Not in my view. Otherwise, why would Gates now keeps saying good things about Jobs?
To me, that's because he wants the same treatment from people that has treated Jobs. Gates always want that Jobs celebrity status even when he (Gates) passed away. Gates too wanted to leave a legacy.
Somehow, I got a feeling that Gates is either:
a) trying to make a comeback at Microsoft
or
b) just to gain support for his philanthropy business
or
c) both
With Gates, unless he beats Steve Jobs, it's still an ongoing competition even when Jobs has long passed away.
That's some crazy opinion, yeah but it's my gut feeling talking.
Let's take a vote: repeating this exhausted, endlessly refuted chestnut should be sufficient grounds for immediate, permanent ban, in that it suggests the kind of profound and willful ignorance that can only lead to tears.
It hasn't been fully refuted as I've heard many stories suggesting both things with the same level of clarity (and evidence) so I simply discount it as the usual and time honored tradition of idea A inspiring idea B and I move on.
Everything is borrowed and adapted...that's life...but in Mac World apparently all ideas aren't supposed to inspire other ideas.
Certainly it's tragic, but "strange?" This reminds one of nothing so much as Bush Senior's delighted surprise at encountering his first supermarket scanner.
Some of us live in a nation where the overwhelming majority of brilliant, creative men in many fields died of a plague in a single decade. "Strange?" The tragic death of promising men in the prime of life was the norm for more than half my life and I've attended more funerals than all other social occasions combined.
For me, the ultimately irony is that Jobs gay replacement is nonetheless little more than a driven bean counter.
Reading this, I hope you'll forgive me my bitterness. I wish I was able to forget what was lost. I have good days and bad days; this is obviously one of the latter.
rbryanh, I will forgive you your bitterness, while also saying I try to not post publicly when I have those days. I take a walk instead. We all miss Steve.
I would not characterize Cook as little more than a 'bean counter'. Having worked in a number of different fields, I can say that one of the most overlooked and maybe least understood elements of any venture is capacity management. I've had managers in my face telling me how little they care about licenses, or BTUs, or staffing. But from swizzle sticks in the break room to the number of servers tagged for tech refresh each quarter, it all matters when it comes to getting your product out the door. You may infer this has been my work for many years. When you get to a certain point in this career, one's success lies in the accuracy of determining and reporting the consequences of failing to act on supplying the elements needed to deliver the products. One's grasp of the basic but elementary need of dollars and cents should have been mastered long ago. That Apple has amassed more than USD $80B in cash and liquid assets tells me Apple mastered that skill remarkably well.
I certainly have no facts to dispute what you said, however LONG after Bill Gates was given a version of Mac software to begin developing the predecessor to Excel for the Mac; Multiplan, and months after the Macintosh was put on the market, I purchased my Mac 128K and it was running Mac OS version 1.1g.
As an aside, MultiPlan and Mac OS fit on a single 400K floppy. It's been too long to remember if MS Word 1.0 had Mac OS on the 400k floppy it came on.
Man, how bloatware has changed things since.
I am probably just being picky here, but it wasn't called MacOS until (if memory serves) version 7.0, when the clones came out. Before that it was just Macintosh.
I still have some of those original floppies and and can still conjure up the unique sound of the 400k drives in my mind.
Let's take a vote: repeating this exhausted, endlessly refuted chestnut should be sufficient grounds for immediate, permanent ban, in that it suggests the kind of profound and willful ignorance that can only lead to tears.
I wholeheartedly agree.
BTW....Thank you for saying that before I fired back at dasanman69....and....get permanently banned from AI.
It hasn't been fully refuted as I've heard many stories suggesting both things with the same level of clarity (and evidence) so I simply discount it as the usual and time honored tradition of idea A inspiring idea B and I move on.
Everything is borrowed and adapted...that's life...but in Mac World apparently all ideas aren't supposed to inspire other ideas.
Adaptions are expected to lead to new innovations. My main complaint about Windows 95 (Microsoft's first real effort to compete with the Mac) wasn't so much that it ripped anything off from Apple, but that after eleven years of effort, all Microsoft could manage was a pale imitation of the Mac and nothing even arguably new. From that point on I have harbored the opinion that Microsoft is one of the most colossal wastes of resources in human history. Sadly, I've found little evidence to refute that theory since that time.
It hasn't been fully refuted as I've heard many stories suggesting both things with the same level of clarity (and evidence) so I simply discount it as the usual and time honored tradition of idea A inspiring idea B and I move on.
Everything is borrowed and adapted...that's life...but in Mac World apparently all ideas aren't supposed to inspire other ideas.
I don't know of anyone who claims that the Xerox PARC work didn't influence the eventual Mac OS, it's the (oft repeated) use of the world "stole" that gets my dander up.
As he says, there was a deal signed for access to technology, so "stole" is simply factually untrue. Moreover, as he says, Apple saw "1%" of the Xerox technology, but "it was enough" to get the Mac team (and especially Jobs) fired up about the idea of a mouse driven, GUI based computer.
As Andy Herzfeld (one of the original Mac designers) recounts elsewhere, beyond the general notions of a mouse driven graphical user interface there are a great many significant differences between what they saw at Xerox and the nascent Mac OS, as one would expect given the circumstances of general inspiration.
Amusing in that the same folks that insist they can't see any connection between Samsung's cookie cutter hardware and Apple's iOS devices will forever claim (probably without any specific knowledge of what actually went down) that Apple "stole" the entire basis of the Mac. There's a weird cottage industry around denying any innovation or authorship to Apple while simultaneously insisting that their influence on the consumer electronic industry is illusory, since everything was always invented already.
According to the (late) Jef Raskin, he made the arrangement for Steve and Co. to visit Xerox PARC in order to get him behind the Mac project, which Raskin was then managing. Steve got so excited by what he saw at Xerox that he took over the Mac project and kicked Raskin out. A great part of the creative art is knowing when something is good.
To Bill & Steve. They both have accomplished much in their respective lifetime for the technology industry. I appreciate Bill's comments "There was no peace to make. We were not at war,".
Geeze some people really need to give the whole Windows is a copy of Mac a rest. A lot of Windows is copied of Mac and a lot of Mac is copied of Windows. Even more of both comes from other companies. It's fairly hard to name an awesome feature of either from the last decade that wasn't availiable as a plug in made by someone else before appearing in the products. But that's the nature of the business. Developers move from one company to another and take there ideas and experiance with them. All those software companies located near to each other share ideas in the pub, and just read in Steves biography how many companies he visited and got shown products that ultimately inspired ideas for his own.
End of the day, both were great businessmen. SJ was more of an artist that recognised ideas and made them beautiful. BG was more of a businessman that recognised ideas and new how to make money out of them.
It would have put him in a better light if years down the road Steve's wife or someone else in the family mentioned this. Bill feeling the need to tell this seems weird and a little creepy.
Weird, creepy, and perfectly in character. He really, really, really wants people to love him.
I don't know of anyone who claims that the Xerox PARC work didn't influence the eventual Mac OS, it's the (oft repeated) use of the world "stole" that gets my dander up.
As he says, there was a deal signed for access to technology, so "stole" is simply factually untrue. Moreover, as he says, Apple saw "1%" of the Xerox technology, but "it was enough" to get the Mac team (and especially Jobs) fired up about the idea of a mouse driven, GUI based computer.
As Andy Herzfeld (one of the original Mac designers) recounts elsewhere, beyond the general notions of a mouse driven graphical user interface there are a great many significant differences between what they saw at Xerox and the nascent Mac OS, as one would expect given the circumstances of general inspiration.
Amusing in that the same folks that insist they can't see any connection between Samsung's cookie cutter hardware and Apple's iOS devices will forever claim (probably without any specific knowledge of what actually went down) that Apple "stole" the entire basis of the Mac. There's a weird cottage industry around denying any innovation or authorship to Apple while simultaneously insisting that their influence on the consumer electronic industry is illusory, since everything was always invented already.
I don't believe in software theft by simply taking an idea and modifying it to be your own.
Others do...why do you think so many people say Android is a 1:1 copy of iOS despite them being as different as Mac OS and Xerox PARC?
The difference here being that Windows wouldn't exist without Mac OS.
So?
I wouldn't exist without the random person who knocked my moms books out her hands causing my parents to meet as he helped her pick them up...does that random person deserve ALL the credit?
You seem upset that good ideas are borrowed and adapted...if that's so, I suggest you leave reality as such a thing is rampant in all parts in all areas all of the time.
Adaptions are expected to lead to new innovations. My main complaint about Windows 95 (Microsoft's first real effort to compete with the Mac) wasn't so much that it ripped anything off from Apple, but that after eleven years of effort, all Microsoft could manage was a pale imitation of the Mac and nothing even arguably new. From that point on I have harbored the opinion that Microsoft is one of the most colossal wastes of resources in human history. Sadly, I've found little evidence to refute that theory since that time.
I used Macs and Windows PCs at that point in my life (granted I was 12) and I could never stand Macs really...While they were smoother overall and less prone to BS I feel the Windows has a better file browsing system and having the menu bar on top of each separate app is lightyears more useful than the finder bar IMO....
I feel that where Mac really wins is the attention to detail and the general cohesiveness of the system...it's fluid and everything looks like it belongs pleasing the eye as well. That combined with the fact that they are both good OSes (now I'm up to Windows 7 and OSX in my thoughts btw) puts Mac in the lead to a lot of people.
I'm simply grandfathered in, so to speak, to the menu bars and taskbar and the file browsing in Windows...but looking at Windows 8 if, after trying it, it doesn't appeal to me I may have to make my work PC experience (Mac) my home PC experience.
Let's take a vote: repeating this exhausted, endlessly refuted chestnut should be sufficient grounds for immediate, permanent ban, in that it suggests the kind of profound and willful ignorance that can only lead to tears.
Well I could've said "stole from Xerox" which we know is not true. Nothing wrong with swindling, we all try to do that.
Comments
Not in my view. Otherwise, why would Gates now keeps saying good things about Jobs?
To me, that's because he wants the same treatment from people that has treated Jobs. Gates always want that Jobs celebrity status even when he (Gates) passed away. Gates too wanted to leave a legacy.
Somehow, I got a feeling that Gates is either:
a) trying to make a comeback at Microsoft
or
b) just to gain support for his philanthropy business
or
c) both
With Gates, unless he beats Steve Jobs, it's still an ongoing competition even when Jobs has long passed away.
That's some crazy opinion, yeah but it's my gut feeling talking.
you're a paranoid person...for no real reason.
Let's take a vote: repeating this exhausted, endlessly refuted chestnut should be sufficient grounds for immediate, permanent ban, in that it suggests the kind of profound and willful ignorance that can only lead to tears.
It hasn't been fully refuted as I've heard many stories suggesting both things with the same level of clarity (and evidence) so I simply discount it as the usual and time honored tradition of idea A inspiring idea B and I move on.
Everything is borrowed and adapted...that's life...but in Mac World apparently all ideas aren't supposed to inspire other ideas.
Certainly it's tragic, but "strange?" This reminds one of nothing so much as Bush Senior's delighted surprise at encountering his first supermarket scanner.
Some of us live in a nation where the overwhelming majority of brilliant, creative men in many fields died of a plague in a single decade. "Strange?" The tragic death of promising men in the prime of life was the norm for more than half my life and I've attended more funerals than all other social occasions combined.
For me, the ultimately irony is that Jobs gay replacement is nonetheless little more than a driven bean counter.
Reading this, I hope you'll forgive me my bitterness. I wish I was able to forget what was lost. I have good days and bad days; this is obviously one of the latter.
rbryanh, I will forgive you your bitterness, while also saying I try to not post publicly when I have those days. I take a walk instead. We all miss Steve.
I would not characterize Cook as little more than a 'bean counter'. Having worked in a number of different fields, I can say that one of the most overlooked and maybe least understood elements of any venture is capacity management. I've had managers in my face telling me how little they care about licenses, or BTUs, or staffing. But from swizzle sticks in the break room to the number of servers tagged for tech refresh each quarter, it all matters when it comes to getting your product out the door. You may infer this has been my work for many years. When you get to a certain point in this career, one's success lies in the accuracy of determining and reporting the consequences of failing to act on supplying the elements needed to deliver the products. One's grasp of the basic but elementary need of dollars and cents should have been mastered long ago. That Apple has amassed more than USD $80B in cash and liquid assets tells me Apple mastered that skill remarkably well.
I certainly have no facts to dispute what you said, however LONG after Bill Gates was given a version of Mac software to begin developing the predecessor to Excel for the Mac; Multiplan, and months after the Macintosh was put on the market, I purchased my Mac 128K and it was running Mac OS version 1.1g.
As an aside, MultiPlan and Mac OS fit on a single 400K floppy. It's been too long to remember if MS Word 1.0 had Mac OS on the 400k floppy it came on.
Man, how bloatware has changed things since.
I am probably just being picky here, but it wasn't called MacOS until (if memory serves) version 7.0, when the clones came out. Before that it was just Macintosh.
I still have some of those original floppies and and can still conjure up the unique sound of the 400k drives in my mind.
Let's take a vote: repeating this exhausted, endlessly refuted chestnut should be sufficient grounds for immediate, permanent ban, in that it suggests the kind of profound and willful ignorance that can only lead to tears.
I wholeheartedly agree.
BTW....Thank you for saying that before I fired back at dasanman69....and....get permanently banned from AI.
Fact: more than 30 million people (mostly kids) die each year of hunger worldwide.
Is that strange then as well?
It hasn't been fully refuted as I've heard many stories suggesting both things with the same level of clarity (and evidence) so I simply discount it as the usual and time honored tradition of idea A inspiring idea B and I move on.
Everything is borrowed and adapted...that's life...but in Mac World apparently all ideas aren't supposed to inspire other ideas.
Adaptions are expected to lead to new innovations. My main complaint about Windows 95 (Microsoft's first real effort to compete with the Mac) wasn't so much that it ripped anything off from Apple, but that after eleven years of effort, all Microsoft could manage was a pale imitation of the Mac and nothing even arguably new. From that point on I have harbored the opinion that Microsoft is one of the most colossal wastes of resources in human history. Sadly, I've found little evidence to refute that theory since that time.
It hasn't been fully refuted as I've heard many stories suggesting both things with the same level of clarity (and evidence) so I simply discount it as the usual and time honored tradition of idea A inspiring idea B and I move on.
Everything is borrowed and adapted...that's life...but in Mac World apparently all ideas aren't supposed to inspire other ideas.
I don't know of anyone who claims that the Xerox PARC work didn't influence the eventual Mac OS, it's the (oft repeated) use of the world "stole" that gets my dander up.
But take it from the horse's mouth-- a Xerox employee recounts the visits by Apple.
As he says, there was a deal signed for access to technology, so "stole" is simply factually untrue. Moreover, as he says, Apple saw "1%" of the Xerox technology, but "it was enough" to get the Mac team (and especially Jobs) fired up about the idea of a mouse driven, GUI based computer.
As Andy Herzfeld (one of the original Mac designers) recounts elsewhere, beyond the general notions of a mouse driven graphical user interface there are a great many significant differences between what they saw at Xerox and the nascent Mac OS, as one would expect given the circumstances of general inspiration.
Amusing in that the same folks that insist they can't see any connection between Samsung's cookie cutter hardware and Apple's iOS devices will forever claim (probably without any specific knowledge of what actually went down) that Apple "stole" the entire basis of the Mac. There's a weird cottage industry around denying any innovation or authorship to Apple while simultaneously insisting that their influence on the consumer electronic industry is illusory, since everything was always invented already.
you're a paranoid person...
Maybe.
End of the day, both were great businessmen. SJ was more of an artist that recognised ideas and made them beautiful. BG was more of a businessman that recognised ideas and new how to make money out of them.
This is the first time I agree with you.
This is a historical moment, truly.
Gates = Great person, despicable businessman.
Jobs = Despicable person, great businessman.
That is well very well said
It would have put him in a better light if years down the road Steve's wife or someone else in the family mentioned this. Bill feeling the need to tell this seems weird and a little creepy.
Weird, creepy, and perfectly in character. He really, really, really wants people to love him.
Geeze some people really need to give the whole Windows is a copy of Mac a rest.
So? ignore the truth?
A lot of Windows is copied of Mac and a lot of Mac is copied of Windows.
The difference here being that Windows wouldn't exist without Mac OS.
I don't know of anyone who claims that the Xerox PARC work didn't influence the eventual Mac OS, it's the (oft repeated) use of the world "stole" that gets my dander up.
But take it from the horse's mouth-- a Xerox employee recounts the visits by Apple.
As he says, there was a deal signed for access to technology, so "stole" is simply factually untrue. Moreover, as he says, Apple saw "1%" of the Xerox technology, but "it was enough" to get the Mac team (and especially Jobs) fired up about the idea of a mouse driven, GUI based computer.
As Andy Herzfeld (one of the original Mac designers) recounts elsewhere, beyond the general notions of a mouse driven graphical user interface there are a great many significant differences between what they saw at Xerox and the nascent Mac OS, as one would expect given the circumstances of general inspiration.
Amusing in that the same folks that insist they can't see any connection between Samsung's cookie cutter hardware and Apple's iOS devices will forever claim (probably without any specific knowledge of what actually went down) that Apple "stole" the entire basis of the Mac. There's a weird cottage industry around denying any innovation or authorship to Apple while simultaneously insisting that their influence on the consumer electronic industry is illusory, since everything was always invented already.
I don't believe in software theft by simply taking an idea and modifying it to be your own.
Others do...why do you think so many people say Android is a 1:1 copy of iOS despite them being as different as Mac OS and Xerox PARC?
The difference here being that Windows wouldn't exist without Mac OS.
So?
I wouldn't exist without the random person who knocked my moms books out her hands causing my parents to meet as he helped her pick them up...does that random person deserve ALL the credit?
You seem upset that good ideas are borrowed and adapted...if that's so, I suggest you leave reality as such a thing is rampant in all parts in all areas all of the time.
Adaptions are expected to lead to new innovations. My main complaint about Windows 95 (Microsoft's first real effort to compete with the Mac) wasn't so much that it ripped anything off from Apple, but that after eleven years of effort, all Microsoft could manage was a pale imitation of the Mac and nothing even arguably new. From that point on I have harbored the opinion that Microsoft is one of the most colossal wastes of resources in human history. Sadly, I've found little evidence to refute that theory since that time.
I used Macs and Windows PCs at that point in my life (granted I was 12) and I could never stand Macs really...While they were smoother overall and less prone to BS I feel the Windows has a better file browsing system and having the menu bar on top of each separate app is lightyears more useful than the finder bar IMO....
I feel that where Mac really wins is the attention to detail and the general cohesiveness of the system...it's fluid and everything looks like it belongs pleasing the eye as well. That combined with the fact that they are both good OSes (now I'm up to Windows 7 and OSX in my thoughts btw) puts Mac in the lead to a lot of people.
I'm simply grandfathered in, so to speak, to the menu bars and taskbar and the file browsing in Windows...but looking at Windows 8 if, after trying it, it doesn't appeal to me I may have to make my work PC experience (Mac) my home PC experience.
Let's take a vote: repeating this exhausted, endlessly refuted chestnut should be sufficient grounds for immediate, permanent ban, in that it suggests the kind of profound and willful ignorance that can only lead to tears.
Well I could've said "stole from Xerox" which we know is not true. Nothing wrong with swindling, we all try to do that.
So? ignore the truth?
The difference here being that Windows wouldn't exist without Mac OS.
So would you be happy if the only computers and OS that existed was MACs?