Migrating from Prop 1 to Prop 2

skylight · 2013-06-27 15:06

With the prospect of the Prop 2 only a few months away (as stated in other posts) with beginners like myself just settling into the Prop1, how hard will it be to grasp the concept of working with and programming the Prop 2?

Will it be a steep learning curve or will it be so familiar that someone like myself could feel comfortable with straight away?

Is it going to be far more removed from spin and more geared for C programming?

Because I'm learning with the prop 1 I've purposely avoided the prop 2 forum as I didn't want to confuse myself trying to learn more than I can handle at the moment, so am not aware of the differences such as pin configuration/compatibility, and advantages over the prop 1. Will all the benefits of moving to the prop 2 be conveyed such as maybe lower power consumption or better current driving capabilities (as I say i'm not aware of the specs so just guessing here) or what ever is new?

Mike Green · 2013-06-27 16:16

I wouldn't worry much about the Prop 2. The Prop 1 is going to be around for a long time. Even the BS1 is still available and still supported and it's been around nearly forever. It's appropriate to use for a lot of simple applications. Most of the BS2 models are also still available and actively supported. The Prop 2 will excel in applications that need more memory than the Prop 1, that need more raw speed than the Prop 1, or need some of the specialized features that the Prop 2 will have and the Prop 1 does not. The Prop 2 will not be as Spin-centric as the Prop 1 since there won't be a built-in interpreter in ROM, but Spin and C will both be fully supported. PropBasic looks like it will be extended to support the Prop 2 and the current Forth systems look like they'll be upgraded as well.

I would suggest not worrying about a "transition" from the Prop 1 to the Prop 2. It will take a while for things to shake out much like what happened with the Prop 1. Read the various threads on this very forum to keep up. Get one at some point to "play with". Unless you're very adventurous, wait for application notes or other documents that guide you through getting started. The focus will first be on getting Spin and C Prop 1 programs to compile and run for the Prop 2 and I'm sure it will be made as easy as possible.

skylight · 2013-06-28 12:19

Thanks Mike, I suppose what was driving me towards looking at the prop 2 was that it was a chance to start relatively at the "beginning" of it's conception as with the prop 1 having discovered it at such a late date I sometimes feel a vast gulf in knowledge between myself and others here, realizing that we all started at the beginning sometime or other I didn't want to fall behind so much with the prop 2.
Although I do realise it can also be a case of taking small steps and working your way up through the various devices similar to working your way up through the BS1 to BS2 etc.

When I mention knowledge I'm not so much talking of what's learnt from manuals and tutorials, don't get me wrong they are important but it's the little quirks that are discovered along the way and are posted on the forums that you can't find in the manuals that are sometimes the key to unlocking that eureka moment ,
For those starting out it's sometimes hard to catch up by reading through threads posted here, there is such a vast amount of information to plough through that it eventually becomes a case of brain overload and shutdown occurs.

The good thing about this forum's users like yourself is you never seem to tire of answering the same old questions over and over again and for that people like myself are extremely grateful.

KC_Rob · 2013-06-28 18:07

skylight wrote: »

I suppose what was driving me towards looking at the prop 2 was that it was a chance to start relatively at the "beginning" of it's conception as with the prop 1 having discovered it at such a late date I sometimes feel a vast gulf in knowledge between myself and others here, realizing that we all started at the beginning sometime or other I didn't want to fall behind so much with the prop 2.

We're in the same boat more or less; I'm a relative latecomer to Propeller as well. For what it's worth, I'm not thinking much about Propeller 2 right now. I sort of follow its progress on the forums here. That's all, though. There remains plenty that can be done with Propeller 1, so I continue to explore it and look for applications where it's a good fit (and I know they are out there).

prof_braino · 2013-06-29 07:30

If you are a forth user, migrating from the prop1 to the prop 2 should be seamless, at least for PropForth. The following Prop2 statements are estimations, as we don't have hardware to test, but if we followed the available data correctly:

PropForth that runs on the Prop 1 run will run identically on the Prop2
PropForth v5.5 (today's current release) will run identically on the Prop 2, but will not take advantage of Prop 2 features out of the box.
PropForth 6 (in alpha) adds true multitasking. Each thread allows an execution opportunity, the Prop 1 will have 8 and the prop 2 will have 32.
The execution opportunities can be assigned into pools, we allocate enough so our real time component always has enough resources, and allocate the rest for our non-realtime activities.
If one thread crashes, we lose 1/8th of a prop1, but only lose 1/32nd of a prop 2.

So far the Propforth 6 material will work identically on both Prop 1 and Prop 2, except for the number of available threads.

The propforth 6 is alpha and subject to change.

Cluso99 · 2013-06-29 20:26

My recommendation is that you start out on a Prop 1. The P2 (Prop 2) is not a replacement for P1, but rather an upmarket version with a lot of extra pins, I/O facilities, memory, speed, etc. But the downside is that it is a bigger chip and uses a lot more power.

Some of us have pushed the P1 to places it was never intended to go, and hence we are short on pins and memory. The one chip can do a lot of things because of its multiple cores (cogs). There is another (current) thread where some of the benefits are being discussed.

Go for the P1... I can assure you that you won't be sorry!

KC_Rob · 2013-06-30 08:51

Cluso99 wrote: »

The P2 (Prop 2) is not a replacement for P1, but rather an upmarket version with a lot of extra pins, I/O facilities, memory, speed, etc. But the downside is that it is a bigger chip and uses a lot more power.

Exactly. Going only by what I've read here on the forums, something almost entirely different. Not a mere "upgrade" at any rate.

Go for the P1... I can assure you that you won't be sorry!

Yep.

LoopyByteloose · 2013-06-30 10:13

I suspect that I won't be migrating in any wholesale sense to Propeller 2.

I will use it for what it has to offer.
A. more speed
B. more i/o
C. ADC/DAC built in

But I am not going to abandon the fact that the Propeller1 has 32K of ROM that provides a full character set for video display, a log table, and a sine table.

There will be times where the Propeller 1 will be just as important to me as the Propeller 2.

jazzed · 2013-06-30 10:36

I sense that SPIN will remain the language of choice on P2 for regular propeller forum aficionados. I'm very interested in what Chip does with SPIN for P2. The existing P8x32a Propeller will still be very useful because of the lower power profile.

localroger · 2013-06-30 14:09

The P1 will remain a LOT easier to use for simpler applications, because it doesn't need 1.8V power and can operate at much lower power levels when idling. P1 can be used for low power long-duration battery projects with the right design; P2 will be a bit of a power hog by comparison. You can actually get a P1 to do something by hooking its power pins straight up to a 3V3 supply and its programming pins up to a PropPlug. And you can do that easily with the DIP P1. There won't be a DIP P2, and it will take more infrastructure on the PCB just to get the chip to boot up. But that's the price of being faster with more memory and other tricks onboard.

KC_Rob · 2013-06-30 17:57

localroger wrote: »

The P1 will remain a LOT easier to use for simpler applications,...

A crucial distinction. Whatever the P2 will eventually be used for, and that's still wide open, it seems likely there will be very little overlap with the P1.

skylight · 2013-07-01 03:35

localroger wrote: »

There won't be a DIP P2, and it will take more infrastructure on the PCB just to get the chip to boot up. But that's the price of being faster with more memory and other tricks onboard.

That put's it into perspective from a beginner's point of view, sound's a bit more complicated to use hardware wise.

Ok thanks for the replies, for the time being i'll stick with learning the P1 and look at the P2 if and when it becomes necessary.

Humanoido · 2013-07-01 23:03

skylight wrote: »

That put's it into perspective from a beginner's point of view, sound's a bit more complicated to use hardware wise. Ok thanks for the replies, for the time being i'll stick with learning the P1 and look at the P2 if and when it becomes necessary.

I took a very brief look at the specs for theoretically migrating a project from Prop 1 to Prop 2. There is potential for the machine to go from 100,000 to 1 million processors. Reaching the one million density is extremely important, because it relates to increases in machine intelligence which are directly proportional to the number of neural connections that can be made.

Heater. · 2013-07-01 23:17

How is is that possible? The P II has the same number of processors as the P I and so offers no benefit when piling up CPU's. Did I miss something?

rjo__ · 2013-07-02 07:21

skylight,

Great question. Everyone has been where you are and many have the same question.

The Prop 1, with supporting hardware, software, and educational assets is a wonderland for learning. The Prop1 is a great "first" micro-controller, suitable for students
of all ages and backgrounds. No matter who you are or what you are trying to achieve, (at this moment) you cannot go wrong by concentrating your efforts around the Prop1.

The Prop2 currently exists in emulation form and does not yet have a Spin interpreter or compiler. To get a reasonable facsimile requires an investment of several hundred dollars. This makes sense for
people writing languages to support the Prop2, to explore the Prop2's logic at the machine level and to begin designing development boards. But for end users ("give me something I can use
today without a lot of bother")...not so good. I have the bargain basement facsimile of the Prop2...I wanted to touch it, see that it is real and be able to follow the discussions. It certainly makes things more
interesting but I haven't had a single "ah-ha" moment. That will come when Spin2 arrives.

The Prop2 will actually be very similar to the Prop1, except that there are more pins, which are far more functional, and there will be vastly superior interfacing possibilities.
There is also more advanced program control, mostly of interest to advanced users. Dozens of little issues, which restricted the functionality or application of the Prop1, were discussed in the forum. Almost all have been resolved and
are implemented in the hardware of the Prop2.

Nothing that you have learned by studying the Prop1 will be wasted. What you will find with the Prop2 is that you can build better interfaces, with fewer supporting chips. Your overall hardware designs will be easier and
faster to implement.

When Spin2 is done and the Prop2 modules arrive, it is time to migrate.

Rich

Mike Green · 2013-07-02 07:59

A little reminder ...

The Prop1 uses an inherently lower power construction, requires only one power supply, and uses a smaller package. If you don't need the new features of the Prop2, you'll be better served by using a Prop1. This is some of why the Prop1 will be around for a long time and why you shouldn't need to feel that you have to migrate to the Prop2 once it comes out ... It depends on what you're trying to do.

rjo__ · 2013-07-02 08:50

and... the Prop2 is still in the development phase. There is the real possibility (heaven forbid!) that the next shuttle run will crash and burn for some new and unexpected reason.
Even if a viable chip gets returned, testing may require a new hardware iteration following a prolonged period of cogitation, perspiration, agitation and documentation.

While it is true that the Prop1 requires only one power supply, almost every board has two:)) And while the Prop2 itself may consume more power, you can eliminate power consumed by peripherals, which can be eliminated,
and you can save power by using new peripheral chips that operate at lower voltages... AND no-one knows how much power the new beast will require:)

The Prop1 is a mature technology, which is fully documented and supported. It will be around forever... which is a very long time:)

The Prop2 is a beacon on a new frontier. Who can resist?

Just wait for Spin2 and the Great Unveiling... and then jump in:)

skylight · 2013-07-02 09:06

Whatever happens the most exciting thing i'm looking forward to is seeing the new generation of project ideas that will without doubt spring from the outstanding talent that makes up this forum's members.
Can't wait to see what the Parallax dev boards for the P2 will offer in the way of functionality!

Humanoido · 2013-07-02 19:32

Heater. wrote: »

How is is that possible? The P II has the same number of processors as the P I and so offers no benefit when piling up CPU's. Did I miss something?

PII specs show it will be faster, have more memory, for stronger enhancement detail. Blog

Heater. · 2013-07-02 22:28

Yes but where did the ten times more processors come from?

Migrating from Prop 1 to Prop 2

Comments