Genuino101 versus Arduino UNO

I am very disappointed with this board and let me explain why based in my last couple weeks:

  1. You have only two TIMERs... Really ? Uno has 4 ! An maker board with only TWO TIMERS... AND THE SAME TIMERS USED IN YOUR LIBRARIES... OH MY GOSH !!!!!!

  2. Horrible out of the box experience. It took hours to fix my DFU issues even reading this forum. And we still see people with same problem. No problem with my old UNO from years ago...

  3. According to the MAKER website you have a Nordic inside which is ARM. Intel using ARM... ok... but! Why I cannot use the same application created for Nordic on this module ? The BLE examples are very weak. For example, there is no solid example of running the board in low power mode and waking up the BLE only when necessary. So, BLE for what ? There are several nice examples with nordic and I am limited to these weak examples from the IDE.

  4. When I reset the board everything is reset and I need to wait for the boot time. What is the advantage of X86 and this ARC microcontroller ? I think I am missing something here. I was expecting to reset the sketch only.. and by the way.. according to the compilation logs looks like the sketchs runs on ARC only. Again... Really ????? Very disappointing.

Honestly... 30 bucks ? If I get a UNO, an BLE module it is gonna be cheaper, a superior out of the box experience, much more control and flexibility, much easier and much less problems in my life.

Another pointless board. Horrible.

mattmorley2011:
I am very disappointed with this board and let me explain why based in my last couple weeks:

  1. You have only two TIMERs... Really ? Uno has 4 ! An maker board with only TWO TIMERS... AND THE SAME TIMERS USED IN YOUR LIBRARIES... OH MY GOSH !!!!!!

  2. Horrible out of the box experience. It took hours to fix my DFU issues even reading this forum. And we still see people with same problem. No problem with my old UNO from years ago...

  3. According to the MAKER website you have a Nordic inside which is ARM. Intel using ARM... ok... but! Why I cannot use the same application created for Nordic on this module ? The BLE examples are very weak. For example, there is no solid example of running the board in low power mode and waking up the BLE only when necessary. So, BLE for what ? There are several nice examples with nordic and I am limited to these weak examples from the IDE.

  4. When I reset the board everything is reset and I need to wait for the boot time. What is the advantage of X86 and this ARC microcontroller ? I think I am missing something here. I was expecting to reset the sketch only.. and by the way.. according to the compilation logs looks like the sketchs runs on ARC only. Again... Really ????? Very disappointing.

Honestly... 30 bucks ? If I get a UNO, an BLE module it is gonna be cheaper, a superior out of the box experience, much more control and flexibility, much easier and much less problems in my life.

Another pointless board. Horrible.

I must disagree with you. The arduino 101 offers what an arduino uno has to offer plus IMU plus BLE without needing extra pins, plus separate uarts por programming and pins 0 and 1. Moreover, it works at 3V3 but it can handle 5V so it works with both 5V and 3V3 systems without extra hardware as 3V3 is understood as a one by a 5V system. In addition to this, it is only 10$ more expensive than a UNO, but it includes IMU and BLE, as said. It is also faster, it has a switching regulator and hardware PWM.

For me, it is much better than the arduino uno, but it requires more documentation to be written.

I am sorry but I still disagree. Besides the items I mentioned, I also realized there are problems with AVR libraries. My TFT does not work.

Also, my GSM modem shield does not work on this board but works very well on UNO.

I also, do not pay 20 bucks for a UNO. I can build my own for less than 5 bucks which is impossible with this board because this intel module simply does not exist anywhere.

mattmorley2011:
I am sorry but I still disagree. Besides the items I mentioned, I also realized there are problems with AVR libraries. My TFT does not work.

Also, my GSM modem shield does not work on this board but works very well on UNO.

I also, do not pay 20 bucks for a UNO. I can build my own for less than 5 bucks which is impossible with this board because this intel module simply does not exist anywhere.

Well, I think you are missunderstanding things.

The thing is, arduino uno is what it is because people made it. It's not that the uno is a better board, it's just that it has been out for so much time that any problems have been already solved and all libraries are compatible with it.

101 has only been in the market for less than a year though. Therefore, there are still some failures and you can't expect it to be as well documented as UNO, but that doesn't make it a worse board. Just give it time, and give intel time to solve this problems. It's too early to complain.

30 bucks ? If I get a UNO, an BLE module it is gonna be cheaper

MSRP for an Uno is about $25, and most BLE modules seem to run about $20...

do not pay 20 bucks for a UNO. I can build my own

Ah, well, then different rules apply. Ditto using cheap clones and uncertified noname imported BLE modules...

I'm thinking $30 is pretty good for MSRP arduino-like board with BLE built in (compare to the old "Arduino Bluetooth" - ouch!)

The availability and documentation problems with the Curie module ARE annoying, though...

Well. In my opinion the problem is the design. The hardware is not fully compatible with UNO and all there incompatibilities with AVR libraries are very very bad...

I do not trust in "intel will fix after sometime" because if they are not able to provide documentation do you really think they will fix the software issues and create new libraries ? No way. Horrible decision and I am returning this board.