New kid on the block

A simple-to-use but low-performing tool sometimes can be preferred over a good-performing but complicated tool.

For someone liking to work on their cars on the weekend, a 1960s Ford beats out a 2013 BMW.

Why would I want a Netduino when for about half the cost of the NetDuino, I can get a Raspberry PI that
is much more powerful and runs a real operating system?

--- bill

"I can get a Raspberry PI", you sure can, but you wont be any better off, can you run C# or visual basic, well the answer is no.
You can run a version of C, actually, its been so hard to do things with that, they are trying to port arduino to it.
so good luck with that PI

perkunas:
Guess you guys need to know what your competition is doing.

Netduino 2 $59.95

...

runs C# and VB natively

I presume you've bought one? Just out of curiosity, have you found that it is easier to do what you want to do than the Arduino? Not just you hope it will, but it actually has?

You've made other posts about wanting multiple threads, so have you found that the Netduino has solved these problems? Easily and simply?

I always find threads like this surprising. Different products obviously serve different niches. If you want to write C# or VB on an embedded device, a Netduino is a natural. (I must concur with some others here who have stated they would rather chew off their own right arm, but I do appreciate that it is largely a matter of taste. My right arm tastes terrible, however.) If you want to run a full version of linux on a SoC device, the RPi takes on all comers in the embedded linux bang for buck metric. If you want to learn 8-bit embedded programming using something very similar to but not quite C/C++, the Arduino Uno is your answer. And so on.

Why the "my device is better than your device" mentality? You can make all (or none) of the various options available "your device" if you so choose.

If I ever feel the need to C# or VB, I'll get back to you. Mostly 'armless.

My initial reaction to the claim that it runs VB is, well you will need more power and more memory, just to stay in the same place. However I can't prove that. It's just a gut feeling.

History has shown that each release of Windows (for example) requires more memory, faster CPU, more disk space, than the previous version. But at the end of the day, you still have a PC with an operating system on it.

What you typically find is that once a platform has more memory, and a faster CPU, then the supplied operating system will gobble a lot of that up. So you aren't actually a huge amount better off.

runs C# and VB natively

It depends on how you define "natively".

Posted by: perkunas

Well, so you guys can catch up and make a more decent product that Id want to buy.

It might have escaped your notice but very few people make projects to sell. No one could afford to by my projects. How do you put a price on something that takes you three years to complete. I suppose you are one of those people who would sell their own children for a profit.

The only people who are interested in operating systems and multithreading are those who know little about actual hardware and how to control it. Those people who do not want to make things. Linux users, for example, get their kick from installing stuff and when they get good at that they like compiling other peoples code. Most people here like to actually make stuff, that is real physical computing.

Having been forced to program in VB I can only say it is for the corporate minded. As to C# - just like the spread:-

Java.png

Grumpy_Mike:
The only people who are interested in operating systems and multithreading are those who know little about actual hardware and how to control it. Those people who do not want to make things. Linux users, for example, get their kick from installing stuff and when they get good at that they like compiling other peoples code. Most people here like to actually make stuff, that is real physical computing.

Those statements are extreme exaggerations that are in fact false.

OSes, are used in all kinds of products from IP cameras, routers, to DVRs and every feature and smart phone
out there.

MANY products out there use various real time OSes in their products.
And as far as Linux goes, ever looked inside a Tivo or any android phone, or many GPS devices....
Open your eyes, linux is used in real products all over the place.

While I woudn't use it, heck even Windows is used in many factory automation environments and believe it or not
is used inside many ATM machines.

I believe you use the right tool to get the job done.
And sometimes an OS still makes a lot of sense even in environments/systems
that are doing very critical realtime processing of events/data.

--- bill

Looks like a nice processor, and I like that it is 5 V tolerant. The downside I see is the low pin count, connect a glcd to that thing and your almost out of pins (just an example). But the biggest downer for me is that it needs windows or emulated windows (no experimental Mono please). Do people actually still use Windows? :roll_eyes:

I'd rather use my PI if I need Ethernet, and unlike Nick Gammon I've had no problem installing linux on it. Tho that might have something to do with that I've been using Linux now for the last 10 years or so.

io53:
I'd rather use my PI if I need Ethernet, and unlike Nick Gammon I've had no problem installing linux on it. Tho that might have something to do with that I've been using Linux now for the last 10 years or so.

I got it installed in the end, but when the main downloads page (Raspberry Pi OS – Raspberry Pi) lists four suggested operating systems variants, it makes things a bit harder. And then (although I have been using Linux for a while too) I had trouble even copying the operating system onto the SD card in such a way that it would boot. I did it, but it took a day.

Then when it booted, as I recall, the monitor wouldn't start up. More reading of forum pages and I had to edit a text file on the SD card to set the "voltage levels" for the video card or some damn thing.

Let me put it this way, the Arduino was easier to set up. :slight_smile:

While I woudn't use it, heck even Windows is used in many factory automation environments and believe it or not
is used inside many ATM machines.

Many of that is driven by total deployment cost associated with Windows-based solutions: they are easier to develop, easier to document, easier to certify, and easier to upgrade, than a naked solution on a mcu based solution.

Netduino, Pi and other "big" micros can potentially develop into a whole market where a simplified version of OS (Linux, windows, etc.) can run with the sole purpose of providing an abstract layer to "hide away" the hardware so to lower software costs across multiple platforms.

Case in point: if you develop for A9, you will see many listed as OEMs for that chip but you will hardly find any datasheet or reference manual for those chips without signing away your family.

And the development there is done pretty much exclusively with OEM-provided sdk, much in the same way as Netduino is doing.

The general trend makes sense as dealing with hardware is expensive: for small micros, you code in assembly; for medium micros, you code in C + libraries sometimes; for big micros, you code via sdk / os.

So just out of curiosity, exactly what do I need to do to start programming a netduino on my Mac?

  1. Buy a PC;
  2. Run windows.

It is easy to get into a contest of "Mine is bigger/better than yours!" and that depends on what you want to do and what biases, skills, etc. that you bring to the project. The great thing is we are able to have "Mine is bigger/better than yours!" contests because there are many options on the market, this is great because it allows people a better shot at finding something they work with and enjoy doing it.

Options is GOOD

dhenry:
There is also:
1> Install bootcamp
2> run windows

8^)

KeithRB:
dhenry:
There is also:
1> Install bootcamp
2> run windows

8^)

Shouldn't that be:-
1> Install bootcamp
1a> Buy or steal a copy of windows
2> run windows

Yeah, but I was keeping to the two-step theme.
8^)