This project came about at the suggestion of a charity, Computer Aid International, which collects unwanted PCs from UK businesses, refurbishes them, and then ships them for reuse in education, health and not-for-profit organisations in developing countries. Unfortunately, traditional desktop PCs, as used in western companies, have relatively large power requirements — especially when paired with old-style CRT monitors. At the same time, power supply in developing countries is often unreliable, particularly in rural areas, leaving little choice beyond environmentally questionable (e.g. diesel generators) or expensive-to-purchase (e.g. solar panels) power-generation technologies. It therefore makes sense on many grounds — operational, financial and environmental — to use the most power-efficient computers available.
Computer Aid International provides professionally refurbished computers for reuse in education, health and not-for-profit organisations in developing countries.
There are now a number of low-power computers on the market, ranging from notebooks (which are generally designed from the ground up with power consumption in mind), to small-format desktop PCs, to thin-client solutions that hang a number of minimalist workstations off a central host PC or server. Some of these products are explicitly aimed at developing countries, while others are more focused on the increasing need to conserve power in developed countries. But which type of low-power solution is best? Beyond the manufacturers' claims, there is very little independent information on this question.
In this initial survey, ZDNet UK has gathered eight examples of low-power computers, including high-profile products such as the OLPC XO and Intel's Classmate, and measured their power consumption when performing a representative set of tasks. For the battery-powered notebooks, we also measured rundown and recharge times. In addition to the lab tests, we have made a comprehensive log of each system's hardware and software features, giving extra weight to attributes that are particularly relevant to the developing world. Naturally, we also spent time simply using the computers, exploring their functionality and ergonomics. Finally, looking beyond the systems themselves, we have considered important factors such as the availablilty of documentation and technical support, and of training to help teachers, in particular, make the best use of the technology.
The outcome of this process is a shortlist of low-power solutions comprising at least one mini-desktop, one thin client system and one notebook. Six examples of each product will go on to the second stage of the project: field-testing in Africa, which will be carried out by universities in Kenya, Nigeria and Zimbabwe. The outcome of this trial, which will concentrate as much on 'ecosystem' factors as the technology itself, will be described in a later report.
Talkback
Charles-
Excellent article. You are doing a great service to people who can’t run these tests on their own. I work for NComputing and would like to add a few comments based on what we have seen in selling over half a million seats of our virtual desktops, many to developing countries where electricity is often limited and expensive.
1. Performance: The review says that performance of the X300 (and L230) varies inversely to the number of users. This isn’t true in practicality. A typical X300 system running 7 users almost never hits 100% CPU utilization. That means that every user gets performance as if they had a dedicated 2.8 GHz CPU. On the rare occasion that the CPU hits 100% momentarily (e.g., every user turns on a graphics intensive application at the exact second), then it might feel like a 2 GHz CPU.
2. Power: The electricity savings of an X300-based system can pay for itself in about a year. Low-power laptops can’t claim that because the batteries are expensive and have to be replaced every few years.
3. Obsolescence: Laptops and desktops have to be replaced every three to five years. With an X300 system you replace 1 PC for every 7 users, so the cost is a fraction of what it is when each person gets their own CPU. It is worse with laptops, which requires throwing away the screen and keyboard elements – and laptops last 2-3 years at best. This also generates more e-waste.
4. Maintenance: Laptops are notoriously unreliable. Our X300 access devices are very durable and practically maintenance-free, so the cost of repairs and maintenance is proportional again to the much lower number of shared PCs. With one CPU per person, these costs skyrocket.
5. User experience. Have you tried those low-end laptops? Our systems look, act, and feel just like “real” PCs. Each user has a big screen, normal keyboards, and regular mice. In short, no compromises.
...for those comments; we certainly intend to do more testing, on the NComputing X300 in particular, as we only looked at 3 access clients and a host PC rather than the maximum 6 clients. I take your point about laptop drawbacks, but a portable battery-powered computer has clear advantages too, and some of the 'low end' notebooks are really quite usable. As you point out, the choice betewen a 'desktop' or a 'portable' solution for organisations in developing countries is likely to depend on a mix of factors -- we're just pleased to see that there's an increasing amount of choice.