I wonder what is the point of having top of the chart processing power?

[xiongxioi]

It has occurred to me that we are in an never-ending arm-race of hardwares. First is that Parellella super computer, then there are all these


https://www.youtube.com/embed/MOvfn1p92_8?feature=oembed shoved to our face. It made think that should we follow their steps and try to get ahead of every other competitors, and run all the crazy futuristic super-realistic-brownish-grey games trying to score the best benchmark possible; or should we stay aside from that hysterical battle of that portable super-computer madness and just mind our own business.





Cragix has mentioned that the P2 will always be the best piece of portable hardware you can ever get that fits in a pocket for a few years.


To me, that is kinda bizarre. The Pandora is pretty powerful already, it runs most emulators up until N64 nicely. It is at a sweet spot for retro gaming.


Even if the P2 has 3 times the single-core performance of an 1Ghz pandora, it is not likely that the last generation of games could be ran flawlessly.


Another problem we would run into is that, we are not going to get any graphics-intense exclusive programs. The extra power of the P2 would just be wasted.


There are other concerns as well, such as even you can play silent hill 2 on the P2, you have to have a massive SD card to store all the images. A lot people would not bother with it, they may just want to play with the classic consoles after done a few emails and processed some documents.


It may be possible that the next gen computers all have a-thousand-core-parallel-computing-unit besides the common CPU and GPU composition; it may indeed be true than windows 8, android is the way to go, and the future lies within ultra-mega realistic 3d graphics. However, should we put ourselves into it? 1080p would be an overkill even for PS3 level graphics, and 8 gbs of on-board memory can even let us play with ram-disk. The pandora was born with retro gaming and a more than satisfying and unique user-oriented design in mind. Do us, the community really need all that car-chasing effort of getting the best possible hardwares?


Even if we would buy the first bunch of the P2, how many of us are going to spend extras for the updates? How are the OPT going to keep this going? I believe that most of the fans of P2 already have a PC to care; it would be more logical for us to just start a new phone contract than updating the P2 and hoping it would magically gets better.


Don't get me wrong, I'm just addressing my concerns; I may look stoic, deep inside, I care about this project as much as anyone else. I would buy it even it is covered in mustard and stinks of rotten fish while releasing a miasma of killer bees upon unboxing.

 

[Binky]

The pandora should have the best practical hardware that will fit in a 14cm by 8cm case.


If best doesn't correspond to most recent, thats fine with me, and will probably make it cheaper


By best I mean:

best for real linux

best for the current user base

best for differentiating ourself from the JXD crowd

best for hacking

best for being comfortable

best for being expand\able

best for battery life

A faster SOC wouldn't go amiss, but isn't key


What is really important is attracting al the geeky devs who will write software to suit the community, and suit the hardware.


This guy has the right idea :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/8To-6VIJZRE?feature=oembed

 

[craigix]

Yes, indeed you may ask why any technology advances and why people upgrade their PCs/phones/tablets.


The answer is probably because they want to.


People like new things.

 

[Scntrblob]

People like icecream. That's why you should totally make icecream!

 

[Binky]

why people upgrade their PCs/phones/tablets.

The entire phone ecosystem is built around new hardware - from bloated software to contract renewal and marketing


'People' like big numbers


'People' need faster computers to run lots of malware


I'm typing this on a pentium 4 box, which I use for all but graphics-heavy work (for which I have a shiny new machine). Thats one, 2.8GHz CPU and sucky onboard GPU


Do other pandora owners feel compelled to always have the latest kit?


The Pandora is not a mass-market product.


The DS family are still selling pretty well, even though the hardware specs are pitiful (see screen/camera resolution, ram)


Why not call the P2 the Pandora 9000+ because people like big numbers?


Why not add the clock speeds of each core/subprocessor together like cheap Chinese electronics vendors?


Why not pander to the general populus, who will never buy a pandora anyway?

 

[Scntrblob]

Yes, indeed you may ask why any technology advances and why people upgrade their PCs/phones/tablets.


The answer is probably because they want to.

The question: valid. The answer... not so. The whole it-consumer market is based on big and bigger numbers to keep people buying things.


However this is not where you will be able to compete and it is not where I and many others want the pandora to be. Look at the surveys done in this subboards. You will find your whole ideas of "what the future is" or "what people want" demolished by your very customers.


(Maybe repeating it over and over again will help you see reality and avoid major damage being done to this project.)

 

[craigix]

If you're not interested in what we're doing then that's that. I don't have any interest in debating it with you, I believe we will have more demand for the P2 than we can meet when people see the specs.


You don't have to be a customer. You can buy a P1 and keep it forever if specs mean nothing to you. It's solid device.

 

[ShleeDragon]

I love debates based on a special mix of vapour and ether...


Best hardware, with best software, with best functionality, for the price they want... Not really any point aiming for lower or higher than X

 

[Scntrblob]

If you're not interested in what we're doing then that's that. I don't have any interest in debating it with you, I believe we will have more demand for the P2 than we can meet when people see the specs.


You don't have to be a customer. You can buy a P1 and keep it forever if specs mean nothing to you. It's solid device.

What "we" are doing? Well, obvisouly it's what YOU do and not what ED does/wants to do. And I never said specs mean nothing, I just said, that the ultimate best available on the market is not necessarly going to be the best suited, which is - seems to me - what you claim.


But whatever. First deliver the iCP2 in November as you claimed you would then we'll see if anything you say turns out to have a precise meaning.

 

[rohezal]

Well I think a bit more diplomacy would be good for this board . From craig, but also from the board members. People this guy has lost 300.000 Dollars from Circuit Co., has a hypothek on his house, his girl friend is trying to become a doctor which is very costly and was under adrenaline during the ICP2 on kickstarter.


I am realy surprised that he can still work on such risky things like new technology. I would be scared to dead after the circuit co fail and would get some secure easy work. I takes really courage to continue, and I think maybe a boardmember should think about this, before he is judging craig hard.


But I think it is a problem how decisions are announced and a sentence like this:

If you're not interested in what we're doing then that's that.

pretty harsh. A bit diplomacy and maybe 1 minute waiting before posting helps. It is hard, when you are trying to get something to work and a lot of people are annoying and talking strange stuff... but ... well sometimes you need to diplomatic.

 

[Binky]

If you're not interested in what we're doing then that's that

launching an entirely new product is difficult. It helps to have a pre-existing (enthusiastic!) fanbase to help with kickstarter funding, publicity and whatnot


Alienating both your fanbase and your main commercial partner (and distributor, and person within range of PCB producion factory) sounds like a bad idea.

 

[jonny:Dumb]

If you're not interested in what we're doing then that's that. I don't have any interest in debating it with you, I believe we will have more demand for the P2 than we can meet when people see the specs.


You don't have to be a customer. You can buy a P1 and keep it forever if specs mean nothing to you. It's solid device.

You are absolutely right with what you are saying and your customer base might explode if everything is working out (all the best for that, don't get me wrong!). This might not be so important to you, but as I can see it, there are quite many in this community that would become non customers. I would leave too and hope to find the ideas and people somewhere else again.


About the specs, I buy mid range hardware for a reasonable price. There is reasonable hardware to run kicad smoothly: yes sir, i would like to have that. There is expensive bleeding edge hardware to run kicad smoothly: sir, no thanks, I am happy with what i got. Other pairs: Size and comfort (screen, controls, storage); processing power/functionality and battery life.


I indeed think many people buy stuff for what they are being told is good stuff (and sadly social pressure) even though something else might suit them better. This is fine, ultimately, everyone is responsible for him/herself. Contrary, people make fun of me due to my believes (One of them is the believe in the Pandora). So, when your final Pandora 2 is there, it might indeed blow my mind, who nows. But you should be aware that it also might not do so even if it is supposed to. If it doesn't, but you would have been relying on the fact that it would, you might run into problems. If it is important to you, for increasing the chance that a bigger amount of the community stands behind you when the P2 is ready, it might be advisable to acknowledge tendencies in the community. I think most people here have quite a clear idea of what they would like and what not.


If you do not care, yes, fighting, discussing or whatever is useless.


In that case I hope others will not give up the idea of a successor like Binky restlessly described it probably hundreds of times, so we can maybe find a different solution. I don't want a split, I am simply not going to support a device that does not interest me at all (and I am not talking about some trade offs I would have to live with in some community concepts...).

 

[monty]

Until OPT announce a set of target specs (or two alternate sets if ED and Craig haven't agreed privately before development goes public) then we really don't know what 'the best' actually means to them. We have an exception with the screen resolution of course, but with general specs its too early to start getting really skeptical.


@xiongxioi


The original Pandora was far more powerful than its competitors when it launched, but now struggles to run things like Android and HTML5 heavy web sites, which are becoming de facto requirements for mobile devices. It doesn't matter if anyone thought in 2008 that they'd want this --- it has become important now for a significant number of people.


Going above and beyond gives the device some slack to absorb whatever unexpected new software is around the corner without having to box ourselves into a very specific set of uses or release a new model every year. You might not want to use that unexpected new software, or you might, and will be pleasantly surprised to find that your three year old Pandora 2 is not only capable of running N64 games, but also WhizzySpangle 2016 or Steam-for-ARM.

 

[xiongxioi]

Yes, indeed you may ask why any technology advances and why people upgrade their PCs/phones/tablets.


The answer is probably because they want to.


People like new things.

Don't be so aggressive, I know this would annoy you, but I got nothing against you and your idea. In fact, I like you a lot. I would love to have a handheld that can play 1080p videos for hours, and with the steam coming to the linux; extra processing power would not hurt.


With that being said, I do have quite a few doubt about the P2 scope.


Firstly,there hasn't been a modular handheld forever; even I don't know why, I would say it may not be as good as it sounds on paper. We need some sort of proof that this will work without too much struggle.


Secondly, a lot of hardware never got used, having them would just be a waste. Modern ARM SOCs are mostly geared towards android; they may not be very wise choice for linux.


Moreover, a pandora user should already have a smart phone, a tablet and such. Making P2 an android heavy platform may not be as appealing as it seems, even it has tits and was on fire. A lot of us bought it not only for retro pleasure, but also used it to send email, edit documents, compose music and such; android may be a great entertainer, it certainly is not as good as a full desktop environment such as linux.


My last thought is that, we love the pandora so much isn't because of it has all the buttons or it has a big touch screen. We like it is because It has merits unmatched by any other products; such as retro gaming forcus, inbuilt great amplifier - much better than the ipod classics' - amazing community (you, ED, Notaz, Exophase, and many many more), unbelievable battery time (10 HOURS, it is out of this world!). Having the best SOC certainly would not hurt, but I'm afraid it would deviant some of the consumer base.


With these much mean words being said, I will keep supporting the OPT no matter what. I wouldn't mind if I got ignored. All I want is that the pandora community can stay as good as it is right now. Here has become a safe-house for me; and it would hurt so much if we start to fight each other just because of different opinions and believes.

 

[EvilDragon]

Well, for me, 'best' means: most useful.


If the highest specs cost a lot more but don't bring any significant advantages over the second-best ones, I'd go for the second-best ones.


I personally prefer to stay in a niche market. There's no way I want to compete with those big companies out there. They could sue you to death within a second, if they want to.


Aditionally, any potential flaws or problems the device has in the beginning are way more serious if it affects a lot more units. Imagine we wouldn't have had 400 devices with broken nubs but 4000?


This sounds way too risky for me. And yes, even huge companies like Apple or Sony have issues with new products at the beginning, but they got the cash to simply replace and fix them.


It can always happen, regardless how much you try to prevent it.


Aaand, of course, I am part of that niche market. I don't like new devices. I got an Android phone recently because my second N900 died because of a broken MicroUSB port, but I much more preferred the N900... the OS was so much better for me.


The niche market is big enough for me, it's not as risky - and I rather give a niche market a product they love than a mass-consumer market "another handheld".


By the time the P2 will be out, the A15 will probably be the normal standard.

 

[bismuthdrummer]

You don't have to be a customer. You can buy a P1 and keep it forever if specs mean nothing to you. It's solid device.

I'm not sure if it's willful, but your answers sidestep the thrust of the question.


The question is NOT, "Should the P2 be more powerful than the P1?" The answer is obvious; no one is asking this.


Instead the question is, "Why should the specs be the best available at the time of the release?"


Is the point purely to drive up demand? If so, wouldn't second-in-class for the SoC produce similar if not identical demand due to our niche?

 

[kuru]

Up to how big of a possible price difference are we talking here per piece?


I don't see any problem with stuffing the opa2 with the cream as long as it won't make the price per unit skyrocket.

 

[xiongxioi]

You don't have to be a customer. You can buy a P1 and keep it forever if specs mean nothing to you. It's solid device.

I'm not sure if it's willful but your answers sidestep the thrust of the question.


The question is NOT, "Should the P2 be more powerful than the P1?" The answer is obvious, no one is asking this.


Instead the question is, "Why should the specs be the best available at the time of the release?"


Is the point purely to drive up demand? If so, wouldn't second-in-class for the SoC produce similar if not identical demand due to our niche?

Without Craigix and evil dragon and many of the fantastic community members, the pandora would never be like what it is today. Openpandora means for putting godly power into the grasp of your hands.


However, I don't want Craigix to push it too hard and risk killing the project. Taking baby steps is not shameful; for I'd rather have a slightly more powerful and better designed pandora than not having it at all.


We may not have the budget to handle all the risks if best hardware were to be used. Heck, even making the 1 Ghz pandora prototypes cost a lot; I just don't see how we can pull something that resource demanding out.


Even this is a bit bad for developers such as Notaz and Mcobit; they surely can understand this.


But, by reducing risk I don't mean we should make cheap knock-offs. Just don't take more than we can bit. This is for our own good.

 

[monty]

@EvilDragon


Are there any possible candidates for Craig's high-spec-SoC or your alternate pragmatic-spec-Soc, or does this remain an entirely theoretical debate? If its the latter then I really don't understand why you two are publicly expressing divergent opinions on this. It seems likely to me that you will only have a limited choice of not entirely equivalent SoCs, and that you won't have the luxury of choosing from a fine gradation of specifications; in which case this is churning up angst about a fundamental difference of opinion in OPT for no reason.

 

[EvilDragon]

Well, I'm pretty sure we would choose the same SoC, as new SoCs usually won't cost more than a previous version.


The OMAP3 or DM3730 is just as expensive as a Cortex A9... so it wouldn't make sense using a lower speed one.


It's just a general thing I was pointing out to.


I would not just grab the best available simply because it exists - I would check if an older version would make more sense in our use case.


This probably won't apply to the SoC, as mentioned, but it might to other components.


I'm not interested selling a device to a mass market because of specs, I'm interested selling it to a niche market because of functionality.


Usually, a device with a lot of functionality doesn't sell well in a mass consumer market, as it's too complicated - but it sells well within a niche (see the N900 for example).