Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?

[Bob Retelle <bobr1@provide.net>]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:09:21 +0200, "T.J.T van Kooten"
<thomas@-nospam-worldonline.nl> wrote:

>For the sake of argument let's suppose you could design a next generation
>$300 homecomputer. The goal is to make a userfriendly machine for general
>use and for hobbyists. How would such a system look?
>

It would probably look very much like the e--Machines system I just
bought my daughter to take to college with her.

600Mhz Celeron
32 MB RAM
8Mb SVGA Video integrated on motherboard
Soundblaster compatible integrated on motherboard
10 GB Hard Drive
16x DVD
Keyboard
Mouse

Cost?   $269

(OK, I got a deal because these were "returned" systems from a company
that canceled a contract.  They had to be sold as :"ref urbs" because
they weren't "new".   Big deal.)

Oh, and I added a 10/100 card for $14 and 256MB RAM for $55

She probably could have gotten by without the RAM, but why?

The price is in the $300 ball park and it's a system she'll be
familiar with and can make instant use of.  The software it runs will
be compatible with most people she runs into in college.  It has a
software base that no new computer could challenge for decades.

>CPU? (P.S Intel and AMD are out, far too expensive and powerhungry for this
>type of thing, you should be looking at the $20-35 level)

And looking at incompatibilities?  Let's choose something no one else
runs at present just to be different?   Something with no software
base?   Something that will have to run an emulator (and slow it down)
in order to have any programs to run?

>As OS? (Linux is a dead giveaway, but there also other OS's out there)

Gak.  You said "userfriendly" up there.  Linux is out.    Waayyyy out.

>Build in programming language? (please choose anything but Basic!)

Why not?  BASIC is userfriendly.  It uses natural language.  It was
designed to be easily usable.by anyone.

Why choose something that will only discourage users from learning it?

>Amount of memory? (RAM and ROM)

RAM is cheap.  More is better.  Decide on the actual amount at the
last minute depending on the final cost of the unit. Put in as much as
you can to bring the cost up to your final limit.

ROM is nice, but restrictive.  Atari was hobbled by the difficulty of
releasing bug fixes to its TOS operating system because the OS was in
ROM.  (Well, that was one of the reasons.)   But it was VERY nice to
have the system boot in seconds.

>Graphic and Sound?

Yes, definitely.

>Network capabilities? (internet capable)

Of course.

>Plug in capabilities (remember you're making it as cheap as possible so
>modems, CD-Roms, HD's are all extras)

Why?  When you can buy a system like I described above.  Who is going
to buy a stripped down box?  Will it have a cassette interface?

>Video (TV? or Monitor?)

Using a TV will restrict the output to 40 columns.   Nice if you're
currently using a VIC-20, but who is going to do anything but play
8-bit games on a TV?

>
>
>Remember that the RETAIL price should be $300, so think in wholesale prices.
>The real costs should below $200 or even below the $150 level. You may
>presume that a million units would be manufactured so take volume discounts
>for components into account
>
>Let's see what sort of systems people come up with.
>

Well,  I've already got mine.   (I'm designing roller coaster tracks
on it right now.  I'll probably take that off before it goes off to
college with my daughter though.)

BobR