Yesterday’s Age featured a tabloidy little beat-up about “Rudd’s Laptops”, where they’ve gone and interviewed students about the 2009 laptops and found that, surprisingly, they’re not all that zippy in 2011:
“They’re not the best laptops in the world,” [the year 10 student we spoke to] says. “They’re slow and small, and I notice they have these really good and expensive programs on them – but some are so slow that it’s hard to use them because the laptop can hardly run them. If we have to do photo editing, most kids would just use one of the computers at school rather than the laptops.”
Who knew that computers aged so fast? And that laptops might be small (or that that might be an actual selling point of the things)?
And what’s with the compromise, buying students workable laptops but not cutting-edge ones that would double or triple the cost of the program and that would age at the same rate?
Clearly, until computers stop advancing so quickly, the education system has no business in providing them to students. I blame Kevin Rudd for Moore’s Law.
Still, kudos to writer Ben Braue. This is exactly the kind of important scoop that I’d expect to see in The Herald Sun. Good work getting there first, Ben.