The whole thing is pretty strange to me. There must be some angle to being part of this high-volume/low-budget plan to source PCs to the Developing World. Is there money in this?

Because there’s never been a project like this, I wonder if MS feels they just have to be part of this because if it turns out to form a large chunk of users then it will give someone other than MS a large presence in a market and they’ll be left out.

As for Intel, isn’t there more money producing chips for regular systems than these small, appliance PCs? Or are they, like MS, afraid of someone else getting ahead of them in a market that just starting up?

Anyhow, the OLPC project looks very exciting and even if Intel/MS get involved with an alternative computing system, they don’t have the vision and mission that OLPC does. Without OLPC’s open-source software package, they’ll just be selling cheap laptops..

Hi Tim,
I think for Intel it is about market share. I also hope that the OLPC project is a great success.
Ron

Another thing: Intel doesn’t power these OLPC systems, so therefore they can say whatever they want about them; even if it means trying to take all the more market share away from the third world computer industry.

Then again, “third world” is an archaic term, not used so much anymore. “Developing nations” is one that I racked up from reading web articles.

But I’m all for OLPC, this OpenBIOS and their Linux distro that they use and similar projects since:

A. It fulfills the need for kids/people who are in need of better educational tools over there.

and B. Creates competition in the world economy, which can be a good thing if with the right conditions!

Personally, if I were a needy citizen of some African country, I wouldn’t exactly care who was building the machine or what OS it uses. As long as it does the job it was intended to be doing, which is, of course, increase what they can learn and what they can yearn (for).

Tom A.

Hi Tom,
Thank you for your comments.
Ron