Main Site Documentation

aXon-MCU The Future of .net Hardware (KickStarter)


#1

Another mf board in the works.

Doesn’t look like enough backers on that one


#2

Very excited to see more NETMF things poping up here and there but " THE FUTURE OF .NET HARDWARE" is something else :slight_smile:

We all know where the future is …oh wait, you don’t I haven’t showed you yet :stuck_out_tongue:


#3

With a board like that, and a week or two to port .NETMF, one would have a really impressive system. ::slight_smile:


#4

True that!


#5

If the goal is to push the .netmf higher then shouldn’t that device have a snapdragon?


#6

And the future of .Net is … ???

Someday you must tell us Gus… its just a matter of time.


#7

I think one has to keep in mind what NETMF was created for: small MCUs. When you are up in the range of say 600mHz+ you are in the territory where WinCE might be a better choice. (The difference of course is that NETMF tools are free and WinCE tools are not.)


#8

Correct Jeff, it is no the clock frequency only, there are much more involved. After all it is the NETMF and additional software is what make all this happen, not he hardware.


#9

I pledged some money towards this project, I hope it will help.

One thing that is not clear on this project is that it says “The aXon-MCU Project is designed to take the .net Micro Framework to the next level at an affordable price.” but then under FAQ it says

“Is the aXon-MCU only capible of running the .net Micro Framework?
NO: The aXon-MCU can run any ARM code compiled for it.”

Is that suppose to be a yes?!


#10

Looks like a great board.

But the problem lies with the fact he wants people to pay to tool him up.

Sounds like he wants to buy pick and place, and wave solder machines for himself with that kind of coin.


#11

$165,000!!! I didn’t see that and I do not get it at all!!!


#12

Would the $165K include a port of NETMF?


#13

Am I the only one looking for “smaller, cheaper” NETMF solutions instead of “larger, faster”? There’s a TON of hardware available in the “larger, faster, more expensive” range. It’s the bottom end we haven’t fully explored yet…


#14

Speaking for myself i desire the higher range stuff, specifically important features to me are cost, size and speed. I like .netmf so far, but need much more speed to make it worth wild for us. Need to get modules >150MHZ.


#15

LOL, call GHI and they will make you any port fro a lot less :wall:


#16

FEZ “next” is what you need


#17

As Spock would say, “Interesting…”.

I think the key phrase is “value”. Using a raw uC would be cheaper, and maybe faster for some things, but the value added by .NETMF (and GHI) would not be there. There likely is a market for products on both ends of the spectrum.


#18

Borrowing from an old line in the contracting business…
You can have it fast, cheap, or good; pick 2.


#19

godefroi, i’m with you there. Smaller and cheaper. All it would need to have is a couple digital pins and some analog pins, usb (to program) and some communication lines (spi, i2c, uart).

There must be something out there this size, just a matter of finding it.


#20

I hope so, for myself, We need something the size of the EMX module or smaller with the power of the ChipworkX Module.

didn’t you guys start making just this very thing some weeks ago using the USBizi144 Chipset ?