pbrobinson at gmail.com
Fri Nov 12 04:37:24 EST 2010
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Ed McNierney <ed at laptop.org> wrote:
> Naz -
> Thanks for the thoughts!
>> IMHO it's better to delay the release of the 1.75 and force putting in
>> a touchscreen.
> It's not a matter of time, it's a matter of the price deployments are willing to pay for it. The feedback we've heard so far is that since the XO-1.75 without a touchscreen is every bit as functional as an XO-1.5 is, deployments cannot justify paying the noticeable additional cost for a touchscreen. If that changes, fine, but I think it's unlikely. Cost is more important than touch input functionality (again, to XO-1.75 end users, not tablet software developers).
>> IMHO the next XO would be irrelevant to the public without it
>> as it would offer no significant change outside the hood from the 1.5.
> No, but an XO-1.75 that uses half the power and therefore provides twice the battery life is an XO that is now available to many children who don't have the electrons to use XO-1.5 machines, or for whom a 4-hour battery life is inadequate but an 8-hour battery life would be quite useful.
I agree with this point, what is the cost of the ARM platform vs the
VIA one. I remember seeing some details about how the components from
the XO-1 to the XO-1.5 had reduced significantly between the release
of the two devices bringing the cost down. Is there further per unit
reductions moving to the ARM platform or is it similar to the current
More information about the Devel