Did Bill Gates ever really contribute to tech or was he just another conman?

Did he ever really contribute to tech or was he just another conman?

  1. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Investor pay autistic programmer.
    Autistic programmer makes program.
    Marketing person does marketing.
    Investor gets money.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Everyone makes money, the investor gets back more, because he was the founder/the risk taker.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        show your flag

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Digits 🙂

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    why are you even asking?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      this
      why would it even matter
      he's a richfag and you're not

  3. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Did he ever really contribute to tech
    DOS & Windows

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >DOS & Windows
      they have set bet humanity decades

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        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"

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >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.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            what are you missing

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        I mean there was MacOS 8 and nextstep at the same time so I guess it wasn't all so bad.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      he didn't write any code for either of those

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >he didn't write any code for either of those
        Okay scitzo.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          he hasn't written anything since DONKEY.BAS

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Prove it

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        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.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >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)

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I read that most academics were mocking DOS and its inferiority compared to even half baked academic projects
        they still do this

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >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

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes they were. They were also out of touch because they were playing with someone else's toys that they never paid for.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >>He was first to market.
      >BASIC and CP/M existed before M-BASIC and MS-DOS were a thing

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        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

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          probably also offered worse terms for them

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"""friends"""

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Neither.

  8. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Steve Jobs was to Steve Wozniak as Bill Gates was to Paul Allen.

  9. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  10. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not even memeing I'd fuck her. She'd make a hell of a sugar mama too.

  11. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >My Computar

  12. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Another example of being financially cucked by your wife

  13. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.

  14. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Altair Basic was the only genuine contribution of Bill Gates.

  15. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    He did contribute to tech by being a conman.
    He allowed the PC Clone makers to thrive and create an accidental open platform.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, but to that to happen, they used MS-DOS and Windows, which Bill G sold behind ibm's back

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            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

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >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.

  16. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    single handedly delayed technology for at least a hundred years with his shitty stolen operating system

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      not true
      there is linux

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        true, linux is useful enough to have delayed it by several hundred

  17. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    > 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.

Your email address will not be published.