[pingswept]

Sorry-- I didn't mean to imply that you were making anything up. I was saying that I was speaking from experience.

By performance/price, I mean the ratio of performance to price. You're right that the boards I cite are 3-10x more expensive, but they're also more powerful by a similar factor.

When did Parallax switch to the AVR architecture? Last time I used a Basic Stamp, it was a PIC.

[atduskgreg]

Oops, you're right it is a PIC not an AVR. Just a typo/brain-o on my part (I've corrected it in my above comment, thanks). Obviously there are steps up from the Arduino in terms of power. Just like there were "real" Unix-caliber mainframe systems available in 1975 when the Altair launched. and likewise, the Arduino-compatible boards are getting more powerful every day, cf the new Arduino Mega as well as the Illuminato. The core of my argument is of the "there's always room at the bottom" type. Without a smooth newbie-to-expert curve, the existence of more powerful and flexible systems is just a frustration to users who are locked out of the whole domain for lack of a starting point. I don't think the Arduino is the Last Word in Physical Computing, I think that for a large class of people what's important about it is that it's the first word.

[pingswept]

I guess it's all a matter of degree, but to me, the Arduino is less like the Altair, which was not very widely distributed compared to similar computers sold in later years, and more like the Apple II-- a great product, widely distributed, but not the first of a kind. I'd say the PIC 16F84 and a Picstart programmer are more like the Altair than the Arduino is.

I do agree, though, that having entry-level boards that are easy to use is a huge step up for the large class of people you mention.