The differences between the two, and why Steve has "followers", whereas everybody hates Gates, are pretty clear if you pay attention to the history of the men at all.
Basically, Steve Jobs sees the computer, and the computing experience, as his art. Your computer and the way it runs is his artistic vision, and so although he's overly controlling of it (most artists are), he strives to make it work just right.
Bill Gates wants control, but he wants control for control's sake--so long as it's his product, and he gets a slice of what you do with it, he could care less how it works. The mentality of an artist versus the mentality of a businessman (or megalomaniac).
Gates' style may have advantages in flexibility, but Jobs' has the leg up on elegance and producing a product that feels good to use, even if it's more expensive. I'll take the latter, personally.
My detailed analysis:
Steve Jobs was never a particularly good geek--he was a visionary. He had great ideas about ways to make computers friendly, fun, and part of a normal person's life. That's where the Apple came from, that's where the original Macintosh came from, that's where the iMac came from, and that's where iLife and the iPod came from. He didn't design any of those products personally, but he saw how something like them could make a difference to ordinary people.
He also tried to do the same with Next, but only succeded in producing a cool computer that nobody used and a very nice Unix variant OS that a few people really loved.
As for evidence of what Steve's done for Apple, it's simple: When he was first there, the Apple line was successful and fun. The early Macs were successful and fun. Then Steve left, and we got a line of so-so but still nice Macs. Then we got another CEO (Gil Amelio) who tried to run Apple like a "normal" business--commodity computers, licensing, a functional but uncreative OS. What did that produce? Red ink, falling marketshare, and boring computers (though the 8600s weren't bad). Steve came back, and we immediately got the iMac--the first computer that was fun to look at--and later OSX and the whole iLife shebang. No question that's all Steve, and even if Apple's marketshare is limited, it's what keeps them relevant and a source of pride for people who own their products.
Contrast all that with Bill Gates. Bill Gates is a geek, and a good one. And like Steve Jobs, he's something of a control freak. But unlike Steve, who likes complete control over "his" product, Gates wants complete control over the user through the product. The end result is a hand in every aspect of the computing experience, and maximum profit from it.
Examples: Gates didn't really want to produce a beautiful, elegant web browser because Netscape was clunky, he just wanted everybody to use MS's browser because the web was the next big thing. IE was and is functional, but little more, and now that they "won", they don't even care enough to update it (try to imagine Apple, or any non-monopolistic company, doing that). Same with Windows on a whole--functional enough to keep competitors at bay, little more. Same with MSN, and everything else they do.
Again, the contrast is that Gates merely wants to control everything so that noone else can muscle in on their territory (monopoly), where Jobs wants control of the artistic experience of computing (hardware, software, and everything in between). Gates doesn't care what you do with it so long as it all runs through his systems and he gets a financial cut, where Steve cares very much what you do with it because it's his artistic vision.
