Microsoft promised the RROD was fixed several times before. Why should we believe it now when the failure rate with Falcons is very high.

ok, I'll bite...

if you sit on a 112.4V powerline and your gadget shows a current of 1.52A (2.40A), then your cosole sucks 112.4V*1.52A (*2.4A) = 170 Watt (270 Watt). Where do you get 101 (160) Watt from?

They better get it right now, at 199$ it's their chance.

I'm getting a $199 for my nephews...

I agree... Squilliam, is this the "new math" I hear about?  I think MS may have invented it? ;)

I had heard a rumor that the new Jaspers actually draw up to ~158W, as opposed to the ~175W of the old Falcon.

if you keep the voltage the same (112.4) and reduce the amps to 1.4 (not 2.4, as you typed) from 1.52, it comes out to 158W.  Typo?  I'm not following your logic with the 102W from 160W calculation -- especially since we all know that the current Falcon's supply is rated 175W, not 160W.

Its not my logic, I copied and pasted. I didn't do physics so I don't know how to work out voltages/wattage/current. I'll recheck it all later from the source.

It could be the guys measuring device corrects for the fact that alternating current does not give out max voltage 100% of the time.

Remember, for AC power you can't just multiply the stated Voltage and Current - you'll get more Watts as a result than actually used by the device.

Still not too happy until I find out if RROD is gone.... for GOOD!

RROD is like the CEL in your car. If the model has a fault that causes the CEL light to go on because of a fault thats common in the model, they can fix that fault and the CEL will still come on for different problems in the future.

So are the underlying faults that caused the excessive hardware problems fixed? Yes.

Will there still be TRL or RROD? Yes - because thats the fault signal.

The jasper units will almost certainly use less power than falcon units. Reduced process-size GPUs/CPUs always use less power (usually dramatically less) than their predecessors , and the jasper GPU is a reduced-process-size chip.

I'm surprised that anyone commenting on the OP would even question this.

EDIT: Less power consumed also means less heat, which will almost certainly reduce the failure rate.  The big question is how much less heat and the resulting failure rate reduction.