Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 27th Apr 2007 07:10 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems "The founder of the ambitious "$100 laptop" project, which plans to give inexpensive computers to schoolchildren in developing countries, revealed Thursday that the machine for now costs $175, and it will be able to run Windows in addition to its homegrown, open-source interface." More here.
Order by: Score:
x86 bad choice
by torbenm on Fri 27th Apr 2007 07:49 UTC
torbenm
Member since:
2007-04-23

One of the risks of subsidized computers in poor countries is that they easily "disappear" and resurface on the black market. Making it possible to run Windows on the computers makes them much more valuable for such a market.

So to reduce the risk of misuse, these OLPC machines should use a CPU that can't run Windows. Even Windows CE is a bit dubious, but probably hard to avoid.

Given the goal of reducing power use, x86 also seems odd. For similar compute power, an ARM with integrated LCD controller would probably use less. I haven't seen the power figures on the AMD CPU that is used in the design, so I can't be sure, though.

But I guess Linux on an x86 is the easiest choice.

Reply Score: 5

RE: x86 bad choice
by B. Janssen on Fri 27th Apr 2007 08:13 UTC in reply to "x86 bad choice"
B. Janssen Member since:
2006-10-11

torbenm: One of the risks of subsidized computers in poor countries is that they easily "disappear" and resurface on the black market. Making it possible to run Windows on the computers makes them much more valuable for such a market.


If I remember correctly, the OLPC was specifically designed to really stick out, so that anybody seeing this machine knew that it was an OLPC. Together with social engineering -- spreading the word that only official bodies can buy this device for educational use only -- they hope to cement the image that anybody using a OLPC who is not a child should probably not have the OLPC in the first place.

So to reduce the risk of misuse, these OLPC machines should use a CPU that can't run Windows. Even Windows CE is a bit dubious, but probably hard to avoid.


While I understand your concerns, I want to point out that the idea of the OLPC was to open up the IT world to children whose countries mostly havn't an established IT infrastructure. It should be of no concern if the OLPC can run MS Windows, this target audience lives in a world where MS Windows is not synonymous with Home-PC. Even if the GNU/Linux based OS wouldn't do all they can hope to do with the OLPC, they won't necessarily see MS Windows as an alternative.

Given the goal of reducing power use, x86 also seems odd. For similar compute power, an ARM with integrated LCD controller would probably use less. I haven't seen the power figures on the AMD CPU that is used in the design, so I can't be sure, though.


It is an AMD Geode, which certainly is a quirky X86 but it also is one of the least power-hungry CPUs out there. The LX700, which is used in the OLPC runs at 433MHz and uses about 0.8 W/h under load. The whole platform, which includes a VESA compatible graphics adapter, is somewhere around 2.0 W/h.

Reply Score: 5

RE: x86 bad choice
by ssam on Fri 27th Apr 2007 08:13 UTC in reply to "x86 bad choice"
ssam Member since:
2006-03-12

there is an anti theft mechanism built in.
http://lwn.net/Articles/221052/

Reply Score: 4

RE: x86 bad choice
by Finalzone on Fri 27th Apr 2007 08:24 UTC in reply to "x86 bad choice"
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

Given the goal of reducing power use, x86 also seems odd. For similar compute power, an ARM with integrated LCD controller would probably use less. I haven't seen the power figures on the AMD CPU that is used in the design, so I can't be sure, though.



AMD Geode LX CPU is designed to fit that task. Unlike other x86 and ARM, it is on component used to run the LED screen used by the XO machine and consume only 1 watt. Check out the full specification of AMD Geode LX 433 Mhz
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/333...

Reply Score: 4

Why?
by maxx_730 on Fri 27th Apr 2007 08:01 UTC
maxx_730
Member since:
2005-12-14

Why, exactly, has it been made to run windows? It doesnt state why in the article.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Why?
by Lettherebemorelight on Fri 27th Apr 2007 08:53 UTC in reply to "Why?"
Lettherebemorelight Member since:
2005-07-11

Options are always good, but it sounds like a PR advertisement to me. The CPU is x86 and Im sure I dont have to tell anyone here that running windows on an x86 CPU isnt new. It is perfect timing for that OS/office whatever package MS is offering for $3 though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why?
by Moochman on Sat 28th Apr 2007 09:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

What I don't understand is how on earth they'll get Office 2007 to run on that tiny screen, when the new ribbon interface is designed with large screens in mind (most of the functions probably wouldn't fit on the OLPC's screen). Will MS have to develop a new, alternative interface? Or will they take the typical MS approach and say, "well, the customers will just have to deal with it"?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why?
by Laurence on Fri 27th Apr 2007 09:38 UTC in reply to "Why?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Why, exactly, has it been made to run windows? It doesnt state why in the article.


PR, staying on side with the big corperations, introducing the 3rd world to Windows (which like it or lump it, it is on most desktops) - to name but 3 reasons.

Seems like a sensible move to me - especially given that they're still pushing their home grown OS in conjunction.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why?
by alexandru_lz on Fri 27th Apr 2007 12:08 UTC in reply to "Why?"
alexandru_lz Member since:
2007-02-11

Is it just me, or is the price tag rising for some... reason I really can't see clearly.

I simply don't get the point of running Windows on a OLPC system. Microsoft is on the verge on retiring support for Windows XP, and, seeing OLPC's configuration, Windows Vista won't even consider it to be a computer.

And furthermore, if the project aims to integrate poorly developed countries into the IT world, what is the point of offering them a 175$ OLPC with Windows? Surely they're not expecting the IT infrastructure in those countries to be built upon Windows XP Starter Edition -- and just about any other Windows version I can think more costs more than the laptop itself.

If they really wanted to do the oh-lets-help-bthem-build-their-IT-world, they would concentrate on the Linux side of it, not because Linux is stable, secure or whatever else trolls would be fighting over, but simply because, unlike Windows, it's fscking free. I wonder what the Get The Facts campaign would state here -- sure, the total ownership costs would be higher (*cough*) but who gives a damn about that when the money required to purchase all the Windows licenses could be used to feed the whole country for two years.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Why?
by Laurence on Fri 27th Apr 2007 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

To clear some points up (regarding which version of Windows this system will be running and license costs) a few have asked/commented on:

"XO's developers have been working with Microsoft Corp. so a version of Windows can run on the machines as well. It could be the $3 software package that Microsoft announced last week for governments that subsidize student computers. It includes Windows XP Starter Edition and some of Microsoft's "productivity" software."

This was directly quoted from the linked article and anyone who bothered to read this article before posting speculation would have found their questions were already answered

[edit]

and those of you who have joked about if it will run Linux/BSD. It's default operating system /IS/ Linux (a custom build of Red Hat) - and again all this is in the linked article.

Edited 2007-04-27 13:33

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why?
by Almafeta on Fri 27th Apr 2007 13:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

This was directly quoted from the linked article and anyone who bothered to read this article before posting speculation

My speculation is that it'll be based on Windows XP for Legacy Computers. That version has significantly reduced system requirements -- I can't look them up right now, but it might be able to run on the OPLC as-is.

Reply Score: 1

There is a difference between vigilance and paranoia.
by B. Janssen on Fri 27th Apr 2007 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
B. Janssen Member since:
2006-10-11

Please, the article says that there is a MS Windows version that can run on the OLPC. or in other words: the OLPC can run a MS Windows version. The article doesn't say will run a MS Windows version. The project is not saying MS Windows will be the default, the project is not even offering MS Windows as an optional operating system. The project still only advocates the use of FOSS and only deploys FOSS on the OLPC. All they are really saying is that, yes, MS Windows can run on the OLPC.

I'm all for keeping a wary eye on companies like Microsoft, but this is getting ridiculous.

Reply Score: 2

v I runs windows,
by hhcv on Fri 27th Apr 2007 08:50 UTC
RE: I runs windows,
by Beta on Fri 27th Apr 2007 09:10 UTC in reply to "I runs windows,"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

-5 for deliberate trolling, sure!

Try not to /.ify OSnews, at the moment its a nice haven (mostly) free from pointless comments. And poor humour.
Everyone who knows OLPC knows it does Linux.

Reply Score: 3

sad
by fridrik on Fri 27th Apr 2007 09:34 UTC
fridrik
Member since:
2006-06-16

i really hope this all comes to be a fud.

still reading
"XO is built from free and open-source software. Our commitment to software freedom gives children the opportunity to use their laptop computers on their own terms"
from http://www.laptop.org/en/laptop/software/

Reply Score: 2

Sorry, had to
by shykid on Fri 27th Apr 2007 12:38 UTC
shykid
Member since:
2007-02-22

But does it run NetBSD?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Sorry, had to
by Jedd on Fri 27th Apr 2007 14:30 UTC in reply to "Sorry, had to"
Jedd Member since:
2005-07-06

What doesn't run NetBSD? :p

Reply Score: 1

RE: Sorry, had to
by ebasconp on Fri 27th Apr 2007 15:43 UTC in reply to "Sorry, had to"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

"Of course, it runs NetBSD" (TM)

:)


Here your comment rises some questions:

* Why has Linux been chosen instead of some BSD or, maybe, OpenSolaris? NetBSD is a very lightweight OS and runs on several platforms (maybe repeating what has been said done before on another posts) including ARM (removing the idea of running Windows on that boxes).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Sorry, had to
by TaterSalad on Fri 27th Apr 2007 16:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Sorry, had to"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

One answer I can think of, and its not the only answer is that linux has a lot more recognition. Its been a good buzzword for the last few years and does carry some big corporate backings like Red Hat and IBM. That and the base of the OS was probably easiest to get up and running on the OLPC platform.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Sorry, had to
by hamster on Fri 27th Apr 2007 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sorry, had to"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

Even if it wasnt the easiest to get up and running on the platform it proberly would have been selected anyways... As you say its been a huge buzzword in the last couple of years and still is. So as you say its pretty easy to get people to back up your project up if you use a buzzword os ;)

Reply Score: 2

v Good and bad news.
by Almafeta on Fri 27th Apr 2007 13:02 UTC
RE: Good and bad news.
by alexandru_lz on Fri 27th Apr 2007 13:11 UTC in reply to "Good and bad news."
alexandru_lz Member since:
2007-02-11

I agree on the fact that the chance to teach children standard software is a good idea -- but I don't see this as a reason good enough for the price tag to go so high. Sugar was an overcomplication, something FVWM-based for instance could have served just the same purpose and run fairly better as far as I can guess.

But I see this as a serious over-extension over what it would have/should have been intended. There's nothing bad in the ability to run Windows per se -- but there are tons of disadvantages we can see from miles away and which could be overcomed by concentrating on building upon the already established Linux foundation. The children could just as well learn to use Windows later, when they get the chance -- with the price tag getting higher, there will be fewer children learning Windows OR Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good and bad news.
by archiesteel on Fri 27th Apr 2007 14:10 UTC in reply to "Good and bad news."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

there's no reason to believe that these kid's creations will be exposed to copyleft licenses.


What is that supposed to mean?

If you're going to spew your anti-GPL propaganda, you might consider having it make sense...

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Good and bad news.
by Almafeta on Fri 27th Apr 2007 16:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Good and bad news."
RE[3]: Good and bad news.
by archiesteel on Fri 27th Apr 2007 16:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good and bad news."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

No, I what I asked what was you meant by "these kid's creations will be exposed to copyleft licenses"...what's that supposed to mean? Are you somehow suggesting that the licence can affect what you produce on the PC? That sure sounds like FUD to me...

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Good and bad news.
by Almafeta on Fri 27th Apr 2007 16:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good and bad news."
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Replied in private message.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Good and bad news.
by archiesteel on Fri 27th Apr 2007 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good and bad news."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I don't use the new version of OSNews (not yet anyway) so I don't check for personal messages. However I did go and read it, and I have to say I disagree. Here's what you wrote:

That's exactly what the point of copyleft is. If you don't believe me, it's right there in the GPL. You don't get to pick and choose when you comply with the license, and when you get to keep what you create.


It appears you're sorely mistaken about what the GPL is. It only applied to modification and redistribution of the GPLed application itself, and not what you create with the GPLed application/system. In other words, you can use a GPLed application (say, a word processor) to produce proprietary content. You can even compile proprietary softare using a GPLed compiler (as long as you don't use any GPLed code as a basis for your own). So to claim that the kid's "creations" with the OLPC laptop would somehow be "exposed" to copyleft licences is misleading. They would only have to use copyleft licences for these creations if they were modifying the source code used in the OLPC laptop and then redistributing it.

Additionally, simply pulling out the three-letter acronym 'FUD' doesn't make your position any stronger; you probably will want to refrain from using it.


I will use it when it is appropriate. In this case, perhaps you were simply unaware of the facts, in this case it would be an honest mistake. Now that you *do* know the difference, however, I suggest you refrain from making such false statements again, or the FUD epithet will indeed apply.

Please respond to this in this thread if you want to continue this discussion, as I won't reply to private messages in the future. (I also replied to your comment about my use of the term "strawman", which was correct in the given context.)

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Good and bad news.
by Silent_Seer on Fri 27th Apr 2007 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good and bad news."
Silent_Seer Member since:
2007-04-06

Point agreed with. How does it matter what licenses the kids (or their creation) are exposed to? Will somebody teach Almafeta that Linux (or other free OSes for that matter) does not require you to create FOSS only? This was MS FUD years ago.

Reply Score: 1

future
by Punktyras on Fri 27th Apr 2007 14:05 UTC
Punktyras
Member since:
2006-01-07

If OLPC will run Wins, all these countries may become one huge botnet...

Browser: Lynx/2.8.5rel.1 libwww-FM/2.14 SSL-MM/1.4.1 GNUTLS/1.4.4

Reply Score: 2

OLPC running Windows
by TaterSalad on Fri 27th Apr 2007 14:28 UTC
TaterSalad
Member since:
2005-07-06

OLPC can run Windows. This is good as it gives the user choice. They now have the option of running either linux or Windows. There is no reason to be locked out of one or the other.

Reply Score: 2

RE: OLPC running Windows
by ebasconp on Fri 27th Apr 2007 15:52 UTC in reply to "OLPC running Windows"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

"OLPC can run Windows. This is good as it gives the user choice."

I disagree.

In my country (Bolivia) the most of persons uses Windows because Windows has been easily copied and distributed [through piracy] for the masses. The common people did not do a choice, they just use what some "expert" installed on their machines: Windows.
And this "expert" did not do a choice, he just knows that Windows is the OS to run that machines and that is all.

Here there are persons that never have heard about anything else but Windows.

"There is no reason to be locked out of one or the other."

If you learn Windows, you learn Windows and your "knowledge" finishes that.

If you learn Linux, your mind gets open to a world of possibilities: BSDs, Solaris, AIX, HPUX and a lot of UNIX-like OSes.

So, learning Windows means staying locked, running Linux means that you give the children the possibility of learning a lot of more things, and that is obviously good.

Edited 2007-04-27 15:56

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: OLPC running Windows
by TaterSalad on Fri 27th Apr 2007 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE: OLPC running Windows"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

That makes no sense. The people of Bolivia always had a choice. They can install Windows or they can install linux. It's the expert who chose Windows for them. The choice for them to put linux on their PC has always been there.

I really disagree with your statements about learning. Windows doesn't stop at just learning Windows. Its like a gateway to knowing operating systems and how to properly administer them. Windows provides easy to use file permission management, group management, and user management. Those skills can then be transferred over to other operating systems that perform these same functions, which include all the various *nixs you listed. I can't understand how that is being locked to Windows only. With linux, if you use it then choose another operating system the people will scream and hollar up and down asking you not to switch and questioning why you did. If anything it sounds like when your using linux your locked unless you want the repercussions of the community questioning your every move.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: OLPC running Windows
by Castral on Fri 27th Apr 2007 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OLPC running Windows"
Castral Member since:
2007-03-23

I really disagree with your statements about learning. Windows doesn't stop at just learning Windows. Its like a gateway to knowing operating systems and how to properly administer them.


Hold on there. I just have to laugh at this one. Learning Windows teaches you how to administer linux? I'm sorry, but when was the last time you saw a Windows expert with no linux experience grep through log files on the command line? My point is that learning Windows will NOT teach you other operating systems. Learning Linux WILL. Why? Because you can make Linux look almost exactly like Windows or any other modern or legacy OS. You can make a Linux environment where one never has to touch the CLI, or make it CLI only.

Windows provides easy to use file permission management, group management, and user management.


By easy you mean easily circumvented and almost meaningless, right? Considering every default install of windows runs as Administrator, I don't see how this is learning the proper method to administer operating systems.

Those skills can then be transferred over to other operating systems that perform these same functions


That means the people over at http://www.damnvulnerablelinux.org/ must have a LOT of Windows experience ;-)

With linux, if you use it then choose another operating system the people will scream and hollar up and down asking you not to switch and questioning why you did. If anything it sounds like when your using linux your locked unless you want the repercussions of the community questioning your every move.


I work in a place that uses 200 Windows 2k desktops. We're going to be moving them all over to Windows XP in about a month. We have to spend money on a training lab so that every one of those 200 employees will learn in a four hour course how to use Windows XP and how its different from 2000. People will holler and moan over any change you make to what they're comfortable with, because they're not learning how to administer a computer properly, they're just learning how to do their jobs with the tools they've been given.

Reply Score: 4

Mac OS X?
by PowerMacX on Fri 27th Apr 2007 15:03 UTC
PowerMacX
Member since:
2005-11-06

If I remember correctly, Apple offered Mac OS X for free but they refused because it was "proprietary" and not in line with what the machine/project was all about.

Now, they are "working with Microsoft to ensure that it can run Windows".

???

Reply Score: 5

RE: Mac OS X?
by apoclypse on Fri 27th Apr 2007 16:07 UTC in reply to "Mac OS X?"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Why didn't they go with OSX, it was a proven solution and they probably wouldn't be a the current price point they are in now had they skipped reinventing the wheel.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Mac OS X?
by Almafeta on Fri 27th Apr 2007 16:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Mac OS X?"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Apple has a long history of hardware lockin; the free OS would likely come with Apple mandating control of the project. Microsoft, at least, has a history of actively courting and promoting third-party support: aggressively pursuing driver support, making all sorts of libraries, giving away free IDEs in a half-dozen languages, MSDN (the computer programmer's Library of Alexandria), and so on. (Remember the infamous 'developer dance'?)

Interestingly, in looking up some articles to make sure my facts were straight, I found an interesting suggestion: It was suggested that the OLPC might be sold on a '1 per 2' basis -- that is, in the first world, it would cost $200 (well, $350 now), with one OLPC going to the child in a first-world nation and one going to a developing nation. The OLPC project were quick to dispute that -- but why not? I'm sure there are thousands of school IT departments in first-world nations that would love to buy a standardized, interchangable piece of hardware for their students to learn on, instead of paying thousands each for larger computers that are harder to replace when damaged.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mac OS X?
by markjensen on Fri 27th Apr 2007 18:29 UTC in reply to "Mac OS X?"
markjensen Member since:
2005-07-26

Now, they are "working with Microsoft to ensure that it can run Windows".

Your post, and others, seem to be a bit surprised at this "Windows" thing. It has been in the works for a while, with OLPC working with Microsoft a year ago.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/6022.html

Allowing Microsoft to have some early development units so they could work on Windows CE (or whatever other version) isn't a bad thing, nor it is really shocking.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: OLPC running Windows
by aGNUstic on Fri 27th Apr 2007 16:23 UTC
aGNUstic
Member since:
2005-07-28

"So, learning Windows means staying locked, running Linux means that you give the children the possibility of learning a lot of more things, and that is obviously good."

I agree. I would have worded it as any OS that belongs to the *nix family of operating systems which includes Linux, BSDs, OS X, Solaris, and others opens up ... :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: OLPC running Windows
by Almafeta on Fri 27th Apr 2007 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OLPC running Windows"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

I agree. I would have worded it as any OS that belongs to the *nix family of operating systems which includes Linux, BSDs, OS X, Solaris, and others opens up ... :-)


When you mentioned the *nix family, I was going to ask what was so special about teaching kids OSs that are based on a 40-year-old standard. My point was to be on the many strange, illogical, and unpredictable behaviors of the *nix family because of these 40 years of legacy.

But then I realized two of my favorite OSs (pre-Unix Mac and the Windows family), which are based on (relatively newer) 20-year old standards, aren't that much better in terms of acting logically instead of kowtowing to archaic and irrelevant traditions. (Not to mention that my second favorite OS, SkyOS, turns out to be just a nice UI and API laid over BSD...)

I guess we're all just slaves to the lack of foresight of those who came before us, huh?

Reply Score: 1

It runs Windows?
by Supreme Dragon on Fri 27th Apr 2007 16:53 UTC
Supreme Dragon
Member since:
2007-03-04

It would probably require hours to boot Vista. They should just use Linux.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: OLPC running Windows
by aGNUstic on Fri 27th Apr 2007 16:58 UTC
aGNUstic
Member since:
2005-07-28

The language I speak is an old standard based upon those who came before. It does evolve and modify itself accordingly but the underlying grammar and syntax are the same.

At least it's not a closed propietary language owned by Bill and company and I don't have to pay a license for speaking.

Reply Score: 2

Inflation just starting
by arbour42 on Fri 27th Apr 2007 17:54 UTC
arbour42
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's sad the price is going up, but what do you expect when there's rampant inflation in the US - over 10% - and other countries are inflating as well? Welcome to stagflation, and it ain't going to get better.

No way will the Federal Reserve stop printing, now with the housing market collapsing.

Reply Score: 2

Growing skepticism
by Bobthearch on Fri 27th Apr 2007 18:10 UTC
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

I'm becoming increasingly skeptical of the entire project. Many of the early hyped features were not implemented, the price keeps climbing, the sales/purchasing program has been altered repeatedly, and the actual manufacturing still hasn't started. And dispite the declaration of interest by several counties, it's yet to be seen if any one of them will actually cough up the cash when the time comes.

One good idea that vanished was the manual cranking power supply. They seem to have forgotten that many of the target user base do not have access to electrical plugs. Now this most recent artical says the machines ~will~ have a hand generator pulley.

The early prototypes of a fun child-friendly design have been completely abandoned. Instead the design has evolved into a chincy-tablet-PC-looking design, as seen in the most recent photo.

The price-creep is going to be a serious issue. A jump from $100 each to $175 each is significant, especially when the potential buyers are looking at hundreds of thousands of units.

I don't know why they dropped the initial plan to offer the machines for sale to the public. It made sense to me - sell the machines to 3rd world governments at $100 apiece and sell to the public for $150 apiece, using the profit of the retail sales to subsidize the low-income units.

-Bob

Edited 2007-04-27 18:11

Reply Score: 2

OMG it can run windows
by jstead1 on Fri 27th Apr 2007 18:33 UTC
jstead1
Member since:
2006-10-26

Seriously, if linux hackers can get linux to run on an x-box, apple-tv or the $50 router I use (I even think my electric toothbrush may have been hacked and has a copy of Peanut Linux running on it),Mickey Soft should be able to get windows running on the OLPC. I doubt the OLPC people made any changes to it. It is x86 based, and I have heard that even windows can run on an x86 platform.

Reply Score: 1

RE: MS Office
by Bobthearch on Sat 28th Apr 2007 15:44 UTC
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

"What I don't understand is how on earth they'll get Office 2007 to run on that tiny screen..."

You really think Office will work on those machines anyway? Enough RAM to run? Enough storage memory to even install?
And if they do install Windows, it'll be CE or Mobile anyway, which can't run full versions of Office.

Honest, I have no idea why they think it's important to be able to run Windows, other than to access MS funding.

-Bob

Reply Score: 1