Omnimaga

Calculator Community => OTcalc => Discontinued => Major Community Projects => [OTcalc] ARM-Hardware => Topic started by: alberthrocks on August 07, 2010, 01:22:57 pm

Title: Hardware Discussion
Post by: alberthrocks on August 07, 2010, 01:22:57 pm
A super speedy calc that even makes you look slow!

Let's start the discussion for the OTARM! :)

Processor: OMAP TI Processor SoC, 1 GHz (??)
RAM: 512 MB (??)
ROM: 256 MB (??)
LCD: Colorful display, full color here! I suggest res of 320x240, or higher with same aspect ratio. Also, backlight adjustment is also a good idea.
LCD Driver: Not sure, OMAP core might power it
Touchscreen: ??
Keypad: Nspire like, but not copying them
Ports: Mini USB, regular USB, Eithernet, Video (???), 2.5/3.5mm port (??)
Wifi/Bluetooth: Yes, if possible/allowed. AM/FM radio integration perhaps?

[Changes/Additions]
SD Slot: Yes

Dev hardware: BeagleBoard xM (or older), found at http://beagleboard.org/hardware-xM (http://beagleboard.org/hardware-xM).
Note that this is DEVELOPER hardware, NOT production hardware. Usually it's modified, recreated for prototype, and then sent for mass production.

Some images of the dev hardware:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4068/4644432552_2fb4280336.jpg)
(http://beagle.s3.amazonaws.com/graphics/Beagle_Board_Flyer_5-21-10_ver2_img_1.jpg)

Old, non xM one:
(http://beagleboard.org/static/images/2708776217_9f660db58d_o_d.png)

Non xM dev hardware is $149, the xM dev hardware is $179.
Check the specs out here:
Non xM: http://beagleboard.org/hardware (http://beagleboard.org/hardware)
xM: http://beagleboard.org/hardware-xM (http://beagleboard.org/hardware-xM)

And here's a link to an example implementation of BeagleBoard:
http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/2010/08/using-open-source-graphing-calculator.html (http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/2010/08/using-open-source-graphing-calculator.html)

So after all that.... it boils down to:

1) Which processor do you want: fast or slower one? (Note: xM is 1 GHz, old one is 600 MHz)
2) What other features do you want?
3) What screen (and where)? (And other hardware decisions)
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: jnesselr on August 07, 2010, 01:47:30 pm
I don't think we should do a touchscreen
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: SirCmpwn on August 07, 2010, 01:50:56 pm
I agree.  Touch screens are nice, but lots of users like to have a stylus with their touchscreens (more cumbersome), and it would not provide much help towards math (who wants to use an on-screen numpad?).
I also think we should have 1GB of user storage.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: fb39ca4 on August 07, 2010, 01:53:32 pm
I think specs like this is overkill. Also, battery drain is an issue. The non xm beagleboard uses 350ma @ 4.8v, so we would need some large batteries to keep it going for a while. I would aim for >20 hrs of battery life on 4 AA alkaline batteries.
As for the processor, I would say 200mhz at most, and a low power consumption one too.
Feature-wise, we should definitely have a micro-usb port. Also, a 3.5 mm port for connecting to TI calcs and headphones. I'm a little iffy on a SD card slot. It seems a bit too much for a calculator. We might want a second gpu chip, that can do image scaling and rotating, and filling polygons. (For the 3d geometry, we'll say ;))
The screen should be 320x240, similar to the Nspire's, but have color. I think 4-bit rgb will be enough. (light and dark RGBCMY, black, white, and two shades of gray)
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: SirCmpwn on August 07, 2010, 01:57:38 pm
I don't agree with the GPU, or the micro-usb.  Micro-usb is much more supported.
And if an SD card slot is too much, a GPU is *way* too much :P
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: freezway on August 07, 2010, 02:00:04 pm
I've thought of doing something like this once... Power drain is a major issue. I agree with fb, no more than 200MHz... Also, you could try to duplicate a 83/84 family calc, but do it as cheaply as possible...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/1996.png

also, for low power this (http://www.parallax.com/propeller/) would be interesting
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: fb39ca4 on August 07, 2010, 02:29:12 pm
That looks interesting, [propeller chip] but it is a competely different architecture, that almost essentially no one here is familiar with. We could have multiple low-performance chips, but it may get complicated. As for the gpu, I was thinking of something very basic, with the capabilities of say, the Super FX chip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_FX) used in SNES games. It would be used for some sort of 3D-geometry program.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: alberthrocks on August 07, 2010, 02:32:12 pm
@graphmastur, sircmpwn: I agree. Touchscreens won't work. Editing it off.

@fb39ca4: Well, idk. Battery life is a problem. You really can't get 200 mhz - there's only 600 mhz and 1 GHz.
It's definitely going to be full, 32 bit color (we're more free in this part of the project, and the other ARM based devices have it).

I'm not sure - is there any other dev kits out there that is power efficient?
I think the xM should have improved it's power intake, and the calc also will shut off by its own.

@SirCmpwn: That was for a Z80 calc. This is an ARM calc, aka the calc in which you can stuff plenty of things in.
Including the SD card. ;)
And were you saying you want micro USB or not?
AND the GPU, as I just found out, is integrated. No stealing the GPU now, eh? :P
The GPU is just there for easy 2D/3D stuff with the interface. Nothing else.
Of course, if you wanted to, you could try playing TuxRacer on it... :P

@freezway: Wow, so many new members! ;) Anyway, this is the wrong project to look at for competition against TI-8x calcs. Go here: http://ourl.ca/6594
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: DJ Omnimaga on August 07, 2010, 02:36:26 pm
SD card slot would be awesome. The Casio FX-9860 SD has one.

http://edu.casio.com/products/graphic/fx9860g/
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: fb39ca4 on August 07, 2010, 02:38:24 pm
So does the HP 49g+ and 50g.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: DJ Omnimaga on August 07, 2010, 02:40:53 pm
It does, too?

I think it would be a nice idea actually. Otherwise, maybe a USB jumpdrive slot. The thing is that it would make it much easier to transfer data from the calc to a computer or another calc. Much less hassle with linking softwares not working like with TI calcs.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: alberthrocks on August 07, 2010, 02:42:41 pm
I was thinking about adding a regular USB slot. Any objections anyone? :)
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: DJ Omnimaga on August 07, 2010, 02:51:15 pm
regular USB slot would be nice. We would not need an adapter like with USB8x on the 84+.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: fb39ca4 on August 07, 2010, 03:09:46 pm
We could have the calc act like a usb mass storage device, eliminating the need for linking software.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: SirCmpwn on August 07, 2010, 04:31:15 pm
I object - it would be too thick.  The calculator should stay fairly thin, and the addition of a standard USB slot adds a ton.  A mini-usb works fine.  Plus, we can bundle it with a mini-usb male<->standard usb male and a mini-usb male<->standard usb female cable, supporting everything.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: fb39ca4 on August 07, 2010, 04:33:22 pm
With the beagleboard, can it be uunderclocked?
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: alberthrocks on August 07, 2010, 04:35:56 pm
Using Linux, yes. (And using Linux is the plan)
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: Madskillz on August 07, 2010, 04:48:13 pm
I think a backlit lcd would be a nice feature that can be controlled by the OS. With different settings like always on, timer, off

You have to remember that battery life is gonna make or break this thing. If you want it to be successful you gotta make sure it can last a long time. I don't know how you plan on powering this thing, but 2 double A's or some sort of a rechargeable type of battery would be the way to go.

I agree on using the mini usb, that is gonna save some space and which is going to be a must.
Another cool addition maybe as an accessory would be one of those motion detectors that was used like in kerm's etch-a-sketch. It has other uses other than just games, I could see it being used in a science class or something. If you could build it into the device that would be cool, but if it was sold as an accessory I could see it working that way as well.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: bwang on August 07, 2010, 06:14:59 pm
A touchscreen would be nice, although it would mean instant banning on all College Board tests.
From what I see in the first post, this sounds more like a laptop pretending to be a calculator than a calculator that's nearly as powerful as a laptop.
Linux would be wonderful, since then we'd have the massive pool of Linux software to draw on.
Is there any reason why this is ARM instead of x86? There are several ultra-low-power, low cost x86 CPUs in existence.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: Mighty Moose on August 07, 2010, 06:17:29 pm
I think they decided on ARM because they wanted to compete with the Nspire (I may be wrong).
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: jnesselr on August 07, 2010, 09:12:30 pm
Yes, that is correct.
I think a backlit lcd would be a nice feature that can be controlled by the OS. With different settings like always on, timer, off

You have to remember that battery life is gonna make or break this thing. If you want it to be successful you gotta make sure it can last a long time. I don't know how you plan on powering this thing, but 2 double A's or some sort of a rechargeable type of battery would be the way to go.

I agree on using the mini usb, that is gonna save some space and which is going to be a must.
Another cool addition maybe as an accessory would be one of those motion detectors that was used like in kerm's etch-a-sketch. It has other uses other than just games, I could see it being used in a science class or something. If you could build it into the device that would be cool, but if it was sold as an accessory I could see it working that way as well.
Maybe an accelerometer?
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: willrandship on August 07, 2010, 10:15:41 pm
I think the idea was to build two, one arm, one z80, for both product lines.

ARM Cpus will almost always be better than x86 CPUs power-wise. An energy-effecient x86 CPU compared to a rather poor ARM will measure about equally. x86 focuses on backwards compatibility, so it's software is compatible across models. This also makes it very complicated and inefficient. ARM is one of the best (if not the best) CPUs for portable devices. Ultra-low power x86s are just really really weak, particularly efficient (for x86) CPUs. We can get a much more powerful ARM for less cost.

If we do use an accelerometer, can we at least use a Tuning Fork gyroscope with it? (They're in the Wii motion Plus) An accelerometer by itself is much more innacurate, and it shouldn't cost too much more.

Why not use a USB OTG port? They're very common, and fit both mini-A and mini-B cables, mini-A being for acting as a storage device, and B for acting as a host. They;re on the 84+, btw, as well as the 89T and nspire.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: TIfanx1999 on August 07, 2010, 10:19:55 pm
Thoughts:
Mini USB instead of standard size.
Micro SD card slot.
No touchscreen, we want this to be useable on standardized tests.
Backlight.
maybe use a Z80 for the GPU?
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: jnesselr on August 07, 2010, 10:28:06 pm
I like the miniUSB, but still don't see a point for a micro-sd.  I could transfer pdf documents from my phone to my calc, I guess, but this is supposed to have wifi anyway, so I don't know.

I don't think a touch screen goes over well with the ACT/SAT. I'm not sure, though.

A backlight would be awesome.  I don't know if we even need a gpu.  I mean, the only good it would do is for games.  In which case, a z80 would be fine.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: alberthrocks on August 07, 2010, 10:31:52 pm
Micro SD is fine for this one. This is the "TONS OF FEATURES" calc ;)
HAHAHAHA - GPU is embedded in the chip (or so I think, it's supposedly SoC), SO YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT AWAY FROM MOI!!! :P

(In reality, the GPU is really useful for handling 2D stuff. 3D stuff, if ever, will just include GUI animations. Think Compiz and the Clutter library.)
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: TIfanx1999 on August 07, 2010, 10:34:29 pm
Wait, are you saying the ARM has a GPU packaged with it?
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: alberthrocks on August 07, 2010, 10:35:58 pm
Likely, but I'm not 100% sure. The lovely picture on the 1st page has a left box indicating some features, and surprisingly enough points to one chip.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: TIfanx1999 on August 07, 2010, 10:38:15 pm
Ah, that would be awesome then! :D
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: bwang on August 07, 2010, 11:18:01 pm
I think the idea was to build two, one arm, one z80, for both product lines.

ARM Cpus will almost always be better than x86 CPUs power-wise. An energy-effecient x86 CPU compared to a rather poor ARM will measure about equally. x86 focuses on backwards compatibility, so it's software is compatible across models. This also makes it very complicated and inefficient. ARM is one of the best (if not the best) CPUs for portable devices. Ultra-low power x86s are just really really weak, particularly efficient (for x86) CPUs. We can get a much more powerful ARM for less cost.

If we do use an accelerometer, can we at least use a Tuning Fork gyroscope with it? (They're in the Wii motion Plus) An accelerometer by itself is much more innacurate, and it shouldn't cost too much more.

Why not use a USB OTG port? They're very common, and fit both mini-A and mini-B cables, mini-A being for acting as a storage device, and B for acting as a host. They;re on the 84+, btw, as well as the 89T and nspire.
But x86 also brings with it compatibility with existing hardware drivers, and more software.
And it would be able to run Windows. Who doesn't want Windows on a calc? :P
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: jnesselr on August 07, 2010, 11:20:38 pm
Me.  We can write our own os, btw.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: bwang on August 07, 2010, 11:43:19 pm
I'm mainly worried about hardware support. It would be nice if external USB peripherals were supported, and proprietary drivers don't run on ARM.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: Ancient Power on August 07, 2010, 11:44:07 pm
go with the xM, then not only would we be outdoing TI, we'd also we outdoing the OpenPandora at the same time

plus, the board uses the same core as the Pandora, so porting stuff would be easy
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: fb39ca4 on August 08, 2010, 11:45:48 am
This is getting away from being a calculator, and more towards a portable media device. Also, realize that the beagleboard is for prototyping, and testing software. A calculator does not need a 1ghz cpu. We will need to keep the cost down, to at least under $150, otherwise no one will buy it.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: matthias1992 on August 11, 2010, 09:12:57 pm
This is getting away from being a calculator, and more towards a portable media device. Also, realize that the beagleboard is for prototyping, and testing software. A calculator does not need a 1ghz cpu. We will need to keep the cost down, to at least under $150, otherwise no one will buy it.
I agree. How about a fifth of that speed? 200Mhz?
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: Builderboy on August 12, 2010, 12:35:32 am
At least under 150? I would think we would want them to at least be cheaper than Ti's devices.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: Happybobjr on August 12, 2010, 12:23:56 pm
cheap and reliable is all we need i think.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: bwang on August 14, 2010, 04:05:24 am
Well, versatility and a certain level of computing power are also goals.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: matthias1992 on August 14, 2010, 12:10:03 pm
Well, versatility and a certain level of computing power are also goals.
True but you can do alot with 100-200 MHZ. Just look at the pandora! (< oops, that runs at 600 mhz :P)
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: Happybobjr on August 14, 2010, 12:33:47 pm
tru, but how much would you want to do with a 4-bit screen?
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: DJ Omnimaga on August 14, 2010, 12:37:15 pm
It would be nice if, despite this calc being much more high-end than the ez80 one, it was kept to a lower price than the TI-Nspire, even if not that much lower.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: Happybobjr on August 14, 2010, 12:45:53 pm
I definitely want it under $100  if at all possible.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: program4 on August 14, 2010, 02:21:53 pm
I agree with a low price, because if we sell the calculator for a lower price than the nspire, TI might counter us by lowering the price of the nspire, and they have the ability to sell it under $100 and still make money.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: matthias1992 on August 14, 2010, 06:30:13 pm
Low price is a must really. I agree with Dj and bobjr and program4 on that. We need a good marketing strategy as well but that is of later worry. Forunately I nearly have a degree in economics :P (I still have to finish school) so I'd gladly help with that.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: willrandship on August 14, 2010, 06:41:52 pm
IMO, the Nspire's OS sucks so bad that a well made OT z80 could compete with it, and still be cheaper than an 84+. The ARM being cheaper as well, and almost infinitely better (since the hardware will be more fully and efficiently used) will be in its own league

Just my thoughts.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: wchill on August 16, 2010, 05:18:42 pm
If OTARM is going to be faster than Nspire, we can go with one of the lower-end 375MHz A8s. More than sufficient to run a slimmer build of Linux.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: jnesselr on August 16, 2010, 06:56:26 pm
^ agreed wchill.

[edit] actually, we could go with the arm9.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: DJ Omnimaga on August 17, 2010, 10:16:43 am
We need to remain realistic about prices, though. There are many things besides the calc hardware that costs stuff. It needs a good packaging to not break during shipping (well... something easier to open than TI stuff, though), link cable (and/or USB) and the instruction CD with a paper manual summing up what's on the CD manual.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: TIfanx1999 on August 17, 2010, 08:53:30 pm
Very good points DJ. We do need to think about what other things go into cost aside from the hardware itself. :)
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: Happybobjr on August 17, 2010, 10:00:32 pm
this is a math calc.  why are we trying for such high speeds.  higher than 84's yes. but let's not make this a computer.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: DJ Omnimaga on August 18, 2010, 01:10:18 pm
Well, while this is a math calc, we also want to offer something more powerful than TI while keeping the price down. If we offer something slow just to keep it a math calc, then it's pointless to do this, since we might as well buy TI or Casios instead. The focus for the software is math, but the calc will be made so it's open to third-party dev, something that may need higher speed than the 15 MHz z80 in our 84+ calcs

Also this topic is about the ARM calculator, which will try to have better specs than the Nspire. The ez80 one will be cheaper
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: wchill on August 22, 2010, 09:42:31 pm
Regarding other parts.
I found these USB mini A to mini B cables for link cables (assuming we use miniUSB OTG) http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=WM17494-ND (http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=WM17494-ND)
Assuming we buy 100 at a time, that's around ~$2.18 per cable.
Regular miniUSB cables are slightly cheaper at $1.90/unit for 100 (http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=Q362-ND). However, eBay auctions have these cables in auctions for considerably less than a dollar each.
discmakers.com manufactures 100 CDs for $162 and 100 DVDs for $202 shipped + with paper sleeves. So we're looking at ~$2 per disc.
For packaging, we can use printed boxes. Makes it look professional but doesn't cause the user to go #$%^@&$! when trying to open it. Think smartphone boxes, with their component trays and everything.
Manuals are quite expensive, unfortunately. A black tape bound 50 double-sided page manual is ~$7 each at mimeo.com. An option here is to make a Quick Start kind of sheet and put the manual on the printed disc.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: bwang on August 23, 2010, 01:43:27 am
For packaging, we can use printed boxes. Makes it look professional but doesn't cause the user to go #$%^@&$! when trying to open it. Think smartphone boxes, with their component trays and everything.
This.
I just had a lovely fight with an Nspire box today.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: alberthrocks on August 23, 2010, 02:43:39 am
lol :) I think a box would be nice, as long as it's informational and pretty ;)
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: DJ Omnimaga on August 23, 2010, 02:45:45 am
Oh yeah that could work, as long as they're kinda solid, when unopened. My Casio AFX 1.0 came into one.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: alberthrocks on August 23, 2010, 02:55:55 am
I'm thinking something on the lines of what Apple does, except with more information than just a pic :P
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: wchill on August 23, 2010, 05:16:41 am
I'm thinking something on the lines of what Apple does, except with more information than just a pic :P

For what, exactly?
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: jnesselr on August 23, 2010, 06:48:57 am
I'm thinking something on the lines of what Apple does, except with more information than just a pic :P
For what, exactly?
The box.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: alberthrocks on August 23, 2010, 03:15:46 pm
Do you think the box should be clear (like a toy box), or modeled exactly like Apple, just without the ambiguity?
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: matthias1992 on August 23, 2010, 03:24:28 pm
Eh folks this is harware eh...not cardboard :)

I suggest we get on-topic again...ok?
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: alberthrocks on August 23, 2010, 03:38:26 pm
OK, so back on topic. ARM9 is our core then?
I remember calc84 was mentioning another CPU, but I don't remember exactly...
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: DJ Omnimaga on August 23, 2010, 03:38:44 pm
No backseat moderating, please. PLus, we have to think about protecting our hardware, right?
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: wchill on August 23, 2010, 03:40:26 pm
I don't recall calc84 posting here about CPUs, but I mentioned the lower-end 375MHz ARM Cortex-A8 processors.
Title: Re: Hardware Discussion
Post by: fb39ca4 on August 23, 2010, 04:19:05 pm
Calc84 mentioned the LPC3230-it is a low-end 200mhz ARM9 if I'm not mistaken.