Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

...by which I mean an average car - not a luxury car with all manner of fancy devices but something like a Camry or a Malibu or a Jetta or a Ford Focus. Which would you say is the more complicated device, an N810 or one of those cars? I have my answer and will share it later but I want to see what other people say :D

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

The N8xx. Cars do not require a computer science degree or command line inputs to operate :D

Seriously, I'm enjoying my N800 but I am amazed at the need to use command line inputs to really dive into the IT and run many programs. For years I've been hearing about the superiority of Linux vs MS, but at least MS advanced beyond command line inputs over a decade ago......

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

At least only the N8x0 gets hurt if you crash the Nokia....

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

What are we measuring here? Number of moving parts? or number of transistors? I would actually bet on the N8x0 for number of transistors unless the car had a DVD/Nav setup. And number of moving parts goes to the car of course. I think that OBD-II compliant engine management isn't all that complex. It probably doesn't have a dedicated ARM processor and certainly doesn't contain that much NAND flash or RAM. Having said that, I actually wouldn't be surprised if some of the newer cars that have a turbo charger, variable valve timing and/or electronically controlled AWD to have something in the processing range of the N8x0, especially since it's so cheap compared to the cost of the car and the more power you have to play with the less pain you have to go through to optimize your code. In terms of software I'm sure the N8x0 is still more complicated though. :P

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

How many people on this site have a computer science degree? I would bet that very few do, percentagewise. I never took one single computer class in school. In fact, they didn't have computers, just quill pens and inkwells...

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

My answer is slightly different. I say the car is a more "complicated" device in the sense of how demanding the engineering has to be, i.e. that there is no room for error in some of its systems. With the N8x0, by contrast, lots of little things don't work quite right or they work right inconsistently. If this were true of your brakes, your lights, your accelerator, you'd die. Car-makers vary a lot in quality, but I think they've managed to make 3000-lb. hunks of steel flying around at highway speeds pretty safe. That's pretty complicated, although not like the circuits in an N8x0.:o

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

Both the N8x0's hardware and the car's components must be made to very exacting standards to work at all. In terms of physical tolerances I'd say the N8x0 hardware would be more demanding. Even the tolerances in the cylinders in the engine have lots more "wiggle room" than the N8x0's CPU: hundredths of a centimeter vs nanometers. And anyone with enough patience and a basic repair manual can trace all the vacuum lines in the engine compartment or all the wiring in the car for that matter. Try understanding what's electrically going on in the CPU without a good electrical engineering background.

Actually, if you look at it from a question of how much you'd have to teach a lay-person to get them to understand how the whole system works, the part of the car that would take the longest to explain would probably be the engine management computer. It and the CD-player/stereo are probably the only things on the same order of complexity as the N8x0.

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

Neither, people just expect both to work flawlessly off the lot/out of the box and would rather be helpless than learn something. :)

(I'm talking more about cars, *every* car owner should know how to change the oil... and tranny fluid... and cylinder head.) :D

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

I've been using linux since the 1.x kernel days and windows since 3.0 (and DOS before that). I'm very comfortable in both of those environments, so I don't "fear" the command line.


I think I've had to go there exactly once, and that was to fix my missing offline mode issue. I've installed a ton of programs without going to the command line, and I don't know why anyone really would. Of course I'm content to wait for applications to show up in the repository system as well.

To the question at hand, I don't think there's any question that if you broke out the number of components in an n800 at the transistor level and the number of parts and components down to the transistor level that a standard (non-satnav) car probably doesn't have as many parts. Take into account software, and I think the n800 is easily a more complicated device.

However, I think it takes a lot more effort to design, certify, produce, maintain and support a car - any car - than it does an n800. So in that sense, the n800 is a less complicated device. And let's not forget that you could easily install an n800 in a car, if you so choose, and that would make the whole debate a moot point.

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

A car is more complex. Linux (and the tablet) is dead simple if you just learn a little about it.

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

I would say that if measured by the knowledge and science involved the N800 is probably orders of magnitude more complex than a simple car like lets say from 20 years ago. I mean an Engine and all the other stuff in a car is plain Newtonian physics albeit on a high level. All it's parts could be produced with 60-70 year old machinery and a wokrking bare bone car could probably be produced with the tools and physics knowledge the old greeks had if enough effort had been put into it.
On the other side the knowledge needed to built something like the N800 is orders of magnitutes higher. It involves knowledge of complicated electromagnetic phenomena (just imagine how much you have to know about the nature of electromagnatic waves to build a working WiFi). It needs modern chemical science for it's display and extremely high tech laser technology as well as chemical science for it's CPU. Then it will need you to know a lot about mathematics including knowledge that is not even 60 years old. And it will need you some hundred thousand wokring hours for the programming. Maybe some hundred man hours if you have to rebuild everything from an assembler to a c compiler and so forth.
For the N810 you would have to know even more, for example building a GPS is impossible without knowledge of special and general relativity.

Let me give you another even simpler example, if you compare the first car in the world (build by Daimler Benz) with the first programable turing complete Computer (The Zuse Z3) you will find, that the first car was nothing more than putting together an engine and a cart (a technology known by the old Egyptians) all science needed to build an engine is probably some newtonian physics + the knowledge that hot gases do expand. (Everyone with a fire and a closed box with water in it can find that out easily).
While for the Z3 you will need to know about binary numbers, electronics like realys and probably a lot more...


Let me also give a little comment on the command line thing that was pointed out earlier. I'm a Linux user for about 3 years and though I know how to handle my system without ever touching a command line, I do think that it's by far the greatest thing on my computer and I wouldn't miss it (In the sense that if I had to choose between losing my GUI and losing my command line I would rather live without the GUI). I mean, yes, it's old fashioned but for many tasks it's just the best tool there is (like managing a system and it's devices) And though it probably sounds wierd to most people for me the CLI is the most natural interaction with the computer and the most flexible one by orders of magnitude. Unlike the GUI my command line is turing complete and therefor can compute everything that is computable.

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

A car has moving parts that you have to worry about. Most people take their cars to professionals when something significant goes wrong with them. Ever have to have your N800/810 towed? Do you have a little checklist on your tablet telling you when you need to have it serviced next? How often do you have your tablet inspected? How much are the annual licensing fees? Insurance? Have you had to make decisions about how much fuel you can expend on your tablet because of increasing prices? Are you licensed to use your tablet? Got any tickets lately?

What I am saying is, there are many dimensions to owning a car that simply aren't a factor with a tablet. So the car is more complicated.

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

There is NO way you can build a modern engine with 60 or 70 year old equipment. You might be able to build an engine from 25 or 30 years ago, but not a modern one. You could apply every single one of your points to a modern internal combustion engine and transmission, with a robust engine management system, variable valve timing, emissions control, limited slip differential, ABS, etc.

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

Well then again try to design a modern engine without the help of a computer^^

I have to agree, that operating a car involves more care and has more regulations though. But from a technological point of view a general car is much less complicated.

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

Cars these days have way more silicon than any internet tablet. The car is obviously far, far more complicated than any hopped up PDA. :p

Sure, you could build a very basic carburated 2-stroke engine fairly simply, but the same could be said for an Intel 4004. If we're comparing apples to apples, then a modern car is a much more complicated endeavor than an internet tablet.

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

Hell, the car IS a PDA-- on steroids and wheels.

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

How about the computing power used to navigate Apollo 11 to the moon almost 30 years ago vs. the N810?

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

Apollo 11 is said to have the power of 2 C64 so thats much much less than the IT but on the other hand it ran very low level software. Since ARM processors are pretty good at realtime though I guess if you put a hardened Linux RT Kernel (like the one by Andrew Morton) on it and than only command line software it could probably be safe enough for flight things, they use backup computers anyway and Linux has already been used for docking space craft (Search for "Flight Linux")

EDIT: I must correct myself, Linux hasn't been used to dock space craft yet, but the ATV (European Automated Transfer Vehicle (liek a Progress but bigger)) will be controled by Linux and is due to have it's first flight in the coming months

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

Quill pens and inkwells! OMG, heaven!

All we had were reed styluses that didn't last long and a dedicated attention to keeping the clay tablets moist :D

Some folks had all the luck :p:rolleyes:

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

Come on my amaigo, you are not that old! I think, at least I speak for myself, there was the Casio 4 function calculator first, and then came the TI 59, and it then came with the TI59-2 which has the tiny magnetic strip to hold some simple i/o to do say a standard deviation. That was computer before the black apple. Oh, dont forget the Radioshack's TRS80.........not just quill pens and inkwells :p


bun

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

There is the complexity required to make something functional. This is about 20% of the complexity. Then the further complexity required to make something usable. This is about 80% of the complexity.

Often people get these figures the wrong way around, put 80% of the effort into functionality, and 20% into usability. This results in something perceived as complex, but actually less complex than it needed to be.

The car has an advantage in that there's been much more work done on the user interface. Back when cars began, they required a lot more knowledge of their working, and only an engineer (or someone who could afford one) would have one. Most people couldn't understand why someone wanted to travel so fast.

It's the same with the Nokia tablet. It's a technology which will change the world, but this isn't even as accessible as Henry F's little black number.

It'll be ages before linux reaches the complexity, and therefore imagined simplicity of the humble motor car. This is because it's designed by engineers who think the UI is 20% of the work required.

Apple's iPhone is approaching the car problem from the other direction: It has a wonderful UI which really makes it easy to use, but at the moment there's nothing to use. But they've done the tough 80% of the work and features can come thick and fast now.

I wonder who will reach the sweet spot first?

I'm betting Apple have an internet tablet announced in under 2 weeks time.


Faye

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

I'll take that bet. :D

At that point I just had to grin with all of the "hacks" I used to keep my poor old 80's beater running a couple years ago. Like changing alternators in the middle of the night in the pouring rain. Or bypassing damaged wiring and having it short out later causing my car to lose all electrical power on a dark twisty road. Or how the internal wiring in it was shot so to use the automatic windows I had to pull off the interior door panels and run a 12v source to the right pins. Or driving it back from the original owner with a piece of lexan in place of a windshield. (lexan is *awesome* stuff, BTW)

When I think about it like that a little software recompiling every now and then seems just about infinitely preferable (though doesn't make as good a story...). :D

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

WOW--been along time since I've seen anyone mention an Intel 4004. Good stuff. You are correct, a modern automobile is far more complex than an Internet Tablet. My Cadillac's camshaft sensor is failing and the car's diagnostic console reported this last week (directly on the dashboard command console). It is a Hall Effect sensor located in the distributor. To replace it is not going to be fun or inexpensive.

I know a great amount about my car, and it definitely is way more complex than my N800.

Anyone want a Intel 1702 UV-EPROM? or a 8748 microcontroller from 1977? I got 'em....hundreds of 'em.

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

An OMAP processor wouldn't survive long in space. The only one I know used in Europe missions that are radiation-proof are ERC32.
The OS running on the n800 is much much more complicated than the OS running on a space mission processor.
As it's little OS and relatively small application running on top of it, 33Mhz is usually sufficient for good performance on top of a Real Time OS.

If you compare an old (80s) car to an n800, I would say that the n800 is more complicated, much more parameters.

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

Well don't forget that how long the processor survices depends heavily on the shielding, for example on the ISS the astronauts use standard IBM Thinkpads with Windows (I heard they had a macro virus on them at one point).
On the other side of the spectrum the mars rovers are running VxWorks on a MIPS compatible processor (33 Mhz) but still thanks to a few gigs of flash Linux would probably able to run on them. And things like this processor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750
would also run a standard realtime Linux without problems. Of course you wouldn't want to use a GUI on them, but I guess a combination of 2.4 Linux Kernel + busybox or GNU coreutils wouldn't be much less secure than the VxWorks used on the mars rovers and many more space based systems.
Don't forget unlike Windows there are already hundreds of mission critical systems running on Linux where an hour of downtime would possibly cost billions of dollars (the New York stock exchange servers are just a small example)
However I guess because of some idiot there are also Windows computers controlling mission critical stuff. (The worst thing i have seen so far were controlling computers at Houston (you can see them on the big monitors on Nasa TV though there is also a system running Red Hat), a windows 95 system controlling an artificial heart for a cell culture and coast guard safety systems)

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

N800 vs car: the car is more complex as it has more hardware to deal with. OTOH, some cars use Windows CE (BMW iDrive system), so some cars' software is vasty inferior.

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

Oh, so reed stylii and clay tablets you had, did you? Very well for you Mr. Fancy-Schmancy scribe, given that we had to make do with drawing shapes in the sand with our fingers. Oh, and that wind! Let me tell you. Reed stylii and clay tablets would have been a welcome luxury.

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

A car today was not a car in the past. Having seen old cars, cars like a 92 and 94 camry (mine being a 94 camry) and now 2003+ Camrys. Just opening the hood can tell you how complex and advanced cars are today.

Operation wise, not much has changed. A gas pedal is still a gas pedal, brake still brake. But hey hold it down and you get antilock brakes! But actual design wise..haha huge change. As my dad says, it's impossible to do any self-work on a Camry nowadays, compared to the older ones. It's just easier to take it to the dealership. And now they're coming with even more electronics built in.

I think the tablet is the same way, out of the box. Operational wise it works just fine like a car. Browse the internet, use skype, yup all fine. Start tinkering and your going reach complexity real quick

But as to which, I say a car. It's rapidly reaching a combination of car mechanics and electronics as we know them today.

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

The second generation iDrive is VXWorks - Windows CE kept doing the inevitable...

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

<forrest_gump_mode>

Ah'd says a N810 be more difficult. Ah keeps pouring gas in it and it ain't not going.

</forrest_gump_mode>

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

Try 20 Dr Peppers. Worked for me. It went plenty good!

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

O here we go again:D Man I would have given anything for some of that 'new-fangled' sand to write in when I was growing up! And clay? Who could afford water AND dirt?

@Faye: You've got it right on the 80/20 rule. Couldn't have said it better myself!

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

Did I mention the sand was hot?

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

What, like lava, sissy-boy?:eek:

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

Ack, no... but we did use lava to make our sidewalks. What with the high price of concrete and the constant availablility of earth-ripping volcanos in the area. People in our neighborhood were impatient, let me tell you. Blackfoot Indians? Ha! Brownfoot maybe. WE had black feet in those days. Who could wait for the sidewalk to cool down?

Re: Just for fun - what's more complicated, an N810 or a car?
 

LOL!! Uncle!!