Unfortunately TechDud, you also practice "skim comprehension", sometimes even getting as high as 50% correct.
Slim comprehension is more like it. It?s one thing to skim, it?s another to be a poor reader. You?d think someone who already has trouble following the more rudimentary of posts wouldn?t admit that he doesn?t actually read them very well
Bill Gates is cool in my book. Despite its bad practices, his company brought personal computing to the masses. Shame they couldn't handle competition very well.
That's a bit of a stretch , considering they don't design or manufacture desktop computers. I think Apple can take more credit for that than M$. I think B. Gate's wisdom was knowing that software (especially universally accepted software) is where the real money is.
Your reading skills are very poor. Do you know who Gil Amelio is?
I wouldn't call this poor performance I would call this THE END. So the point is that Apple had a lot of CEOs and all were bad, except Steve. Apple could have done much better with any good CEO. Steve has a lot of good ideas, but he is not a GOD and there are people that can do tha job just fine.
Mmmm.... better check your history! Who was CEO of Apple at its incorporation, the Apple ][ years, The early Mac years...
SJ returned a long time ago. This is so old ... I think this sounds more like 'remind people how lousy Apple was doing not so long ago' tactics. Why else drag up such an old conversations. How about Bill saying... 'Yes Steve is doing so well Apple will surpass M$ in worth in two or three years!" Now that would be a good comment.
That's a bit of a stretch , considering they don't design or manufacture desktop computers. I think Apple can take more credit for that than M$. I think B. Gate's wisdom was knowing that software (especially universally accepted software) is where the real money is.
Licensing Windows has allowed for a competitive market between manufacturers, nowadays anyone can afford a computer. And those with the cash can get a Mac! Bill Gates was also wise in charging for software (see an Open Letter to Hobbyists, etc). Although Google has turned that idea on its head.
P.S. - the M$ thing is a bit old. I'm sure you've been keeping up with Apple'$ quarterly reports
I for one interpreted that as the richest man in the world whining about being unloved. Indeed, Bill Gates has some fabulous strengths and good qualities, but he's not well adjusted enough for me to call him "classy".
Be that as it may, Bill Gates is doing something that almost no other major CEO is doing (including Steve Jobs, unless he's doing it annonymously): he's giving away most of his money and trying to accomplish some real good in the world. In spite of his other negative attributes, this makes him a classy guy in my eyes.
I don't think anyone who "changes the world" is well-adjusted. They have to be a bit nuts and obnoxious enough to drive their vision. From what I've read and seen, I'd probably hate working for either Jobs or Gates, but you can't deny their vision and accomplishments, even if Jobs wasn't really responsible for everything he implicitly takes credit for and even if Microsoft's behavior has frequently been aggressive, nasty and sometimes illegal.
However, every over-paid CEO should be following Gate's example of charitable giving instead of constantly indulging in the ridiculous.
The further away from the activities of Microsoft, the greater my respect for Bill Gates. He is very generous in his comments, whereas Teh Steve sometimes resorts to veiled (or not so veiled) sniping. Ballmer is another story altogether...
FWIW, the judge in the antitrust trial was prepared to find Microsoft in contempt for supplying falsified evidence. They absolutely did supply falsified evidence to the court, a fact that has never been in dispute. This was all just symptomatic of a company culture that dictated that they were always meant to win every time, against any foe, at any cost, no matter what. This point of view came straight from Bill Gates. Illegalities aside, this attitude may have served them well for a time, but I think over the course of decades has poisoned the company's culture quite deeply.
Be that as it may, Bill Gates is doing something that almost no other major CEO is doing (including Steve Jobs, unless he's doing it annonymously): he's giving away most of his money and trying to accomplish some real good in the world. In spite of his other negative attributes, this makes him a classy guy in my eyes.
I don't think anyone who "changes the world" is well-adjusted. They have to be a bit nuts and obnoxious enough to drive their vision. From what I've read and seen, I'd probably hate working for either Jobs or Gates, but you can't deny their vision and accomplishments, even if Jobs wasn't really responsible for everything he implicitly takes credit for and even if Microsoft's behavior has frequently been aggressive, nasty and sometimes illegal.
However, every over-paid CEO should be following Gate's example of charitable giving instead of constantly indulging in the ridiculous.
Actually, Ted Turner beat BG to the punch by several years, (probably still under the spell of Jane Fonda, I know I would have been). He also challenged all other modern ceo's to match his giving up 50% of his fortune. Even so, a marvellous idea by anybody.
Comments
Shirley, was formerly VP at Tandy (RadioShack) and was hired in 1983 as president and COO at Microsoft. He retired in 1990.
To many, Shirley was the "businessman" at MicroSoft-- similar to Mike Markkula's role at Apple.
As such, Shirley gave the techies a lot of freedom, but kept them pointed in the right direction to attain Microsoft's business objectives.
*
It's call skim reading then. Try it- you can actually read through a lot of nonsense in life. Do I need to spoon feed every solution for some?
Unfortunately TechDud, you also practice "skim comprehension", sometimes even getting as high as 50% correct.
Leftist propoganda. Conspiracy theorists all written above on wiki.
Back to the ignore list you go.
Unfortunately TechDud, you also practice "skim comprehension", sometimes even getting as high as 50% correct.
Slim comprehension is more like it. It?s one thing to skim, it?s another to be a poor reader. You?d think someone who already has trouble following the more rudimentary of posts wouldn?t admit that he doesn?t actually read them very well
Here is where I think you are an idiot.
I wan't going to comment on the article, but that made me lol. Thanks extreme for brightening my day.
Bill Gates is cool in my book. Despite its bad practices, his company brought personal computing to the masses. Shame they couldn't handle competition very well.
That's a bit of a stretch , considering they don't design or manufacture desktop computers. I think Apple can take more credit for that than M$. I think B. Gate's wisdom was knowing that software (especially universally accepted software) is where the real money is.
You never see it mentioned, but one of the driving forces during Microsofts growth years was John Shirley.
Excellent point, he is the forgotten man at Microsoft.
(And don't call me Shirley!)
Your reading skills are very poor. Do you know who Gil Amelio is?
I wouldn't call this poor performance I would call this THE END. So the point is that Apple had a lot of CEOs and all were bad, except Steve. Apple could have done much better with any good CEO. Steve has a lot of good ideas, but he is not a GOD and there are people that can do tha job just fine.
Mmmm.... better check your history! Who was CEO of Apple at its incorporation, the Apple ][ years, The early Mac years...
[Hint it wasn't Steve Jobs]
*
Jobs = Inspiration
Ballmer = Perspiration
(Lots and lots and lots of nasty, disgusting, and odiferous perspiration)
That's a bit of a stretch , considering they don't design or manufacture desktop computers. I think Apple can take more credit for that than M$. I think B. Gate's wisdom was knowing that software (especially universally accepted software) is where the real money is.
Licensing Windows has allowed for a competitive market between manufacturers, nowadays anyone can afford a computer. And those with the cash can get a Mac! Bill Gates was also wise in charging for software (see an Open Letter to Hobbyists, etc). Although Google has turned that idea on its head.
P.S. - the M$ thing is a bit old. I'm sure you've been keeping up with Apple'$ quarterly reports
excellent point, he is the forgotten man at microsoft.
(and don't call me shirley!)
lol
*
I for one interpreted that as the richest man in the world whining about being unloved. Indeed, Bill Gates has some fabulous strengths and good qualities, but he's not well adjusted enough for me to call him "classy".
Be that as it may, Bill Gates is doing something that almost no other major CEO is doing (including Steve Jobs, unless he's doing it annonymously): he's giving away most of his money and trying to accomplish some real good in the world. In spite of his other negative attributes, this makes him a classy guy in my eyes.
I don't think anyone who "changes the world" is well-adjusted. They have to be a bit nuts and obnoxious enough to drive their vision. From what I've read and seen, I'd probably hate working for either Jobs or Gates, but you can't deny their vision and accomplishments, even if Jobs wasn't really responsible for everything he implicitly takes credit for and even if Microsoft's behavior has frequently been aggressive, nasty and sometimes illegal.
However, every over-paid CEO should be following Gate's example of charitable giving instead of constantly indulging in the ridiculous.
it's called the ignore list- you can surely figure out how to use it and ease your pain.
Much of your criticism is well-earned, Teckstud. But, sometimes I enjoy your spunk.
FWIW, the judge in the antitrust trial was prepared to find Microsoft in contempt for supplying falsified evidence. They absolutely did supply falsified evidence to the court, a fact that has never been in dispute. This was all just symptomatic of a company culture that dictated that they were always meant to win every time, against any foe, at any cost, no matter what. This point of view came straight from Bill Gates. Illegalities aside, this attitude may have served them well for a time, but I think over the course of decades has poisoned the company's culture quite deeply.
I couldn't agree more.
It's simple, really.
Jobs = Inspiration
Ballmer = Perspiration
(Lots and lots and lots of nasty, disgusting, and odiferous perspiration)
Haha! And
Gates= Regurgitation
Be that as it may, Bill Gates is doing something that almost no other major CEO is doing (including Steve Jobs, unless he's doing it annonymously): he's giving away most of his money and trying to accomplish some real good in the world. In spite of his other negative attributes, this makes him a classy guy in my eyes.
I don't think anyone who "changes the world" is well-adjusted. They have to be a bit nuts and obnoxious enough to drive their vision. From what I've read and seen, I'd probably hate working for either Jobs or Gates, but you can't deny their vision and accomplishments, even if Jobs wasn't really responsible for everything he implicitly takes credit for and even if Microsoft's behavior has frequently been aggressive, nasty and sometimes illegal.
However, every over-paid CEO should be following Gate's example of charitable giving instead of constantly indulging in the ridiculous.
Actually, Ted Turner beat BG to the punch by several years, (probably still under the spell of Jane Fonda, I know I would have been). He also challenged all other modern ceo's to match his giving up 50% of his fortune. Even so, a marvellous idea by anybody.
I wan't going to comment on the article, but that made me lol. Thanks extreme for brightening my day.
Ah a little humor never hurt anyone..