4 ms·
> Nobody wants an x86 IoT device. No, you can't define other peoples use cases. For myself, as long as the device meets my requirements (peripherals, power, t
by pawadu 9y ago
> Nobody wants an x86 IoT device.
No, you can't define other peoples use cases.
For myself, as long as the device meets my requirements (peripherals, power, tools, size, price) it can use power8 or PDP/11 for all I care.
- vertex-four 9y ago> For myself, as long as the device meets my requirements (peripherals, power, tools, size, price) it can use power8 or PDP/11 for all I care. In which case, you'll likely be using a significantly cheaper ARM board which does all the same stuff, uses less power, probably uses a more standard distro, etc etc. Which brings us back to - nobody wants an x86 IoT device. They don't fit in anywhere ARM doesn't fit better.
- pawadu 9y agoPlease read my comment again.
- jokr004 9y agoHe did a perfectly fine job of reading your comment... you implied that you only cared about certain variables, "peripherals, power, tools, size, price". vertex-four points out that "x86 IoT devices" (ie these Intel chips we are talking about) are a bad choice in regard to those things that you care about...
- pawadu 9y agoI am not sure about that... First of all, you don't know my requirements yet you declare ARM winner. What if for my particular use case Tensilica is the best choice? Furthermore, you generally cannot define what IoT means for other people. For one person it could mean a 8-bit garage door opener, for someone else it could be an octa-core 64-bit monster. Finally, Intel has a simplified x86 design with very good power usage for use in IoT. This CPU is not used in Galileo and alike today, but it exists.
- jokr004 9y agoI didn't declare anything... I have no opinion here, I was just explaining what the other guy was saying.