Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Gates, you hipocrite!
- Thread starter jimsowden
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He actually has a point. A lot of income is generated because Microsoft products suck so bad. Well, let me amend that--because Windows sucks so bad. There's IT and tech support, an industry that is way bigger than it should be and depends on MS suckage. Retail? People notice that Windows is slowing down on them so they buy more RAM--somebody gets it off a shelf in a wherehouse and UPS delivers it. Support for MS suckage? Ask Symantec about that one. Could they be nearly as big as they are if Windows was a half decent OS?
So in reality, stable and secure software does take some jobs away. I say take those jobs.
So in reality, stable and secure software does take some jobs away. I say take those jobs.
You are absolutely correct. When unionized labor negotiates work rules that mandate unnecessary jobs, it is called "featherbedding." Virtually every business executive in the world is adamently opposed. However, Gates sees it as a virtue of his products. Think of the tax dollars wasted on supporting Microsoft products. Think of the investor return not realized due to support costs. Think of the aid not given to the poor, funds not expended on health-care research, transportation, housing for the homeless, energy efficiency, and so many other things. Think of the bright young people employed to support Microsoft who might be otherwise engaged in teaching inner-city children, developing environmentally friendly corporate practices, or other more useful endeavors. Gates may claim that his crappy products are good for the economy, but they distort it instead. Shame on him.Horrortaxi said:
there is always Xenix
http://www.computerhope.com/unix/xenix.htm
In the late 1970's Microsoft licensed UNIX source code from AT&T which at the time was not licensing the name UNIX. Therefore Microsoft created the name Xenix. Microsoft did not sell Xenix to end-users but instead licensed the software to software OEMs such as Intel, Tandy, Altos and SCO who then provided a finished version of their own Xenix to the end-users or other customers.
SCO introduced its first version of Xenix named SCO Xenix System V for the Intel 8086 and 8088 in 1983. Today SCO Xenix is one of the more commonly used and found versions of Xenix.
they had unix before...it didn't help.
http://www.computerhope.com/unix/xenix.htm
In the late 1970's Microsoft licensed UNIX source code from AT&T which at the time was not licensing the name UNIX. Therefore Microsoft created the name Xenix. Microsoft did not sell Xenix to end-users but instead licensed the software to software OEMs such as Intel, Tandy, Altos and SCO who then provided a finished version of their own Xenix to the end-users or other customers.
SCO introduced its first version of Xenix named SCO Xenix System V for the Intel 8086 and 8088 in 1983. Today SCO Xenix is one of the more commonly used and found versions of Xenix.
they had unix before...it didn't help.
hehehe if our company used MAC's or Linux desktops, the IT department would be cut from 2,000 staff to around 500 staff!
The only way to consolidate human resource in a windows world... dumb terminals, enter citrix.... whole economies are created on people making better solutions ontop of windows. As stated above, how much money does Symantec make on the mac platform?? i am guessing not a lot.
This has spawned a whole education platform (MCxE's) to help companies in house support microsoft networks & software.
Companies still use Microsoft because it is extremely cheap to administer, average network admin wage around £20k a year, average unix admin = £60k a year + the extremely cheap cost of developing solutions on windows, every man and his dog can throw together a access database or vb application and bam you have massive corporations built on small databases/systems.
The only way to consolidate human resource in a windows world... dumb terminals, enter citrix.... whole economies are created on people making better solutions ontop of windows. As stated above, how much money does Symantec make on the mac platform?? i am guessing not a lot.
This has spawned a whole education platform (MCxE's) to help companies in house support microsoft networks & software.
Companies still use Microsoft because it is extremely cheap to administer, average network admin wage around £20k a year, average unix admin = £60k a year + the extremely cheap cost of developing solutions on windows, every man and his dog can throw together a access database or vb application and bam you have massive corporations built on small databases/systems.
There are so many cliches about this thinking. If it's worth doing it's worth doing right. Do you want it done fast or do you want it done well? Penny wise, pound foolish.
Gates and friends are just filling a desire
Mr. Gates and his gang have been successful because they have given the public exactly what they want at the lowest common denominator level. Everytime a focus group or user forum suggests a new "module" the folks at M$ are more than happy to add it on.
The result - it seems - are software programs that "weigh" about ten tons more they really need to. I mean, how many "features" do people actually use in MSWord or Excel?
It took me a while but I have come to appeciate the "lean and mean" nature of software developed for my Mac - even the Mac stuff from MicroSoft is leaner than the PC version. OK - I have to add the litle "< >" on either side of a URL, and there a few things for which I need to run a script - but I'd trade the extra step for a smoother running machine anyday.
Is Gates filthy rich? Yes? Does his software cause problems and create a load of job security for IT departments and support desks? Yes. But he is only giving the majority of the people what they want.
Thank goodness there is a company in Cupertino that is giving the minority what they want - Long Live the Little Guy.
Mr. Gates and his gang have been successful because they have given the public exactly what they want at the lowest common denominator level. Everytime a focus group or user forum suggests a new "module" the folks at M$ are more than happy to add it on.
The result - it seems - are software programs that "weigh" about ten tons more they really need to. I mean, how many "features" do people actually use in MSWord or Excel?
It took me a while but I have come to appeciate the "lean and mean" nature of software developed for my Mac - even the Mac stuff from MicroSoft is leaner than the PC version. OK - I have to add the litle "< >" on either side of a URL, and there a few things for which I need to run a script - but I'd trade the extra step for a smoother running machine anyday.
Is Gates filthy rich? Yes? Does his software cause problems and create a load of job security for IT departments and support desks? Yes. But he is only giving the majority of the people what they want.
Thank goodness there is a company in Cupertino that is giving the minority what they want - Long Live the Little Guy.
i don't buy that the M$ flaws being good for the economy by supporting larger than necessary IT dept, anti-virus companies, etc.
IT dept and anti-virus companies are anti-productive. they don't produce anything. it's like security firms - it's simply a drain on resources, talent and money. if M$ products were reliable and had less flaws, IT dept. would be smaller and anti-virus companies wouldn't be as big - and people who work there now could be working on something else, being more productive, instead of working to keep others productive.
should we argue that crime is "good" because it keeps security companies and police forces in business?
IT dept and anti-virus companies are anti-productive. they don't produce anything. it's like security firms - it's simply a drain on resources, talent and money. if M$ products were reliable and had less flaws, IT dept. would be smaller and anti-virus companies wouldn't be as big - and people who work there now could be working on something else, being more productive, instead of working to keep others productive.
should we argue that crime is "good" because it keeps security companies and police forces in business?
The majority of people don't know what they want. They don't know s**t from shinola either. They'll accept profoundly flawed products out of ignorance. You're brought up to believe that computers are hard to use and you're trained to accept that they crash a lot and are problematic. Microsoft says "we'll fix all those problems with this product you can buy" and the general public falls for it. They don't know that Microsoft caused those very problems with the last product they released, which came with the very same "we'll fix the old problems" promise. So they're not so much giving people what they want, they're just fulfilling people's very low expectations.OldManJimbo said:
Jxyama, I'm not saying that the jobs created by MS suckage are a good thing. The people holding those jobs rightfully know who they are and they'll always have necessary jobs. The rest are frauds and leeches and they can sit on the unemployment line as far as I'm concerned. I didn't feel sorry for the guys making horse shoes when the automobile came out and I don't feel bad for these guys.
Whats really sad is that Microsofts way of doing things has taught people to think that the way Windows crashes all the time, the conflicts, etc are ok, and that its ok to have a few problems, etc. They just don't expect any better.
OldManJimbo said:
You forgot the most important one, Does microsoft products help drive the world economy....yes...
superbovine said:
Do Microsoft products help drive the world economy...?
The answer is "by accident at first and then with monopoly strength to continue".
Another question is - Would Microsoft products drive the world economy even better than it does, if Microsoft designed better products?
Can Microsoft deliver better products and force every other good idea, not developed by Microsoft, out of the marketplace?
Microsoft will only be capable of best if they change their field of expertise to Monopoly Consultants. Even then, I expect there are a few other monopoly organisations that could teach them a thing or two.
On a related note, has anyone else here seen Neil Cavuto's behavior when the topic is Microsoft? He acts like what's bad for Microsoft is bad for America and the world. And since he's on Fox, perhaps he thinks it's unpatriotic to knock Microsoft. www.outfoxed.org
kettle said:
whats your point? that had nothing to with my post. the only reason i said because the previous poster was complaining about features in microsoft program that he thought was bloat. the fact is product contain those features cause alot of people use them. not everyone needs all them, but they are there. that is the point of robust software. it is versitle. my point was the software helps drive the world economy, to at least provide balance to his argument about how bad the software was.
of course microsoft could do better. software is a process and a product. through cycles all software gets better.
Rod Rod said:
do you ever watch fox news or is the video your only expierence with the channel? they didn't say anything about the positive apple story cuvto did in the video do they? especially the one about the ipod fiasco? rhetoric is a powerful thing it sad to see how people fall prey to it. if you watch the show actually that isn't what he is. if you watch the video, my bet is it is edited in their favor. how would you if they didn't do that?
superbovine said:
Sorry you are having trouble with my point, the point is, saying yes to the question - "Do Microsoft products help drive the world economy...?"
is as valid as asking "does burglary help drive the world economy?" knowing that the answer is also yes. A cynical outlook but a parallel none the less.
It's like opening a hospital to help unemployment figures, hospitals these days can expect to employ twice as many administrators as it has beds or patients. People need an opportunity to do things differently.
As for the defense of bloat with the notion that features are required whether we use them or not, I'm not convinced.
m.r.m. said:to put it mildly fox news doesn´t have the best standing among non-u.s. residents.
just a sidenote.
Or US residents for that matter.
superbovine said:
I do watch Fox News Channel, and I have not seen that video I linked but I plan to. The video doesn't need to be "edited in their favor." If you have watched FNC you'd see that many of the questions the hosts and anchors ask are so completely loaded it's silly - on par with the classic loaded question, "so when did you stop beating your wife?" If you have watched FNC you'd see that most all of the hosts, anchors and reporters are ill-informed about the world and/or heavily biased enough to distort what they cover.
Whatever your point about rhetoric was, maybe you'd like to apply that to what FNC expresses every day. What's contained in the video I linked is FNC's own rhetoric, exposed by former employees and actual FNC-broadcast footage.
I am a broadcast journalism student and I pay attention to how news is covered. No news outlet is absolutely perfect but FNC is the furthest from perfect of them all.
A positive story about Apple doesn't negate a pro-Microsoft bias. You should pay attention the next time Cavuto blames the Clinton Department of Justice for going after Microsoft and thereby threatening the economy and investors' wealth.
I sadly do have to agree at the point of saying that Microsoft helps bring jobs to the world....in a sad, sad way. Oh and that pic from Macbytes is hilarious
MetallicPenguin said:I sadly do have to agree at the point of saying that Microsoft helps bring jobs to the world....in a sad, sad way. Oh and that pic from Macbytes is hilarious
So do drug lords.