Pandora 2 specifications and price

Price for Pandora 2? What are you prepared to pay?

  • <400€/$500/£320

    Votes: 47 36.2%
  • 400€/$500/£320 to 550€/$685/£440

    Votes: 46 35.4%
  • >550€/$685/£440

    Votes: 37 28.5%

  • Total voters
    130

3. if 2. is not possible to volume constraints, I would choose to have one external SD and one internal SD over two external SD and one internal microSD - because microSD is a waste of space. I'm not the only one who thinks microSD is for the birds. It's fragile, slow, lower in capabilities in every way possible but physical size.

Which is what WizardStan and I are saying makes no sense whatsoever. You literally think a microSD slot is worse than nothing.


Sure, you could say that maybe the space could have been used for something else. But you don't actually know that. And you can't without knowing the design. Actually, you probably wouldn't be qualified to definitively make that criticism anyway, unless you have any kind of background in electrical design. Needless to say, I don't see you harping on about how Pandora is wasting PCB space by, for instance, having two nub controller chips instead of one, so I don't know why you'd harp on about an internal microSD slot if there were one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My use scenario that allows me to personally justify owning a high $$$ handheld revolves around it's ability to handle full sized SD media. Remove that capability, and for all of my purposes you have just created another PSP or Nintendo handheld game console. Other's use scenarios will vary.

So basically you had it in your mind that Pandora 2 would emulate PS2, XBox, Wii, a Pentium 3 to Pentium 4 level PC, and simultaneously virtualize a bunch of ARM devices including iPhones.


But substitute SD for microSD and suddenly it's just another PSP or Nintendo game console.

LOL - twist all you like. If the Pandora 2 still does all of those things - I'll still be thrilled to see it do so. But if it's strictly a microSD device, I would be better off just using the old Pandora as I require full sized SD slots in my particular use scenario. I can't justify a $700 handheld that I can't manipulate, filter, move and copy SD card data with. The rest of it is nice and all, but without full sized SD slots, it becomes just another game machine to me.


For those of you it will work for - more power to you. At that point I'll be looking elsewhere for my next device.
LOL - twist all you like. If the Pandora 2 still does all of those things - I'll still be thrilled to see it do so. But if it's strictly a microSD device, I would be better off just using the old Pandora as I require full sized SD slots in my particular use scenario. I can't justify a $700 handheld that I can't manipulate, filter, move and copy SD card data with. The rest of it is nice and all, but without full sized SD slots, it becomes just another game machine to me.

What am I twisting exactly? You made a post where you expect Pandora 2 to be capable of doing all of those things. None of that is even remotely contingent on having full SD support. I just find it amazing that you equate all of those things with mere Sony or Nintendo handheld console features, especially when those were the whole focus of your post.


Now of course Pandora 2 probably won't be able to do all (or possibly even any) of those things, but that's not really pertinent.


If you must have full SD for the device to be a reasonable purchase for you than so be it, but saying that it becomes another PSP or whatever is using loaded language.. are you really going to tell us that the ability to mess around with full SDs is the ONLY thing you do on Pandora (or would do on Pandora 2) that you can't as easily do on one of the commercially locked handhelds?

You are twisting several conversation threads together to imply I'm a general nut case.


One regarding capabilities dreams regarding the specs that CraigIX has hinted at for CPU, RAM, display, etc. The concept of dreaming around capabilities of a device that we haven't seen a spec on being so foreign to you that you figure I must be creating a statement of facts.


One thread regarding the issue of microSD Vs full size SD in capabilities (which you lost repeatedly but refuse to bow out gracefully).


One thread regarding the issue of slot placement - which both you and WizardStan have purposely misstated and twisted my statements requiring me to repeat the same things over and over again.


I never stated, "are you really going to tell us that the ability to mess around with full SDs is the ONLY thing you do on Pandora (or would do on Pandora 2) that you can't as easily do on one of the commercially locked handhelds?" The SAME MESSAGE YOU REPLIED TO and edited the counter information off of stated: "If the Pandora 2 still does all of those things - I'll still be thrilled to see it do so. But if it's strictly a microSD device, I would be better off just using the old Pandora as I require full sized SD slots in my particular use scenario." By deliberately leaving this off of your reply because it contradicts your statement - you're just playing up the argument with no intentions of giving light to any opinions but your own.


I have asked you, repeatedly, what you thought the gain was by having a microSD in any position on the device. Instead of replying you go off on another tirade about how illogical I am. So - what, exactly, is your use case that you MUST have a microSD port and using adapters isn't an option for you? I have already stated my need for full sized, full speed, full capacity and durable SDXC media.


Or are you just playing troll?
 
You didn't dream regarding the specs Grench, you dreamed regarding what the specs implied you would be able to do.


I haven't mis-stated or twisted anything you said about the SD slots. You said, unambiguously, that you'd prefer two full sized SD slots to two full sized and one microSD slot, and you just repeated it. I really don't care where it becomes a deal breaker for you.


I don't know why you're playing these word games with me. You said that if Pandora 2 is microSD only then it's no better than a PSP or Nintendo handheld to you. Seriously, this is what you said, I don't know why you're trying to deny it:


"My use scenario that allows me to personally justify owning a high $$$ handheld revolves around it's ability to handle full sized SD media. Remove that capability, and for all of my purposes you have just created another PSP or Nintendo handheld game console."


If that's not what you meant you shouldn't have said it. Have a little accountability for what you say. Or stop saying such loaded things.


I've never seen you ask me what the benefit of having a microSD slot over a full sized one, but I made it incredibly obvious - that it'd take up less PCB space. One micro + two full is an intermediate between three full, so it's more likely it'll be possible than that (of course it'll be most likely that two full will be, but so what?) IF it comes down there being space for the former and not the latter then I want the former. Is this so hard for you to understand? Or is it you who is twisting my words?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
3. if 2. is not possible to volume constraints, I would choose to have one external SD and one internal SD over two external SD and one internal microSD - because microSD is a waste of space. I'm not the only one who thinks microSD is for the birds. It's fragile, slow, lower in capabilities in every way possible but physical size.

Which is what WizardStan and I are saying makes no sense whatsoever. You literally think a microSD slot is worse than nothing.


Sure, you could say that maybe the space could have been used for something else. But you don't actually know that. And you can't without knowing the design. Actually, you probably wouldn't be qualified to definitively make that criticism anyway, unless you have any kind of background in electrical design. Needless to say, I don't see you harping on about how Pandora is wasting PCB space by, for instance, having two nub controller chips instead of one, so I don't know why you'd harp on about an internal microSD slot if there were one.

If interior volume restrictions are so tight that they can't put a third full sized SD card in the unit - I'd be just fine with them leaving off the 3rd card entirely rather than taking the space of a microSD. Yes.


if design specs are so tight that they can only have two SD cards - I'm fine with them placing one of them inside the unit so long as I can pop a full sized SD card in there and get all of the space and speed that I need for what I do.


Unless CraigIX and team have a return to sanity, the next device will be completely microSD driven - and at that point I will no longer be interested in it.


microSD is much worse than the full sized SD alternative in every way imaginable. You and Wizardstan seem to have such a hard time understanding my arguments - yet you never lay forward one of your own.


Why on earth would anyone in their right mind WANT a microSD slot if they could have a full sized SD slot instead?
 
Really - what is with you? Troll much? Half that reply was from a reply I gave to WizardStan. The other half is twisted up, out of context crap again.

You didn't dream regarding the specs Grench, you dreamed regarding what the specs implied you would be able to do.
I never said I was dreaming specs. I always stated that based on the specs hinted at I was dreaming up use scenarios and directions that FUTURE devices might take. You take everything so literally that you demand I defend every statement.

I haven't mis-stated or twisted anything you said about the SD slots. You said, unambiguously, that you'd prefer two full sized SD slots to two full sized and one microSD slot, and you just repeated it. I really don't care where it becomes a deal breaker for you.
I have stated repeatedly - the presence of an internal microSD slot instead of an internal SD slot is a waste of space because nobody wants to boot from a crap spec card if they have a real alternative. If the inside card is microSD, then those of us who give half a rats ass about performance will be forced to boot from an exterior facing card - and that inside mounted card slot's protection against accidental removal becomes moot. At which point, it is useless to even have a 3rd internal card - since booting from it is it's PRIMARY PURPOSE.

I don't know why you're playing these word games with me. You said that if Pandora 2 is microSD only then it's no better than a PSP or Nintendo handheld to you. Seriously, this is what you said, I don't know why you're trying to deny it:

"My use scenario that allows me to personally justify owning a high $$$ handheld revolves around it's ability to handle full sized SD media. Remove that capability, and for all of my purposes you have just created another PSP or Nintendo handheld game console."


If that's not what you meant you shouldn't have said it. Have a little accountability for what you say. Or stop saying such loaded things.

I HAVE NEVER DENIED saying that. WizardStan - who's reply you felt compelled to reply to, had misstated my position as:

What? Seriously, what? Are you listening to yourself? If it has 1 external full sized SD card and one internal full sized SD card, it is perfect, but if it has two external full sized SD cards and one additional internal microSD card it is for all intents and purposes just another PSP? I can't even begin to fathom what twist of logic leads to this.
HIS misstating my position is what I was replying to - which was clear to anyone who had bothered to actually READ.

I've never seen you ask me what the benefit of having a microSD slot over a full sized one, but I made it incredibly obvious - that it'd take up less PCB space. One micro + two full is an intermediate between three full, so it's more likely it'll be possible than that (of course it'll be most likely that two full will be, but so what?) IF it comes down there being space for the former and not the latter then I want the former. Is this so hard for you to understand? Or is it you who is twisting my words?
As I have stated, repeatedly, the PRIMARY PURPOSE of having a card mounted internally is to use as a boot drive in order to prevent accidental eject.


microSD makes a lousy boot drive due to it's fragility, slow speeds, lower capacity and higher costs. Due to this, I'd have to boot from an exterior facity SD card anyway - which makes that internal microSD you're so hot for -useless- as a boot device, useless as a mass storage device, and just generally a bad idea.


If one card MUST be internalized due to the need to have one be prevented from accidental eject and IF there is not room for three full sized SD cards, then I could live with one internal full sized SD card and one exposed SD card. Make either of those a microSD though, and it becomes a glorified paper weight to me.


I wonder how you two are going to twist this up next time. It isn't all that hard to understand.


The hard part to understand is why you're both so adamant that you want a slower device with lowered capacity requiring more fragile more expensive media. That's the part -I- don't get.
 
Speaking of edited in, you put your big response to my critique of your dream thread as an edit so I never got to respond to it, so uh, well..

Not a bit.
CraigIX stated in another message that he was debating between 4GB or 8GB of RAM for this device.


To be able to address 8GB of RAM you fairly well need a 48bit or wider data stream.


Since nobody makes 48bit computers - 64bit is the next logical conclusion.


Not dreaming, just extrapolation.

Exactly, Craig tragically doesn't understand that the SoC he uses won't be 64-bit. Or doesn't understand that it needs to be so for 8GB to make a difference. I told him this in this thread and I hope he gets it.

CraigIX has stated previously that this device must be the most powerful handheld ever. USB 3 is now becoming commonplace on new notebooks and devices. If it doesn't have USB 3.0 out the back, then it isn't going to be all that powerful in 2014, now is it?

No matter what Craig says there are limits to what he's actually going to be able to do. Which is why he should be careful about what he hypes.

If the device is going to have USB 3.0 out the back via my above statements, then adding an internalized hub on the circuit board may or may not add more room than bringing direct ports off of the SoC. The fact that an internalized USB hub could handle the USB port off the back, the card slots, the networking adapters (BT & 802.11), keyboard & nub inputs, and potentially the video output as well - wouldn't that potentially replace all but one of those connections to the SoC while giving a system bandwidth of roughly 5GB/sec to any one of them talking to the CPU while -simplifying- the motherboard layout immensely? It's an idea I put out there in this DREAMERS thread. They don't HAVE to follow it - but it is, in my opinion, a rather unique and potentially very effective way to simplify the entire unit.

What you're saying makes no sense! If you made all of those things go over USB3 instead of going to the SoC you will just be replacing their connections to the USB hub chip instead.. You will have to add the hub chip.. and for anything that doesn't communicate in USB3 naturally you'll need a transceiver chip to convert what it does (most devices will NOT do USB3 or any other USB for that matter). Pretty much all of these communications are over simple serial protocols. How on earth do you think this does anything but ADD to PCB routing complexity and number of components on the board?


Having the nub chips of all things over USB3 is just crazy!

You're neglecting the realities of computing beyond the CPU.

In the era of a 486, most hard disks were 40-160MB and transferred data in the 256K-2MB/sec range. The RAM was particularly slow by today's standard too. The 486 CPU was, most of the time, waiting on it's RAM and disk to catch up.

Utter nonsense. Especially for the things most people want to run in DOS emulation, games. You're obsessed with storage performance and somehow think it's the performance bottleneck for everything.

Fast forward to the Pandora. When doing DOS emulation, it isn't the sub-systems we're waiting on - it's the CPU and the fact that it isn't JUST handling that one aspect of things. That single core is maintaining the primary OS (Angstrom), an emulation layer (DosBox), and the program we're running - AND whatever else we have running in the background on the main device. Three or more things on one core - each in contention for CPU time on it's own threads.

Fast forward to the hypothetical Pandora II with a wider data path (64bit as above) and big RAM and four cores running 2Ghz (or more). Yes, DosBox itself is only going to get one of those cores at any given time, but it's easily going to get 100% of a core, not just portions of one. DosBox will also be, in theory, recompiled to run under the 64bit host OS. It will no longer have to chunk/thunk down 32bit DOS code to push it through to the CPU with it's wrappers around it - it could insert that directly into the 64bit processing stream with wrappers and all. So, from DOSBox's perspective, we have, roughly, a 7X gain in CPU speed itself (getting a whole 2Ghz core instead of 1/2 or less of a 600Mhz core). With the wider data path - that actually doubles it again since there is no chunk/thunk required. So, 14X. Next look at the ecosystem it runs in. Instead of 20MB/sec reads from SD we could run DOSBox itself - and it's drive contents from RAM. CraigIX said dual channel DDR3 is being considered. That is roughly 24GB/sec - or roughly 1000 times the speed of the current Pandora's SD slots. I'd say that's worth a 'double' on the performance guide for what can/can't be played in this example.


So, we're up to having DOSBox on the Pandora II exhibit roughtly 28 times the performance that it does now.

There is not going to be a 64-bit host OS. There's not going to be a 64-bit CPU. Please stop speculating on the performance of emulators, you don't understand how they work even in the slightest, what you're saying about "chunking/thunking" and "wrappers" makes my head hurt.. You're just making random things up...


I'd tell you to profile DOSBox on Pandora to substantiate your wild claim that it's wasting half the CPU time on imaginary things that will go away with this new CPU (due to being 64-bit of all things!) but I'm not sure you know how to..? You'd also see they're not spending all their time waiting on the SD card! And dual channel LPDDR3 (which isn't DDR3) most certainly will NOT be 24GB/s, please familiarize yourself a little more with memory technology on mobile devices.. the highest end you're liable to see is maybe around 1600 MT/s per channel, with two 32-bit chips. That's about 12.8GB/s, okay? Samsung themselves quote that number for Exynos 5, which as far as I'm aware is the only game in town offering LPDDR3. Chances are Pandora 2 won't actually clock it so high (IF it has LPDDR3 support to begin with - has anyone even announced when they'll make LPDDR3 available?) because it isn't a tablet.

After searching I found a benchmark that has crossed through the history of CPUs. We could even run it on the current Pandora as native, under DosBox, under Amiga, etc if someone is really really bored.
http://field.hypermart.net/CPU/cpu.htm


Using a 486/33 (which is what the chart has a spec for and is still roughly right for the current Pandora's DosBox), it would run this test in roughly 100 seconds.


Assuming I'm even remotely on track for my above assumptions, the Pandora II would be able to run the test in roughly 100/28 = 4.16 seconds.


Cross referencing back to the chart this makes my above assumptions/estimations/wildassguesses place the Pandora II as roughly equivalent to a 200Mhz Intel Pentium Pro. I used to play the original Half Life on a 180Mhz Pentium Pro.

You mean, the Pandora would be able to run the test in 4.16 seconds in DOSBox? Based on your completely made up reasoning??

So - not quite a P3 under this guestimate. PIII did the test in 1.45 seconds, So I originally estimated high by 2.25X too high.

Still, 28X performance leap sounds huge - but all things considered, I think that is going to be closer to reality than 2-4X faster.

I wish I knew what made you feel confident in your reasoning or at all qualified to make it..

As far as running an Android or iPad tablet OS inside an emulation layer - we're already doing that with Android.

We're already doing what? Running Android on Android? That's true. Running iOS on Android? Uh, no.


Of course you'll be able to run Android on Pandora 2. Everyone knows this. Of course, it's not "inside an emulation layer", it's because it's ported to it. That has absolutely nothing to do with being able to run iOS.

The CPUs are the same. In my humble opinion it's just a matter of time before we have a VM environment for Apple inside Android - or Android inside Apple - or since it's all ARM code running on nearly the same CPUs, both inside a Pandora II. That feat is a lot easier to predict than emulating a P-III. When dealing with a multi-core CPU and being able to give one to the system and two or more virtual cors to each of the running VMs - it starts to make good sense.

The CPUs are the same (or compatible, anyway) on XBox and your PC, how is it that you can't just run XBox games? Even with all the fancy hardware virtualization capabilities your PC has?


iOS has been out for 5 years now and no one has ran it on anything non-Apple yet, and Pandora 2 doesn't really do anything to change that equation.. There's way more involved in this than you realize.
 
One thread regarding the issue of microSD Vs full size SD in capabilities (which you lost repeatedly but refuse to bow out gracefully).
Wow. Just wow.


You unilaterally state that 2 full sized SD cards is strictly better than 2 full sized SD cards and 1 microSD card and declare that a victory for yourself. Yesterday when this was a debate I thought there was merit to it, that there must be something I was misunderstanding in your arguments. There's no merit in a debate where one person declares victory before all points have been understood. I'm done. You are so ingrained in your belief that I'm quite certain that you are wrong and I will never convince you of it or you are right in a way that is so convoluted and backwards that you will never convince me. Sorry for having wasted your time.
 
Speaking of edited in, you put your big response to my critique of your dream thread as an edit so I never got to respond to it, so uh, well..

Not a bit.
CraigIX stated in another message that he was debating between 4GB or 8GB of RAM for this device.


To be able to address 8GB of RAM you fairly well need a 48bit or wider data stream.


Since nobody makes 48bit computers - 64bit is the next logical conclusion.


Not dreaming, just extrapolation.

Exactly, Craig tragically doesn't understand that the SoC he uses won't be 64-bit. Or doesn't understand that it needs to be so for 8GB to make a difference. I told him this in this thread and I hope he gets it.

Of course I understand it, I can only assume this is to try to troll me, something you have been attempting a lot recently. I'm simply not interested at all in one of your sad pedant debates. No one reads your essay long replies.


Whether you like it or not, we're going to build the best possible handheld with the highest spec we can get our hands on, and when you see the P2 design you will understand what this was all about.


You go off and build your own handheld if you don't like it, your posts here won't discourage us one bit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Speaking of edited in, you put your big response to my critique of your dream thread as an edit so I never got to respond to it, so uh, well..

Not a bit.
CraigIX stated in another message that he was debating between 4GB or 8GB of RAM for this device.


To be able to address 8GB of RAM you fairly well need a 48bit or wider data stream.


Since nobody makes 48bit computers - 64bit is the next logical conclusion.


Not dreaming, just extrapolation.

Exactly, Craig tragically doesn't understand that the SoC he uses won't be 64-bit. Or doesn't understand that it needs to be so for 8GB to make a difference. I told him this in this thread and I hope he gets it.

Of course I understand it, I can only assume this is to try to troll me, something you have been attempting a lot recently. I'm simply not interested at all in one of your sad pedant debates. No one reads your essay long replies.


Whether you like it or not, we're going to build the best possible handheld with the highest spec we can get our hands on, and when you see the P2 design you will understand what this was all about.


You go off and build your own handheld if you don't like it, your posts here won't discourage us one bit.

Ive been trying to tell him to ease up all his rantings...


But it only lead to someone claiming the big bang theory is a proven fact, and i believe someone mentioned popcorn....


What a discussion :)


And if he would discourage you guys, 95% of the forum would hunt him down :p


The P2 sure brings forth some emotions in some people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whether you like it or not, we're going to build the best possible handheld with the highest spec we can get our hands on, and when you see the P2 design you will understand what this was all about.

The more often I hear this sentence the happier I become :) .
 
Craig wants 8GB


He realizes that this requires a 64bit cpu


The 64-bit processors found in desktops eat too much battery, and produce too much heat for a pocket/handheld computer


We are looking at an 64-bit ARM P2
 
Oh damn. I'm all out of popcorn... :(

Popcorn_Scoop_Boxes.jpg



Not to worry i've got enough for two, yours is the smaller portion btw. ;)
 
We are looking at an 64-bit ARM P2
Which doesn't even have any processors announced yet, there is no chance you can get this in low volume even in 2013-2014 that Craig keeps talking about.

4GB will be nice too, but i am sure Craig will consider more SOC options.


As long as the architecture remains compatible with the software, which most likely wont be the case if P2 wont use arm....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top