An End Of An Era : Bill Gates says Goodbye.

[DarkThinker]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
...
Others say that MS has such a crappy product that has only been supported through sheer monopoly. I find this laughable. What other OS provides a very easy to use system for almost *every* computer configuration available on the PC? Most of the problems are due to computers not adhering to the standard, or just the fault of having to account for every problem in every configuration.
...
The massive scale of such undertakings naturally appeal to one large company.

I find your argument laughable, defending a company whose history is blackened with antitrust convictions, whose monopoly's prowess have not faded one bit oh please. And I believe you mentioned something about people not adhering to Microsoft's standards? Way to shift the blame, PFFFT when the hell did Microsoft adhere to standards huh? Actually Microsoft and
standards don't go along on the same line <=== (note new line)

And as for Gate's himself leaving Microsoft, I say good riddance, Oh my what a good man he is ya I am sure, it's so easy to give away money when you have pressed so many necks over the years for it, you end up with so much money that you don't know what the heck to do it with it anymore.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Gotta give props to Gates. Say what you will about MS but I'd take one Bill Gates in this world over 1000 Steve Jobs. He stated long ago that before he died he would donate the vast majority of his fortune to charity. He is keeping his word and a man of his word is golden in my book.

Are you thinking of Buffett?

Within months, he said, he would begin to give away his Berkshire Hathaway fortune, then and now worth well over $40 billion.

No. Gates said it way back in the 90s, long before Buffet jumped on that train.

Sorry, don't have a link to the statement but it's in a biography or auto-biography on Gates. Don't remember which one.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Doesn't anyone realize he achieved success and Microsoft's success at any cost, no matter how many start-ups he crushed, no matter how many little companies he left dead and bloodied along the way, just as long as he could become the richest man in the world, no matter how many lives he ruined, or dot-coms he left dead and bloodied along the way, just as long as he became the world's richest man, no matter how many Netscape's he buried, or how many other free browsers he left dead and bloodied along the way?

Stockholders don't pay Microsoft to play nice, they pay Microsoft to make money. Microsoft made that money and the resulting company continues to do so. Whether or not all of his business practices were perceived as being socially perfect does not matter. If a second major operating system were to be presented that were superior to MS, then I wouldn't doubt it would succeed.

However, when you look at any other system that has been presented they have been inferior for various reasons or barely superior. If they were so superior they would have enticed enough companies to dump them anyway.

This is akin to the Intel vs AMD situation. AMD never had a great product until the K7 series, everything else was lower-tier trash. Even then they didn't have a hugely great product until INTC screwed up with the P4 and compounded that mistake. People whine that INTC offered too many incentives, dropped prices, struck deals...etc so that AMD couldn't compete.

Frankly, I don't care. If AMD's product was so great then it would be more widely accepted, but the mere fact is that it has never been that great.

Others say that MS has such a crappy product that has only been supported through sheer monopoly. I find this laughable. What other OS provides a very easy to use system for almost *every* computer configuration available on the PC? Most of the problems are due to computers not adhering to the standard, or just the fault of having to account for every problem in every configuration.

How do you account for infinity? You can't. Apple does it by limiting users and hardware down into a narrow spec. However, the larger they become the more degraded the system becomes as a whole as they have to increase their system geometrically.

Frankly, I would rather have 1 MS running such a daunting task rather than 5 apples. The massive scale of such undertakings naturally appeal to one large company.

Ok, the question of MS Windows as a superior operating system can be debated, but I think it's harder to argue that Microsoft hasn't cause a substantial amount of misery in their ascent. I think sirjonk's point (unless the post was just a joke) is that you have to consider how Bill Gates got his money.

Frankly, I'm very unimpressed. It's not difficult to write big checks and feel important. I've also heard that the behavior of a lot of the companies his charity invests in detract from what the charity is trying to improve.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Doesn't anyone realize he achieved success and Microsoft's success at any cost, no matter how many start-ups he crushed, no matter how many little companies he left dead and bloodied along the way, just as long as he could become the richest man in the world, no matter how many lives he ruined, or dot-coms he left dead and bloodied along the way, just as long as he became the world's richest man, no matter how many Netscape's he buried, or how many other free browsers he left dead and bloodied along the way?

(Edit: didn't anybody see Zoolander??) http://www.hotmoviequotes.com/...ve-around-you-and.html

hm.. ruthless, cunning... how else do you expect to get ahead in this business environment?

but wont bill still be chairman after he steps down from his day to day activities?

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Doesn't anyone realize he achieved success and Microsoft's success at any cost, no matter how many start-ups he crushed, no matter how many little companies he left dead and bloodied along the way, just as long as he could become the richest man in the world, no matter how many lives he ruined, or dot-coms he left dead and bloodied along the way, just as long as he became the world's richest man, no matter how many Netscape's he buried, or how many other free browsers he left dead and bloodied along the way?

Stockholders don't pay Microsoft to play nice, they pay Microsoft to make money. Microsoft made that money and the resulting company continues to do so. Whether or not all of his business practices were perceived as being socially perfect does not matter. If a second major operating system were to be presented that were superior to MS, then I wouldn't doubt it would succeed.

However, when you look at any other system that has been presented they have been inferior for various reasons or barely superior. If they were so superior they would have enticed enough companies to dump them anyway.

This is akin to the Intel vs AMD situation. AMD never had a great product until the K7 series, everything else was lower-tier trash. Even then they didn't have a hugely great product until INTC screwed up with the P4 and compounded that mistake. People whine that INTC offered too many incentives, dropped prices, struck deals...etc so that AMD couldn't compete.

Frankly, I don't care. If AMD's product was so great then it would be more widely accepted, but the mere fact is that it has never been that great.

Others say that MS has such a crappy product that has only been supported through sheer monopoly. I find this laughable. What other OS provides a very easy to use system for almost *every* computer configuration available on the PC? Most of the problems are due to computers not adhering to the standard, or just the fault of having to account for every problem in every configuration.

How do you account for infinity? You can't. Apple does it by limiting users and hardware down into a narrow spec. However, the larger they become the more degraded the system becomes as a whole as they have to increase their system geometrically.

Frankly, I would rather have 1 MS running such a daunting task rather than 5 apples. The massive scale of such undertakings naturally appeal to one large company.

Ok, the question of MS Windows as a superior operating system can be debated, but I think it's harder to argue that Microsoft hasn't cause a substantial amount of misery in their ascent. I think sirjonk's point (unless the post was just a joke) is that you have to consider how Bill Gates got his money.

Frankly, I'm very unimpressed. It's not difficult to write big checks and feel important. I've also heard that the behavior of a lot of the companies his charity invests in detract from what the charity is trying to improve.

This is correct. The money management patterns of the foundation are very very questionable, and in fact many professionals think quite a bit of the foundation's very existence is fiscally motivated.

But I don't want to be so cynic, and prefer to believe he is in fact being generous.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
...
Others say that MS has such a crappy product that has only been supported through sheer monopoly. I find this laughable. What other OS provides a very easy to use system for almost *every* computer configuration available on the PC? Most of the problems are due to computers not adhering to the standard, or just the fault of having to account for every problem in every configuration.
...
The massive scale of such undertakings naturally appeal to one large company.

I find your argument laughable, defending a company whose history is blackened with antitrust convictions, whose monopoly's prowess have not faded one bit oh please. And I believe you mentioned something about people not adhering to Microsoft's standards? Way to shift the blame, PFFFT when the hell did Microsoft adhere to standards huh? Actually Microsoft and
standards don't go along on the same line <=== (note new line)

And as for Gate's himself leaving Microsoft, I say good riddance, Oh my what a good man he is ya I am sure, it's so easy to give away money when you have pressed so many necks over the years for it, you end up with so much money that you don't know what the heck to do it with it anymore.

Please, get out of your open-source ferry world. The anti-trust convictions were largely a joke. At the time they were nothing but a target for people who had nothing better to do. Their supposed monopolistic practices were nothing more than the industry and consumers asked for. They never abused their powers to jack up prices beyond a normal profit. No other OS challenged them in any major way simply because any challenger couldn't get close to matching the power of Windows.

MS Standards? Like writing correct drivers to fit into the OS? Most companies can barely do that and then people blame instability on MS. It's a joke that's overplayed.

As far as misery over the ascent, bfd. What company isn't out there seeking to maximize profit?

People whine way too much. Go back to coding your crappy Linux system that has thus far failed to attract any more than geek attention. Why? Because your air of supposed moral haughtiness, "RTFM" bullshit, and ego-centrism is exactly why the stupid open-source movement will never move beyond your pathetic realm of geeks. Until you can realize that nobody gives a shit about distributions, tarballs, shells, command prompts. They want ease of use and universal support.

Windows provided all of this and nobody else could. It's not MS' fault.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Doesn't anyone realize he achieved success and Microsoft's success at any cost, no matter how many start-ups he crushed, no matter how many little companies he left dead and bloodied along the way, just as long as he could become the richest man in the world, no matter how many lives he ruined, or dot-coms he left dead and bloodied along the way, just as long as he became the world's richest man, no matter how many Netscape's he buried, or how many other free browsers he left dead and bloodied along the way?

Stockholders don't pay Microsoft to play nice, they pay Microsoft to make money. Microsoft made that money and the resulting company continues to do so. Whether or not all of his business practices were perceived as being socially perfect does not matter. If a second major operating system were to be presented that were superior to MS, then I wouldn't doubt it would succeed.

However, when you look at any other system that has been presented they have been inferior for various reasons or barely superior. If they were so superior they would have enticed enough companies to dump them anyway.

This is akin to the Intel vs AMD situation. AMD never had a great product until the K7 series, everything else was lower-tier trash. Even then they didn't have a hugely great product until INTC screwed up with the P4 and compounded that mistake. People whine that INTC offered too many incentives, dropped prices, struck deals...etc so that AMD couldn't compete.

Frankly, I don't care. If AMD's product was so great then it would be more widely accepted, but the mere fact is that it has never been that great.

Others say that MS has such a crappy product that has only been supported through sheer monopoly. I find this laughable. What other OS provides a very easy to use system for almost *every* computer configuration available on the PC? Most of the problems are due to computers not adhering to the standard, or just the fault of having to account for every problem in every configuration.

How do you account for infinity? You can't. Apple does it by limiting users and hardware down into a narrow spec. However, the larger they become the more degraded the system becomes as a whole as they have to increase their system geometrically.

Frankly, I would rather have 1 MS running such a daunting task rather than 5 apples. The massive scale of such undertakings naturally appeal to one large company.

Ok, the question of MS Windows as a superior operating system can be debated, but I think it's harder to argue that Microsoft hasn't cause a substantial amount of misery in their ascent. I think sirjonk's point (unless the post was just a joke) is that you have to consider how Bill Gates got his money.

Frankly, I'm very unimpressed. It's not difficult to write big checks and feel important. I've also heard that the behavior of a lot of the companies his charity invests in detract from what the charity is trying to improve.

This is correct. The money management patterns of the foundation are very very questionable, and in fact many professionals think quite a bit of the foundation's very existence is fiscally motivated.

But I don't want to be so cynic, and prefer to believe he is in fact being generous.

Please provide evidence of this, I have yet to see anything close to what you say that holds any water.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Doesn't anyone realize he achieved success and Microsoft's success at any cost, no matter how many start-ups he crushed, no matter how many little companies he left dead and bloodied along the way, just as long as he could become the richest man in the world, no matter how many lives he ruined, or dot-coms he left dead and bloodied along the way, just as long as he became the world's richest man, no matter how many Netscape's he buried, or how many other free browsers he left dead and bloodied along the way?

(Edit: didn't anybody see Zoolander??) http://www.hotmoviequotes.com/...ve-around-you-and.html

hm.. ruthless, cunning... how else do you expect to get ahead in this business environment?

but wont bill still be chairman after he steps down from his day to day activities?

They expect teddy bear open source and hugs and kisses as they cut sweetheart deals.

People are so naive sometimes.

 

[wkabel23]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Frankly, I'm very unimpressed. It's not difficult to write big checks and feel important. I've also heard that the behavior of a lot of the companies his charity invests in detract from what the charity is trying to improve.

And it's also easy to take pot shots at "the Man" from your computer chair.

P.S. - got any proof to back those statements up?

 

[senseamp]

I definitely mind buying MS products a lot less knowing where big share of the profits will go through B&M Gates Foundation. Ditto for Berkshire Hathaway products.
Very few companies' products can be bought with the knowledge that such a huge percent of profit will indirectly be given to charity.
There are drugs with potential to save millions and millions of lives in poor countries being developed solely because the Gates Foundation created an economic case for developing them through their donations, where there was no interest in developing them before due to inability to recoup costs from poorer patients.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Doesn't anyone realize he achieved success and Microsoft's success at any cost, no matter how many start-ups he crushed, no matter how many little companies he left dead and bloodied along the way, just as long as he could become the richest man in the world, no matter how many lives he ruined, or dot-coms he left dead and bloodied along the way, just as long as he became the world's richest man, no matter how many Netscape's he buried, or how many other free browsers he left dead and bloodied along the way?

Stockholders don't pay Microsoft to play nice, they pay Microsoft to make money. Microsoft made that money and the resulting company continues to do so. Whether or not all of his business practices were perceived as being socially perfect does not matter. If a second major operating system were to be presented that were superior to MS, then I wouldn't doubt it would succeed.

However, when you look at any other system that has been presented they have been inferior for various reasons or barely superior. If they were so superior they would have enticed enough companies to dump them anyway.

This is akin to the Intel vs AMD situation. AMD never had a great product until the K7 series, everything else was lower-tier trash. Even then they didn't have a hugely great product until INTC screwed up with the P4 and compounded that mistake. People whine that INTC offered too many incentives, dropped prices, struck deals...etc so that AMD couldn't compete.

Frankly, I don't care. If AMD's product was so great then it would be more widely accepted, but the mere fact is that it has never been that great.

Others say that MS has such a crappy product that has only been supported through sheer monopoly. I find this laughable. What other OS provides a very easy to use system for almost *every* computer configuration available on the PC? Most of the problems are due to computers not adhering to the standard, or just the fault of having to account for every problem in every configuration.

How do you account for infinity? You can't. Apple does it by limiting users and hardware down into a narrow spec. However, the larger they become the more degraded the system becomes as a whole as they have to increase their system geometrically.

Frankly, I would rather have 1 MS running such a daunting task rather than 5 apples. The massive scale of such undertakings naturally appeal to one large company.

Ok, the question of MS Windows as a superior operating system can be debated, but I think it's harder to argue that Microsoft hasn't cause a substantial amount of misery in their ascent. I think sirjonk's point (unless the post was just a joke) is that you have to consider how Bill Gates got his money.

Frankly, I'm very unimpressed. It's not difficult to write big checks and feel important. I've also heard that the behavior of a lot of the companies his charity invests in detract from what the charity is trying to improve.

This is correct. The money management patterns of the foundation are very very questionable, and in fact many professionals think quite a bit of the foundation's very existence is fiscally motivated.

But I don't want to be so cynic, and prefer to believe he is in fact being generous.

Please provide evidence of this, I have yet to see anything close to what you say that holds any water.

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...coll=la-home-headlines

Admittedly, it's a very complicated issue. BTW, this link speaks to my point about the investments detracting from the charity work, not Tango's claim that the foundation is fiscally motivated. I haven't heard of that claim myself...

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Doesn't anyone realize he achieved success and Microsoft's success at any cost, no matter how many start-ups he crushed, no matter how many little companies he left dead and bloodied along the way, just as long as he could become the richest man in the world, no matter how many lives he ruined, or dot-coms he left dead and bloodied along the way, just as long as he became the world's richest man, no matter how many Netscape's he buried, or how many other free browsers he left dead and bloodied along the way?

Stockholders don't pay Microsoft to play nice, they pay Microsoft to make money. Microsoft made that money and the resulting company continues to do so. Whether or not all of his business practices were perceived as being socially perfect does not matter. If a second major operating system were to be presented that were superior to MS, then I wouldn't doubt it would succeed.

However, when you look at any other system that has been presented they have been inferior for various reasons or barely superior. If they were so superior they would have enticed enough companies to dump them anyway.

This is akin to the Intel vs AMD situation. AMD never had a great product until the K7 series, everything else was lower-tier trash. Even then they didn't have a hugely great product until INTC screwed up with the P4 and compounded that mistake. People whine that INTC offered too many incentives, dropped prices, struck deals...etc so that AMD couldn't compete.

Frankly, I don't care. If AMD's product was so great then it would be more widely accepted, but the mere fact is that it has never been that great.

Others say that MS has such a crappy product that has only been supported through sheer monopoly. I find this laughable. What other OS provides a very easy to use system for almost *every* computer configuration available on the PC? Most of the problems are due to computers not adhering to the standard, or just the fault of having to account for every problem in every configuration.

How do you account for infinity? You can't. Apple does it by limiting users and hardware down into a narrow spec. However, the larger they become the more degraded the system becomes as a whole as they have to increase their system geometrically.

Frankly, I would rather have 1 MS running such a daunting task rather than 5 apples. The massive scale of such undertakings naturally appeal to one large company.

Ok, the question of MS Windows as a superior operating system can be debated, but I think it's harder to argue that Microsoft hasn't cause a substantial amount of misery in their ascent. I think sirjonk's point (unless the post was just a joke) is that you have to consider how Bill Gates got his money.

Frankly, I'm very unimpressed. It's not difficult to write big checks and feel important. I've also heard that the behavior of a lot of the companies his charity invests in detract from what the charity is trying to improve.

This is correct. The money management patterns of the foundation are very very questionable, and in fact many professionals think quite a bit of the foundation's very existence is fiscally motivated.

But I don't want to be so cynic, and prefer to believe he is in fact being generous.

Please provide evidence of this, I have yet to see anything close to what you say that holds any water.

Just look at what's in the foundation's portfolio and decide for yourself if those assets should belong to a charity's socially responsible investment vehicle. I don't think ENI or ConocoPhillips stocks should be in it, for example.

This topic received quite a lot of media attention during the last year, so you can check online many analysts opinion on this, and decide if their investment approach is questionable or not.

 

[cwjerome]

Gates has done more to touch lives, change the world, and help people than someone like Mother Teresa could ever hope to do... and that's before you add up his charity work.

Good job Bill. One for the record books (and the history books).

 

[DarkThinker]

LegendKiller[/i]
...

Please, get out of your open-source ferry world.

Go back to coding your crappy Linux system that has thus far failed to attract any more than geek attention.

I am not a person living in an imaginary world, I work as a software engineer/developer for a big company that is spread globally, I develop software for both environments and my company utilizes both closed and open source software.
Everything has it's advantages and disadvantages, since I am unlike you a professional I don't put myself on one side and defend it right or wrong. Unlike you, I didn't come out and say something ignorant such as X is crappy and going no where.

I was wondering if open source software was and is completely useless for the average user then why does it keep getting adopted by important players in the industry and on the user side alike? IE for instance remained in an almost stagnated state until Firefox came along and showed Microsoft how a user and developer friendly browser looks like, they immediately felt the threat and started working on getting IE7 in the user's hands and copy a good deal of it's features. I am wondering why Google runs EVERYTHING that is Google on Linux systems and not Microsoft systems. I am wondering why openoffice.org is being seen by many users as a free Office suite that in the majority of cases replaces Microsoft's super expensive offerings and gets the job done in the same way.
I am wondering why a very important company such as Motorola is running their cellphones on Linux this is system that you call crappy and so does Tivo. I am wondering why Apache is by far the #1 web server around the world and not anything Microsoft has. I am wondering why PC OEMs are starting to offer Linux for the end users at an increasing rate Dell, Lenovo, HP, Acer ...etc
And much more examples than I can put in one post.

Why? Because your air of supposed moral haughtiness, "RTFM" bullshit

I didn't say any of that, I was questioning Microsoft's business tactics, stop making things up buddy.

Until you can realize that nobody gives a shit about distributions, tarballs, shells, command prompts.

Prove it?

Because your air of supposed moral haughtiness, "RTFM" bullshit, and ego-centrism is exactly why the stupid open-source movement will never move beyond your pathetic realm of geeks.

Stop foaming at the mouth their and I would advise you to ease up on those personal attacks/flames too if you want to keep posting on this forum, if you can't take criticism then stop posting kid.
So let me see, you are posting on a technical forum, your are foaming at the mouth when someone is criticizing your beloved operating system and you think you are way cooler than a 'geek'? Sure you are, you're a nutcase.

Windows provided all of this and nobody else could. It's not MS' fault.

I would like to see you prove that to me please. And if Microsoft provided everything that a user could need, then why did I after using and buying Microsoft products for a decade switch to Linux and open source software as soon as I discovered the difference, huh? Surely, being an avid software user and enthusiast I wouldn't make the switch to something that offers less right?

Oh and grow up will ya?

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Genx87
Is he still the majority shareholder in the company? I would imagine he still stays on the board to help steer but not direct the company.

His charity work is phenominal when you think about it. A single man donates 17 billion dollars to his own charity. The numbers are crazy. That is a single years worth of MNs state budget.

And all thanks to capitalism.

Eh? The charity isn't thanks to capitalism, the money is. The charity is thanks to Bill Gates.

Christ. If it wasn't for the money, he couldn't give it to charity. I am glad you see the connection. :roll:

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: wkabel23

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Frankly, I'm very unimpressed. It's not difficult to write big checks and feel important. I've also heard that the behavior of a lot of the companies his charity invests in detract from what the charity is trying to improve.

And it's also easy to take pot shots at "the Man" from your computer chair.

P.S. - got any proof to back those statements up?

Proof? I've heard you don't need proof anymore.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
...

Please, get out of your open-source ferry world.

Go back to coding your crappy Linux system that has thus far failed to attract any more than geek attention.

I am not a person living in an imaginary world, I work as a software engineer/developer for a big company that is spread globally, I develop software for both environments and my company utilizes both closed and open source software.
Everything has it's advantages and disadvantages, since I am unlike you a professional I don't put myself on one side and defend it right or wrong. Unlike you, I didn't come out and say something ignorant such as X is crappy and going no where.

I was wondering if open source software was and is completely useless for the average user then why does it keep getting adopted by important players in the industry and on the user side alike? IE for instance remained in an almost stagnated state until Firefox came along and showed Microsoft how a user and developer friendly browser looks like, they immediately felt the threat and started working on getting IE7 in the user's hands and copy a good deal of it's features. I am wondering why Google runs EVERYTHING that is Google on Linux systems and not Microsoft systems. I am wondering why openoffice.org is being seen by many users as a free Office suite that in the majority of cases replaces Microsoft's super expensive offerings and gets the job done in the same way.
I am wondering why a very important company such as Motorola is running their cellphones on Linux this is system that you call crappy and so does Tivo. I am wondering why Apache is by far the #1 web server around the world and not anything Microsoft has. I am wondering why PC OEMs are starting to offer Linux for the end users at an increasing rate Dell, Lenovo, HP, Acer ...etc
And much more examples than I can put in one post.

Why? Because your air of supposed moral haughtiness, "RTFM" bullshit

I didn't say any of that, I was questioning Microsoft's business tactics, stop making things up buddy.

Until you can realize that nobody gives a shit about distributions, tarballs, shells, command prompts.

Prove it?

Because your air of supposed moral haughtiness, "RTFM" bullshit, and ego-centrism is exactly why the stupid open-source movement will never move beyond your pathetic realm of geeks.

Stop foaming at the mouth their and I would advise you to ease up on those personal attacks/flames too if you want to keep posting on this forum, if you can't take criticism then stop posting kid.
So let me see, you are posting on a technical forum, your are foaming at the mouth when someone is criticizing your beloved operating system and you think you are way cooler than a 'geek'? Sure you are, you're a nutcase.

Windows provided all of this and nobody else could. It's not MS' fault.

I would like to see you prove that to me please. And if Microsoft provided everything that a user could need, then why did I after using and buying Microsoft products for a decade switch to Linux and open source software as soon as I discovered the difference, huh? Surely, being an avid software user and enthusiast I wouldn't make the switch to something that offers less right?

Oh and grow up will ya?

I have never argued from the basis of enterprise, only from the basis of normal users, go back and read my posts and show me where I have had a enterprise thrust. Consider my comparisons to Apple, which makes it all the more evident. There is no doubt that on an enterprise level the systems are much better, there are definitely reasons for that. The OS movement has largely failed on a desktop level because of things I mentioned while MS has succeeded.

Naturally, if a better product existed it would be used and used thoroughly. That's the nature of competition. Of course you guys'll continually say that it's a monopoly and that can't happen. Sorry, but if there were a true replacement that OEM's could make money off of, it would be used. OS has failed in this area and I have seen some evidence that it's retreating a little bit.

That's your whole pillar of strength, without it there is nothing to show that the OS movement has done anything significant. Wow, firefox made them move. Then firefox sucked the next release.

I like how you try to create some kind of attack by calling me "kid" and telling me to grow up. Please, while you may work for a multi-national company, I work for one of the 10th largest international banks, I close 1bn investment deals in my sleep.

I don't like Windows personally, I just think all of this BS about it being such a horrible OS, MS being such a horrible monopoly, and BG being such a horrible person is really just sour grapes by the OS community who are largely irrelevant for the vast majority of consumers.

 

[DarkThinker]

LegendKiller

I have never argued from the basis of enterprise, only from the basis of normal users, go back and read my posts and show me where I have had a enterprise thrust. Consider my comparisons to Apple, which makes it all the more evident. There is no doubt that on an enterprise level the systems are much better, there are definitely reasons for that. The OS movement has largely failed on a desktop level because of things I mentioned while MS has succeeded.

And I argued back against your argument that open source software doesn't get attention from the 'non-geek' end user and also against your point that Linux is a crappy system. I proved it to you that OS software succeeds on both the Enterprise and End User levels, hence the examples related to Firefox & OpenOffice.org from one side and Linux and Apache on the other side.

Naturally, if a better product existed it would be used and used thoroughly. That's the nature of competition. Of course you guys'll continually say that it's a monopoly and that can't happen. Sorry, but if there were a true replacement that OEM's could make money off of, it would be used. OS has failed in this area and I have seen some evidence that it's retreating a little bit.

Competition is a keyword in that paragraph. I am arguing that Microsoft throughout it's existence has been anti-competitive and that's something that doesn't even need proving for someone who knows the industry and how things go.

That's your whole pillar of strength, without it there is nothing to show that the OS movement has done anything significant. Wow, firefox made them move. Then firefox sucked the next release.

Pffft, if Firefox has ever sucked, then God only knows about the things that could be said about IE.

I like how you try to create some kind of attack by calling me "kid" and telling me to grow up.

Yes I am attacking you because you really need to grow up, when someone criticizes your arguments, you don't jump on your high horse and start calling him/her 'pathetic' and throw insults in their faces just because you believe your argument is in danger of falling apart.

Please, while you may work for a multi-national company, I work for one of the 10th largest international banks, I close 1bn investment deals in my sleep.

OK I'll bite on that one and I'll assume whatever you are saying is even remotely true, and that you do close $ 1bn investment deals left and right.
OK, so WTF does that have to do with this argument? Are you trying to compensate for something here? I mentioned what I do for a living not because I like to boast like you? It's because that might tell you a thing or two about how well I know what I am talking about, because it's directly relevant to the argument and because I do develop for both platforms. And if all that you do is close investment deals for living, then this makes you absolutely a non-authority on the subject of what makes software good or not.
Face it most probably you are just a Business school graduate that thinks he knows all that there is to know about Software Engineering just because he was required to take an Office class or two back at his university and because he closes 1bn dollar deals in his sleep too :laugh:

<I don't like Windows personally, I just think all of this BS about it being such a horrible OS, MS being such a horrible monopoly, and BG being such a horrible person is really just sour grapes by the OS community who are largely irrelevant for the vast majority of consumers.

So all those attacks and defense of Windows being all what the user needs and ...etc And you don't even like Windows personally? Perhaps it's because it in contrary to everything you have talked about, doesn't offer you everything you need / most of what you want? And that you are the one perhaps that has sour grapes because you tried OS software and you were too dumb to figure how things work, wanted people to take care of your issues without even trying to figure anything out and were told to RTFM first and you hated everything that is OS from there. Think about that.

 

[LegendKiller]

Geebus, you can't even quote correctly.

You didn't prove anything about OS software working on the end-user platform. Wow, so Dell and others offer it as an option. Big f'n deal. It's still unwieldy, poorly implemented, and until your regular user adopts it is not a viable alternative to anybody but a geek.

Every company is anti-competitive. If any company could choose they wouldn't have any competitition and they do anything they can to destroy that competition. It is up to the competitor to do the same dang thing. You're pretty damn naive to think that that is anything but.

I do not remember the exact release of Firefox, but it was an ass release, yes, it is still better than IE in some cases, worse in others.

Perhaps you should have realized that it wasn't neccessarily directed at you? My argument is far from falling apart. Again, if OS was anything but insignificant than they would have a much larger market penetration. The excuse it uses on the end-user front is a monopolistic power. Wow, great job at deflecting the problem.

The point of the argument and me bringing that into the picture is that I am not a kid and yes, I have been around the block. Frankly, you seem to not have that great of an idea of what roles companies play, as much as you think I don't have a great idea about software. I used to run a few solaris servers back in the day, when I was working sys admin for a few departments at my school. You're right, I don't know about software engineering, nor could I care about it at this point.

I don't like windows personally for a few reasons, but that doesn't mean I cannot appreciate what it has done for personal computing and what it continues to do. I do not try to deflect the problems of windows by claiming that somebody else has a monopoly. I can dislike a lot of things but appreciate their overall value.

However, as far as disliking MS in general, I think people like blaming MS for a lot of stuff that's simple business practice. Whine and cry about it all you want, it doesn't make OS any better for your average person.

 

[jonks]

I think it is possible to separate the issue of how Bill got so rich from his laudable charitable efforts. He didn't have to give the money away, he could have started Bill University or bought a few countries or something.

 

[Shyatic]

Geebus, you can't even quote correctly.

You didn't prove anything about OS software working on the end-user platform. Wow, so Dell and others offer it as an option. Big f'n deal. It's still unwieldy, poorly implemented, and until your regular user adopts it is not a viable alternative to anybody but a geek.

Dell offers it on their platform because it appeals to Linux users who feel good about buying a pre-built system with Linux on it. It costs Dell *nothing*. Just replacing the image on the machine. Personally, I think the smarter move is to get the copy of Windows for $30 (since that's about what you'd pay if you broke down the PC down into parts) and download Ubuntu for free. The people who buy Linux PCs from Dell are more idealistic, and honestly... a tad stupid.

Every company is anti-competitive. If any company could choose they wouldn't have any competitition and they do anything they can to destroy that competition. It is up to the competitor to do the same dang thing. You're pretty damn naive to think that that is anything but.

I do not remember the exact release of Firefox, but it was an ass release, yes, it is still better than IE in some cases, worse in others.

IE is a good example of MS's failings. They GAVE UP development on it, and allowed a "Firefox" to rear its head. They brought about tabbed windows, usability, extensions, etc. Now MS has to play catch-up to Firefox. This is the natural order of things, and I can guarantee that by IE8, there will be significant enhancements to the browser to help set itself 'on top' again.

Perhaps you should have realized that it wasn't neccessarily directed at you? My argument is far from falling apart. Again, if OS was anything but insignificant than they would have a much larger market penetration. The excuse it uses on the end-user front is a monopolistic power. Wow, great job at deflecting the problem.

The point of the argument and me bringing that into the picture is that I am not a kid and yes, I have been around the block. Frankly, you seem to not have that great of an idea of what roles companies play, as much as you think I don't have a great idea about software. I used to run a few solaris servers back in the day, when I was working sys admin for a few departments at my school. You're right, I don't know about software engineering, nor could I care about it at this point.

I don't like windows personally for a few reasons, but that doesn't mean I cannot appreciate what it has done for personal computing and what it continues to do. I do not try to deflect the problems of windows by claiming that somebody else has a monopoly. I can dislike a lot of things but appreciate their overall value.

However, as far as disliking MS in general, I think people like blaming MS for a lot of stuff that's simple business practice. Whine and cry about it all you want, it doesn't make OS any better for your average person.

Microsoft doesn't make the BEST OS by any means. OS X has a lot of things going for it that I love (especially their ease of use with installations, etc). There are limitations on what MS can, and cannot do.

First, they cannot re-write the OS and give you something better. There HAS to be legacy support for their older OSes because people won't upgrade if they can't run their older software. Apple had such low marketshare, that a re-write wasn't going to hurt them. It's helped them significantly.

Next, Microsoft -- and most Linux folks forget this -- has a LOT of smart people working for it. The idea that an OSS programmer is somehow better than a MS programmer is idiotic. MS programmers are brilliant minds, and the ones that are not get weeded out on an occasional basis.

Also... Open source is not any better than closed source just "because". This is an idiotic argument. First of all, the belief in Open Source is kind of like a religion, where the hard work people do on their product should somehow be revealed for everybody to see and benefit, is not a NECESSARY step to take. What if I open sourced my medicine? What if I open sourced my new recipe for brownies? Sorry to say, but open source is a nice novelty in a world of capitalism. And in that world, secrets are abound, and make money. If drug companies let others 'in' on how they created a drug, then they will have a bunch of copycats and make little to NO money off the product. In software, you can do this because you will sell the software as a 'service'. You pay for support. You pay for implementation.

Also realize, that open source isn't better in quality than closed source either. John Carmack has said as much -- if there are dedicated eyes continually looking at software being built, then it is probably better than an open source environment where lots of untrained eyes are looking for and filing bug reports. Firefox is a great example of a successful open source piece of software, because there is SO MUCH participation in the project. But go on SourceForge and tell me how many products get that kind of participation. Almost none.

Lastly, Microsoft doesn't sell just an "OS". They sell you an "Enterprise". You get Windows as your foundation. Upon it you get Office. Upon that you get Sharepoint. Upon that you get Exchange. Upon that you get IIS. Upon that you get Softgrid. Upon that you get more and more software. And it all works together, seamlessly, providing you an environment you would only dream of mimicking in Linux or on a Mac.

Are they the best tools? NO! But they are the ONLY ones in some cases, and they work with one another with raw power and seamlessness that nobody can duplicate. That's why Microsoft is successful. Because when you need that software that allows you to write a document, publish it easily to an intranet, email it out to others, collaborate on it, make sure it's available online, etc... you tend to go with the products that work together the best. And that's why people hate them.

But I always say, instead of complaining.. do something about it. Bill Gates and Microsoft may have stomped out competition without any heart -- but that's capitalism. I don't think he should feel bad about using and bending every rule he can to make his company as successful as possible. That's the heart of the American system, and it helps to stomp out those (like IE) and bring adoption to something new (Firefox).

In the US, and in the world at large.. the best product wins. Windows isn't the best single product, but as a whole on what it offers.. it is BY FAR the best product for a lot of people. And they continue to be that way. When they get challenged on an area as a 'platform' then, and only then, will MS have something to worry about. IBM is trying and failing miserably because they are staying true to their horrendous UIs and horrible interoperability, but they are offering a 'suite'. And the joke of what IBM is trying to do is the BEST there has been so far.

It's not good enough. Good for Bill Gates to get as far as he did. He used the system, forced it to work for himself, and got rich. Now he's giving back. There is nothing to be sorry about for that. Kudos to him, and his legacy for computing will last hundreds of years to come.