Comparison of Windows XP and Linux/Sugar On the OLPC XO

griffjon writes "OLPCNews has a comparison of Windows XP to the Sugar/Linux OS on the One Laptop Per Child XO-1, based on the Microsoft Unlimited Potential video, touching on video recording, power usage, boot times, and mesh networking. An interesting, if saddening, read."

Comments

Sugar is worse

[r00t]

Sugar is god-awful slow. It's not even a real program; it's just a Python script.

Sugar has this thing called the journal. It "manages" your files with less sophistication than the 1984 Mac. There are no directories. It's all one big pile. It's full of spam even; every time you run a program you get a useless file in your journal.

So - the moral is...

[silverdr]

that GNU/Linux is not for children...

they still think Microsoft is doing this to help

[Locutus]

Why would they do that? They are out to put the XO and OLPC out of business or whatever they are doing. We know that XP on this is going to suck and it'll take $30-$50 more hardware to make it even close to usable. That alone is enough to destroy the OLPC if they put all their eggs in the Microsoft basket. And seeing how Microsoft spent $25 million to tie the Egyptian government to Microsoft Windows, they've got plenty more to tie up a whole bunch of poor countries.

I only hope that Sugar lives on. It really looks like a great entry level desktop for educational use. Teachers wasting hours on teaching kids what buttons to push in Windows is not teaching them anything useful.

And what is with these idiots constantly saying that teaching kids Windows XP is going to prepare them for when they get into the work force. For many of these kids, that's ten years out and there is no way Microsoft's software is going to act the same in ten years. Besides, they are supposed to be using the XO for learning about the world, not how Microsoft decided to tie you to their money train. IMO.

LoB