PCBUILD Archives

Personal Computer Hardware discussion List

PCBUILD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Susan Sutherland <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
PCBUILD - Personal Computer Hardware discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 9 Aug 1998 12:14:57 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (45 lines)
>I'm looking for teaching resources for pc bus architecture.
>Particularly I would like to get an avi or other video file
>or animation to show visually how the bus works on the mainboard
>between the i/o, cpu, controller, and memory cache. But
>something on any of the topics would be useful .
>

These are not .avi files, but there are some decent illustrations in these
two books, that helped me with these concepts:

"Upgrading and Repairing PCs" by Scott Mueller, Que Publications;
(this is the reference I use most frequently, and have read from cover to
cover.)
and also, this book which I recently used in order to study for the A+ exams:
"Exam Prep - A+", Certification Insider Press; (with very useful CD-ROM,
including a copy of Nuts and Bolts)

Both are written at would I would call a "medium" technical level. I found
that for understanding these concepts, sometimes, having it explained in
more than one way helped me. Some books will oversimplify in an effort to
get the idea across, but then you find that in the future, you (or in your
case, your students) don't have as clear an understanding as you really
need. It took me a fair while to feel I really had an understanding of all
the various concepts, and the more *good* sources I read from and spoke to,
the better. (Unfortunately, there are also bad ones, which can confuse
things.)

Here is one criterion that I have learned to use for judging books along
this line: if the author ever claims that there is a "black art" or
"voodoo" or "something unexplainable" about ANYTHING in this area of
knowledge, to me, it just tells me that the author does not clearly
understand the concept himself. I have two books around my office, where
the authors make such claims. I have yet to meet anyone whom I believed had
a *deep* understanding of what he/she was doing, who made statements like
that in seriousness. (On a bad day,though, said in jest, it is excusable,
for sure!) Yes, sometimes the issues can be complex, sometimes frustrating,
but "black art", no way, I say. As a general rule, people who rely heavily
on this sort of excuse are covering up for a lack in their own knowledge.

I know this is more detail than you asked for, but I think this is an
important thing to consider, when looking for really good reference
materials: no "voodoo" references, no oversimplifying.

Susan Sutherland

ATOM RSS1 RSS2