Arduino Tre Price
tryit
Posts: 72
Just friendly chatter. It's worth knowing what the competition is up to, so no need to ban me from forum. The new Arduino Tre is scheduled to arrive any time now (Spring 2014). Is the price known yet? Will it fall near the Raspberry Pi or BeagleBone Black? I'm very excited for Arduino's leap to the SBC domain (single-board-computer). I'm a bit concerned with the price for the following reasons: (1) it will be manufactured in the United States , (2) it must integrate two processors from different vendors (ATMEL and TI), and (3) it features more peripherals than R-Pi and BeagleBone Black. That said, it has to be more expensive than a 32-bit Due, but hopefully less than sixty. For Arduino's sake, I hope the cost does not exceed $59.95 USD. On the other hand, in the very unlikely case the price is the same or less than the R-Pi Model B, that would dethrone R-Pi as the de facto king of SBCs. Share your information or opinion on price for the community.
http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?PHPSESSID=35s9aftuno4hs33ktdljde7mg2&topic=228375.msg1651488#msg1651488
http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?PHPSESSID=35s9aftuno4hs33ktdljde7mg2&topic=228375.msg1651488#msg1651488
Comments
Since you're waiting, make your wait worthwhile. The P2 (Propeller 2) is coming soon and it will knock your socks off. You're certainly welcome to ask any questions about Parallax products here.
The BS2 is still used heavily in the Education market.
Any numbers to back up that statement?
Preliminary P2 specs can be found at : http://www.parallaxsemiconductor.com/
Specifically: http://www.parallaxsemiconductor.com/Products/propeller2specs
Latest spec I could find:
Every pin has several ADC and DAC modes. The FPGA can't emulate that part of the
circuit, though - only the digital. Let's see, every pin, that's 90+ ADC pins if you need them.
The internal delta-sigma has two modes, fast and course (10MHz bw, 9-bit
resolution), or slow and fine 100KHz bw, 13-bit resolution).
The HUBRAM is now at 256KB, which the cogs(cores) can now directly execute from plus each cog can support 1 to 4 hardware tasks plus each cog can has the hardware features to support preemptive multi-threading.
Sorry, that FPGA reference has to do with the FPGA emulation of the P2 digital core. The forum community has been invited to participate in the development and testing of the P2 before the design is finalized. It's been a rare and exciting experience that has been going on since December of 2012.
With a trolling motor.
This thread is under scrutiny.
I love it when I hear the voice of moderation!!
(I was going to say the pitter patter of moderators but that didn't sound very authoritative.)
Yay!
Can't wait!
Tell your friends!
That's very funny! (...and really makes me glad I moved out of my parent's basement at 18 and never went back!!)
Yay to Microsoft for taking a humorous approach to the IE issue. (I still only use it to download Firefox)
Adruino and Pi vs BS2 and P1:
Apples and oranges my friend. Two different worlds.
EDIT: I should have said we will be here to help you make the changeover if you so desire.
Yes, the P2 will be programmable in C (the P1 also is programmable in C)
There is no planned price at this time.
The P1 and P2 are chips built onto.into various boards and products. The Arduinnos, Netduinos, Bone, mbeds and Pis are complete boards and in the case of the Arduinos, encompass a large number of chips from multiple families, currently. Again apples to oranges.
Makers don't always choose the best solution to a problem, they choose something that someone else has done something with that they can build upon or something they have used before that they are comfortable with.
If you switch, welcome back and we hope you contribute constructively to the community.
The "apples and oranges" argument can take a life of its own. What we can all agree on is that all these various instruments have inputs, outputs, and have a processor to convert a program into actionable instructions for the purpose of "Making" something from our imagination. The project is the most important, most central . IMHO, whether its done with Arduino, Parallax, etc. is secondary.
That said, price and peripherals like ADCs, USARTS, SPI, etc. and THE LANGUAGE do matter. I never understood why Parallax chose to invent a new programming language (referring to Spin) rather than build from C, arguably the "English" of the programming. And for students, they're better learning C rather than Spin or even Pbasic for college and the industry in general.
Changes in Parallax have not gone unnoticed. It's obvious that Arduino has influenced it, and even Sparkfun influenced the website. Instead of playing catchup, maybe Parallax can lead the microcontroller/processor world again like before. Maybe the Propeller-2 is that step. Depends on price for one.
By the way, thanks for keeping an open mind and thanks for not banning me.
These and many more, including assembler, have been available for a long time. Arguments about the "best" language not withstanding just pick what you want and run with it. If you want to run in emulator mode almost anything for processors like Z80, 6502, and many others can be used and with more performance than the originals.
ADCs, USARTS, SPI, i2C, CANBus and many others are available.
What more would you want?
Duane J
I'm sure whatever the price of the Tre it will find its buyers. Someone who wants a Tre won't pick an Arduino Uno, BS2, and probably not even the Propeller. None of these run Linux. The Linux OS is the greatest benefit, and the largest hurdle, to this class of single board computer.
Respectfully, using C on Parallax products is like ordering Sushi at a Chinese restaurant. I'd rather write C on devices dedicated to C, such as Arduino. I don't believe Parallax invests the same amount of resources on their C implementations as they do on PBasic, Spin, etc. Don't mean to dwell on it, but Spin, really? To be fair, C does have a steep learning curve, and in the early days of the Basic Stamp, PBasic probably made more sense as the marquee programming language. Obviously in hindsight, that assumption was simply incorrect, but I am happy to see Parallax expanding to C. IMHO, that's better for the customer and the business.
The Propeller-2 spec page does not list C as a supported language. Is this really the case?
Also, has Parallax considered collaborating with the Arduino organization? I think the ability to write C sketches from the Arduino IDE (or Parallax) to a Propeller-2 would be tremendous, assuming the price is reasonable. This would destroy the Arduino Due.
Well, if you want to solely use the Arduino and want Parallax to become 100% an Arduino clone, and are indeed touting the pricing of the Arduino Tre...
It seems you really just want to argue for people to migrate to Arduinos. And that is not appreciated in this Forum space. I have looked at and purchased nearly all the platforms that you claim to have used.
Yes it is nice to have built-in ADC ability.... if you need it. But more and more features tends to migrate to System on a Chip concept and all the flexibility and deterministic control that the Propeller concept offers is lost as the System defines the chip.
Parallax has invested a great deal in supporting GCC and Catalina C... you just apparently don't have a mind for parallel processing. It takes C code in new directions.
You ask why Parallax created Spin, while I profoundly wonder why Arduino decided to disguise C. Can you explain that?
Propeller 2 will support C. And it will support Forth, and it will likely support Basic in some form. Do Arduinios do as much? Or is it all wiring and sketches?
You keep reverting to price. Is price alone your only true criteria? Are you really being empowered to program better applications? Are you learning to think more creatively and more deeply about programing?
BTW, I order sushi in Chinese restaurants all the time, afterall I live in Taiwan.
++++++++++++++++
The fact is that you only have 5 posts on the Forum at this point.. You are obviously a troll.
Minor correction - I think Parallax invested in ImageCraft C and PropGCC, so that demonstrates their commitment to C. But Catalina C has been entirely developed and supported by me.
Ross.
I stand corrected.
I think that insults the moderators. I believe this thread has generated constructive feedback and dialogue if not at least to affirm Parallax users. Like I said earlier, I started with the Basic Stamp 2, on the Boe Bot.
Regarding price, NO, price is not the only criteria. I do think it's the most important. In short, this is my criteria: (1) price, (2) language (C for) and floating point, (3) documentation/forums, (4) built-in ADCs (12-bit or greater), and (5) standard peripherals (USART, PWM, SPI, I2C, etc.). Whether the core device is ATMEL, Pic, TI, Propeller, etc., that frankly is secondary to the projects.
That said, it appears that the Propeller-2 may meet all my criteria. The big remaining question is Price. The specs are impressive and I'd like to see the P-2 hugely successful.
A. When a new product is to be released
B. When an Arduino user needs help with Arduino code that requires some thought and patience that seems to not be able to get in the Arduino community.
C. When people expect a simple comparision of two very different architectures.
And it isn't just Arduinos, passionate touts from the Beagle Board, Raspberry Pi, and whatever might be the latest crowd sourceing tend to arrive here first as a 'newsy' blurp; and then become entrenched.
People that come here for Parallax products are often told the latest thing is vastly better for dubious and unproven reasons... the product they like is not yet on the market. The Arduino Tre is not yet on the market, neither is the Propeller 2. And the Propeller 2 is going through changes ... the most recent is a doubling of the actual RAM and other features that I can hardly explain is a short posting. (in sum, ready the Propeller 2 forum if you want to know the current status).
C. really tends to be mixed with A. And it soon feels that the Forum is being raided by Arduino touts. I hope you can grasp this point. I don't visit Arduino forums and tout Parallax products. If I do visit Ardunio forums, I seek Arduino solutions and insights.
The Propeller does floating point quite nicely. And in C libraries as well.
But while this may be a selling point among the more naive beginners, real performance is achieved by using binary maths whenever possible. Decimal floating point is either a time and resource consuming input format, or it is a time and resource consuming human interface on the output side.
How many Arduino users actually figure out how to migrate to Assembly language programing or learn the arcitecture of their processors?
In other words, if you rely on the language to protect you from the reality that all processors are binary; you are not progressing in your programming skills.
+++++++++++++++
BTW, I do have an Arduino that I have over-written with AVR Forth. It works, but Forth on a Propeller is more powerful... even though Forth on any chip is without the floating-point.
On the other hand if you are not developing and using abstractions in an intelligent way you are also not progressing in your programming skills.
Ultimately one can imagine computers that are not binary. Perhaps the lowest level you can work with them is decimal or floating point or perhaps they use multi-level logic.
I would hope ones thinking about programming is sufficiently advanced to also be useful there.
Anyway 99% of the worlds programmers need not learn assembler. Perhaps their time is better spent tackling the problems they want to solve rather than the problems the solution (the computer) creates for them. That is the group the Arduino and it's simplified programming model was aimed at.
With all that said, I don't feel that the fact that the Arduino has an advantage of the Propeller in any way because it has ADC built in. As Loopy said, yes it's nice, but only if you need it.
Linux is great for routers and for file servers, not quite right for real time control of motors, lights, pumps, sensors, and such.
I use Linux to write email, edit text, and for what it is good for.
While it seems the board provides a basic Arduino Shield socket, I find myself wondering if 100% of the Arduino shields will be adequately supported with an OS sorting OS priorities.
Heater is right. There are higher levels of programing than Assembler that others might find fully occupy their creativity and time. (I am still wondering what I will ever need the tuples for that Python provides.)
Parallax produces microcontrollers.. not Linux computers. Parallax products teach computing that is much closer to the silicon... far less abstraction, and less human interface complexities.
In Robotics and real-time deterministic control - which has always been part of the Parallax approach to microcontrollers is what Propellers are all about -- having a complete Linux, or Windows, or Apple OS imposed in such situations tends to heap on layers and layers of topics to learn and achieve less.
At last count I have 6 Linux computers in my home, including my wifi router. The truth is I need only one or two. And the tiny SOC unit sits unused.
Linux nor Windows nor iOS is a solution for everything.
Anyone of these OSes can help with an IDE to program a Propeller. But the Propeller is NOT in a race to become a Linux platform.
I just think it is time for people to be allowed to become aware of how special the Propeller is and how rewarding it is to use .. rather than have in consistently compared on superficial points listed herein in a priority of price first, C with floating-point and on down the line.
============
Forgive me, but I just feel that the Parallax Forum has gotten more than its fair share of individuals that drop in and attempt to take people away to other platforms. TI, AVR, Intel, ARM and so on.
Parallax is a much smaller business that is just trying to survive by doing something new and different. And it is the fun of getting a robot rolling or lights blinking that challenge youth to know more.
Exactly what I have been dreaming of for ages but with a Propeller. And now we do it with a Prop board on a Raspberry Pi. The combined unit becomes it's own development system.
I apologize to those that feel I am inappropriate.
My feelings that having any Linux machine, Windows machine, or Apple machine support the IDE for the Propeller is adequate.
Running the IDE's on such systems is probably redundant for 99% of users. However it's there and we can do it so, you know how it goes, we have to do it:)
It is really beyond me why people need floating point on a microcontroller when scaled variables work just as well. Still, it is part of the C language which is important, and the officially supported Parallax Education offering has floating point of course.
As far as the C arguments go, Parallax has an official C/C++ offering because it is required for education sales these days (and lots of those customers require officially supported). If it wasn't for missing market share, Parallax would probably have never bothered. Even with it being an official product, it is very difficult to remain a developer sometimes because of hostility of some forumites towards the C language. Ya, it's there, it works perfectly well, and there is lots of effort invested by the education staff, but it will always be not the first choice of most Parallax contributors. Tastes like cardboard ....