6 ms·

Not really, but that's because I largely dismiss the early Pis altogether. They sit in the awkward space where they're larger and faster than a microcontroller

Not really, but that's because I largely dismiss the early Pis altogether. They sit in the awkward space where they're larger and faster than a microcontroller but practically speaking require an OS that wastes a lot of the available resources; for running Linux applications, they feel way underpowered. Pi 3 seemed powerful enough to be interesting and I did a small project with it, but Pi 4 pushes it to where I'm actually starting to like the platform (though I'm still anxious for a Pi 5). Now with the Zero 2 W, there are three tiers: the Pi 4 for SBCs, Zero 2 W for providing connectivity for things that don't really look like computers as such (but still need Linux for whatever reason?), and then the Pico for microcontroller projects. The difference in capabilities between each tier is large; they cover a wide spectrum of use cases. You can't complain that there are too many tiers. It's good to know that you can fall back to the older Pis if you have very specific/niche needs that they fulfill better than the new ones, but you'll know it when you need them, and having these extra choices doesn't hurt. If you don't have very specific requirements, just pick the most appropriate of the three new ones. Easy. I guess I'm also disregarding the compute module, because I haven't seen particularly compelling reason to look at it. Again I guess if you have very specific needs and can design a carrier board for it, have a go at it. Otherwise, ignore.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
I think the later Pi 3 models are still fine; they're a little slower (CPU and IO), but they're cheaper than the 4 while still running 64-bit ARM and being reasonable capable. I would agree that unless you have existing stuff to replace in place the Pi 1 and 2 are irrelevant today:)
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> They sit in the awkward space where they're larger and faster than a microcontroller but practically speaking require an OS that wastes a lot of the available resources; for running Linux applications, they feel way underpowered. The Raspberry Pi isn't competing with a microcontroller. They're on opposite ends of the computing spectrum. If an application can be quickly developed and run on a microcontroller, using a full embedded Linux system would be overkill. As for Linux work: The Raspberry Pi 4 is plenty fast for most embedded applications. If you're trying to use it as a desktop replacement it's going to feel sluggish relative to an actual desktop, especially if you're only using an SD card instead of a USB3 SSD. However, it's generally not a problem for most non-desktop use cases. Compiling large projects is the only place where a Pi 4 starts to feel limited, but cross-compilation is available with plenty of guides online. If you have a situation that requires more power than a Pi 4, you should probably be using a real desktop or VM anyway. These are embedded systems that start at $35, not something competing with a $500 NUC or a $2000 laptop.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  > The Raspberry Pi isn't competing with a microcontroller. They're on opposite ends of the computing spectrum. The spectrum is wider than that, but if you're comparing Pi and MCUs, today you have 32 bit multi-core ARM microcontrollers that run at hundreds of MHz and make a 486 look wimpy. And for a microprocessor, the first gen Pi is pretty darn wimpy (wikipedia compares it to a 300MHz Pentium II). Yet the performance difference between a first gen Pi and a Pi 4 is absolutely massive. That's what I mean by the awkward space. Yes it's still faster than a high end microcontroller, but if I need an application running on modern Linux, chances are I don't want to deploy it on Pentium II class hardware except in very niche circumstances. So it's neither a microcontroller, nor is it a decent microprocessor for modern OS. It's about right in the middle of the spectrum where it kinda sucks for any application that can be implemented on a microcontroller and sucks for anything that needs a "real computer". I need to point out that I actually work as an embedded software developer in this space where we have high end microcontrollers running a custom RTOS and applications that offer largely the same functionality and interfaces that we also implement using low end Linux-capable ARM solutions; what you can implement on a microcontroller is a heck of a lot, but Linux capable chips have gotten cheap and using them sometimes saves development effort on the driver & application stack. There's plenty of overlap, they're totally not opposite ends of the spectrum.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
    > very niche circumstances Which happens to be exactly where the pi excels. I'm currently writing an application to record my homebrew information and also capture basic sensor data. A PC + arduino/sensor platform would be overkill and an ESP8266/ESP32 would slow me down. Pi 2B running PHP? Perfect.
  - huachimingo 5y ago
    There are some game servers implemented using RPi, specially in open source games.
  - dsr_ 5y ago
    In end-user space, Pi has a bunch of good niches: * There's an application that runs on Linux already and you want a cheap way of running it in a small space -- like a shairport-sync audio client feeding a local music system, or a web-connected clock/calendar/tasklist/notification. * Very low cost, replaceable desktop for a kiosk, a classroom, whatever where it will run either simple office applications or be mostly a web terminal. (If you just want low cost, a used laptop might be a better value -- but if you need to be able to repeat and/or replace it, a Pi is better). * Friendly target for someone who doesn't really understand embedded systems and will be tinkering for a long time.
throw10920 5y ago
> for running Linux applications, they feel way underpowered I think that's because the Raspberry Pi's might be best used as tiny consumer servers, not desktop (or embedded) computers. They seem perfect for running things that require an OS and a moderate amount of processing power - say, DNS, Syncthing, audio streaming, ssh tunnel point, a VPN, a small personal (static) website, or a NAS that doesn't have particularly high performance requirements. So, Linux "applications" but not in the sense of Firefox, or other interactive GUI programs. (this ignores the lower barrier to entry that they have than actual microcontrollers, which is a different kind of use-case)
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  Yep. I use them in headless robotics applications and they always seem fast. And then I have an 8GB unit as a media server at home and it feels sloooowwwww. Loading a video in chrome takes forever but they’re really good at running my Python robotics stack in docker!
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  In the always-on space where it is rather energy inefficient to run normal hardware.
- el_oni 5y ago
  A pi2b lives under my desk and runs a discord bot, pihole and database. Now that I've learnt docker im tempted to go back and containerize everything on it
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
This is the first time I'm hearing of the Pico. Is there any reason to use it, instead of the ESP32 or ESP8266 boards, or one of the many Arduino compatible uC's? The competitors seem to be much more common than the Raspberry Pico (i.e. it is much easier to find expansion boards, examples etc. for them). They seem to cost roughly the same too, and the ESPs even include WiFi and in the case of the ESP32 even Bluetooth, which makes interfacing with them so much easier. I'm kinda surprised they released that. The RPi was awesome because it was the first mass-produced SBC (making it both affordable and well documented/supported). There are many competitors, but none so universal and common. With microcontrollers, I don't see any unique selling point, nothing that could get them to that position.
- my123 5y ago
  Good documentation and the killer feature is the PIO. (Programmable I/O unit)
- foxfluff 5y ago
  I don't see any real killer (technical) feature. But I think that's always been the case for the Raspberry products: you could always get the same (and often better) features in other boards (though this may be less true as of the Pi4 which actually was and still is very competitive in the SBC market). The Raspberry Pi was developed for teaching, as a low cost board that's easy to work with and that has good community support. It wasn't intended to be the most advanced board for your projects, and you could always find something cheaper if you really wanted and didn't mind the hassle.. The Pico is very similar. You get it for less than 5 eur from official distributors in Europe, you plug it in and it shows up as a USB mass storage device onto which you drop your program and off you go. I can see it being a very popular way to get started with microcontrollers, and just like Arduino, that popularity is not a function of features. I'm curious to see where they take it though. It's their first in-house chip afaik, and the board is rather bare. I wouldn't be surprised if they release variants with more features.
jacquesm 5y ago
> but practically speaking require an OS that wastes a lot of the available resources They don't actually require that, but that's what we usually end up doing. That's a choice though, and there are alternatives, they're just a lot of work.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago

I think the later Pi 3 models are still fine; they're a little slower (CPU and IO), but they're cheaper than the 4 while still running 64-bit ARM and being reasonable capable. I would agree that unless you have existing stuff to replace in place the Pi 1 and 2 are irrelevant today:)

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> They sit in the awkward space where they're larger and faster than a microcontroller but practically speaking require an OS that wastes a lot of the available resources; for running Linux applications, they feel way underpowered. The Raspberry Pi isn't competing with a microcontroller. They're on opposite ends of the computing spectrum. If an application can be quickly developed and run on a microcontroller, using a full embedded Linux system would be overkill. As for Linux work: The Raspberry Pi 4 is plenty fast for most embedded applications. If you're trying to use it as a desktop replacement it's going to feel sluggish relative to an actual desktop, especially if you're only using an SD card instead of a USB3 SSD. However, it's generally not a problem for most non-desktop use cases. Compiling large projects is the only place where a Pi 4 starts to feel limited, but cross-compilation is available with plenty of guides online. If you have a situation that requires more power than a Pi 4, you should probably be using a real desktop or VM anyway. These are embedded systems that start at $35, not something competing with a $500 NUC or a $2000 laptop.

foxfluff 5y ago
> The Raspberry Pi isn't competing with a microcontroller. They're on opposite ends of the computing spectrum. The spectrum is wider than that, but if you're comparing Pi and MCUs, today you have 32 bit multi-core ARM microcontrollers that run at hundreds of MHz and make a 486 look wimpy. And for a microprocessor, the first gen Pi is pretty darn wimpy (wikipedia compares it to a 300MHz Pentium II). Yet the performance difference between a first gen Pi and a Pi 4 is absolutely massive. That's what I mean by the awkward space. Yes it's still faster than a high end microcontroller, but if I need an application running on modern Linux, chances are I don't want to deploy it on Pentium II class hardware except in very niche circumstances. So it's neither a microcontroller, nor is it a decent microprocessor for modern OS. It's about right in the middle of the spectrum where it kinda sucks for any application that can be implemented on a microcontroller and sucks for anything that needs a "real computer". I need to point out that I actually work as an embedded software developer in this space where we have high end microcontrollers running a custom RTOS and applications that offer largely the same functionality and interfaces that we also implement using low end Linux-capable ARM solutions; what you can implement on a microcontroller is a heck of a lot, but Linux capable chips have gotten cheap and using them sometimes saves development effort on the driver & application stack. There's plenty of overlap, they're totally not opposite ends of the spectrum.
- HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
  > very niche circumstances Which happens to be exactly where the pi excels. I'm currently writing an application to record my homebrew information and also capture basic sensor data. A PC + arduino/sensor platform would be overkill and an ESP8266/ESP32 would slow me down. Pi 2B running PHP? Perfect.
- huachimingo 5y ago
  There are some game servers implemented using RPi, specially in open source games.
- dsr_ 5y ago
  In end-user space, Pi has a bunch of good niches: * There's an application that runs on Linux already and you want a cheap way of running it in a small space -- like a shairport-sync audio client feeding a local music system, or a web-connected clock/calendar/tasklist/notification. * Very low cost, replaceable desktop for a kiosk, a classroom, whatever where it will run either simple office applications or be mostly a web terminal. (If you just want low cost, a used laptop might be a better value -- but if you need to be able to repeat and/or replace it, a Pi is better). * Friendly target for someone who doesn't really understand embedded systems and will be tinkering for a long time.

throw10920 5y ago

> for running Linux applications, they feel way underpowered I think that's because the Raspberry Pi's might be best used as tiny consumer servers, not desktop (or embedded) computers. They seem perfect for running things that require an OS and a moderate amount of processing power - say, DNS, Syncthing, audio streaming, ssh tunnel point, a VPN, a small personal (static) website, or a NAS that doesn't have particularly high performance requirements. So, Linux "applications" but not in the sense of Firefox, or other interactive GUI programs. (this ignores the lower barrier to entry that they have than actual microcontrollers, which is a different kind of use-case)

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
Yep. I use them in headless robotics applications and they always seem fast. And then I have an 8GB unit as a media server at home and it feels sloooowwwww. Loading a video in chrome takes forever but they’re really good at running my Python robotics stack in docker!
tinus_hn 5y ago
In the always-on space where it is rather energy inefficient to run normal hardware.
el_oni 5y ago
A pi2b lives under my desk and runs a discord bot, pihole and database. Now that I've learnt docker im tempted to go back and containerize everything on it

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago

This is the first time I'm hearing of the Pico. Is there any reason to use it, instead of the ESP32 or ESP8266 boards, or one of the many Arduino compatible uC's? The competitors seem to be much more common than the Raspberry Pico (i.e. it is much easier to find expansion boards, examples etc. for them). They seem to cost roughly the same too, and the ESPs even include WiFi and in the case of the ESP32 even Bluetooth, which makes interfacing with them so much easier. I'm kinda surprised they released that. The RPi was awesome because it was the first mass-produced SBC (making it both affordable and well documented/supported). There are many competitors, but none so universal and common. With microcontrollers, I don't see any unique selling point, nothing that could get them to that position.

my123 5y ago
Good documentation and the killer feature is the PIO. (Programmable I/O unit)
foxfluff 5y ago
I don't see any real killer (technical) feature. But I think that's always been the case for the Raspberry products: you could always get the same (and often better) features in other boards (though this may be less true as of the Pi4 which actually was and still is very competitive in the SBC market). The Raspberry Pi was developed for teaching, as a low cost board that's easy to work with and that has good community support. It wasn't intended to be the most advanced board for your projects, and you could always find something cheaper if you really wanted and didn't mind the hassle.. The Pico is very similar. You get it for less than 5 eur from official distributors in Europe, you plug it in and it shows up as a USB mass storage device onto which you drop your program and off you go. I can see it being a very popular way to get started with microcontrollers, and just like Arduino, that popularity is not a function of features. I'm curious to see where they take it though. It's their first in-house chip afaik, and the board is rather bare. I wouldn't be surprised if they release variants with more features.

jacquesm 5y ago

> but practically speaking require an OS that wastes a lot of the available resources They don't actually require that, but that's what we usually end up doing. That's a choice though, and there are alternatives, they're just a lot of work.