Being the biggest doesn't necessarily mean that you're the best. Admittedly, I'm not the most clued up on this subject but almost every programmer (or person who otherwise works with computers) I've ever discussed this issue with has told me similar things to what Weaste is saying here, namely that Microsoft is a corporation who has profited through unethical means (trying to achieve a monopoly position, stealing ideas etc).
Bill "The Bastard" Gates
- Thread starter WeasteDevil
- Start date
Did you even read the post or did you only notice it was very long and decided it must be right
uh yes i did.
Ok because there are a few points that are debatable. First of all Windows is not stable. If one were looking for stability one would choose Unix. Obviously you need to know how to use it. But if an average joe was looking for a reasonably stable platform that is easy to use just so he can write and print a few documents and spreadsheets, Windows is the way to go. The only thing Windows is good for, is its user friendly interface, and of course software compatibility (only due to the monopoly). It is in no way stable. Windows has had a horrible history of memory leaking problems, where you practically could not do anything productive from the simple things like audio/video editing, to programming and coding, without needing to reboot very often. Whereas with Unix you could have 30 days of straight uptime without any problems. Again, if you know how to operate it.
Back to the topic however, most of the issues I see here are more Microsoft oriented than Bill Gates himself. From what i've seen, Bill is a decent guy who happens to have a ruthless side that probably only comes on behind the doors, but you can't really blame him since he operates one of the biggest if not THE biggest corporate empire on the planet. I'm just intrigued that he's not more arrogant or eccentric like most tycoons tend to be. Yes, he may have gotten lucky and stolen someone else's work to get started, but at least he didn't build his empire on other people's blood (only one
).All ifs and buts. 'If Microsoft hadn't existed', 'If Bill Gates hadn't taken the decision to go with Windows'...the fact is he made personal computing happen and happen big, and that's how things will stand in history. If you don't like the fact OS/2 went out of favour, well, too bad for you. IBM probably had their priorities wrong back then, and missed the train. As for whether personal computing as a whole would be better or worse if Microsoft hadn't come along, that's fully hypothetical, and one's opinion is as good as another's. Some people just don't like the fact Microsoft is de facto standard.
Without software hardware is pretty much irrelevant, and you should know this, given the PS3 is a shining example. Bringing along a software platform that 95% of the computer users use for their daily tasks is quite an advancement, no? Without Microsoft there probably would have been a fragmentation of the desktop OS market, and I fail to see how that can be a good thing.
Anyway I won't argue any more in favour of Microsoft as it makes me quite sick already, and you're clearly quite biased so I won't make much headway there. I recognize that Bill Gates isn't a saint, but he and his company have still done a hell of a lot for personal computing, and software in general. It's sad that you fail to see that.
Ok because there are a few points that are debatable. First of all Windows is not stable. If one were looking for stability one would choose Unix. Obviously you need to know how to use it. But if an average joe was looking for a reasonably stable platform that is easy to use just so he can write and print a few documents and spreadsheets, Windows is the way to go. The only thing Windows is good for, is its user friendly interface, and of course software compatibility (only due to the monopoly). It is in no way stable. Windows has had a horrible history of memory leaking problems, where you practically could not do anything productive from the simple things like audio/video editing, to programming and coding, without needing to reboot very often. Whereas with Unix you could have 30 days of straight uptime without any problems. Again, if you know how to operate it.
Back to the topic however, most of the issues I see here are more Microsoft oriented than Bill Gates himself. From what i've seen, Bill is a decent guy who happens to have a ruthless side that probably only comes on behind the doors, but you can't really blame him since he operates one of the biggest if not THE biggest corporate empire on the planet. I'm just intrigued that he's not more arrogant or eccentric like most tycoons tend to be. Yes, he may have gotten lucky and stolen someone else's work to get started, but at least he didn't build his empire on other people's blood (only one
Well Windows XP is pretty stable, and has come a long way from the days of 95/98 and ME. Obviously Unix/Linux are better in terms of stability/security, but XP is about as good as it gets for Windows without going into overblown pop ups like Vista. I still don't like the fact that most default users use it as an administrator though.
Gates is a geek with a thirst for knowledge and a ruthless streak to boot. At least that's what some of the interviews/articles I've read try to paint him to be like.
the hackers couldn't be arsed to hack them as only a very few percentage use them, otherwise im sure they would also have some loopholes in security.
Ok because there are a few points that are debatable. First of all Windows is not stable. If one were looking for stability one would choose Unix. Obviously you need to know how to use it. But if an average joe was looking for a reasonably stable platform that is easy to use just so he can write and print a few documents and spreadsheets, Windows is the way to go. The only thing Windows is good for, is its user friendly interface, and of course software compatibility (only due to the monopoly). It is in no way stable. Windows has had a horrible history of memory leaking problems, where you practically could not do anything productive from the simple things like audio/video editing, to programming and coding, without needing to reboot very often. Whereas with Unix you could have 30 days of straight uptime without any problems. Again, if you know how to operate it.
Back to the topic however, most of the issues I see here are more Microsoft oriented than Bill Gates himself. From what i've seen, Bill is a decent guy who happens to have a ruthless side that probably only comes on behind the doors, but you can't really blame him since he operates one of the biggest if not THE biggest corporate empire on the planet. I'm just intrigued that he's not more arrogant or eccentric like most tycoons tend to be. Yes, he may have gotten lucky and stolen someone else's work to get started, but at least he didn't build his empire on other people's blood (only one
That sounds to me as if he made computing possible for the average joe, which suggests microsoft did in-fact bring computing to the mass's.
I like how everyone is saying how much Bill Gates and Microsoft have done for personal computing, as if they did it out of the goodness of their hearts.
They did it for the money. There is nothing altruistic in anything Microsoft have ever done.
They did it for the money. There is nothing altruistic in anything Microsoft have ever done.
off course they did it for the money
which business doesn't?
which business doesn't?
Chelsea Football Club.
Wow some real ignorant twats in this thread. Microsoft is not the only Operating system that has GUI or that can connect to the internet.
Shut the feck up twat.
That guy shamelessly stole other people's ideas to make billions. The courts ruled against him for monopolizing the market. He is no Robin Hood ffs. He is donating to improve his damaged reputation and image. For those idiots saying you should type commands in other operating systems to get simple things done, try using one before spouting shit.
@weaste The situation is much worse here. He is portrayed as a hero and and idol for all kids.
Nowhere near a hero or idol.
However, he did do a lot for PC gaming which in turn helped console gaming develop, so it's not all bad I guess.
However, he did do a lot for PC gaming which in turn helped console gaming develop, so it's not all bad I guess.
Chuck Peddle, I shall try to find the video, I think that it is on YouTube, or it was.
i need to upgrade my OS from Vista to something solid. any suggestions?
Windows '95.
Obviously Weaste writes viruses in his spare time. Unix gives him a boner.
Ubuntu or Suse
have you got any experience with Ubuntu? can I use everything i've been using so far on Vista?
and yea, can I install in on my notebook? or is it just desktop PCs?
You can install it on a notebook. You can do almost everything bar playing windows games. Many windows games work flawlessly using WINE, unfortunately PES and FIFA don't.
Solaris gives me a boner.
Same thing.
Thats a pretty broad brush statement without knowing his hardware. Yes you can install Ubuntu on any computer, getting said compuetr to work is another matter.
There is no point whatsoever using Ubuntu as a stand alone OS in the real world if you are used to using windows and have grown up being used to using any programme/ game or peripheral you want. With the size of todays hard drives you're better off dual booting, or use some virtualization software like VMware. That way you get the best of both worlds.
Opensolaris looks nice!
one question though, Im using Microsoft Word alot, and all the computers at my uni use XP, so would I still be able to save my data as .doc and open it at the uni or how does that work?
Openoffice can open and edit .doc files
unfortunatelly I havent got a clue what you're talking about
my main problem is that Im simply sick of Vista (on my Dell Inspiron notebook), IE crashes constantly, same goes for Firefox, WM player is ridiculously slow and crashes, same with Real... it's all this simple stuff which is so annoying and actually never used to happen with XP.
I looked for solutions online but basically the entire universe is pissed of with this Vista crap and I seriously want to get rid of it asap.
What you're looking for is Linux Mint. Google for it.
cheers.. just checking
unfortunatelly I havent got a clue what you're talking about
my main problem is that Im simply sick of Vista (on my Dell Inspiron notebook), IE crashes constantly, same goes for Firefox, WM player is ridiculously slow and crashes, same with Real... it's all this simple stuff which is so annoying and actually never used to happen with XP.
I looked for solutions online but basically the entire universe is pissed of with this Vista crap and I seriously want to get rid of it asap.
The fact you use all these tools/programmes and you don't know what I'm talking about means you need to stick with windows. It sounds like you need to reformat your hard drive and start again. Did your Dell come preinstalled with Vista or did you upgrade?
Notebooks are difficult bits of hardware to get right with Vista as they are generally "hardware light", how much ram does it have, as Vista is resource hungry? This can often lead to errors and crashes. RAM has never been so cheap so a simple upgrade that you can do yourself may suffice.
Also if you like XP, stick with it, The great satan states it will continue to support this OS for the forseable future.
Dipperstripper is right that these other Linux based operating systems are much leaner, safer and less trouble but they are also less user friendly, have less support for software/hardware and peripherals and if you are not used to them you will struggle based on reading your posts.
Prepare for the worst whenever you install a new OS. Make sure you have a windows install CD in case the installation goes wrong.
Try WUBI if you want to install Ubuntu right from windows. If you don't know what you're doing, then don't do it. I personally never encountered any problems while installing any linux distro, but some did.
Try WUBI if you want to install Ubuntu right from windows. If you don't know what you're doing, then don't do it. I personally never encountered any problems while installing any linux distro, but some did.
That is so wrong on many counts. Ubuntu is easier to learn and use than Windows.
I don't know where this myth came from, but Linux supports more hardware than windows can ever imagine. Most hardware work out of box, but some printers and wireless card won't. The problem is with the hardware manufacturers who only provide drivers for windows.
And thats the point, manufacturers do not support Linux and your advising a guy to switch to Linux when he doesnt know what dual boot means.
It is not a myth to advise Mihjlovic, it is common sense based on his questions and uses. Linux is easy to use as its a stripped down OS with none of the useless bells and whistles but thats not what he wants or needs and Linux does not support more hardware than windows can ever dream and unfortunately never will.
You can install Ubuntu on top of Windows and unistall it like any program, it doesn't even require a partition. It's not rocket science or even difficult to try it.
Know your facts before spouting shite. Windows supports very few hardware and will require you to install drivers before they work. Debian supports more hardware than any other OS in the world.
All my hardware was recognised instantly under Ubuntu on my PC, even my AGFA Scanwise scanner from 2000, which needs me to install a driver under XP.
Ok, Ill tell you what, as you revert to using bad language to back up your crap hows this, when he installs your linux distro on his Dell Inspiron laptop do him a favour and help him make it work because he wont be able to. Ok with you dick head, get it now? This is not a debate about Linux/Windows, I agree with you, read my posts, Im talking about the guy above ffs.
Still, I'm a nerd, I like Solaris. From the first time I used Sun OS 4 (I still have the refernce manual for it ) in 1992, no other full Unix distro came close to me, AIX, Silicon Graphics jobby I cannot remember the name of, none. I'm a nerd though.
) in 1992, no other full Unix distro came close to me, AIX, Silicon Graphics jobby I cannot remember the name of, none. I'm a nerd though.I'm talking about your idiotic statement that Windows supports more hardware than linux.
If any hardware doesn't work on linux, it is the manufacturer's fault, not the OS'.
@Mihajlovic Go to http://www.ubuntuforums.org and post your hardware specs.