yes, he just admitted that vista is shit.

he is such a slimeball. "we just make fun products and compete in the marketplace" my freakin ASSS.

He is not a slimeball. He is really one of the great humans of all time.

why not put a little money into global warming bill? why are starving kids in foreign countries more important than the stability of the entire species? How is that your corporate investments are actually helping to generate the very problems you are attempting to receive credit on fixing?

Such a bogus slimeball.

Is he not donating his entire fortune to aid humanity? In addition wasnt he a key figure in the development of the PC ?

What have you done lately ?

while i think pawn is exaggerating a tad, calling him "one of the great humans of all time"?

i do think he earned his fortune. and last time i checked, he's donated more of it than... hmm... anyone?

yeah. vista blows. so what? don't use it.

sorry trancecoach.....itchy Wobal Glorming finger.....

Yeah, Bill Gates isn't a "great" guy but I hate people calling him such a slimeball just because it's fashionable to.

I think he is a key person in human history. Looking back 1000 years from now, I expect he will be remembered. Sure its being in the right place at the right time, but computers are a major development for mankind, and he has played the largest role in the PCs development. I guess a bit like Henry Ford, the Wright brothers or Madam Curie.

Annually, the United Nations provides about 20 billion dollars in world-wide aid. The Gates foundation is required by law to donate, at least, 1.5 billion dollars per year to retain tax-exempt status. One charitable trust providing about 10% as much giving as the UN. Hmmmm......that doesn't qualify you for "great" status? What does?

i call him a slimeball because he is.

i didn't call him retarded, or a bad businessman, or ugly (!)

and i don't hate him out of "fashion"... damn what a weak defence.

I hate him for fucking up computing when he has the power NOT to. I hate him for pretending it's all fair competition. I hate him for trying to make the whole world use "the microsoft internet" or "the microsoft audio format" or any other of the countless other common public things he has tried to monopolise. I hate him for taking the credit for other people's work. I hate him for trying to invent a way to lock media files so you can't play them everywhere, even if you bought them legitimately, unless you pay him AGAIN. I hate him for every hour i have lost trying to make a website work on his poxy browser. I hate him for letting his single user OS onto the internet where it can become a spam bot in 30 seconds. I hate him for denying almost all his mistakes. I hate him for making his software LOOK bad, and for making it hard to use.

OH BUT HE GAVE MONEY TO CHARITY SO HE'S OK!!!!!

Fuck. The amount of money he's sucked out of the economy with his crappy software and 20 minute reboots is far in excess of what he's given to charity.

Computing innovation? The only innovative thing he did was find a way to tax every computer in the world before anyone realised there would be millions of them.

Slimeball. This video proves it, again. Look. He's insanely rich, he's laughing at you, and he's admitting his flagship product is crap. Riiiiiight.

Bill Gates > Steve Jobs
(But then that doesn't really say much, does it. )

Yeah, the software is a damn inconvenience and I wouldn't touch Vista with a 10 foot pole. I've already had too many blue-screens to count. That's why I'm sitting here typing this on my MacBook. However, I'm weighing my inconvenience against the fate of millions of Sub-Saharan African kids that are getting vaccinated with the 1.5 billion dollars donated for that purpose by the Gates foundation. Millions of dollars are being pumped into malaria prevention as well. Let me think.....blue screen/malaria.. blue screen/malaria.......I'm still trying to decide which is the bigger inconvenience. I guess it depends on where you live.

Mink, MS is a company, a corporation. Its their job to make money and undermine their competitors. I 'll just say this: they could have been much, much worse. Like Apple. Apple really shuns competion, they really abuse their position when they are able. MS has the power to do much more damage than they actually do, they try atleast to support all kinds of hardware, they try making stuff that they make work on other platforms.. Apple with their DRM/m4a aac ipod shit is worse, they dont want to be open-ended, they want "mac-world" where everything relies on buying their products. And I'm not even having a go at Apple really, because they are like most corporations, this is the real world, they'll do ANYTHING to increase the value of their shares, thats the whole point.

MS isnt the worst, they happen to be the biggest, but not the worst. They are by no means perfect either which would be 100 open source and non-profit.. right?

But lets just forget all that, because MS isnt Bill Gates and Gates isnt MS. Bill Gates could, like most CEO's and bigwigs gone "fuck off, you cunts, I'll buy 52 skyscrapers and secure my family fortune in real estate." But instead he decided to do charity. Thats better than 100% of all trillionaires I know of, so fuck it if vista sucks. I use XP, big fuckin deal. they'll patch it and it'll be decent one day. Life goes on.

I'll not go into the other issues, but I think a lot of the DRM issues are being pushed by organizations like the RIAA and MPAA. I imagine their use of the heavy handed DRM is more a part of avoiding a lawsuit from those two organizations. Whether MS would win or not is irreverently since such a lawsuit would undoubtedly cost them a lot. And let us face it, all the RIAA and MPAA does is file lawsuits and fix prices. I'm really not even sure MS benefits from their DRM, mostly because apple seems to have the lions share, and then some, of the online music and video market. Pretty hard to compete when your product won't play on the most popular devices, unless compatibility has since been added.

On a side note, I think MS has gotten so big it now functions much like the government. At the core you have an idea of innovation (or at least using other people's good ideas) and true progress towards something that will benefit everyone. But then there are a bunch of special interest groups that push their agendas, so when the final product comes out it's some neutered monstrosity with some ugly appendages stapled on.

grrrrrrrr i tried SO DAMN HARD not to start an apple vs M$ thread.

Apple wouldn't do half the stuff they do if they weren't fighting a monopoly.
And anyway they put DRM in iTunes because otherwise the labels wouldn't deal with them. Come on, this is like internet arguing 101.

The "mac-only world" works great with every digital camera and mp3 player i have ever plugged in to my powerbook, regardless of manufacturer.

Bill Gates is "only the CEO"??? Riiiight.

Bill Gates is less selfish than other rich people, so... I should forgive him for making shitty products and monopolising the market?

"blue screen/malaria.. blue screen/malaria" ... jesus christ, if we took all the money wasted by his shitty software, it would add up to GAJILLIONS. That is money that should be in the economy doing something useful. You actually think the "inconvenience" of a blue screen of death is "paying" for malaria treatment? whoah, the economics on your planet are crAzY!

If you really want to help africa, give the cost of a copy of windows DIRECTLY to a charity and then install linux.

Fuck him. Go watch the other video where he brags about his Porsche. If you have a gajillion dollars, it is MUCH easier to give away a gajillion dollars (and of course you make sure you leave yourself a few million for beer money) (and remember to set up your own charity so you don't actually have to give the money away at all, other people might spend it "wrong")

(and remember that millions of healthy africans = millions of POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS!!!) i'm not even joking.

ug ... I could have done without reading that last comment.

ha. gotcha.

lol

Mink, just because... nah, I won't bother.

lol buzz

in a lot of ways you're right mink.. if i had infinite money, i could give away infinity-x money without losing too much sleep.. great, he did it, but i don't give out brownie points for someone doing something that i consider bog standard humanity.. good job, you're human, no cookie though

seriously.. he's gonna go home, sip on some martini type drink that probably costs 80 dollars to make.. made by a professional who is payed 80 dollars an hour to mix martinis.. slouch back in his leather recliner that cost about 5 thousand, or take a shower in his multi-jet-pwn-shower-system.. take a swim in his pool, go for a fly in his jet, do what-the-fuck-ever he wants to do, anytime, all the time..

then he'll write a cheque for a charity for 700 million dollars... fuck it, who cares? he can still afford to refuel his jet

get off the charity thing, in his situation it's either give something he won't miss and not look like an asshole, or keep something he doesn't need and look like an asshole

In the end analysis, a man's worth is not what's in his bank account, but what he has added, or subtracted, from humanity. There seems to be plenty of sentiment that he has detracted for valid reasons including, software that makes you pull your hair out, monopolistic business practices, the list can go on and on. That Gates can afford to make such huge contributions without sacrifice doesn't change the FACT that the donations ARE being made. I'm no saint, but I've done mission work in sub-saharan Africa and I know what impact billions of dollars in aid can have there. So, I'm not getting off the charity thing. 2 scenarios, (1) a world with no Bill Gates- uncertain, can't say how it would have turned out (2) a world with Bill Gates - personal computers and billions in charity. I'll take option 2.

I use vista. It's ok. Program crashes never require a restart anymore, unlike XP. The popup permission requests are really annoying, though. The games explorer is useless bloat.

modern carnegie

computer fights are for pussies.

snoozedoctor:
2 scenarios, (1) a world with no Bill Gates- uncertain, can't say how it would have turned out (2) a world with Bill Gates - personal computers and billions in charity. I'll take option 2.

you actually think bill gates invented the personal computer and nobody else was trying or able? omfg.

anyway here's some more explanation of exactly what "giving to charity" means in this context:

... he admits, Microsoft's image has benefited, "and maybe a few more users come along. There's nothing wrong with that at all." That the foundation shuns quiet altruism in favour of maximum publicity proves the point. It has flown journalists and photographers around the world to spread the word that Microsoft's chairman cares. "It's very important to us that we're not just seen for our great financial results," he says.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/feb/04/voluntarysector.guardiansocietysupplement


The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio and measles immunization and research worldwide, including in the Niger Delta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations to protect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France — the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the delta with pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States or Europe.

...

Like most philanthropies, the Gates Foundation gives away at least 5% of its worth every year, to avoid paying most taxes. In 2005, it granted nearly $1.4 billion. It awards grants mainly in support of global health initiatives, for efforts to improve public education in the United States, and for social welfare programs in the Pacific Northwest.

It invests the other 95% of its worth. This endowment is managed by Bill Gates Investments, which handles Gates' personal fortune.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story

the c64 had sprites

I'm sorry but anyone who thinks global warming is a more pressing issue than malnutrition, HIV/AIDS, maternal fatalities and malaria has been brainwashed by exorbitant media coverage for the in-thing to be 'mildly concerned and then forget about it a few years later'.

I don't see anything mildly deplorable about what you've quoted MINK. Bill Gates' entrepreneurial skills and success gave him the capacity to launch his charity, how can publicizing your philanthropy and associating it with your former company then be viewed as a negative? Regardless, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is still the largest charity in the world. What oil companies need are more stringent regulations put upon them, that establish global pollution restrictions, not an outflux of investment.

^thanks for reading

i also don't see much wrong with how he is now choosing to use his financial power. however, it's not "giving to charity"... i mean it's giving to a big investment fund which you control. slightly different. also you can't deny there's a temptation to invest in companies that boost your business, even if they are polluters (forget global warming, pollution gives kids asthma/blindness/cancer etc ffs)

so 95% of this money he "gave away to africa" is invested in businesses of his choosing. Just giving some perspective, you know?

And anyway, the software still sucks, it doesn't matter to me how nice he is, he made sucky software, so he sucks. he didn't make sucky software with the aim of giving all the profit to africa. sheesh.

People that think Windows is bad software make me laugh. They obviously have 0 idea what software is typically like. Windows is probably better than 90% of software out there today, and if you don't think so, then you clearly don't know what software is out there today. Most companies that produce software would kill to be able to make something like Windows.

That said, yes, I'm still on XP. I'm sure Vista is good but the problem is XP is good too and there is no reason for me to switch.

every apologist for bill gates here seems to rely on the "other people are really shit too, sometimes shitter!" defence.

He made more money than anyone else in the world, doesn't that make you think his products should be better than 99.9% of the others? Doesn't it matter to you that his products would be better if he didn't pursue failed strategies like DRM and browser lockin? That would cost him less.

By the way i had a job designing more than one windows software product. I have friends who work for microsoft, they say the dev tools are the best, and i believe them. I own an apple but I use PCs too and I hate all computers pretty much equally. OK? I just like not getting a virus when my girlfriend browses for hardcore japanese porn while i am out, and i like my system's resources to be used for doing stuff i actually need.

Come on, powerpoint sucks so much on its own, we shouldn't even need to discuss this.

every apologist for bill gates here seems to rely on the "other people are really shit too, sometimes shitter!" defence.

I'll admit that, but lets face it, if Bill Gates and MS hadnt stumbled upon becoming the makers of the standard OS for all PC's, someone else would have done that job and they would have ended up Richest Guy/Biggest company etc and in a position to misuse their monopoly or whatever.

Now, what I'm saying is that they might have done things better, they might have done things worse, their owner/boss might have started the biggest charity foundation in the world, he/she might had not. But again, Microsoft is a COMPANY they are trying to make profit in a free-market world, that they use their position is entirely expected. If they didnt, they wouldnt even be where they were.

You may be against the whole capitalistic system for all i know, but in a free market, you dont become the biggest by playing nice.

But the issue is, he's investing with his fund so he perpetuate the aid he can provide. I'm presuming here of course than he doesn't use it as his savings fund and splurge some of it on Ferraris now and then though ...

I question whether an OS can ever be designed to be near universally compatible yet incredibly stable. I mean the sheer range of hardware Windows (XP not Vista, lets not go there) can support is mind numbing, never mind the fact it has a hiccup every now and then. Also my technical knowledge here is extremely limited but couldn't you consider the OS market a natural monopoly? Would it not be simply inefficient for software to have to be designed to run on competing operating systems?

sticking to open standards is not a Microsoft strong suit. so you kinda agree. bill sucks.

We can just agree to disagree on whether Bill sucks. The foundation has given 1.5 billion dollars to the GAVI alliance and its immunization programs in developing countries, (not just Africa), so I accidentally misrepresented all that immunization aid going to Africa. Undoubtedly, measles vaccinations are, in large part responsible for the reported 91% decline in measles cases in Africa;
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr62/en/index.html

I'm no expert on software, far from it, but I do a lot of music recording on PC and Mac. When I said I've experienced blue screens, I've experienced blue screens. Driver incompatibilities, sound card conflicts, audio plugins that crash my projects, you name it. Not on the Mac. Whether it's MS's fault, or the audio software companies product, I don't know. All I know is it's a pain in the rear.
My PC laptop recently got infected and crashed altogether. After a complete reinstall, despite saying it's connected to my wireless network on all the settings I can find, it won't connect to my wireless. So, I guess I am biased on the software, at least for the applications I'm using.

Well, I have read through the entire thread. Very interesting comments and some not so. I think you have to take a look at what each platform offers to the end user and what restrictions each platforms have or manifest.

Apple/MAC, great over all. Their products hardware are somewhat *proprietary, which is good for full hardware compatibility and driver/software stability but lacks in providing affordable and available hardware. In my opinion, this is where Apple has made its standing as a stable OS but also restricting the end user from the newest graphics card or affordable RAM (have you seen the prices for that lately). There is not as much support for available software as those supported by XP/Vista(*not as much as XP but growing fast) as well.

Microsoft, on the other hand, IMO, has taken a different step in which they have great support for all new hardware and most software. Driver stability stands to test and most issues are due to people building their own workstations that have little clue of hardware compatibility or driver issues. I am far from being a MS fanboy as I own both, but I own several workstations, administer many, many more and administer a MS based server farm... all without these issues some of you speak of. I run Vista with all my applications and have not run into a problem not have I experienced any BSODs since my last hardware failure.

Both systems have thier own place in the market... but I prefer XP/Vista as I am an avid gamer in the off time.

Is Bill a slimeball? I hardly think so, unless all business men are, and if that is fact, then I guess I am as well. MS is a buisiness, look and treat it as others. Remarking on business practices because of admiration of one company or disdain for another is humorous at best.

Feel free to pick this apart and correct where I have been wrong, for I am not perfect, far from it actually.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
in a free market, you dont become the biggest by playing nice.

you don't need to be biggest. so basically if you play dirty and get big, and kinda lie about it and squirm around in interviews instead of apologising... you're a slimeball.

tbh, every time i think of microsoft, i think of how capatalisim has taken anouther sh*te on the chance to show some human good, which everyone says is there but is nigh on impossible to find.

there didn't have to be a monopoly. it's just the corporate snowball (fueled by people who arnt willing to try harder) once again took it's dump on the people trying to do something for the right reasons. sad, but its the darker part of the human condition.

@ Mink:
Microsoft went public in '86. From then on they had public shareholders. "Increase shareholder wealth" is the mantra of the corporation, and its easier to do that if you're the biggest on the block. A simplistic analysis is, if you're not the bully you'll likely be pushed around. If Company A didn't lock out Company B, Company B would have locked out Company A.

^more apologism.

i do know it's the rules but you don't have to play that game. Plenty of people do good in the world without being slimeballs along the way.

If he was honest about it, that would be another thing. But he's not.

Remember this is the man who wrote a book about the future of computing and didn't put the internet in it.

It's *dead Jim.

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Zonbie.

Lurch has fixed this video's dead embed code - no star awarded because Lurch was awarded too recently.

*brief

This video has been flagged as being less than 1 minute in length - declared brief by Stingray.