It's OK cumanzor, the DMann had to reach into the archives from 1998 to show a graph with NT4 server.
He couldn't use a current graph, because it would refute his point.
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.
Steve Jobs Ranked 43rd on Forbes 400 List of Richest Americans
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's OK cumanzor, the DMann had to reach into the archives from 1998 to show a graph with NT4 server.
He couldn't use a current graph, because it would refute his point.
Not to mention that Bill Gates has no doubt been paid some over-bloated obscene salary for decades while Steve Jobs has been working for just "$1 a year" (ignoring that both of them got stock as well).
The number that I read was that Bill Gates was paid 140,000 times more than Steve Jobs per year, which makes him still one of the worst paid CEOs of top companies. And Bill Gates didn't get any shares from the company because he started the company and was one of the major owners from the start. Just like Steve Jobs never got any Pixar share options, he _bought_ 50.6 percent of the company for $10 million at a time when it wasn't worth much.
It's OK cumanzor, the DMann had to reach into the archives from 1998 to show a graph with NT4 server.
He couldn't use a current graph, because it would refute his point.
Actually, I am very surprised to see NT 4.0 to score as high as it did back then.
I agree. Sure, things like cars & computers have made an impact on our lives, but that pales in comparison to people who cure diseases, bring peace to war-torn areas, etc.
Why are some people discussing donations and charity work as if it's some kind of obligation?
Everyone on that list has the right to keep their money. It is not their "duty" to give it away. They're not telling you what to do with your savings account.
So what if Steve Jobs never gives a cent to charity? That doesn't make him a bad person. It's his money, he can choose what to do and what not to do with it.
There's a lot of animosity toward the wealthy in this thread.
Everyone on that list has the right to keep their money. It is not their "duty" to give it away. They're not telling you what to do with your savings account.
So what if Steve Jobs never gives a cent to charity? That doesn't make him a bad person. It's his money, he can choose what to do and what not to do with it.
There's a lot of animosity toward the wealthy in this thread.
You know how much $5.1 billion is? It's enough to spend $200,000 a day for 70 years before you go broke.
Jobs' Net Worth
"...an estimated net worth of only $3.4 billion ..."
ONLY 3.4 Billion...
Bless his widdle heart.
I'd like to have the interest on his interest.
(Which roughly equals $3,885,000.)
Of course, money is useless if you don't have a liver that works.
"...an estimated net worth of only $3.4 billion ..."
ONLY 3.4 Billion...
Bless his widdle heart.
I'd like to have the interest on his interest.
(Which roughly equals $3,885,000.)
Of course, money is useless if you don't have a liver that works.
So... If OSX machines are so bad, why do you use them exclusively? That makes no sense. If you think Windows 7 is better why aren't you using it?
Because 95% of the mac community is made up of idealogical loons that despise anybody with wealth. Even their Apple fanboism can't compete with that belief.Why would anyone rate this a negative?
It's for either this reason or everybody is pissed that Gates is still on top.
Yes, each have the right to do as they please with their money, but there is a thing called civic duty. For as far back as the Roman age, the wealthy have typically contributed to charity in some form as part of their civic duty. It is not law, but simply a matter of morality. In addition, a positive public perception is typically returned, which can be used towards business, social and political affairs.
I highly doubt that Steve Jobs has never contributed to charity in some form, but just not at the magnitude as others.
Come on man. Steve Jobs is truly changing the world with the iPhone and the iPod. Who cares about Bill Gates and his stupid foundation that's granting college scholarships, trying to solve health issues worldwide, and improving our nation's libraries? Have you SEEN the new iPod nano?! It has a camera on it!!
I wouldn't say THAT, actually ....
Bill Gates wrote a high percentage of the code in the firmware used for the Radio Shack Model 100 portable computer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Model_100
And that was, in fact, pretty much the last project he was really "hands on" with .... but Microsoft licensed BASIC interpreters for many of the early 8-bit computers on the market, and he developed a lot of that stuff himself.
Bill Gates wrote a high percentage of the code in the firmware used for the Radio Shack Model 100 portable computer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Model_100
And that was, in fact, pretty much the last project he was really "hands on" with .... but Microsoft licensed BASIC interpreters for many of the early 8-bit computers on the market, and he developed a lot of that stuff himself.
Bill Gates is a nothing and never was. He and Microsoft have never actually designed or written a piece of software themselves. Even back in the original days they bought DOS from someone else, and have continued to buy out or steal software from other companies to this day. They sole claim to fame is being in the right place at the right time ... and we're still suffering the consequences of those bad decisions by managers who didn't have a clue.
Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable. Actively enhacing the world with iPods and what not? Last time I checked, MP3 player usage wasn't a factor on the UN's Human Development Index.
I thought I can contribute. But what's the point?
In that case, he'd better start an iPod that gives billions to charities that supply food, education and support development not just in poor countries but in the United States too. I think it should be called AidPod. Or iEat. Or iAid.
And that is why we do not remember Carnegie, Rockefeller, Frick, Vanderbilt...
But I wonder, where that 30+ billion USD would come from if Gates would not bother to give it away. The World Health Organisation is spending similar amount on healthcare as the Foundation.
By the way, it is not just 'giving it away'. Gates is doing an almost full time job as a trustee, I believe. Obviously, he's not doing Keynotes, that obviously matters to you and Gates is not working on any tablet that will completely change the world for some dedicated Apple fans, that is true.
Personally, taking part in decisions about 'whether famine in one region or genocide in another is more of a threat' is more nobel than overseeing matters like 'what colours and finish the Nanos should get'.
"Let's give music players to millions in the developed world - that WILL change the planet. Or iPhones! The opportunities are endless! How about some computers? They overheat, so poor people can use them as heaters."
In that case, he'd better start an iPod that gives billions to charities that supply food, education and support development not just in poor countries but in the United States too. I think it should be called AidPod. Or iEat. Or iAid.
And that is why we do not remember Carnegie, Rockefeller, Frick, Vanderbilt...
But I wonder, where that 30+ billion USD would come from if Gates would not bother to give it away. The World Health Organisation is spending similar amount on healthcare as the Foundation.
By the way, it is not just 'giving it away'. Gates is doing an almost full time job as a trustee, I believe. Obviously, he's not doing Keynotes, that obviously matters to you and Gates is not working on any tablet that will completely change the world for some dedicated Apple fans, that is true.
Personally, taking part in decisions about 'whether famine in one region or genocide in another is more of a threat' is more nobel than overseeing matters like 'what colours and finish the Nanos should get'.
"Let's give music players to millions in the developed world - that WILL change the planet. Or iPhones! The opportunities are endless! How about some computers? They overheat, so poor people can use them as heaters."
I'm sorry guys, the reasoning of iPods and iPhones changing and improving civilization is jut ridiculous. We start of with the fact that they were not by any mean the first product of their class (mp3 players and mobile phones already existed, mind you). Their success, as with any other successful product and company can be simply attributed to consumerism. I'm sure as **** that having a $500 cellphone or a $1500 notebook won't exactly, improve civilization.
Now before you twist the argument around, let me say that I have nothing against having expensive products, my point is that this is good for you and only you, not for anyone else in the world.
Now before you twist the argument around, let me say that I have nothing against having expensive products, my point is that this is good for you and only you, not for anyone else in the world.
Of course, without the sale of those expensive baubles, Bill Gates would not have the billions to do the wonderful philanthropic work he does now. I guess it comes down to whether one person with a billion extra dollars can do more good for the world than one million people with $1,000.
Because people fail to see that Gates = Jobs in the business world. (One just happened to come out on top with $46.5 billion more) People paint Jobs = Saint and Gates = Scourge of Humanity which is ridiculous.
I used the charitable side only to prove he does, in fact, have a conscience outside of the business world.
Hate the business man, don't hate the person. (Same with Jobs or anyone else)
Bill Gates hasn't prgrammed anything in dcades, and even when he did it was never anything that he actually sold. All Microsoft's software has been bought or stolen from other companies. Bill Gates is one of the most over-hyped, useless idiots to ever walk the Earth ... he gives geeks a bad name.
The Windows NT kernel was created by Microsoft, for one thing. It was not "bought" or "stolen" from anyone else. Other software applications like Microsoft Office, Media Center, etc. were created solely by Microsoft. That doesn't mean certain technologies within the products haven't been licensed, but to say that Microsoft has never created anything original is completely wrong.
You aren't giving Microsoft any credit at all for the many things they have done. But I can't say I'm surprised.
Welcome to my world ... I'm on dial-up with a limited amount of online time, and in a different country and time zone. The "New Posts" button reglaurly shows up 30+ pages of new topics each time I log in.
If you are serious about "getting in" on some of Apple's profit action, here is a great trading video on Apple this week...."Is a Divergence Building in Apple?"
Here is the link > http://tinyurl.com/yb8dgd2
Here is the link > http://tinyurl.com/yb8dgd2
It's a pity Bill Gates didn't sign that ... Windows wouldn't have made it past version 3.1. Unfortunately he misread the signs in the Town Hall and went into the room to sign the "Hypocrite Oath" instead, one that he proudly obeys and stands by to this day.
Windows 3.x was the first widely successful version of Windows, selling more than 30 million copies. It was also the OS that confined Mac OS to the niche market it's been in ever since.It's a pity Bill Gates didn't sign that ... Windows wouldn't have made it past version 3.1. Unfortunately he misread the signs in the Town Hall and went into the room to sign the "Hypocrite Oath" instead, one that he proudly obeys and stands by to this day.
I suggest you read up on the history of Windows, because you obviously don't know much about it. Windows 3.x was the first successful release of Windows largely because it made the IBM PC as easy to use as the Macintosh, for a little less cash.
Apple copied Xerox. Microsoft copied Apple. That's how businesses work... You take a good idea and you run with it. Steve Jobs often uses a quote by Picasso: "Good artists copy. Great artists steal."
I guess I just find it odd that it's perfectly fine for Apple to "borrow" ideas, yet when Microsoft does it, it's evil.