Talk:One Laptop per Child

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the One Laptop per Child article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Peer review One Laptop per Child has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Give One, Get One

It appears as if that program has been terminated, all references to it (except historical) should be removed from the page. Id rather it be done by someone with an account... 99.253.4.217 (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming, splits and merges

In all the naming and renaming and redirecting, this discussion page seems to have become disembodied from the article page. Not sure if the problem lines in the efforts to clean up some double redirects from our friendly bot, Rossbot, but we now have a really tangled web... Can we somehow get back to basics: an article titled "One Laptop per Child," the non-profit social welfare association whose mission is to give every child an opportunity for learning, and an article about the "XO Laptop," aka the "$100 Laptop" or "Children's Machine", designed and built by the association in keeping with its mission? (Would those who oppose a split be willing to make the XO article a section within the main article?) --Walter.bender 22:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed the redirect problem for the talk page... --Walter.bender 20:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Not fixed: the main article is One Laptop per Child but the discussion redirects to Talk:XO-1 (laptop). --IanOsgood 07:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New proposal: rename to OLPC XO and split out One Laptop per Child article

See Article split discussion below for latest discussion. +sj +

[edit] Merge Eduwise into this article?

I am wondering whether the Eduwise article should become a part of this article under a section about "Other Developing World Educational Laptops"?

I am wondering this because there is a question of whether the Eduwise article is really notable on its own. The OLPC project spent tens of millions on R&D and made a new graphical operating system interface and set of applications, as well as inventing a new screen, a new wireless card and so on. The Intel laptop however, is a small laptop with a tiny screen. It's in a cool blue colour, but it is just a standard laptop.

There may be loads of small laptops for the developing world coming out. Many of them will have similar issues to the OLPC. The Eduwise could be one paragraph in this new section.

Zeth 02:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This ambiguity exists in large part because of the decision to merge the OLPC article with the Children's Machine article. “One laptop per child” is a concept. It is an education project that can be implemented in more than one way, by no means limited to the embodiment of the "Children's Machine." Eduwise—and any other effort to make affordable laptops for children's learning—is aligned with that mission. The Children's Machine itself is OLPC's instantiation of a laptop that meets the needs of children learning, who arguably need more—not fewer—features than high-end laptops. Notably, OLPC asserts that children need three things unique to their condition: low power, sunlight readability, and automatic connectivity. --Walter.bender 15:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I hear your point, there is a tension between the pedagogical concept of "an educational programme involving laptops that have been specifically designed with the needs of developing world children in mind" and the particular implementation that is the Quantas build laptop. There is also the software and so on, nothing stops another manufactuer putting Linux and Sugar on a laptop (or desktop even). Wikipedia is not a product catalogue, so the pedagogical concept has to be at the heart of the combined article. It could do with someone completely redoing it. Zeth 13:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how merging the Eduwise article would be warrented. The Intel project may not be as ground-breaking or as innovative as OLPC but it's still easily notable on its own. —mako (talk•contribs) 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
"still easily notable on its own" - on what grounds is it notable? Please share your reasons. What if every laptop manufacturer brings out one of these things? Wikipedia is not a product catalogue.
Eduwise deserves it's own article, there will soon be more than enough information on that project to warrant its own page. --69.136.111.100 23:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Restructuring after the "merge"

The structure of the merged document is at best awkward. The lead should really be the description of One Laptop per Child (its mission, structure, history, etc.) followed by a description of the Children's Machine aka $100 Laptop aka 2B1 aka XO-1, which is the current instantiation of a laptop being deployed to fulfill the mission. OLPC has been very public about its hope that there will be multiple organizations/companies buiding machines suitable for its mission. --Walter.bender 17:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

So you've said, but I haven't seen this referenced anywhere. Anyway, the article was rather a mess even before the merge. I'll see about tagging it just now. Chris Cunningham 18:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"So you've said but I haven't seen this referenced anywhere." Here is one reference [1].--Walter.bender 15:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The naive reader (i.e. me!) needs to have terms such as 2B1 and XO-1 explained the first time they appear in the article.

[edit] Requested move (February 2007)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE NOT MOVED -- as there was no consensus for the move per discussion below. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Children's Machine → One Laptop Per Child — Damn! I lost all I wrote when my browser crashed! Sigh...there's no way I'll convince you all to vote with me on this one now. :( Anyway, I was proposing that Children's Machine be moved to One Laptop Per Child with a section on the laptop, and a section on the project. I attended linux.conf.au and went to a few talks about OLPC (done by Chris Blizzard and Jim Gettys) and not once did I hear the phrase "Children's Machine". Don't take my word for it. Watch the videos. — JeremyTalk 10:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"OLPC XO" is probably more appropriate. That is the way car names are done. "OLPC" could be a disambiguation page between "OLPC XO" and something like "OLPC Foundation" or "OLPC, Inc." as appropriate. AlbertCahalan 16:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
revisiting, along with a requested article split (see below) : the right name is probably "OLPC XO" (looking at the most popular name in references and articles of late), and the article on the machine should not be conflated with the article about the non-profit. +sj + 23:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support. Why? OLPC gets 5,700,000 Google hits. "One Laptop per Child" gets, 1,300,000 Google hits. "Children's Machine" gets 60,000 Google hits. "$100 Laptop" gets 800,000 Google hits. Use the most common name! Vegaswikian 20:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose -For reasons I outlined below. The article should be named for what people are more likely to search for. The actual content of the article is far more centred around the laptop rather than the organization. In short, this is a "Children's Machine"(or "$100 Laptop") article. So renaming it to anything else would be silly. Bladestorm 15:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose the most common reference that i have personally seen, online and in news media has been to the $100 laptop. i will say that in searching online, I have seen the "one laptop per child" used more often then Children's machine. 205.157.110.11 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Don't forget that how these articles are labelled is for the sake of readers. People are far less likely to look up the "OLPC" movement than they are to look up the "$100 Laptop".
Furthermore, just look at the article:
First, an introduction to the machine, and then eventually a mention of the OLPC. Then descriptions of the machine being rugged, using flash memory, networking, price points, etc... all in just the introduction. Next, the OLPC, history, and participating countries, yes. But then, that's followed by a comprehensive investigation of the technology, design, hardware, omitted features, power consumption, display, networking, keypad/touchpad, enclosure, and then software. And then there's criticism, which first touches on technology, and then environmental concerns, and then actually deals with the use of money, and then back to theft and resale of the hardware.
See the problem? To an extremely large degree, the actual content of the article is about the laptop itself. The only way you could possibly move this article to the OLPC would be if you were to gut at least half of the content out of the article. Do you really want to do that?
Fact is, this article's about the machine, not the OLPC. Renaming the article to something it really isn't about would be unintuitive and damaging. Bladestorm 15:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I came here via a redirect from OLPC... but I was really looking for the computer specs. I wouldn't trust wikipedia search to tolerate punctuation; very often it does not. (see the C++ article for example) 24.110.145.57 00:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
On the laptop hardware page, the laptop is called 'XO'. In that case, the article should be moved to XO. — JeremyTalk 01:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally I don't see this as one article. There should be one for the group. The hardware should be split off into an article, XO-1. There may be a need for the accessories to have an article, but that will depend on how many models actually wind up being created and how common the accessories are across those machines. Vegaswikian 20:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deja Vu

There was once an article about OLPC that was separate from the article on the laptop. Against the advice of some, the article was merged. The combined article does not do justice to the mission: one laptop per child, lowercase. That said, I am not sure that the we are covering any new ground in this discussion. --Walter.bender 20:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I ran into this discussion trying to do WP:RM cleanup. This is confusing as a combined article. See my comments in the move discussion. If someone wanted to clean this up by splitting this into two or three articles, that would solve a lot of the problems I see with the current setup. I think even with the prior merge, being bold would apply here for someone who understands this reasonably well and split the article. Vegaswikian 20:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to OLPC XO

Is it time to rename this article to OLPC XO yet? The name "Children's Machine" is used less and less now. —Pengo 04:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have done the following homework: — JeremyTalk 12:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Pengo appears to have moved this before the RM process was completed. Since there doesn't seem to be any dissent, I'm removing the tag. You may want to consider Vegaswikian's advice below, though. Dekimasuよ! 04:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For XO-1

One Laptop Per Child official site
http://laptop.org/
http://laptop.org/laptop/
Date: current
Mentions XO all over the site. Especially credible because it is the official site of the project.
#olpc IRC channel on freenode
Date: current
Official IRC channel of the OLPC project. IRC topic contains references to "XO-1", not "Children's Machine".
Engadget articles
http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/14/quanta-builds-the-first-ten-xo-1-prototypes/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/15/olpcs-xo-1-gets-its-first-unboxing/
Date: October 2006
News articles containing references to "XO-1". One is a primary source, and one is a secondary source. Credible. Engadget has its own Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engadget
International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/19/features/design20.php
Date: November 2006
Secondary source reporting about the "XO-1". No mention of "Children's Machine".
OLPC News
http://www.olpcnews.com/countries/greece/olpc_greece_childrens_machine_xo.html
http://www.olpcnews.com/prototypes/xo/olpc_news_hands-on_xo.html
Date: March 28-30, 2006
Quite recent articles, so XO-1 is the most recently-used term.
DesktopLinux.com
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS9910170884.html
Date: November 2006
Calls it the "OLPC XO-1".
Official Shipping Docket
Date: April 5, 2006
At linux.conf.au 2007, the OLPC people Jim Gettys and Chris Blizzard asked for eligibility submissions for those interested in getting an XO-1 machine. My Dad and I sent a submission, and are scheduled to be receiving a machine tomorrow. The notification email he received from the project called it the "XO B2" (beta 2). No mention of Children's Machine.

[edit] For Children's Machine

Ars Technica
Note the following older article: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060825-7593.html
Date: August 2006
This source calls the laptop "Children's Machine", but look at the date — August 2006! Any article more recent that I could find said "XO-1". "Children's Machine" is clearly an older term.

[edit] Requested move

Please see the rationale in the beginning of the section. — JeremyTalk 12:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support per previous discussion. After the rename, the OLPC related information should be split out into a separate article. Vegaswikian 21:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move and split

Suggestion:

  1. move this article to OLPC XO, for reasons noted above; most recent references to the machine use either "XO" or "OLPC XO". XO-1 is a term that hasn't been used much in a while; 'OLPC XO' is less ambiguous than 'XO-1 (laptop)', and in use.
  2. separate the material about the laptop (including hardware and firmware details) from that about the non-profit (One Laptop per Child, including philosophy and organization details).

+sj + 00:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with #1. But I don't see a need to (re)split the article as yet, as One Laptop Per Child is still virtually synonymous with the laptop, and I don't believe they're working on anything but the laptop. However, in future I'm sure there will be a need to have separate articles. —Pengo 00:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There is also the OLPC XS. AlbertCahalan 03:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • True. Do you want to work on a draft split on a temp page? +sj + 14:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Split - I agree with the split, but not the move. Keep this page for the laptop with a brief summary on the project, and retask the old OLPC page for the project itself. --Basique 21:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support split - among other things, other hardware in the project as a whole will be coming along soon, so the project needs a more general separate coverage. I'd also support a rename to the more-correct/official "XO" name, and redirect from here. Georgewilliamherbert 22:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    Independent of having more hardware come along, an organization and a piece of hardware are different. The article is currently confusing where it switches back and forth between the two. +sj +
  • Oppose split The project and the laptop are intimately connected. Does the criticism section apply to the laptop or the project? When new hardware shows up we can discuss how best to handle it. --agr 22:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    Most criticisms are one or the other; some are of both, and deserve mention in both places. +sj +

[edit] News and Misleading URL

One Laptop Per Child News is not affiliated with One Laptop per Child, Association. "Offical" news about the project can be found in the project's wiki. --Walter.bender 21:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OLPC News

Really sure sure it's a good idea to list OLPC News as a news source, the owner of the site has demonstrated considerable bias against the project in the past. --Basique 00:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. It keeps creeping its way back into the extlink sections, but it's a troll site and doesn't have any place here. Unfortunately it looks benign enough if one doesn't read it too closely, like MozillaQuest did back in the day, so people add it with good intentions. Removed again. Chris Cunningham 12:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, OLPC News is not a troll site, nor do I have bias against OLPC as an idea. As I've said often, I celebrate the ability of One Laptop Per Child to bring technology to the forefront of economic development, and can't wait to have a XO myself, but I fear the lack of a defined implementation strategy and realistic cost estimates will create great waste and disillusionment with technology.

It's only too bad that neither you, nor OLPC can take peer criticism, even though it is promoted as a core OLPC learning & Sugar UI component. - Wayan Vota, Editor of OLPC News

It is curious that your complaint about about the people commenting here somehow turned into an assertion that OLPC cannot take peer criticism. What is the evidence for this assertion? While I personally disagree with much of what you have written about the project and the "tabloid-style" in which it is written, my only complaint has been in regard to the continued confusion about the affiliation of olpcnews with OLPC. At the time of my initial post on this page, there was no disclaimer on your site. I know experienced journalists who still get confused about the lack of affiliation, hence I argue that it is still not sufficiently clear to the casual reader. --Walter.bender 19:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


The OLPC News link is back. It is has been a continued source of misinformation about OLPC. While it is probably relevant that it be listed, it should perhaps be noted that it has been a source of opinion, not facts about the project. --Walter.bender 00:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree Walter, the OLPC News link has been removed yet again. --Basique 23:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And Walter just provided the evidence to prove my assertion that OLPC can't take criticism with his opinion that OLPC News is "a continued source of misinformation about OLPC" when respected news organs, and even his peers, do look to OLPC News for independent information and discussion about the project. Wayan Vota, Editor of OLPC News

[edit] The MIT Media Lab is also involved in the project.

DISCLAIMER: MIT is not making laptops. MIT is not in the product marketing, development and distribution business, and OLPC is wholly independent of MIT and the Media Lab. In no way does MIT endorse OLPC or any of its products. MIT resources are not being used for OLPC. --Walter.bender 21:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Article begins wrong.

"intended to provide every child in the world"

Just wrong. This laptop is directed for poor-developed countries. North American children will never see a piece of this because they already has good conditions for education. --Ragnarok Addict 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
OLPC is trying to reach the one-billion school-aged children in the developing world; not because we think the children in the developed world don't need connectivity and tools for expression and collaboration, but because, relatively speaking, they have many other means to these ends available to them. That said, "good conditions for education" is probably overstated. --Walter.bender 00:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Also in the begining of the article is this line: "...intended to be distributed to children around the world, especially to those in developing countries..." Should this not be changed to "...intended to be distributed to children in developing countries...", because, as far as I know, that is the current goal of this project. Penman 1701 02:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually from what I've been reading on the OLPC website and wiki it actually is intended for every child around the world. It's just that the developing countries have first shot, so to speak. deepsack (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Power generator

I don't see info here regarding a power generator. Is that question still completely open? I have been wondering if OLPC has been considering harnessing the common habit of bouncing the knee while seated. Agape bright 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The power generator is being made by Potenco another offshoot of MIT Labs. A short Gizmodo article on it here, and one from a blog here. --69.136.111.100 13:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The Potenco solution is one of several OLPC will be testing in the spring of 2007. FYI. it is probably capable of being used to harness "the common habit of bouncing the knee while seated." --Walter.bender 14:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up Walter! --69.136.111.100 05:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If this project leads to the widespread availability of a cheap, robust human-powered source of electricity, that could be the most important contribution of the whole project to the developing world. Add a one-watt LED reading lamp, replace kerosene lamps, save the planet!-69.87.204.36 19:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sugar

The Sugar page needs a lot of love, there is a ton of media and informaion out there for it just need someone to get the ball rolling. --69.136.111.100 13:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] color display description

"Backlighted color mode, a blurry 1200×900 that is similar to between 400×300 and 693×520. (like NTSC or PAL television)"

Where did this come from? The display, in color is hardly blurry--even at this lower resolution, it rivals the resolution of a traditional laptop display. The worst-case is still over 100dpi. Also, there is virtually no underlying relationship between how NTSC or Pal work and the OLPC color system. What is the analogy you are trying to make? That you lose spatial resolution by introducing color? That is *almost* universally true. --Walter.bender 12:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems to just be someone trying to make sense of it all. I've put it back to how it was. —Pengo 13:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm rather certain of it. Given the small physical size of the display, it will still look rather sharp. A piece of traditional LCD display of that physical size would only be about 640x480. So "rivals the resolution of a traditional laptop display" does not conflict with the OLPC XO having a blurry 200 dpi display. It's blurry for 1200x900, but not for a 7.5" diagonal chunk of screen space. The DCON chip does a blur that replaces half of each pixel's value with the average value of the four neighbors. After that, 2/3 of the color values at each location are thrown away. In some directions, images containing wavelengths near and below 3 pixels will have very strong color artifacts; software developers need to avoid images (including fonts) that will trigger this problem. 400x300 comes from the frequency cut-off needed to avoid severe color fringes. Actually it's a bit worse; 300x225 would be a safer bet. 600x450 comes from the frequency cut-off caused by the DCON chip. 693x520 comes from the total number of single-color elements. AlbertCahalan 03:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps better: blurry for 1200x900, yet sharp for the physical size. AlbertCahalan 03:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The NTSC/PAL comparison is purely about image quality, not implementation. It's a point of reference. The OLPC XO screen is gamut-limited, and will remain so until the white LED is replaced with separate red/green/blue LEDs. The OLPC XO screen has good positional control, yet the image is frequency-limited. Color changes can not be resolved as well as brightness changes. With all that, "like NTSC or PAL TV" is a rather good description. AlbertCahalan 03:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
In the sense that chrominance resolution is not as high as luminance resolution, the analogy holds to NTSC and PAL. But unlike these systems, you do not sacrifice luminance resolution for chrominance. Of course, all displays are frequency limited. Regarding the white point, this is a bit difficult because it varies somewhat from display to display--this is one of the places where tolerances were relaxed to reduce costs. Certainly a detailed analysis is in order, but I stand by my statement that the characterization of the display as blurry is a mischaracterization: "It's blurry for 1200x900, but not for a 7.5" diagonal chunk of screen space." The fact is, it is a 7.5" diagonal chuck of screen space, so by your own logic, it is not blurry. --Walter.bender 19:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You have that mostly backwards about sacrificing luminance resolution for chrominance. NTSC only steals a tiny bit for the color carrier. The OLPC XO dramatically loses luminance resolution, obviously via the blur ("swizzle") function and less obviously via wide spacing between lines of green pixels. (about 3/5 of the luminance info is carried in green) It's a 1200x900 chunk of screen space, so it is blurry. :-) It's even a tad blurry for a 7.5" chunk of screen space; modern DPI is now well over 100 on average. We could go by angular size of resolvable image features; it is still blurry because kids will sit closer to the screen than adults will sit from normal laptops. Angular size is kind of appropriate because otherwise a 1024x768 projector with 5mm pixels would always be blurry compared to an old CGA monitor, but going by addressable pixels is also appropriate because that is how the screen will be seen from software. People writing software need to know that they can't expect a 6x13 font to be all that readable in color mode, even if you do have the eyes of a kid. AlbertCahalan 22:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enough BS, let's get numbers!

unmangled test image
unmangled test image
emulation guess #1
emulation guess #1
emulation guess #2
emulation guess #2

We need pictures from the real hardware. It would also be fun to get images from the publicly available screen emulator (a hacked Xephyr? a Google SoC project?) to see how good/bad the emulation is. I've included my two best guesses, obviously limited by the inability to express the brightness of a subpixel via a whole pixel. Note that the test images get scrambled by image scaling; only use them at their full 1200x900 size. They are marked as sRGB and thus should go direct to screen without any additional gamma adjustment. AlbertCahalan 04:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, on the real hardware, please get pictures of: backlight+swizzle (color), neither (greyscale), swizzle only, and backlight only. AlbertCahalan 04:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Check the OLPC WIki's Hardware Page. --69.136.111.100 22:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
A shot of Image:Zone plate boys.png on a OLPC XO laptop in colour mode. Note that the image's origin is not 0,0 (it's being viewed in the web browser).
A shot of Image:Zone plate boys.png on a OLPC XO laptop in colour mode. Note that the image's origin is not 0,0 (it's being viewed in the web browser).
Looks like Swizzle8 is the better emulation. I'd like to work out how to show the image in proper fullscreen mode before taking more shots (this one was taken with the image in the browser), but let me know if there's any particular detail you'd like to see sooner. Note that the screen is very high res, and close-up shots don't give it justice. —Pengo 06:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Most interesting and easy would be a portrait-orientation image that includes the left portion of the measurement scale on the bottom edge and also includes the transition point in the upper-left area where undesired circles start to form. It may be best to move back a bit to avoid viewing angle problems. It may be best to take a picture of a larger area and then crop away the edges; the edges get kind of distorted, though you do need to watch out for the camera itself creating artifacts if you go back too far. BTW, thanks for the picture. AlbertCahalan 05:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
In case the camera interferes, you might just measure with a ruler. The very bottom markings, also found on the bottom right edge of the zone plate, indicate horizontal frequency. Radial markings are the same, in the mid-lower-left, with numbers from 2 to 9. I didn't leave room for the vertical markings; they are also the same, measured from the center. The inner text region is at 9 pixels/wave. Locate each undesired set of circles by these markings. Report the central location, edge location on the side with the larger pixel/wave number, colorfulness, and severity. Also, in each direction from the center, report the radial distance at which you can no longer make out the primary circles. For example, on a normal LCD I get faint unwanted grey circles at 2 pixels/wave (non-radial measurement) in directions left, left-up, up, right-up, and right. The clearly visible diameter is 2/3 the diameter of the central area; they fade away slowly. AlbertCahalan 06:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Mine arrived; it's as I predicted. The undesired circles to the upper-left are colored; the rest are not. All these measurements are by horizontal and vertical scales, not radial. At locations 6 pixels/wave and below, primarily in the upper-left direction, there are noticable artifacts. This indicates 400x300 resolution. In all main directions (45 degrees apart), there are strong artifacts at locations 4 pixels/wave and below. This indicates 600x450 resolution. At locations 3 pixels/wave and below, viewing the primary circles becomes fairly hopeless. This indicates 800x600 resolution. Probably the most reasonable thing to say is that half the resolution is lost, but it's worse for the special case of lines running from lower-left to upper-right. BTW, the web browser fonts are sized for about 300x225! Wikis are horribly difficult to use with such fat fonts. AlbertCahalan 05:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mljmlj 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Mary Lou Jepsen: I've done the measurements on the display myself and have spent much of the last two years of my life designing, building and refining this display. I'm in process of publishing everything about this display including its astonishing resolution performance. The display is the first display I know of that employs something the video encoding experts have done for some time: the human visual system sees higher resolution in luminance (B&W) than chrominance (color): for example MPEG luminance resolution is 4X the chrominance resolution. In that I also added sunlight readability in B&W mode a key thing to understand is that that the ambient light level of the room changes the resolution of the display. The pixel has a reflective part that is B&W, and a transmissive part that is one color: red or green or blue. It should be that a red and a green and blue pixel combine to make a single full-color pixel. Thus the resolution should be 1200/sqrt(3) x 900/sqrt(3) or 693x520. But, when the room is totally dark the resolution given via standard method of determining display resolution is approximately 800x600 or about 133 dpi. I did these measurements a number of ways and am in process of writing them up for publication (some via straight fresnel patterns, other perceptual image detail tests) In a dark room the effect is akin to sub-pixel rendering - we see an improvement in resolution of ~33% via sub-pixel rendering.

With room lights on, an additional effect comes into play: the display has luminance (B&W) information at 200dpi in it's reflective mode, with the room lights on the display also reflects 200dpi in black and white. This increases the effective resolution to about XGA or 1024x768 when using test patterns to ascertain the display resolution. Finally, the laptop can be brought outside into bright sunlight and the screen is still viewable - now the color is barely visible (if the backlight is left on), but on the screen the 1200x900 200dpi resolution is seen crisply and clearly. - Mary Lou Jepsen Mljmlj 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I really hate to put it this way, but you'd have about the most biased opinion I can imagine. Try the zone plate image. The display is only 800x600 by the most forgiving eye. I think a fair observation puts the display somewhere in the 600x450 to 640x480 range. One could be less forgiving, and take note of the awful artifacts in the upper-left direction which indicate a 400x300 resolution. Note that the display controller fails to account for gamma (see bug #1017), which makes things noticably worse. There is no crisp and clear 200dpi in color mode, even in bright sunlight; one must not ignore the "swizzle" convolution. (which is in fact inadequate for stopping color artifacts) BTW, I do like the display. It makes the ClearType patent problem go away. Hardware patents aren't my problem; software patents are. AlbertCahalan 15:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

18.85.18.74 17:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Mary Lou Jepsen: You agree that the display can be 800x600 resolution in color. Great. Now, I have a task for you - bring your laptop into the sunlight. Put a high resolution pattern on it. Measure it. The resolution is 1200x900 = 200dpi in luminance channel only (Black, white and grey). Bring the laptop back inside. Look at the display under a microscope - count the pixels. Again there will be 1200x900 pixels. The pixels are square with dimensions of 0.127mm x 0.127. Verify this. This is not bias, opinion or anything but fact. If you see anything different - please send your laptop to me and I will personally inspect it and report to you what problems I find. I assume that it would be a software bug, it would be impossible for your laptop to have a different number of pixels than the thousands of other laptops we have already made. OLPC has designated a place to file a bug report at dev.laptop.org - it would be a more appropriate forum than here. Please kindly consider using a more appropriate forum. Mary Lou Jepsen 18.85.18.74 17:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking that there was anything wrong with either the display or software. Nobody expects it to be like a high-end laptop for that kind of price and power consumption. It turns out that there is a problem or two, which I will of course report in the proper place. (the gamma standard being ignored) The effective resolution is noticably better if one assumes that the display uses a gamma of 1.0 rather than sRGB. I'd love to have a try at patching the ASIC source (Verilog? VHDL? Whatever, I'll manage.) to fix some of the problems. I hope you accept help from us outsiders. AlbertCahalan 06:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Albert, it was exceptionally bad form for you to confront Mary Lou here. This page is for discussion of the article and nothing else, if you have questions take them to the OLPC Wiki they are more than willing to accomodate you there. Mary Lou, thank you for your detailed briefing on the display, I'm sure that this information will definitely make it onto the article page. --Basique 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Users Mljmlj and 18.85.18.74 confronted me. I was discussing an inaccuracy in the article. As far as I know, I am the first and only person to post reproducable measurements of this display. What, am I not allowed to disagree with a semi-famous person who designs nice computers for children? Are such people always right, such that testing their claims is off-limits? Resolution claims need to be backed by hard data that anybody can reproduce. This display is most similar to 693x520. It does worse in the direction of upper-left to lower-right, but better in the direction of upper-right to lower-left. I have provided a test pattern that you can use to see this for yourself. Beware that the display has a gamma error that will supposedly be fixed in a future revision; have your image display program assume the display is gamma 1.0 if you wish to exclude gamma-related errors from testing. Note that I'm not an OLPC-hater; I'm actually porting Tux Paint to it right now. AlbertCahalan 04:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't care if you're a hater or a lover Albert the title you chose for this sectional was confrontational. In case you are confused about what this page is for read the talkheader at the beginning. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Children's Machine article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. If you want to argue about defective hardware do it in the OLPC wiki's Hardware specification page. When you come back with hard data then please add it to the article. Going forward I will assume good faith on your part. --Basique 14:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opera: yes or no?

100 dollar laptop#Software says that there will be a special version of Opera installed, and a little further it reads that Opera was declined. Maybe a little note at one of both places mentioning the other (either "a special open source version" or "opera was declined but an open source version accepted") would help clarify things. If this is correct at all.. --bb 17:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Opera will definitely run on the laptop but is not in any of the builds. I'll try to update the article because it is not free software or open source. —mako (talk•contribs) 15:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I am curious about the decision to remove rather than clean up the Opera reference: (a) Opera does run on the machine; (b) it is documented at least here: wiki.laptop.org/go/Opera ; and, perhaps more important, it is an example of one of the seemingly more controversial aspects of the project, which is whether or not non-FOSS software should be included--the same topic as the Apple/Jobs reference. Maybe the whole section could be restructured, but no reference seems a bit extreme. --Walter.bender 11:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
My bad. I removed the mention of Opera because I couldn't find any mention of it on Opera's own web site, and the reference in the article made it sound like vapourware. My mistake: it should be noted in the article again. —Pengo 06:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Confused by names- 1B2 ?

I'm trying to learn more about the "$100 Laptop", promoted by Mr. Negraponte. Inevitably, numerous names have been attached to it over the course of it's development. At the OLPC site, the term "1B2" crops up fairly regularly... so could that name have at least a mention/ explanation on the Wikipedia page, please? In particular, is this just a name for "it", maybe current, maybe superceded, or is it some sub-type of the "$100 laptop"? And where did "1B2" come from, please?

82.2.140.233 15:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was "2B1"—not 1B2—that was used as the working name for the laptop at one point. The name 2B1 came from an MIT Media Lab program from the mid-90s. It means "to be one". Other internal names included the "Children's Machine" taken from a book of that title by Seymour Papert. --Walter.bender 16:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in the 'Software' section?

This stood out to me: the section title says: 'The projected software as of November 2006[30] are:' before following up with what seems like some very not-NPOV griping about how Puppy Linux wasn't chosen. Puppy Linux isn't included, so why is it in a section for what the projected software will be, if not to make the point that someone feels hard done-by? I've left it as it stands for now but it could certainly use a rewrite, or removal. Maybe a new section for what software was considered and on what grounds? Stonejag 07:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Because for some reason Puppy Linux attracts its own class of advocates. I've never heard a peep about this supposed "much discussion", so one assumes it happened on somebody's message board. I've removed it. Chris Cunningham 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Criticisms section

There was something about this section taht came off as unuaually biased to me. And possibly racist. I'm not sure if it's just me, but it was almost as if whoever added that little tidbit had that mindset themselves, as if it was a voice of opinion in and of itself. I hesitate to remove it though, in case there's something out there that would support it. Someone want to review it for killing? Daisenji (Time? too lazy... not logged in ><)

Here's the section:
Another criticism is that developed countries are giving undeveloped countries' children laptops before they give their own children laptops. It is claimed that many children in the United States and other developed countries would benefit much more from the use of a laptop than children in undeveloped countries. [citation needed]In fact, some states in the U.S. (e.g. Maine and Georgia) are providing commercial laptops to pupils [2] and the OLPC FAQ responds to the question: "Will the laptop be available for relatively developed nations?" by stating "We are exploring the possibility of developing a commercial version and we are in discussions with representatives from these nations about distribution of the non-commercial version. However, our priority is to make the laptop available first where there is the greatest need."
I've removed rather than tagging it {{cleanup}} because I tend to agree that it's it's POV as well and the first place I've heard this criticism is here. If someone wants to clean this up, reference the criticism itself (and not just a response that seems largely orthoganol) and reinsert it into the normal criticism section, that would be fine. mako (talk•contribs) 03:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] $10 Computer

It seems that the Gov of India is serious about a $10 computer after all: (See http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/TOIonline/India/HRD_hopes_to_make_10_laptops_a_reality/articleshow/1999849.cms). It may have been premature to remove that discussion thread from the article. --Walter.bender 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent news

FYI - http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/05/03/pc-diplomacy/ Douglas A. Whitfield 00:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fedora or Red Hat?

According to Engadget and several other sources (including Red Hat Linux) the OLPC will be running RED HAT not Fedora. The OLPC version of Red Hat is available for download.

We are running a subset of Fedora Core 7 as documented on the OLPC website and wiki. --Walter.bender 18:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recycling

Anthing about how the millions of laptops will be recycled? Especially with these batteries? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.2.190.254 (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, they will be constructed using environmentally friendly techniques and recycled when they are replaced. Root Beers

[edit] Intel story

I would like to offer to write a short description of the Intel idea to compete with OLPC program to the history section of the article. My contribution is based on yesterday's story at http://www.profy.com/2007/05/21/intel-olpc/ and the discussion of this story on Netscape at http://donoevil.netscape.com/story/2007/05/22/poor-children-as-an-emerging-market-for-intel/. --S Gladkova 06:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an article Classmate PC, perhaps you can make additions here -- Q Chris 08:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added a sentence about today's press conference, in which Intel and the OLPC project announced they would work together. Jwigton 23:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second hand computer vs. $100 laptop

Second hand computer is not mentioned in the main article. But I think second hand computer has some key advantages as long as there is power supply. It might be much cheaper and it is a REAL computer. As a Chinese, my first experience on computer is from a second hand 286 PC. And I know that a lot of rural schools in China do buy second hand PCs in cities. It may be a more practical solution. Sinolonghai 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay Good for you go for it, but what has that got to do with this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.234.82 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is related to the OLPC projects. There are already some second hand computer redistribuation organisations expressing their criticism of OLPC. For examples:
  • $100 laptop project is 'fundamentally flawed' [3]
  • War of words between aid organization and OLPC erupts [4]
Sinolonghai 15:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with the previous post. This is a good point and I would support an article giving an overview of different second-hand computing projects (e.g., Freegeek) linked from this artible but don't think it really should go in this article itself. --mako (talk•contribs) 16:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, this is relevant in the criticism of the project, as a viable alternative. 132.203.212.220

Sorry 132.203.212.220, but by disagree do you mean disagreeing with 82.36.234.82, or with Sinolonghai? It was just a little confusing to me, however, I agree that this should be added into the article somehow. Penman 1701 23:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Please Penman, re-read it. Zslevi 08:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Sinolonghai that in the criticism section, second-hand computers should be noted. I don't care whether we have a distinct article about second-hand computer projects. Zslevi 08:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
What exactly do second hand computers have to do with the laptop? Firstly this discussion page is where you figure out ways to improve the main article, secondly that criticism section is almost a third the size of the article, so please make sure your second hand PC contributions are all sourced. It really is beginning to look like a good idea for this article to be split into two separate ones covering both the project and the laptop. --Basique 23:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I've supported a split like this for quite a long time but, at least early on, seemed to be in a minority. Perhaps things have changed. I can support/help in effort to do this. —mako๛ 12:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This originally was two articles, and was combined because nobody could come up with a real rationale for having two articles. The current rationale seems to be that "the laptop article" can somehow avoid attracting all the criticism and OR rambling about potential impact and so on. I don't see that this is likely if the split is between "XO-1" and "One Laptop Per Child" as it was last time.
An actual new article for low-cost computing or the like would be a good idea. Chris Cunningham 12:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article split discussion

Please discuss and vote on the splitting of this article into XO-1 (laptop) and OLPC Project here. --Basique 17:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Split - I vote yes to a split, the article has grown enough that a split is now necessary. We can use the Mozilla Foundation and Classmate PC articles as templates. --Basique 17:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Do not split. There's no obvious rationale here, and the separate articles were previously merged for this reason. We don't do things by voting, we do them by reaching consensus. A different split which specifically addresses other computing solutions for developing nations is a much better idea. Chris Cunningham 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Split - There's an obvious breakpoint between the OLPC project and similar unaffiliated goals and projects of providing wide PC and net availability, and the XO laptop hardware itself. Georgewilliamherbert 18:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Split - The organization (with its directors, participants, goals, etc) are related to but distinct from the XO-1. OLPC also has a school server project and is planning future laptops. The split is inevitable and since the article seems unruly to some people, it seems like a reasonable time to split it. That said, I agree with Chris above -- a more general article on projects attempting to provide PC and net available like OLPC and Classmate and others would be absolutely welcome. —mako๛ 14:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Do not split, I agree with Benjamin above that a split is inevitable. But until other laptops/projects are announced by OLPC there is no need to split right now. —Pengo 03:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment/Update - User:Waycool27 just split the article. I reverted the split , although I support it, because I wasn't sure that there was consensus on this page yet. This is an actively edited page and others should really consider weighing on this before we go forward one way or another. Also, the split itself was slightly botched since it was moved into One Laptop per Child Foundation (a related but distinct organization to OLPC). If/when the split happens, folks should look at reinstating User:Waycool27's work at sorting things out. —mako๛ 15:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Thanks Benjamin for undoing my changes. I didn't realise there was a discussion going on - this is a good lesson for me to check discussion pages before making any major changes in the future. On my part, I just happened to read the Intel announcement and was looking for relevant material on Wikipedia. It seemed like a good idea to split the organization content from the project to keep it scalable - i.e. there might be a future XO-2 and so on. I'm also slightly confused about OLPC as there seems to be 2 distinct sites at laptop.org and laptopfoundation.org, but they both seem to be the same to me. Sorry for jumping the gun here, didn't mean to cause trouble. Let me know if I can be future help. Waycool27 16:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Split - By my actions, it would have been obvious anyway :) Waycool27 16:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - A split would help clean up the flow of the page; in general it seems like good style for product articles to be distinct from articles about the organizations that created them. In this case, Sugar (GUI) is another example of work supported by OLPC which is not limited to a specific machine; discussions about one-laptop-per-child projects have been ongoing, even within this organization, since before the XO was designed... It might be interesting to add detail about other designs over the past few years, and design considerations involved, with a separate article about the XO because it has real specs & is in production. +sj + 02:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Looks like the consensus is for a split. --Basique 22:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
split at OLPC XO or OLPC XO-1. The parentheses for disambiguation is a last resort. Look at car names for example; we use Volkswagen Passat instead of Passat (car). 24.110.144.116 07:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Split into the organization One Laptop Per Child and their first product, the OLPC XO laptop. Each article would have a different focus. The organization article would contain history, philosophy (constructivist learning), people involved, countries involved, and product summaries. The laptop article would contain technical details about the particular hardware, such as the innovative screen, low power system, and software. It would also allow a clean split of criticism against the OLPC philosophy vs. OLPC products. A split also paves the way for other articles on planned OLPC products, such as the OLPC XS server, peripherals, etc. --IanOsgood 07:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that the deletionists are already trying to kill OLPC XS, despite it not being problematic (needing disambiguation for example) or obviously pointless. Maybe you'd like to argue to keep that article and/or add the damn references that somebody demands. AlbertCahalan 06:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Basique. The consensus here seems to be for s split. Anyone here should feel empowered to do it. It's on my todo list so if nobody else gets around to it, I will eventually. —mako๛ 14:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mako, I figure you would be the best one to take care of it. --Basique 17:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Split - What happens when they make a second generation, the XO-2? Are we going to have that in the article as well? I also notice that there are plenty of articles on individual laptops, and individual foundations. Would we merge all of the laptop models Toshiba makes into the manufacturer's article? I don't think so. --TexasDex 16:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh heck, I'll just be WP:BOLD and split it myself--TexasDex 16:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done! This has been long overdue in my opinion. --IanOsgood 21:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] access to knowledge

I guess it has been a while since I have read the article, but it seems to me that the opening sentence is now far off the mark. Simply providing children with "access to knowledge" is not what the OLPC program is about and is not the design goal of the laptop itself. We are trying to give the children opportunities for learning, which suggests that they have access to knowledge (what we refer to as tools for exploration, e.g., a web browser, multimedia player, ebook reader, etc.), tools for putting that knowledge to use (what we refer to as tools of expression, e.g., a word processor, multimedia recoding and editing, drawing, composing, etc.), and tools for engaging in a critical dialog with others about what they have "accessed" and expressed (what we refer to as tools of communication and collaboration, e.g., chat, video conferencing, collaborative work spaces, sharing objects over the mesh, etc.). Certainly the laptop will be used for access to knowledge and access to instructional materials, but the design and implementation are more ambitious: we are targeting construction of knowledge on the theory that much learning happens through doing, debugging, and debate. --Walter.bender 11:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction (email, www)

first it says:

The data rate should be sufficient for asynchronous network applications (such as email) to communicate outside the cloud; interactive uses, such as web browsing, or high-bandwidth applications, such as video streaming should be possible inside the cloud.

then it says:

The projected software as of November 2006 are: [...] * Email through the web-based Gmail service.

That's nonsense: if using email implies using a website, then the first quoted block is simply wrong.

--Lo'oris 18:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Web-browsing "outside of the cloud" does indeed work (in all of our trials). I suspect that the intention of the author of the quote was to try to distinguish between the high-bandwidth connections between the laptops in the mesh--bandwidth that is generally not adversely impacted by the number of laptops on the mesh--and the shared back-haul bandwidth that is shared and hence proportional to the number of laptops on the mesh. Exactly how this maps onto application space is not always obvious or completely deterministic. --Walter.bender 19:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Production Display does not use diffraction grating

The diffraction grating idea did not get into production. Therefore it is not the main innovation in the display as alluded to in the article (whereas power consumption and sunlight-readability are). From http://www.olpctalks.com/mary_lou_jepsen/mary_lou_jepsen_tech_rising.html "So, there's a whole [sic] in the center of the pixel with a color filter over it. The rest of the pixel just is a mirror with no color filter over it."

[edit] "Clockwork computer" redirect

Why does "clockwork computer" redirect here? There is no mention of the XO-1 running on clockwork. --Warp L. Obscura 05:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it should. Someone should propose the redirect for deletion. I doubt it will be controversial. —mako๛ 14:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have boldly changed the redirect for Clockwork computer to Difference engine. -- Writtenonsand 12:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow ! that was a bold leap ! The Difference engine "was powered by cranking a handle" - clockwork implies (to me) storing the energy in a spring or weights. I don't think the Difference engine did ! Google "define:clockwork" only returns the 'gear-train' definition from Wikipedia - other sources suggest stored energy is important, too!
XO-1_(laptop) says "A built-in hand-crank generator ... was part of the original design, but Negroponte stated at a 2006 LinuxWorld talk that it was ... optionally available as a hand- or foot-operated generator built into a separate power unit". Revert ? Better to create a 'Clockwork Computer' page and link to The shipping units will come with a pedal-powered recharger. ? Or just delete ? Personally, I suspect that solar power will be the best option for many places - then 3W bicycle dynamos charging the batteries if needed at night. Even Freeplay , the 'clockwork radio' people, seem to be developing a hand-cranked generator, rather than clockwork spring energy storage.--195.137.93.171 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chief designer

"Yves Behar is the chief designer of the present X0 built."

Yves is the lead industrial designer. Others, including teams from Quanta and OLPC were the leads on the electronics design. Quanta, OLPC, and Gecko collaborated on the mechanicals. --Walter.bender 17:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] talk page problems

Hello all,

these talk pages have issues!

I know this is a controversial topic, naming-wise, so I'm not going to attempt to fix :) But we should try to get it straightened out. -- phoebe/(talk) 17:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.

[edit] Cite for touchpad as “mousepad”?

"Beneath the keyboard is a large area that resembles a very wide touchpad that Jepsen referred to as the “mousepad”." -- Apparently not cited in this article, and I haven't been able to find a source for this online. Since the term "mousepad" already has a different common meaning, if the term is being used this way re the OLPC, I'd like to include a brief note on this fact at mousepad. Can anyone clarify/cite?-- Writtenonsand 12:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OLPC uses the term touchpad consistently in its descriptions of the hardware. Not sure where the mousepad reference comes from, but it is an anomaly. --Walter.bender (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Filtering options

"In response, the OLPC program laid out filtering options." This is not accurate. Filtering of objectionable content is discussed in the Bitfrost specification and numerous options had been "laid out" at "country meetings" long before the alleged incident in Nigeria. Granted none of these options had yet been acted upon at the time of Reuters article. --Walter.bender 02:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason to not correct this factual error? Would it be helpful if I cited additional sources that demonstrate that the Reuters article had no role in OLPC's consideration of filtering software? --Walter.bender (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just be bold and fix it. The "in response" isn't sourced anyway, so just write both things (Reuters article and that there are filtering options) in whatever way you think is most clear and least biased. -kslays (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mebibytes vs megabytes etc, in this article

This article seems to mix and match with binary and decimal prefixes, e.g. using Megabytes at times but Mebibytes later. A standard use for articles like this should be agreed upon and then implemented. Although Kibibyte/mebibyte are correct by IEC standards, they are almost unheard of units outside of Wikipedia and very technical articles. Megabyte and kilobyte are generally accepted as standards in most places, so should they be used here? Either way, consistency is required.

Personally, good old-fashioned Megabytes would be my suggestion.

Thekoyaanisqatsi 12:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Ok, perhaps I should rephrase this: Would anyone object if i simplified this article to using decimal prefixes throughout? I'll give it a week or so to get some replies before I do anything. Thekoyaanisqatsi 14:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I support using megabytes and kilobytes. (I'm not sure if this is what you mean by "using decimal prefixes".) --Gronky 16:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean :) Thekoyaanisqatsi 21:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Negorponte Introduces the Give one Get one program.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14845430 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.236.103 (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Critisism

What about a section that responds to the criticism levelled against this machine?

For example, a response to the "Good use of money" section by Nicholas Negroponte is: “Nobody I know would say, ‘By the way, let’s hold off on education.’ Education happens to be a solution to all of those same problems.”

--70.77.37.70 03:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We have to be careful with this kind of stuff to avoid it going back and forth and ending no where. Personally I wouldn't add that even if Negroponte said it because it doesn't really answer the criticism. I don't know if anyone has said we shouldn't educate people. Some people have said, building schools, improving conditions so people can actually attend schools etc might be more important. I'm not saying I agree with this view simply pointing out that no one is saying we shouldn't educate people AFAIK just that this may not be the most effective way increase education Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

Why was the criticism section duplicated on the X-O laptop page? In fact a lot of this article was duplicated in what was once a leaner more directed page. --Basique 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minimum Donation $200?

As far as I can tell, both the G1G1 program and the "main" OLPC websites only allow donations of at least the price of a laptop. Do they not want smaller donations? Should this be in the article?

are the only donation pages I could find. I guess my $25 will go somewhere else. Gront (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. Have to look under "participate" rather than "donate".

There goes my $25 :) Gront (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intel

This ref [5] is currently used as a source but I've noticed the article doesn't really cover it's main point, that Intel and Microsoft have tried to kill the OLPC project. This needs to be here somewhere particularly since the article mentions that many of the initial orders never came through but doesn't mention why (because many people are looking at Intel Classmate PC instead) Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The "why" cited above is either hearsay or speculation. If it is going to be incorporated into the article, it should be better grounded. --Walter.bender (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Look through the various News Picks threads in the last few Groklaw stories (as of Jan. 12, 2008), as well as the News Picks links themselves from Groklaw. There are specific instances where Intel representatives used Intel's position as members of the OLPC board to give increased weight to their criticisms of the OLPC. Someone please add such references. An industry expert (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wayan Vota

We might need an article on this guy once people sort out his real affiliations. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffBurdges (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was created.--Kozuch (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language of operating system

Can the language or the operating system be changed from english to spanish on an already purchased machine and if so how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsalazar1763 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions about the laptop itself should be posed on the OLPC wiki: http://wiki.laptop.org/ --IanOsgood (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair market value?

The fair market value of the XO laptop is placed at $199 by the OLPC Foundation. How is "fair market value" defined? Apart from being a very subjective term, that would presuppose a fair market, which is not in sight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.51.93 (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Has it ever been for anyone? deepsack (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split section - Criticism

The section is too long for the article. It is also important enough to be split into a new page called Criticism of One Laptop per Child.--Kozuch (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Performed the split as there were no comments.--Kozuch (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have merged the material from Criticism of One Laptop per Child and interspersed in appropriate sections for an NPOV presentation of the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but you failed to reach consensus about merging - thus reverted merge from the Criticism of One Laptop per Child side. As an administrator you should obey at least some Wikipedia rules in my opinion before doing major edits.--Kozuch (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:IAR is still a valid way to be bold. Rather than resort to a process discussion, check my version of the merged articles and discuss its merits or lack thereof. I believe that it is NPOV, not "poisoning" and presents all significant viewpoints on the subject. If we have no agreement, I shall ask for additional input from other editors via WP:3O or WP:RFC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windows

Should the fat they are thinking of switching to windows be mentioned? At the moment its just a verifiable rummor, but if the change of CEO, is anything to go by it is going to be researched soon. At what point should it be added to the article? now? research? when they announce it? when they ship it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.192.193 (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

something should be added about windows. they just struck a deal with microsoft to include windows on olpc for $3 extra, dual boot? $7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.146.101.26 (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wholesale price slashed to $75/device

I found this article on Digg. It's not $188 anymore.

The news article here indicates that not only has the OLPC been slashed to $75/laptop, it's been redesigned into an E-book-like device. In order to type, the keyboard appears on a touchscreen.

I think this would be something valid to update the article with. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 18:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

These are announcements by OLPC about their proposed Gen-2 machine. The Gen-1 machine is currently priced at US$188. --Walter.bender (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
So when do we end the redirect of OX-2 and start updating it? deepsack (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)