Forum Rule: Always post complete source code & details to reproduce any issue!
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 101 to 104 of 104

Thread: Any Plans for a Teensy Board with Bottom Pads on Top?

  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulStoffregen View Post
    I'm pretty sure Adafruit could make a Teensy clone or work-alike product if they really wanted. Limor has the hardware skill and Kevin & Phil B have the software talent needed. Tony & Scott (in Seattle) are also very capable programmers, as anyone can see by the results with their fork of Python.

    Ethics and good business sense, rather than technical chops, are mainly what's stopping them from doing anything like this. First and foremost, Limor and Phil T are good people. They also have a very successful business model, which involves higher profit margin than Teensy, and a very different sales focus on novices and casual users, rather than the more advanced but relatively small ground of people best described as having "outgrown Arduino" and needing more powerful hardware & libraries.
    Oh they certainly have the skill, but I specifically mentioned "polish". I never found any of their software polished and optimized. Especially not in the way Teensy stuff is. Likely they are always too busy on the next big thing. I didn't want to insult anyone. Sorry for any offence.

  2. #102
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Roma (IT, UE)
    Posts
    46
    I'll add my 2 cents, because I love Teensy so much (Great Work, Paul!!!! Thanks!!!) I can't resist.

    I've successfully used 3.2 on some projects, with excellent results. At the moment it's my OS-less platform of choice. Killer feature is all those interrupts available!!

    I'm now exploring 3.6 because I need USB host and uSD support; great to have both onboard!
    3.2 and moreso 3.6 have even too much power, RAM and Flash space for my needs (not that I'm complaining).
    Price is very nice for both 3.2 and 3.6. Personally I don't need to save a few bucks going with LC or so.

    What I'd love:
    Low-power versions. Really optimized from the ground up for low power (both while sleeping and while working). Most of my projects are battery-powered or solar-powered
    Mounting holes somewhere in the PCB.

  3. #103
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosford View Post
    Without wishing to make too strong a case, I thought I might just describe my usage of the Teensy 3.2 in a product.

    We required access to more GPIO than what was accessible via the through hole pins headers, and didn't have the space on the PCB to cater for the 'long' form factor used on the larger Teensy boards.
    Instead, we chose to design an adapter board which would add a second row of 2.54mm pins on each side of the 3.2 - with connections made to the bottom pads via 'half-vias'. This provided the advantage of access to these GPIO whilst making the overall size of the Teensy itself only ~5mm wider, in a robust form.

    Of course, this only helps on custom PCBs or stripboard designs - as if placed in a breadboard, the pins would be shorted together. However, I do wonder if there might be a business advantage in providing a particular version of a Teensy board in this type of form factor, specifically aimed at product development or small production runs. I'm conscious though, that PJRC aims to limit the amount of support it can offer to designers implementing the board in commercial designs.

    Just a few cents of my experience working with the boards in a commercial environment.
    Thought I would address the breadboard issue a bit more, in regards making a T3.x with additional parallel rows of pins on the top and/or bottom edges. Cosford mentions here a viable solution.

    Also, for people adamant about breadboards, they are probably not using the underside pins in an case ... and in regards the breadboard shorting the side-row pins out, all you need do is not install the parallel side-row headers when using a breadboard. Also, unless I am mistaken, I/O pins on T3.x modules are "floating" and not even connected to the pads, until this is specifically done in software.

  4. #104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,001
    theyre not floating as in INPUT. the pin is actually DISABLED by default.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •