5 ms·
Here's a reason: He poisoned the world. When Microsoft had control of the world's technology they had a choice. They could backtrack and use their enormous mo
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
Here's a reason: He poisoned the world.
When Microsoft had control of the world's technology they had a choice. They could backtrack and use their enormous money reserves and 90% or more profit margins to make their products stable and reliable or they could stay the course. They chose to stay the course.
As a result people were forced to use systems that really didn't work. Yes Windows 7 crashes less than Windows 3.11 but if Microsoft had adequately tested Windows 3.11 it wouldn't have crashed so much and Windows 7 wouldn't crash at all. Think about it. How much more stable would Windows be if Microsoft had made a still respectable 20% profit rather than 90%?
People cite Apple's hardware/software coupling as a reason for its stability but let me ask you this: How many malware/virus outbreaks were brought on by Hardware flaws in the PC?
Now you have 2 generations that have grown accustomed to crap. People who shrug off their DVR locking up or their phone crashing because they're used to it. Technology has come to mean unreliable. Much of Apple's popularity has been based around the idea that Apple products "Just Work". Because in our modern world working correctly has become a rarity.
And that's Microsoft's fault. They set the tone.
And how much has that tone cost us? How much good technology could be implemented if people trusted it more? How much further could we have gone if we could have focused more of humanity's intelligence on Curing Cancer and less on Curing the newest malware that exploits one of the endless bugs in Windows?
As far as his charitable contributions I'd point to the enormous amount of money spent fixing problems with Microsoft's crappy software and ask this: How much of that IT money would people have donated to charity if they hadn't lost it maintaining shoddy solutions? I don't know the answer but between viruses, malware, and Windows bugs you have 300 billion a year in the U.S. alone. It wouldn't take a large percentage of that to match the roughly $60 billion in Gates' personal fortune.
So don't tell me Gates is Superman because he's not.
- va_coder 15y agoAt the risk of losing karma, I have to say you Apple fanboys are absolutely fascinating to me. I don't understand you at all.
- craigmc 15y agoI am a complete apple fanboy, but I still think Bill Gates is a legend. Microsoft made mistakes, but they made the PC the device that it is today, and they forced others to redefine themselves to compete, which raised the bar. However, Bill Gates will only be part remembered for Microsoft - what he has done in terms of his industrial-scale philanthropy is, frankly, incredible.
- rrohan189 15y agoIt really is, Craig!
- freemarketteddy 15y agoMe too...I have even read his book....The idea that we have to choose one between them is a logical fallacy called False Dilemma!
- nekojima 15y agoI don't understand Applefanboys at all either. Normally, even knowing a few, you expect them to be intelligent enough to see through the hype and marketing. But they still take the Apple cool-aid by IV and lineup hours before the shops open for a "new" product that's barely different from the recently purchased product they already have.
- mindstab 15y agoPeople often cite Apple's amazing stability as a reason for it being better than Windows but I don't see it. I've seen all kinds of insane MacOSX crashes just like Windows. My biggest problem is that once things go wrong, it is hardest to fix it in MacOSX, it is difficult but often doable in Windows, and easiest but by no means trivial in Linux.
- tikhonj 15y agoI think it's because most people who switched to a mac did it because they believed it would be more stable (largely thanks to clever marketing). Since they already expect the mac to be better than Windows, that's what they notice, even though it's just different. Also, the sort of people who use macs now either don't use Windows at all or only use it at work which means they're either comparing mac os to an old version of Windows or to an annoyingly locked down work version.
- shriphani 15y agoAs a result people were forced to use systems that really didn't work. Yes Windows 7 crashes less than Windows 3.11 but if Microsoft had adequately tested Windows 3.11 it wouldn't have crashed so much and Windows 7 wouldn't crash at all The alternatives aren't perfect. Now you have 2 generations that have grown accustomed to crap. People who shrug off their DVR locking up or their phone crashing because they're used to it. Technology has come to mean unreliable. Much of Apple's popularity has been based around the idea that Apple products "Just Work". Because in our modern world working correctly has become rarity. Obviously some DVR manufacturer's incompetence is Bill Gates' fault. Someone here already made a Hitler comparison so this must be regarded as praise. And how much has that tone cost us? How much good technology could be implemented if people trusted it more? How much further could we have gone if we could have focused more of humanity's intelligence on Curing Cancer and less on Curing the newest malware that exploits one of the endless bugs in Windows? 0. Now that the world is such a better place because the disruptive tech guys are using macs, how much of society's brain-power has gone into eradicating polio and malaria ? 0. It is a very easy to trivialize the problem of wiping a disease off the face of the earth, attacking resource allocation in Africa and then taking aim at another disease. My family couldn't afford a $1k+ mac in the 90s - that was an upper-middle class monthly income in India. Thank god for windows. EDIT : formatting
- cooldeal 15y ago>My family couldn't afford a $1k+ mac in the 90s - that was an upper-middle class monthly income in India. Thank god for windows. If your family made the equivalent of Rs. 50,000 monthly in the 90s in India, they were definitely upper class, not upper middle class.
- sliverstorm 15y agoWait, you're saying that because his family couldn't afford a Mac, obviously he was upper class? I suppose I must be better off than I thought. I can't afford a Ferrari, so I must be doing really well for myself.
- 15y ago
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- citricsquid 15y agoDo you seriously believe that the stability of Windows was such a direct and obvious decision? Do you seriously seriously believe that? Sure Microsoft have done things that today look bad, but holy crap look at what we have today. Just look at it. Microsoft (alongside other companies) are part of what we have today, they pioneered a lot and changed the future. Discounting that all for some buggy software? jeez.
- jakeonthemove 15y agoI respect Bill Gates a lot, he's a great businessman and he actually cares about the world - I'm honestly not sure if I would want to run a charity myself (I'd likely reinvest the money into new businesses). On the topic of Windows: I've never had Windows crash since like 2004. ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7 - all stable and reliable. I DID have a lot of third party apps that make the hodge podge soup on my hard drive crash, and that can't be avoided since not everyone works for Microsoft. P.S. Windows 98 crashed sometimes, though and I needed to restore the registry once a year - don't know what that was about, but switching to ME got rid of the issues.
- hdctambien 15y agoUpvoting because this is the only nice thing I've ever heard anyone say about Windows ME. Also, I haven't had windows crash on me since Vista.
- jakeonthemove 15y agoYeah, I don't know why people hate on ME, I thought it was great compared to 98. I remember being able to run some of the newer software (including Office XP, I think) and yes, it worked fine for two years, I can't complain :-)...
- Jd 15y agoI still have dreams about BSOD. Sad to hear that it is gone.
- jiggy2011 15y ago"switching to ME got rid of the issues." That's the first time I've ever heard anyone say that.