??? 12/08/04 11:08 Read: times |
#82750 - maybe... maybe not. Responding to: ???'s previous message |
In one hand, yes, simpler and probably less data. In the other hand, WAY less flexible. The piece of program can easily discard torque data and i.e. read some sensor built into the cartridge, or apply completely different algorithm if it's some special cartridge i.e. for printing with plastic - anything the authors of the printer firmware did NOT foresee at the time of creating the printer firmware, methods that can't be covered by plain change of the parameters because they weren't known at the time when the algorithm taking these parameters was written.
(and as Lexmark lost the case in court, obviously if they included that feature strictly for law reasons, it didn't work.) |
Topic | Author | Date |
sjmp vs ajmp | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
as you said | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Different jmps | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
re:AJMP, SJMP | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
AJMP is 2 bytes LJMP is 3 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
LJMP was not the question | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
AJMP vs SJMP | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Relocable. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
relocatable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Re:Relocatable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
relocatable - not in a 51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Relocatable Code is Valid | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Not JMPs, relocatable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I can anticipate all kinds of situations | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
If I can devise concepts others will too | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
"driver". | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Re: driver | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
maybe... maybe not.![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
16M derivatives... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
SJMP is 2 bytes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Maybe he means additional bytes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
yes. | 01/01/70 00:00 |