<p>The program is “One Laptop Per Child”, and I think the opportunity to have one of these laptops would be great for my younger daughter that wants to save the world. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/sep/25/usnews[/url]”>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/sep/25/usnews</a></p>
<p>The project website:
<a href=“http://laptop.org/[/url]”>http://laptop.org/</a></p>
<p>This is a plan of amazing vision! Negroponte is hoping his project will change the world. I think we have yet to even dream how big this can become.</p>
<p>Mathson just sent us an e-mail that this would be a possible Christmas present for him. Not sure what he’s planning to do with a second lap top!</p>
<p>They are designed to be STURDY. Sounds like it might be great for those of us who are flying a lot, and want a laptop for email contacts. (Just in case the college freshman actually initiates an email.)</p>
<p>Here’s a differing viewpoint; I don’t know enough about the program to evaluate the criticism, but I thought I’d share the information anyway:
<a href=“http://www.slate.com/id/2174599/[/url]”>http://www.slate.com/id/2174599/</a></p>
<p>I don’t either, they talked briefly about it yesterday or the day before on NPR - maybe on Marketplace? I thought the idea of jumpstarting production was an interesting experiment. It might bomb, but it just might work too. I love the idea of trickle up technology instead of trickle down, but I’m no expert on the economic realities of the third world.</p>
<p>These aren’t ‘normal’ laptops. They don’t run Windows, have no drives, and are limited in their capability. While they’d likely be fine for those who have no means to acquire a ‘normal’ laptop, they probably wouldn’t satisfy those who could have access to a normal one.</p>
<p>mathmom: I doubt mathson would ever actually use one of these.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s better to just buy the two and donate both.</p>
<p>He’s seen one when we visited RPI. He doesn’t care about Windows, he’s a Linux guy. I think he thinks of it as a toy - that it would be interesting to see what he could do with it. Maybe even write software that would be useful for kids.</p>
<p>I could definitely see carrying one of these to class to take notes with instead of my big ole heavy laptop.</p>
<p>mathmom:</p>
<p>That makes sense. I just wanted to make sure people knew that this isn’t exactly the same as the typical laptop most of us are familiar with.</p>
<p>433mhz?</p>
<p>My phone is faster.</p>
<p>It’s in Linux - most of these children can’t even read.</p>
<p>I see this thing busting very soon.</p>
<p>edit: the guy at slate is a bit of an idiot</p>
<p>If you’ve never touched a computer before, 433mhz is pretty damn good. I remember I had an old 486 that ran at 66mhz, and it got online (dial-up) and word processed just fine. Even had some games for it.</p>
<p>And if you’ve never touched a computer before you don’t have the Linux is harder to use than Windows prejudice.</p>
<p>Right. Lots of software asks for at least a ghz.</p>
<p>YAH FOR SOLITAIRE AND HEARTS!!!</p>
<p>Windows is probably the widely used OS in the entire world. wth are they trying to pull with Linux?</p>
<p>MannyS:</p>
<p>The cost of Windows alone would probably exceed the cost of the whole laptop. The system requirements of Windows would drive the cost of the laptop up. It makes sense that they’d choose a no-cost OS and run no-cost applications on it.</p>
<p>The laptop should be evaluated for what it can do rather than what it can’t do. It ‘can’ run some basic applications and it can browse the internet. The ability to browse the internet alone opens up the world for isolated people.</p>
<p>What basic software asks for 1ghz? If any word processor, web browser, music player, image viewer, etc. does, chances are it’s bloated and filled with unnecessary features.</p>
<p>Right now, you’re coming across as totally ignorant of computers.</p>