Talk:Classmate PC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject International development (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Dedicated comparison section[edit]

I'm (forgot to sign in), I've tried moving all the significant and justified comparisons to the OLPC to a dedicated section so they don't clutter up the rest of the article. I left a few of the comparisons where they were because they're relevant to the section and informative. I've also tried to make some of the language more neutral as some of the language is far too judgmental. Any feedback would be helpful, If you don't like some of the changes, please add or alter the article but don't revert as the way the article was felt like one giant comparison that was too critical of the project. Abigsmurf 15:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. This comparison might be left in Wikipedia for historical reasons, maybe as a separate article, but it does not belong here. yamaplos 21:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree as well - why should the cost of the manufacturing process be included in the tech comparison? Pretty much all that's left out is free drugs and hookers from the XO side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


This article is extremely biased. It mentions the OLPC XO laptop project at every step of the way, and defines everything done with respect to the classmate pc with respect to the XO laptop. This article should be neutral and simply talk about the classmate pc, and THEN at the end have a separate section about the competition with the XO laptop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:59, 13 April 2007

Seems appropriate to me to compare them -- most readers with any interest in either will want to understand them both, in relation to each other.- 19:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
As the Classmate PC was created entirely as a response to the OLPC XO dropping the Intel processor in favor of the Geode, I think it is not only appropriate, but important to compare them, and no amount of Intel astro-turfing is going to change my mind. Loverevolutionary 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference to a competing item precludes assuming a neutral role; in other words, it is an admission of non-neutrality.

-- Not it's not. As a historical document the rivalry between the two programmes will be of massive importance. That should be documented on the article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC) 

By comparing publication dates one can infer what any reasonable person might.

Intel's dates: The first was in January 2006. (URL: )

The OLPC's dates: The first was a full year earlier, in January 2005, and is a reference to MIT, where it began. (URL:

Did a not-for-profit idea that began at a university whose reputation for -- say intelligence (for lack of a better word at the moment) come to be because it saw an opportunity to compete with one of the wealthiest technology companies in the world, or is the converse true?

That Microsoft and Intel have been an alliance since the early 1980's is no secret. Intel was selected by the MIT group in 2005; Microsoft was not. Then, the OLPC project found a more cost-effective solution, pushing Intel the way of Microsoft.

On a personal note (please feel free to delete this if it is "out-of-bounds") I learned to write embedded code using Intel's products, in 1982. I've been a fan, ever since. I was also a fan of Microsoft's; I supported networks running their OS for 17 years -- until I could no longer afford to stay current with Microsoft's obfuscation method of creating trust.

This wikipedia entry is a morally repugnant marketing strategy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:53, 14 May 2007

"When OLPC dropped Intel from its design, Intel decided to create a competitor." OLPC never "dropped" Intel from its design. Intel turned down the offer to work with OLPC on the laptop; AMD jumped at the opportunity and has been a dedicated partner to the program. That said, OLPC is fundamentually processor "agnostic". What OLPC will not compromise on are its [core principles]. Also, OLPC has made a number of engineering decisions that are based upon the needs of children learning in the developing world: everything from a high-resolution sunlight-readable display to provide a paper-like reading expereince for children for whom this is their only "book" to a environmentally friendly human-powerable laptop for children living off the grid. --Walter.bender 23:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
"Did a not-for-profit idea ... come to be because it saw an opportunity to compete ...?" OLPC made the decision to be non-profit explicitly so that we would have no obligations other than to the children for whom we are trying to provide the best possible learning experience at the least possible cost. As the price of components go down, e.g., the cost of NAND flash or DRAM, those costs are directly and entirely reflected in a lowering of the cost of the laptop. This can only be done by a non-profit. What OLPC cannot do, however, is "forward pricing": we cannot compete with a company that is willing to take > $100,000,000 losses in order to get market share. We have to price the laptop at cost. --Walter.bender 23:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost the entire talk about this article seems to be people critical of the Classmate unit compared to the OLPC project. It seems to me people are using this page as a soapbox to heap praise on the OLPC and critisize Intel. People need to remember this article is about the Classmate PC, people will want to come to this page to find out as much info as they can about it. I doubt they want an article that is 2/3 Classmate and 1/3 OLPC and with frequent comments on Intel's business ethics. I feel the edit I did balanced the need for uncluttered info with some of the issues surrounding both projects although probably can be edited further. If people want a page where the issues between the two competing products can be the focus, then perhaps there should be a dedicated comparisson page that can be linked to both on the OLPC page and classmate page. Abigsmurf 22:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Classmate is a pc rather then XO which is a gadget. Also why is OLPC explicit named? Link to XO should be enough which links to OLPC. Also is misses a link to eeePC which is much closer (netbook too) to classmate compared to XO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

for sale?[edit]

Will people be able to buy them -- or will that be forbidden, like the OLPC?- 19:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See slashdot or use Google top confirm this, if necessary: The OLPC is being purchased by people, for people. This includes peoplein the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:55, 14 May 2007

You can find XOs on eBay against OLPC wishes (personal communication from BrightStar). It has been repeatedly reported that it is very hard to purchase directly from OLPC unless you get specific permission to do so, the procedure for said permission not being public, though there is an official "Get Many" program. yamaplos 21:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


This article does not seem to be as much about the Classmate PC as it is about Intel's attacks on OLPC's XO. It does not therefore present a neutral and unbiased picture of what the Classmate PC is. While the attacks by Intel on XO certainly deserve mention, probably even an entire section, the majority of this article needs to be about the subject of the article, not the "controversy" surrounding it.

The most blatant problem statement is right in the intro:

In support of its entry, Intel has publicly dismissed the XO as a 'gadget', and has argued that the developing world wants to have generic PCs.

--Matthew 12:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree; the comment is dismissive. And minimizing and, by reference to the XO, attempting to ride the achievements of the OLPC. I don't agree that the entry, is from Intel, as implied above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:59, 14 May 2007


I think the User: summed it up when it asked "Will people be able to buy them..." This is not information, it is an advertisement. 16:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Logically, it makes no sense. What else, if not people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:00, 14 May 2007

Additional evidence the entry is an advertisement[edit]

Just prior to the sub-heading, "Technology", is this statement:

"Intel announced that it is in discussions to supply 300,000 laptops to the Mexican government ..."

This text belies an alterior motive in that it refers to general PR news, from Intel rather than referring to something that is specifically about the entry name.

In fact, the writing style is reminiscent of Intel's press releases. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

digi pen[edit]

I came here in hope of finding out more about the linux supported digi pen that comes with the classmate.

Only one digi pen system seems to be purchasable at this time and there is no information anywhere (that I can google) for its use with Linux. (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

trade association ?[edit]

I think comparison to the OLPC XO is appropriate but this jumped out at me: "similar to the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) trade association's Children's Machine (XO)"

I have not seen OLPC refered to as a trade association anywhere else including the Wikipedia article. Fholson 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

MiLeap X[edit]

The MiLeap X-laptop is a device hugely similar to the Classmate. It has same specs, and is sold for around 250$ for the commercial market. Build by HCL.

Include in the article. Thanks. (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

3rd generation[edit]

fyi: 3rd version news. Available at end of year:

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

More evidence this is PR[edit]

the specs for the Classmate were updated recently to fit their 3rd generation, but not for the XO, now 1.5 - the comparison thus made to look even worse. Also, no comparison of pricing is made - in March 2010 XO 1.5 is sold for less than 1/2 the price of a Classmate. yamaplos 03:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaplos (talkcontribs)

Edit Request[edit]

{{request edit}} Hello fellow Wikipedians. I work for a company who sells this device. Some of the bosses who know that I know Wikipedia a little have asked me if I could introduce our company to the article, as other companies are promoted in the article as well. I have explained to them the concept of SOAP and COI, and I do think it came across. However, they felt that the article should represent the product and refer to the Intel Learning Series (which in turn are responsible for listing all the different vendors, including my company) instead of individual vendor websites. I believe that this should be in accordance to policy. Could anyone help me out on this? I hope I'm doing this right. :) Thanks! ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 07:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  TOW  talk  05:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The article should be cleared of self promotion of companies selling this device. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 09:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
When you make an edit request, you should specify exactly what you want changed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)