Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education Portables Power Hardware

OLPC Halves Power Consumption For XO 1.75 160

Posted by timothy
from the conservative-versioning dept.
angry tapir writes "One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) has reduced the price of the next version of its notebook to US$165 and power consumption has been slashed by half compared to the previous version. The XO-1.75, with its 8.9-inch touchscreen, will start shipping in the second quarter of this year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OLPC Halves Power Consumption For XO 1.75

Comments Filter:
  • Great! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by afabbro (33948) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @03:01AM (#34802324) Homepage

    Great! Can't wait to buy one.

    Note that I said one.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 08, 2011 @03:12AM (#34802348)

    The actual cost of non-premium hardware is very, very little. For instance the screen in most netbooks only costs about $10-$15, probably less in bulk. The only reason Ipads cost so much is they use under-clocked top of the line CPU's, IPS displays with lots of SSD space and a capacitive touchscreen in an expensive aluminum case. Now if you stick to a cheaper non-IPS display and use a resistive touchscreen and reduce the storage capacity and put it into a cheap plastic case... and you end up with a cheap Android tablet.

    Which reminds me Walgreens had a cheap android tablet around x-mas for only $99, there really is very little, if any, difference between a netbook and a tablet besides a physical keyboard. In fact if you read the article they discus how it really is a tablet with the cpu and everything behind the screen, but with a permanent keyboard and battery attached at the bottom. If Walgreens can sell a tablet for $99, they can certainly attach a keyboard and put some sort of manual charging device on it for $65 more.

  • by c0lo (1497653) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @03:35AM (#34802414)

    But didn't we learn from the promise and price fiasco with the 1.0 and beta of this hardware?

    Side-effect learning: they were the first to step into what is now called netbook and probably the very existence of the netbooks and ebook readers has roots in their first attempt (even if they failed on price, they showed there is a market for low-end laptops). Keeping into acount they are not a for-profit, it's still remarkable they managed to pull such a trick.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 08, 2011 @04:14AM (#34802542)

    ...The only reason Ipads cost so much is they use under-clocked top of the line CPU's, IPS displays with lots of SSD space and a capacitive touchscreen in an expensive aluminum case...

    That, plus they know the average iConsumer will buy pretty much anything they peddle at any price they choose.

  • by perryizgr8 (1370173) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @04:20AM (#34802574)

    The only reason Ipads cost so much is they use under-clocked top of the line CPU's, IPS displays with lots of SSD space and a capacitive touchscreen in an expensive aluminum case.

    and don't forget the 200% apple tax.

  • Re:it's about time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris&beau,org> on Saturday January 08, 2011 @05:02AM (#34802706)

    > Had they done that then they wouldn't have had the issues with Intel
    > back stabbing them nor Microsoft wasting their time.

    Did you read the press release? It's thank you sir, may I have another! They cite Microsoft's (likely vaporware or App store locked down) porting of Windows to ARM as being the reason the ARM version is now a viable notion. They still can't imagine a world without teaching the kids to be good Microsoft Office Users.

    > They should have started with ARM to begin with.

    No that would have been pointless at the time. If it isn't apparent by now their whole plan was to wave the penguin flag until Microsoft came through with a cheap enough deal you haven't been paying attention. ARM would have made that plan impossible. Besides, they had AMD in as a partner at the beginning... until they used them as a lever to force Intel to give em a sweet deal. Problem was once Intel got AMD out they stopped giving em free stuff because by then it was clear there was zero chance Negroponte was actually going to be able to deliver on any of his promises.

  • by silanea (1241518) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @06:35AM (#34803046)

    Most $600 cellphones [...]

    Most $600 laptops have more functionality and more power than this thing. That matters exactly fuck-all to people who cannot even afford a $165 laptop on their own. Besides, how would you like doing your homework or reading long texts and watching films on a cell phone? Did you even look up what the OLPC project is about? The kids in the third world do not need an app store, they need a platform that enables them to get used to a machine that magically emits light, shows pretty pictures that can move and make noise, and that allows them to talk to someone outside their range of sight. Ideally one that survives in the desert and uses little power. Which is precisely what the XO was designed from the ground up to be.

  • by MacTO (1161105) on Saturday January 08, 2011 @07:06AM (#34803160)

    I've tracked the OLPC project and have worked in educational technology for years, and arguments over processors and power consumption are bullshit. The same goes for the philosophies of education behind educational technology. At the moment, the biggest issue is teacher training. Simply put, most teachers don't know how to use computers in the context of classroom teaching. That's even true when it comes down to the basics. Sticking an ARM processor into the case isn't going to solve that. Getting the computer to run on 2 Watts isn't going to solve that. Praying that the child is smarter than the teacher when it comes down to adopting new technologies for learning isn't going to solve that. Indeed, this emphasis upon technology over learning and these idle hopes that children are better at using technology for learning have left educational technology in the same cesspool that it was in 30 years ago: teachers, the people who are responsible for guiding children through the process of learning, are almost as ignorant about how to use it today as they were way back then.

    (For what it's worth, I think that there is some value in the 'student is smarter than the teacher' mentality when it comes down to educational technology. Yet that only works for a subset of children, since it involves a lot of self-motivation.)

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Working...