Victim of it's own success?
Author
Message
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Fri. Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 7680 View posts
Location: St. Leonards-on-Sea (UK)
There are lots of Arduino-like boards using non-AVR chips.
Any using XMOS?
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Fri. Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 7680 View posts
Location: St. Leonards-on-Sea (UK)
They have too much I/O and most of the pins would be wasted.
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Wed. Nov 17, 2004
Posts: 6320 View posts
Location: Great Smokey Mountains.
I wish the Arduino guys would start enforcing their copyright for the name, restricting its use to only real Arduino clones, and not allowing things like this to go unchallenged. These things may use a few Arduino-like features, but mostly they are traps for the unwary put out by folks desperate to get on the Arduino bandwagon.
Pretty soon the Arduino name will become a nearly meaningless indicator for a supposedly novice friendly system with some Arduino library like functions. I wonder how many folks are falling for these deceptions?
Smiley
Quote:
They have too much I/O and most of the pins would be wasted.
A high I/O pin count does not stop a board from being compatible with "the Arduino shield hardware spec". Example: http://www.digilentinc.com/Produ...
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Fri. Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 7680 View posts
Location: St. Leonards-on-Sea (UK)
OK. The market for a 400 MIPS Arduino-compatible board is likely to be somewhat limited.
Leon,
You should create an XMOS-based Arduino board and go promote it on the Parallax Propeller forum. ;-)
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Fri. Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 7680 View posts
Location: St. Leonards-on-Sea (UK)
There is a Propeller-based Arduino-type board.
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Fri. Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 7680 View posts
Location: St. Leonards-on-Sea (UK)
They will be available from Microchip Direct:
http://www.microchipdirect.com/s...
The pricing is very attractive, the Uno32 costs about the same as the Arduino Uno.
Level: Moderator
Joined: Mon. Jul 18, 2005
Posts: 97067 View posts
Location: (using avr-gcc in) Finchingfield, Essex, England
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Fri. Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 7680 View posts
Location: St. Leonards-on-Sea (UK)
It should be OK in a couple of weeks time, when they start shipping. :)
I've just noticed that they also have a prototyping shield kit for it:
http://www.microchipdirect.com/p...
I'll probably buy one out of curiosity, to add to my real Uno. The PIC32 is a nice chip, with some advantages over the ARM.
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Wed. Nov 17, 2004
Posts: 6320 View posts
Location: Great Smokey Mountains.
But it isn't Arduino. Pigs in lipstick.
If someone can give me an example of any not-AVR 'Arduino' that runs off the Arduino IDE and uses the Arduino libraries unmodified - I'll shut up. But until then:
Smiley
Level: Moderator
Joined: Mon. Jul 18, 2005
Posts: 97067 View posts
Location: (using avr-gcc in) Finchingfield, Essex, England
Quote:
If someone can give me an example of any not-AVR 'Arduino' that runs off the Arduino IDE and uses the Arduino libraries unmodified - I'll shut up.
http://arttools.blogspot.com/200...
(however I don't know enough about it to know whether that meets the "Arduino libraires unmodified"? Presumably not?). It cetrainly seems to allow the end user to run this on a Cortex M3:
volatile unsigned int count=-1;
int ledPin = 44; // STM32_P103 Board - PC12
int dly;
int analogChn = 10; // Analog channel 10 is PC0 = pin 32
void setup()
{
pinMode(ledPin, OUTPUT); // sets the digital pin as output }
Serial.begin(115200); // opens serial port, 31250bps (MIDI speed)
Serial.write("\n\n *** Hello from Arduino 32 ***\n");
}
void loop()
{
int k;
count++;
dly = analogRead(10)/2+20;
digitalWrite(ledPin, HIGH); // sets the LED off
delay(dly); // waits for a second
digitalWrite(ledPin, LOW); // sets the LED on
dly = analogRead(10)/2+20;
delay(dly); // waits for a second
if (count%100 ==0)
{
Serial.print(count);
Serial.write("\n");
}
}
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Fri. Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 7680 View posts
Location: St. Leonards-on-Sea (UK)
I just downloaded the software, and it seems identical to the Arduino IDE, with the same libraries and examples. I tried compiling one of the examples and it seemed to build OK.
As far as users are concerned, the UNO32 should behave exactly the same as the Arduino UNO, except that code will run 4x faster, and all outputs are 3.3V. Digital inputs are 5V-compatible.
I'd say it was more like a duck than a pig applying lipstick: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...
Last Edited: Wed. May 25, 2011 - 06:12 PM
I don't see how that Uno board is trespassing on Arduino's property. In any event Smiley, mentioning a name isn't a copyright issue. It may be a trademark issue, if Arduino has bothered to register it properly, but even so, saying something is "compatible with Arduino®" is permissible. Now if Arduino had taken a design patent on the board layout, that might prevent clones and pin-compatible substitutes, but it would undermine the whole open-source idea, surely?
In all probability the people behind Arduino are happy just to see the technology spreading by any means.
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Fri. Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 7680 View posts
Location: St. Leonards-on-Sea (UK)
It's generated favourable reactions on the Arduino forum:
http://arduino.cc/forum/index.ph...
http://arduino.cc/forum/index.ph...
which are probably more significant than Smiley's.
Since this is an AVR forum, most of us here are emotionally attached to AVR and would be disappointed to see the Arduino idea move to a different platform, but open source is open source with everything that implies. It would still be nice of you not to rub it in.
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Fri. Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 7680 View posts
Location: St. Leonards-on-Sea (UK)
I didn't think I was "rubbing it in"! I was merely showing the fanboys here that there can be a better way to do things.
Level: Moderator
Joined: Mon. Jul 18, 2005
Posts: 97067 View posts
Location: (using avr-gcc in) Finchingfield, Essex, England
Quote:
there can be a better way to do things
"better" or "other"?
(I like to believe I'm an agnostic-not-fanboy ;-))
If it is "better" what makes it better?
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Fri. Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 7680 View posts
Location: St. Leonards-on-Sea (UK)
4x the processing speed for the same price!
Ok Leon, you've made your point. Now knock it off before someone starts moderating your posts. This is still the AVR forum, even if it's the general electronics section.
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Tue. Jun 22, 2004
Posts: 3839 View posts
Location: South West Utah, USA
Perhaps because a PIC fanboy troll is doing it over and over again on purpose and actually seems to enjoy trolling for AVR fanboys.
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Fri. Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 7680 View posts
Location: St. Leonards-on-Sea (UK)
I use PIC, AVRs, and lots of other devices.
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Tue. Jun 22, 2004
Posts: 3839 View posts
Location: South West Utah, USA
But you troll on AVRfreaks! Besides if you think your 4x processing speed means best, you are forgetting the complexities of comparing different architectures. Which tells me you have not adequately answered Cliff's question. But your point is really just to cover your intentional trolling.
Pointless argument. Forums are not democracies. Freedom of press belongs to those who owns one. If the owners of AVRfreaks, or those who has been given partial power by the owners, says "because we want to" then there you have it.
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Wed. Nov 17, 2004
Posts: 6320 View posts
Location: Great Smokey Mountains.
peret wrote:
There are lots of real Arduino clones out there that use AVRs and are fully compliant with the IDE and Libraries. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the pigs in lipstick pretending to be Arduinos when they aren't.
Since this is an AVR forum, most of us here are emotionally attached to AVR and would be disappointed to see the Arduino idea move to a different platform, but open source is open source with everything that implies.
I would not in the least be disappointed to see the Arduino idea move to different platforms. Some only have the Arduino shield layout, some have libraries that look a lot like Arduino but aren't and won't code written for real Arduninos. I don't know of any non-AVR Arduino that will run on the Arduino IDE.
Sure, it can be done, but I haven't seen it done yet and in the meantime it is just confusing folks as to what an Arduino really is. Then again, as folks get burned the word will get out and I suspect that cause folks to shy away from any Arduino claims that can't be independently verified.
I'll look into some of the links shown here to see if my claims still hold true, who knows maybe somebody has actually done this, but till then its just lipstick on a PIC.
Smiley
The point of Arduino is to make a microprocessor as easy to use as a car - you get in, you drive, doesn't matter what make and model it is. For better or worse, many people outside the engineering community use 'PIC' as a synonym for microcontroller in the same way they call any vacuum cleaner a 'hoover'. When it comes to processor families, the more hardware abstraction, the less the knowledge. Personally I think the Arduino community has taken abstraction to a level that will actually hinder its users more than help them, but that's their business. In the end, the Arduino that will beat the rest out will be the one with the most and best applications, and the best ones tend to be processor specific to take advantage of internal features that most Arduweenies are not only oblivious to but don't have the knowledge or resources to investigate.
I, for one, welcome these developments. I have no emotional attachment to the original AVR-based Arduino, and am glad to see diversification to other processors with more performance and capabilities.
I'm looking very closely at the Cortex-M3 based board and think it's cool to have much higher performance while still being able to use existing shields.
The way I see this, it's just like the PC market. IBM did it first, but opened the door for other companies to jump in and offer features the original didn't. That's the way things work in this industry.
JohanEkdahl wrote:
If the owners of AVRfreaks, or those who has been given partial power by the owners, says "because we want to" then there you have it.
There you have it indeed. Leon, by the powers vested in me to keep order in this forum, I'm telling you to quit trolling for Microchip, because I want you to.
[moderator]
Leon has been told before that this is an AVR forum. If you wish to promote competitors products then you must do it elsewhere. While this forum is for generic electronics, this whole site is dedicated to the AVR. Please go to the comp.arch.embedded newsgroup to discuss other microprocessors, or go to individual manufacturers' websites.
My head hurts... I need an Aspro
Take it easy on Leon will you guys! He's just stating the facts, besides, I opened the can. I can't understand why you guys get so uptight about the competition. If I want bogan forum action, I'll just go to an auto or gaming forum!
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Wed. Nov 17, 2004
Posts: 6320 View posts
Location: Great Smokey Mountains.
I'm not uptight about real competition.
Both automobiles and PCs have been mentioned and my concern is by analogy if someone was trying to sell a golf-cart and called it an automobile, or a Commodore and called it a PC then if folks fell for it, the term automobile and PC would lose their meanings. But I'm confident that these ploys won't work.
Smiley
Further to my previous post, a friend came to visit - turns out he now works for Microchip! Dealin' wid da devil.
Sorry, my kernel has been tainted.
i want to see avrs running at higher freq :(
small flash but fasterrrrr. why havnt they made atmegas running at 100Mhz++?? or even the atxmega??? even the UC3s are limited to 66MHz...
Quote:
small flash but fasterrrrr. why havnt they made atmegas running at 100Mhz++??
Three, somewhat inter-twangled, guesses:
- There has been no substantial demand
- It costs too much to develop them, w r t ROI.
- Faster microcontrollers in the same price-and-performance segment exists (e.g. ARM Cortex stuff).
I'm just guessing here, but I'd say the AVRs are designed using the chip designer's version of assembler, so doing any change involves a lot of work. I'd also suggest the architecture is tied closely to the flash and flash has a limited speed - therefore the overall speed is limited. If they decided to use ram instead of flash and load up the code from external flash, then it would probably work 10 times as fast, but people won't want to add another chip to their design. Look at something like the XMOS chip - it's damn fast but has only ram on chip. FPGA's as another example - the ones that have flash copy to ram but most of them load from external storage. So, flash is slow, ram is fast as dictated by the current state of art.
Level: Raving Lunatic
Joined: Fri. Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 7680 View posts
Location: St. Leonards-on-Sea (UK)
The flash memory is the problem with getting high speed. NXP gets round it with their ARM chips by using a 128 bit wide interface to the on-chip flash. XMOS have said that they could put flash on the chip, and load the program into RAM from it, as they do from external flash, but the processes they use (90 nm and 40 nm) don't support on-chip flash and they'd have to use an older, slower process.
Power consumption is another issue, with faster chips.