The man is a good, charitable man and should be respected.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| rayleon Jan 26, 2008 8:14 PM EDT |
Meanwhile, you could watch Bill and Melinda coolly calculate how many lives will be saved by each billion they spend and miss how impassioned they are about the suffering they have seen. Please take a look at The Good Samaritans - TIME http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1140301,00.... The man is a good, charitable man and should be respected. |
| tuxchick Jan 26, 2008 8:15 PM EDT |
Wish I could see if you were keeping a straight face. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 26, 2008 8:40 PM EDT |
I know him, he wasn't..;-) |
| rayleon Jan 26, 2008 8:51 PM EDT |
He once had a dream: Today, 28 years later, 85% of computers in the world run Microsoft Operating Systems. Some people think that it's too much power in the hands of just one company. The problem is if they produced better products that could compete with those produced by Microsoft, they would not be blaming Bill Gates and Microsoft. http://groups.msn.com/billgatesfanclub |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 26, 2008 9:01 PM EDT |
I almost broke my monitor laughing so hard... LOL!! |
| tracyanne Jan 26, 2008 10:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:He once had a dream:...................... There are 2 pages, about 50 members. Talk about top down social networking, but that's the Microsoft view of the world..........control. |
| nikkels Jan 27, 2008 2:23 AM EDT |
Today, 28 years later, 85% of computers in the world run Microsoft Operating Systems. Not exactly because of the quality. More a matter of being able to pirate without being stopped by anyone |
| hughesjr Jan 27, 2008 4:59 AM EDT |
I dislike M$ as much as the next guy ... BUT, in the 1980's Bill Gates was a computer geek with a dream who made it big. While I absolutely hate the tactics that M$ employees to maintain their monopoly, we should be big enough to give credit where credit is due. Windows is run on about 85% of the computers in the world, and at one time it WAS the most innovative software out there. |
| ColonelPanik Jan 27, 2008 6:26 AM EDT |
The new and improved M$er? |
| GDStewart Jan 27, 2008 7:15 AM EDT |
All the tactics Microsoft employed to maintain their monopoly are a direct result of what Bill Gates idea of doing business is. Microsoft was NEVER the most innovative software out there, except for Clippy of course. Any innovative software they "produced" that I am aware of came from other software companies that they copied or bought. I have no particular problem with this until they start claiming it's their idea to start with or when they "bundle" the copied software with their OS and put the real innovator out of business. They were (are ?) one of the most aggressive, ruthless, untrustworthy, and immoral businesses of the last (and current ?) century. And their 85% market share is a direct result of this not how "innovative" their software was. P.S. Microsoft gets to write off the full retail value of all the software they "donate" so they can actually make money by "donating" their software and at the same time produce the next generation of Microsoft software junkies. What a racket ! |
| Abe Jan 27, 2008 8:21 AM EDT |
There were many reasons why Microsoft dominated the PC market for a while. Some were of their contributions and many were not. They copied, bought, or stole technology from others. Some were of a good strategy and many were accomplished by coercion Embrace, Extend & extinguish. The most contributing factor to their success was that they were the only one without real competition for a long time. They were the only new kid on the block. This is no longer the case. There is a new kid in town and let's see if Microsoft can compete and hold on to their dominance for the long run. Philanthropy or not, Satan or not, it is not going to make a difference. |
| dinotrac Jan 27, 2008 8:40 AM EDT |
Abe - One thing we should remember is that there was very capable competition at the time -- Apple, Commodore, the workstation folks. As in any business, some will fail, but, in this business, we had the additional problem of companies seeking to preserve their profit margin rather than react to competition from Microsoft. There was an element of logic to that -- Microsoft's offerings really were cheesy little things by comparison, but there is also this matter of greed and failure to see the writing on the wall. |
| Abe Jan 27, 2008 10:44 AM EDT |
Quoting:As in any business, some will fail, but, in this business, we had the additional problem of companies seeking to preserve their profit margin rather than react to competition from Microsoft. Quoting:There was an element of logic to that -- Microsoft's offerings really were cheesy little things by comparison, but there is also this matter of greed and failure to see the writing on the wall.Dino, So true on both counts: I am not blaming one company over another, I am faulty the companies that didn't stand up and compete against Microsoft but didn't although they were very able and capable. IBM is # one and Digital as 2nd. They had the financial and technological resources but chose not to. They under estimated the PC potential. They ignored it initially and totally brushed it off even after seeing their customers requesting, employing and integrating PCs in their IT infrastructure. They made a weak attempt after the fact but it was too late. The profit margin by both from mainframes and mini-computer was so huge and didn't want to bother with the PC peanuts profit margins. Boy were they wrong. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!