Teensy versions badly named

monkey

Member
I use and like Teensy 3.2, but now it looks like an obsolete version beside Teensy 3.6. Even if both have their advantages... for example price, 5V tolerant, small it is all better in Teensy 3.2. Now, vendors may think Teensy 3.6 is new and better and stop to order "the older version", novice users stop buying it.

Would not it be better to have several lines... unless 3.2 is actually meant to be replaced by 3.6...
 
Last edited:
It's a continuum :: T_LC, T_3.2, T_3.5, T_3.6 of sorts. It si the PJRC Teensy "LINE" - All have the same software support thus the common T_3.xx name, as far as their pins and processor allow. No indicated plans other than full support for all.

3.6 it the highest power and specs with FPU, but larger than 3.2, with SD socket and not 5V tolerant and higher current draw and price, support 2nd USB.

3.5 it the higher power and specs with FPU, but larger than 3.2, with SD socket it IS 5V tolerant and higher current draw and priced in the middle

3.2 is the Teensy workhorse - replaced the T_3.0 and T_3.1, plenty of pins and power at a lower price than most trivial AVR's

LC is 'low cost' - mostly way more features and power than any AVR
 
defragster, thanks about the specs, I guess it is all well thought on the technical side, but my question is only about names.

The name 3.6 looks like a replacement of the name 3.2. If 3.6 is not going to replace 3.2, then it may anyway only because of its name which suggests so. So if you wish to actually get rid of 3.2, it is ok and its name is fitting. Otherwise, it is misleading and in effect may unfortunately work against your plans.
 
To me, I guess it depends.

Suppose you are thinking of buying a car and Like Audi cars.

Is the A6 a replacement for the the A4? Or simply a different model in the A series.
 
KurtE, imagine that you are a vendor of hundreds of little boards, Teensies, duinos, displays, whatever. You do not ask on forums, analyze specs for hours, no time for that, you just sell them. You see Teensy 3.2, Teensy 3.6, you drop 3.2 as "obsolete" or "clients will think it is obsolete" and forget about the whole issue. How car analogy will help here, if you just can't buy your board anymore?
 
...imagine that you are a vendor ... You see Teensy 3.2, Teensy 3.6, you drop 3.2 as "obsolete" or "clients will think it is obsolete"

Does this actually happen? Can you point to a case?

Paul did solicit input to the naming of what is now the Teensy 3.5 and 3.6. You can read this thread last June starting about here. I can't speak for Paul, but I would think there is zero chance that he'll make a change in naming this late. Can you imagine the confusion that would cause? And AFAIK, no one else is bothered by the current naming scheme.
 
Makes sense as it is - first there was reportedly a Teensy 1.0 . . . then a Teensy 2.0 . . . those were AVR based Arduino compatible units.

A new 32 bit Teensy 3.0 was put out on Kickstarter - a 32 bit ARM. It was in fact replaced by the T_3.1 when a higher spec chip was released.

Then the T_3.1 was sidelined by the T_3.2 with trivial but significant updates to the onboard power supply and the choice of programming chip for future proofing.


As long as they are 32 bit single core Cortex M# CPU's with similar familial capabilities they are the current Teensy 3.xx line of products. As noted - those who know BMW/AUDI/Mercedes naming schemes for engine displacement or 'quality class' can more easily make sense of such a naming scheme than random words/names like: UNO/DUE/NANO/MICRO/Leonardo/...

Everything in the Teensy 3.xx family as noted is largely interchangeable and similarly supported - excepting where they offer alternate specs based on the MCU at hand as generally noted above. As much as possible the primary pins of the T_3.2 have similar pin # and functionality across the Teensy 3.xx family.

Based on my time here . . . At some point an MCU with some alternate architecture core, pin association or voltage would start a Teensy 4.xx family perhaps.
 
Yes, defragster - it makes sense. Noone disputes that, I guess. Specifically, version numbers make sense. I was wrong telling, that the versions are badly named. It is more that the versions are ok, but Teensies are in a sense not named at all, except for Teensy LC.

So now, would you go to all Teensy vendors and explain them, that Teensy 3.2 obsoleted Teensy 3.1 but Teensy 3.6 did not obsolete Teensy 3.2 etc., etc.? Then would you go and explain it to all their clients, me included, because I can not still say for sure that it is true, even after reading your car analogy? Which seems wrong to me in a number of places. For example, I have never heard of two different car series produced in parallel, without any specific name at all but instead with an unclear difference between minor version numbers.

Well it is your buisiness, I did not mean to argue with you, it was only a suggestion. But nevertheless, I now have a problem, should I make a new design based on 3.2, if there is 3.6 already, so perhaps they are going to make 3.2 obsolete? Or would not it just be better to switch to boards with readable, consistent names, which tell the client what the designer means?
 
Yes, there are pros and cons to different naming conventions, and indeed the appearance of obsolesce is one possible disadvantage to the numbers way.

Believe me, I did consider this and many other naming ideas. Many of them. Ultimately this idea won out, for a variety of reasons.

People for the most part do seem to understand.

Maybe in some distant future where PJRC is a big company we'll have marketing teams conducting focus groups and all the other stuff huge companies do to come up with product names? Or maybe some awesome idea for names will just come up? For the existing products, these names are pretty much set in stone. Or set in printing on anti-status bags.... you have a buy a very large quantity of those bags to get the printing done at a low cost!
 
Are we discussing a real life problem ?

Has anybody encountered a problem in obtaining Teensy 3.2 or Teensy 3.5 ?

@monkey: you haven´t answered this question raised by markonian yet, do you know of any examples?

Maybe I am too ignorant, but discussions about names seldom lead to productive conclusions, unless the connected problem (if it exists) is very well described.

Have fun with all the Teensys (LC, 3.2, 3.5, 3.6 and all others)

Frank
 
DD4WH, as I said, I plan to use Teensy 3.2 in a new design. Yes I know, it is a small scale product where nothing is sure, but my design is even smaller. Still, as you possibly know, it is completely normal to estimate the possible obsolescence of parts like that. An existence of a pin-, form- and price-incompatible Teensy having a greater minor version number is not assuring. It's that simple.
 
Last edited:
Markonian, I am sorry but I did not see your post. No, I am not going to prove you anything. Did you read that part about vendors? Was not it implied, that it is a supposition and not a proof? Why would you like a proof exactly from me? Am I a vendor? If you look for a proof, you might ask some other board manufacturers why they stay clear from a naming scheme like that of Teensy if they have different "lines", pehaps you'll ge it. And if you just wanted to be a bit rude because you don't like the discussion, well thanks to the helpful post of others in this thread, especially that post of defragster, I am quite confident that Teensy 3.2 might be still in production, so this discussion will probably end soon.
 
Well, look at it this way.
I own a Challenger SXT-Plus I did have a SXT, buy the PLUS added some extras.
So lets say Teensy 3.xx is the Challenger line.
3.1 = SXT
3.2 = SXT-Plus
3.5 = RT
3.6 = RT-Plus

Each the same but a bit different.
SXT base, the PLUS adds Heated/Cooling Sets, heated Steering wheel, Power Tilt and Telescopic etc.
RT Base but with V8, the Plus is like above.

But, I always look at the specs, for the naming of something has little importance. What if it was just a part number. 3.1 = 100-3.1 or 3.2= 100-3.2 instead of Teensy?
Vendors sell and I'm sure they do not worry about what the meanings are providing they have a accurate spec sheet to post.
 
Wayne, thanks for your fine proposal but it frightens me in one part - I like 3.5 too, but you just made it "replaced by 3.6" kind-of :)

As of the other part of your post, pay attention, you may soon find yourself In Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene II, seeing Juliet discussing roses.
 
Bear in mind, that if NXP (which bought Freescale) decides to stop production of the MK20DX256VLH7 (Teensy 3.1/3.2), MK64FX512 (Teensy 3.5), MK66FX1M0 (Teensy 3.6), or MKL26Z64 (Teensy LC) chips there is not much PJRC can do. Paul has said that he plans to continue the Teensy 3.2 for the forseeable future (of course assuming availability of chips from NXP, continuing demand from customers, and of course PJRC remaining finanically solvent).
 
Back
Top