Talk:TI MSP430

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Marketing, not encyclopedic

In my view this whole entrey the way it is now is one giant marketing placement for TI, and should be drastically shortened to just a few lines.66.176.20.143 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, marked the article with advert template. --Alsh 22:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
How does it compare to the other microcontroller pages (Microchip's PIC, ATMEL, etc.)? --132.205.139.54 (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is information about a microcontroller, if you shorten it to only a few lines then it will be useless as a reference.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.154.165 (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age?

Does anyone know how old the MSP430 is (when it was invented)?

[edit] Hardware Development Tools

I removed this section as it all seemed to be links to sales sites, which fail WP:EL. If you know of sites about the development tools that aren't primarily intended to sell them, then feel free to add it back with those links. Mark Grant 18:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • But with respect - that's silly? Isn't the point of the external links section to point to resources that can be used that are outside of that which Wikipedia will enclose on the page. Surely if some of those links point to physical resources it is inevitable that they will have to be sold? Nothing is free

By removing this section you seem to be removing a valuable resource, with real world applications. What if people reading this article want to experiment?

  • And BTW the WP:EL does not forbid linking to sites, it just asks people to consider whether they are useful and relevant to the article. All of the sites in the harware section you unilaterally removed were!
It says such sites should generally be avoided. There's a difference between, say, linking to a site with a review of a book and linking to an amazon.com page selling the book. Or between linking an Intel page about one of their CPUs and linking to a site which sells Intel CPUs. Why do you think that sales sites should be included? Mark Grant 17:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What good is a book review, unless one can read the book? My point is that vendors fill a vital place in society, without which, virtually none of the products and services discussed on Wikipedia would exist. They offer the service of supplying things that are otherwise just concepts. Your front page features a piece on the Wonderbra currently. The piece rightly links to the Wonderbra site, where it offers the viewer the chance to find sales outlets. There is little practical information contained on the site, but it should be linked to because it offers content outside the scope of Wikipedia. Vendors do that too. Why should they not be allowed? Again - WP:EL does not explicitly say that they are not allowed.
Wikipedia is not an advertising site. It's not a site for people to find places to buy things from. If this was an article _about_ those specific hardware development tools then adding a link to the official site would be quite legitimate even if it was primarily intended to sell them, as allowed by WP:EL. If there's a site listing available development hardware then I'd say that linking to it would be a good idea, but linking to sites which just offer them for sale is not.
To reiterate, WP:EL states: 'Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid'. So linking to the official Wonderbra site in an article about Wonderbras is perfectly legitimate. Linking to a site that sells PCs in an article about Pentium CPUs would not be.
More to the point, the reason why I removed that link in the first place was because someone was posting links to the same site on multiple articles. That may have been done with good intentions, but it looks very much like advertising spam and not an attempt to improve articles. Mark Grant 11:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CISC !

It's a full cisc design comming from pdp-11. It's not a load&store architecture. It's not a fixed size instruction set (2 16 bits adresse could be embedded at the end of each instructions). There is absolutly nothing "riscy" here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.30.139.86 (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] PDP-11

Do we really need to compare it to the DEC PDP-11 in the first paragraph? The two processors have very different applications, and their use do not overlap in time.

--132.205.139.54 (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)