A $20 8-Bit Wikipedia Reader For Your TV

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Wired about another entry in the ongoing quest for low-tech-high-tech educational tools to take advantage of distributed knowledge: "The Humane Reader, a device designed by computer consultant Braddock Gaskill, takes two 8-bit microcontrollers and packages them in a 'classic style console' that connects to a TV. The device includes an optional keyboard, a micro-SD Card reader and a composite video output. It uses a standard micro-USB cellphone charger for power. In all, it can hold the equivalent of 5,000 books, including an offline version of Wikipedia, and requires no internet connection. The Reader will cost $20 when 10,000 or more of it are manufactured. Without that kind of volume, each Reader will cost about $35."

Comments

Blurry text

[wjousts]

I can't imagine that the audience this is aimed at is likely to own an HDTV, so presumably they'll be trying to read masses of blurry text on an older SDTV. Sounds like fun.

Re:Blurry text

[jrmcferren]

The answers are simple, if the country uses SECAM that isn't a problem usually, if they use NTSC or PAL, simply turn off the chroma signal or use 40 columns.

Re:Blurry text

[drHirudo]

Reading from the screen is not hard. Even on old TV sets. Teletext exists since ages and nobody complains about it being unreadable. In fact in today technological society there are already more people reading more from screens of some kind, than from paper. With such cheap device as the one in the article, the ratio of people reading from screen versus the people reading from paper will increase even more in favour of the ones readering from screen.

Re:Blurry text

[CohibaVancouver]

so presumably they'll be trying to read masses of blurry text on an older SDTV.

Until the "IBM PC" came along, most of us hooked our home computers to our televisions:

http://www.vintagecomputer.net/apple/appleII/appleII_display_graph.jpg

We wrote BASIC programs, played ZORK, and labouriously keyed in source code printed in the likes of "Creative Computing." Today, none of us are blind. Well, some of us are. But likely for other reasons than reading text on an SDTV.

Now get off my lawn.

Re:Blurry text

[Dogtanian]

My first 3 computers hooked up to an old SDTV. In fact as I recall it was a Black & White TV.

But did you tie an onion to your belt? ;-)

I don't usually talk to myself, but:
1. Timex Sinclair 1000
2. TRS-80 Color Computer 2
3. TRS-80 Color Computer 3

Oh, the irony! :-)

Er, I can't talk, given that the first computer I used was a ZX81 (i.e. UK version of the TS-1000), and the first three machines I used were connected to black and white tellies, including my Amiga at one point(!)

Re:Blurry text

[blincoln]

We wrote BASIC programs, played ZORK, and labouriously keyed in source code printed in the likes of "Creative Computing." Today, none of us are blind.

While this is true, the text back in those days was pretty barebones. I couldn't find a screenshot of what the TV output looks like from this device. Is it that same sort of old-school no-frills monospaced font with 40 (or 80 at most) characters per line? Or is it an attempt to shoehorn something with more modern formatting onto a TV via composite signal? I set up a Linux PC as a classic game emulator a year ago, and via composite I had to make the font *much* larger than on my old Apple IIe for it to be readable on a TV connected via composite. I think it was something like 25-30 characters per line. With S-Video it was better, but I would only assume that maybe 10-25% more characters could be squeezed onto each line.

Re:Blurry text

[westlake]

In fact in today technological society there are already more people reading more from screens of some kind, than from paper.

Facts like these could stand a little batter anchorage.

Teletext exists since ages and nobody complains about it being unreadable.

They might, if all they had to go on were the screen shots in the Wikipedia. Teletext

Re:Blurry text

[evilviper]

Reading from the screen is not hard. Even on old TV sets.

Yes. Yes it is. Interlacing is BAD. VGA-resolution is bad. No magic will fix that.

Teletext exists since ages and nobody complains about it being unreadable.

Teletext takes up, what, 1/5th of the screen for TWO LINES of text? Yeah, at those sizes, anybody can read them. Trying to read a lengthy document like that proves VERY cumbersome. Non-stop scrolling to the next few lines, and an exhausting experience as your eyes have to travel vastly further than they should, or would on a decent monitor, or book page.

Yeah, text as 24x80 is readable, but even them, you don't want to be subjected to it, if you have a choice.

Re:Blurry text

[Nethead]

So THAT'S how it's done! I saw one once with lowercase and never could figure out how they did it.

So, was it just solder another 2716 (or was it a 2708) on top, pull up the CS line and tag it to a 74LS138 somewhere?

God, why do I still remember all this stuff?

Re:Blurry text

[MichaelSmith]

My first 3 computers hooked up to an old SDTV. In fact as I recall it was a Black & White TV.

But did you tie an onion to your belt? ;-)

Of course, because that was the style at the time.

My system was called the Ohio scientific super board 2. It had a 6502, audio cassette interface and video modulator. Software was a little boot menu which you got after reset. The menu said D/C/W/M. D was for mysterious disk drives and I believe it would load a sector from a disk and jump to it. We weren't millionaires so we never used it. C reset RAM and jumped to BASIC. W Just jumped to BASIC. M jumped to a machine code monitor in a 256 byte ROM. The system came as a single PCB, with the keyboard soldered to the card. My dad sourced a power supply and built a timber case for it.

It was the best toy a kid could have, bar none.

Cool, but

[Vahokif]

Cool, but places where people have televisions also have public libraries. It's not like they can't find knowledge if they want to.

Re:Cool, but

[dave562]

On the other hand, a public library might not be updated as regularly as Wikipedia. Or if your library is like the ones in my neighborhood, the computers often have a wait time. This is something I think would be a great tool to be used in conjunction with a public library. At the start of every semester or school year, some kid's parent could go to the library and download the latest version of Wikipedia. Then the kid can access information at home. I know it's hard to believe, but not every home in America can afford a computer and a $30 a month DSL bill.

Re:Cool, but

[Joce640k]

A public library is where devices like this really belong.

$20 for 8 bits?!?!

[Ossifer]

That's $2.50 per bit!

Outrageous!

Re:$20 for 8 bits?!?!

[CannonballHead]

Yeah... that's a bit expensive.

Re:Offline Wikipedia

[blai]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=download+wikipedia&l=1

You didn't try at all did you?

Re:Noble but useless.

[twiddlingbits]

Considering India just announced a $35 Linux laptop INCLUDING screen, memory and hard drive this product is overpriced and under capable. In the longer run the Linux laptop should be under $20. IThe laptop also allows the user to learn anywhere not just where the TV is located. I think most people would be OK carrying a laptop versus a TV. I would also think it takes less power for an LCD laptop than for a TV. Nice invention, only 10 yrs too late.

Re:Noble but useless.

[b0bby]

The difference is that this can actually be built for around $35, less than that in bulk. The Indian announcement is very unlikely to actually result in a $35 laptop.

Re:Bits or books

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

But are the books paperback or hard covered?
Inquireing minds want to know.

Re:Offline Wikipedia

[spazdor]

http://www.free-soft.ro/pocket-wikipedia/pocket-wikipedia.html
It's not official, but it's fine.

Re:Nice, but...

[gorzek]

You might want to check out the statistics as related by the company making these devices. The developing world has a glut of TVs but very few computers and little Internet access. These devices can help fill that gap.

Re:Text only?

[Darkness404]

Sure, but seriously remember how expensive encyclopedias used to be? Really, times have changed immensely, I remember back when I was in school you had access to an edition of The World Book Encyclopedia or Encyclopaedia Britannica that was older than you, that never seemed to have the article you really needed. You had a library filled with old outdated books and no real easy way to search them (remember paper card catalogs?). And something like this for cheap would have been a godsend, far better than the old encylopedias and reference material.

Re:Noble but useless.

[xiox]

I might doubt the cost too, but 8 bit microcontrollers are very popular now, even with the widespread availability of 32 bit systems. Many consumer devices include Microchip and Atmel chips if they don't need more power. There's also a bit Arduino (Atmel) hobby crowd.

Re:Noble but useless.

[Anonymous Coward]

8-bit microcontrollers are easy to buy. You just have to buy the part micro-controller. The arduino has an 8-bit micro-controller.

Re:Text only?

[Mr.Radar]

Unfortunately Wikimedia Commons, the source for all the images on Wikipedia, does not guarantee that all the images it hosts can be redistributed (even solely for the purpose of inclusion with "offline" versions of Wikipedia) and doesn't provide a one-stop download to get all of its content (like Wikipedia provides). Tools to download (scrape) all of Wikimedia Commons do exist, but as of a year or two ago there was already 500 gigabytes of content if you wanted a full mirror and I can only imagine that the amount of content has grown significantly since then. So even if they could do it legally, they wouldn't be able to practically unless wanted to add a hard drive to the design (drastically increasing the cost).

WRONG! It's not about the USA

[mangu]

places where people have televisions also have public libraries

I'm Brazilian and you wouldn't believe how few public libraries there are in Brazil. Even most public schools don't have libraries. But every family, even the poorest ones, have a TV.

Lame design!

[jmorris42]

The design is truly lame. Yes bitbanging ntsc video out of an AVR is neat but if you are really trying to build a mass produced device this design is about as stupid as possible. Bitbang video and bitbang USB via yet another AVR with a third as the CPU? Oh. My. God.

Use a single chip ARM or MIPS with a real framebuffer with video out and USB on chip. Can't cost more than the three AVRs in quantity and will do so much more.

And another benefit is that they are also pitching it as a computer but it isn't. I love the AVR line as an embedded colution but the Harvard arch is a killer in that you can't run programs from RAM and the program flash is only good for 10K writes.