Read more.Quote:
The first widely available developer board based on the tiny, low power Intel Curie module.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
The first widely available developer board based on the tiny, low power Intel Curie module.
More pointeless intel tat that no-one actually wants.
ftfyQuote:
Originally Posted by abaxas
I would lean more towards Abaxas on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Platinum
For a one-off, you use a Rasberry Pi 2 because it is the same cost as this and magnitudes more powerful allowing you to script stuff in Python, embed web servers for control, log stuff to SD card all really easily.
If you want to make 10000 of something, you design a custom circuit board and use an embedded controller like an H8S where there are a range to choose from so you can get all the ADC/DAC/PWM/SPI etc channels that you want and the right level of flash and SRAM, and the cost of the development board isn't that important.
Between the breadth of available hardware from the established MCU vendors and the power of cheaper hobby boards like the Pi 2, I just don't see why anyone would bother with Quark.
although rasp pi is more powerful its not in the exact category as a arduino as it requires a linux based os to boot before its able to do anything. so for more instant power up/ real time processing a micro controller or arduino is more suitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnixI would lean more towards Abaxas on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Platinum
For a one-off, you use a Rasberry Pi 2 because it is the same cost as this and magnitudes more powerful allowing you to script stuff in Python, embed web servers for control, log stuff to SD card all really easily.
If you want to make 10000 of something, you design a custom circuit board and use an embedded controller like an H8S where there are a range to choose from so you can get all the ADC/DAC/PWM/SPI etc channels that you want and the right level of flash and SRAM, and the cost of the development board isn't that important.
Between the breadth of available hardware from the established MCU vendors and the power of cheaper hobby boards like the Pi 2, I just don't see why anyone would bother with Quark.
as a example i wanted to make my mechanical keyboard into a wireless or Bluetooth keyboard recently. now if i used a raspberry pi its not really feasible to wait for raspbian to boot up every time i wake the keyboard up from sleep. but a arduino with a Bluetooth shield would be more useful in this aspect. and now this has integrated Bluetooth which makes this reduces my part list and cheaper and smaller for me to fit into my keyboard case.
a big part of being a maker is the ability to go and make something that meets a niche need where a major company wont waste time to develop and bring to market. so ultimately i dont think this is geared towards company that want to build a product around it, but more towards makers that may make a something useful and can reproduce it easily in small quantities by buying a few extra boards to sell on as kits rather producing a custom pcb costing £100 each in small quantities.
I do get that, I have a background as an embedded systems programmer. Perhaps that gives me a strange perspective, there is no way I am going to cruft together something like a wireless software stack when I can so easily and cheaply just use the one in Linux, as I am used to putting a fairly high value on my time (which since becoming a parent I think has become higher). If I want to do something really simple like switching things on and off from inputs then PIC chip is the obvious way to go. In your keyboard case, there are off the shelf solutions that could be re-housed inside the keyboard, but otherwise there are a gazillion controllers out there and each one has a prototyping/evaluation board to go with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by noobieocer
As always there seems to be an extra cost involved in buying Intel. For PC like stuff that's bearable, but x86 in embedded work has for me generally resulted in a system taking three times longer to implement than under competing architectures, going way over budget as part of trying to get the thing working and the end result is generally not that good. The times when that hasn't been the case is when the embedded system is running Linux, in which case I would be back to looking at the Pi 2. When someone is paying me that is just a bad day at the office, but I can't imaging doing it for fun.
If this had a Ti chip or a SuperH controller on it then I might be interested.
I've been using these great cheap arduinos with bluetooth:
http://www.dfrobot.com/index.php?rou...9#.ViS1lSt253g
Amazing value at around £10
Jeez, getting smaller and more powerful by the dayQuote:
Originally Posted by mikerr