5 ms·
I bought it for Price The Intel NUC Celeron systems could not be met for price if you also needed Windows. To beat the NUC Celeron on price you had to drop to
by phpisthebest 3y ago
I bought it for Price
The Intel NUC Celeron systems could not be met for price if you also needed Windows. To beat the NUC Celeron on price you had to drop to ARM and use Linux but if the software you needed to run only supported Windows that was not an option.
the Celeron NUC's where GREAT for Line of Business use cases where the computer was running a Screen, or Single windows Application
- mikecoles 3y agoNeeding that much horsepower for a screen or single application is a sign that anything requiring Windows should be automatically disqualified.
- tonyarkles 3y agoI used to feel the same way about kiosks, POS terminals, etc. but… if you have an organization whose bread & butter is C# desktop apps and Windows development and they’re looking for, say, qty 10 units, you’ll have a really hard time justifying the training and NRE costs to do anything but Windows. I 100% agree that it’s not the technically optimal solution. But don’t discount the idea that, given an existing set of people and skills, it can definitely be the local optima organizationally.
- faeriechangling 3y agoYup, exactly this. I tried deploying such system on low powered ARM systems that could technically do it. It was a nightmare from a support and compatibility standpoint. Also the vendor would support the hardware for significantly less time than Intel would support their NUCs. The maybe dozen NUC's I needed were not a very substantial hardware cost. You bought a Celeron NUC and they just worked even if you didn't have the most experienced staff supporting them or the best software running on them. If you're going to be deploying a thousand such systems, sure, of course you shouldn't use NUCs.
- tonyarkles 3y ago> If you're going to be deploying a thousand such systems, sure, of course you shouldn't use NUCs. I'd probably argue that, barring specific requirements that these might not cover, the NXP i.MX6/7/8 would probably be my default for something like this in volume. ~Motorola~/~Freescale~/NXP have been incredibly great stewards of the platform and provide significant lifetime guarantees for their parts (like 10+ years often). Plus you can generally run mainline kernels on them unless you're doing something special that requires something from their vendor branch.
- sofixa 3y agoFor just running a screen not only is Windows a massive waste in terms of resources and costs, but so is a NUC. A Raspberry Pi (equivalent) is more than sufficient.
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y agoDepends on what the screen is doing. We deployed a system with multiple Raspberry Pi's running Chrome in kiosk mode, each driving a TV showing different data. For one of them we had to switch from a Raspberry Pi to a small NUC to display a page with 3-6 videos running. The pi could show 1 or 2 videos but with all 6 going, it was very stuttery playback.
- tracker1 3y agoI'm actually surprised it handles two videos without issue... It's a good option a lot of the time. When the scalping got bad, I started using the cheaper intel boxes, smaller than NUC but more powerful than rpi and included a case and enough storage.
- phpisthebest 3y agothanks for not reading my comment as I clearly said many apps do not have ARM or Linux compatibility
- sofixa 3y agoThere is exactly zero reason for an app whose only purpose is to be shown on a screen to be Windows or x86 specific. It can be due to obsolete development practices or obscure vendor requirements, but still..
- thrashh 3y agoThe main reason is that hiring a bunch of new developers will be 100x more expensive than spending a little extra on a Windows/x86 machine.
- 3y ago