3 ms·

I read things everyday about what's better: Windows or something else. The truth is each OS has its own plusses and minuses. Linux/Unix allows a sophisticated u

by brentr 18y ago

I read things everyday about what's better: Windows or something else. The truth is each OS has its own plusses and minuses. Linux/Unix allows a sophisticated user much more power than Windows. Windows has a whole network of developers that create the mainstream games and other entertainment software I enjoy. I use both a Unix and a Windows system, but I use both in a very different manner. Regardless of one's opinion on what OS is better, you cannot deny that Gates is one of the most brilliant people of our time. His business practices are what brought him wealth. He may or may not have done a few questionable things, but what business hasn't? This is why we have a justice system. Laws are not always written to be black and white. The justice systme is there to help us define all the gray in between. If I had the ability to create a monopoly because the laws don't explicitly define a certain prohibition, you can bet your ass that I would. I'd deal with antitrust issues as they came up and leverage what I have already done to move into a new area of exploitation. Whether or not you want to believe it, that is how capitalism is practiced.

brentr 18y ago
Would the person who downmodded me for my comment post a response. I would like to know your opinions of what I wrote. I was only trying to stimulate discussion. If you downmodded me because you don't like Windows, Gates, or my statement on the practices of capitalism, that's fine. I just want to know what you think. There must be some disagreement that you have. I would like to respond to that.
- jamesbritt 18y ago
  I didn't mod you either way, but a statement such as this "He may or may not have done a few questionable things, but what business hasn't? " is stunningly vapid in equating all things "questionable". Some things really are better or worse than other things, and some companies really do behave better or worse than others.
  - silverlake 18y ago
    I think nearly all companies pursue the same tactics, but we only notice the winners. When I was at Motorola long ago, I stumbled across an outline of how to compete against other cell phone companies. Technological innovation was a minor point. Most of it was using legal tactics to tie up competitors, confounding standards bodies, securing exclusive deals with some countries, etc. It also talked about how competitors were doing the same thing. I think if you ran a business and didn't do these things, you'd be roadkill on the information highway.
rbanffy 18y ago
I don't agree Billg as one of the most brilliant people of our time. He is certainly a clever strategist, but not much more than that. He got incredibly lucky a couple times: The non-exclusivity IBM deal, the PC clone market (that could have not existed if the BIOS were harder to reverse engineer - say, like a Mac). MS has also at least one failed attempts to create a PC-like environment: MSX. They saw that a commodity computer running an OS they controlled was a way to get big money. I would also like to know if they somehow covertly helped the BIOS reverse engineering process. Everything they did up to Windows 3 derived from that - do whatever it takes to secure a market for their OS. They did not leave OS/2 to IBM because the codebase was bad. They needed control of the OS in order to keep it a commodity and having a competitor developing the OS that runs on commodity PCs was out of the question. Up to the launch of Windows 3, the public discourse was that OS/2 was the future. It changed dramatically at that minute. They played dirty tricks all the time. Threatening Apple not to renew the Applesoft BASIC license was a way to secure Apple would endorse Microsoft BASIC on the Mac and ditch a competing product. I don't know what else they got from Apple while their cash cow had a piece of MS software within. It certainly made Apple's contracts better the next time. They got lucky a couple times and IBM got fooled twice. Their dominance is the consequence of luck and borderline criminal tactics. I see no huge genius here beyond one that was willing to bend the law (and morality) as much as he could. It's also unclear how much of this came from Ballmer. As far as I know, the big genius among the Microsoft founders is Paul Allen.
- furiouslol 18y ago
  I think you need to give credit where credit is due. Bill Gates is one of the geniuses of our time. You don't create a powerful company like Microsoft just by being lucky. This is the guy who brought personal computing to the masses. This is the guy who managed to grow his company into the behemoth that it is today. This is the guy who responded to the Internet threat brilliantly (well initially that is.). Dirty tricks are PARTS AND PARCEL of the world, especially in businesses. The techies are insulated from such behavior, which is why they are usually shocked at such behavior. People on the business side are used to such behavior. They deal with it. They counter back. Wall St revel in it. Govts use them all the time. This is society at its normal equilibrium. Google, being a techie wonderland, is trying to avoid this for as long as possible but trust me, WallSt will push their hands sooner or later. Paul Allen wouldn't have build Microsoft into the success that it is today. He just isn't as sly as Bill is.

by brentr 18y ago

brentr 18y ago

Would the person who downmodded me for my comment post a response. I would like to know your opinions of what I wrote. I was only trying to stimulate discussion. If you downmodded me because you don't like Windows, Gates, or my statement on the practices of capitalism, that's fine. I just want to know what you think. There must be some disagreement that you have. I would like to respond to that.

jamesbritt 18y ago
I didn't mod you either way, but a statement such as this "He may or may not have done a few questionable things, but what business hasn't? " is stunningly vapid in equating all things "questionable". Some things really are better or worse than other things, and some companies really do behave better or worse than others.
- silverlake 18y ago
  I think nearly all companies pursue the same tactics, but we only notice the winners. When I was at Motorola long ago, I stumbled across an outline of how to compete against other cell phone companies. Technological innovation was a minor point. Most of it was using legal tactics to tie up competitors, confounding standards bodies, securing exclusive deals with some countries, etc. It also talked about how competitors were doing the same thing. I think if you ran a business and didn't do these things, you'd be roadkill on the information highway.

rbanffy 18y ago

I don't agree Billg as one of the most brilliant people of our time. He is certainly a clever strategist, but not much more than that. He got incredibly lucky a couple times: The non-exclusivity IBM deal, the PC clone market (that could have not existed if the BIOS were harder to reverse engineer - say, like a Mac). MS has also at least one failed attempts to create a PC-like environment: MSX. They saw that a commodity computer running an OS they controlled was a way to get big money. I would also like to know if they somehow covertly helped the BIOS reverse engineering process. Everything they did up to Windows 3 derived from that - do whatever it takes to secure a market for their OS. They did not leave OS/2 to IBM because the codebase was bad. They needed control of the OS in order to keep it a commodity and having a competitor developing the OS that runs on commodity PCs was out of the question. Up to the launch of Windows 3, the public discourse was that OS/2 was the future. It changed dramatically at that minute. They played dirty tricks all the time. Threatening Apple not to renew the Applesoft BASIC license was a way to secure Apple would endorse Microsoft BASIC on the Mac and ditch a competing product. I don't know what else they got from Apple while their cash cow had a piece of MS software within. It certainly made Apple's contracts better the next time. They got lucky a couple times and IBM got fooled twice. Their dominance is the consequence of luck and borderline criminal tactics. I see no huge genius here beyond one that was willing to bend the law (and morality) as much as he could. It's also unclear how much of this came from Ballmer. As far as I know, the big genius among the Microsoft founders is Paul Allen.

furiouslol 18y ago
I think you need to give credit where credit is due. Bill Gates is one of the geniuses of our time. You don't create a powerful company like Microsoft just by being lucky. This is the guy who brought personal computing to the masses. This is the guy who managed to grow his company into the behemoth that it is today. This is the guy who responded to the Internet threat brilliantly (well initially that is.). Dirty tricks are PARTS AND PARCEL of the world, especially in businesses. The techies are insulated from such behavior, which is why they are usually shocked at such behavior. People on the business side are used to such behavior. They deal with it. They counter back. Wall St revel in it. Govts use them all the time. This is society at its normal equilibrium. Google, being a techie wonderland, is trying to avoid this for as long as possible but trust me, WallSt will push their hands sooner or later. Paul Allen wouldn't have build Microsoft into the success that it is today. He just isn't as sly as Bill is.