Talk:Embedded system

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 14 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Wintersfire.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Use of the first picture
The first picture displayed in this article details the internal architecture of a router. It would be more useful if that picture is inserted in the article about router. User : Anoop anooprs 14:51, 04 November 2007 (GMT)

The picture clearly is inadequate: "An embedded system is a computer system with a dedicated function within a larger mechanical or electrical system". May I ask what the mechanical or electrical system is in which the router is embedded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.191.23 (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The picture is clearly out of place here. An ADSL modem/router is not embedded in the sense the article explains. I took the image from the German Wikipedia so that it does not confuse readers unaware of the subject.--Sae1962 (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction in list of example embedded systems
The third paragraph explains that cell phones and handheld computers are not truly embedded systems, but the list of example embedded systems includes these items. Also, by the same explanation of being too general in purpose, game consoles and PDAs probably don't qualify as embedded systems.
 * Is it OK now? Please sign your discussion edits. Aaron Lawrence 15:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

B Class
How exciting! B class! Hm ... I wonder what it needs to be A class ... probably more references. "has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage and/or clarity, balance of content," Can't disagree with that. Aaron Lawrence 11:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Secondary Pages should be created
This page is definately more organized than before, but the content is so superficial for many of the topics that it would not be a bad idea to link to secondary pages for many of them. For example, reliability in embedded systems could definately use its own page, as it is it gets a paragraph. Anyone with experience in ES will have to agree, the overall ES content in wikipedia is weak. While I don't advocate making this page into a WWII size megapage, I do think that many of the areas should have their own pages. Thomaslw 22:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Reliability has more than one paragraph now though. If you have the knowledge to write the page, go ahead and do so! I would guess that it is quite a niche area. Plus it's the old problem of finding engineers who can write well :) Aaron Lawrence 14:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are many whole books dedicated to the subject of Embedded Systems. The majority of additional sub topics within Embedded Systems should probably be their own pages.  See the discussion below on debugging.  Are we really writing a book here? ;) EM1SS&amp;CSE 15:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * hehe yeah I don't advocate making a book, but it would be nice to see ES having its own section of wikipedia so to speak! Plus all of us in ES know how misunderstood our domain is. I mean people use cell phones, Ipods, berries, video game systems, whatever, and think it's some magic box. And then when you go 'oh I work in embedded systems' they give you a blank stare. "What's that?" You guys know what I mean! Anyway I would definately like to expand this section to contain comprehensive content for the major sections, and perhaps just enough detail to give experienced engineers enough of a background where they can go 'oh okay." As it is the only other major subpage I can find is RTOSes, or embedded OS, but there is just so much in embedded systems! Thomaslw 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomaslw (talk • contribs) 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm not opposed in making this into a 'book' per se, might actual be a career enhancement. ;)  I’m not sure we would all be able to agree on some of the terminology, as I’ve heard things differently in each industry involved with embedded systems.  I think it might be an interesting collaborative effort.  Plus having it in the open domain ensures it will be updated for more timely items as the industry changes. Who hates reading an outdated book? (raises hand). 199.64.0.252 19:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, looks like not too much interest in this regard. ;) How do you guys propose we break up the sections to more meaningful Wiki subjects? EM1SS&amp;CSE 15:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I'm not sure this is all fit content for WP. Bearing in mind WP:NOT perhaps we don't need much more because it starts to stray into training manuals and such.Aaron Lawrence 09:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New External Link Suggestions
http://microcontrollershop.com/An%20Embedded%20Tools%20Introduction.php Article on tools used to develop code for Embedded Systems could also serve as a reference for some of the debugging/software sections of Wikipedia ES article.

http://www.ucpros.com/Newsletter.htm - Embedded System News Digest, Embedded System Industry News in a concise format.

Cwatti (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Software vs hardware
An "embedded system" is a bit of hardware that does something. A "virtual machine" is a software programming concept. Maybe Java virtual machines are used to program embvedded systems, but at most shoulnd't that be mentioned under "software architectures", if at all? And it needs a reference (and the rest of the article needs references). --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

More specific than title
Shouldn't this article be titled "embedded computer system?". I know there isn't much in the way of alternate usage of the term, but there's no point in the title being broader than what the article is discussing. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I decided to go for WP:BRD rename since I will be linking more pages to this article. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You could have waited more than a few minutes for a response. A day or two is customary.
 * Per WP:NAME the appropriate article title is the most commonly known name, not necessarily the most technically correct name. If you can present evidence that embedded computer system is widely used, then the rename can remain.  Otherwise, it should be changed back.  —EncMstr (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no evidence that either is the most commonly used. I don't know how to change it back. I know how to change it forward. Might I suggest "Embedded systems (computing)" ? Oicumayberight (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction: It wouldn't need to be plural. The primary link could be "Embedded system (computing)" and the plural can direct to it. Oicumayberight (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Embedded system (computing) might be appropriate if we had other articles about non-computing "embedded systems". (But even then, the computing sense would probably qualify as the primary topic, with no disambiguation phrase required.) I have moved the page back to the more common name for now. Hqb (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Both points seem relevant here, but apparently not yet fully resolved. I would propose the introduction begin by indicating that: an embedded system refers to something that is complete in itself (the system) which monitors and can act upon its environment (embedded). The term is used predominantly in engineering, most frequently to refer to a controller inside.... Just a side note, but the term embedded system is also applied to eg. autonomous car, aircraft, satellites, etc. Ultimâ (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No, the title of the article looks to be resolved. Embedded system is the recognised term used by people who practice in this field and there is apparently no other kind of system competing for this term. Go ahead and make any changes that you think would improve the introduction. ~Kvng (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The original concern here was not about the title, but that the content was more specific - which is correct, but it's also true that the main usage of the term relates to the controller. Ok, I'll make the change soon. Ultimâ (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, update provided. A last change I would suggest here relates to: "It is embedded as part of a complete device often including hardware and mechanical parts" - while 'complete' is not incorrect, it gives the idea that the controller is incomplete - I would propose replacing that word with 'larger, multi-functional' device. Ultimâ (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed that again, for now. The first sentence should be a concise definition of the topic - your version was confusing, with dependent clauses and parentheticals. That much detail might be appropriate later in the introduction, not but not in the very first sentence. See MOS:LEADSENTENCE. - MrOllie (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And again, the first sentence has to be simple and understandable. We should not be adding hair splitting and fussy details straight away, that is what the body of the article is for. - MrOllie (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will move part down to the characteristics, but the opening paragraph should still be sufficiently precise and clarifying the specific usage. Ultimâ (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your latest version still doesn't comply with MOS:LEADSENTENCE. The first sentence of the article needs to be a simple definition so non-experts have context for the rest of the article. - MrOllie (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Responding to" "X has the role to" is not an appropriate lead sentence" - there are different types of embedded systems, so one defines by the common purpose.

Responding to "the text added elsewhere seems to rely on an incorrect definition of embedded" -    ST47 is only familiar with embedded control systems. There are many types so characterising means defining by common properties. Please see https://www.controleng.com/articles/what-is-an-embedded-system/ Ultimâ (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the lead section is to summarize the article. Your version fails to do that. The purpose of the lead sentence is to clearly define the subject, your version also fails to do that. You should respect that your proposed changes lack WP:CONSENSUS and stop making them unless and until agreement is arrived at on this talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead provides a concise overview of the article's topic. If you read your reference to WP:CONSENSUS you would not be reverting. Ultimâ (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It provides a concise overview of some topic, but not this article's topic. If you read consensus, you'd realize that it is not a license to crowbar in whatever you like and then claim no one can go back to the settled version. Consensus is required to get your new changes in, not the opposite. In this case, you're reverting multiple other editors to keep your changes in. If anything consensus is squarely against you. - MrOllie (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * MrOllie, my perspective is legitimate with provided references. Simply reverting each time is harassment and is WP:Disruptive editing.Ultimâ (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * is not being disruptive, neither is or  who have also reverted your proposed changes. It does not help your case to accuse the others of disruption (see WP:BOOMERANG). You need to make a case for why these changes are an improvement and get the other editors here to agree that they are an improvement. I think that will be a tall order; I am an embedded systems expert and experienced wikipedia editor and I find the current lead sentence to be very well done. ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As you say it's complicated. The BDR is a basic approach to finding consensus, working best for small changes. For this particular change it's refining the concept - so everyone should have a chance to see it to consider it to arrive at a consensus. I assume everyone agrees currently that the page is more specific than the title, because it has not been provided as a reason for undoing the changes.  I mentioned disruptive editing because it seems we haven't made progress on this point. I'm assuming we all work in this domain - the page is more specifically about embedded control systems. The majority of us engineers use embedded system and  control system as synonyms, which is not incorrect except, to use an analogy, fruit is a higher abstraction than orange. Ultimâ (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree that the page is more specific than the title. 'Embedded system' is understood to mean what the article describes by all the sources we have. IMO the more pressing issue, though, is that the lead section is for summarzing the article and your proposed changes do not properly summarize the article. - MrOllie (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * *Consensus on discussion point*: Ok, so my changes in response to your comments MrOllie, were made under the assumption we all agreed on the baseline discussion thread. I wish you had indicated this first which might have saved some of our time.  Embedded System is a concept and both the lead and main body should evolve to reflect the best definition.  Indicating one should be changed before the other is a logical fallacy. In this particular case the proposed evolution (shown below) is meant to justify the content of the body. Do you believe an embedded system and embedded control system are exactly the same thing?  Also 'Embedded' & 'System' have a general meaning which contribute to the origin of the term - why should this not be considered?


 * Implementation of discussion point*: Using a style seen on another page to find consensus on implementation, please amend where you think suitable:


 * Lead section :
 * "Within engineering an embedded system has the role to influence a physical environment in which it is placed. While applicable to systems such as autonomous cars and aircraft, it is most frequently applied to the control system (or controller) within these larger systems. A controller has a dedicated function within a larger mechanical or electrical system, often with real-time computing constraints..."


 * Characteristics Section (bold shows update):
 * "Embedded systems are designed to do some specific task, rather than be a general-purpose computer for multiple tasks. They are complete in themselves (a system) and placed inside an environment to exert some influence (embedded). In this context embedded includes the ability to monitor and exert action externally, similarly to embedded intelligence, embedded software and embedded analytics. Some also have real-time performance constraints that must be met, for reasons such as safety and usability; others may have low or no performance requirements, allowing the system hardware to be simplified to reduce costs."


 * Ultimâ (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This continues to fail to summarize the article and continues to fail to agree with MOS:LEADSENTENCE. I would simply continue using the current article lead. - MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the Lead section proposal. Your Characteristics Section proposal is not an improvement as this addition is difficult to read, doesn't offer any critical information or clarification and is uncited. ~Kvng (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello MrOllie, while you are unconvinced by the discussion subject, discussing implementation is moot. I proposed some questions to you on 6th Jan. to help understand your perspective. Could you please respond to them? Ultimâ (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello Kvng, discussing implementation doesn't make sense if you are not yet convinced about the discussion topic, or it isn't clear to you. To advance please consider the questions from my entry on Jan 6th.   Ultimâ (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Rereading didn't help me understand what your proposing any better. I can, however, answer one of your 6 January questions: all embedded control systems are embedded systems. There are some embedded systems that arguably don't have control system aspects. By control system I mean that which is described in Control system. ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't really think going down a tangent about our personal beliefs is relevant. Wikipedia works by summarizing sources. Which sources do you think are being used improperly? Or which new sources do you propose we start using?- MrOllie (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello ok, so we made some headway, you agree that the content is more specific than the title because you acknowledge there can be embedded systems without the control aspects. The purpose of my contribution to the lead noted above, is to acknowledge these exceptions but without us needing to go into the details (in the main content). (The leading section is not just a summary, but also an introduction to the reader.)Ultimâ (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello finding consensus, I'm sure we'll agree is about updating personal beliefs.  Thus I asked why you think a definition of 'embedded' and 'system' in themselves are irrelevant origins?  My understanding of sources is that they are used for something that is not common knowledge, if you look up embedded intelligence, embedded software and embedded analytics you will see they have the characteristic that is not yet mentioned in the article.  There are plenty of sources, but here's one from Britannica in the context of social science (influence on an environment) https://www.britannica.com/topic/embeddedness. Ultimâ (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think I see the problem. Wikipedia articles are not pages of a dictionary listing definitions, a single wikipedia article is not going go over usage of the term in other fields. When word choices overlap, we have separate, disambiguated article titles. For example we have Vector (mathematics and physics) and Vector (epidemiology), not one article that tries to cover dissimilar uses. - MrOllie (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Computer system vs system with a computing function
I think it's more accurate to say that an embedded system is a computer embedded in a system or embedded computing function within a system. Saying it's a computing system sounds like computing is its primary function. It's a lot like calling a car a "motor." Oicumayberight (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a computer system (i.e., processor, memory, and I/O units, together with suitable software/firmware) that is embedded into some larger system, whose main purpose will usually be something other than computation. As far as I can tell, that's essentially what the current article lead is is saying. Note that the focus of the article is the embedded system itself, not on any larger system (such as a car) that it might be a part of. Hqb (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A general purpose computer is a computer system too, but it's distinguished from an embedded system. What's unique about an embedded system is that it's part of a larger system. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's arguably what "embedded" means. But it doesn't really have to be part of a larger system. For example, a typical small router is little more than a computer with a larger-than-usual number of network interfaces. What makes it an embedded system is not so much that it's part of a larger system. but that it's performing a very specialized function – even though the hardware is often perfectly capable of running a full general-purpose operating system like Linux and a complement of apps. Likewise, a typical consumer GPS navigation device is essentially also just a small tablet computer, only equipped with a GPS receiver, and constrained to run a particular map/navigation application. Again, I think the current version of the article lead explains the distinction quite well. Hqb (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So if I were to designate a general purpose computer to serve only one function (like streaming music), would it be an embedded system? Oicumayberight (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Embedded Instrumentation
very closely related overlapping subjects., best handled together  DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Clearly different topics. Your hot tub controller is an embedded system, which might use a microprocessor with embedded self-test instrumentation in it - but that's on a chip scale, not on a system scale. Embedded instrumentation is for testing chips - embedded systems are computers that control devices. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose It appears to be closer to Joint Test Action Group. •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 18:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated "98 % of all microprocessors" claim?
The article states that "Ninety-eight percent of all microprocessors are manufactured as components of embedded systems.[4]", where [4] refers to http://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/barr-code/4027479/Real-men-program-in-C. I was not able to find any support for the claimed fact on the referenced page. If there are no other sources to back it up, I would remove it. Fuyu5ama (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It can be found on page 2 of said article: Around 98% of the new CPUs produced each year are embedded. And the number of new CPUs per year is on a long-term upward trend.
 * That being said, although this claim can easily be found in other publications by just googling the first sentence, it's really difficult to track the origin. Additionally, there are immensely contradictory claims to be found on other reputable resources, like in The McClean report by IC Insights. Section 11 states that embedded microprocessors actually only make up around 16%. Even considering cell phones and tablets, x86 processors found in desktop computers, servers and mainframes still make up 51%. --2003:71:F52:6400:D2E4:695C:FCBF:1460 (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Correction: The McClean Report figure only references the market share by revenue. Maybe the market share by units can be found in the full report, but I don't have the resources to access it. Alternatively, some original research might be necessary, but that's forbidden by Wikipedia's standards, as I understand. --2003:71:F00:5900:5930:97A2:6ACE:F0C4 (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fuyu5ama. The origin of this statistic is unclear. Furthermore, given all that has changed in embedded systems since the cited article was published in 2009, the true percentage may well have changed significantly since then. So far, I have not identified a credible source for a current estimate. tedburke (talk) 10:59, 21 Jan 2021 (UTC)


 * Until we find something new or decide to remove the statement, I have used As of to mark this as a dated statement. ~Kvng (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)