No Dual-Boot XO Laptop, According to Microsoft

Yesterday, we discussed reports of Microsoft and the OLPC project working towards a dual-boot version of the XO laptop. Now, BetaNews tells us that Microsoft has issued statements denying such plans. The software giant has also reaffirmed their intention to develop a Windows-only version of the laptop. Microsoft's statement to BetaNews had this to say: "While we have investigated the possibility in the past, Microsoft is not developing dual-boot Windows XP support for the One Laptop Per Child's XO laptop. As we announced in December, Microsoft plans to publish formal design guidelines early this year that will assist flash-based device manufacturers in designing machines that enable a high-quality Windows experience. Our current goal remains to provide a high-quality Windows experience on the XO device."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Technical Barriers to Hacking Windows onto the XO

[TheNarrator]

"The main barrier is that the XO has only 1 GB of built-in memory and no hard drive, Utzschneider reportedly said. Accordingly, Microsoft has been exploring the idea of building Windows and Office on a 2 GB add-in card, but this would require writing new BIOS software for booting directly from the SD card."

Cryptographically signed firmware is a bitch... Seems that the whole anti-theft system built into the XO is going to get in the way of Microsoft hijacking the project without OLPC's express consent.

Re:Not Windows desktop...hopefully something on to

[TheRaven64]

It won't work. If you remove the Windows UI then you remove the value (from Microsoft's perspective) of the machines running Windows: millions of children growing up thinking the Windows UI is how a computer is supposed to work.

I just threw up my dinner.....

[zappepcs]

For those who can't click the link:

To set the dual-boot issue straight: Microsoft has not been working on an actual, side-by-side dual-boot system. We're jointly making it possible to install XP on an arbitrary XO -- subject to the constraints of the Bitfrost theft deterrence system -- and then convert the machine back to Linux easily. I have made it clear that the XP port will not receive my security signoff without this Linux rollback feature, and have no reason to believe it won't be implemented.

Did he really say "....and have no reason to believe it won't be implemented." ????

I thought he was supposed to be an intelligent and informed kind of person? Call me a troll if you must, but that just sounds so naive that it must be a trap being set for Microsoft to have proven reason to never let MS near another child in the developing world ever again?

Why the waste of resources?

[pembo13]

Why are the OLPC people using resources assisting a billion dollar cooperation in a field where that cooperation is supposed to be a specialist? If all the XO technical issues have been solved, then they paste fire the unneeded engineers and save fiscal resources -- or is Microsoft giving money to the OLPC project for this service?

Re:Don't worry MS, the OLPC will fail

[Anonymous Coward]

The Slashdot mods won't like this, but the OLPC is just one huge failure.

Slashdot mods probably won't like it because it's utterly false. They're weird like that.

With how many Millions in donations and untold amounts of hype, there has still been no real delivery of the laptops. You keep hearing about them, but where are the 1000's of 3rd world kids using and learning with it?

Here's an article [slashdot.org] from less than 3 weeks ago about exactly that. It's on some site with a weird name ("colon slash slash dot dot org org org" or something), so I don't blame you for not seeing it.

How many more Millions need to be given before we see a true and actual shipment. I guess thats what you get for trying to reinvent the wheel. They could have went with more established tech and the kids could have one now, but instead they rebuild it from the ground up and no one has one.

"More established tech" would be an order of magnitude more expensive, not work reliably in the environments where their target audience lives, and be virtually unusable by them as well. To use your space flight analogy, it would be like trying to fly a 747 at an altitude of 200 miles and calling it a space shuttle.

This project shouldn't be taking this long; they're not building a space shuttle.

Can only things which make it to low earth orbit be revolutionary? OK, let's compare it to the space shuttle. The space shuttle was built to bring down the price of lifting a pound into orbit from $1000 down to $20-50; even after a few decades, it's well over $100/pound (3x more than planned). Huge failure?

Maybe another personal computer would be a better comparison. The Macintosh was originally supposed to bring Lisa-friendly computing from $10,000 down to $500. They took about 5 years, and shipped at $2500 (5x more than planned). (They're also the only personal computer maker from the early 1980's I know of who is still in business.) Huge failure?

The OLPC was built to bring the price of a laptop from $1000 to $100; in less than 3 years, it's less than $200 (2x more than planned), plus they've actually shipped. That's the kind of "huge failure" the rest of the industry is jealous of.

If I donated anything, I would want my money back.

If I was your wife, I would want a divorce. Fortunately for both of us, both are as untrue as your rant.

Re:Impossible task!

[krazytekn0]

This is what we call an oxymoron

Re:Impossible task!

[Eternal Vigilance]

Language must be interpreted using the meanings understood by the *speaker*. In Microsoft's case, "high quality" has always meant "high profit and monopoly extending." (This difference in source and destination meanings of "quality" has been the root cause of a great deal of argument in the /. community.)

After translation: "Our current goal remains to provide a high profit and monopoly extending Windows experience on the XO device."

Simple, honest, to the point. (Whether I like it or not is a different issue.)

Re:Impossible task!

[mikelieman]

In a nutshell, this sums up perfectly Microsoft's traditional disconnect with their product's markets.

Be carefull! remember Pen Windows and Go

[mlwmohawk]

I was looking at developing software for an innovative pen-based computer system named go!. It was cool, it was radically different, and when they started lining up real interest, suddenly Microsoft had "Pen Windows!" Support dropped away like autumn leaves. How could someone competing with Microsoft succeed? My bet is that Microsoft is making lots of noise saying that XP will be on the XO, and use that as a stalling method. Governments and institutions will wait for Windows XO, before buying the XO, thus depriving the OLPC non-profit for income to "break even" and continue operation. They have to make some money, right? Otherwise they'd give it away for free. Nothing Microsoft or the Gates Foundation does is for the common good. It is alway for profitable or anti-competitive. Always. Never forget that. I have been in this industry too long and I have seen too many things for anyone to convince me otherwise.

Re:Correct, they are not dual-boot

[warrigal]

OLPC declined Steve's offer of a custom OSX because it was "proprietary". Now they are going to snuggle up to Microsoft? They'll get eaten alive!

Windows being ported to the XO

[this great guy]

"Microsoft struggles to port Windows to a device originally conceived to run Linux."
If you had told me, in the 90s, that it would eventually happen, I would have never believed you.

Re:sale sauce

[davester666]

Yes, a "good Window's experience" really depends on how positive or negative your own opinion of Windows happens to be.

But, I think the main reason why MS doesn't want a dual-boot XO, is because they don't want millions of kids being informed about non-MS software. They don't want them to know that sure, there is this half-assed Window's OS, that we gave you for free, but there is also this other OS, called Linux [+ the various shells and GUI's on top of it], and it's also free, and you can also get the source code and modify it so that the computer works how you want it to work and do extra things that you just thought of.

I think Microsoft will virtually [or actually] give away WindowsXO, because the target market is poor [and isn't particularly IP-aware] and would at least pirate WindowsXP if they wanted it besides the above reason to keep kids as far away from open-source as possible.

Cunning Strategy?

[Shuntros]

Yes, but what if... OLPC are quietly stringing MS along with no intention of putting Windoze on the machine, whilst in the meantime getting thousands of laptops out there into the real world. Once the laptop (with it's splendid open source operating system) is out there in sufficient enough numbers, OLPC can tell MS to disappear back under their rock, safe in the knowledge that other avenues for indoctrinating the masses have long since closed.

Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

Re:sale sauce

[Anonymous Coward]

But, I think the main reason why MS doesn't want a dual-boot XO, is because they don't want millions of kids being informed about non-MS software. They don't want them to know that sure, there is this half-assed Window's OS, that we gave you for free, but there is also this other OS, called Linux [+ the various shells and GUI's on top of it], and it's also free, and you can also get the source code and modify it so that the computer works how you want it to work and do extra things that you just thought of.

Agreed. I think this is precisely the reason Microsoft is trying to engineer a variant of Windows to run on the XO.

I think Microsoft will virtually [or actually] give away WindowsXO, because the target market is poor [and isn't particularly IP-aware] and would at least pirate WindowsXP if they wanted it besides the above reason to keep kids as far away from open-source as possible.

... but that thought about pirating doesn't make sense (although the rest does). If Microsoft were concerned that the kids with XO laptops might pirate Windows, then Microsoft could simply do nothing. The XO won't run Windows without some changes made to the laptop (extra memory) and to Windows itself.

Since Microsoft are all about making money, these observations lead clearly to the conclusion that Microsoft are working on the XO and offering a cheap version of Windows for the XO (but not dual-boot) because their ONLY intention is to get Linux off the machine so that the kids don't get exposed to Linux.

Re:Impossible task!

[sqldr]

This is what we call an oxymoron

Whereas Steve Ballmer is what we call a fuckingmoron.

Re:Don't worry MS, the OLPC will fail

[jsebrech]

A small company you may have heard of called IBM made personal computers in around 1984. They're very much in business.

IBM is no longer a personal computer maker, so in that sense they are out of business.

I think the statement is right. Apple is the only personal computer maker from the early 80's that's still in the same business pretty much in the same form they were then (only bigger).