curiosity Curiosity Swapping Out It's Main Computer

[DocM]

Exactly, which is why you see a lot of avionics etc. flying with Z80, 680x0, i386 & i486 processors in them. The need for computational speed isn't what people expect (an 80's 4-8 function calculator trumps Apollo's computer). Even the OS's trend this way - not fancy, but reliable & secure.

Example is SpaceX's Dragon (cargo) and coming DragonRider (crew) spacecraft which use linux and VxWorks. VxWorks is also run on a ton of NASA hardware.

[nekkidtruth]

At no point did I say "old hardware is bad". I use old hardware all the time. I don't toss aside perfectly functional devices simply because they're old. That doesn't negate the fact that better technology exists and should be considered with such "mission critical" stuff. That was what struck me as odd. Last time I checked, my smartphone did a hell of a lot more than "check Facebook".

A similar question could be posed to those of you who apparently believe old hardware is equatable to new hardware. Why do you think new hardware is bad? ;)

When it comes to technology, I enjoy all aspects of it. Old or new. The new stuff is a little more interesting to me as I enjoy watching the progression as well as the end result however, that doesn't mean I think old hardware is bad or not useful.

[pack34]

Gotta love the back seat engineering going on in this thread.

[Phouchg]

Isn't this what internets is about? Knowledge for everybody, quality notwithstanding!

I believe new hardware mostly happens to be following the software bloat and interface bling, not because it's actually needed for processing stuff. Consider how much (or how little, in fact) of all the stuff new hardware processes is actual data. The rest is presentation. Neat, even awesome to work with, but unnecessary.

[n_K]

Gotta love the back seat engineering going on in this thread.

Feel free to speak up if you actually see a technical inaccuracy.

[sanctified Veteran]

At no point did I say "old hardware is bad". I use old hardware all the time. I don't toss aside perfectly functional devices simply because they're old. That doesn't negate the fact that better technology exists and should be considered with such "mission critical" stuff. That was what struck me as odd. Last time I checked, my smartphone did a hell of a lot more than "check Facebook".

A similar question could be posed to those of you who apparently believe old hardware is equatable to new hardware. Why do you think new hardware is bad? ;)

When it comes to technology, I enjoy all aspects of it. Old or new. The new stuff is a little more interesting to me as I enjoy watching the progression as well as the end result however, that doesn't mean I think old hardware is bad or not useful.

New hardware is not bad, but is not always the adequate solution.

Old hardware is documented, known, cheaper, more tweakable and ENOUGH. Your appreciation of hardware is a hobbyist one. These people are professionals. And of course your device does more than facebook, but thats was rethorics. It will never do the complex stuff Nasa machinery do. It could, but its a more expensive and complex solution. You think Nasa techs just sit around and say 'lol, we have so much money, lets spend it all!'? They need to optimize resources, time, technology.