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

Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #10019 > unrolled thread

R Pi 0

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi

Contents

  R Pi 0 "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 11:19 +0000
    Re: R Pi 0 Dave Farrance <DaveFarrance@OMiTTHiSyahooANDTHiS.co.uk> - 2015-11-26 11:56 +0000
      Re: R Pi 0 "M.O.B. i L." <mobil@orbin.se> - 2015-11-26 23:58 +0100
      Re: R Pi 0 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 23:10 +0000
        Re: R Pi 0 Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2015-11-26 23:26 +0000
        Re: R Pi 0 "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2015-11-27 05:26 +0100
        Re: R Pi 0 Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-11-27 12:26 +0000
        Re: R Pi 0 "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-28 12:24 +0000
          Re: R Pi 0 Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-11-28 14:00 +0000
            Re: R Pi 0 Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-11-29 08:45 +0000
              Re: R Pi 0 Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-11-29 11:32 +0000
                Re: R Pi 0 Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-11-30 08:00 +0000
    Re: R Pi 0 andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) - 2015-11-26 17:48 +0000
      Re: R Pi 0 rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 13:33 -0500
        Re: R Pi 0 Charlie <cdknospam@msn.com> - 2015-12-13 14:56 -0500
          Re: R Pi 0 rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 18:57 -0500
            Re: R Pi 0 David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-12-14 05:28 +0000
              Re: R Pi 0 rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 01:09 -0500
                Re: R Pi 0 Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-12-14 08:08 +0000
                  Re: R Pi 0 Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-12-14 18:57 +0000
                    Re: R Pi 0 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-14 19:18 +0000
                Re: R Pi 0 David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-12-14 08:11 +0000
                  Re: R Pi 0 rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 11:30 -0500
                    Re: R Pi 0 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-14 17:12 +0000
                    Re: R Pi 0 David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-12-15 08:07 +0000
                      Re: R Pi 0 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-15 08:40 +0000
                        Re: R Pi 0 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-15 16:44 +0100
                          Re: R Pi 0 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-15 20:13 +0000
                      Re: R Pi 0 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-15 09:55 +0100
                        Re: R Pi 0 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-15 12:12 +0000
                          Re: R Pi 0 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-15 15:15 +0100
                            Re: R Pi 0 cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2015-12-15 16:55 +0000
                              Re: R Pi 0 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-16 04:55 +0100
                                Re: R Pi 0 cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2015-12-17 21:00 +0000
                            Re: R Pi 0 Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-12-15 23:11 +0000
                              Re: R Pi 0 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-16 05:00 +0100
                                Re: R Pi 0 "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2015-12-16 12:05 +0100
                                  Re: R Pi 0 Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-12-16 11:14 +0000
                                    Re: R Pi 0 "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2015-12-16 13:18 +0100
                                      Re: R Pi 0 Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-12-16 14:10 +0000
                        Re: R Pi 0 Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2015-12-15 19:37 +0000
            Re: R Pi 0 Marco Bakera <pintman@bakera.de> - 2015-12-14 16:47 +0100
              Re: R Pi 0 rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 11:32 -0500
      R Pi 0 removemefirst.mark.lewis@p73.f12.n3634.z1.fidonet.org (mark lewis) - 2015-11-27 00:38 +1200

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#10019 — R Pi 0

http://hexus.net/tech/news/systems/88397-raspberry-pi-zero-available-today-costs-just-4-5/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

-- 
David B
http://waterfalls.me.uk 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#10020

"David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> wrote:

>http://hexus.net/tech/news/systems/88397-raspberry-pi-zero-available-today-costs-just-4-5/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

And the official announcement for the Raspberry Pi Zero

https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/raspberry-pi-zero/

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

#10023

Den 2015-11-26 kl. 12:56, skrev Dave Farrance:
> "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://hexus.net/tech/news/systems/88397-raspberry-pi-zero-available-today-costs-just-4-5/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
>
> And the official announcement for the Raspberry Pi Zero
>
> https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/raspberry-pi-zero/

It might had been better with micro-HDMI instead of mini-HDMI.

It should have some way of generating analog stereo sound.

The micro-USB should support USB-device, but maybe it doesn't.

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

#10024

On 26/11/2015 11:56, Dave Farrance wrote:
> "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://hexus.net/tech/news/systems/88397-raspberry-pi-zero-available-today-costs-just-4-5/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
>
> And the official announcement for the Raspberry Pi Zero
>
> https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/raspberry-pi-zero/

That's almost hard to believe. I think a sense of wonder is called for! 
A $5 (or £4) computer seems nothing short of incredible, especially 
given the spec. What would we have thought of such a prospect in the 
19xx's? A computer taped as a cover gift to the front of a magazine. The 
realms of science fiction, perhaps.

There have been other manufacturers recently snapping at the RPi's heels 
in terms of value but this, AFAICS, completely trounces them all.

Also amazing is that the units are made in the relatively high-wage UK 
rather than in the far east.

One thought: the tiny, slim form factor of the PiZero would make it much 
better than previous RPi models as a partner with a touchscreen display.

James

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

#10025

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 23:10:16 +0000
James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 26/11/2015 11:56, Dave Farrance wrote:
> > "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://hexus.net/tech/news/systems/88397-raspberry-pi-zero-available-today-costs-just-4-5/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
> >
> > And the official announcement for the Raspberry Pi Zero
> >
> > https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/raspberry-pi-zero/
> 
> That's almost hard to believe. I think a sense of wonder is called for! 
> A $5 (or £4) computer seems nothing short of incredible, especially 
> given the spec. What would we have thought of such a prospect in the 
> 19xx's? A computer taped as a cover gift to the front of a magazine. The 
> realms of science fiction, perhaps.
> 
> There have been other manufacturers recently snapping at the RPi's heels 
> in terms of value but this, AFAICS, completely trounces them all.
> 
> Also amazing is that the units are made in the relatively high-wage UK 
> rather than in the far east.
> 
> One thought: the tiny, slim form factor of the PiZero would make it much 
> better than previous RPi models as a partner with a touchscreen display.
> 
> James
> 

Indeed. You now have the capability of a very advanced HMI that's easily
programmable and a fraction of the cost of commercial ones.

Hmmm. pygame anyone :)

-- 
W J G

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

#10027

On 27/11/2015 00:10, James Harris wrote:
> One thought: the tiny, slim form factor of the PiZero would make it much
> better than previous RPi models as a partner with a touchscreen display.

No DSI connector though.

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

#10029

James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also amazing is that the units are made in the relatively high-wage UK 
> rather than in the far east.

I suspect there's a reason for that.  Look at the underside of the Pi Zero
and compare it with the underside of the Pi 2.  The Pi Zero has 12
through-hole pins (the shields of micro USB and mini HDMI).  The Pi 2 is
covered in through-hole parts (ethernet, USB, GPIO, composite) and a pile of
SMD parts underneath too (micro SD, passives, power control).

The manufacturing of the Pi Zero is much simpler.  I wouldn't be surprised
if it's entirely robotic.  There are also test points on the bottom of the
Pi Zero so manufacturing test is probably robotic too. 

Theo

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

#10031

"James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:n383ce$oim$1@dont-email.me...
>  What would we have thought of such a prospect in the 19xx's?

Fond memories of ICL?

1900 was when the hardware was designed, and 2900 is when the software will 
be ready.

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

#10032

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 12:24:38 +0000, gareth wrote:

> "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:n383ce$oim$1@dont-email.me...
>>  What would we have thought of such a prospect in the 19xx's?
> 
> Fond memories of ICL?
> 
> 1900 was when the hardware was designed, and 2900 is when the software
> will be ready.

Wrong: 1900 - released in 1964 (same year as the IBM S/360) and, unlike 
the IBM, all 1900 programs were effectively in-memory virtual machines 
(all registers were the first few words of a program, all program 
addresses zero bases in the image, unlike the S/360 where, prior to MVS, 
all programs had to be compiled for the hardware address range it ran in.

ICL's George 3 was probably the most advanced OS until Multics and OS/400 
appeared.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

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

#10035

in 10104 20151128 140017 Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:

>Wrong: 1900 - released in 1964 (same year as the IBM S/360) and, unlike
>the IBM, all 1900 programs were effectively in-memory virtual machines
>(all registers were the first few words of a program, all program
>addresses zero bases in the image, unlike the S/360 where, prior to MVS,
>all programs had to be compiled for the hardware address range it ran in.

I used all the OS/360 versions before MVS but I don't remember that.
Compile/assemble was followed by linkedit step which created a relocatable
module.

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

#10039

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:45:06 +0000, Bob Martin wrote:

> in 10104 20151128 140017 Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>>Wrong: 1900 - released in 1964 (same year as the IBM S/360) and, unlike
>>the IBM, all 1900 programs were effectively in-memory virtual machines
>>(all registers were the first few words of a program, all program
>>addresses zero bases in the image, unlike the S/360 where, prior to MVS,
>>all programs had to be compiled for the hardware address range it ran
>>in.
> 
> I used all the OS/360 versions before MVS but I don't remember that.
> Compile/assemble was followed by linkedit step which created a
> relocatable module.

I've only briefly used S/360 and/or S/370 (OS/MVT with SPFFY) but I 
remember back in the late '60s hearing people complaining about the 
inflexibility of S/360s running under DOS or OS/MFT because of the 
requirement to link-edit programs for the memory partition they ran in.  

IIRC DOS soon vanished, and was anyway only used on the smallest systems 
(360/30 and the like) and by 1970 I think all the bigger ones were on OS/
MVT, which worked as you describe.

I didn't like SPFFY at all, but still have a quite a soft spot for 
OS/400, which I used on AS/400 boxes. It was remarkably bug-free and CL, 
its command language, was very regular and easy to use. The only drawback 
on these systems was the ugly block-mode text editor and IBM's odd 
insistence on using RPG3 - switch to PL/1 or COBOL and life was a lot 
better.
 

-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

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

#10056

in 10111 20151129 113231 Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 08:45:06 +0000, Bob Martin wrote:
>
>> in 10104 20151128 140017 Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Wrong: 1900 - released in 1964 (same year as the IBM S/360) and, unlike
>>>the IBM, all 1900 programs were effectively in-memory virtual machines
>>>(all registers were the first few words of a program, all program
>>>addresses zero bases in the image, unlike the S/360 where, prior to MVS,
>>>all programs had to be compiled for the hardware address range it ran
>>>in.
>>
>> I used all the OS/360 versions before MVS but I don't remember that.
>> Compile/assemble was followed by linkedit step which created a
>> relocatable module.
>
>I've only briefly used S/360 and/or S/370 (OS/MVT with SPFFY) but I
>remember back in the late '60s hearing people complaining about the
>inflexibility of S/360s running under DOS or OS/MFT because of the
>requirement to link-edit programs for the memory partition they ran in.

I think you must be referring to DOS which I know nothing about.
The compile-linkedit system was in PCP from the beginning and unchanged
through MFT I, MFT II and MVT.
 
>IIRC DOS soon vanished, and was anyway only used on the smallest systems
>(360/30 and the like) and by 1970 I think all the bigger ones were on OS/
>MVT, which worked as you describe.
>
>I didn't like SPFFY at all, but still have a quite a soft spot for
>OS/400, which I used on AS/400 boxes. It was remarkably bug-free and CL,
>its command language, was very regular and easy to use. The only drawback
>on these systems was the ugly block-mode text editor and IBM's odd
>insistence on using RPG3 - switch to PL/1 or COBOL and life was a lot
>better.
>
>
>--
>martin@   | Martin Gregorie
>gregorie. | Essex, UK
>org       |

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

#10021

In article <n36pn2$dps$1@dont-email.me>,
	"David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> writes:
> http://hexus.net/tech/news/systems/88397-raspberry-pi-zero-available-today-costs-just-4-5/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

Got mine this morning from W.H.Smith (UK newsagent for non-UK readers).
It's free on the front cover of MagPi magzine (£5.99)

There were none left by lunchtime at my local W.H.Smiths.

-- 
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

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

#10022

On 11/26/2015 12:48 PM, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> In article <n36pn2$dps$1@dont-email.me>,
> 	"David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> writes:
>> http://hexus.net/tech/news/systems/88397-raspberry-pi-zero-available-today-costs-just-4-5/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
>
> Got mine this morning from W.H.Smith (UK newsagent for non-UK readers).
> It's free on the front cover of MagPi magzine (£5.99)
>
> There were none left by lunchtime at my local W.H.Smiths.

I like the idea of a $5 embedded computer.  I'm interested in that, but 
no hurry to get it.  I don't even have a rPi 2 yet.  It will be 
interesting to see where people use these.  At $5 the useful 
applications will be very widespread.

Also interesting is that the clock speed is even higher than the rPi 2.

-- 

Rick

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

#10107

On 11/26/2015 1:33 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 11/26/2015 12:48 PM, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>> In article <n36pn2$dps$1@dont-email.me>,
>>     "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> writes:
>>> http://hexus.net/tech/news/systems/88397-raspberry-pi-zero-available-today-costs-just-4-5/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
>>>
>>
>> Got mine this morning from W.H.Smith (UK newsagent for non-UK readers).
>> It's free on the front cover of MagPi magzine (£5.99)
>>
>> There were none left by lunchtime at my local W.H.Smiths.
>
> I like the idea of a $5 embedded computer.  I'm interested in that, but
> no hurry to get it.  I don't even have a rPi 2 yet.  It will be
> interesting to see where people use these.  At $5 the useful
> applications will be very widespread.
>
> Also interesting is that the clock speed is even higher than the rPi 2.
>
Actually, the Pi 2B for ~$35 is a better choice, due to built in 
capability, unless you have a very specific application.

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

#10111

On 12/13/2015 2:56 PM, Charlie wrote:
> On 11/26/2015 1:33 PM, rickman wrote:
>> On 11/26/2015 12:48 PM, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>>> In article <n36pn2$dps$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>     "David B" <askforemail@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> http://hexus.net/tech/news/systems/88397-raspberry-pi-zero-available-today-costs-just-4-5/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Got mine this morning from W.H.Smith (UK newsagent for non-UK readers).
>>> It's free on the front cover of MagPi magzine (£5.99)
>>>
>>> There were none left by lunchtime at my local W.H.Smiths.
>>
>> I like the idea of a $5 embedded computer.  I'm interested in that, but
>> no hurry to get it.  I don't even have a rPi 2 yet.  It will be
>> interesting to see where people use these.  At $5 the useful
>> applications will be very widespread.
>>
>> Also interesting is that the clock speed is even higher than the rPi 2.
>>
> Actually, the Pi 2B for ~$35 is a better choice, due to built in
> capability, unless you have a very specific application.

Why exactly is the Pi 2B better?  Do you understand what  I mean by 
"embedded computer"?

-- 

Rick

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

#10114

On 13/12/2015 23:57, rickman wrote:
> On 12/13/2015 2:56 PM, Charlie wrote:
[]
>> Actually, the Pi 2B for ~$35 is a better choice, due to built in
>> capability, unless you have a very specific application.
>
> Why exactly is the Pi 2B better?  Do you understand what  I mean by
> "embedded computer"?

Quad core and more memory.  May be faster if that matters.

-- 
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

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

#10115

On 12/14/2015 12:28 AM, David Taylor wrote:
> On 13/12/2015 23:57, rickman wrote:
>> On 12/13/2015 2:56 PM, Charlie wrote:
> []
>>> Actually, the Pi 2B for ~$35 is a better choice, due to built in
>>> capability, unless you have a very specific application.
>>
>> Why exactly is the Pi 2B better?  Do you understand what  I mean by
>> "embedded computer"?
>
> Quad core and more memory.  May be faster if that matters.

Only useful if you can multi-thread your application.

-- 

Rick

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

#10116

in 10187 20151214 060906 rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/14/2015 12:28 AM, David Taylor wrote:
>> On 13/12/2015 23:57, rickman wrote:
>>> On 12/13/2015 2:56 PM, Charlie wrote:
>> []
>>>> Actually, the Pi 2B for ~$35 is a better choice, due to built in
>>>> capability, unless you have a very specific application.
>>>
>>> Why exactly is the Pi 2B better?  Do you understand what  I mean by
>>> "embedded computer"?
>>
>> Quad core and more memory.  May be faster if that matters.
>
>Only useful if you can multi-thread your application.

Nope.  Type "top" on the command line and see how many tasks are running.

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

#10126

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:08:19 GMT
Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:

> in 10187 20151214 060906 rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 12/14/2015 12:28 AM, David Taylor wrote:
> >> On 13/12/2015 23:57, rickman wrote:
> >>> On 12/13/2015 2:56 PM, Charlie wrote:
> >> []
> >>>> Actually, the Pi 2B for ~$35 is a better choice, due to built in
> >>>> capability, unless you have a very specific application.
> >>>
> >>> Why exactly is the Pi 2B better?  Do you understand what  I mean
> >>> by "embedded computer"?
> >>
> >> Quad core and more memory.  May be faster if that matters.
> >
> >Only useful if you can multi-thread your application.
> 
> Nope.  Type "top" on the command line and see how many tasks are
> running.

On your general purpose PC running a GUI desktop, network services etc.
An embedded device will have been stripped down to the bare minimum (or
built from scratch) because it doesn't need a lot of that stuff.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi

csiph-web