From sevush@rcn.com Wed Oct 23 11:44:21 2002
Subject:RE: UP AND RUNNIN'!!

I don't know squat (that's a technical term:) about the specifics of the CX3
or the Electro, but I have worked on many different kinds of systems and the
"bootstrap" issue is common.

A similar problem can exist with current PCs that can update their BIOS code
that resides in flash RAM.

Ideally, all bootstrap code lives in ROM or can be copied from ROM into
flash RAM when needed. This may be the case in the Electro and not the case
in the CX3.

The concept of user servicable upgrades is fairly new to the MI business. We
burn, we learn.

> Last night I attempted a software (re)upload to the
> electro, wich had apparenty suffered a flash memory
> blackout. Well, I'm really glad to say it effectively
> restored the electro operativity!!!.YUPPPPIIIIEEEEE!!
> Thanks God it worked!. Now, a question raises. It
> seems that the electro design team made this unit safe
> to memory loss. I mean that, even though the unit was
> left blank after its failure, it could still receive
> instructions. My actual question is why such a logical
> security measure wouldn't be taken in consideration on
> the CX3 design (?). I simply cannot concieve the
> reason why they would allow a keyboard to be
> hopelessly dead if something went wrong with the
> onboard OS and data was lost. It doesn't look very
> clever to me. A digital keyboard is basically a
> computer with keys for strictly musical applications.
> Just imagine your computer lost the OS or that the OS
> simply cracked (seems to be a haunting behavior in
> Windows systems up to date) and that your computer got
> terribly spoiled just by that.
> Fortunately though, this is not the case. The
> processor has its own setup instuctions physically
> set, so it can boot up and be programmed even when the
> computer is totally empty (software-wise).
> Why wouldn't this rule of thumb be contemplated in
> the CX3's design is still as of today beyond my
> rational capabilities.