Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #25518 > unrolled thread

what is the best SBC?

Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.embedded

Contents

  what is the best SBC? andre <ahr@blabla.be> - 2016-11-30 10:26 +0100
    Re: what is the best SBC? Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 01:29 -0800
      Re: what is the best SBC? "tim..." <tims_new_home@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-30 12:35 +0000
        Re: what is the best SBC? Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 05:22 -0800
          Re: what is the best SBC? Ozzie <oz@au.com> - 2016-12-01 19:00 +0800
            Re: what is the best SBC? Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 04:26 -0800
              Re: what is the best SBC? "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2016-12-05 11:24 +0100
                Re: what is the best SBC? Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 02:46 -0800
                  Re: what is the best SBC? Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-12-05 13:28 +0200
                    Re: what is the best SBC? Phil Martel <pomartel@comcast.net> - 2016-12-05 10:52 -0500
                      Re: what is the best SBC? Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-12-06 04:44 +0200
                        Re: what is the best SBC? Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 23:30 -0800
                          Re: what is the best SBC? Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-12-06 10:27 +0200
                            Re: what is the best SBC? Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 01:53 -0800
                    Re: what is the best SBC? Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-07 19:38 +0000
                      Re: what is the best SBC? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-12-07 13:21 -0700
                Re: what is the best SBC? upsidedown@downunder.com - 2016-12-05 21:12 +0200
                  Re: what is the best SBC? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-05 11:57 -0800
    Re: what is the best SBC? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-30 02:38 -0700
      Re: what is the best SBC? andre <ahr@blabla.be> - 2016-11-30 10:53 +0100
        Re: what is the best SBC? Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2016-11-30 18:13 +0100
          Re: what is the best SBC? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 12:31 -0500
        Re: what is the best SBC? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-30 13:23 -0700
    Re: what is the best SBC? Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2016-11-30 12:14 -0600
      Re: what is the best SBC? Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2016-12-02 20:04 +0000
        Re: what is the best SBC? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-12-02 13:38 -0700
    Re: what is the best SBC? asdf <asdf@nospam.com> - 2016-12-01 15:16 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#25518 — what is the best SBC?

Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC available.
Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency / 
price?
I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )
Many thanks in advance
Sorry for my english
-- 
Les politiciens sont imprévoyants, et les électeurs sans mémoire!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#25519

Il giorno mercoledì 30 novembre 2016 10:26:04 UTC+1, andre ha scritto:
> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC available.
> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency / 
> price?
> I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )
> Many thanks in advance
> Sorry for my english

what is SBC?
and the answer is: it depends on what you have to do :)

Bye Jack

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25522

"Jack" <jack4747@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:4eab56b0-4f84-47cf-a50a-2d916727d3fe@googlegroups.com...
> Il giorno mercoledì 30 novembre 2016 10:26:04 UTC+1, andre ha scritto:
>> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC 
>> available.
>> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency /
>> price?
>> I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )
>> Many thanks in advance
>> Sorry for my english
>
> what is SBC?

Single-Board Computer

> and the answer is: it depends on what you have to do :)
>
> Bye Jack

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25526

Il giorno mercoledì 30 novembre 2016 13:34:50 UTC+1, tim... ha scritto:
> "Jack" <jack4747@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:4eab56b0-4f84-47cf-a50a-2d916727d3fe@googlegroups.com...
> > Il giorno mercoledì 30 novembre 2016 10:26:04 UTC+1, andre ha scritto:
> >> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC 
> >> available.
> >> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency /
> >> price?
> >> I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )
> >> Many thanks in advance
> >> Sorry for my english
> >
> > what is SBC?
> 
> Single-Board Computer

ah, thanks.

Bye Jack

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25532

On 30-Nov-16 9:22 PM, Jack wrote:
> Il giorno mercoledì 30 novembre 2016 13:34:50 UTC+1, tim... ha scritto:
>> "Jack" <jack4747@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4eab56b0-4f84-47cf-a50a-2d916727d3fe@googlegroups.com...
>>> Il giorno mercoledì 30 novembre 2016 10:26:04 UTC+1, andre ha scritto:
>>>> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC
>>>> available.
>>>> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency /
>>>> price?
>>>> I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )
>>>> Many thanks in advance
>>>> Sorry for my english
>>>
>>> what is SBC?
>>
>> Single-Board Computer
>
> ah, thanks.
>
> Bye Jack
>


Now you know Jack!  ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25533

Il giorno giovedì 1 dicembre 2016 12:00:22 UTC+1, Ozzie ha scritto:

> >>> what is SBC?
> >>
> >> Single-Board Computer
> >
> > ah, thanks.
> >
> > Bye Jack
> >
> 
> 
> Now you know Jack!  ;)

well yes.
but someone could argue that also a PC is a SBC :D

Bye Jack

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25539

Op Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:26:46 +0100 schreef Jack <jack4747@gmail.com>:
> Il giorno giovedì 1 dicembre 2016 12:00:22 UTC+1, Ozzie ha scritto:
>
>> >>> what is SBC?
>> >>
>> >> Single-Board Computer
>> >
>> > ah, thanks.
>>
>> Now you know Jack!  ;)
>
> well yes.
> but someone could argue that also a PC is a SBC :D

If the RAM isn't soldered on the board, it isn't an SBC.  Also consider a  
PC from the 90s, which doesn't function without a separate graphics card  
and a CPU which can be considered a 'board' by itself.



-- 
(Remove the obvious prefix to reply privately.)
Gemaakt met Opera's e-mailprogramma: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25540

Il giorno lunedì 5 dicembre 2016 11:34:02 UTC+1, Boudewijn Dijkstra ha scritto:
> Op Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:26:46 +0100 schreef Jack <jack4747@gmail.com>:
> > Il giorno giovedì 1 dicembre 2016 12:00:22 UTC+1, Ozzie ha scritto:
> >
> >> >>> what is SBC?
> >> >>
> >> >> Single-Board Computer
> >> >
> >> > ah, thanks.
> >>
> >> Now you know Jack!  ;)
> >
> > well yes.
> > but someone could argue that also a PC is a SBC :D
> 
> If the RAM isn't soldered on the board, it isn't an SBC.  Also consider a  
> PC from the 90s, which doesn't function without a separate graphics card  
> and a CPU which can be considered a 'board' by itself.

Speaking about pc 25 years old is not really useful in this case or we can just put also Commodores, Amigas, Ataris in the basket (they all had soldered ram and integrated gpu).

In any case Apple laptops built in the last let say 5 years have soldered CPU AND ram so under your definition are SBCs...
Also the new Microsoft Surface Pro seems to have soldered ram...

so maybe a different definition is necessary.

Bye Jack

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25541

On 05.12.2016 г. 12:46, Jack wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 5 dicembre 2016 11:34:02 UTC+1, Boudewijn Dijkstra ha scritto:
>> Op Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:26:46 +0100 schreef Jack <jack4747@gmail.com>:
>>> Il giorno giovedì 1 dicembre 2016 12:00:22 UTC+1, Ozzie ha scritto:
>>>
>>>>>>> what is SBC?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Single-Board Computer
>>>>>
>>>>> ah, thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Now you know Jack!  ;)
>>>
>>> well yes.
>>> but someone could argue that also a PC is a SBC :D
>>
>> If the RAM isn't soldered on the board, it isn't an SBC.  Also consider a
>> PC from the 90s, which doesn't function without a separate graphics card
>> and a CPU which can be considered a 'board' by itself.
>
> Speaking about pc 25 years old is not really useful in this case or we can just put also Commodores, Amigas, Ataris in the basket (they all had soldered ram and integrated gpu).
>
> In any case Apple laptops built in the last let say 5 years have soldered CPU AND ram so under your definition are SBCs...
> Also the new Microsoft Surface Pro seems to have soldered ram...
>
> so maybe a different definition is necessary.
>
> Bye Jack
>

The PC/apple/tablet things are not SBC-s not because they are not
single board, many of them are that nowadays.

But they are not computers - a computer you can program including its
coming out of reset, how to initialize its peripherals etc.
These are computerized TV-sets or whatever name one chooses
for todays entertainment/office hardware.

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff, TGI             http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25542

On 12/5/2016 6:28, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 05.12.2016 г. 12:46, Jack wrote:
>> Il giorno lunedì 5 dicembre 2016 11:34:02 UTC+1, Boudewijn Dijkstra ha
>> scritto:
>>> Op Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:26:46 +0100 schreef Jack <jack4747@gmail.com>:
>>>> Il giorno giovedì 1 dicembre 2016 12:00:22 UTC+1, Ozzie ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> what is SBC?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Single-Board Computer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ah, thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you know Jack!  ;)
>>>>
>>>> well yes.
>>>> but someone could argue that also a PC is a SBC :D
>>>
>>> If the RAM isn't soldered on the board, it isn't an SBC.  Also
>>> consider a
>>> PC from the 90s, which doesn't function without a separate graphics card
>>> and a CPU which can be considered a 'board' by itself.
>>
>> Speaking about pc 25 years old is not really useful in this case or we
>> can just put also Commodores, Amigas, Ataris in the basket (they all
>> had soldered ram and integrated gpu).
>>
>> In any case Apple laptops built in the last let say 5 years have
>> soldered CPU AND ram so under your definition are SBCs...
>> Also the new Microsoft Surface Pro seems to have soldered ram...
>>
>> so maybe a different definition is necessary.
>>
>> Bye Jack
>>
>
> The PC/apple/tablet things are not SBC-s not because they are not
> single board, many of them are that nowadays.
>
> But they are not computers - a computer you can program including its
> coming out of reset, how to initialize its peripherals etc.
> These are computerized TV-sets or whatever name one chooses
> for todays entertainment/office hardware.
>
> Dimiter
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Dimiter Popoff, TGI             http://www.tgi-sci.com
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/

Well, as to that, you *could* program one of today's computers, 
re-flash the BIOS and do whatever you want.  You could do something 
similar with what's usually referred to as an SBC, but many of them are 
come pre-programmed with some operating system and what programming you 
do is on a higher level.

-- 
Best wishes,
--Phil
pomartel At Comcast(ignore_this) dot net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25545

On 05.12.2016 г. 17:52, Phil Martel wrote:
> On 12/5/2016 6:28, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>> On 05.12.2016 г. 12:46, Jack wrote:
>>> Il giorno lunedì 5 dicembre 2016 11:34:02 UTC+1, Boudewijn Dijkstra ha
>>> scritto:
>>>> Op Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:26:46 +0100 schreef Jack <jack4747@gmail.com>:
>>>>> Il giorno giovedì 1 dicembre 2016 12:00:22 UTC+1, Ozzie ha scritto:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what is SBC?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Single-Board Computer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ah, thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now you know Jack!  ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> well yes.
>>>>> but someone could argue that also a PC is a SBC :D
>>>>
>>>> If the RAM isn't soldered on the board, it isn't an SBC.  Also
>>>> consider a
>>>> PC from the 90s, which doesn't function without a separate graphics
>>>> card
>>>> and a CPU which can be considered a 'board' by itself.
>>>
>>> Speaking about pc 25 years old is not really useful in this case or we
>>> can just put also Commodores, Amigas, Ataris in the basket (they all
>>> had soldered ram and integrated gpu).
>>>
>>> In any case Apple laptops built in the last let say 5 years have
>>> soldered CPU AND ram so under your definition are SBCs...
>>> Also the new Microsoft Surface Pro seems to have soldered ram...
>>>
>>> so maybe a different definition is necessary.
>>>
>>> Bye Jack
>>>
>>
>> The PC/apple/tablet things are not SBC-s not because they are not
>> single board, many of them are that nowadays.
>>
>> But they are not computers - a computer you can program including its
>> coming out of reset, how to initialize its peripherals etc.
>> These are computerized TV-sets or whatever name one chooses
>> for todays entertainment/office hardware.
>>
>> Dimiter
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> Dimiter Popoff, TGI             http://www.tgi-sci.com
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/
>
> Well, as to that, you *could* program one of today's computers, re-flash
> the BIOS and do whatever you want.  You could do something similar with
> what's usually referred to as an SBC, but many of them are come
> pre-programmed with some operating system and what programming you do is
> on a higher level.
>

Would you have all the datasheets needed to be able to do that?

Dimiter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25546

Il giorno martedì 6 dicembre 2016 03:44:32 UTC+1, dp ha scritto:

> > Well, as to that, you *could* program one of today's computers, re-flash
> > the BIOS and do whatever you want.  You could do something similar with
> > what's usually referred to as an SBC, but many of them are come
> > pre-programmed with some operating system and what programming you do is
> > on a higher level.
> >
> 
> Would you have all the datasheets needed to be able to do that?
> 
> Dimiter

Intel processors datasheet are freely available:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/core-i7-900-ee-and-desktop-processor-series-datasheet-vol-1.html

happy reading ;)

Bye Jack

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25547

On 06.12.2016 г. 09:30, Jack wrote:
> Il giorno martedì 6 dicembre 2016 03:44:32 UTC+1, dp ha scritto:
>
>>> Well, as to that, you *could* program one of today's computers, re-flash
>>> the BIOS and do whatever you want.  You could do something similar with
>>> what's usually referred to as an SBC, but many of them are come
>>> pre-programmed with some operating system and what programming you do is
>>> on a higher level.
>>>
>>
>> Would you have all the datasheets needed to be able to do that?
>>
>> Dimiter
>
> Intel processors datasheet are freely available:
> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/core-i7-900-ee-and-desktop-processor-series-datasheet-vol-1.html
>
> happy reading ;)
>
> Bye Jack
>

I know their processors' documentation is public.
How is it with the peripheral chips, e.g. display
controllers - theirs and from other vendors.

  How is it with the wifi chips you find on this "SBC", are
they documented.

Dimiter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25548

Il giorno martedì 6 dicembre 2016 09:28:13 UTC+1, dp ha scritto:
> On 06.12.2016 г. 09:30, Jack wrote:
> > Il giorno martedì 6 dicembre 2016 03:44:32 UTC+1, dp ha scritto:
> >
> >>> Well, as to that, you *could* program one of today's computers, re-flash
> >>> the BIOS and do whatever you want.  You could do something similar with
> >>> what's usually referred to as an SBC, but many of them are come
> >>> pre-programmed with some operating system and what programming you do is
> >>> on a higher level.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Would you have all the datasheets needed to be able to do that?
> >>
> >> Dimiter
> >
> > Intel processors datasheet are freely available:
> > http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/core-i7-900-ee-and-desktop-processor-series-datasheet-vol-1.html
> >
> > happy reading ;)
> >
> > Bye Jack
> >
> 
> I know their processors' documentation is public.
> How is it with the peripheral chips, e.g. display
> controllers - theirs and from other vendors.
> 
>   How is it with the wifi chips you find on this "SBC", are
> they documented.

You mean like the SoC of the RPi? (or at least the GPU part).

Bye Jack

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25549

Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> The PC/apple/tablet things are not SBC-s not because they are not
> single board, many of them are that nowadays.
> 
> But they are not computers - a computer you can program including its
> coming out of reset, how to initialize its peripherals etc.
> These are computerized TV-sets or whatever name one chooses
> for todays entertainment/office hardware.

It really depends what you want to do, but arguably they're just fine as
computers.  They run code that you load on to them.  You might not replace
the operating system, but then there are lots of embedded systems that run
Windows and nobody tinkers with the bootloader.  They have their niche, just
like any system.

For instance they're really good at graphics and UI - much better than
anything you could cook up by writing bare metal code.  Where once a piece
of equipment would have an 8-bit microcontroller, a two line LCD and three
buttons you press in bewildering combinations, or later Windows XP with
keyboard and mouse, now it can have a touch panel and run Android or Windows
10.

Notwithstanding that you can compile your Android kernel and OS from source
if you really want to, an app can implement your application on top of the
facilities provided by the base OS.  If you need special hardware you can
add that and write the necessary drivers.

However I'd say one distinction is about supply chain.  These are /consumer/
products - here today, gone tomorrow.  Likely Android will be around for
years in some form (like Windows CE is still), but basing your product on
the hottest tablet of 2017 is pretty risky because it likely won't last more
than a year.  Similarly, as consumer products they aren't really set up for
the rough and tumble of industrial life, nor are they designed for
integrating into larger systems.  So they are 'computers', but they aren't
/industrial/ computers,

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25550

On 12/7/2016 12:38 PM, Theo Markettos wrote:
> However I'd say one distinction is about supply chain.  These are /consumer/
> products - here today, gone tomorrow.  Likely Android will be around for
> years in some form (like Windows CE is still), but basing your product on
> the hottest tablet of 2017 is pretty risky because it likely won't last more
> than a year.

Then don't base the *product* on the tablet; rather, base the product on
an abstraction that the tablet can reify.

E.g., I exploit lots of consumer kit (think:  dirt cheap, almost disposable)
for UI's.  As long as I can port my "UI services" to <whatever>, I don't
care exactly *what* that <whatever> happens to be.

[Of course, I go to great pains to decouple the implementation from the
supporting hardware/software/OS]

E.g., I use a variety of PDA's (in lieu of smart phones) as little
"wireless graphic terminals".  They run different (native) OS's but
each run the same look-and-feel "application" (that implements the GUI).

This week, port the GUI to a rescued Nook Color.  Different manufacturer,
size, shape, battery life, etc.  But, same "application" (which, obviously,
knows how to adapt to different screen sizes and aspect ratios).

*Next* week, it may be a Toshiba tablet, etc.

> Similarly, as consumer products they aren't really set up for
> the rough and tumble of industrial life, nor are they designed for
> integrating into larger systems.  So they are 'computers', but they aren't
> /industrial/ computers,

You'd be amazed at how many industrial processes are controlled by
consumer kit!  <frown>  Typically, a developer got the "Great Idea"
that he could leverage all this UI stuff by repurposing some COTS
product.  *But*, then followed this with the Bad Idea of developing
the product *on* that device -- inheriting all of its limitations
(instead of just cherry-picking the good bits).

Sort of like the "let's use a COTS SBC -- but, STILL have to design and
layout our own custom 'daughter card' cuz the SBC doesn't have just the
right mix of I/O's".  (Then, being stuck with that particular SBC because
you didn't make a deliberate effort to decouple the design from the
base hardware/software)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25543

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 11:24:09 +0100, "Boudewijn Dijkstra"
<sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> wrote:

>Op Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:26:46 +0100 schreef Jack <jack4747@gmail.com>:
>> Il giorno giovedì 1 dicembre 2016 12:00:22 UTC+1, Ozzie ha scritto:
>>
>>> >>> what is SBC?
>>> >>
>>> >> Single-Board Computer
>>> >
>>> > ah, thanks.
>>>
>>> Now you know Jack!  ;)
>>
>> well yes.
>> but someone could argue that also a PC is a SBC :D

Any laptop should qualify.

In the old days SBCs had RS232 or 20 mA connections for connecting
"dumb" (VT100) serial terminals.
These days Raspberry etc. uses Ethernet for exactly the same purpose
(Telnet) without having keyboards or displays of their own. 

In the 1970s boards like Intel SDK-85 contained in addition to the CPU
functionality also some hex keyboard input as well as hex displays and
additionally some wire wrap areas on the board. Thus capable of true
stand lone capability.

>If the RAM isn't soldered on the board, it isn't an SBC.  Also consider a  
>PC from the 90s, which doesn't function without a separate graphics card  
>and a CPU which can be considered a 'board' by itself.

Since when is a "Graphical" card a requirement for  PC ? At a minimum
24 lines with 32/40/64/80 characters on a line was considered
adequate.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25544

upsidedown@downunder.com writes:
> Since when is a "Graphical" card a requirement for PC ? At a minimum
> 24 lines with 32/40/64/80 characters on a line was considered
> adequate.

Today it's not needed at all.  Most of the PCs that I use now are
headless servers sitting in remote data centers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25520

On 11/30/2016 2:26 AM, andre wrote:
> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC available.
> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency / price?

What criteria do you use in your definition of "efficiency"?

> I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )
> Many thanks in advance
> Sorry for my english

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25521

Le 30/11/2016 10:38, Don Y a écrit :
> On 11/30/2016 2:26 AM, andre wrote:
>> Everybody knows the Raspbery PI, but there are a lot of other SBC
>> available.
>> Which are the best for use and which are the best balance efficiency /
>> price?
>
> What criteria do you use in your definition of "efficiency"?
Fonctionality / ease of use / connectivity / operating system ( web 
server ssh .. ) communication (RS232 485, I2C, SPI ..) ease and tools 
for programming ease of integrating them into a box with other devices .....
>
>> I use them for smal automation in relation with microctl (Atmel )
>> Many thanks in advance
>> Sorry for my english
>


-- 
Les politiciens sont imprévoyants, et les électeurs sans mémoire!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded

csiph-web