Intel to give away 50,000 Arduino-friendly computers based on 400MHz Quark SoC

Very interesting.

I wonder if Element 14 could snag a few for us to test.

If it is truely 86 compatible, I can see a lot of interesting uses for this new system.

I would definately pay 60 USD for one just to see what I could do with it and to see what legacy software I could run.  I have a few old MS DOS tools that would just scream if I could run them on this fast of a processor set.

DAB

Very interesting.

I wonder if Element 14 could snag a few for us to test.

If it is truely 86 compatible, I can see a lot of interesting uses for this new system.

I would definately pay 60 USD for one just to see what I could do with it and to see what legacy software I could run.  I have a few old MS DOS tools that would just scream if I could run them on this fast of a processor set.

DAB

DAB wrote:

 

If it is truely 86 compatible, I can see a lot of interesting uses for this new system.

Could you enumerate some for us please?  I can see the "warm fuzzy feeling of being on familiar territory" that selsinork mentioned (great phrase) as indeed being a very strong selling point, but I don't see any significant engineering reasons that aren't extremely niche.

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

I can see the "warm fuzzy feeling of being on familiar territory" that selsinork mentioned (great phrase) as indeed being a very strong selling point, but I don't see any significant engineering reasons that aren't extremely niche.

Engineering reasons don't tend to get a look in when there's an emotional factor overriding the rational decision

How many times have we seen the question asked around whether the RPi can run windows ?  As the answer here will likely be that you can, it'll keep some people happy.  I'd still question the rationale behind even trying on a device with no display and various other limitations, but none of that will matter to them..

DAB wrote:

 

I have a few old MS DOS tools that would just scream if I could run them on this fast of a processor set.

It would certainly be interesting to see if DOS could be made to run on some of these new x86 boards, but I suspect it's simply not going to be possible.  The Minnowboard for example has UEFI firmware, not a traditional BIOS. So a lot of the stuff that DOS relies on simply isn't there.  I'm not even sure the hardware would still be capable of supporting it, probably too much has changed in the last 10 years or so.

Lack of bios support might be solved by something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaBIOS but that could be complex enough on it's own.

I have some special research tools that I build that are still at work on my MS DOS computers.  Yes I still have some up and running for data collection purposes.

If the new board supports the 8086 instruction set, it might be possible to set up a cut down version of MS DOS to drive the some of the tools.

Most of them just need a way to access data ports, memory and disk I/O.  So if I can get it to access the configuration files, run the code and generate the output data I need, I could do some interesting data collection.

MS DOS is soooo much simpler than windows that you can run some very simple programs at very fast speeds.

Like I said, it would be an interesting side project, assuming I can find the time to do the port.  Meanwhile my old computers are still just plugging along.

One nice thing about the older machines, some of these last nearly forever.

Plus I was never into this throw away society.  My German roots run deep and we try to keep everything running as long as they can still do the job.

DAB

You are probably correct, but it is something to think about.  Especially as we get more data on the board and the chip.

Time will tell.  Plus if others think running MS DOS type programs on an SBC, they might build up a BIOS for the chip.

I have found that there are a lot of people out there with a lot of time on their hands who like a good challenge.

DAB

DAB wrote:

 

Plus I was never into this throw away society.  My German roots run deep and we try to keep everything running as long as they can still do the job.

+1.

I like the philosophy you express above, and it's tragic that engineers are coaxed into developing throwaway junk for the sake of profit and occasionally even defend that market norm as if it were good.  It's never good to create junk designed to last only until the next upgrade:   1) it's not good for the planet and 2) it's not good for our self-esteem as engineering professionals.  "Engineering for obsolence" is a corruption of responsible engineering practice.

Somehow both of those reasons have got lost in most of today's manufacturing circles.

There is a flip side to this philosopy.  If the product is fixed-function and

fully satisfies its purpose, then there is no point replacing it just because

something newer/better/cheaper comes along.  But if the newer product

has new functionality that can be taken advantage of, then it can be a

mistake to hold on to the old product even if it still works.

I think it is referred to as economic life vs. useful life.

For example if a new solar panel comes along with significantly better

efficiency, it might be economic to replace an existing panel before the

end of its useful life.  Getting the timing right is tricky if it's likely that an

even better panel will come along in the near future.

Although true, most upgrades aren't made because the user will benefit from improved efficiency, but because the old gear is no longer compatible with new product or else is portrayed by marketing as no longer being adequate or cool.  An example is Intel and AMD changing the CPU socket for the 500th time and so requiring everyone either to upgrade their motherboards (rare) if they want the new CPU or else have to buy a whole new computer.  It's inexcusable.