Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Looking to Run Windows on OLPC
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Tue Dec 05, 2006 04:19 AM
from the one-thousand-dollar-laptop-program dept.
from the one-thousand-dollar-laptop-program dept.
pete314 writes "Microsoft has been provided with a number of test models of Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop per Child computers and is trying to get Windows installed on them. The current design runs a custom version of Red Hat's Fedora Linux. Running Windows will take quite a bit of additional memory: the OLPC has 512Mb of Flash, where XP requires a minimum of 1.5Gb storage."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Open Spurce? (Score:3, Insightful)
You might be a little disappointed then (Score:5, Insightful)
You might be a tad disappointed then.
Believe it or not, there are plenty of versions of Windows, including Windows Embedded and Windows CE, which run in a lot less RAM and reside on a lot less Flash. And even from the "normal" XP, there are a _lot_ of things which can be removed without the end user noticing much.
Sure, at that point you can still do the retarded thing and go "ha ha, so the full install didn't fit and they had to strip it down", but may I point out that the average Linux distro is even bigger than the full XP? SuSE Linux for example (to use an example from everyone's favourite, Novell) comes on a DVD or more than half a dozen CDs. Compressed. So that wouldn't fit there either.
As for slow, I don't know where you get your data from, but comparing my gaming XP box to my SuSE Linux 10.0 box, XP actually boots faster, and the GUI is quite a bit more responsive than X with either KDE or Gnome too.
I think MicroSoft's best bet at success would be a heavily stripped down version of Windows CE.
It might come as a surprise, but some of the devices running Windows CE actually have less RAM and ROM/Flash than an OLPC. So why would MS need to strip it down?
So please, let's cut it down on the arrogant-fanboy-disconnected-from-reality act. MS does have a lot of faults, but being stupid isn't one of them. They _do_ employ some of the best programmers, and can (and do) throw ridiculous amounts of money at a problem, if they really want to. And both Windows and compilers are something they have two decades of experience with.
They already know how to compile something for size instead of unrolling and inlining everything for performance. It's not like they have yet to discover "wow, there's this 'size' option in the compile options of MSVC."
And they already have the experience with porting and stripping Windows to a variety of platforms. They actually used to have NT versions for pretty much everything including RISC and a few other architectures. The XBox 360 itself isn't an Intel machine either. And there even was a version of CE that ran on the Dreamcast.
The only question is whether they want to, exactly what they want to do there, and how much effort do they want to put into a computer whose price would more than double if they actually sold a Windows OEM license with it.
Then again, they already know how to play the fake-charity card by giving away a 50 cent CD and counting it as the price of a full Windows license generously donated. (In addition to some real charity too, it must be said.) So they could just give away a locked down version of Windows to some kids who otherwise couldn't afford a Windows computer anyway, thus ensuring that a whole generation in those countries grows on Windows and Windows Media Player formats. It's good marketting. _And_ write it off a some hundreds of millions of dollars in Windows licenses generously donated to the poor countries.
On the whole, I wouldn't be surprised if the effort right now isn't getting Windows installed, but figuring out how best to lock it down and how much and what bait they can build into it.
Parent
Re:You might be a little disappointed then (Score:5, Insightful)
May I point out that the average Linux distro you mention comes with one or more of each of these: word processor, presentation manager, spreadsheet, graphics manipulation software, HTTP and FTP server, development tools, CD&DVD burning software, IRC client, P2P,... Please tell me where can you find a Windows XP DVD that includes all of these on the base install and for the same price, because the OS on its own doesn't have much use for me.
Parent
Re:You might be a little disappointed then (Score:5, Insightful)
My other favorite is the "see distro XYZ costs this much, you can buy an OEM windows for $X or an upgrade disk for $Y less dollars". After reading what is either a troll or MS fanboy response I'm surprised that one didn't get tossed out there too.
Parent
The children might be even more disappointed (Score:5, Interesting)
I am afraid that if OLPC machines are distributed throughout the Third World and Windows is the OS, we may see a global conflagration. We better be prepared to train a few million of the world's poorest people to be Support Techs. Microsoft might be willing to donate a few million MSCE training DVDs.
If we took the cost of the Iraq War for six months, we might be able to improve these folks' situation enough that in a year or two they could afford to buy their own PC parts from Tiger Direct and put it together themselves, just like God intended.
Parent
Re:You might be a little disappointed then (Score:5, Insightful)
All your comments go to show that you only ever look at a single OS. I build computers (piece of piss job, yeah i know, but i enjoy it) and windows (XP and the PE), linux and openBSD all play a part of the common install procedure.
The world is big enough for more than one OS ^_^
Parent
Re:You might be a little disappointed then (Score:5, Insightful)
But still - excellent post. I'd agree that it's not as much about windows as it is about getting people addicted to MS's proprietary formats. Remember: A flaw in WMP's DRM resulted in a one of MS's fastest-ever patches, pushed out with emergency priority IIRC.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a big fan of FOSS in general but concerns about free code, open standards and the like are first world luxuries that really aren't important compared to getting these people better lives. If I could take a whole african country out of poverty in return for shutting down the copyleft lliscenses all together I would do it despite how much it would suck for me.
Re:Open Spurce? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a big fan of FOSS in general but concerns about free code, open standards and the like are first world luxuries that really aren't important compared to getting these people better lives. If I could take a whole african country out of poverty in return for shutting down the copyleft lliscenses all together I would do it despite how much it would suck for me.
Copyright issues do harm actual people.
I live in Uruguay, and while now the economy is improving, we had a big recession, so we can't afford to waste money.
Our government agencies use Microsoft software almost exclusively for their desktops, and a lot for development. They have great lock-in, and it's very difficult to even propose a change.
The DGI (our version of the IRS) requires the use of a
Proprietary software has consequences down the line, it's not just a thing of abstract freedom. The freedom we could have with free software
That is an added tax on the people themselves, and that's millions of dollars that leave the country, instead of being invested here.
We are a third world country, although probably near the top of that heap. Proprietary software is one of the many anchors that keeps us down. If we could make all the software free, we could be spending licenses money in our own capable software people, and the rest, in social programs, that are still very lacking here.
Parent
Re:Open Spurce? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently your current Managed C++ compiler didn't output .NET bytecode, either, judging from the error message. Did you really expect native code -- compiled specifically for a Windows(TM) environment -- to run under anything other than the MS .NET runtime? From the Mono Technical FAQ [mono-project.com]:
Parent
Re:Open Spurce? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Open Spurce? (Score:4, Interesting)
Negroponte is avoiding the kiss of death for charities: getting involved in the open market.
For example, imagine you are running the Red Cross, MSF, Salvation Army, or some other large charity that does large amounts of shipping. You may look at Exxon-Mobil's record profits and think, "this is insane...we're lining the pockets of this company's shareholders with money that could otherwise be helping the needy. Our mission burns tons of fuel, but there must be a better way." To fix this you start investing capital in your own not-for-profit private fuel suppliers, just to keep the costs in-house. A little later you look back and realize your suppliers are horridly inefficient because they never had to answer to the open market, all your working capital is tied up in wells, refineries, pipelines, and tankers, and your bureaucracy nightmare puts most banana republics to shame.
This example is excessive, but it demonstrates the simple trap of a good idea ("Lets feed the needy, not Big Oil Inc.") becoming a living hell ("Why are we drilling for oil in Greenland instead of feeding the needy?"). Charities constantly make this mistake on a smaller scale, especially in the printing, mailing, and call-center businesses. The siren-call of "let's keep this in-house" is so tempting, it's hard to realize it's the same as signing an exclusive contract with a supplier that has no competition and no experience.
Negroponte doesn't really care what operating system ends up on the OLPC, so long as it meets requirements. He does want to avoid getting into the operating system business.
Negroponte only cares about the nail getting pounded in. If you can do it cheaper with a different tool, you're hired.
Negroponte doesn't care about the hammer.
Parent
Re:Open Spurce? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, the article here talks about what is pre-installed. And for the pre-installed OS, price is a criterion (in order not to exceed the $100 target price), as is hardware capabilities (again, fitting more memory would make it too expensive).
Parent
Re:Open Spurce? (Score:5, Informative)
To be fair, it only says that Microsoft want to "make [Windows] available" on the device, not pre-install it. There's no indication whatsoever in the article that Microsoft want to pre-install it, although one could obviously speculate that they'd like to sell units with Windows pre-installed to governments, this is not mentioned in the article.
Parent
The Eye of Redmond is Upon You. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's my theory: MS wants to create a version of Windows for these devices, which it can let out into the wild, where it will be relentlessly pirated. They hope that the first thing that people do with their shiny new OLPC is zap the Linux install and dump Windows XP Micro (or whatever) on there instead -- even if it's pirated. It may not make them any money immediately, but it might give them a future customer, or at least prevent someone from growing up as a Linux user.
Or maybe, rather than relying on piracy, they could co-opt governments and teachers as a way of forcing Windows down onto students' computers. They'd "give" "free" copies of Windows (taking it as a charitable contribution no doubt) to schools, along with some sort of incentive package. Maybe a free 'real PC' for the teacher, running a full version of Windows. It would have educational software on it, but in order to be useful, all the students would need to be running the Windows OLPC version. So they can effectively leverage schools to use their power to eliminate Linux and replace it with Windows, even if Windows is less functional for the students themselves. All they have to do is make it a sweet enough looking deal for the government or administration, which they can easily do by making it look like a substantial "gift" on paper -- even though most of that dollar value will be in software. A "free" $99 copy of Windows has to be better than a $0 copy of Linux, right?
I had more hopes for OLPC when Microsoft was just ignoring it. Microsoft's attentions are like the Eye of Sauron -- you really don't want it resting on you for any length of time, and when it does, it probably means something bad is going to happen.
Parent
Re:Open Spurce? (Score:5, Funny)
Imagine a *billion* developers working for 20 Cents per hour!
Imagine us (M$) developing Vista(tm)2 for under 2000 Bucks....
*Balmer wakes up*...
Oh no! They will have Linux on their OLPC's
*dials Microsoft R&D*...Hello, Steve here...no, forget Vista stability, get a few OLPC's and load up windows on them...512MB??!?
well, throw out some of the garbage, they wont pay for it anyway.
Parent
Re:Open Spurce? (Score:5, Insightful)
You were being funny, but you're right. Microsoft cares about this for exactly one reason: giving kids Free Software is a threat.
Parent
Re:Open Spurce? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Open Spurce? (Score:4, Interesting)
What did I miss? Mainly the ability to get an application for anything I wanted to do without having to pay an arm and a leg. Yeah... it was the "free beer". Even though I had to "brew" it, it was still better than having to pay premium prices to buy the premade stuff. The second thing I missed was how the apps in most Linux distros tend to have a lot more options (something that most users wouldn't care about) available for both GUI and especially CLI environments. I don't know how many people experience this in Windows, but I do all the time: "Hmmm.. I wonder if I can do action X with application Z"? Poke around a bit and find that you can't, or worse... you can but only if you upgrade to the deluxe version of the software meaning that you have to fork out more cash. And finally, the extensibilty of the OS itself. Unless someone writes a particular driver for something, you're pretty much out of luck if you're not an MS developer if you want the core OS (ie. kernel) to do something new. Again, to cite an example, I point to the Linux kernel's network block device support. All I had to do to enable it was compile the kernel/module and load the module, install a user space app for server and client and bam... I had new and amazing functionality. I was then able to export hard drives, CD-ROM and DVD drives as network block devices which could be imported to remote systems via TCP. This is NOT file sharing. It's basically like making a disk on one system appear as a disk on a remote system that can be partitioned, formattted or in the case of a DVD, played via the network.
As much as I wish it weren't so, I think that people like me are relatively rare. Most people have no problem paying out lots of money for new functionality, or worse, pirating software. I'm in a situation where my interest in computers and software exceeds my financial situation. So GNU/Linux is a natural fit in that way. The XP system I was using was provided by my employer so it was no cost to me. But after having drank of the FOSS well, I can't go back for reasons more than just the finances... I've nearly eliminated Windows from my life other than at work (only on the servers I have to deal with from time to time. My workstation is Gentoo) and the occasions when I use a virtual machine at home to access Windows only online media. Whatever fits your situation... use it.
Parent
Re:Open Spurce? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong! Price is irrelevant; the only consideration is that the device must be hackable by the user. The developers of the OLPC are insisting on Free Software specifically because they want the kids to have the four freedoms [gnu.org]; no more, no less.
By the way, if you don't believe me consider this: the OLPC people rejected Mac OS X even when it was offered for free (i.e., zero cost).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It never worked that way. Neither my old P600 or my C64 have enough RAM to run Vista. Nor CPU power for that matter.
No computer comes with enough RAM or the correct CPU to run whatever OS one prefers. PPC Macs won't run Windows, PCs won't run z/OS, and so on. This machine is made specifically to have the lowest possible cost, and that is done by using the cheapest components available that will still run a useable OS and applications.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have a look at hercules [conmicro.cx]
Windows Fundamentals? (Score:4, Interesting)
A trap? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Application is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's where the problem is : Once you've crammed Windows XP inside 32MB of flash, what do you do ?
According to the entry, Win XPe is mostly used for embed device. The kind of device on which you run one single function-specific application, and Win XPe is only here to provide kernel functionnality.
You can use it in ATMs in which case WinXPe is only here to provide a kernel, a graphics driver, an input driver and a network stack. And all you run next to it is a single application that does all the ATM stuff. And nothing else.
Robotics is another even better exemple. Sure it can be cramed into 32MB : because, all you need is a kernel to provide a communication stack and memory management. There's even no display and regular HID devices.
Compared to the Linux world, that's akin to having a system with only a striped down Kernel (with only a couple of necessary drivers compiled in), busybox (to provide all the necessary tools with minimal foot-print) and a micro C-lib and nothing more. All of which you run along a few simplified server inside a router. It's something you could run on This kind of boards [acmesystems.it].
*BUT* that's *NOT* what the OLPC needs. The OLPC needs to provide a full desktop environment. They a GUI. The need a desktop. They need application to browse the PC, they need graphical wizards to connect to the WiFi mesh. They need a browser, they need a mail clients, and mayber IRC and/or IM too. They need software to display ebooks. They need an office suite that covers most functionality that the kids need to write their own stuff. They need various developing environment (classical C/C++, scripts like Python or Perl, maybe web scripting like PHP) because, all OLPC was initially about was to encourage the kids to hack. Maybe also some multimedia apps.
Not just a single application.
Does this exist on WinXPe ? Yes because it's fully compatible with it's older brother, WinXP Pro. You have plenty of microsoft apps already available that could provide such functionality : Windows Desktop, Explorer, IE7, Outlook express, MSN, XForm viewer, Office, Visual Studio,
But can it all get crammed together inside the OLPC ? Hell no. You'll need a rather beefy setup with eleventeen gazillions of gigabytes just to install this madness. (And that's all functionnality most non-custom Linux distros offer out of the box for a foot-print of only a few gigs).
What the OLPC needs isn't the Microsoft equivalent of an embed linux. What it needs is something similar to Damn Small Linux [damnsmalllinux.org] (or, I guess, what the current customized Red Hat is), id est : most desktop functionnality crammed inside a small space of only a few dozens of MB. *Not* GB.
And thats something WinXPe fails to provide. It only provides the envrionment (kernel, etc.) not all the apps.
If they want to cram WinXPe inside, the would have to put along specialized applications. Applications that already exists in the open-source world, do the needed task nicely, but are NOT made by Microsoft. I would be mostly like just replacing the kernel on the customized Linux distro with a Windows Kernel, and keeping the same apps. And admitting defeat, that they can't provide a fully microsoft alternative.
The closest thing Microsoft could provide is a Windows CE-based solution (and Pocket- / -CE version of office, IE, etc...). And then again it won't be optimal for them because
- Win CE still lacks some functionality that is granted on Linux (hackability, programming and scripting tools in standard with a tiny memory foot print).
-
Parent
Re:Application is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
- Lack of OPEN developer tools
If OLPC ships with Windows, any potential developer will be forced to use Microsoft tools... and it means being forced to Microsoft Windows and Visual Studio.
IIRC Steve Jobs offered MacOSX to Negroponte, and he refused it unless Acqua and Coccoa could be made OpenSource. Because otherwise developers would be tied to MacOSX and XCode.
Today OLPC runs Linux, true. But Sugar(OLPC interface and SDK) it's nothing more than GTK+Python, both free and avaliable on every major Desktop OS out there. It may be easier to kickstart the development on Linux, but nothing stops you from using Windows, MacOSX or *BSD to develop for it.
OLPC is a community project, and it needs the community to be able to succeed. This means developers too, closed tools or tools that are tied to one specific platform limit who can contribute to the project with code.
Just my $0.02
Parent
Has to be said... (Score:3, Funny)
Just sick (Score:5, Insightful)
I really hope the OLPC-project wont get seduced by the money Microsoft is willing to put into this, it wont pay off in the long run.
It's clear Microsoft wants to do anything to stop alternatives from spreading; just imagine a future where these OLPCs have sprouted a whole new generation of Linux developers who now write code to feed themselves instead. But they don't know Windows, and Microsoft has an entire continent of PC users who they cannot sell licenses to, while they're writing their own applications building further on an alternative to Microsoft.
Re:Just sick (Score:4, Insightful)
That having been said I think there is a reasonable justification for the original commenters skepticism. I mean there are charitable donations companies make with buisness motives (good PR) which are all find and nice and then their are loss leaders which aren't always so pleasent. When your cell company gives you a free phone with your contract it's something you should look at with sucpiscion lest the total cost be far more in the long run.
When redhat makes this donation we know it has only the first kind of profit motive as their ability to lock OLPC/users in is considerably limited by the GPL. I very much doubt MS is going to do anything evil to the people getting this laptop but the question is whether they will keep interest in the project or when their charitable motivations wane will OLPC start having to pay for windows. One also has to worry about future fights over enabling certain features and who doesn't qualify for the free OS.
Don't get me wrong if MS decided to donate a whole bunch of MONEY to the project as well as providing a long term contract to provide free versions of windows I think they should take it. But merely donating a version of windows doesn't really count as charity (they get it for free) and has some potential drawbacks despite MS's non-evil intentions.
Actually though I think you are totally wrong about them getting an income from coding. Just as african villages have started selling handcrafts through the internet if they get enough computers/internet don't be surprised to see people in the third world start doing IT related stuff. That's what makes the OLPC project so interesting. Frankly this seems the strongest argument for linux as I doubt visual studio will run on OLPC.
Parent
Re:Just sick (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Just sick (Score:5, Insightful)
Steal the world riches and your despised, give 10% of it back and your a hero.
Parent
please think of the children! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It may even be the beginning of Linux virus trouble taking off seriously.
Prediction (Score:5, Funny)
Windows Mobile 2003 (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not Vista? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait a minute...
What does it matter ? (Score:3, Insightful)
1.5GB assertion unfair (Score:5, Interesting)
Noooo (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides that, I don't trust MS's intentions. I bet they are now working on how to squeeze some money out of this in the future. This is not exactly what I've expected from OLPC.
OLPC and slimware Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
But the real question is why has Linux got so bloated ? When I started using Redhat, it ran very well in 16MB, with X. At the time Linux the system you installed to revive your obsolete PC with 4MB of RAM. And you could recompile your kernel with those 4MB of RAM. Now that Linus has moved to making multiprocessor kernels, you'de better buy an up to date machine to install any current distro.
I can't wait for OLPC, because the necessity for supporting it will mean the resurgence of a slimware distro.
Re:OLPC and slimware Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
It'll fly like as if running on a dual-core...
Parent
Re:OLPC and slimware Linux (Score:4, Informative)
But here's the thing: if you want to, you can turn all that crap off. Instead of GNOME or KDE, use something lighter. Since you are comparing Linux to the "old Linux", why not run FVWM? It's still maintained. Hell, why not run TWM? Also, turn off those antialiased fonts and all those other advanced features we have got over the course of the years. I bet that you will see that Linux runs well on slower hardware, just like it did years ago. The thing that has happened is that 10 years ago Linux-desktops... well, sucked. They ran fast because they were ugly and they didn't really do that much. What you saw was what you got. Today the dominant desktops (KDE & GNOME) are actually very, very good, and they have lots of advanced features and useful services running in the background. And those features need certain amount of horsepower. Don't have that horsepower? Fine, use something lightweight, or switch to CLI. But for some reason people these days seem to have fast enough machines, and they want to run advanced desktops and apps. But you are not REQUIRED to do so.
If you decide to run a system with all bells and whistles turned on, don't start complaining that "years ago Linux ran fast, today it doesn't! What happened?". What happened was that "years ago" Linux didn't have those "bells and whistles". It does today, but you are not forced to use them. If you do use them, stop your complaining because you are comparing apples and oranges.
Parent
As a contributor... (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember, they want to send MILLIONS of laptops into the field and avoid downtime caused by viruses, bugs, overflows, etc. The laptops are going to be hardened down quite a bit so even if a user app is exploited the laptop as a whole is still ok. They're using GNU/Linux for more reasons than the fact it costs $0 to license. They have to be able to recover from flaws in the field, of which they want to have precious few of.
And besides, even if Windows were secure, they would have to give away fully functional copies for FREE to make the budget. Even charging OLPC $1 for the license would hurt the budget ($1 * millions of laptops == no good). In short, there isn't really a "market" here other than trying to expose another generation to inferior software.
Tom
How amusing. (Score:5, Funny)
And so now he's so far into his own navel gazing delusion that he thinks XP is a good fit with the OLPC project. Oh wow man, he's just like up there with Ghandi and Jeebuz, aint he? What a joke of a man. It just goes to show you that money is indeed quite like a drug. The dude is HIGH.
Oh sure, he's the principle funder of the BSA by day but . . but, but by night he's the Poverty Fairy. Whoo.
My router can beat up your PC (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course this means that there will be a whole generation of programmers who will never have known of any development methodology besides Open Source. Isn't that a good thing? Closed Source is no more or less than electronic slavery. Its time -- if it ever had one -- has been and gone.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In such an event, I dont exactly fancy their chances
Re:Windows ME anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're suggesting that the under-developed world should similarly spawn generations of clueless lusers who "know" the interface (to the degree any interface today is substantively different from another) and measure their knowledge in terms of how fast they can can click and point, or memorising what, by default, is listed on the menus?
Hopefully more companies start taking a long term view of things and donating their products to the third world to prepare for when they become consumers.
Indeed. So the goal of the potent learning tool [designed so that] the emerging world can leapfrog decades of development--immediately transforming the content and quality of their children's learning [laptop.org] is to enable them to become consumers? Dunno about you, but I tend to be optimistic when it comes to kids, and trust in the belief that, given the chance, they could grow up to become anything. My guess is that if you asked a randomly-selected child targetted by this program what they want to be when they grow up, they might say something like astronaut, or scientist. Aspiring to become an office drone, or a consumer, happens only at a later age, when you've forgotten your own potential or settled for something less.
Sorry to sound so critical, but your argument has taken Teach a Man to Fish, and reduced it to Teach a Man to Recognise a Fish, and then reduced even further to Teach a Man How to Buy a Fish with his Credit Card. Computers are an increasingly large part of our daily lives. Maybe we should be encouraging people to actually learn something about them and the world they're creating around us, to say nothing of what else is freely available? Or at least give them the opportunity.
As for the article, I'm not surprised, but that doesn't mean I'm any less disturbed by a monopoly with a living history of crushing anything and everything that threatens its bottom line becoming involved with a project that offers freedom and knowledge. Then, again, that monopoly is chaired by a philanthropist, so now worries, right?
Parent