Ever since I first heard that Microsoft was trying to get OLPC to agree to allow Windows to be put on the XO laptop I have wondered if Microsoft had taken leave of its senses. Microsoft can't even keep its Vista act together. Now under conditions where relatively minor differences will make huge differences in performance, Windows will be directly compared to Free/Open Source Software (FOSS). Microsoft money for developers is to be pitted against the paid and unpaid FOSS developers. Either Microsoft supports rapid updates, and bug and security fixes, or it fails miserably by comparison to FOSS. If it establishes a pattern of rapid updates, and bug and security fixes, the generation of new users they intend to capture by putting Windows on the XO will come to expect that those things. No doubt those corporations and individuals now using Windows will rapidly become very dissatisfied with the comparison of Microsoft's solicitous behavior to XO users and disregard to their own needs.

I have also wondered what OS Microsoft plans to put on the XO for a stated price of $3. And what cost for aps comparable to existent XO FOSS aps? Will phone and PDA manufacturers demand similar price treatment? They have a viable option: GNU/Linux and Free Software aps, and don't have to just take it on the chin. Windows neither scales well nor networks well (by comparison to GNU/Linux), and has poorer performance on given hardware than GNU/Linux. Most people equate the GUI as the OS. This article makes it obvious that Microsoft does not have a usable interface. Limited or no user aps, no GUI interface, what is the point of putting a Windows OS on the XO??? I have an XO laptop. Trust me, no one will tolerate inefficient bloatware. I have been hoping Microsoft would offer a proprietary package of OS and aps that could be directly compared to what the Free Software world develops, but apparently, even if Windows gets on the XO, there will be no comparison. Contest already ceded.