Featured Articles
Announcing Pi
Technical Specifications
Raspberry Pi FAQs
Win a Pi
Raspberry Pi Wishlist
Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 358 replies
  • Subscribers 674 subscribers
  • Views 39705 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

Pi vs BeagleBone-Black

Former Member

So, just over a year on from the initial availability of the R-Pi and the new BeagleBone Black is upon us.  They've obviously taken a leaf out of the RPF's playbook and produced a cost reduced version at a price only marginally above the Pi.

 

I find it interesting that the compromises are very different, for example there's a proper PMIC and the ethernet is not troubled by being connected to USB, however the on-board HDMI seems less capable.

 

Other differences are in the documentation, I'm currently viewing the pcb gerbers for the beaglebone..  Have yet to see any sign of those for the R-Pi a year later. There's even an up to date devicetree capable kernel too.

 

Technology has also moved on somewhat, we get a 1GHz Cortex A8 which is better than the Pi, along with various other stuff and lots more GPIO's too.

 

Ok, so it's clear that I like the look of the new beaglebone, and given the price I'm likely to put any further R-Pi plans on hold until I have a chance to play with this. It's also making things like the Olinuxino-maxi I bought recently look very slow/expensive while still being cheaper than the similarly specced Olinuxino-A13

 

Some details of the beaglebone-black here http://circuitco.com/support/index.php?title=BeagleBoneBlack

 

What do the rest of you think ?   I don't expect this to displace the Pi anytime soon, but I expect it to be very attractive to those people who don't simply want to put XBMC on it and duct tape it to the back of the TV..

  • in reply to shabaz

    shabaz wrote:

     

    With the external RTC, I was expecting to write some script to query it via (say) I2C, and then set the time each time the board powered up.

    Actually, if done properly - you'll need the i2c driver and rtc driver built into the kernel along with some devicetree magic - you can have the kernel do it all for you.

    There's an option in the kernel config to select which rtc is used to set the clock. It defaults to rtc0, but needing to have both the onboard rtc driver to deal with power on/off and a driver for an external rtc is what makes stuff somewhat more complex.

  • in reply to shabaz

    shabaz wrote:

    The datasheet only has a 'max' current consumption reported (5mA!) but on a forum some people asked. The link off that forum has a much better value of 370uA at 1.8V which seems pretty good!

    No, that's actually quite poor..  The cheap Microchip MCP79410 i2c rtc I've been using states 5uA standby current with the clock running.

     

    1.8v battery could also be rather akward as it rules out using the usual 3v coin cell without additional circuitry - datasheet says max 1.890v recommended, absolute max ov 2.1v.  There does seem to be a lot more stuff tied into VDDS_RTC which makes it that much more difficult too.

  • in reply to Former Member

    Oh, so sorry you're quite right! It's quite late! So the summary seems to be, an external RTC is most probably the way to go, because the internal one is only useful for short periods of time, plus the complications with the supply routing and the limit on the voltage.

    Have you any device in mind? Are you planning on using the Microchip one that you mention? If so, I'll order the same one.

  • in reply to shabaz

    most likely will use the 79410, they're cheap, have kernel support, can operate from 1.8 to 5.5v without level shifters, and I still have some left over from R-Pi projects.

     

    Cheap doesn't necessarily mean they'll be better or worse that anything else, reasonable accuracy is good enough for most purposes and at a third the cost of a 5v only ds1307 you can always buy a better crystal image

  • in reply to morgaine
    It is totally incorrect to suggest that a goal of RPi was to prevent it being copied. 

     

     

    Here's the article that Peter Moyle was remembering, from Pete Lomas's piece in Wired.

     

    "But it meant we were faced with a dilemma. How could we enable hacking while preventing cloning?"

    http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/09/raspberry-pi-insider-exclusive-sellout-to-sell-out/

  • in reply to Former Member

    and...

     

    "So we decided to publish the schematics, but hold back the detailed Bill of Materials (BOM) and physical PCB design or “Gerbers“ for a limited amount of time. After all, hardware is just one part of our overall plans."

  • in reply to Former Member

    coder27 wrote:

     

    Here's the article that Peter Moyle was remembering, from Pete Lomas's piece in Wired.

     

    "But it meant we were faced with a dilemma. How could we enable hacking while preventing cloning?"

    http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/09/raspberry-pi-insider-exclusive-sellout-to-sell-out/

     

    Oh dear, I'd forgotten about that little gem of Pete's.  Yes, it directly contradicts the "we actively encourage other companies to clone what we're doing" claim on RPF's About page that I quoted in RPF's defense earlier in the thread.

     

    RPF's creative liberties with the truth are just jaw-dropping.  If this story were submitted as fiction, it would be rejected as not believable.

  • in reply to Former Member

    What the raspberry pi foundation lying ?

    Who would have thunk it ?

     

    Actualy its ridiculous, they want everyone to think its an open hardware project despite the fact that you cannot buy the processsor unless you sell your soul to Broadcomm.

    and wow they are going to release the gerbers, big deal, Ive got the schematic I could do my own layout if I wanted, only trouble is......its not open hardware and you cannot buy the processor.

     

    Seriously stay away from the raspberry pi, it started life as an educational toy, got hijacked by some very strange people who think every embedded system has to run linux and several of my clients have tried to use it as the basis of their projects only to regret it.

  • in reply to Former Member

    The article in wired was pretty tyipcal of how they work, don't talk to engineers who have any experience of designing embedded systems, talk to jouralists who have not the slightest idea and they will repeat any bullshit you tell them if you take them to lunch.

  • in reply to Former Member

    Frippy Frippy wrote:

     

    got hijacked by some very strange people who think every embedded system has to run linux

    Lots of embedded devices do run linux (certainly not all), but what they run doesn't tend to resemble Debian, RedHat or any other 'full fat' distros.  It's my opinion that trying to force a full desktop distro onto the Pi was a mistake, it simply doesn't have the resources to handle all the crap in todays bloated distros.

     

    Still, it had to run something. Whatever they put on it couldn't be too alien to their supposed educational audience either. Seeing them try to put VxWorks or Windows onto it might have been entertaining, but I suspect they wouldn't have sold as many as they have.  What OS would you have chosen ?

     

    several of my clients have tried to use it as the basis of their projects only to regret it.

    I've built a few things around the Pi and while I don't know that I'd go so far as to say I regret it, suffice to say that some other, incomplete, projects are being reworked to use the BBB instead.