$99 netbook runs Linux
|
|
|
Comments (7)
The matter is design goals.
What's more important: -A $100 device? -Something which is desert / rain forest and child proof, has tethering etc.?
Also, let's look at WHY there is this $100 laptop today:
-OLPC started the netbook market, -Reaction of Intel showed they were afraid, showing there was a real market for low voltage CPU's and 'netbooks', -Asus respondend with the Eee and took over, -ARM thought: "There's another market than only phones, where we already have a market share of 98%" -as a result, ARM netbook SoC's became cheaper than 'separate' chipsets, -Big bunch of CPU-makers competing on ARM-SoC's, possible because "the architecture not withheld from / limited to competitors" like x86, -Investors found out about netbooks and their popularity, so they were more likely to invest, -Because heavy _political_ resistance organized by MS& Intel (which OLPC didn't suspect), OLPC didn't meet their mass-production goals, -Cherrypal buys some cheap Chinese moulds and uses cheap plastic & condensors and the ARM9 which came into existence partly because of OLPC, to produce $100 netbook.
So as a matter of fact, it's not sure wether this Cherrypal can replace OLPC, and the Cherrypal is a result of a new market OLPC created. In some way OLPC has reached one goal: The availability of a $100 netbook. However, it's unsure whether the result is fit for the market OLPC aimed at. I work at a company doing plastic moulding in China, and I strongly believe the Cherrypal is not as good as the OLPC; probably apart from less software being available / optimized for ARM9. I say put the OLPC in the climate chamber, put it in UV-light, start duration tests and we'll see if the Cherrypal is any good at all (I'm pretty sure the plastic they use will crumble after put in direct sunlight for a long time).
This leads me to believe it's OK to rationalize the initial costs of the OLPC I believe.
What's more important: -A $100 device? -Something which is desert / rain forest and child proof, has tethering etc.?
Also, let's look at WHY there is this $100 laptop today:
-OLPC started the netbook market, -Reaction of Intel showed they were afraid, showing there was a real market for low voltage CPU's and 'netbooks', -Asus respondend with the Eee and took over, -ARM thought: "There's another market than only phones, where we already have a market share of 98%" -as a result, ARM netbook SoC's became cheaper than 'separate' chipsets, -Big bunch of CPU-makers competing on ARM-SoC's, possible because "the architecture not withheld from / limited to competitors" like x86, -Investors found out about netbooks and their popularity, so they were more likely to invest, -Because heavy _political_ resistance organized by MS& Intel (which OLPC didn't suspect), OLPC didn't meet their mass-production goals, -Cherrypal buys some cheap Chinese moulds and uses cheap plastic & condensors and the ARM9 which came into existence partly because of OLPC, to produce $100 netbook.
So as a matter of fact, it's not sure wether this Cherrypal can replace OLPC, and the Cherrypal is a result of a new market OLPC created. In some way OLPC has reached one goal: The availability of a $100 netbook. However, it's unsure whether the result is fit for the market OLPC aimed at. I work at a company doing plastic moulding in China, and I strongly believe the Cherrypal is not as good as the OLPC; probably apart from less software being available / optimized for ARM9. I say put the OLPC in the climate chamber, put it in UV-light, start duration tests and we'll see if the Cherrypal is any good at all (I'm pretty sure the plastic they use will crumble after put in direct sunlight for a long time).
This leads me to believe it's OK to rationalize the initial costs of the OLPC I believe.
A pedant writes...
...I seem to remember ARM9s being around long before OLPC. It is possible my meory's playing tricks, but I think I remember ARM9s being around in 2001.
According to this site:
http://www.bdti.com/procsum/arm9.htm
It was announced in 1997, so I'd guess the first chips would have been not that long afterwards.
...I seem to remember ARM9s being around long before OLPC. It is possible my meory's playing tricks, but I think I remember ARM9s being around in 2001.
According to this site:
http://www.bdti.com/procsum/arm9.htm
It was announced in 1997, so I'd guess the first chips would have been not that long afterwards.
Be careful, the Cherrypal site got compromised. A couple hours ago their cherrypal.com/openstore/ link redirected to a .ru domain.
Yes DiBosco, you're right, I seriously screwed up.
ARM Cortex A9 is not part of the ARM9 family. So when I read "ARM9" is in the Cherrypal, I assumed it was the Cortex A9, not some CPU of the previous century. Even more reason to believe the Cherrypal Africa will probably not be able to fully replace the OLPC.
ARM Cortex A9 is not part of the ARM9 family. So when I read "ARM9" is in the Cherrypal, I assumed it was the Cortex A9, not some CPU of the previous century. Even more reason to believe the Cherrypal Africa will probably not be able to fully replace the OLPC.
Actually, I linked through to Cherrypal's website. Their $99 Africa is currently offered with Windows CE only, not Linux.
I've been looking into Cherrypal, and it does offer a $99 Africa model with Linux ("Ubuntu, or Debian, or Green Maraschino"): http://www.cherrypal.com/openstore/product_info.php?products...
I've read somewhere that they usually ship with Xubuntu, and I assume Green Maraschino is Cherrypal's own distro (not sure if it's been released yet).
I've read somewhere that they usually ship with Xubuntu, and I assume Green Maraschino is Cherrypal's own distro (not sure if it's been released yet).
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post

Of course there are several main reasons for this price failure. George Snell mentions these within the CBC News piece 'Give one, get one: '$100 laptop' project to sell to public', http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/09/24/xolaptops.html : The irony from this is twofold :
- The Cherrypal device may now really become the "world's first $99 laptop" to supplant the XO (maybe even eventually in developing countries?)
- OLPC-associated persons are practically rationalizing OLPC's steeper-than-expected costs. See Michael Trucano's blog and its subsequent Comments in 'OLPC: A Steep Cost? Or a Profitable Edu-Investment?', linked to at LXer via http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/129555/
Indeed, Will Trucano and others associated with the OLPC Project justify any planned cost increases in the XO device ?? -or- Will the OLPC Project instead consider lowering the XO's own costs by the actual continued presence of bottom-end "sub-$100" laptops such as Cherrypal's devices ??