Micro framework and windows 10 core

I am gettting the feeling that microsoft has no clear road map for microframe yet the windows 10 core might be a replacement?

Anyone shed some light on this issue, will G400 run windows 10 core? Will windows 10 core ever run on g120?

Just want to get a better picture of the future and where my focus will be…i love the microframework but want to be sure its still support for many years to come.

Isn’t their a project to make micro framework native? …will make it a ‘more’ real time system

@ anthonys - I would not expect Windows 10 IoT Core to run on microcontrollers, at least not any time soon. It’s simply too large.

Here’s the basic stack, as I see it:

[ul]Full Windows: Desktops, Laptops, Tablets, Phones, etc.

  • Runs desktop apps (on x86/x64 procs) and UWP/Store apps (both x86 and ARM)
    Windows 10 IoT Core
  • Designed for smaller devices like Pi, DragonBoard, etc.
  • Runs UWP apps only, and no desktop. Generally runs one app at a time, similar to “kiosk” mode
  • Includes code to handle I/O and sensors (I don’t think this code is in “big” Windows, but not 100% on that)
    .NET Micro Framework
  • Optimized for the “tiny” world
  • Runs on mCus.
  • Does not run UWP or Win32 apps[/ul]

To add to the list above, the NETMF team is currently working on a project called Llilum (I think that’s the spelling) which promises to bring native execution speed to the NETMF world. There are others on the forum who are better versed in the status of this project, and hopefully they’ll chime in.

So I don’t think it’s a matter of IoT core “replacing” NETMF. They’re targeted at different devices and different (though often complementary) workloads.

Hope that helps.

I see this different. Sooner or later tiny micros will be able to run Windows Core. It might take some years…though.

Not sure its a wrong comparison,considering the price of a raspberry pi etc its worth investigating the jump to windows 10 core? Sometimes the extra investment in hardware could reduce effort by weeks.

The only main difference i see as the deciding factor is price and power usage at this point. Sure, windows 10 core may be an overkill for a sensor board but just don’t use the features you don’t need. If its solar then power usage wont be an issue either.

Another great benefit of mNET is that can be ported to windows core 10 easily…well i would assume so!

Yes, pretty excited about the Llilum project! :slight_smile:

I think that for any given project you have to evaluate what’s available NOW that suits the needs of the project.

That might mean sticking with the smallest possible processor with the minimal additional components to serve your needs, powered by NETMF.

It might mean (if you’re willing to tolerate a rapidly moving target) using Windows IoT Core on a Raspberry Pi.

For one-offs, prototypes, and hobby projects, there’s probably no “right” answer. Computing power is fungible, and as long as the platform you choose supports the communications and/or sensors you want to use, any of them will do.

But if you’re going to production with a large number of devices, things probably get trickier. You’ll need to figure out how to turn that RPi prototype into a production board, and get it loaded with Windows IoT Core and your app. I’d argue that there are a lot more folks with experience taking NETMF projects to production than currently exists for Windows IoT Core.

In the end, the typical consultant answer of “it depends” applies here.

BTW - I agree with @ njbuch that eventually microcontroller hardware will get powerful enough to run IoT core, but still not sure whether that’s a desireable goal. Nice thing about NETMF is a smaller footprint, which means (among other things) less attack surface. For some workloads, a NETMF (or Llilum, or whatever comes next) that runs faster is still going to be a good choice.

1 Like

@ devhammer - good points :slight_smile:

I see this slightly more different… I think one day we won’t confuse everything with terms like “IoT Core”, “NETMF”, “Llilum”, “full .NET”, etc. One day everything will just support “.NET” and everything will be programmed through UWP (or whatever Microsoft renames it to by then…).

I’d like to see GHI add a SOM capable of running IoT Core to their catalog that’s suitable for commercial devices. Nothing coming from the Pi foundation meets that standard. Something in a G400 format would be great. Yes, similar to the old Pi Compute module…


@ ianlee74 - your wish is my commands :slight_smile: hold tight and do not go anywhere.


@ ianlee74 - You know there’s a Pi 3 “compute module” coming, right?

[quote]What about the Compute Module?

We expect to introduce a BCM2837-based Compute Module 3 in the next few months. We’ll be demoing Compute Module 3 at our partners’ launch events this morning.[/quote]

1 Like

No, actually, I hadn’t seen that. Thanks for the info. Still, I think there’s room for competition in the IoT Core space on the commercial side.

BTW, if someone wants to make a Pi with a shutdown button on it I’ll gladly pay an extra $5-$10 just for that :wink:

@ ianlee74 - Y’know, it’s surprising to me that the very first “hat” wasn’t a tiny, cheap board that comprised an RTC+ultracap and soft power switch. Pi desperately needs it.

Yea, it’s amazing to me that it’s on v3 now and I still have no way to properly shut it down if I don’t have a way to connect to it remotely. At least give us some pads we can wire a button to.

@ ianlee74 - I have heard that the Pi Foundation are very responsive to ideas like this! Go ahead and let them know please! :whistle:

@ njbuch - Are you affiliated?

Honestly, I haven’t pursued giving feedback on the Pi but I just assumed I wasn’t the only person with this complaint. Heck, just yesterday I was looking at a project on Hackaday where the guy had added an Arduino to the project solely for the purpose of telling the RPi to shut down…

@ ianlee74 - A button, a resistor, and a few lines of code is all that is needed to implement a shutoff function.

I do it with C# and Mono, but can also be done in Python.

@ Mike - shutdown, but not power off, though?


I get it but since I can’t just turn the power off on it, I think it needs a button on board so I don’t have to add one every time. Call me lazy… :wink:

@ ianlee74 - Ok lazy.

@ ianlee74 - I secretly call you worse