On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 5:28 AM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Correct. > 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 http://www.EarthTreasury.org/ "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."--Alan Kay _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
