Originally Posted by tobymansell (Post 1075350)

lol.... Ur just p1ssed off cos u live in such a sh1thole area of the uk arent ya???

Originally Posted by Luz (Post 1075175)

For me the music player was just a little clunky, compared to an iPod touch I had at the same time, the way you built playlists etc was bizarre!! Also lack of the option to pick a play list using a mouse whilst it's plugged into your pc was a big oversight (IMO) unless of course some clever sod has developed one now !!
I don't hate the N900, it just dissapointed me...
Also very simple apps like run keeper which are free on the iPhone seem to wok much better than the equivalent on the N900, again due to more investment by professional devs...

Originally Posted by bass800 (Post 1074775)

so apps are the main reason for owning a phone or any device aside from the hardware. ie. windows os = avid, osx = final cut / different strokes for different folks. but these are apps. apps are not only games. n900 may have been an ok device with ok hardware with ok apps, but sorry to burst your bubble but its over, just like the 286, 386, 486 and webos.

Originally Posted by NASA question board

QUESTION:
When it was designed, why was only a single 80C85 CPU used? Why did not you go for a powerful CPU which would have increased the computational power of the Sojourber rover?
Does it have such a small instruction set that it does not need more resources?

ANSWER from Mark Adler:
The answer is money and mass. We had $25M and 25 pounds to work with so we had to choose something cheap, low power, and also space qualified/rad hard.
The 80C85 is good enough for our purposes. Since we can't move very fast anyway because of power limitations, we don't need to think very fast. The Pathfinder lander uses a hot computer - an RS6000, and the 2001 rover will also have a more competent computer.

Yours,
Mark

ANSWER from Steve Stolper:
This is a good question and exposes a "little secret" of the space business. While many associate spacecraft have high technology, traditionally spacecraft have been built using old technology. This mission is one of the first to use "state-of-the-art" technology on board.

Processors on spacecraft must withstand severe thermal, vibration, and radiation environments. In addition, they must consume very little power.
These processors are much more difficult to design and build. As a result, radiation-hardend space processors have always lagged behind the "state-of-the-art." That is why the rover computer is an 80C85. This is a very low-power, radiation-hard, processor.

The lander computer (RAD6000-SC) is a 22 MIP machine with 128MB of RAM and 6MB of EEPROM. It runs a multi-tasking operating system and is the most powerful processor flown in the planetary program. The processor can withstand -55C to +70C temperatures. On impact, the lander flight computer pulled 18g's and has not been effected by radiation encountered during the 7
month cruise to Mars.

Originally Posted by JamesBond@ge (Post 1075514)

Tobyjug Ears and posts a thread that should have been left in 2009.

Originally Posted by patlak (Post 1075506)

So what are you doing on a N900 development forum if you use it only for IM and browsing?

Pathetic life? Troll much?

Originally Posted by x61 (Post 1075550)

Why do some of you worship the N900 like it is some sort of a god. The person gave a reason why he still have the phone and you think that reasons he gave were not enough for him to still own the phone hence be visiting development forum? Some of you purely need to get a life.

Originally Posted by patlak (Post 1075506)

So what are you doing on a N900 development forum if you use it only for IM and browsing?

Pathetic life? Troll much?

Originally Posted by BigBadGuber! (Post 1075564)

Get an iphone and get a life. You are on the wrong tab bud. This is talk, development is two tabs to the left