Re: Parallella project on Kickstarter
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 04:44:41PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> ... this is a good example. you see how if a processor doesn't have
> the expected industry-standard interfaces and functionality, it's not
> commercially viable?
>
> i'd looked at the parallela earlier when it came out on slashdot last
> week. if it had the standard set of on-board interfaces - SATA, HDMI,
> RG-MII and so on - i'd go "GREAT!" and i'd even put up with the
> anticipated software hell.
>
> ... but they're not doing that.
>
> what they're asking you to fund them for is the mask charges and
> production costs of a chip which will *only* have multi-lane LVDS and
> a DDR RAM interface. this multi-lane LVDS will be wired up to an
> FPGA; the FPGA will be wired up to an ARM processor which *doesn't*
> even, as lennart has noticed, have SATA.
The FPGA and nifty parallel engine are nice and all, but no SATA? Really?
I would take 100Mbit ethernet and SATA over gigabit and no SATA.
> they've had a great idea - get onto kickstarter, raise some awareness
> of the product - they may even have a great product *but* it's a
> *component* which needs to be part of a well-thought-out and
> well-executed *business* strategy with a targetted market (even if
> that target market is "general-purpose computing").
>
> i wish they'd offered more, i really do.
Me too. For now I will stick with my imx53 and cubox. Single core and
Coretex-A8 I believe for both, but they both have SATA which makes
them useful to me.
--
Len Sorensen
Reply to: