Bill Gates

[HS Thomas]

The Last Person to ask if you need to know the future of Computing Technology.
Since the invention of the PC, M$ has been well beind the curve of any true innovation.
the Web browser,Mouse driven interface, online content services,plug and play technology, screaming media or online music .
Much better to quiz Gates on the future of business trends in the technology realm as he is more business and marketing guru than an IT great. To find the future of the computer industry speak to Steve Jobs the CEO of Apple.
Apple has twice as many PC milestones as M$. Apple has 2 Killer Application whereas M$ has none.
Did the Queen get it right in allowing BG to receive an honorary knighthood for "services to global enterprise" ?

Gates has suggested that if they had applied M$ advanced ideas to do a Web-scale search engine, M$ and not google would dominate in the search engine market.

[HS Thomas]

The conclusion to draw may be that there are two kinds of developers - those that admire Bill Gates and those who don't particularly. The latter group may admire Steve Jobs.
[ January 27, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Mark Herschberg]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:

Did the Queen get it right in allowing BG to receive an honorary knighthood for "services to global enterprise" ?

Considering that the difference in their marketshare in about an order of magnitude, it's pretty clear that the queen got it right. It's really a question of which part is harder for enterprise to work, the engineering or business.
In my mind, the business side is clearly harder and Gates had the bigger challenge. That's not to say that the innovators weren't extremely smart, but rather, we should consider the following:
1) Good technology, good business --> success
2) Bad technology, good business --> can be successful
3) Good technology, bad business --> failure
4) Bad technology, bad business --> failure
I do recognize that the above is very generic, but it suggests that business is more critical to success (more so than technology anyway).
--Mark

[Ken Krebs]

Mark,
Getting paid reasonably well while enjoying the challenges of your job and taking pride in your work is some people's definition of success.
It looks to me like Mr. Gates gets his enjoyment and pride from crushing competitors and being the world's richest human rather than in the quality and usefulness of the products his company produces. It's beyond my comprehension why ANY system adminstrator would have his clients use a piece of insecure garbage like Outlook, the world's most successful virus magnet.
He certainly has shown no compunction about crossing ethical or legal boundaries in his work, at least the ones he feels he can get away with. Being able to buy politicians cheaply certainly helps, especially with the Justice Dept. breathing down your neck.
A hypothetical question for everybody:
Assuming 2 employees of equal ability, which one would you rather have working for you ?
One who doesn't want to tread too close to legal or ethical boundaries.
or
One who is willing to walk or even cross the line to get the job done.

[Mark Herschberg]

Originally posted by Ken Krebs:

It looks to me like Mr. Gates gets his enjoyment and pride from crushing competitors and being the world's richest human rather than in the quality and usefulness of the products his company produces. It's beyond my comprehension why ANY system adminstrator would have his clients use a piece of insecure garbage like Outlook, the world's most successful virus magnet.

I agree 110%, that's I only drive BMWs, wear Kenneth Cole, and eat only filet minion. I pity the poor people who drive a Toyota Camery, or wear jeans. And can you imagine the poor soles who put that McDonald's crap in their bodies?
If you ask me, you either need to get the best, no matter the cost, or you shouldn't touch it.
So tell me Ken, what do you drive, wear, and eat?

The point is, most products out there aren't the highest quality. Most companies aren;t about "top quality" but meeting the needs of their customers, which balance capability, quality, and cost.

Originally posted by Ken Krebs:

He certainly has shown no compunction about crossing ethical or legal boundaries in his work, at least the ones he feels he can get away with. Being able to buy politicians cheaply certainly helps, especially with the Justice Dept. breathing down your neck.

While I can't say that he is squeky clean, at worst it's a grey area he entered.

--Mark

[Ken Krebs]

Mark,
I think your interpretation of my use of the word quality is way too narrow. BTW, I never mentioned the phrase "top quality", I just talked about quality.
Quality is a series of tradeoffs that can only be measured within a context of usage and is not solely determined by price or freedom from defects. Let's take a look at the vehicle example.
If I'm driving some sort of vehicle into an area where it is likely to take a lot punishment, a good measure of quality might be ruggedness and low cost.
If I frequently have to drive a long way, quality is a vehicle that has a good tradeoff between fuel economy and comfort.
If I am a salesman who has to entertain and chauffer a prospective client who may present the opportunity for a big sale, quality is a vehicle that is luxurious enough that it shows I am successful but not so luxurious that the client will think he's going to get gouged.
As to Outlook, maybe I'm just a little crazy but it seems to me a high vulnerability to virus attacks is not a "quality" I particularly want in my email client. Sysadmins complain so much about the huge monetary cost of taming and warding off viruses, so much so that many of them would like to see life imprisonment for the hackers. That sounds just a trifle CYA to me. You'd think these sysadmins would wake up and smell the coffee, er Java , one of these days, and take appropriate measures to protect the systems they are responsible for.
BTW, I don't hate all of Bill's products, some of them are actually quite useful. What I don't like is his destructive influence on competition in the software marketplace. To characterize his conduct as "at worst it's a grey area" seems awfully charitable to me.
Now, as to my own habits, I tend to be a bit of cheapskate. I drive a 1998 Saturn SL2 which I bought new. The car is reliable, economical, and suits my needs very well. I will probably drive it until it doesn't. I tend to wear clothing that is comfortable because that is what I like. I really don't give a damn about impressing the neighbors with how successful I am.
I eat all kinds of good and bad (nutritionally speaking) stuff, including burgers which I am fond of, but I don't particularly care for the McDonalds variety. When I'm not cooking myself, I like to ocassionally go out for good steaks, fish, BBQ, and spicy food, especially Indian or Jamaican.
When I go food shopping I am also careful about quality. As a person who worked as a Control Systems Engineer in the food processing industry for more than 20 years, I have insider information, so here's a few tips for the ranchhands:

Many packaged items that have store brand labels contain the exact same food that is put into the more expensive name brand labels on them. Guess which ones I buy.

I tend to stay away from chocolate ice cream even though I love chocolate. Chocolate will mask many foul tastes. Ice cream is something where I do pay attention to brand names. BTW, if you eat ice cream, it's pretty much a certainty that some of the ice cream you've eaten has come out of a machine whose control system I designed.

I once worked on a distributed control system at a Smucker's plant. They had a room full of people hand sorting trays full of fruit picking out the bad pieces. Guess whose jam and preserves I buy.

The point of this is that sometimes quality is not all that easy to assess.
Now, Mark, what about my hypothetical question ?
[ January 27, 2004: Message edited by: Ken Krebs ]

[HS Thomas]

I have heard that the ancient Mac Performa is the speediest for e-mail
Faster microprocessors and larger drives are the only new things really.
Lots of interesting information. Thanks Mark and Ken.
[ January 28, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Jeroen Wenting]

ah, the weekly "I hate Microsoft and Bill Gates" thread is once again here.
When will you people finally get over your jealousy-inspired hatred of Microsoft and its founders?
It's so childish...
Microsoft isn't perfect, but noone is.
They may not have invented many great new things but they are excellent at integrating ideas and making them work together, something many inventors seem unable to do for themselves.

[HS Thomas]

It's much deeper than that . It's about the freedom of choice. So far M$ has proved very expensive personally. On my expensive upgraded hardware components I am going to put some free software next time and buy M$ cheap with basic support. My ISP used to answer questions about M$ problems. Now I either get redirected to a more expensive call support line or to Microsoft who then directs me to an even more expensive Technical support centre.
[ January 28, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[HS Thomas]

If I were looking for a second hand Mac any idea what I should go for ?
Something cheap that I could run innovative stuff just to experience freedom from being hassled by viruses and spam and such evils.

[Ken Krebs]

Jeroen,
Equating justifiable and pointed criticism with "jealousy-inspired hatred" is a lot more childish than such criticism. So is unabashed idol worship.

[Tim Holloway]

Ummm, isn't this more along the lines of Meaningless Drivel?

[Ken Krebs]

This thread certainly ssems to be moving in that direction. I do think my hypothetical question is relevant though. It just seems nobody wants to tackle that one

[Matt Cao]

Originally posted by Ken Krebs:

A hypothetical question for everybody:
Assuming 2 employees of equal ability, which one would you rather have working for you ?
One who doesn't want to tread too close to legal or ethical boundaries.
or
One who is willing to walk or even cross the line to get the job done.

Hi,
Both have it own flawed. The first candidate is not creative enough to churn out new innovation. The second candidate is too ambituous, could rock the whole organization.
It is the manager constant battle between the twos, the savvy one will have to foresee when to let go the employee who possesses the above traces.
Regards,
MCao

[Mark Herschberg]

Originally posted by Ken Krebs:

I think your interpretation of my use of the word quality is way too narrow. BTW, I never mentioned the phrase "top quality", I just talked about quality.
Quality is a series of tradeoffs that can only be measured within a context of usage and is not solely determined by price or freedom from defects. Let's take a look at the vehicle example.

Ia gree completely, and what most people don't understand is that quality can be viewed from a marketing perspective. Microsoft dominated the office software market not because it had the best of breed in any category, but because it had a suite of products that worked together. It turned out that was the most important feature desired by the market and Microsoft had the highest quality in that respect. Hence, Microsoft products are not a "low quality" as people consider them to be with a narrow view of "quality."

Originally posted by Ken Krebs:

Now, Mark, what about my hypothetical question ?

Aw, gee, I prefer convicted felons on the lam, but when they are in short supply I go for merc's. :-p
--Mark