> > From: "Byron A Jeff" > I saw in a future post of your that you felt that you put everything you needed > to on the table. I just haven't had an oppotunity to respond to this post. > If you have time, I'd like to continue the discussion. I kinda felt like that, but after reading this I still have to clear up a few things I think :) Maybe it is because I'm not too good in explaining with words & should I make a drawing. (Call it a professional mutation, I make drawings for a living :) I don't know if it is appropriate to send binaries to the PIClist, I don't have any site where to put them otherwise. > What I'd like to further discuss are the differences in the goals and > philosophies of each approach. My thesis is that you primary list of goals: > simple interconnected modules that facilitates a lower barrier to entry on > a per project basis, works well for seasoned designers. a system that is easy for learning at first & which can easyly be ported to own new projects & experiments. >However that from > both a novice and support standpoint that the system is more complicated. > I will do my best to both sitck to the point and keep it short. I don't agree, it's a matter of how you bring it to them. If the beginner is interested in LEARNING, you advise him to get the EDU (PICbase plugged in) this is ONE physical object. > > I don't see why my concept would obstruct the persuit of standardisation :) > It does obstruct because in your system all that's required is the PICbase. For the beginner it is not (edu only available with PICbase onboard) > The very fact that the system is modular means that other than the PICbase. > clever or useful they are, there would be a barrier to standardization > precisely because choices are available. ? I think you are mixing up a few definitions of terms, Modular = modular coz it is built with standard parts (they cannot run standalone, but are to offer x amount of functions) otherwise I'd call it 'design from scratch' > Here's the problem. Novice is presented with two choices: PICbase for $20 or > PICbase + Designer for say $100. Which do they choose? The novice should be presented with DOCUMENTED choices :) At first he chooses the edu1 board which is not sold without a PICbase plugged in. By the time he wants to move on, his knowledge will be sufficient (after the courses on the edu) to realise that the parts are complementary. (If not, either he's a very lousy student or his teachers are ;)) ; or he has obtained it from an undocumented source (black market ? ;) / second hand market, but that risk exsist for anything bought 2ndH without investigating first) > [..as another slip emerges from the Analogy Machine] It's the difference > between and entire computer and just a CPU. The CPU is an essential component > to an entire computer, and is cheaper than an entire computer. However it > isn't sufficient. > This isn't an issue except for the fact that a novice will probably be unclear > of the distinction. Unless you put this excellent comparison in the descriptions of the PBK/PICbase, where it is sold. :) > > program it with the aid of only a pencil & a piece of paper. > > (i.o.w. I don't think you'll program many PICs without any kind of computer > Ask Tony Nixon about his Fobbit. It certainly isn't a computer in the > traditional sense. My point was, (we were comparing soundmodules) that you could start with the assumption, that anyone interested most probably would have the tool to connect to it. So, if you were to take up PIC stuff, chances are big you have a computer. I'm very impressed with Mr. Nixon's device, but a nontraditional puter still sounds as a kind of computer to me, but anyway, this would return us to the original problem, coz you would have to buy the 'Fobbit' > That's not it. It's imminently buildable. It's extremely useful. I'm only > speaking to supportability. As the project's supports we'll run into the > common situation with modularized components... You are thinking over-modularised again :) the possibilities are limited. (you cannot plug just anything wherever you see it fit) > [ BAJ is an analogy fiend! ;-) ] Your scanner on your PC won't scan. Who do > you blame? The scanner manufacturer? The Operating System? The Driver? The > application? or is it an incompatibility with your port? Hmmmm. It probably would have been my cats messing around in the cables :) (j/k) But we do consider here that the PC works ? > Same idea here. A project with a PICbase doesn't work for a novice designer. > Where's the finger going to be pointed? I mean the PICbase was supposed to > facilitate getting my project going. But because of one misplaced or missing > wire on the designers own wired board it doesn't happen to work. But you'd > best believe we'd get a question or a report faster than your head could > spin. AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAHAAAAAAAAHAHAHA !!!!! :)))) But I can be pretty damn sure that the problem is NOT in the PICbase circuitry !! (normally) (savesmehowmanyhours ? :) > No because you make it optional. And while that's fine, absolutely fine, > for someone who knows how the system works, it can be a novice's worst > nightmare because while it gives the impression of being a complete unit, > it in fact is imcomplete. No, no, it *is* complete :) see below. >Then compared to something more complete, like > the Designer, it seems like a bargain... at first. 'Designer' sounds to me something you can put components on to create your own project, Would you thing a novice would go for that, or would he try to LEARN the stuff first? (over-ambition of novices not taken into account then heh) > > I only gave examples of what could be on a board, the details are up to > > you,(I don't know which stuff is of equal level) its not that I have in mind > > stuff like 1 board with 6potmeters; 1 board with 3serial connectors; another > > board with with 13LEDs & a button etc etc.. > I know. The only problem is that everything, absolutely everything, is > optional. Therefore there's no consensus as to what's shared. Nope, see bottom. > At the risk of sounding repetitive, this is a beautiful environment for the > intermediate or experienced designer who understands that it's simply a > plug in component, a cog in the machine. But I have misgivings about how to > present such a system to folks walking in off the street as it were. Marketing & advertising are professions on their own :) > > > then I could be assured that anyone that had > > > a Designer could run my project out of the box. > > You still could :) > No. Everything in your system is optional. nope :) > > Well then, don't think about profit for the manufacturer, think about cost > > reduction for the enduser :) > And a loss of collective value for the community. ? > But that's why our proposed projects are orthogonal and complementary. > The Designer can easily be done with a PICbase at its core. I don't have > any techological problem with that. The Designer only tangentially touches > upon the issue of project migration while the PICbase addresses it solidly. > The Designer provides a foundation for design and support that the PICbase > omits. They'll do very well together. The problem is how to get across the > point to novices that the Designer offers them significant value. Here's a > sample conversation to illustrate: > NU (New User): I just heard about the new PICLIST design system. I purchased > a PICbase for $20. How do I hook up an LCD to it? PL: We are sorry about our failure to make you clear that as a NU, you should have gotten the EDU1 On the EDU1 header 3 is to connect the LCD, take your EDU1manual to your local supplier, inthere are the correct specs for which LCD can be fit on EDU1. > And so forth and so on. While the PICbase is standard, everything else is > so variable that there are any number of failure points along the way. No, no, no :))) In a true modular design (look at doepfer modular synths, or even software modular systems (VAZ, Nord modular) You can only select from standard parts (modules) In its ultimate simple design, there are but 3 possible things to buy: EDU1 (*with* PICbase plugged in) DEV1 (PICbase optional) (=your designer, I'd say) PICbase. I think in your idea, EDU1&DEV1 are 1&the same thing, but would you want that bunch of educational stuff (of which some stuff you don't need & perhaps even obstructs your new design, on your designer ? Depending on how much stuff you want to put on EDU1, there perhaps could be EDU2 in the future, for extended courses perhaps, (this is up to the PBK ppl, its details :) > So in the end the question is not which system to use as both have their > applications. The issue is how to get the primary target audience, newcomers, > to come on board with the full program, the Designer, as opposed to its > core modular component, the PICbase. again, it's up to the ppl offering it, like this: NOTE TO BEGINNERS: BUY THE ***EDU1*** ! :) (dammit!, LOL) > BAJ Best regards :) Geert. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads