Don't think which part is accurate? 1200x900 has 28% more pixels than XGA, right? (And that XGA was often on a 14" screen instead of a 7.5" screen.)

I think this is another effect of the reality distortion field.

XO-1's resolution was 692×520 (1/3 of 1200×900 which is the black&white resolution). Apples to apples means RGB XGA vs 692x520 bayer or whatever layout Jepsen claimed was better than industry standard.

There were many XGA 7" and 6" panels in 2006 from Panasonic, Sharp and others.

Why do all of the pages I’m finding with a quick search say it’s 1200x900? Some wires must be crossed somewhere or some massive limitation must exist for your 1/3rd res to be correct, that I’m missing

It's 1200x900 subpixels. In transmissive (color) mode, this was effectively 600x450, since it took a full 2x2 elements to display a color (it used a Bayer-style RGBG matrix, iirc).

I think the OLPC software still treated the display as 1200x900, but this meant that there were visible color artifacts on any sort of fine detail, and color rendition was pretty awful.

> it’s 1200x900? Some wires must be crossed somewhere

1200x900 in XO-1 is tft pixels not RGB pixels like XGA. In the simplest 1d layout, a 1x1 resolution RGB display is actually 1x3 tft pixels. That's why I'm saying apples to apples comparison.