Yeah right,... It's the useful and productive OS that has set humanity back by decades.
Not smartphones which most of them are using Linux in the form of "android"
>Yeah right,... It's the useful and productive OS that has set humanity back by decades. >useful >productive
just b/c you are too stupid and tech illiterate to use anything else, doesn't make windows useful. It has 0 capabilities to actual use a computer like one can back in the day, terminal is shit, and powershell is a meme. It treats window as first class citizens b/c it thinks it's userbases are toddlers. We would be decades ahead if it wasn't for the dumbing down of computers my microsoft.
He had plenty of his own code floating around DOS, and DOS was the base for consumer-grade Windows up until XP, so he was in both. I don't like Bill these days, but at the time, he was a legend.
>nt was derivative of vat/vax/vms, build by employees billy poached from them
Can't blame Gates for that one. Digital had cancelled the PRISM/MICA project, so Dave Cutler was pissed and wanted out. When Gates tried to hire him, Cutler said he'd only take the offer if Microsoft hired his team as well. (see: "Showstopper!" by G. Pascal Zachary)
He was first to market. Nothing he did was extraordinary except for his charity work. Everything contribution he created would have come along in 6-12 months by another random in his garage.
He wasn't. In fact Microsoft DOS was never taken seriously by anybody who's literate. I read that most academics were mocking DOS and its inferiority compared to even half baked academic projects
Everything about MS-DOS sucked ass and that transferred to NT. He realized something early on, people don't pick operating systems. They "pick" software suites and use whatever OS is supporting them. DOS and even early Windows were important simply because of what the business world was doing.
>pseudo intellectual "academics" coping, seething and dilating over the fact that a crude real-mode monotasking OS became so popular and important that almost every modern PC still includes backwards compatibility code for it
It's not like the academics were pretentious, DOS was really a buggy primitive toy compared to the rest of the industry. Tells you that the success of a tech business has mostly nothing to do with engineering actually even if the product itself is as deeply entrenched in engineering such OSes.
>muh primitive
It had to be primitive to not bog down the hardware of the time. The "academics" thought that everyone could just buy a $20000 unix mainframe to do their word processing and play games on. homosexuals.
Don't forget that Bill's mom was friends with IBM's CEO John Opel (both were United Way committee members). If it wasn't for this connection, I doubt IBM would have taken a chance on them.
It's called networking retard. People literally tell you to do it. Not anyone else's fault you and your good-for-nothing parents wasted your lives being mediocre nobodies.
You realize a conman could contribute just as much as a programmer? It's actions that shape the flow, you don't have to know how to build a gun to use it to change history.
Gates did a lot in the early days of Msoft, I can't deny that. Msoft itself payed a lot of otherwise experience lacking but capable people a ton of $$$ and you can hate yur nonphree software all you want but Windows and Msoft programs have contributed a lot to making work easier.
He also stole a lot of code, ruined lives, and used his Masonic rich and connected family to secure deals for his company that he didn't deserve when much better alternatives were already there.
>He allowed the PC Clone makers to thrive and create an accidental open platform.
That was the first step, sure. But it was still "the IBM PC" because IBM set the hardware standards. It only became "the PC", free from IBM's hold, when Compaq led the clone makers to revolt against their Micro Channel plans.
Also MCA was a fucking hassle from hell that required specific files for every MCA device that embedded itself in the BIOS etc..
Not a very good standard at all
>MCA and EISA got BTFO by PCI
Of course no standard lasts forever, but EISA was still alive in the late 90s (especially on servers) while MCA flopped. The point is, IBM was not in charge of the PC anymore.
> doesn't know
billy g made his fortune and name off of selling BASIC, not just for PC but a whole bunch of other systems. some of them became hugely iconic, especially the c64 that sold in record numbers that still haven't been beaten. without billy's BASIC they probably would have tanked.
Investor pay autistic programmer.
Autistic programmer makes program.
Marketing person does marketing.
Investor gets money.
Everyone makes money, the investor gets back more, because he was the founder/the risk taker.
show your flag
Digits 🙂
why are you even asking?
this
why would it even matter
he's a richfag and you're not
>Did he ever really contribute to tech
DOS & Windows
>DOS & Windows
they have set bet humanity decades
Yeah right,... It's the useful and productive OS that has set humanity back by decades.
Not smartphones which most of them are using Linux in the form of "android"
>Yeah right,... It's the useful and productive OS that has set humanity back by decades.
>useful
>productive
just b/c you are too stupid and tech illiterate to use anything else, doesn't make windows useful. It has 0 capabilities to actual use a computer like one can back in the day, terminal is shit, and powershell is a meme. It treats window as first class citizens b/c it thinks it's userbases are toddlers. We would be decades ahead if it wasn't for the dumbing down of computers my microsoft.
what are you missing
I mean there was MacOS 8 and nextstep at the same time so I guess it wasn't all so bad.
he didn't write any code for either of those
>he didn't write any code for either of those
Okay scitzo.
he hasn't written anything since DONKEY.BAS
Prove it
He had plenty of his own code floating around DOS, and DOS was the base for consumer-grade Windows up until XP, so he was in both. I don't like Bill these days, but at the time, he was a legend.
he created a variant of BASIC for ibm pc, and a compiler for it iirc
dos was purchased,
nt was derivative of vat/vax/vms, build by employees billy poached from them
>nt was derivative of vat/vax/vms, build by employees billy poached from them
Can't blame Gates for that one. Digital had cancelled the PRISM/MICA project, so Dave Cutler was pissed and wanted out. When Gates tried to hire him, Cutler said he'd only take the offer if Microsoft hired his team as well. (see: "Showstopper!" by G. Pascal Zachary)
He was first to market. Nothing he did was extraordinary except for his charity work. Everything contribution he created would have come along in 6-12 months by another random in his garage.
He wasn't. In fact Microsoft DOS was never taken seriously by anybody who's literate. I read that most academics were mocking DOS and its inferiority compared to even half baked academic projects
>I read that most academics were mocking DOS and its inferiority compared to even half baked academic projects
they still do this
Everything about MS-DOS sucked ass and that transferred to NT. He realized something early on, people don't pick operating systems. They "pick" software suites and use whatever OS is supporting them. DOS and even early Windows were important simply because of what the business world was doing.
>pseudo intellectual "academics" coping, seething and dilating over the fact that a crude real-mode monotasking OS became so popular and important that almost every modern PC still includes backwards compatibility code for it
It's not like the academics were pretentious, DOS was really a buggy primitive toy compared to the rest of the industry. Tells you that the success of a tech business has mostly nothing to do with engineering actually even if the product itself is as deeply entrenched in engineering such OSes.
>muh primitive
It had to be primitive to not bog down the hardware of the time. The "academics" thought that everyone could just buy a $20000 unix mainframe to do their word processing and play games on. homosexuals.
Yes they were. They were also out of touch because they were playing with someone else's toys that they never paid for.
>>He was first to market.
>BASIC and CP/M existed before M-BASIC and MS-DOS were a thing
This
IBM ended up with Microsoft because Kildall was out of town when IBM knocked on his door to use CP/M for their new IBM PC
probably also offered worse terms for them
Don't forget that Bill's mom was friends with IBM's CEO John Opel (both were United Way committee members). If it wasn't for this connection, I doubt IBM would have taken a chance on them.
>"""friends"""
It's called networking retard. People literally tell you to do it. Not anyone else's fault you and your good-for-nothing parents wasted your lives being mediocre nobodies.
Well he didn't write dos I know that much.
Watch the movie pirates of silicon valley, it's a fun movie old movie about early apple and microsoft.
You realize a conman could contribute just as much as a programmer? It's actions that shape the flow, you don't have to know how to build a gun to use it to change history.
Neither.
Steve Jobs was to Steve Wozniak as Bill Gates was to Paul Allen.
Gates did a lot in the early days of Msoft, I can't deny that. Msoft itself payed a lot of otherwise experience lacking but capable people a ton of $$$ and you can hate yur nonphree software all you want but Windows and Msoft programs have contributed a lot to making work easier.
He also stole a lot of code, ruined lives, and used his Masonic rich and connected family to secure deals for his company that he didn't deserve when much better alternatives were already there.
Not even memeing I'd fuck her. She'd make a hell of a sugar mama too.
>My Computar
Another example of being financially cucked by your wife
The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.
Altair Basic was the only genuine contribution of Bill Gates.
He did contribute to tech by being a conman.
He allowed the PC Clone makers to thrive and create an accidental open platform.
>He allowed the PC Clone makers to thrive and create an accidental open platform.
That was the first step, sure. But it was still "the IBM PC" because IBM set the hardware standards. It only became "the PC", free from IBM's hold, when Compaq led the clone makers to revolt against their Micro Channel plans.
Yes, but to that to happen, they used MS-DOS and Windows, which Bill G sold behind ibm's back
But if it wasn't for Compaq, if Micro Channel had become the industry standard, all clone makers would have to pay IBM to make clones.
Neither won.
MCA and EISA got BTFO by PCI
Also MCA was a fucking hassle from hell that required specific files for every MCA device that embedded itself in the BIOS etc..
Not a very good standard at all
>MCA and EISA got BTFO by PCI
Of course no standard lasts forever, but EISA was still alive in the late 90s (especially on servers) while MCA flopped. The point is, IBM was not in charge of the PC anymore.
single handedly delayed technology for at least a hundred years with his shitty stolen operating system
not true
there is linux
true, linux is useful enough to have delayed it by several hundred
> doesn't know
billy g made his fortune and name off of selling BASIC, not just for PC but a whole bunch of other systems. some of them became hugely iconic, especially the c64 that sold in record numbers that still haven't been beaten. without billy's BASIC they probably would have tanked.