[sugar] Microsoft

Edward Cherlin echerlin at gmail.com
Sat May 17 05:16:14 EDT 2008

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 5:28 AM, Edward Cherlin <echerlin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Just look at the deal. Dual-boot costs $7 extra. Governments will
>>> not pay the extra $7 to allow dual-boot.
>> No, Windows costs about $7 extra for the flash card plus $3 for the
>> license. Countries wouldn't save anything by removing Linux + Sugar,
>> which is all free. Dual-boot and Windows-only would have the same
>> cost.
> According to the recent nytimes.com article:
> NYT: Windows will add a bit to the price of the machines,
> NYT: about $3, the licensing fee Microsoft charges to some
> NYT: developing nations under a program called Unlimited Potential.
> NYT: For those nations that want models that can run both Windows
> NYT: and Linux, the extra hardware required will add another $7 or
> NYT: so to the cost of the machines, Mr. Negroponte said.
> I can parse that two different ways, neither of which agrees
> with you:

True, but the press release is wrong, on this and on other points.

> Linux-only is $0 extra.


> Windows-only is $3 extra.

No, $10 extra. XP does not fit in the 1G flash on the stock XO. It
requires the additional SD card.

> Dual-boot is either $7 extra or $10 extra.

$10 extra compared with Linux-only, as I said.

> (depending on if "another" means adding the $7 to the price
> of the laptop, or to the price after already adding $3)

Edward Cherlin
End Poverty at a Profit by teaching children business
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."--Alan Kay

More information about the Devel mailing list