Microsoft attempting to stuff Windows onto the OLPC

Ever since it got the cold shoulder from those open source junkies over at the OLPC project, Microsoft has been sort of sour grapesey about the whole thing. Now it looks like they've changed tacts: instead of offering up Windows CE to power the fledgling Children's Machine CM1 2B1 B1 XO WhateverTheHeckItsCalled, Microsoft is trying to stuff the entirety of Windows XP into the little box. According to NickNeg, the OLPC has an SD card slot specifically at Bill Gates' behest, since Windows XP requires a minimum of 1.5GB of memory for installation, while the OLPC only packs 512MB of storage. Microsoft has apparently been provided a number of OLPCs to this end, but still hasn't managed to get the thing working. In a perfect world, Microsoft would realise the error of its bloatware ways and prep a stripped down version of the OS to delight enthusiasts the world over with speed and minimalism, but somehow we're thinking that's just a bit unlikely.

[Via Slashdot; thanks simosx for the pic]

[Evan @ Dec 5th 2006 10:58AM]

GOOD BILL!!!! Thank you!


Woo-Hoo!@!#!!$%^&%(&

[TS @ Dec 5th 2006 11:07AM]

Best. Picture. Evar.

[Rohit Kapur @ Dec 5th 2006 11:20AM]

Seriously.

[Karl Viklund @ Dec 5th 2006 11:08AM]

Uncle bill :)

[Bultie @ Dec 5th 2006 11:08AM]

Sad, they refused Jobs offer to bring them a free version of Mac Os X.

Hey not even that u have nothing to eat,drink and live, now u can even experience the feling of system Crash, computer Viruses and the microsoft service hotline......... well how many service centers are there in Namibia, or Kongo

[mespinosam @ Dec 5th 2006 2:46PM]

no $hit! i believe they�re more worried about the OTHER kind of viruses (i.e. ebola, aids , etc.)

[whiskey @ Dec 5th 2006 11:13AM]

What? No way, what about super winpe+ (the super power)... it can boot on ram with just 256MB (but works better with 512)... err... or so i'm told. But despite that, Microsoft should be looking at that direction (a PE enviroment).

[TheCount @ Dec 5th 2006 11:15AM]

So it's a bad thing this thing has an SD slot? That's news to me.

[John Larson @ Dec 5th 2006 11:18AM]

Windows XP Embedded would be a great fit for the OLPC project, as it will fit on 512 MB, why they havent thought of this is beyond my understanding

[tiuk @ Dec 5th 2006 12:23PM]

XP Embedded was the first thing to come to mind for me too, no idea why they didn't try to go with that.

And yeah, I don't agree with the image.

[Ayle @ Dec 5th 2006 11:27AM]

Why not just put Linux on this thing? My prevision is that the fist thing those kids will be taught once they got the olpc is "ctrl+alt+del".....

[mb @ Dec 5th 2006 1:46PM]

It _is_ currently (and rightly) running Linux. MS wants to get their hands in it now that it looks like it might be a success (big surprise).

[Me @ Dec 5th 2006 11:31AM]

"In a perfect world, Microsoft would realise the error of its bloatware ways and prep a stripped down version of the OS to delight enthusiasts the world over with speed and minimalism, but somehow we're thinking that's just a bit unlikely."

Talk about bias, forget the fact that Bill and Melinda are one of the biggest charity contributions, forget the billions they give out to charities, lets all poke fun at how bloated an d unstable windows is, genius.

[csnoke @ Dec 5th 2006 11:39AM]

Giving out billions of dollars doesn't make an OS stable or give it a minimal footprint.

How does that even apply to the OLPC problem?

[kOa7 @ Dec 5th 2006 11:54AM]

Umm, what exactly is their business? Computer operating systems &c, or charities? What kind of world are you living in where you rely on businesses for charity?

Every time a Windows OS crashes or succumbs to a virus, are you going to say "But look at all the money they give to charity?"

I don't know what the situation is now, but in the past MS has used this kind of tactic to embed future business for themselves, even when local cultures would be better off with an open alternative where they can have full control over their systems.

[matt e @ Dec 14th 2006 2:50AM]

that's because it is bloated and unstable. The generosity of Bill and his wife doesn't mean shit in regards to that.

[Richard @ Dec 5th 2006 11:41AM]

Actually, I think that picture is unfair. I have no preference to MS (use Macs at home and at work), but I think that Bill Gates deserves more credit and respect. I'd bet he has done more to help the third world than all of the people who have left comments here combined.

[Wonderboy @ Dec 5th 2006 12:04PM]

True, he does a lot and I'm glad he does... but that doesn't change the fact that the picture is freakin' hilarious.

[Jerome @ Dec 5th 2006 3:17PM]

>>i'd bet he has done more to help the third world than all of the people who have left >>comments here combined.

It is because he has more money then the rest of the people who left comments here!!!

He has BILLIONS, a couple a millions gone for charity does nothing to his bank account!It is like having 2,35Million and spending 12 000$ on something, you still have 2,3Millions!

They should but linux on the OLPC, it is FREE! Microsoft knows that it is a great opportunity to implant XP on those PC! It is all about money!!

word

[TVGenius @ Dec 5th 2006 11:49AM]

The Gateses are wonderful philanthropists, but Bill does make some pretty fatty software. So what's the point of stuffing XP on a laptop that costs less than the copy of XP itself? How slow is that gonna run (off an SD card, no less)?

[Xavier Gill @ Dec 5th 2006 11:51AM]

"Talk about bias, forget the fact that Bill and Melinda are one of the biggest charity contributions, forget the billions they give out to charities, lets all poke fun at how bloated an d unstable windows is, genius."

Relativley speaking they don't give that much to charity. They give millions but that because they have billions and billions. There are so many people who give a lot more when you look at it as a percentage of what they can give

[Rohit Kapur @ Dec 5th 2006 12:00PM]

Bill Gates doesn't just donate all his billions because it's just not that easy. You can't just pump a billion dollars in an organization and expect that everything'll be better. They like to oversee all their projects and make sure the money is being used productively. Warren Buffet donated a HUGE amount of money to the Gates' foundation with the stipulation that it must be spent in the next 3 years. The Gates are already concerned with how difficult a task that is because at the end, it's simply not about how much you can throw away. Maybe the ratio of their wealth to donation isn't that high, but that doesn't mean they are miserly with their money.


Plus, I'm sure you know, once he dies, most of his wealth goes to charity.


Also, I agree totally that this has nothing to do with the post. But I just wanted to make the point clear. He may be a great philanthropist, but Windows sure can be a bitch at times. :-)

[Buurin @ Dec 5th 2006 1:44PM]

"Relativley speaking they don't give that much to charity. They give millions but that because they have billions and billions. "

1) They give billions and are ranked like #2 where the ranking is calculated by a percentage of your net worth. From BusinessWeek: "The year's other billion-dollar-club members include No. 1 givers Bill and Melinda Gates, the world's largest international donors, who made history this year by giving their estimated $3 billion Microsoft Corp. (MSFT ) dividend to their foundation. It's one of the largest donations in history by a living donor. To put it into perspective, that one gift is three times bigger than the amount that America's richest family, the descendants of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT ) founder Sam Walton, has given during their entire lifetimes ..."

2) The dollar amount really isnt indicative of anything... Many people give to charity and see no results. Theres a difference between charity and philanthropy, you can measure charity in dollars whereas philanthropy you measure in results (http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/article.php?article=333)

[Whynot @ Dec 5th 2006 11:52AM]

Sorry, I couldn't resist:
(quote)In a perfect world, Microsoft would realise the error of its [...] OS(/quote)

[Warhorse @ Dec 5th 2006 11:58AM]

True, that picture isn't fair bordering on slander.

[Mike Browning @ Dec 5th 2006 11:58AM]

Another quality post by Paul Miller. I didn't even need to look to know it was his doing.

Will he ever realize that he is not funny or clever?

[wayan @ Dec 5th 2006 12:02PM]

For Microsoft or not, the SD slot has its own OLPC controversy: http://www.olpcnews.com/hardware/peripherals/secure_digital_isnt.html

[disciple83 @ Dec 5th 2006 12:02PM]

@Ayle,

considering those kids can barely read and write, hence the one of the main purposes of OLPC in the first place, to help them, I think that giving them an OS that requires you to recompile everything you do just to be able to run it is simply overkill.

While you may think that Linux is easy to use on the planet Nerd where you come from, most of us in the real world have a difficult time fooling around with it. And these children are by no means programmers or even power users, they are underprivileged children in developing countries.

I wish Linux users would just STFU and quit acting like it's the only OS that matters. If it is so superior, why is it a pain in the ass to get working in the first place? The only reason why its used is because supernerds like Ayle with too big of egos and no common sense think that they are better than Windows or OSX.

[kOa7 @ Dec 5th 2006 1:03PM]

That may have been true a long time ago, but there are plenty of versions of Linux that don't require a kernel compile, and in fact they're easier to use than Windows because they keep the system up to date - applications, not just core operating system - automatically, with their superb package management systems with friendly front ends. This is even more true when the hardware is to spec, rather than a random mishmash that may require special hacks for full support.

The only thing you really lose when going to a good Linux distro in a culture of Windows is being able to get peer support, but if there's enough Linux users it's not an issue.

[George Miles @ Dec 5th 2006 12:17PM]

That picture is unfair, Mr gates is a loving father, and both he and his wife are philanthropists. Lets keep to to the "real" subject

[TIMMAH! @ Dec 5th 2006 12:24PM]

MS-DOS 5 would fit on there just fine...

[Jesus Morales @ Dec 5th 2006 12:43PM]

Why not just ship it with windows 3.1 or windows95?

[Mayor McCheese @ Dec 5th 2006 12:43PM]

If it would have had Apple OS then that would drive the price up from the $100 target point.

More like $1000

[e=mc2 @ Dec 5th 2006 12:48PM]

Now Steve Jobs, he is a bastard.
Just ask his daughter Lisa.

[Jay @ Dec 5th 2006 12:56PM]

@disciple83,

Linux isn't actually that hard to use, it just seems that way because people are used to Windows and/or OSX as they are 2 of the most widely used OS's out there. As for it being a pain to get working, well, I think you've just had a bad experience with it!

Oh, and before you start calling me a nerd, I make the point of saying that I am using XP, and not linux (atm anyway) :)

As for the the Gates's, I think that the amount of money they do give to charity is amazing. Sure it's only a tiny fraction of the amount of money they have but it makes a HUGE difference to the lives of millions of people all over the world. Now, stop moaning and donate: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=donate+to+charity&meta=

[Andir3.0 @ Dec 5th 2006 2:44PM]

Charity is a touchy subject for me, especially in the case of charity for those that don't or chose not to work. Why give away your money when you can spend it? If you spend your money, you put it into the economy and produce jobs and need for jobs. With this need will come demand for the workforce and raises in pay to keep people working at your place of business. By giving away your money you may look good in the eyes of a few people, but by spending your money you help the economy and remove some of the need for charity. By businesses giving money to charity, they only contribute to this problem.

While I think the real problem is in cases like United Way where you don't really know how much of your actual donation goes to the causes you wish it goes to, it's even worse that companies rate themselves on how much money they give away.

BTW, in case your wondering where I'm coming from: United way will only donate up to a certain amount to any particular foundation. If you request your donation go there, and the pool is full, UW re-issues that money to something you may not support. Look into it. You could be giving to the families of some major disaster, but if UW feels like spending that money on an exclusive ethic-restricted youth group, and you don't like their policy on exclusion of a kid based on his/her heritage, it's too bad. They will get the money anyway. Go United Way.

[rench @ Dec 5th 2006 12:57PM]

@disciple83:

After experimenting with various Linux flavors in the late 90's, I thought that it was a pain in the ass to install and use as well. I tried Red Hat, Mandrake, and Corel in its early incarnations before I gave up and swallowed the windows pill.

I used to believe that Linux was harder to use and harder to install. However, the newer flavors of Linux are becoming easier to install and use.

Case in point: Puppy linux (www.puppyos.com): 60MB gets you an easy to understand graphical user interface thats reminiscent of windows 95. It installs on low-end gear. I found installing puppy linux easier than installing XP. The disadvantage is that it doesn't support as many apps as the windows empire, and is not as pretty. But it is faster and leaner - and for education purposes, would serve the OLPC project very well. Planet Nerd isn't as scary as you think it is.

[e=mc2 @ Dec 5th 2006 1:04PM]

Why send them laptops, instead send them Nintendo Wii's. Nintendo is for children.

Kind Regards,
Bill Gates

[Gill Bates @ Dec 5th 2006 1:27PM]

What a perfect fit for BASIC.

[Evan @ Dec 5th 2006 2:01PM]

They are going down the wrong path by stuffing a complex OS with its non-sense GUI into a device for third world education! XP is hard enough for educated people to use.

You know what's simple to use and cheap to make? A Commodore 64! All you needed to know was to type LOAD "*",8,1. Seriously, revive some old tech! Or at least use an older, less bloated, version of Windows.

[Ayle @ Dec 5th 2006 2:03PM]

One thing is bothering me : what the size of the sd card they're planning to use? 4gigs? 8gig? I dont think they're planning to only install xp on those things..... btw where can I get one? It would be a wonderful gift to replace the vtech computer toys.......

[Rob @ Dec 5th 2006 2:04PM]

"Windows XP requires a minimum of 1.5GB of memory for installation, while the OLPC only packs 512MB of storage.."

I think "1.5GB of memory" should read "1.5GB of storage"

[George P. @ Dec 5th 2006 2:07PM]

Even as a joke that image at the top is pretty tight. Bill Gates is one of the greatest humanitarians of all time. He's done so much good, that just seeing that image is disrespectful. I always love a good joke, but have some class about it too.

[Tom @ Dec 5th 2006 2:12PM]

Never mind what a stupid idea OLPC is, or how american taxpayers will inevitably end up footing the bill (hey, it's JUST another 100,000,000 per order, who cares!), the big issue hear is that the evil Microlord Gates is putting the hate on spreading the linux love, right? I swear, running Linux on the system had to be a marketing ploy in the first place just to get all the windows haters out there to support it on principal alone.

[Hammer @ Dec 5th 2006 2:22PM]

That thing really would work well with a stripped down version of OS X.

Failing that, why doesn't MS just rework Windows 2000 or 98? Both of them were pretty soild OSs. Ok, it would probably take a lot of work update one of the older Microsoft OS's, but they could probably sell it quite successfully in various parts of the world.

[Ayle @ Dec 5th 2006 2:32PM]

Windows 98 is better than win me but sucks when compared to win2k....

[fozzylyon @ Dec 5th 2006 4:31PM]

Obviously the author used the picture for shock value, which belittles engadget.com as a whole. I don't like Microsoft at all! but it's false and liable to post that picture when the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does so much for public education systems across the U.S. and the world. And I should know as I work for one of the leading professional development providers.

If opensource fanatics don't like M$ because of it's monopolistic business practices and typically shoddy software, then make that the issue, (or maybe that OLPC shouldn't be influenced by corporations _like_ M$). But only an ignorant journalist could allow that picture to headline their article, when that's not even part of the issues and a lie.

[Juan, who cuts your lawn! @ Dec 5th 2006 5:14PM]

Eat the Rich!

[Arnie @ Dec 5th 2006 5:47PM]

@Xavier Gill
In case you havent been commented upon Bill & Melinda gates are going to leave the largest share of their wealth to their foundation. They will leave a total of about 200million$ to their kids and rest everything will go totheir kids. If you look at the ratio then they and Warren Buffet are the largest contributors of wealth to charities in the entire top 50 list i.e they give more than entire remaining 48 people. Also how about looking it at a from an engg challenge point of view. They arent doing to this stuff it down every 3rd world country kids throat but to hopefully reduce and improve upon their own software. Sheesh I hate the anti MS sentiment esp when it has no basis.

[Alex` @ Dec 5th 2006 7:01PM]

I've managed to get XP to install in less than 300MB, so I think the problems don't simply relate to storage space.