0<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
> > =A0<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
> > =A0<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
> > =A0<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/> =A0(taming google)
> > =A0<http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/> =A0(newusers)
>
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quote=
d text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Anonymous wrote:
>>Top posting is the preferred way of doing it,
>>
NO.  If it was the PREFERRED method,
the MAJORITY of posters would do it that way.
That is NOT the case.
There 2 kind of people who top-post:  lazy and ignorant.

>>especially if the article has got much-read and much-repeated
>>
Stop including EVERYTHING from ALL of the previous posts.
That is stupid and UNNECESSARY.

Anyone who has read Usenet posts for a week
(as is usually advised BEFORE you make your first post),
will see the bottom-posting/middle-posting paradigm
used by the VAST MAJORITY of posters and will emulate that.

John Adair top-posted:
>Personally I agree.
>I don't want to re-read the same material over and over
>
NO ONE DOES.  If parts of the previous text
aren't IMPORTANT enough to appear ABOVE your submission,
JUST SNIP THAT OUT.
All you need of the previous post is enough to frame your response.
The word "context" is generally used to describe this.

A post that has 4-deep reposts of previous material
IN REVERSE ORDER demonstrates simple ignorance
or a total ***DISRESPECT*** for your fellow netizens.

"Anonymous." wrote:
> 
> Top posting is the preferred way of doing it, especially if the
> article has got much-read and much-repeated and much-seen-before
> material quoted which means that the new contribution goes off
> the bottom of the screen.
> 
> When browsing the NG, you can idly sit on one key doing next
> ....next ....next but if there's a great wadge of quoted material
> then you have to move over onto the page down key. If you read
> a large number of groups then you haven't time to do this and the
> bottom posted article with much-repeated quoting just gets passed
> over without being read, whereas the top-posted articles all get
> read.

You failed to read the URLs I posted.  The point is that proper
replies have adequately snipped the original quote, so that there
is no great amount to skip over, and what there is reads in a
proper order.  There is no 'much-repeated quoting'.

The preserved URLs:
>>  <http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
>>  <http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
>>  <http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
>>  <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>  (taming google)
>>  <http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/>  (newusers)

-- 
 Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
   Try the download section.



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Sir;

I get to hunt down parts frequently and find that some things are
helpful and some aren't.  A large number of small boards don't
even need an OpSys for what they do(like a VCR maybe?), however,
this can be explored on one of the $150 (or so) MicroChip boards
meant to aquaint one with the MicroChip silicon solution for
problems similar to yours.  Part of MicroChip's brag is that
the processors on their chips are some sort of Harvard/RISC
architecture.
http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=81

Here's a couple of sites that deal with small SBC boards in
particular.
http://www.embedded.com/
http://microcontrollershop.com/
http://www.eg3.com/

Of course there are also search engines partucularly well
suited to looking for objects depending on the
"specifications"/"search_parameters" given to it.
These search engines seem to help a lot.
http://www.globalspec.com/
http://www.eigensearch.com/

Then again, I couldn't believe it when I was shown
how quickly and easily I could have found LARGE heat
sinks using this common search engine.
http://www.yahoo.com/

I hope this helps some.
My 2 cents worth,

2Penny










mail.encoding@googlemail.com wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm coming from the software part of computing and have
> very limited experience with the hardware part. When I tried
> to find the hardware for an embedded system (see below) the
> cheapest I could find was in the US$ 520 area.
> 
> Is this the usual range for the described hardware or have I looked
> at the wrong web sites?
> 
> power:
> * minimal power consumption is essential
> 
> OS / drivers / software:
> * Open Source operating system like Linux or *BSD
> * I've done my share of kernel debugging/development, thus a
>   "newbe friendly" setup is not required
> 
> CPU / RAM:
> * architecture doesn't matter
> * processing power comparable to a Pentium @ 80 MHz with 64MB RAM
> 
> connectivity:
> * IEEE 802.11b/g
> * using 3 different WLAN networks concurrently
> * only 1Mb/s per network required
> 
> temperature sensor:
> * range: -20�C to +60�C
> * accuracy: +/- 3�C
> 
> storage:
> * at least 128 MB for non-OS data/programs
> * preferable on a removable media
> 
> optional:
> * hardware accelerated encryption
> * USB (client)
> 
> Thomas
> 

mail.encoding@googlemail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>=20
> I'm coming from the software part of computing and have
> very limited experience with the hardware part. When I tried
> to find the hardware for an embedded system (see below) the
> cheapest I could find was in the US$ 520 area.
>=20
> Is this the usual range for the described hardware or have I looked
> at the wrong web sites?
>=20
> power:
> * minimal power consumption is essential
>=20
> OS / drivers / software:
> * Open Source operating system like Linux or *BSD
> * I've done my share of kernel debugging/development, thus a
>   "newbe friendly" setup is not required
>=20
> CPU / RAM:
> * architecture doesn't matter
> * processing power comparable to a Pentium @ 80 MHz with 64MB RAM
>=20
> connectivity:
> * IEEE 802.11b/g
> * using 3 different WLAN networks concurrently
> * only 1Mb/s per network required
>=20
> temperature sensor:
> * range: -20=B0C to +60=B0C
> * accuracy: +/- 3=B0C
>=20
> storage:
> * at least 128 MB for non-OS data/programs
> * preferable on a removable media
>=20
> optional:
> * hardware accelerated encryption
> * USB (client)

Look at the VIA EPIA boards. They are PC compatible
with a lot less power.

Rene
--=20
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

JeffM wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
>>> Top posting is the preferred way of doing it,
>>>
> NO.  If it was the PREFERRED method,
> the MAJORITY of posters would do it that way.
> That is NOT the case.
> There 2 kind of people who top-post:  lazy and ignorant.
> 
>>> especially if the article has got much-read and much-repeated
>
> Stop including EVERYTHING from ALL of the previous posts.
> That is stupid and UNNECESSARY.

See also "lazy and ignorant." An author who cares about his readers will 
trim replies for precision and conciseness. The result is superior 
communication. Top-posters are poor communicators.

 The case for top-posting is won when those against resort
to infantile ad hominem remarks.

Top, bottom and middle postings are just minor variations
on style, up to the individual. The content of messages is that
which is important.

OK, here's a reply which is bottom-posted. Are you happy now?

"David Kelly" <n4hhe@Yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:13o4i8pii8n7l55@corp.supernews.com...
> JeffM wrote:
>> There 2 kind of people who top-post:  lazy and ignorant.
> Top-posters are poor communicators.

 The case for top-posting is won when those against resort
to infantile ad hominem remarks.

Top, bottom and middle postings are just minor variations
on style, up to the individual. The content of messages is that
which is important.

OK, here's a reply which is bottom-posted. Are you happy now?

On Jan 4, 4:24 pm, mail.encod...@googlemail.com wrote:

> I'm coming from the software part of computing and have
> very limited experience with the hardware part. When I tried
> to find the hardware for an embedded system (see below) the
> cheapest I could find was in the US$ 520 area.
>
> Is this the usual range for the described hardware or have I looked
> at the wrong web sites?

I think the problem is that you are looking at low-volume board level
products.

To get the cost down, you may need to look at re-purposing a high
volume consumer product as a platform.

For example, you can get an Asus 7-inch display laptop running linux
for $300.  Power consumption may be higher than you want though, close
to 11 watts, but probably you could figure out how to disable (or even
remove) the display for some savings.

There are some very small form factor appliance PC's in the $100 range
and about 5 watts, but you may need to add a USB dongle for wlan.

There's a linux based wireless messaging device for $50, forget the
name, you might have to add memory though.

Linux based wifi routers are another option, but you will have to add
memory.

Anonymous. wrote:
>  The case for top-posting is won when those against resort
> to infantile ad hominem remarks.
> 
> Top, bottom and middle postings are just minor variations
> on style, up to the individual. The content of messages is that
> which is important.

You are forgetting that in posting one is asking a favor of the reader 
to consider your words. One should show respect by making the effort to 
use good grammar and spelling. To choose one's words carefully. To be 
brief. And format appropriately and cleanly. This is also why HTML 
news/email is A Bad Thing.

Failure to reply in the proper format will cause many to ignore one's 
reply. If you want a reply then you will reply in the format expected by 
those who are capable of answering.

> OK, here's a reply which is bottom-posted. Are you happy now?

Is hard for some to understand how one might not be happy to be proven 
correct. "Anonymous." provided an excellent example of poor 
communication (infantile too). At least he/she trimmed a bit. Real Top 
Posters Never Trim.

> "David Kelly" <n4hhe@Yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:13o4i8pii8n7l55@corp.supernews.com...
>> JeffM wrote:
>>> There 2 kind of people who top-post:  lazy and ignorant.
>> Top-posters are poor communicators.
> 
>  The case for top-posting is won when those against resort
> to infantile ad hominem remarks.
> 
> Top, bottom and middle postings are just minor variations
> on style, up to the individual. The content of messages is that
> which is important.
> 
> OK, here's a reply which is bottom-posted. Are you happy now?