Talk:Gen2 Hardware ideas

Looking for the best hardware possible, efficient and cheap, I've found only one that fits and actually can do it all, from I/O control to processing, even sound and VGA outputs... 40 efficient CPUs in a Chip, each available to it's own task, all with a fraction of a Watt of power, available to emulate any circuit, from VGA to wireless.

http://www.intellasys.net/

The downsizes are:

• Any peripheral (Ram included) should comunicate in serial mode (not a real problem, not to a portable PC at least).
• the need to program everything, but taking in to account a Small OS like Menuet <http://www.menuetos.net/> the OX3 it is certainly doable at us$10 the hardware and the remaining dependent on the VGA touch-screens. (same as above)
• Current industry will look for it as a menace though it would be an extra, not competition to existing products.

The upsides are:

• Low power usage.
• Cheap. 40 efficient Cpu's are cheaper that only one x86 (or ARM) inefficient CPU.
• Power. Each of the 40 CPUs are powerful enough for the OS, or any application.

So: The higher power needed and price tag will come from the VGA. (current XO hardware has contoured that problem)

Is there the will ?!? Since this would be a change that would compromise big-business, it is doubtful. Charles Moore work in uCPUs are being sabotaged for years. He offered an Home Internet Box for $5 and it was dropped. A funny 1996 story, with the predecessor of the intellasys CPU (An F21 single CPU chip), can be found at http://www.ultratechnology.com/scope.htm

Quoting Ultratecnology site:

My idea of a cheap PC had some things in common with MIT's new $100 One Laptop per Child project, except my idea was that, what the world needed was a good $5 computer that was as simple to understand as the cost implied. We got pretty close at iTV with the Forthchip module that we could build for about $5 that fit into the battery compartment of a $19 (retail) B/W TV AM/FM which let it connect to the Internet for email and web browsing. iTV never sold any of them let alone the volume needed to sell those miniature Imac-like machines for $49. And UltraTechnology's Workstation in a Mouse demostrated that a mouse with an F21 would cost about the same as an ordinary $10 mouse and only needed an RGB monitor or TV to play and surf. iTV did come close to closing a couple of those billion unit type deals.

No comments needed...Back to OLC: But will (again) someone take the KISS rule into account to make GREAT (instead if BIG) system (and OS) that would be available anywhere for less that $50? (assuming $40 to be cost of the VGA)... or even us$10 if a TV is used (making more sense in remote places and with a price more realistic to some countries were one TV in a village is a luxury)...

Such option would be useful: - One Keyboard with the Computer inside using an existing TV by $10. - cables or no cables depending if you would use 1 chip or 2 (One at the keyboard, another cable connected to the TV)... THAT would be a real luxury!!! as it would cost $20 instead of $10... See what the problems are?

Dutra de Lacerda <http://Factor-H.com>

It's been done... many times

Dutra said: "Such option would be useful: - One Keyboard with the Computer inside using an existing TV by $10. - cables or no cables depending if you would use 1 chip or 2 (One at the keyboard, another cable connected to the TV)... THAT would be a real luxury!!! as it would cost $20 instead of $10... See what the problems are?"

There was a host of "computer in a small box hooked to your TV" systems in the 1970s: the Radio Shack Color Computer, the Commodore VIC 20 and C64, (and the Apple II, for that matter). Undobutedly, these (or something similar) could be reimplemented today for $5 to $50. But one thing we learned from those is an analog (NTSC) TV makes a lousy computer display. And a TV has a lot of extra circuitry that draws power to no purpose, compared to a dedicated, integral display. Also, how many surplus TVs are available to the "target market" for the XO-2? And what broadcast standard would they be using? -- Davewa 18:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)