posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 03:15 AM
It would be easy to jump on the bandwagon and bash Bill Gates for his success. I read it all the time on boards, hear it from folks at work or where
ever. I think a lot of folks hate Gates because he made billions of bucks on buggy OS’s, and I have to admit I’ve been a member of that group,
though it’s been awhile. Since Windows 98 SE, it seems to me Windows has become increasingly more stable. I’m running Windows XP Professional SP2
now and find it quite acceptable. For me it’s been stable and quite functional. I’ve also worked on quite a few of the Windows 200X Server family
and think the server group is improving, too. They’ve been struggling to catch up with Unix in the midrange server market for a long time, and
although they haven’t gotten there yet, I think they’re getting closer.
At any rate, I don’t bash Bill so much anymore. I think these days a lot of folks continue to bash him because it’s a popular thing to do, and/or
to make points with other fellow bashers. It’s almost like a Bill Haters cult has developed over the years and no matter what he does, be it good or
bad, there will be those who will find fault in it and will focus strictly on the negative.
One thing I don’t understand is why it is so upsetting to people that Microsoft doesn’t invent EVERYTHING they develop and bring to the market.
Who cares that they didn’t invent the Internet, or instant messaging, or word processing, or the mouse, or anything else? How many successful
businesses today actually invented the products they sell? What’s wrong with taking an idea someone else originally had, running with it, enhancing
it and offering it for sale? Just because someone has a good idea doesn’t mean they should be the only one allowed to develop it and market it.
Regardless of all the buggy OS’s sold, and the fact that Microsoft has been successful in marketing products conceived by others, I think Gates’
greatest accomplishment and contribution to computing is for bringing at least some standardization to the desktop. Since most people run Windows and
MS Office software, most other software developers, chip makers, etc. design their products to be compatible with this platform and, thus,
standardization is acheived. Otherwise, the desktop computing environment would be chaotic at best.
IMHO, be it right or wrong, the evolution and advancement of our species is due to the ideas and efforts of maybe 1 tenth of 1 percent of it’s
members. The other 99.9% of us just follow their lead, develop their ideas and enjoy the benefits of their genius. There’s no shame or guilt in
that; it’s just the way it works.
Also, big business is cut-throat and will do pretty much whatever it has to to survive. It's the nature of the beast. Microsoft may be aggressive in
it's business dealings and practices, but I think any company would have to be to acheive the same level of success that Microsoft has. In other
words, if it wasn't Microsoft at the top, I have a feeling whoever was would be the target of the same ridicule currently directed at Gates. IMO
it's not the companies who use aggressive business tactics to get ahead that concern me, it's the companies that rob their investors for personal
gain. As I understand it, Microsoft hasn't done that, but rather has made quite a few people millionaires for their contributions and efforts.
PS: The person I find disgusting is Larry Ellison at Oracle. Now he’s a jerk …
PPS: FYI, I say all the above based on personal experience working on a technical level in both Windows and Unix server environments supporting Oracle
and SQL Server databases. I constantly write code in a design/development environment using C, C++, Visual Basic, SQL, SQLPlus, and Unix Shell
Scripting. I also administer a considerable number of both HP-UX (Unix) and Windows servers, and have previously worked with OpenVMS clustered
servers, Apple networks, and in a few mainframe environments. So, I do have at least some basis for comparison. Even so, it’s all just IMHO. We all
have our own …