f



what is the best SBC?

Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC available.
Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency / 
price?
I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )
Many thanks in advance
Sorry for my english
-- 
Les politiciens sont imprévoyants, et les électeurs sans mémoire!
0
andre
11/30/2016 9:26:00 AM
comp.arch.embedded 20047 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

26 Replies
814 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 50

Il giorno mercoled=C3=AC 30 novembre 2016 10:26:04 UTC+1, andre ha scritto:
> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC availab=
le.
> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency /=20
> price?
> I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )
> Many thanks in advance
> Sorry for my english

what is SBC?
and the answer is: it depends on what you have to do :)

Bye Jack
0
Jack
11/30/2016 9:29:43 AM
On 11/30/2016 2:26 AM, andre wrote:
> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC available.
> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency / price?

What criteria do you use in your definition of "efficiency"?

> I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )
> Many thanks in advance
> Sorry for my english

0
Don
11/30/2016 9:38:46 AM
Le 30/11/2016 10:38, Don Y a écrit :
> On 11/30/2016 2:26 AM, andre wrote:
>> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC
>> available.
>> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency /
>> price?
>
> What criteria do you use in your definition of "efficiency"?
Fonctionality / ease of use / connectivity / operating system ( web 
server ssh .. ) communication (RS232 485, I2C, SPI ..) ease and tools 
for programming ease of integrating them into a box with other devices .....
>
>> I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )
>> Many thanks in advance
>> Sorry for my english
>


-- 
Les politiciens sont imprévoyants, et les électeurs sans mémoire!
0
andre
11/30/2016 9:53:31 AM
"Jack" <jack4747@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:4eab56b0-4f84-47cf-a50a-2d916727d3fe@googlegroups.com...
> Il giorno mercoledì 30 novembre 2016 10:26:04 UTC+1, andre ha scritto:
>> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC 
>> available.
>> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency /
>> price?
>> I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )
>> Many thanks in advance
>> Sorry for my english
>
> what is SBC?

Single-Board Computer

> and the answer is: it depends on what you have to do :)
>
> Bye Jack

 

0
tim
11/30/2016 12:35:22 PM
Il giorno mercoled=C3=AC 30 novembre 2016 13:34:50 UTC+1, tim... ha scritto=
:
> "Jack" <jack4747@gmail.com> wrote in message=20
> news:4eab56b0-4f84-47cf-a50a-2d916727d3fe@googlegroups.com...
> > Il giorno mercoled=C3=AC 30 novembre 2016 10:26:04 UTC+1, andre ha scri=
tto:
> >> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC=20
> >> available.
> >> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency /
> >> price?
> >> I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )
> >> Many thanks in advance
> >> Sorry for my english
> >
> > what is SBC?
>=20
> Single-Board Computer

ah, thanks.

Bye Jack
0
Jack
11/30/2016 1:22:00 PM
Op 30-Nov-16 om 10:53 AM schreef andre:
> Le 30/11/2016 10:38, Don Y a écrit :
>> On 11/30/2016 2:26 AM, andre wrote:
>>> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC
>>> available.
>>> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency /
>>> price?
>>
>> What criteria do you use in your definition of "efficiency"?
> Fonctionality / ease of use / connectivity / operating system ( web
> server ssh .. ) communication (RS232 485, I2C, SPI ..) ease and tools
> for programming ease of integrating them into a box with other devices

No board will be best on all criteria, but in bang for the bucks the 
various Pi's rank quite high, because they are produced in large volume 
which keeps the price down.

Wouter "Objects? No Thanks!" van Ooijen

0
Wouter
11/30/2016 5:13:27 PM
On 11/30/2016 12:13 PM, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> Op 30-Nov-16 om 10:53 AM schreef andre:
>> Le 30/11/2016 10:38, Don Y a écrit :
>>> On 11/30/2016 2:26 AM, andre wrote:
>>>> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC
>>>> available.
>>>> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency /
>>>> price?
>>>
>>> What criteria do you use in your definition of "efficiency"?
>> Fonctionality / ease of use / connectivity / operating system ( web
>> server ssh .. ) communication (RS232 485, I2C, SPI ..) ease and tools
>> for programming ease of integrating them into a box with other devices
>
> No board will be best on all criteria, but in bang for the bucks the
> various Pi's rank quite high, because they are produced in large volume
> which keeps the price down.
>
> Wouter "Objects? No Thanks!" van Ooijen

It's hard to beat the pi zero on raw price if it has everything you 
need.  Here is another contender with wifi and bluetooth built in.

https://getchip.com/

-- 

Rick C
0
rickman
11/30/2016 5:31:31 PM
On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:26:00 +0100, andre wrote:

> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC
> available.
> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency /
> price?
> I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )
> Many thanks in advance Sorry for my english

The reason there are so many is that there is no one "best".  Your 
question needs to be "what is best for my application?", and, 
unfortunately, only you can answer that.

A non-exhaustive list of things to consider in your calculations are:

* How big is it?
* How expensive is it?
* Does it have more than sufficient processing power?
* How likely is it to be around for the lifetime of your product?
* How much power does it consume?
* What features does it have?
* What temperature range does it operate over?
* How easy is it to use?
* How hard is it to source?

-- 
Tim Wescott
Control systems, embedded software and circuit design
I'm looking for work!  See my website if you're interested
http://www.wescottdesign.com
0
Tim
11/30/2016 6:14:14 PM
On 11/30/2016 2:53 AM, andre wrote:
> Le 30/11/2016 10:38, Don Y a écrit :
>> On 11/30/2016 2:26 AM, andre wrote:
>>> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC
>>> available.
>>> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency /
>>> price?
>>
>> What criteria do you use in your definition of "efficiency"?
> Fonctionality / ease of use / connectivity / operating system ( web server ssh
> .. ) communication (RS232 485, I2C, SPI ..) ease and tools for programming ease
> of integrating them into a box with other devices .....

Most of this is purely subjective.  What criteria do you use to *rate*
"functionality"?  Or, "ease of use" (as a developer? as the end user of
your *developed* product?  etc.)?

Do "more connectors" constitute better connectivity?  Or, more *virtual*
connection capabilities (protocols, etc.)?   Do the number of virtual
*connections* that can be maintained at a given time factor into this
(e.g., if a device can support 10 open sockets while another supports
1000, is the latter better?  how MUCH better?  what if those sockets
come at the expense of some other criteria -- how much are they "worth"?)

Are you making "one-off" units -- e.g., as a hobbyist?  Or, trying to
design for higher volumes?  How price sensitive is your decision?
How much (personal?) time do you want to throw at your projects and
what are teh consequences in terms of CALENDAR time?  (are you willing
to wait an extra month, year, etc. to satisfy -- or compensate -- some
other criteria)

Here's a possible crude way of sorting out what you need:
- consider two extremes; a ready-made PC and a pile of chips

   The PC can be self-hosting in your development effort.  No need
   to buy tools to allow you to debug code AS it executes.  You
   can develop in damn near any "language" you choose, interpret,
   JIT, compile, etc.  You can readily add resources to it as your
   needs evolve (more memory, upgrade to a faster processor, add
   secondary storage, different connectivity mechanisms, user
   interface technologies, etc.).

   At the other extreme, you can assemble an assortment of chips
   to achieve *exactly* the performance and capabilities that you
   want/need.  And, code the OS to provide the functions you think
   are important.

   You'll get different results -- and invest your time in very different
   ways!

- revise this as you see what each imagined "optimization" *costs*

   E.g., I can add more memory by replacing a DIMM vs. having to possibly
   select a different SoC that can support that additional memory; I
   can move to an execution environment that supports protected address
   spaces by *buying* one that runs on the COTS PC vs. DEVELOPING one
   that runs on the particular set of components I've assembled; etc.

   Think about how this conversation (with yourself) will play out in
   the future.  *If* you take one approach (PC vs. "components" vs.
   anything in the continuum between), how much will you be *bound* by
   your initial decision?  (see, also, below)

>>> I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )

Knowing absolutely *nothing* about your actual goals and specific
criteria... but, assuming your gizmos need to talk to each other
(i.e., you aren't making a standalone device that JUST does one thing
and has to be configured completely independently of other devices
busily doing OTHER things), I'd recommend an RPi running Inferno.

This "wastes" a fair bit of resources (over what you could do "on your
own").  But, not as much as something like an SBC PC (that has support
for a pretty display, rotating media, etc.).  The big wins, are:
- its easy to develop under
- its easy to extend the system past the boundaries of that *first*
   RPi (i.e., you can have N RPi's all seamlessly cooperating on a
   particular application; doing so in other environments makes the
   "seams" far more visible!
- you'll (probably) learn something(s) "interesting" along the way

>>> Many thanks in advance
>>> Sorry for my english
>>
>
>

0
Don
11/30/2016 8:23:57 PM
On 30-Nov-16 9:22 PM, Jack wrote:
> Il giorno mercoledì 30 novembre 2016 13:34:50 UTC+1, tim... ha scritto:
>> "Jack" <jack4747@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4eab56b0-4f84-47cf-a50a-2d916727d3fe@googlegroups.com...
>>> Il giorno mercoledì 30 novembre 2016 10:26:04 UTC+1, andre ha scritto:
>>>> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC
>>>> available.
>>>> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency /
>>>> price?
>>>> I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )
>>>> Many thanks in advance
>>>> Sorry for my english
>>>
>>> what is SBC?
>>
>> Single-Board Computer
>
> ah, thanks.
>
> Bye Jack
>


Now you know Jack!  ;)
0
Ozzie
12/1/2016 11:00:22 AM
Il giorno gioved=C3=AC 1 dicembre 2016 12:00:22 UTC+1, Ozzie ha scritto:

> >>> what is SBC?
> >>
> >> Single-Board Computer
> >
> > ah, thanks.
> >
> > Bye Jack
> >
>=20
>=20
> Now you know Jack!  ;)

well yes.
but someone could argue that also a PC is a SBC :D

Bye Jack
0
Jack
12/1/2016 12:26:46 PM
On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:26:00 +0100, andre wrote:

> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC
> available.
> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency /
> price?
> I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )
> Many thanks in advance Sorry for my english


There are hundreds of them, from tiny 8 bitters to 8 cores and beyond,
with varying degrees of storage, networking, video, I/O etc.
You may want to check the reviews at hackerboards. Also, every now and
then they publish a fairly long list of boards with characteristics,
prices etc.

http://hackerboards.com/
0
asdf
12/1/2016 3:16:04 PM
On 2016-11-30, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:26:00 +0100, andre wrote:
>
>> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC
>> available.
>> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency /
>> price?
>> I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )
>> Many thanks in advance Sorry for my english
>
> The reason there are so many is that there is no one "best".  Your 
> question needs to be "what is best for my application?", and, 
> unfortunately, only you can answer that.
>
> A non-exhaustive list of things to consider in your calculations are:
>
> * How big is it?
> * How expensive is it?
> * Does it have more than sufficient processing power?
> * How likely is it to be around for the lifetime of your product?
> * How much power does it consume?
> * What features does it have?
> * What temperature range does it operate over?
> * How easy is it to use?
> * How hard is it to source?
>

Another one for your list:

* If you are writing your own bare metal code or your own BSP, then what
  is the availability of the documentation and how good[*] is it ?

[*] My non-exhaustive definition of "Good":

* Includes conceptual overviews of the MCU and peripherals.
* Includes detailed information on each register and the
  inter-relationships between the various registers.
* The critical piece of information you need to get your device driver
  actually initialised correctly isn't buried in sentence 2 of paragraph
  5 of page 208 (which is actually ~50 pages away your current position
  and doesn't have any reasonably direct pointers to it).
* The documentation wasn't created by running it through Google
  Translate or similar.
* Includes a detailed table of contents sidebar.
* Comes with example code which shows the things the manuals didn't
  bother telling you about.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world
0
Simon
12/2/2016 8:04:27 PM
On 12/2/2016 1:04 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> * Comes with example code which shows the things the manuals didn't
>   bother telling you about.

Comes with example code that actually *works* (reliably).

The same applies to *hardware* app notes:  have you actually BUILT
the circuit (run the code) that you're presenting, here?
0
Don
12/2/2016 8:38:40 PM
Op Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:26:46 +0100 schreef Jack <jack4747@gmail.com>:
> Il giorno gioved=EC 1 dicembre 2016 12:00:22 UTC+1, Ozzie ha scritto:
>
>> >>> what is SBC?
>> >>
>> >> Single-Board Computer
>> >
>> > ah, thanks.
>>
>> Now you know Jack!  ;)
>
> well yes.
> but someone could argue that also a PC is a SBC :D

If the RAM isn't soldered on the board, it isn't an SBC.  Also consider =
a  =

PC from the 90s, which doesn't function without a separate graphics card=
  =

and a CPU which can be considered a 'board' by itself.



-- =

(Remove the obvious prefix to reply privately.)
Gemaakt met Opera's e-mailprogramma: http://www.opera.com/mail/
0
Boudewijn
12/5/2016 10:24:09 AM
Il giorno luned=C3=AC 5 dicembre 2016 11:34:02 UTC+1, Boudewijn Dijkstra ha=
 scritto:
> Op Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:26:46 +0100 schreef Jack <jack4747@gmail.com>:
> > Il giorno gioved=C3=AC 1 dicembre 2016 12:00:22 UTC+1, Ozzie ha scritto=
:
> >
> >> >>> what is SBC?
> >> >>
> >> >> Single-Board Computer
> >> >
> >> > ah, thanks.
> >>
> >> Now you know Jack!  ;)
> >
> > well yes.
> > but someone could argue that also a PC is a SBC :D
>=20
> If the RAM isn't soldered on the board, it isn't an SBC.  Also consider a=
 =20
> PC from the 90s, which doesn't function without a separate graphics card =
=20
> and a CPU which can be considered a 'board' by itself.

Speaking about pc 25 years old is not really useful in this case or we can =
just put also Commodores, Amigas, Ataris in the basket (they all had solder=
ed ram and integrated gpu).

In any case Apple laptops built in the last let say 5 years have soldered C=
PU AND ram so under your definition are SBCs...
Also the new Microsoft Surface Pro seems to have soldered ram...

so maybe a different definition is necessary.

Bye Jack
0
Jack
12/5/2016 10:46:06 AM
On 05.12.2016 г. 12:46, Jack wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 5 dicembre 2016 11:34:02 UTC+1, Boudewijn Dijkstra ha scritto:
>> Op Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:26:46 +0100 schreef Jack <jack4747@gmail.com>:
>>> Il giorno giovedì 1 dicembre 2016 12:00:22 UTC+1, Ozzie ha scritto:
>>>
>>>>>>> what is SBC?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Single-Board Computer
>>>>>
>>>>> ah, thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Now you know Jack!  ;)
>>>
>>> well yes.
>>> but someone could argue that also a PC is a SBC :D
>>
>> If the RAM isn't soldered on the board, it isn't an SBC.  Also consider a
>> PC from the 90s, which doesn't function without a separate graphics card
>> and a CPU which can be considered a 'board' by itself.
>
> Speaking about pc 25 years old is not really useful in this case or we can just put also Commodores, Amigas, Ataris in the basket (they all had soldered ram and integrated gpu).
>
> In any case Apple laptops built in the last let say 5 years have soldered CPU AND ram so under your definition are SBCs...
> Also the new Microsoft Surface Pro seems to have soldered ram...
>
> so maybe a different definition is necessary.
>
> Bye Jack
>

The PC/apple/tablet things are not SBC-s not because they are not
single board, many of them are that nowadays.

But they are not computers - a computer you can program including its
coming out of reset, how to initialize its peripherals etc.
These are computerized TV-sets or whatever name one chooses
for todays entertainment/office hardware.

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff, TGI             http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/



0
Dimiter_Popoff
12/5/2016 11:28:26 AM
On 12/5/2016 6:28, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 05.12.2016 г. 12:46, Jack wrote:
>> Il giorno lunedì 5 dicembre 2016 11:34:02 UTC+1, Boudewijn Dijkstra ha
>> scritto:
>>> Op Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:26:46 +0100 schreef Jack <jack4747@gmail.com>:
>>>> Il giorno giovedì 1 dicembre 2016 12:00:22 UTC+1, Ozzie ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> what is SBC?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Single-Board Computer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ah, thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you know Jack!  ;)
>>>>
>>>> well yes.
>>>> but someone could argue that also a PC is a SBC :D
>>>
>>> If the RAM isn't soldered on the board, it isn't an SBC.  Also
>>> consider a
>>> PC from the 90s, which doesn't function without a separate graphics card
>>> and a CPU which can be considered a 'board' by itself.
>>
>> Speaking about pc 25 years old is not really useful in this case or we
>> can just put also Commodores, Amigas, Ataris in the basket (they all
>> had soldered ram and integrated gpu).
>>
>> In any case Apple laptops built in the last let say 5 years have
>> soldered CPU AND ram so under your definition are SBCs...
>> Also the new Microsoft Surface Pro seems to have soldered ram...
>>
>> so maybe a different definition is necessary.
>>
>> Bye Jack
>>
>
> The PC/apple/tablet things are not SBC-s not because they are not
> single board, many of them are that nowadays.
>
> But they are not computers - a computer you can program including its
> coming out of reset, how to initialize its peripherals etc.
> These are computerized TV-sets or whatever name one chooses
> for todays entertainment/office hardware.
>
> Dimiter
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Dimiter Popoff, TGI             http://www.tgi-sci.com
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/

Well, as to that, you *could* program one of today's computers, 
re-flash the BIOS and do whatever you want.  You could do something 
similar with what's usually referred to as an SBC, but many of them are 
come pre-programmed with some operating system and what programming you 
do is on a higher level.

-- 
Best wishes,
--Phil
pomartel At Comcast(ignore_this) dot net

0
Phil
12/5/2016 3:52:36 PM
On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 11:24:09 +0100, "Boudewijn Dijkstra"
<sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> wrote:

>Op Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:26:46 +0100 schreef Jack <jack4747@gmail.com>:
>> Il giorno gioved� 1 dicembre 2016 12:00:22 UTC+1, Ozzie ha scritto:
>>
>>> >>> what is SBC?
>>> >>
>>> >> Single-Board Computer
>>> >
>>> > ah, thanks.
>>>
>>> Now you know Jack!  ;)
>>
>> well yes.
>> but someone could argue that also a PC is a SBC :D

Any laptop should qualify.

In the old days SBCs had RS232 or 20 mA connections for connecting
"dumb" (VT100) serial terminals.
These days Raspberry etc. uses Ethernet for exactly the same purpose
(Telnet) without having keyboards or displays of their own. 

In the 1970s boards like Intel SDK-85 contained in addition to the CPU
functionality also some hex keyboard input as well as hex displays and
additionally some wire wrap areas on the board. Thus capable of true
stand lone capability.

>If the RAM isn't soldered on the board, it isn't an SBC.  Also consider a  
>PC from the 90s, which doesn't function without a separate graphics card  
>and a CPU which can be considered a 'board' by itself.

Since when is a "Graphical" card a requirement for  PC ? At a minimum
24 lines with 32/40/64/80 characters on a line was considered
adequate.
 
0
upsidedown
12/5/2016 7:12:15 PM
upsidedown@downunder.com writes:
> Since when is a "Graphical" card a requirement for PC ? At a minimum
> 24 lines with 32/40/64/80 characters on a line was considered
> adequate.

Today it's not needed at all.  Most of the PCs that I use now are
headless servers sitting in remote data centers.
0
Paul
12/5/2016 7:57:12 PM
On 05.12.2016 г. 17:52, Phil Martel wrote:
> On 12/5/2016 6:28, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>> On 05.12.2016 г. 12:46, Jack wrote:
>>> Il giorno lunedì 5 dicembre 2016 11:34:02 UTC+1, Boudewijn Dijkstra ha
>>> scritto:
>>>> Op Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:26:46 +0100 schreef Jack <jack4747@gmail.com>:
>>>>> Il giorno giovedì 1 dicembre 2016 12:00:22 UTC+1, Ozzie ha scritto:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what is SBC?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Single-Board Computer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ah, thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now you know Jack!  ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> well yes.
>>>>> but someone could argue that also a PC is a SBC :D
>>>>
>>>> If the RAM isn't soldered on the board, it isn't an SBC.  Also
>>>> consider a
>>>> PC from the 90s, which doesn't function without a separate graphics
>>>> card
>>>> and a CPU which can be considered a 'board' by itself.
>>>
>>> Speaking about pc 25 years old is not really useful in this case or we
>>> can just put also Commodores, Amigas, Ataris in the basket (they all
>>> had soldered ram and integrated gpu).
>>>
>>> In any case Apple laptops built in the last let say 5 years have
>>> soldered CPU AND ram so under your definition are SBCs...
>>> Also the new Microsoft Surface Pro seems to have soldered ram...
>>>
>>> so maybe a different definition is necessary.
>>>
>>> Bye Jack
>>>
>>
>> The PC/apple/tablet things are not SBC-s not because they are not
>> single board, many of them are that nowadays.
>>
>> But they are not computers - a computer you can program including its
>> coming out of reset, how to initialize its peripherals etc.
>> These are computerized TV-sets or whatever name one chooses
>> for todays entertainment/office hardware.
>>
>> Dimiter
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> Dimiter Popoff, TGI             http://www.tgi-sci.com
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/
>
> Well, as to that, you *could* program one of today's computers, re-flash
> the BIOS and do whatever you want.  You could do something similar with
> what's usually referred to as an SBC, but many of them are come
> pre-programmed with some operating system and what programming you do is
> on a higher level.
>

Would you have all the datasheets needed to be able to do that?

Dimiter

0
Dimiter_Popoff
12/6/2016 2:44:21 AM
Il giorno marted=C3=AC 6 dicembre 2016 03:44:32 UTC+1, dp ha scritto:

> > Well, as to that, you *could* program one of today's computers, re-flas=
h
> > the BIOS and do whatever you want.  You could do something similar with
> > what's usually referred to as an SBC, but many of them are come
> > pre-programmed with some operating system and what programming you do i=
s
> > on a higher level.
> >
>=20
> Would you have all the datasheets needed to be able to do that?
>=20
> Dimiter

Intel processors datasheet are freely available:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/core-i7-900-ee-and-d=
esktop-processor-series-datasheet-vol-1.html

happy reading ;)

Bye Jack
0
Jack
12/6/2016 7:30:07 AM
On 06.12.2016 г. 09:30, Jack wrote:
> Il giorno martedì 6 dicembre 2016 03:44:32 UTC+1, dp ha scritto:
>
>>> Well, as to that, you *could* program one of today's computers, re-flash
>>> the BIOS and do whatever you want.  You could do something similar with
>>> what's usually referred to as an SBC, but many of them are come
>>> pre-programmed with some operating system and what programming you do is
>>> on a higher level.
>>>
>>
>> Would you have all the datasheets needed to be able to do that?
>>
>> Dimiter
>
> Intel processors datasheet are freely available:
> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/core-i7-900-ee-and-desktop-processor-series-datasheet-vol-1.html
>
> happy reading ;)
>
> Bye Jack
>

I know their processors' documentation is public.
How is it with the peripheral chips, e.g. display
controllers - theirs and from other vendors.

  How is it with the wifi chips you find on this "SBC", are
they documented.

Dimiter

0
Dimiter_Popoff
12/6/2016 8:27:57 AM
Il giorno marted=C3=AC 6 dicembre 2016 09:28:13 UTC+1, dp ha scritto:
> On 06.12.2016 =D0=B3. 09:30, Jack wrote:
> > Il giorno marted=C3=AC 6 dicembre 2016 03:44:32 UTC+1, dp ha scritto:
> >
> >>> Well, as to that, you *could* program one of today's computers, re-fl=
ash
> >>> the BIOS and do whatever you want.  You could do something similar wi=
th
> >>> what's usually referred to as an SBC, but many of them are come
> >>> pre-programmed with some operating system and what programming you do=
 is
> >>> on a higher level.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Would you have all the datasheets needed to be able to do that?
> >>
> >> Dimiter
> >
> > Intel processors datasheet are freely available:
> > http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/core-i7-900-ee-a=
nd-desktop-processor-series-datasheet-vol-1.html
> >
> > happy reading ;)
> >
> > Bye Jack
> >
>=20
> I know their processors' documentation is public.
> How is it with the peripheral chips, e.g. display
> controllers - theirs and from other vendors.
>=20
>   How is it with the wifi chips you find on this "SBC", are
> they documented.

You mean like the SoC of the RPi? (or at least the GPU part).

Bye Jack
0
Jack
12/6/2016 9:53:05 AM
Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> The PC/apple/tablet things are not SBC-s not because they are not
> single board, many of them are that nowadays.
> 
> But they are not computers - a computer you can program including its
> coming out of reset, how to initialize its peripherals etc.
> These are computerized TV-sets or whatever name one chooses
> for todays entertainment/office hardware.

It really depends what you want to do, but arguably they're just fine as
computers.  They run code that you load on to them.  You might not replace
the operating system, but then there are lots of embedded systems that run
Windows and nobody tinkers with the bootloader.  They have their niche, just
like any system.

For instance they're really good at graphics and UI - much better than
anything you could cook up by writing bare metal code.  Where once a piece
of equipment would have an 8-bit microcontroller, a two line LCD and three
buttons you press in bewildering combinations, or later Windows XP with
keyboard and mouse, now it can have a touch panel and run Android or Windows
10.

Notwithstanding that you can compile your Android kernel and OS from source
if you really want to, an app can implement your application on top of the
facilities provided by the base OS.  If you need special hardware you can
add that and write the necessary drivers.

However I'd say one distinction is about supply chain.  These are /consumer/
products - here today, gone tomorrow.  Likely Android will be around for
years in some form (like Windows CE is still), but basing your product on
the hottest tablet of 2017 is pretty risky because it likely won't last more
than a year.  Similarly, as consumer products they aren't really set up for
the rough and tumble of industrial life, nor are they designed for
integrating into larger systems.  So they are 'computers', but they aren't
/industrial/ computers,

Theo
0
Theo
12/7/2016 7:38:55 PM
On 12/7/2016 12:38 PM, Theo Markettos wrote:
> However I'd say one distinction is about supply chain.  These are /consumer/
> products - here today, gone tomorrow.  Likely Android will be around for
> years in some form (like Windows CE is still), but basing your product on
> the hottest tablet of 2017 is pretty risky because it likely won't last more
> than a year.

Then don't base the *product* on the tablet; rather, base the product on
an abstraction that the tablet can reify.

E.g., I exploit lots of consumer kit (think:  dirt cheap, almost disposable)
for UI's.  As long as I can port my "UI services" to <whatever>, I don't
care exactly *what* that <whatever> happens to be.

[Of course, I go to great pains to decouple the implementation from the
supporting hardware/software/OS]

E.g., I use a variety of PDA's (in lieu of smart phones) as little
"wireless graphic terminals".  They run different (native) OS's but
each run the same look-and-feel "application" (that implements the GUI).

This week, port the GUI to a rescued Nook Color.  Different manufacturer,
size, shape, battery life, etc.  But, same "application" (which, obviously,
knows how to adapt to different screen sizes and aspect ratios).

*Next* week, it may be a Toshiba tablet, etc.

> Similarly, as consumer products they aren't really set up for
> the rough and tumble of industrial life, nor are they designed for
> integrating into larger systems.  So they are 'computers', but they aren't
> /industrial/ computers,

You'd be amazed at how many industrial processes are controlled by
consumer kit!  <frown>  Typically, a developer got the "Great Idea"
that he could leverage all this UI stuff by repurposing some COTS
product.  *But*, then followed this with the Bad Idea of developing
the product *on* that device -- inheriting all of its limitations
(instead of just cherry-picking the good bits).

Sort of like the "let's use a COTS SBC -- but, STILL have to design and
layout our own custom 'daughter card' cuz the SBC doesn't have just the
right mix of I/O's".  (Then, being stuck with that particular SBC because
you didn't make a deliberate effort to decouple the design from the
base hardware/software)
0
Don
12/7/2016 8:21:42 PM
Reply: