Good morning to you all
I tried to figure out if Arduino sketches is running on the Atom CPU or Quark MCU.
I did some google search and found out that it doesn't use the MCU, then i decided to put that to the test with a simple sketch that times before and after call to "delayMicroseconds" and found out again that it isn't accurate, when asking 10 microsecond delay the actual delay was 100-400 ms compared to the uno that gave the 4ms resolution as documented.
so long story short, why is it like that? isnt the all idea is to able to control the mcu in real time?
why is it like that? isnt the all idea is to able to control the mcu in real time?
That is the idea, sadly Intel don't think like that. They emulate an Arduino as best they can and are not too good at it.
OTOH, the Arduino 101 (with Intel Curie processor) uses the ARC microcontroller to do all the arduino functionality, leaving the Intel core to do ... I'm not sure what. Sigh. "Intel doesn't get it" seems to be a good summary.
"Intel doesn't get it" seems to be a good summary.
At the Rome 2013 Maker Fair there was a surprise announcement about the Intel Curie board, as we left the auditorium they were handing them out for free. After I got mine I said casually to a bunch of lads "supping with the devil then", waving my new box, and they engaged me in conversation. It turned out that they were the development team. After a discussion about open source, I took the board back to my hotel room and tried it out. ..... Not very impressed. The following day I had further discussions and told them what they had done wrong. Later the Curie II board came out and while slightly better they had still not "got it".
What they want to do is to have people use their processors and turn so many back somersaults to make it look superficially like a "real" Arduino it ends up that for some tasks a 16MHz Arduino beats the pants off the 32MHz Quark processor.