Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates Remembers 1979

Hugh Pickens writes "Last week Gizmodo had a special celebration of 1979, the last year before a digital tsunami hit, that put Bill Gates in a nostalgic mood this week. Bill chimed in with his own memories of that seminal year when everything changed. 'In 1979, Microsoft had 13 employees, most of whom appear in that famous picture that provides indisputable proof that your average computer geek from the late 1970s was not exactly on the cutting edge of fashion,' wrote Gates. 'By the end of the year we'd doubled in size to 28 employees. Even though we were doing pretty well, I was still kind of terrified by the rapid pace of hiring and worried that the bottom could fall out at any time.' What made Gates feel a little more confident was that he began to sense that BASIC was on the verge of becoming the standard language for microcomputers. 'By the middle of 1979, BASIC was running on more than 200,000 Z-80 and 8080 machines and we were just releasing a new version for the 8086 16-bit microprocessor. As the numbers grew, we were starting to think beyond programming languages, too, and about the possibility of creating applications that would have real mass appeal to consumers.' Gates remembers that in 1979 there were only 100 different software products that had more than $100 M in annual sales and all of them were for mainframes. 'In April, the 8080 version of BASIC became the first software product built to run on microprocessors to win an ICP Million Dollar Award. Today, I would be surprised if the number of million-dollar applications isn't in the millions itself' writes Gates. 'More important, of course, is the fact that more than a billion people around the world use computers and digital technology as an integral part of their day-to-day lives. That's something that really started to take shape in 1979.'"

310 comments

  1. Dr. Who by billy901 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sweet. Just go back to 1979 and we can prevent it all!

    --
    Please visit http://www.mederbil.com/ i7, GTX 275, 4 1TB Caviar Green in RAID 0+1 array, EVGA X58 3X SLI Board, Silver
    1. Re:Dr. Who by shacky003 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have to get this thing up to 88mph, right?

    2. Re:Dr. Who by GeorgeStone22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Arg. I don't care how shit you think the Windows OS is, Gates' philanthropy is worth it.

    3. Re:Dr. Who by SmackTheIgnorant · · Score: 1

      If you go back in time and prevent Microsoft... then we'll all be using Apples, Amigas, or worse: OS/2 will have caught on... Jebus save us!

    4. Re:Dr. Who by hedwards · · Score: 1, Troll

      It's easy to assume that the money wouldn't have been donated otherwise, but it's really hard to say for sure, and Gates' fortune is chump change compared with the many, many billions that have been lost to the products bugs, sluggishness and security problems.

    5. Re:Dr. Who by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      And a lightning bolt. You need the lightning bolt to charge the flux capacitor, unless you happen to have a fusion reactor on hand....

    6. Re:Dr. Who by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you sure of that? If it weren't for Windows' stranglehold, OS design would be probably a decade ahead of where it is now, millions of man-hours would not have been lost to fixing/cleaning up malware/etc, and we'd all probably be a little bit richer. Is one multi-billionaire philanthropist worth a thousand multi-millionaire philanthropists?

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    7. Re:Dr. Who by fprintf · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just don't also decide to go back and take care of Hitler. Everyone does that their first time and it is annoying to have to go back and fix it.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    8. Re:Dr. Who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, isn't that convenient. I happen to have a Mr. Fusion right here!

    9. Re:Dr. Who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, mathematically, yes.

    10. Re:Dr. Who by Darkness404 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      It depends though, some of us might be richer, however some of us might be poorer because we made a lot of money doing tech support with issues that wouldn't have been there if it wasn't for Windows. Now, I don't think this is an excuse for how buggy Windows is, but its an interesting aspect.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    11. Re:Dr. Who by stms · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is one multi-billionaire philanthropist worth a thousand multi-millionaire philanthropists?

      Yes one multi-billionaire philanthropist is worth exactly a thousand multi-millionaire philanthropists.

    12. Re:Dr. Who by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      If you go back in time and prevent Microsoft... then we'll all be using Apples, Amigas, or worse: OS/2 will have caught on...
      Jebus save us!

      I'm not so sure. If it wasn't for DOS, CP/M would still fit the bill - likely setting forward the chain of events that lead to clones and commodity platforms.

    13. Re:Dr. Who by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Is this article a nostalgia peice for 8080 computers, or is it fanboy worship of the Great God Gates? Or, someone misses Basic?

      I see nothing here worth reading, to be honest.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    14. Re:Dr. Who by GeorgeStone22 · · Score: 1

      Erm, when it comes to something as global as computing systems, segregation will never work.
      You need compatibility, ease of use, and cost effectiveness.
      This basically means one OS was always going to come out dominant.
      What about if it was Apple's OS? Would we be decades behind when it comes to hardware design?

      There's a lot of what ifs and maybes in what you say, no, spew.

    15. Re:Dr. Who by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you sure of that? If it weren't for Windows' stranglehold, OS design would be probably a decade ahead of where it is now, millions of man-hours would not have been lost to fixing/cleaning up malware/etc, and we'd all probably be a little bit richer. Is one multi-billionaire philanthropist worth a thousand multi-millionaire philanthropists?

      Do you also think that Billavius Gatus the axe-maker's axe market domination prevented the advancement of the axe for 3000 years? In other words, do you honestly believe that success stifles progress?

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    16. Re:Dr. Who by confused+one · · Score: 1

      I tend to agree with that idea. DOS was the upstart (and initially a poor clone) and CP/M was entrenched. It could have become the foundation if not for a shrewd move by B. Gates and company.

    17. Re:Dr. Who by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "OS design would be probably a decade ahead"

      I tend to agree with that. BUT, maybe not. I hate Gates, but when you start talking about "What if?" no one can know. If Gates hadn't come along to help popularize computers, it's possible that we wouldn't be as far along now as we are. Whatever else Gates did, right and wrong, he DID help to make it easy for your average dimwit to get started in computing. Ultimately, his actions made helped to make computers look desirable to a lot of people who would never have considered spending hard earned money a computer.

      Let's be honest about the state of computing 30 years ago. Most computers came in a console format, which was often regarded as a gaming system, or a word processor. 30 years ago, I had no use for a word processor, and the going price for any 8080 (and later the 8088) was just to damned much for someone like me to spend on a toy.

      BECAUSE Gates and others had the vision of a putting an affordable computer in every home, millions of youngsters today have the opportunity to learn, who may not have been exposed to comptuers unti they reached college age.

      Again, I'm no fan of Gates - but let's give the devil his due, alright?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    18. Re:Dr. Who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see nothing here worth reading, to be honest.

      And yet you read it and made a comment. The only thing here not worth reading so far was your post.

    19. Re:Dr. Who by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe it would be. Maybe, though, that whole "computer stuff" would not have taken off as it did and computers would still be the toys of geeks because nobody else could figure them out, the internet would still be the geeks' meeting place because nobody else could figure out how to connect to it...

      Say about MS what you want, but they knew how to make things easy for the masses. You could connect to the internet using Windows a decade ago without knowing whether TCP/IP was a protocol or the abbreviation for the Chinese secret service.

      Yes, it would have been better for the quality of the 'net if these people never found their way in. But computer prices depend on the number of units sold, and development depends on return of investment. I'm not so sure if the microprocessor was where it is today if you couldn't sell the number of units you can sell because "everyone" uses computers, mostly for recreation.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:Dr. Who by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      Erm, when it comes to something as global as automobiles, segregation will never work.

      You need compatibility, ease of use, and cost effectiveness.

      This basically means one car manufacturer was always going to come out dominant.

    21. Re:Dr. Who by thelexx · · Score: 1

      So the ends justify the means then? Wow.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    22. Re:Dr. Who by Bourbonium · · Score: 1

      Sorry to disagree with you, but I would have no problem at all living in a world where OS/2 was the rival OS to Apple and Amiga. OS/2 Warp 3.0 was my first deeply personal experience with x86 computers, the platform I installed on my first home-brewed 486-class PC that ran a BBS out of my home (well, second, if you count the years I used an Atari ST). It was a great system and gave me the tools I needed to find a job in the tech industry. I still have (and frequently wear) my old Team OS/2 tee shirt.

    23. Re:Dr. Who by Coffee+Warlord · · Score: 1

      Ahem, isn't plutonium available at every corner drug store nowadays?

    24. Re:Dr. Who by Bluesman · · Score: 1

      Taking this a bit further; there had to be a de-facto standard for home computers before they were adopted by the masses. Just like Blu-ray and HD-DVD can't co-exist, and Beta and VHS before that, etc. The majority of people won't participate until there's a clear winner.

      Gates was lucky to be there at the right time on the right platform, and his ruthlessness ensured that Microsoft would be a standard. If it weren't him, it would have been someone else.

      But until that happened, there wasn't the same relentless drive for faster, better, cheaper computers that we take for granted today. The Commodore 64 was popular for years with identical hardware. The scale of the market didn't support constant research and development of faster consumer hardware.

      Even if there's no other reason to like Microsoft, just be thankful it wasn't Apple that become the standard. It could have been a lot worse.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    25. Re:Dr. Who by ThePlague · · Score: 0

      Only if roads only worked for one particular type of car. In this case, the "road" is applications, and if the cost of being successful was to develop on multiple platforms at the same time then we would see a lot less development occurring. Look at PC gaming. Even with a dedicated fanbase and enthusiastic support, Linux has never become a gaming platform. Why? Because it's not worth the cost of porting already existing games, let alone developing specifically for that platform. If there were many competing OS's, you'd see this problem across a broad spectrum of application classes.

    26. Re:Dr. Who by imakemusic · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you're American, yeah. If you're british it's a bit more complicated.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    27. Re:Dr. Who by Rennt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Worth it indeed. The fact that he has accumulated more wealth then you could spend in 100 lifetimes; so deigns to donate a fraction of it on his pet-charities, speaks volumes of the chronic failure of our economic system.

    28. Re:Dr. Who by willyd357 · · Score: 1

      What about if it was Apple's OS? Would we be decades behind when it comes to hardware design?

      I really don't think would have been possible. The very fact that Apple's OS was tied to it's hardware is what prevented it from becoming he de-facto standard.

      That having been said, if MS hadn't become the dominant platform, then it would have been(IMHO) either IBM's OS/2(yes I know that MS was responsible for a great deal of it's early development), or some evolution of Digital Research's Concurrent DOS in combination with GEM.

      Then again, with MS out of the picture that early on, a Unix-like OS may have taken over. But, as big a Linux fanboy as I am, I just don't see the DOS standard being supplanted that easily. Even MS had to gradually win people over to the NT platform, and they weren't fully successful until XP was released.

    29. Re:Dr. Who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Gates hadn't come along to help popularize computers, it's possible that we wouldn't be as far along now as we are.

      I just can't let that go.
      Bill Gates took an advantage of a situation. He did almost nothing to help popularize computers (at that time. Later he did help to further "popularize" them by dumbing software down so it could be easier for someone who didn't know what they were doing to do what the OS thought you wanted to do, while making it harder to do real work efficiently).
      Personal computers were already becoming popular when Gates jumped on the PC bandwagon and sold IBM an "off-the-shelf" OS that he didn't own. It was IBM's decision to make a personal computer with COTS parts and a relatively open design that jump started the IBM Compatible PC clone market, not the OS. IBM did that to compete with the already healthy Apple, Commodore, etc. market. Since they saw it as a less desirable low-end market, they decided to make it on the cheap by throwing cheap parts and cheap software (relatively cheap for the times) at it as an experiment at quick and dirty development.
      IBM had the business clout (no one ever got fired for buying IBM) to sell IBM PCs to the workplace, and thus made them the defacto standard for people who wanted to also have a PC at home.

    30. Re:Dr. Who by hitmark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      only that he seems to run his philanthropy like he ran microsoft.

      was there not something on /. a while back about the gates foundation requiring exclusivity agreements from scientists its sponsored?

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    31. Re:Dr. Who by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Funny

      87mph ought to be enough for anyone.

    32. Re:Dr. Who by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of IE6?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    33. Re:Dr. Who by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      That was a very unwise thing to admit, Mr. Ahmadinejad. Yes?

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    34. Re:Dr. Who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sucking countries struggling to get out of poverty dry by starting to enforce copyrights while letting piracy have it's marry way to lock people in... Then giving the money to pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs to suck those same countries dry with patents....

    35. Re:Dr. Who by operagost · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's something like one billet to a thousand Millard Fillmores.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    36. Re:Dr. Who by arose · · Score: 3, Insightful

      BECAUSE Gates and others had the vision of a putting an affordable computer in every home [..]

      Gates vision doesn't matter, it was IBM-PC clone makers who made it possible. It could have been any OS that could run games, ANY.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    37. Re:Dr. Who by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Well, I can't mod up your comment so I'll just say this is one of the funniest and less predictable remark I read on /. lately. Keep up the good work ;-)

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    38. Re:Dr. Who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, Gates is part of the problem: we are incapable of building a foolproof computer system, yet insist on selling them to...

      If Gates hadn't been there someone else would have.

    39. Re:Dr. Who by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      OS/2 wouldn't exist. We would be using something derived from GEM on something derived from CP/M-86 instead.

    40. Re:Dr. Who by SpinyNorman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      BECAUSE Gates and others had the vision of a putting an affordable computer in every home, millions of youngsters today have the opportunity to learn, who may not have been exposed to comptuers unti they reached college age.

      Huh?

      How do you figure Microsoft had anything to do with it?

      First off, IBM PCs and clones were originally for business use. For home use people used Apple ][, TRS-80, Commodore PET Sinclair ZX-80, Acorn BBC micro, etc, etc. Nothing to do with IBM or Microsoft.

      The idea of making computers based on commodity hardware and open standards wasn't new to the IBM PC (and had nothing to do with Microsoft). Before the IBM PC + DOS standard there was the S-100 bus and CP/M.

      If Microsoft had never existed it'd just mean that IBM chose another OS for the IBM PC, or obtained DOS direct from Seattle computer rather than via Microsoft. If the IBM PC never took off then the existing S-100 + CP/M would have continued until something better came long. And in the meantime the hobbyists would still be running all the other computers being produced by everyone else!

    41. Re:Dr. Who by Nyall · · Score: 1

      By being a billionaire he is famous and under the peer pressure from the rest of society to be a philanthropist. If he wasn't giving away his money he'd go down in history as as the biggest scrooge to ever walk the earth.

      Also each of those multi-millionaire's probably has to cover the cost of living some extravagant lifestyle. So if that billionaire has a lifestyle 1000 * millionaire's lifestyle, then yes, it is better to have one billionaire.

      --
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
    42. Re:Dr. Who by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, back then they were starting to get a lock on BASIC. Their BASIC was usually better than the BASIC that might have come from the computer manufacturer AND they had a Microsoft Basic for just about every machine. This was before the deal with IBM. Back then IBM was considered evil and Microsoft good. How time and money change things? All kids could use BASIC a little bit. You might have even had the chance back then to write something useful with it. Yep, they were getting a lock on the micro computer language market. You could get the source code to just about anything. M$ now is running into the very same problem every tech company since the beginning has been in. They are too big. Google is even getting that way and they don't seem as good as they once did back in 1998 either.

    43. Re:Dr. Who by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Wow - a WHOLE decade ago?

      MacTCP came out in 1988.

    44. Re:Dr. Who by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Imagine if the Macintosh operating system had become the popular one instead. People would be laughing at it as the fail OS instead of Windows. Ie, cooperative multitasking, no memory protection, the hack of extensions (as kludgy as TSRs) etc. It had the advantage of being much easier to use than DOS and later Windows 3.1, but underneath it all it wasn't so pretty.

      Apple and Microsoft essentially sold the same style of product using similar philosophies. They sold something that would run shrink wrapped applications, but the skeleton underneath was ignored for a long time and wasn't something the average consumer should be concerned with.

      The mainframe/mini operating systems had a different philosophy. These weren't for average consumers, but for trained computing and IT professionals. The customers used the computers for more serious work and custom/customized applications were the norm. Thus performance, time sharing, security, scalability, automation, etc, were important.

    45. Re:Dr. Who by Darinbob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The idea of making computers based on commodity hardware and open standards wasn't new to the IBM PC (and had nothing to do with Microsoft). Before the IBM PC + DOS standard there was the S-100 bus and CP/M.

      IBM didn't have much at all to do with standards. When it tried (the PS/2) it was mostly ignored. Even the clone makers weren't really about standards so much for a long time, as what resulted were defacto standards as the clone makers just tried to be compatible with each other while being just one step ahead.

    46. Re:Dr. Who by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      We could have fed starving children instead of developing a space program too.

      In hindsight though, knowing all of the technological advances the space program has given us, you'd be a madman to suggest we made a bad decision.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    47. Re:Dr. Who by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      A common misconception, but no, we still use the same billion as the Americans. Possibly things were different back in 1979, I don't know.

    48. Re:Dr. Who by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't get me wrong, I think Windows is the best OS of offerings today, but please let's not rewrite history:

      If Gates hadn't come along to help popularize computers

      He did what now? Back in the 80s there were loads of other platforms, not to mention lots of hardware companies popularising the PC.

      Whatever else Gates did, right and wrong, he DID help to make it easy for your average dimwit to get started in computing.

      Since when? In the 80s and 90s, Windows was pretty much playing catch-up with things like ease of use and GUIs.

      BECAUSE Gates and others had the vision of a putting an affordable computer in every home

      Yes, others, lots of others. IBM deserve credit for the PC, and even then, there were lots of other companies with other computers.

      In fact, the idea of the PC as being affordable and in the home came fairly late. For the 80s and early 90s, they were business machines, and occupied a high price point. The home market was dominated by a range of other computer platforms, many of which were low cost and affordable, unlike PCs. And none of them ran anything from Microsoft (well, unless you count Microsoft Amiga Basic, but it's probably best for all that we forget that disaster...)

    49. Re:Dr. Who by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whilst a "standard" has its advantages, unfortunately Microsoft aren't comparable to other standards. Can anyone come along and write their Windows compatible OS? Are there other companies doing so? No. It would be like if there was only one company that could make VHS or Blu-Ray, or if all computers were made by IBM.

      But until that happened, there wasn't the same relentless drive for faster, better, cheaper computers that we take for granted today. The Commodore 64 was popular for years with identical hardware. The scale of the market didn't support constant research and development of faster consumer hardware.

      Firstly, this has nothing to do with the OS, and hence Microsoft. The credit would be to the PC - the open nature meant companies were continually improving it. However, even there you are wrong to say computers didn't improve on other platforms. There was a continual improvement of computers, from simple 1K computers, through increasingly powerful 8 bits, then 16 bit and 32 bit platforms like the Amiga. And anyway, the PC had discrete generations too, such as 086, 286, 386, or the graphics standards. The only difference was that there were a lot more models.

      Even if there's no other reason to like Microsoft, just be thankful it wasn't Apple that become the standard. It could have been a lot worse.

      I agree here!

    50. Re:Dr. Who by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Micro-Soft were definitely in the right place at the right time and made the right move. But part of that was due to Digital Research's mis-steps. QDOS existed because CP/M-86 didn't (yet) - without that, MS wouldn't have had anything to sell to IBM. In turn, IBM wouldn't have been looking around for something if Digital Research hadn't frustrated IBM's attempts to license CP/M-86 (I really get the impression that something was holding up CP/M-86 development and everything was a holding tactic that lead to a lost opportunity - but I have no evidence to back that up). And then once CP/M-86 made it to the IBM-PC, it was inordinately more expensive than PCDOS / MSDOS.

      The reason DOS was so important was that it was one of the gatekeepers to a commodity platform. When Compaq set out to produce a better IBM-PC than IBM, they needed to maintain compatibility. Being able to license the same underlying OS that IBM used for their products was a big step towards doing that.

      I don't see any reason CP/M wouldn't have offered the same environment DOS did. I've seen Gates credited with being astute enough to retain a non-exclusive contract with IBM for DOS (which was indeed important - and a very good move). But Digital Research's business model with CP/M was very much multi-platform and non-exclusive. If talks with IBM hadn't broken down and CP/M-86 was available, then I have no doubt that Compaq would have been licensing CP/M-86 for their first IBM-PC clones, blazing the path for every other clone shop to follow.

    51. Re:Dr. Who by westlake · · Score: 1

      If it weren't for Windows' stranglehold, OS design would be probably a decade ahead of where it is now

      Linux isn't to be found anywhere on site. But Walmart.com lists 53 desktops and 43 laptops eligible for a free upgrade to Win 7.

      The most interesting, perhaps, is a $1300 64 Bit Vista Toshiba Satellite with a 64 GB SSD and 320 GB HDD. 4/8 GB RAM.

      [The cheapest Walmart netbook is a $238 Win XP Acer with 512 MB RAM and an 8 GB SSD.]

      Win 98 SE was released in May 1999.

      I don't know how the consumer OS advances faster than the commodity tech it both advances and supports.

      I don't see Linux and OSX as being a decade ahead of Win 7 - despite following their own line of development.

      _____

      US-based outfit to distribute three million laptops to poor Indian rural kids

         

    52. Re:Dr. Who by treeves · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that one billion donated carefully is always going to be more *efficient* than one million donated a thousand times. The recipient only has to report to one person instead of to a thousand people, etc.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    53. Re:Dr. Who by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      In other words, do you honestly believe that success stifles progress?

      No, but monopolies do.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    54. Re:Dr. Who by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay what's so special about 1979? It's not as if PCs didn't exist prior to that point. Wasn't the Apple II released two years earlier? And Atari 400/800 PCs one year earlier. Contrary to Gate's revisionist history, the revolution did not start with Microsoft.

      Even a year later in 1980 the world wasn't really any different - people still watched analog television recorded onto analog VHS tapes (or Betamax). Some had laserdiscs which were... also analog... or RCA videorecords that used 100-year-old needle technology.

      Sorry but I don't see 1979 as any "magic" date. A more pivotal moment, IMHO, is 1994 when Microsoft finally succeeded in killing-off its competition: Atari, Commodore, and Apple (almost) leaving itself as the virtual monopoly.

      Other pivotal moments:

      - 1980 was when Usenet was born. It allowed people to connect to local free BBSes and yet talk to other human beings across an entire nation, and even around the world, about various subjects such as rec.arts.startrek. It was the text-only precursor to the modern web. (Another similar organization was FidoNet discussion groups.)

      - 1982 the year Commodore introduced a ~$100 PC that eventually sold 30 million units and brought computing to the home. The C=64.

      - 1984 when Apple introduced the mouse-based OS. What had been a text-only world quickly turned graphical as everyone scrambled to create Mac-like OS clones in 1985.

      - 1985 Commodore/Amiga introduced the world's first multimedia PC (i.e. it could play CD-quality music and photorealistic video). Also preemptive multitasking and coprocessing. The Amiga 500 eventually became the second-best selling computer (after the C=64).

      - 1993 Mosaic - the first web browser usable on home PCs. Mosaic turned the web from an academic experiment into a new medium used by common people. It eventually evolved into the Netscape browser.

      - 1995 - Microsoft finally produced a usable Windows. They did it by abanoding their old cluttered groups philosophy, and basically copying the Mac OS (trashcan, a usable desktop, and a finder for task-switching). It was also the second OS with the ability to do preemptive multitasking (the first being the Amiga ten years earlier).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    55. Re:Dr. Who by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      [...] the many, many billions that have been lost to the products bugs, sluggishness and security problems.

      The much harder assumption is that this wouldn't have happened anyway. It's not like history isn't littered with non-Microsoft software that's buggy, sluggish and insecure.

    56. Re:Dr. Who by drsmithy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If it weren't for Windows' stranglehold, OS design would be probably a decade ahead of where it is now [...]

      Evidence ? Ideas ? What alternatives are you looking at that are meaningfully better than Windows ? Linux and FreeBSD are just slavish reimplementations of an OS that's been around since the sixties, and the only somewhat "new" feature OS X brought to the table (Quartz) was a clear and obvious evolution existing technologies (video acceleration and display postscript).

    57. Re:Dr. Who by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      You need compatibility, ease of use, and cost effectiveness.

      Automobiles only need to be "compatible" with the road, an energy source and safety regulations. The same is not true at all of computers, which also need to be compatible with each other.

    58. Re:Dr. Who by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be alive if it weren't for Hitler.

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    59. Re:Dr. Who by dave87656 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was also the second OS with the ability to do preemptive multitasking (the first being the Amiga ten years earlier).

      Xenix had been around since the 1980. Coherent since 1980. These were true preemtive multi-tasking operating systems that ran on PC hardware.

    60. Re:Dr. Who by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      Arg. I don't care how shit you think the Windows OS is, Gates' philanthropy is worth it.

      I appreciate Gate's philanthropy but he gives less percentage of his wealth than many average Americans. Still, he is devoting his time to some important causes which I think is great.

    61. Re:Dr. Who by SlashWombat · · Score: 1

      It's obviously the year that the IBM PC took off. Microsoft produced basics for many different computer manufacturers prior to getting really big off the back of IBM. Forget about the Apples, as they were really only gaming consoles, and had a very strange operating system.

    62. Re:Dr. Who by You+ain't+seen+me! · · Score: 1

      Okay what's so special about 1979?

      Sorry but I don't see 1979 as any "magic" date.

      Special? I got my rocks off for the first time in 79 - she was pure magic

      Opps, I'm on /. here and I'm thinking of girls.

    63. Re:Dr. Who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

        It was also the second OS with the ability to do preemptive multitasking (the first being the Amiga ten years earlier).

      OS/2?

    64. Re:Dr. Who by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      If you read the CONTEXT of the message, you'll see I was discussing HOME computers. In fact I even said "brought to the home" in the Commodore/Amiga sections. Xenix was mostly-confined to academics, not the home.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    65. Re:Dr. Who by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      1987 is when IBM PC and clones rose to number one.

      Prior to that the number one sellers were the Commodore 64 (1983-86) and Atari 800 (1979-82). Although even in 1987 it was not clear that IBM PCs would eventually "win" the war. Many people still thought Commodore, Atari, or Apple could kill-off the IBM PC if they just found the right killer ap..... like video and sound. With the Commodore Amiga being used to produce television shows and Disney movies, and the PC unable to do the same, the Amiga looked set to replace the PC... at least from the perspective of someone living during that time.

      Anyway...

      1994 is when Atari/Commodore's computer divisions filed bankruptcy, the Apple company was teetering on the brink, and it was absolutely clear that the IBM PC WinTel clones would hold a virtual monopoly from that moment forward. I sadly bought my first PC in 1998.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    66. Re:Dr. Who by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      I was using Xenix at home in the late 80s on a 286 computer. It may have been designed for academics but it was build for a typical home PC of the time. Coherent was strictly designed for the home PC user.

    67. Re:Dr. Who by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      In other words, do you honestly believe that success stifles progress?

      No, but monopolies do.

      Citation needed. Especially since the most famous monopoly split up in US history did exactly that; stifled communication progress for 30 years. Also, I do not think that word means what you think it means, monopoly. Aside from your citation, please also explain how Microsoft is actually a monopoly, and not just some company you love to hate. IMHO dominating the market place is different than running the marketplace.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    68. Re:Dr. Who by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of IE6?

      Have you never heard of all the Fortune companies that run/ran their billion dollar industries on IE6? If you need a citation I can name at least one.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    69. Re:Dr. Who by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      All because "No one got fired for buying IBM." Bleh. Damn suits. Ruined everything.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    70. Re:Dr. Who by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1
      • Networking - TCP/IP, HTTP, SSH, Torrent, FTP - Check.
      • Data - XML, YAML/JSON - Check.
      • Application Programming Interface - POSIX, WINE subset of Win32, JRE, Qt, most interpreted environments - Check.
      • Drivers.
        • Graphics - Galium3D.
        • Printing and scanning - CUPS and SANE, respectively - Check.
        • USB - Lots of driver sharing in *nix land, with the exceptions on Solaris(? - AFAIK), and Mac OS X.
        • Miscellaneous - FLOSS systems are better than anyone else at this, if you want it, port it.
      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    71. Re:Dr. Who by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Citation needed.

      That monopolies stifle progress? Monopoly and Efficiency, from wikipedia. "It is often argued that monopolies tend to become less efficient and innovative over time, becoming "complacent giants", because they do not have to be efficient or innovative to compete in the marketplace."

      Also, I do not think that word means what you think it means, monopoly. Aside from your citation, please also explain how Microsoft is actually a monopoly, and not just some company you love to hate. IMHO dominating the market place is different than running the marketplace.

      I know what monopoly means. MS is a de facto monopoly. From Wikipedia, "In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it." MS has sufficient control over the end-user desktop OS market that they are a monopoly. The US DOJ won a court case saying that MS is a monopoly. I'll believe them and my own lying eyes over your opinion.

      For a demonstration of MS' monopoly, have a look at the BeOS situation. BeOS was installed as a boot option alongside Windows on certain machines, but MS threatened to withdrawal those manufacturers' ability to license Windows on dual-boot machines. BeOS remained on the hard drive, but the boot option for it was removed from the boot loader. MS forces manufacturers to disable competition on the manufacturers' machines. That's anti-competitive behavior, which they could only do because of their monopoly power.

      "A few years ago, Be's CEO Jean-Louis Gassée used the phrase "peaceful co-existence with Windows" to describe his company's intended relationship with Microsoft on the consumer's hard drive. Later, when it became clear that Microsoft had no intention of co-existing with a rival OS vendor peacefully, Gassée recanted, saying, "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense -- I deserve it." "

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    72. Re:Dr. Who by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>> It may have been designed for academics

      Precisely. Xenix wasn't intended to be used by your average Joe or Jill Consumer with a beercan in his/her hand. The Commodore Amiga was designed for such a purpose, aimed for the home market, which is why I call it the first home PC that could do preemptive multitasking.

      Next I suppose you're going to tell me that Betacam is "the first home recorder that could do component video recording," even though it was never designed for such a purpose. Betacam is strictly for professionals, like TV stations or national network studios, as evidenced by its $10,000 and higher MSRP. The true first component video recorder, intended for home users, would probably be Digital VHS.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    73. Re:Dr. Who by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. I remember my classmates bragging in the 80s that they just got a new IBM PC (or compatible clone). I always asked, "Why on earth would you do that?" when other machines made by Atari, Commodore, and Apple were so much more capable. They had music and graphics, while the PC had 16 measly colors and went "beep". The answer was always the same:

      "Because dad wanted the same thing at home that he uses in the office."

      IBM won the business market first, then they convinced workers that they should buy IBM PCs and carry their work to home. That's how the IBM PC platform came to dominate both the office and the living room, even though it was inferior to other options. (It took ten years for the IBM PC platform to catch-up to what a Commodore Amiga or Atari ST could do in 1985.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    74. Re:Dr. Who by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      Citation needed.

      That monopolies stifle progress? Monopoly and Efficiency [wikipedia.org], from wikipedia. "It is often argued that monopolies tend to become less efficient and innovative over time, becoming "complacent giants", because they do not have to be efficient or innovative to compete in the marketplace."

      Yes. Apparently it is often argued.

      I know what monopoly means. MS is a de facto monopoly. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], "In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."

      Ok, here you validate your claim of knowing the definition of monopoly by simply stating that Microsoft is a de facto monopoly (with some attempt to further that position with a quote from Wikipedia). I don't agree with your reasoning. Also, if I am the sole inventor, manufacturer, patent holder, trademark holder, copyright holder, etc.; it seems you are arguing that I should not have the right to determine the MSRP nor which retailers I may supply to. I clearly disagree with that supposition. I offer you, as evidence that Microsoft is not a Desktop OS monopoly: Apple Mac OS X, and the numerous distributions of Linux and Unix which are all perfectly capable of running as a Desktop OS.

      Since BeOS has no significance to my argument I don't feel the need to remark on it.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    75. Re:Dr. Who by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      I wonder what it would be like if IBM had dismissed the concept of a PC entirely...

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    76. Re:Dr. Who by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Ok, here you validate your claim of knowing the definition of monopoly by simply stating that Microsoft is a de facto monopoly (with some attempt to further that position with a quote from Wikipedia).

      No, I simply refuted your claim that I don't know what a monopoly is, using the same standard of evidence that you did to claim that I didn't -- simply stating so. Then, I stated that MS is a de facto monopoly. To help our discussion and make sure we weren't talking at cross points, I included a definition of monopoly.

      Also, if I am the sole inventor, manufacturer, patent holder, trademark holder, copyright holder, etc.; it seems you are arguing that I should not have the right to determine the MSRP nor which retailers I may supply to.

      I am not saying that. I don't have a problem with you negotiating terms with partners in a competitive marketplace; I have a problem with a monopolies in the marketplace, because there can be no negotiation, only dictation of terms.

      The OS is a different beast that many other consumer goods and commodities. First, it runs on a hardware platform, and secondly, end-user software runs on top of it. Typically, home users don't buy an OS because they want the OS itself; they want it because it runs on the hardware platform they purchased, and because of the applications and peripherals ( scanners, printers, wireless cards ) that run in the OS. Apple/Macintosh is not a competitor to Windows, because it does not run on the same hardware ( I'm talking about desktop computers, not 386 instruction sets ) and it does not run the same applications ( just applications that happen to have been written to be multi-platform). Linux is not truly a competitor either, because while it runs *mostly* on the same hardware ( except for certain video card drivers -- it's up to you whether you want to consider printers, scanners, and wireless adapters to be hardware platform or peripherals ), it certainly doesn't run the applications windows users want as well.

      It's well for your case that you ignore BeOS because it clearly demonstrates the monopoly power MS had to shut out competition. As long as you can ignore facts it's fairly simple to win arguments :)

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    77. Re:Dr. Who by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      You keep stating that Microsoft is a monopoly over and over so frequently I believe it's a repetition tactic. You know, you repeat something often enough and it becomes the truth for you. The last serious commercial competitor to Microsoft Windows for the desktop PC that I remember before Apple switched to the same x86 platform capable of running Windows, was IBM with OS/2. I believe the free capitalist market spoke when Windows outsold OS/2 enough that IBM pulled it from their product line.

      So, one more time (for repetition's sake!), repeating that Microsoft is a monopoly does not make it so. I believe my ability to run Mac OS/X or any linux or freebsd adds weight to my side of that argument.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    78. Re:Dr. Who by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      You keep stating that Microsoft is a monopoly over and over so frequently I believe it's a repetition tactic. You know, you repeat something often enough and it becomes the truth for you.

      Ten years ago called, and they're tapping you on the head with the receiver:

      Judge calls Microsoft a "monopoly"

      The last serious commercial competitor to Microsoft Windows for the desktop PC that I remember before Apple switched to the same x86 platform capable of running Windows, was IBM with OS/2.

      So you claim that the last competitor was OS/2, and now that MS has no competitors, it's still not a monopoly? My friend, if there is no competition, that is the definition of monopoly!

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    79. Re:Dr. Who by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      You keep stating that Microsoft is a monopoly over and over so frequently I believe it's a repetition tactic. You know, you repeat something often enough and it becomes the truth for you.

      Ten years ago called, and they're tapping you on the head with the receiver: Judge calls Microsoft a "monopoly"

      The last serious commercial competitor to Microsoft Windows for the desktop PC that I remember before Apple switched to the same x86 platform capable of running Windows, was IBM with OS/2.

      So you claim that the last competitor was OS/2, and now that MS has no competitors, it's still not a monopoly? My friend, if there is no competition, that is the definition of monopoly!

      I guess it's convenient to ignore my statements while you attempt to cement your argument. There are current competitors to Microsoft Windows, therefore it's not a monopoly. You epic failed to recognize that OS/2 was simply the last venture that was greeted with mild success, but still failed to dethrone the market leader.

      BTW, a judge may call anything anything, but I would have to take a guess and say that unless it was a ruling and it was upheld after appeal, it's just an opinion. IANAL.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
  2. In defense of Winows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft doesn't release an operating system in 5 years - people bitch. Microsoft releases a new operating system - people bitch. Microsoft's operating system drops some legacy support for some apps - people bitch. Despite Microsoft giving literally over a year of public betas for hardware vendors to get their drivers up to scratch, they don't - people bitch at Microsoft. Download Squad makes a bunch of childish remarks - everyons agrees.

    How many of you have actually used Vista on decent hardware (post-2004) and had problems with it? That doesn't include: I don't like the search features, I don't like the fact that 512 megs of my 2 gigs of ram that I don't use anyhow are taken up, I want my 5 extra frames of Counter-strike back that were way above my monitor's response time and refresh rate back.

    Been using Vista since Beta 2 and haven't had any problems aside for some Nero 7 incompatibilities (that were fixed during RC1) and some ATI driver issues during RC1. Just as stable as XP (didn't have any problems with it either, so I can't say more stable), more responsive and generally better to use.

    1. Re:In defense of Winows... by FudRucker · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      damnt shutup and dont come back until people start bitching about Windows7

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re:In defense of Winows... by its_schwim · · Score: 1

      ..... I don't like the fact that 512 megs of my 2 gigs of ram that I don't use anyhow are taken up,

      Remember people, quit your bitching. You wouldn't have used it anyway.

    3. Re:In defense of Winows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had problems with Vista on a NEW (frickin new) Dell laptop purchased in February 2009. Total crashing. Put XP on the same laptop, no issues. Dual boot with Ubuntu, no issues. Vista is and was a non-starter, not worth having around.

    4. Re:In defense of Winows... by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      That doesn't include: I don't like the search features, I don't like the fact that 512 megs of my 2 gigs of ram that I don't use anyhow are taken up, I want my 5 extra frames of Counter-strike back that were way above my monitor's response time and refresh rate back.

      I understand what you are and why I should not be responding to you, but you force a good question: Why don't those count? If I had an "upgrade" that forced uncomfortable functionality and a drop in performance (excluding hardware incompatibilities like the giant printer fiasco) on me without bringing anything new to the table (you DID just say that its just as stable as XP), AND I had to shell out $$$ for it, I'd be pissed too. Even if I didn't have to shell out $$$ for it, its something I would avoid. It was enough to make me go from KDE to Gnome.

      You're trying to make the arguement that its not that bad, when you overlook the stuff that is that bad. I counter with that a dumb terminal CLI with keyboard only interface isn't that bad, when you exclude the fact that you don't get WYSIWYG, graphic editing applications are pretty much impractical, and you have to remember long arcane command line statements to do anything, but hey, its responsive and EVEN MORE STABLE THAN XP!!!

      Oh, and I happen to use all 3 GB of my RAM, thankyouverymuch.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    5. Re:In defense of Winows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vista is using it because you're not using it. That unused RAM is used for disk caching. If that RAM is needed for programs then the OS flushes the cache and relinquishes the memory.

      Do you know what other OS does this? Linux.

    6. Re:In defense of Winows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the opposite problem on a brand new Dell Latitude. It would crash with Ubuntu running, but ran perfectly fine with Vista.

    7. Re:In defense of Winows... by DougReed · · Score: 0, Troll

      Defend Windows all you wish, but it still a stolen operating system written with stolen computer time using the universal escape character as the directory separator with a terminal shell that is still inadequate even today. If Bill Gates had gone to jail for the criminal things that he did, as he should have, and Commodore had allowed Toys 'R' Us to sell their computers, then we would have had Quadraphonic Sound, Real Time Animation, Preemptive Multitasking, and thousands of colors on our screens by 1985. Basically we would have had 80% of the computer capabilities of XP in 1985. Instead, Micro$oft legitimized criminal behavior in corporations under the label of 'marketing'. What Microsoft should be famous for is killing the concept of corporate honor.

      There is nothing to defend, and Bill Gates can go to hell.

    8. Re:In defense of Winows... by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      What's the overhead like on getting it back when I did want to use it? The 'your PC's memory should always be full, otherwise you're wasting it" argument only works if there is no memory management overhead. If there's no wait time for me to move memory content to the swap so that I can open the big photo/spreadsheet/movie/simulation/etc that actually needs that memory, then there's no problem. If I need that memory, I want it without delay. If default behavior adds delay as a norm, that's a problem. Thus, it makes sense to maintain some free ram under normal operations to account for the overhead involved in freeing up ram that I didn't explicitly ask to be occupied.

    9. Re:In defense of Winows... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "Microsoft doesn't release an operating system in 5 years - people bitch. Microsoft releases a new operating system - people bitch. Microsoft's operating system drops some legacy support for some apps - people bitch."

      Could the reason be that Gates and Ballmer are bitches?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    10. Re:In defense of Winows... by ledow · · Score: 1

      "How many of you have actually used Vista on decent hardware (post-2004) and had problems with it? That doesn't include: I don't like the search features, I don't like the fact that 512 megs of my 2 gigs of ram that I don't use anyhow are taken up, I want my 5 extra frames of Counter-strike back that were way above my monitor's response time and refresh rate back."

      Oooh, ooh, ooh, I'll take this one!

      Decent hardware - 2007 new purchase machines do you? A "viability" project for professional deployment of Dell desktops to an entire school site. We had the hardware, we just needed to choose XP vs Vista.

      "I don't like the search features" - User problem - learn the operating system or we could just provide an alternative. Nobody really uses search anyway ( 0.1% of our users had ever used the search feature).

      "I don't like the fact that 512 megs of my 2 gigs of ram that I don't use anyhow are taken up" - Erm... more like it took more RAM than we wanted it to, leading to swapping on our heavier apps (CAD, etc.)

      "I want my 5 extra frames of Counter-strike back that were way above my monitor's response time and refresh rate back." - Not an issue. In fact, if we could *cripple* 3D "games" that would have been a bonus :-)

      What we didn't like were the way it changed the network integration (our users needed to occasionally log in locally - RETRAIN), the myriad "features" that we had to go in and turn off to comply with our network policies (XP was a 3-A4 sheet of instructions to get it how we needed, Vista we hit page 5 or so before we started to give up on the idea entirely), the poorer performance on the same hardware with the latest drivers (it was late 2007, so Vista drivers should have been stabilised by then, pretty much), the destruction of a lovely simple interface, the THOUSANDS of new group policy settings (quite a few with undocumented knock-on effects) that forced us to redo all our network policies, etc. etc. etc.

      I'm not saying the problems were unsolveable (nothing's unsolveable in IT, but the fixes can get pretty damn ugly) or that we "knew" everything about Vista and weren't missing the obvious, but a team of IT people sat down with explicit instructions to "move onto Vista" and in one day of testing with an imaged machine each found enough to convince us and non-techy's above us that it was a waste of time, money and manpower.

    11. Re:In defense of Winows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, are you f*cking kidding me? well, me thinks thou be a troll but hold on a sec and let me respond one at a time:

      1. movie maker â" still too unstable to use you say⦠so how is that a good thing in windowsME? its junk software. give money bags credit for trying to look similar to the competition (i think it was a feature match to iLife on the mac) but the uselessness makes it a detriment: now i have more crap to remove before buying the 3rd party app that actually works.

      2. system restore: ok. ding you got that one right. personally i hated it, but i was a repair tech back then, i had a set of scripts to install a fresh windows OS and pull drivers, reg settings, etc from the old one so programs didnt have to be reinstalled. without that (we called it the DoIT disk) i imagine system restore was a boon. i still prefer my method. nothing beats a clean install when it comes to windows.

      3. sys file protection: engineered form the ground up to protect the files, would have been great. strapped on after the fact? crap. failed, most of the time, to protect anything. when it did work, it was at the expense of how many wasted cpu cycles? again: credit for trying, but thats like balling up scrap paper, tossing it, and calling it a model airplane.

      4. new tcp/ip stack: no reason this wasnt added to win98 â" didnt need a new OS for this. but hey, glad it was there. it also added more support for raw sockets if i recall. heres the only point i give full credit for.

      5. universal plug and play â" ahh⦠yeah. we needed a new os for this? common! even today its hardly universal and Microsoft's delayed implementation is half the reason it didnt get implemented by the whole world in the first place. this one is like bluetooth: great idea, works well if your OS supports it â" microsoft delayed and finally implemented a broken version of it and now its basically kaput. bluetooth on windows is STILL a joke and cant match the usability of a sony ericsson phone from a decade ago.

      6. windows image acquisition â" hrmm⦠ok maybe i'll give this one full credit too. i dont think i ever even tried using a scanner on winME. i'll say that you're right, with win98 there were huge problems. last i saw, it still sucked in win2000. luckily i'll never have to find out how it works in vista.

      7. automatica updates: this was not a winme feature. it was a windows update feature. win98 got this at the same time.

      8. built in zip support: not significant â" good to have, but no more important than, say, built in pdf support. you can download acrobat reader cant you? windows users haven't been complaining that "mac users dont have to download acrobat and i do, wah wah" have they? i dont think so. so who cares about this âfeature'? download winzip, et al and get on with your life.

      9. imgae preview. i LOATHE this. i hate the fact that Windows Explorer is actually just Internet Explorer. i dont want my images rendering in my file browser. i hate that no matter how many times you turn it off, it thinks that since there's pictures in there it should be turned back on. why, oh why did they get rid of Imaging (aka Kodak Imaging, aka KODAKIMG.EXE) negative points on this one.

      10. bundled games. moot. they're crap games anyway. if you like âem, fine but for me thats moot.

      11. bundled mass storage â" hahahahahahaha. win982nd had this too. and it was INSANE that it wasn't built in to the first win98. but, this was NOT new with winME. look at ANY USB STICK and it say "Win98 or better" because thats when microsoft got their heads out of the arses and started shipping with usb mass storage built in. after win98 2nd edition came out, usb mass storage was included in an OPTIONAL (read: manual download) update to win98 original.

      blah. i feel like the grinch right now not for my actions, for my mood. blah. i hate windows.

    12. Re:In defense of Winows... by daoine_sidhe · · Score: 1

      How about the fact that interface makes me feel seasick, I'm sick and tired of either having to constantly click OK or disable UAC entirely, and it is, in fact, less responsive then XP on the same hardware. Yes, the hardware is post-2004; 2.4GHz dual core with 8GB DDR-2 RAM. Oh, and arbitrarily hiding options, that have been in one location for multiple releases now, under menus and menus of crap.

      Yes, I have serious problems with Vista, and yes, I actually used it for a long time. I switched to the Windows 7 release candidate, which is drastically improved in my opinion over Windows Vista.

      I understand the need to rebel against all the rebelling against Microsoft that goes on here, but people do in fact have real problems with Windows Vista that shouldn't be minimized and dismissed out of hand; for me it caused a real dip in productivity which I initially attributed to lack of familiarity, but it didn't get any better until I replaced the OS.

    13. Re:In defense of Winows... by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      How about all the laptops sold as certified Vista machines that run like a one-legged hobo? Even the computer I build last year takes longer to boot up under Vista (and Windows 7, actually) than it does on XP. Frame rate might not be an issue on something old like Counterstrike, but for something newer that already has borderline-decent performance, switching to the newer OS might drop it back into the "questionable" or "unplayable" areas of framerate. I won't touch Vista with a 10ft pole, but Windows 7 (aka Vista SP3) seems to have fixed some of the performance issues, and it actually is a very smooth experience. That being said, I don't use it significantly differently than I do XP, so I somehow don't see the benefit of running that OS when I already have some perfectly good XP keys available.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    14. Re:In defense of Winows... by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1
      --
      This space for rent.
    15. Re:In defense of Winows... by mrcleaver · · Score: 1

      The moral of this story is that anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

    16. Re:In defense of Winows... by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      I don't like the fact that 512 megs of my 2 gigs of ram that I don't use anyhow are taken up

      Out of all of those, I think this one is legitimate. Why should 25% of my resources be already utilized when I'm not yet doing anything?

      Don't make me bust out a car analogy.

      --

      Question everything

    17. Re:In defense of Winows... by euxneks · · Score: 1

      How many of you have actually used Vista on decent hardware (post-2004) and had problems with it? That doesn't include: I don't like the search features, I don't like the fact that 512 megs of my 2 gigs of ram that I don't use anyhow are taken up, I want my 5 extra frames of Counter-strike back that were way above my monitor's response time and refresh rate back.

      *raises hand*

      Wireless on a laptop for a fellow at work here interferes with networking when I try to install various network printers - turning off wireless allows it to work fine. (Basically, I can't specify to use a wired connection instead of wireless, and even when I turn off wireless, it still gets networking information from the wrong DNS. - don't even try to tell me why or how to fix it, I don't have the authority nor the wherewithal to do so.)

      Networking is full of hate, their new system of irritating users with every request of the computer is annoying as hell, it's still not secure... do I need to go on?

      I'll gladly embrace a system from Microsoft that makes sense but Vista seems like a cash grab in between the big fish, ala Windows ME

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    18. Re:In defense of Winows... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Well there he's talking about Linux users. The OP is talking about platforms beating Microsoft that were around before Linux was even thought of.

    19. Re:In defense of Winows... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Why do you need that 25% of resources that you're not using?

    20. Re:In defense of Winows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I need that memory, I want it without delay. If default behavior adds delay as a norm, that's a problem. Thus, it makes sense to maintain some free ram under normal operations to account for the overhead involved in freeing up ram that I didn't explicitly ask to be occupied.

      Without things like disk cache and file operations would be incredibly slow and the performance loss would be much more sever than the fraction of time it takes to makes that memory available. Reducing overall system performance in case you might want open a large file at one point is a stupid idea. If you want that kind of explicit control of your memory, use DOS or MacOS classic. Then you'll have excplicit control of your memory.

    21. Re:In defense of Winows... by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 1

      You can't keep everyone happy, all of the time.

      Microsoft are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't when it comes to adding new features, removing legacy features, increasing hardware requirements, decreasing hardware requirements, dropping legacy support, supporting too many legacy systems...

      When something is used by such a vast cross-section of the community, there will always be conflicting beliefs about what it should or shouldn't do.

    22. Re:In defense of Winows... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Then where's the extra performance that I should be getting from this supposedly-improved RAM utilization?

    23. Re:In defense of Winows... by adolf · · Score: 1

      Wireless on a laptop for a fellow at work here interferes with networking when I try to install various network printers - turning off wireless allows it to work fine. (Basically, I can't specify to use a wired connection instead of wireless, and even when I turn off wireless, it still gets networking information from the wrong DNS. - don't even try to tell me why or how to fix it, I don't have the authority nor the wherewithal to do so.)

      Hey -- guess what? The laptop works fine. And Windows is working fine. Your network, however, is broken. Dig it: You have multiple DNS servers, some of which don't fucking work, why exactly? And then you expect the OS (whatever OS it might be) to automagically pick the correct one for you? How the fuck is it supposed to know?

      Networking is full of hate, their new system of irritating users with every request of the computer is annoying as hell, it's still not secure... do I need to go on?

      Please, go on. I don't find myself being more particularly hateful toward things when dealing with networking on Vista than I do with various incarnations of Linux.

      UAC isn't a cure-all for security, but it's very similar to what modern desktop Linux systems have been doing even longer. Except it's a little more secure under Vista by being resistant to software keyloggers.

      So, by all means continue. I'd like to hear more of what you have to say.

    24. Re:In defense of Winows... by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      GoldMine 6.5 doesn't run on Vista. An upgrade to GoldMine 8 costs almost $1000 per desktop. That's why a customer of mine won't switch to Vista. They could give out Vista for free with a $500 gift certificate for food and it would be a bad deal for him. There's a ton of small companies in similar situations all over the world.

      I have my own problems with Vista, a lot of my fifteen years of "magic batch files" that do the automation for our training lab don't run on Vista due to UAC. Sure, I can reimplement them as MSI files and distribute them via some fancy system like Active Directory or Altiris, but they work fine today on XP. My labor for reimplementing them would probably cost around three grand.

    25. Re:In defense of Winows... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      You should read up on how memory management actually works in a contemporary Operating System.

    26. Re:In defense of Winows... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Why should 25% of my resources be already utilized when I'm not yet doing anything?

      So that when you do do something, there's a better chance it'll happen faster.

    27. Re:In defense of Winows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh

    28. Re:In defense of Winows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell? HTF is this related to the original article? Get a blog!

    29. Re:In defense of Winows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How were you forced to upgrade to Vista?

  3. BASIC is good. by Sagara+Sozou · · Score: 2

    I know some of the more senior geeks here will scoff, but I learned programming with BASIC back in 2004-2005. I know there's a lot of hate for Microsoft and VB, but I fondly remember the simple language that built the two.

    --
    Those poor bastards, they have us surrounded. Now we can fire at them in all directions!
    1. Re:BASIC is good. by stjobe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I too taught myself programming with BASIC, but a tad bit earlier than you - around the year the article is about to be honest, maybe a year or two later... Sinclair ZX-80, let me count the ways I'm thankful to you :)

      BASIC -> Z80 assembler -> DOS batch -> bash -> Perl -> Java, sometimes I miss the early days of typing in code listings from ZX Magazine and the like, trying to find out why the code worked (or not, more likely). Aah, better days - or maybe it was just that I was better then ;)

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    2. Re:BASIC is good. by Darkness404 · · Score: 1, Troll

      BASIC is good only for teaching the "programmers mindset" in how to reason and think with code. The language itself does nothing but teach you terribly bad habits that will plague your code if you use anything else.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:BASIC is good. by UnixUnix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The horny divorcee, huh (Remembering a classic, http://www.columbia.edu/~sss31/rainbow/prog.lang.html)

    4. Re:BASIC is good. by Sagara+Sozou · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can someone help debug my php?

      20 $i = 1;
      30 while ($i != 10) {
      40 $i++;
      50 }

      --
      Those poor bastards, they have us surrounded. Now we can fire at them in all directions!
    5. Re:BASIC is good. by stevey · · Score: 1

      I had a similar progression:

      Basic -> z80 assember -> DOS -> i386 assembly -> C -> Perl -> bash

      These days I get oddly nostalgic about writing assembly under DOS (3.3ish), but mostly I'm pleased I started on a z80 which made the jump to i286/i386 assembly less painful than it would have been from a different starting point.

      (Because zilog people were ex-intel I guess?)

    6. Re:BASIC is good. by xtracto · · Score: 1

      I also don't understand why people don't like BASIC (why the basicsucks tag?).

      It was a really neat language to learn programming and you could program a lot of stuff in a very simple straightforward way. I did several games and programs (including a bibliography manager for my father who had like 20,000 reference cards!).

      My "learning path" was LOGO -> BASIC -> C/C++/Assembler->Java->etc
      Interestingly, nowadays I returned to a "breed" of logo doing agent-based simulations.

      But basic will always get a piece of my heart.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    7. Re:BASIC is good. by xtracto · · Score: 1

      BASIC is good only for teaching the "programmers mindset" in how to reason and think with code. The language itself does nothing but teach you terribly bad habits that will plague your code if you use anything else.

      The language itself (at least, the most current implementations) do not force you to use those bad habits. Teachers are the ones who will teach to bad habits.

      Even when I was programming in BASIC the function "GOSUB" was there to "structure" your code into subroutines. Nowadays, you have Subs and Functions for that.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    8. Re:BASIC is good. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      BASIC -> 6502 Assembler -> DOS Batch -> x86 Assembler -> Pascal -> C/C++ -> bash -> LISP -> Python

      Errmmm....more or less. Not counting the dozens of minor languages and dialects I know.

      Theme is the same: BASIC was the gateway drug.

    9. Re:BASIC is good. by fbjon · · Score: 1

      BASIC is like childhood. Really nice to start out with as a kid (or older), but if you don't outgrow it you're fucked for life.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    10. Re:BASIC is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too

      BASIC -> 6502 Asm -> APL -> 370 Asm -> Cobol -> SAS -> Python (JCL should be in the there somewhere, but is it a language?)

      Like others I learnt Basic & 6502 Asm by typing in programs from Mags, mostly beeb bug. Ahhh the heady days of GOTO statements.

    11. Re:BASIC is good. by itsdapead · · Score: 2, Informative

      BASIC is good only for teaching the "programmers mindset" in how to reason and think with code. The language itself does nothing but teach you terribly bad habits that will plague your code if you use anything else.

      A point of view which, in 1979, was widely held by people at university who had easy access to minis and mainframes with the grunt to run Pascal or Algol compilers.

      Meanwhile, those of us using $300 6502 or Z80 systems with 4K of RAM and a only domestic cassette tape recorder as mass storage found that BASIC wasn't so bad when the only practical alternative was lovingly hand-crafted machine code.

      Speaking of which, when I tried to learn 6502 machine code from someone else's handwritten notes which didn't cover indirect addressing properly, I used self-modifying code instead. By your logic, I should have been stuck writing self-modifying code hell for the rest of my life, but for some strange reason as soon as I discovered the "proper" way of doing it I recognised that it was much better and switched. Likewise, the urge to occasionally throw in a GOTO for the hell of it wore off pretty quick (and with proper execption handling in most decent languages the last, vestigial excuse for using it has now gone).

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    12. Re:BASIC is good. by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Some of the senior geeks remember HP BASIC, etc. and using it to do real work. I've seen CFD and FEA done with Quick Basic on a 386 in a laboratory environment. If your choices were BASIC and FORTRAN (both were common in engineering applications in the 80's and on through the '90's), the BASIC compiler was often cheaper by an order of magnitude and more approachable.

    13. Re:BASIC is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Sinclair ZX-80 was my first computer too, remember the funky ctrl/alt/shift membrane keyboard that had all the programming functions? A whopping 1K of RAM and no permanent storage device. It took me another 6 months to save up for a compatible cassette player for a storage solution.
      Then I moved on to the Vic 20, Commodore 64, Apple ][e and finally a PC.

    14. Re:BASIC is good. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Those bad habits were due to bad instructors and low-memory systems. I've never used a BASIC that didn't have a GOSUB and a computed GOTO (select-case even, since the 1980s DEC BASIC). Unfortunately, rudimentary books taught GOTO on about page 2 and my VIC-20 used to run out of RAM pretty quickly if you tried to write too many subroutines.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    15. Re:BASIC is good. by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Sure:

      10 for i = 1 to 10
      20 next i

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    16. Re:BASIC is good. by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      Back in the days where computer games had "artists renderings" and looked much better on the covers of magazines than on the computer screen you'd spend 3 hours typing in something (ages for a kid) and then load it up, realise that it was a crap game, play it twice and then run outside to have sword fights with ski poles you found somewhere...

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
  4. way offtopic, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is in no way related to TFA, but the mention of old school Bill Gates reminded me of an article someone recently pointed me to. It's about Bill playing a game called "Petals Around the Rose" in 1977. While the game itself is pretty interesting, the story about how Bill approaches the problem says a whole lot about how Microsoft operated in the early days. Notably that he could completely miss the point of something, but he'd get close enough by bruteforcing things. It's an interesting parallel to how Microsoft has always mimics its competitors, and why their imitations don't always hit the mark.

    1. Re:way offtopic, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for posting that. I"d never heard of the game, and I feel like a genius now.

    2. Re:way offtopic, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it only took me to the 3rd or 4th throw to figure out what was going on. I'm not really sure there's any 'genius' involved--more an indication to how you approach solving problems. And apparently billg and I are world's apart in that respect. Of course, he's the rich one and I'm not...

    3. Re:way offtopic, but... by ledow · · Score: 1

      Mmm. Had never seen that "puzzle" before.

      Maybe it's my analytical mind but it took me 14 seconds until I spotted the pattern, and a further 50 or so to confirm it against all the examples in the text. And, to be honest, I never even *thought* about the petals thing and then when I tried to apply it, it was a further 5 or so seconds to work out the exact "real-world" relationship that the hint is supposed to show. To be honest, if it hadn't jumped out at me, a simple simultaneous equation would solve that problem.

    4. Re:way offtopic, but... by GigaHurtsMyRobot · · Score: 1

      That's awesome.. thanks for posting. I went ahead and bought http://petalsaroundtherose.com/ and built a web 2.0 version, lol... until the site resolves, it's at http://fosco.com/petals

  5. 13 x 2 â 28 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "In 1979, Microsoft had 13 employees [...] By the end of the year we'd doubled in size to 28 employees."

    With arithmetic like that no wonder Windows is the sleek model of perfection it is...

    1. Re:13 x 2 â 28 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "In 1979, Microsoft had 13 employees [...] By the end of the year we'd doubled in size to 28 employees."

      With arithmetic like that no wonder Windows is the sleek model of perfection it is...

      Yeah! He should have said "By the end of the year our employees increased by 2.153 times". But nooooo! He had to use an approximation when telling his story.Yep, it's proof that he's just incredibly unintelligent and incapable of writing good software! /sarcasm

      Jackass.

    2. Re:13 x 2 â 28 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were probably using Intel processors to do the math.

    3. Re:13 x 2 â 28 by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      He was probably using Excel...

    4. Re:13 x 2 â 28 by sproot · · Score: 1

      13 Employees and 2 Directors......

    5. Re:13 x 2 â 28 by euxneks · · Score: 1

      "In 1979, Microsoft had 13 employees [...] By the end of the year we'd doubled in size to 28 employees."

      With arithmetic like that no wonder Windows is the sleek model of perfection it is...

      It's a floating point error.

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    6. Re:13 x 2 â 28 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the end of the year our employees increased by 2.153 times.

      I think you mean, increased by 1.153 times.

  6. Not to be pedantic or anything by MikeRT · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But it shouldn't be too surprising that there might be so many million dollar products today compared to 1979 since the dollar has been decimated in value since in the last 30 years by inflation. A million dollar app in 2009 dollars would be worth nearly $3M.

    1. Re:Not to be pedantic or anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normally when I see people use the word "decimate", I assume they don't mean it literally. When they're talking about something like money, as in this case, I assume they actually know what it means. I'm disappointed.

      Decimate, like it sounds, means to reduce to a tenth. Therefore, if the dollar had been "decimated in value" since 1979, a million 2009 dollars would need to be worth $10M.

      The dollar has been decimated since 1946, not 1979.

    2. Re:Not to be pedantic or anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, decimate has 2 meanings:

      1. To reduce BY A TENTH

      2. To reduce by a large amount

      Notice that neither definition involves reducing TO A TENTH.

    3. Re:Not to be pedantic or anything by uglyduckling · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, 'decimate' means to reduce by a tenth. At least, that is the archaic meaning - when the Roman army was instructed to decimate a population, they would kill one in ten people (or one in ten men), which was usually sufficient to make a population choose subservience without reducing them to a level where they were practically useless to the empire.

    4. Re:Not to be pedantic or anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oxford English Dictionary:

      "2. Milit. The selection by lot of every tenth man to be put to death, as a punishment in cases of mutiny or other offence by a body of soldiers, etc.
      1580 NORTH Plutarch (1676) 768 Antonius..executed the Decimation. For he divided his men by ten Legions, and then of them he put the tenth Legion to death. 1617 COLLINS Def. Bp. Ely I. ii. 99. 1717 DE FOE Mem. Ch. Scot. III. 75 After the Decimations and Drafts made out of them for the Gibbet and Scaffold were over, these were sentenc'd to Transportation. 1827 MACAULAY Machiavelli Ess. (1854) 39/2 Whether decimation be a convenient mode of military execution.

              b. The execution of nine out of every ten. rare. (emphasis added)

      While I agree that 1/10 is by far the more common use, since 1979 the dollar has lost approximately 50% of its value, so with either interpretation the OP is still incorrect. Also, given his usage, (emphasizing the size of the depreciation), it seems likely he meant the more rare meaning than the more common.

    5. Re:Not to be pedantic or anything by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      If we're being pedantic: This was a punishment commanders used *on* the Roman army, not something they told the Roman army to use on populations.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    6. Re:Not to be pedantic or anything by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      touche!

  7. Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by shoppa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    By William Henry Gates III
    February 3, 1976

    An Open Letter to Hobbyists

    To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?

    Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two months, the three of us have spent most of the last year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC. Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000.

    The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these "users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.

    Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?

    Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling software. The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.

    What about the guys who re-sell Altair BASIC, aren't they making money on hobby software? Yes, but those who have been reported to us may lose in the end. They are the ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should be kicked out of any club meeting they show up at.

    I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write to me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.

    Bill Gates

    General Partner, Micro-Soft

    1. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by plasticsquirrel · · Score: 2

      Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?

      Why do I get the sense that even in 1976, Bill Gates was a small, petty person with a sense of entitlement? It's no wonder that Microsoft turned out the way it did.

      --
      Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
    2. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by dzfoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean, vast and successful?

      Just kidding!!! *ducks*
                -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    3. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody likes a poor thief.

    4. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From:
      "How to Become As Rich As Bill Gates"
      http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/
      """
      William Henry Gates III made his best decision on October 28, 1955, the night he was born. He chose J.W. Maxwell as his great-grandfather. Maxwell founded Seattle's National City Bank in 1906. His son, James Willard Maxwell was also a banker and established a million-dollar trust fund for William (Bill) Henry Gates III. In some of the later lessons, you will be encouraged to take entrepreneurial risks. You may find it comforting to remember that at any time you can fall back on a trust fund worth many millions of 1998 dollars.
      """

      In Bill Gates' own language, "Is this fair?" The guy is born a multi-millionaire, writes his commercial software on publicly funded computer at Harvard, learned to write software by dumpster diving at a computer center, and then, after all that, he writes a letter like this? That's chutzpah. From:
      http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
      "The best way to prepare [to be a programmer] is to write programs, and to study great programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and fished out listings of their operating system."

      Bill Gate's could have spent his lifetime writing free software. That being born a multi-millionaire was not enough for him is a sign of an illness that causes "financial obesity", not something to be emulated. But, in the end, it is not Bill Gates who has destroyed our society as much as all the people who want to be the next Bill Gates and support regressive social policies they hope to benefit from someday.

      From:
      "The Wrath of the Millionaire Wannabe's"
      http://conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/47/
      """
      Of course eventually, these guy realize that not only are they not millionaires, they're not making much progress toward that noble goal. That's when they get ugly. You see, they see themselves as capable, intelligent, hard working people - and they are for the most part - who "have what it takes" to "make it". They believe that the difference between those who "make it" and those who don't is being "capable, intelligent and hardworking". Things like "having rich parents", "getting just plain lucky" or "being a crook" don't factor into the equation anywhere. No, American society is a natural hierarchy where the most capable are "rich beyond their wildest dreams", and the non-rich are chumps that just don't measure up. ... But here's something I'll bet the dittoheads haven't thought of. Maybe they're the chumps. Maybe they've been sold a bogus "American dream" that never existed. Maybe "the rules" they play by were written by the people who have "made it" - not by the people who haven't. And maybe - just maybe - the people who have "made it" wrote those rules to keep the wannabes chasing a dream that's a mirage. Maybe Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Samuel Adams didn't fight to make the world safe for John D. Rockefeller - or Don LaPre, either. Maybe the Rolls Royce complete with bimbo was left out of our inalienable rights for a reason. Maybe the "pursuit of happiness" Thomas Jefferson wrote about was something a bit more profound than the empty joy of owning things you don't need so you can look down of down on the lesser mortals who lack your "ability". Maybe Thomas Jefferson intended the "pursuit of happiness" to be something attainable not just for anybody - but for everybody.
      """

      See also the way that programmers could afford to work for "free" making free stuff:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

      Bill Gates is a smart and creative and hard working guy, no one can dispute that. It is too bad he did not apply that to helping all of societ

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    5. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know, if you take all of your sour grapes and start a winery, you'd be very successful.

      Just saying.

    6. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 4, Informative

      More on what dumpster diving meant to Bill Gates:
          http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=437640&cid=22255952
      """
      Interviewer: Is studying computer science the best way to prepare to be a programmer?
      Bill Gates: No. the best way to prepare is to write programs, and to study great programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their operating system. You got to be willing to read other people's code, then write your own, then have other people review your code. You've got to want to be in this incredible feedback loop where you get the world-class people to tell you what you're doing wrong.
      """

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    7. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you have entity #1 that puts effort into producing a good and is willing to trade that good in exchange for currency based on the commercial laws of the land.

      You also have entity #2 that acquires the good through channels that do not uphold the reciprocal agreement in violation of those same commercial laws.

      Entity #1 calls out entity #2 in violating those laws and offers both a channel to become a legitimate licensor of the good as well as to provide feedback regarding that good.

      Which of these two entities has a sense of entitlement? Maybe entity #2 that feels that acquisition of said good despite violation of commercial contract is their right?

    8. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wanting to be paid for your labor is small and petty?

    9. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      The last bit of code Bill wrote himself was the porting of MS Basic to work on the Tandy Model 100. He also made 2 glaring errors.

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    10. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      The response of the Hobbyist community was to write and release a version of Basic for the same machine that only used 2K of memory (not the 4K that Micro-Soft Basic used) and they gave it away free ..... ..does that sound familiar ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    11. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by Ex-Linux-Fanboy · · Score: 1

      Bill Gates was right, you know. The majority of software that most people use is proprietary software; either pirated or legitimately purchased.

    12. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I expect you in my office tomorrow at 8 AM to do my work for me.

    13. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      His father was a lawyer and his firm specialized in intellectual property cases. His firm also represented Microsoft from when they moved up to Seattle.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    14. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by operagost · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well, at least he was entitled to payment for services rendered. But that's just the capitalist pig talking. I'm sure everyone else on Slashdot works for free.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    15. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, As much as I dislike Microsoft's Software I have to agree with this 100%. What I learned about coding came from reading others programs and modifying them. This is what made me a good coder. Now, I cringe when I interview someone just out of colledge who tells me that they find it very hard to modify a program and would rather rewrite it. This is the real reason why computing is 10 years behind where it should be.

    16. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Interesting that Microsoft can accuse others of "stealing" their software, but he advocates reading through other people's source code that he had no permission to access?

      It's a shame that MS doesn't let other people learn from their software by releasing the source (even if only for older products), if they really thought that is the best way to learn.

      I do hope MS have good hard drive destruction procedures - if someone managed to fish out some MS source code recovered from a discarded company PC, it would be fair game according to him to make use of that, right?

    17. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by toby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You got to be willing to read other people's code, then write your own, then have other people review your code. You've got to want to be in this incredible feedback loop where you get the world-class people to tell you what you're doing wrong.

      Quite a clear endorsement of the open source model. And if the source he dived for had had an explicit open source license, he not only would have had every right to take them, but he could have insisted on having it :-)

      --
      you had me at #!
    18. Re:Bill Gates wrote to me for money in 1976 by Trogre · · Score: 1

      And there we have it. Possibly one of the best out-of-context quotes of all time:

      "Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share"
      Bill Gates, 1976

      I think I'm going to print that out and have it framed.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  8. Thanks to StarWars by sgt+scrub · · Score: 0

    Yep '79 was a big year of change. I cut my hair, put away my bellbottoms, and quit smoking p... Well, 2 out of 3 of those. With the exception of disco everything was better. I blame StarWars.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:Thanks to StarWars by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      Star Wars first came out in 1977. "The Black Hole" came out in 1979. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the movie that ruined your life.

            -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    2. Re:Thanks to StarWars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      goatse didn't come out until the late 90s. Glory holes were quite popular in the 70s, though.

    3. Re:Thanks to StarWars by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      79 was the year I was born, thank god for Gates to remember me so fondly :)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    4. Re:Thanks to StarWars by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      ruined? IMHO Getting rid of bellbottom bluejeans and long hair was not a bad thing. And it came out in 77? Man, I really should have quite smoking!

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  9. 2 things by sootman · · Score: 0

    1) Wow. Must be pretty cool to have the richest man in the world read, and write for, your blog. I'm sure there were 9 layers of PR people between Bill and Gizmodo, but still. Damn.

    2) Almost as important, 1979 was a good year for Lego, too. I remember the original space sets well.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  10. Summer of 79 by Bill Gates by InsertWittyNameHere · · Score: 5, Funny

    I got my first real PC
    Bought it at the CompUSA
    Coded 'til my fingers bled
    It was summer of '79

    Me and some guys from school
    Had a company and we tried real hard
    Jimmy quit and Jody got married
    I shoulda known we'd never get far

    Oh when I look back now
    That summer seemed to last forever
    And if I had the choice
    Ya - I'd always wanna be there
    Those were the best days of my life ...

    1. Re:Summer of 79 by Bill Gates by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Strike "CompUSA" and replace it with "ComputerLand".

    2. Re:Summer of 79 by Bill Gates by antdude · · Score: 1

      CompUSA existed in 1979? [grin]

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:Summer of 79 by Bill Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That poem sucked.

    4. Re:Summer of 79 by Bill Gates by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      That's not a poem.

      It only looks like it because was typing it on his VIC-20.

    5. Re:Summer of 79 by Bill Gates by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Winter was a bitch though. I remember that and the flooding. I also remember a few people rebelling against disco. The next year ACDC pretty much put a nail in the coffin of disco hopefully to never return. Iran hostages, 1979 was a bad year and 1980 even worse. Stagflation with 20% interest rates on a home mortgage, yeah man were them the days. Reagan didn't do much for the economy although we felt better about him than Carter because he kicked a little ass once in a while, but he didn't take the reigns until 1980. 1980 is really the year everything changed too. From the late 70's to the early 80's, tech was on a roll. And then, we'll, it all came to an end. I guess I would like to go back to the 1990's most of all. That's when things were still fun and I was also very good at anything I tried. If you could turn a computer on, you had a job.

    6. Re:Summer of 79 by Bill Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Gates wrote code?

  11. Good 'ol days! by SGDarkKnight · · Score: 1

    Can't say i did much in basic, but the one language i cut my teeth on was turing. I still remember the final project myself and a friend teamed up on wouldn't run on any of the school computers (at the time, we incorporated SVGA mouse driven 3D-menu systems and 16-bit sound). I had to lug my old, steel cased, full sized tower system that weighed a ton or more, into the school to demonstrate the program to our teacher in order to get the credit for it.

    Would of made my buddy bring in his system, but i lived closer to the school... damn that was a long walk back home with plenty of rest periods to gather my strength before contining on with the system...

    memories....

    --

    ...A no smoking section in a restaurant is like having a no peeing section in a swimming pool...
  12. The original bit Bill was going to lead with- by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Ah, 1979. I remember it well. Just five short years before I lost my virginity."

    1. Re:The original bit Bill was going to lead with- by pmarini · · Score: 1


      women would enjoy the use of a time machine to go back at each "loss" of that...
      </offtopic>

      --
      Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
      Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
    2. Re:The original bit Bill was going to lead with- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. In 1984.

  13. revisionist crap by rubycodez · · Score: 0

    the digital tsunami hit way before 1979, and plenty of us had been running BASIC (and better languages) on our microcomputers for years before that, and it wasn't a Micro-Soft product

    1. Re:revisionist crap by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Actually I'd say it was more like 1982 when IBM released the IBM PC, or when Apple's spreadsheet made their PC more than a toy, something that was used in business. Yes, there was the Altair, Commodore, etc in the seventies, but that was a gentle wave, not a tsunami.

    2. Re:revisionist crap by idontgno · · Score: 1

      the digital tsunami hit way before 1979, and plenty of us had been running BASIC (and better languages) on our microcomputers for years before that, and it wasn't a Micro-Soft product

      Well, in 1979 a lot of 8080 or Z80 machines were running either a ROM-based Microsoft BASIC or a floppy-based one (CP/M MBASIC, for instance). But the "tsunami" (who makes up this stuff?) definitely started with much earlier rumblings.

      In point of fact, though, there's still a very real chance that if you were running BASIC on an Altair, you might have been running a Micro-Soft product. But not a certainty, since there were other implementations of BASIC available at that time. Microsoft was still avoidable; the monopoly was yet to come.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    3. Re:revisionist crap by pmarini · · Score: 1

      peeking at your wisdom, what's your estimate for the number of microcomputers in the USA at the time (1979) ?
      somehow I feel that Microsoft didn't have any branch or customer abroad on that year, and in any case I don't think that there were those many [mini|micro|main] computers back then... so how does Gizmodo explain so many BASIC sold?

      --
      Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
      Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
    4. Re:revisionist crap by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm no fan of Microsoft, but Microsoft BASIC was very early and fairly ubiquitous. It was originally written in '75 for the MITS Altair, which really is the beginning of the personal computer industry excepting a few obscure very low volume products most people have never heard of.

      The BASIC interpreters for many (but not all) of the early machines were all from Microsoft: MITS Altair BASIC, Commodore PET BASIC, Applesoft BASIC, TRS-80 Level II BASIC. Some that weren't by Microsoft are Apple I/II Integer BASIC (written by Woz), TRS-80 Level I BASIC, Sinclair BASIC, Acorn BBC BASIC (written by Roger Wilson).

      As for better languages than BASIC for microprocessors (as opposed to mainframes), there really wasn't much at that date. Forth was quite popular, but quite primitive, I'm not sure about availability of BCPL (precursor to C) for any really early machine - it certainly wasn't mainstream. USCD Pascal was an early decent language if you had a CP/M disk-based machine. I personally co-wrote Acorn ISO-Pascal for Acorn's BBC Micro in 1982, which was the first full implementation (ISO certified) for a Microprocessor, and was shown to PM Marget Thatcher by the British Standards Institute (BSI adopted the ISO standard) as an example of Britich computer innovation! I re-used the (very fast) BBC BASIC software floating point library, written by Roger Wilson, for ISO Pascal.

    5. Re:revisionist crap by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      My 1975 SWTP 6800 ran Robert Uiterwyk' Basic, all 8k of it from a tape. In the 1976 Personal Computing Convention in Atlantic city, none of the SWTP staff were allowed to wear their "Altairs Suck" T-shirts.

    6. Re:revisionist crap by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      and don't forget the Smalltalk and LISP compilers

    7. Re:revisionist crap by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      the real explosion started about 1977, you can check units sold for the major "trinity" machines of the time, hundreds of thousands of units in the first three years.

  14. Infinite sadness by Willeh · · Score: 0

    1979 is an amazing song, not sure why Bill(y) is talking about computers now.... Wait a second, Gates who?

    --
    Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
  15. The Microcomputer Revolution . . . by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 2, Interesting

    . . . actually started a decade earlier with IBM. The MTST and MCST word processors first brought microprocessors to the desktop.

    1. Re:The Microcomputer Revolution . . . by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      No - systems like that were before microprocessors. They were based on multiple logic chips.

      The first microprocessor - CPU on a chip - was the Intel 4004 introduced in 1971, designed to power desktop calculators.

      One of the earliest computers was the SCELBI Mark 8, powered by the Intel 8008, introduced in 1974. However, he MITS Altair 8800 (based on the Intel 8080), launched in 1975 can really be regarded as the beginning of the personal computer industry... It rocketed to fame by being featured on the cover of Personal Electronics magazine (it was a build-it yourself kit).

      I don't know how much the younger /. crowd know about the MITS Altair... It was an S-100 bus based system so could be exapanded, but in it's basic form it was very primitive. No display or keyboard. Just a bunch of toggle switches and LEDs on the front panel to monitor and program the data and address buses. To program a byte into memory you set the toggle switches for each bit of the byte and address (up = 1, down = 0), then toggled it in and did the next byte. There was no boot ROM. If you had a paper tape drive and a tape to load, you would have to manually toggle in the boot loader program from the front panel every time you powered the machine on.

    2. Re:The Microcomputer Revolution . . . by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

      Good point on the M*ST's, though right on their heels were MP based WP systems like Vydec, NBI and CPT. Osborne, Kaypro and TeleVideo jumped in with CP/M systems before '79, as well.

  16. I got one from him back in 1975 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear Sir,

    Good day and compliments. This letter will definitely come to you as a huge surprise, but I implore you to take the time to go through it carefully as the decision you make will go off a long way to determine the future and continued existence of the entire members of my family.

    Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is William Gates, the 2nd husband of the widow of the late head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces of the federal republic of Nigeria who died on the 8th of June 1975.

    My ordeal started immediately after her husband's death on the morning of 8th June 1975, and the subsequent take over of government by the last administration. The present democratic government is determined to portray all the good work of her late husband in a bad light and have gone as far as confiscating all her late husband's assets, properties, freezing our accounts both within and outside Nigeria. As I am writing this letter to you, my son Mohammed Abacha is undergoing questioning with the government. All these measures taken by past/present government is just to gain international recognition.

    I and the entire members of my family have been held incommunicado since the death of her husband, hence I seek your indulgence to assist us in securing these funds. We are not allowed to see or discuss with anybody. Few occasions I have tired traveling abroad through alternative means all failed.

    It is in view of this I have mandated DR GALADIMA HASSAN, who has been assisting the family to run around on so many issues to act on behalf of the family concerning the substance of this letter. He has the full power of attorney to execute this transaction with you.

    Her late husband had/has Eighty Million USD ($80,000,000.00) specially preserved and well packed in trunk boxes of which only my husband and I knew about. It is packed in such a way to forestall just anybody having access to it. It is this sum that I seek your assistance to get out of Nigeria as soon as possible before the present civilian government finds out about it and confiscate it just like they have done to all our assets.

    I implore you to please give consideration to my predicament and help a widow and her new husband in need.

    May Allah show you mercy as you do so?

    Your faithfully,

    William H. Gates III

    N/B: Please contact Dr Galadima Hassan on this e-mail address for further briefing and modalities

  17. Gates Remembers 1979 by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 0, Troll

    But it took until 1984 for him to see what the real desktop computing revolution would look like, and it took him more than a decade after that in order to make a Mac knock-off that didn't completely suck donkey balls.

    Mod me down or flame me all you want Gates fans, but you know I'm right.

    --
    Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
    1. Re:Gates Remembers 1979 by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But it took until 1984 for him to see what the real desktop computing revolution would look like, and it took him more than a decade after that in order to make a Mac knock-off that didn't completely suck donkey balls.

      You mean Windows 95? Yeah, poor Gates. While Apple was making computers that looked pretty and people wanted to use, Microsoft was making computers that did vital work and people had to use.

      I'd dare-say that Gates's plan was cleverer than Jobs's.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Gates Remembers 1979 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So. Apple is still trying to make a Mac that doesn't "completely suck donkey balls" and they haven't succeeded yet!

      Mod me down or flame me all you want Apple fanboys, but you know I'm right.

    3. Re:Gates Remembers 1979 by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      You mean having his Mom and the VP in charge of micro computers at IBM on the same national board of United Way?

      That is a clever plan.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    4. Re:Gates Remembers 1979 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember that Apple had the Apple // out in 1977 with a basic written by the Woz and it was visiCalc that brought IBM to want to do a PC. Bill Gates didn't invent the PC or the DOS OS he bought a knock off of CPM.

    5. Re:Gates Remembers 1979 by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      I remember when I was in a computer art class in college, and I got fed up with how slow, unstable, and useless the Macs were. So, I left class, walked back to my dorm room, boot up my computer, did my assignment, printed it out, and walked back to class in less time than it took anyone else to do their work on the "Power" Macs. Ah, the advantages of "studio time".

      Windows95 was the kick in the ass Apple needed, and that is when they made a truly clever decision: they finally admit they couldn't write an OS, canceled Copland, and merged with NeXT.

    6. Re:Gates Remembers 1979 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO it was Windows 3.1, 3.0 did not have support for Adobe Type Manager. ATM is the technology that made Windows fly !!!

      DOS was the franchise that made all the money, WHY IS IT SOO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO ACCEPT THIS !!

      And Gates wanted to be respected as an engineer especially after flaking out of college, its those drop-outs who always lust the most after that little piece of respect and acceptance that passed them by !

      He was definitely RIGHT about BASIC becoming the most important language at least for a little while, then he got it ALL WRONG.

  18. Wait a minute... by toby · · Score: 1, Troll

    Why are we commemorating the birth of one of the biggest, most expensive, and egregious organised crimes against civilisation, again?

    Let's have the party when Microsoft is finally shut down and Gates is in jail where he belongs.

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why the Free Software movement can't have nice things.

    2. Re:Wait a minute... by Helios1182 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, why would we recognize the birth of one of the largest and most influential technology companies -- a company that largely defined how personal computer would run. Even if you don't like their products or practices, Microsoft is a huge part of personal computing history.

    3. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stallman, is that you?

  19. Re:Huzzah. Evolution. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    it can't wear the latest fashions

    Hmmm, from TFS:

    most of whom appear in that famous picture that provides indisputable proof that your average computer geek from the late 1970s was not exactly on the cutting edge of fashion

    So it appears it never could... but then again, me neither. At least I finally got rid of my taped up coke bottle glasses.

  20. $1M, not $100M by SpinyNorman · · Score: 0

    The summary has the sales figure for the million dollar award wrong... it's, well, a million dollars.

    I wonder what Microsoft 8080 BASIC was priced at, and how man copies $1M respresents... certainly not very many.

  21. 1979? by McNihil · · Score: 1

    It was more like 1977...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_PET

    Just a friendly reminder Billy, don't diss the real start.

    1. Re:1979? by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      Actually the MITS Altair came out in '75 and Microsoft Altair BASIC came out either the same or following year. Commodore PET BASIC was also licenced from Microsoft.

  22. Early BASIC with DRM by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I still have my 8080-based Interact computer from back then AND a (legal) copy of MS BASIC for it on tape. One thing I distinctly recall is that the Peek and Poke commands did not work out of the box. For Poke, you had to first enter "poke xxxxx,yy" or poke would result in an error. The poke command itself would execute, and then check this address for yy and return an error for any other value. A sort of lock. Not sure if Interact or MS decided to put this in. There was another series of things to do to unlock the peek command. IIRC there was a separate lock on the 2K rom address range. Do I still get in legal trouble if I post the values of XXXX,YY?? They are still burned into my brain. Does anyone at Microsoft still have this basic or know how to unlock these commands? I wonder...

  23. Bill Gates' hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Bill Gates railed on about hobbyists stealing his software, when he in fact stole computer time from the university to build a commercial product.

    Today's magic word is queerer

  24. ah good ol 1979 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i love the smashing pumpkins reference

  25. bill gates remembers 1979 by namoom · · Score: 0

    thank god someone does...

  26. 100.0000013% by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

    GP is right. I worked it out myself, with Excel.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  27. In 1979... by JockTroll · · Score: 0, Interesting

    ... I learned fuckin' PASCAL so I could shit on the faces of BASIC geeks. Structured programming. Compilers. Serious fuckin' shit. BASIC was for nerds, PASCAL for jocks. Fuckin' line numbers, who's the loserboy that needs them? Can't you fuckin' edit your instructions without useless references?

    And for the real uberjock, there was Assembler. Fuckin' interpreted languages couldn't hold a candle to Assembler. OK, there was this shit about every damn machine having a different architecture but who cares, no pain no gain.

    Want to know the best thing about computer classes? They were full of nerds. First we gave them all a good beating, then we would put the chairs straight on their twisted backs and sit on them.

    --
    Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    1. Re:In 1979... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psst! You need to respond to this comment.

  28. That can't be true. by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gates' fortune is chump change compared with the many, many billions that have been lost to the products bugs, sluggishness and security problems.

    If that were true, then Windows products would not be considered a positive investment, so therefor, they would not be getting purchases. The fact of the matter is that the sluggishness, bugs, and security problems are often more FUD spread by competitors than they are actual reality. Indeed, Linux has more than its share of bugs, sluggishness and security problems, as you find out every time you do the product updates...

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:That can't be true. by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      C'mon, by now it should be known that sales have nothing to do with product quality but rather with marketing. And you have to give it to MS, they have a brilliant marketing department.

      If you don't know how purchases are done in companies, you've never been in the situation where you should be the one responsible for purchase and acquisition, until some manager comes in telling you you absolutely HAVE to buy $product because he just came back from a business trip to $holiday_resort with $salesperson_for_product and it's so absolutely awesome...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:That can't be true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah marketing. If only Apple had some good marketing skills, they would be on top. What a laugh.

    3. Re:That can't be true. by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Right, those iPods and iPhones sit like lead on the shelves, despite being superior to everything else in the market...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:That can't be true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon, by now it should be known that sales have nothing to do with product quality but rather with marketing. And you have to give it to MS, they have a brilliant marketing department.

      Please. Do you remember the Zune? It was brown! What about those awful Seinfeld commercials? A search engine called "Bing"? Ever seen those promotional videos with cheesy rap-music promoting Windows? Remember those comparisons of box-art for Apple's iPod and what Microsoft might design?

      Apple has a brilliant marketing department. Microsoft has a brilliant sales department; those guys can sell sand to people living in the Sahara. Their marketing department, on the other hand, is awful. Their advertisments are a joke, their designs are awful. But their sales team more than makes up for it.

    5. Re:That can't be true. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      They were better and then they sucked horribly, now they're getting better because there's some competition. You can argue all you like, but the fact of the matter is that they've wasted a huge amount of other people's money.

      The sluggishness is definitely real, I definitely get far better performance elsewhere, you can claim otherwise, but unless you're willing to plunk down extra cash for utilities to tweak it or do that yourself it's definitely sluggish.

      Also, that's not a valid way of measuring security problems, it actively encourages companies like MS to not patch things or to make massive patches of multiple things into a single patch. Of course Linux is going to have more updates, they've got things broken down to a much finer level, they can't patch all of those as service packs like MS does.

      Perhaps you should go back to your job at MS and stop making things up.

    6. Re:That can't be true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By superior you mean their native FLAC support? Oh, wait, nevermind...

    7. Re:That can't be true. by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Well, I wouldn't say MS ALWAYS had a brilliant sales department. That Applesoft BASIC cassette they show on Gizmodo is kind of humorous - MS sold Applesoft BASIC to Apple for a flat $31000 fee including source. Apple sold 25000 units in 1978 and about 100000 in 1979, meaning even by1979 Apple paid less than a quarter of a penny per copy. MS then bought back the source, but I don't remember ever hearing what they paid.

    8. Re:That can't be true. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      If that were true, then Windows products would not be considered a positive investment, so therefor, they would not be getting purchases.

      Altria is still a good investment too.

    9. Re:That can't be true. by Taikutusu · · Score: 1

      Not only native FLAC support. Decoding hardware/DACs. Stock headphones. Not having to use iTunes.

      By what metric are iPods "the best thing out there"? I'd say they're the most popular thing out there, but that's not exactly the point you were trying to prove now, was it?

    10. Re:That can't be true. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      Agreed. In a time when people are more aware of the technological advantages of products, better quality has become a requirement. Back at the time things started becoming available for the home user there was 0 information about what products were available to consumers other than what was advertised or passed along by word of mouth.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  29. Are you sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If it weren't for Windows' stranglehold, OS design would be probably a decade ahead of where it is now, millions of man-hours would not have been lost to fixing/cleaning up malware/etc, and we'd all probably be a little bit richer. Is one multi-billionaire philanthropist worth a thousand multi-millionaire philanthropists?

    Insightful?
    Nothing but speculation and conjecture.
    If not Windows-some other OS would be filling that void.
    Pathetic what gets modded insightful these days.

    1. Re:Are you sure by arose · · Score: 1

      The monopoly lock-in void?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    2. Re:Are you sure by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the good ole days, when you force manufacturers to sign exclusive contracts, where they had to pay for a DOS/Windows license for every computer they make, whether it comes with that OS or not.

      And there wasn't all this security/virus bullshit to have to worry about, so you could only focus on implementing new features left right and center.

      And people didn't care how often the OS or software crashed. They were happy to redo all their work.

      And programmers were cheap. They did it because they loved programming, not just for lots of cash.

      And people listened to you. When you said "don't buy product X, available now. We're working on product Y, which will be oodles better than X, for way less", people believe you, even if it was a complete lie, and you didn't even have anybody working on product Y.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  30. Are you sure? by pmarini · · Score: 1

    Why is that I hear Ballmer chanting: statistics, statistics, statistics...

    200,000 microcomputers in 1979 and all Microsoft customers? I highly doubt that... where did this Bill guy get the numbers from?

    Microsoft was founded only 4 years earlier and even though Bill had a $1 million fund from his grandpa, I don't see how he could market his software to 200,000 customers within just 4 years... maybe he was using the Traf-O-Data algorithm to count them...

    anyhow, those weren't the .com bubble years... c'mon Bill, a little sanity check before you spread FUD on your bread...

    --
    Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
    Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
  31. What you don't get... by tjstork · · Score: 3, Informative

    Of course eventually, these guy realize that not only are they not millionaires, they're not making much progress toward that noble goal. That's when they get ugly. You see, they see themselves as capable, intelligent, hard working people - and they are for the most part - who "have what it takes" to "make

    Is that most people who are not millionaires but are working to become one would freely admit that they if they don't get there, its because they weren't good enough. You can work hard, study hard, etc, but, if you aren't good enough, you don't get to make the team millionaire. But along the way you do grow from what you do. You've tried to build a business, have made products, have made some sales, have learned about your gut and how the world really works. Those things you can only get from stepping into the ring, as Teddy Roosevelt so famously observed, and that, there's a certain thing you get just from getting in there and putting up your dukes.

    What is important to us is having the opportunity to try and chase one's goals, and, if you listen to what we say, you would hear that over and over again - the Constitution doesn't guarantee success, but the right to pursue it. Nothing in life is guaranteed. The American dream is not getting rich per se, its about having the opportunity to try. When you guys on the left ramble on about guarantees, you've missed the point of life altogether. You want to have all of these guarantees for yourselves and in doing so really undermine your own ability to say, at the end, that you lived your life yourself. You want to trade away the opportunity for order, just because, you don't think you can succeed. That's just utterly pathetic.

    So yeah, Bill Gates got rich. I didn't. Maybe I never will. I don't care and Bill Gate's wealth doesn't bother me. He got the opportunity to live his dream and I got the opportunity to live mine, and however I use my opportunity, my life, is my business, and has nothing to do with him, and has nothing to do with you.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:What you don't get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant to say "sociopathic" instead of "good". Mmmm.. capitalism, where sociopathy is good and rewarded.

      Today's code word is [baffler].

    2. Re:What you don't get... by ildon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're not even replying to him. You're just pasting text from somewhere else that you think is related. This is such a horrible troll account.

    3. Re:What you don't get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the big point you're missing, is that there is a causal link betweeen the wealth of a few and the poverty of millions. what we are talking about is having the opportunity to try AND benefit from the incredible advances of society. in your flawed conception of the american dream, you are willing to let the others die in the street just to have the chance to hit it big, without realizing that everytime anyone hits it big, that opportunity is closed to a lot of people.

      And since the chances of hitting it big are not strictly correlated to effort or ability, but are for the most part the result of inheritance and the measure up to which you are willing to exploit and take advantage of your fellow human beings, what you preach about the purcuit of happines and the opportunity to reach tyour goals is nothing more than a lie to justify your "right" to enjoy your ill acquired riches and stomp on everyone in your way.

      In other words, you are living a lie, and you are trying to keep all of us convinced that this lie is true, fair, and the natural order of things, when all evidence availabe shows that this is not the case, and that humanity's evolution is a struggle against the power of the few to exploit and benefit from the many.

      Which leaves us with only one of two equally terrifying possibilities: you are either plain evil, or you are either plain stupid. in any case, you should be denied of the posibility of power, and we will try to achieve this by all means possible.

    4. Re:What you don't get... by Backward+Z · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is that most people who are not millionaires but are working to become one would freely admit that they if they don't get there, its because they weren't good enough. You can work hard, study hard, etc, but, if you aren't good enough, you don't get to make the team millionaire.

      They would freely admit that, but they'd be wrong. Just because people drank the kool-aid and then agree with the guy at the front of the room behind the podium doesn't mean they're all right.

      The America you describe might have existed in the previous centuries, but at this point in time, the system is showing extravagant fault.

      All those guys who already became millionaires? They spend all their time making sure they stay millionaires. In order for them to stay millionaires, it means they have to keep other people out of/from taking over their game. Corportations engage in monopolistic activity constantly. Not only is it advantageous to have a position of financial liquidity as many of them do, many industries pump millions of dollars (in some cases daily i.e. the medical insurance industry right now) into lobbyists and special interest groups in order to manipulate legistation to support their ambitions and of course, to keep other people from taking their slice of the pie.

      I mean, come on! Look at all the anti-competition crap MS has pulled over the years.

      I've seen too many people in my life with strong ideas, know-how, and drive fail time and time again to get their companies off the ground, and I guarantee you, it's not because they're not good enough. Every time, it's because of some asshole venture capitalist wanting a bigger slice of the pie.

      That's not the America I was promised when I was a child and that's not the America I want to be living in.

    5. Re:What you don't get... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 0, Troll

      Those quotes are to show how the replied to poster's assumptions about work, equity, their own future prospects, and so on have flaws, and that people have pointed those flaws out for decades. And as Marshall Brain suggests, it's just plain suicidal to believe in conservative hard-work-gets-you-ahead economics in an age of increasing automation (and better design), because most jobs will be automated, leaving people to starve. One alternative is significant social change towards a basic income (social security and medicare for all, regardless of age or income). What we are seeing here is a fundamental clash of ideologies and assumptions. The world in its worst economic crises since the 1930s, and I'd suggest the jobs are mostly *not* coming back. As Einstein said, you generally can't fix problems with the same sort of thinking that created them. But I'm labeled the "Troll", not the people who created this mess for their own short-term gains? I can see that suggesting Millionare-Wannabees are the shock troops behind the failings our our society has really hit a nerve.

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    6. Re:What you don't get... by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I can see that suggesting Millionare-Wannabees are the shock troops behind the failings our our society has really hit a nerve.

      Attack of the get-ahead's, they'll just keep thinking "It's gonna be me one day, it's my birthright"

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    7. Re:What you don't get... by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      You're not even replying to him. You're just pasting text from somewhere else that you think is related. This is such a horrible troll account.

      Yeah but at least he *read* it. At least there was enough semblance of some thought to relate it and it is appropriate to relate it. You are getting modded insightful by the same person who modded him a troll - but it doesn't change the reality.

      The economic system is designed around a flawed and outdated model, it produces a plethora of externalities. What illustrates it is that governments are harping on about Carbon externalities but no other externalities as if it the cause of all our woes.

      Very simple changes to the economic model will legally allow companies to deal with them, but they are legally constrained to act on shareholders behalf. Carbon industries are taking one for the team so the rest of the economy can continue to produce externalities that allow them the profits the get by foisting the expense onto the entire community.

      Just the same way people were taking about carbon being a problem before it was trendy to the same is true for all the other externalities that allow the market to "function" - it's a crock.

      And I'll probably get modded a troll for pointing it out - how pathetic and cowardly.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  32. That wasn't the point, me thinks... by tjstork · · Score: 0

    . For Poke, you had to first enter "poke xxxxx,yy" or poke would result in an error

    Well yeah, you had to enter Poke in the correct syntax.

    The poke command itself would execute, and then check this address for yy and return an error for any other value. A sort of lock

    No, you would expect reasonably that it would be an error. You write something, and you check to see if it wrote successfully. No conspiracy here. Now later I think MS would learn that you didn't want to check the value set by Poke because you might be poking a one-way register... but hey.

    IIRC there was a separate lock on the 2K rom address range.

    Well, you can't poke into ROM, because, its well, ROM... In your case if you tried to poke into ROM, then, your value by definition could never be set, and the poke would fail. See above.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:That wasn't the point, me thinks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point. He's saying that after any poke command, the interpreter would check address xxxx for value yy. So if you didn't set xxxx to yy first the poke command was effectively disabled.

      But this sounds more like a bug than DRM. Presumably the code was attempting to check the value you'd just written, but was actually checking a fixed address due to omitting some indirection. Which is easy to do in assembler.

    2. Re:That wasn't the point, me thinks... by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But this sounds more like a bug than DRM. Presumably the code was attempting to check the value you'd just written, but was actually checking a fixed address due to omitting some indirection. Which is easy to do in assembler.

      That sounds fair enough. And, in any case, Microsoft's product was embedded in ROM - certainly it was for TRS-80 and even the IBM PC has a ROM BASIC. So they didn't really need DRM for a while. Sometimes I still drool over the possibility of Windows in ROM, and am interested in Linux in ROM from the likes of ASUS for the same reason.

      --
      This is my sig.
    3. Re:That wasn't the point, me thinks... by gr8_phk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To clarify:

      1) I was NOT talking about syntax. xxxx,yy are place holders for specific fixed values that I did not provide so as not to get sued (that's a joke OK).

      2) The interpreter specifically checked fixed address xxxxx for fixed value yy AFTER the command was executed. If yy was not found it errored out. This was not a check that the poke worked, it was to make it appear that the command wasn't supported (which should have been indicated by SN error, but was something else). Having hacked the interpreter myself to add/remove commands I can say it was easy enough that this was not an accident.

      3) The peek command (not poke) specifically disallowed looking at the interpreter or the ROM. And I believe peek itself was also disabled initially. You had to do more poking to circumvent those checks. Who figured this stuff out (or leaked it) I don't know, but it's all documented in the Interaction newsletter - I *might* still have every issue printed.

      4) As I said in my original post, this BASIC is on tape, not in ROM. The Interact ROM provided text display (bitmap gfx only 112x77) rectangle filling and tape read/write functions and not much else.

      For those wondering what this odd machine was, Interact was based in AnnArbor Michigan and only a few thousand machines were produced. In a strange coincidence, years later I had a job working for the guy who originally wrote the Interact ROM.

    4. Re:That wasn't the point, me thinks... by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      Please read my responses several levels deeper. Why would you assume the stupidest possible interpretation of what I wrote and then refute it? Bill Gates was talking about the problem of "piracy" in the mid 1970s.

  33. Re:Huzzah. Evolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It should also have learned the difference between its and it's. Maybe another 30 years are needed for this mind-boggling concept?

  34. Bill as a "booth babe" at early computer fair by peter303 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I attended the the 2nd West Coast Computer Fair in 1978 in San Jose. I remember Bill as a skinny red hair kid promoting BASIC in the MSFT booth.

    These computer fairs were exciting. Before them, computers were mainly sold by corporations to other corporations. They were locked up then in central IT facilities. (Well, some things never change :-)

  35. I also recall 1979 by godrik · · Score: 1

    I was a ovum waiting for my dad's sperm to come.

    1. Re:I also recall 1979 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and then the doorbell rang, and it was the milkman... ;-)

    2. Re:I also recall 1979 by 0ld_d0g · · Score: 0

      More like waiting for your mom to get drunk. :p

      I kid..

    3. Re:I also recall 1979 by QuietObserver · · Score: 1

      I sort of recall 1979; I started kindergarten and turned six. Other than that, I don't remember much.

  36. A million times a million by smart.id · · Score: 1

    Gates remembers that in 1979 there were only 100 different software products that had more than $100 M in annual sales and all of them were for mainframes. 'In April, the 8080 version of BASIC became the first software product built to run on microprocessors to win an ICP Million Dollar Award. Today, I would be surprised if the number of million-dollar applications isn't in the millions itself' writes Gates.

    1,000,000 software applications x $1,000,000 = $1,000,000,000,000 (one quadrillion dollars)

    Seems a bit high.

    --
    blog & fiction: jd87
    1. Re:A million times a million by selven · · Score: 1

      1 million * 1 million = 1 trillion. The US has twelve of these in its national debt.

    2. Re:A million times a million by smart.id · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I fucked up. Still, could there be a trillion dollars in software sales?

      --
      blog & fiction: jd87
  37. financial obesity? illness? What gall! by dfenstrate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bill Gate's could have spent his lifetime writing free software. That being born a multi-millionaire was not enough for him is a sign of an illness that causes "financial obesity", not something to be emulated. But, in the end, it is not Bill Gates who has destroyed our society as much as all the people who want to be the next Bill Gates and support regressive social policies they hope to benefit from someday.

    It's a poor, twisted soul that even thinks to call wealth 'financial obesity', or refer to it as an illness. It's an even sicker person who sees our society as 'destroyed.' I'll give you weakened, perhaps, but for entirely different reasons than you would hold.

    Unfortunately there's no point in arguing the matter further with the authors you linked to, or yourself. The philosophical background, psyche, and emotional state required to believe those sorts of enervating ideas are so utterly different from my own, that any discussion would be wasted. Discussing the point at hand would leave a thousand necessary premises undiscussed, and nothing would come of it.

    That being said, I'll leave you with this: holding such ideas will poison your soul and make you miserable, while benefiting yourself and your fellow man not one wit.

    The thing is, he knows something is wrong. He started a foundation to help the world. He is just so socially enmeshed in a dying ideology of artificial scarcity economics that he doesn't know how to fix it, and he surrounds himself with people who just produce more of the same rather than thinking outside the scarcity box.

    It's even more evidence of a poisoned soul that you see the only possible reason a rich man would engage in charity is guilt. And while you talk of 'artificial scarcity' economics, your anti-wealth rant is based on an 'artificial scarcity of wealth' philosophy- that is, the only way it could possibly be wrong for a person to accumulate as much wealth as Bill Gates is if he's depriving someone else of something.

    Wealth is not a zero-sum game. It's more like lighting candles- if I light your candle, I still have my flame. The generation of wealth is very real and quite possible to prove within a paragraph or two. I'll leave it to you to consider for the moment.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Wealth is a zero sum game. Not everyone can be wealthy. Period. If someone else takes all your candles, you could be left with no candle to light while he has a billion candles that you could be burning. (I assume you are talking about lighting a candle as if you were spending money.)

      I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but to say wealth isn't zero-sum is wrong (Unless you work for the US treasury and you are making new candles out of thin air causing all other candles to be less impressive.)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    2. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 0, Troll

      You are engaging in an ad hominem (personal) attack and creating strawmen arguments, and saying there is no point to dialog, which all suggests your points are weak.

      The term "financial obesity" comes from the author James P. Hogan, who is one of the most optimistic people around, believing strongly in the value of learning and effort and advanced technology. Example:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_from_Yesteryear

      But even market capitalism cannot function if wealth is too centralized. You'd be right that physical wealth is not a zero sum game -- but financial wealth can be a zero sum game especially when you make it so by using financial wealth techniques to create artificial scarcity -- like monopolistic techniques that have been found by multiple courts to be illegal even under legal systems designed to support artificial scarcity.

      The central irony of today's society is how often post-scarcity technologies like automation, robotics, the internet, biotech, nuclear energy, and even bureaucracy are used to create artificial scarcities for someone's private gain instead of abundance for all.

      War is part of that, whether military war or economic war:
      "WAR IS A RACKET" by Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient Major General Smedley D. Butler - USMC Retired
      http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
      "WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

      I did not use the word "guilt"; you did. Maybe Bill Gates sees problems in a world still threatened by nuclear war, by bioengineered plagues (perhaps weaponized Lyme like President Bush got?), by killer robots like the drones that allegedly killed children in Pakistan by an order given within three days of Obama taking office, where billions of people still live in poverty and diseases despite enough global abundance for all, and in the middle of an enormous global financial collapse?

      Bill Gates knows something is wrong, just like Alan Greenspan admitted something was wrong, but he just does not understand it, because, as Einstein said, problems usually can not be solved by the same type of thinking that created them (your reply being an example? :-).
      "I Was Wrong! Alan Greenspan"
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55-A1-D3MR0

      For many years, Forth was a better OS, language, and editor than MS-DOS and BASIC. Bill Gates only got a chance to build on IBM's monopoly because of internal fighting within IBM and also his mother's social connections. Then, after that, QNX was a better OS. Smalltalk was better too as a language and IDE, and Bill Gates even admitted that somewhere. But monopolistic practices let Bill Gates succeed while technically better solutions failed in the market.

      Our society often socializes external costs and systemic risks, while privatizing gains (like the recent banking bailout instead of just giving money to the people to spend). And above are links to three people, a successful author, a decorated military general, and the previous director of the Federal Reserve, all essentially saying that. But, when someone tries to point out stuff like that, you say they have a "poisoned soul", without knowing anything about them, and without in the slightest trying to evaluate the historical truths they point to.

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    3. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... no criticism of initiative, creativity, or risk taking inherent in achieving individual goals implicit ... but do please explain why we currently record the largest gap in incomes since the founding of the republic. How do you make sure everyone has access to a candle instead of a platitude about a candle?

    4. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by Backward+Z · · Score: 2

      How this comment gets 5: Insightful is beyond me. All like the parent replied, it's all ad hominems and strawmen. There's not a single hard argument here that holds water.

      http://www.jmooneyham.com/the-huge-mountain-of-cash-separating-the-rich-from-everyone-else.html (and seriously, I'm seeing new infographics like this every few days, this is just the most recent)

      Wealth is a zero sum game, a game where the wealthy get the sum and everybody else gets as close to zero as possible without revolting against the wealthy class.

      "Poisoned soul" doesn't mean anything. You should make an argument to everyone also to convince also them that people have souls prior to making any assertation towards the condition of that soul.

      Your candle lighting analogy makes no sense. Let's say we're both in line at Fortune 500 company for a VP promotion. We can't both have our candles lit, can we?

    5. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --Wealth is not a zero-sum game. It's more like lighting candles- if I light your candle, I still have my flame. The generation of wealth is very real and quite possible to prove within a paragraph or two. I'll leave it to you to consider for the moment.--

      They really don't generate anything other than what was already here. It just changes form and that is all. Like right now carbon in the ground is being sent to atmosphere by us. So every thing on this earth is zero sum in the end. Rich or poor, you will die someday, and then before long it was like you never even existed. It is a shame to keep wealth only to a certain group of people because of who they are not what they can do. When 90% of the wealth is held by less than 1% of the population, then you know it's mostly because of class and rags to riches stories are for the most part pure BS.

    6. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by dfenstrate · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wealth is a zero sum game. Not everyone can be wealthy. Period.
      I'll agree that not everyone can be wealthy, but that doesn't make it zero sum. If it was a zero sum game, we could not have far more wealthy people than the world has seen before, and we could not have a vast majority of western countries with citizens who enjoy material wealth not even possible 100 years ago.

      That wealth was generated by human activity. It was not taken from someone else, because there was no one to take it from.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    7. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      Uh... no criticism of initiative, creativity, or risk taking inherent in achieving individual goals implicit ... but do please explain why we currently record the largest gap in incomes since the founding of the republic.

      The evidence of a wealth gap in and of itself is not a moral problem, unless you're operating out of a spirit of envy.

      The wealth another man has or controls is irrelevant if his posession of such does not prevent me from generating enough wealth to meet my needs.

      I have no need to explain it, because the gap itself is not a problem. Perhaps I misunderstand you?

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    8. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by dfenstrate · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let's say we're both in line at Fortune 500 company for a VP promotion. We can't both have our candles lit, can we?

      Implicit in your question is the assumption that the VP promotion is the only way for that individual to generate wealth beyond what he already posesses. It also implies a fixation on working for someone else to generate wealth, but someone has to start all these companies that grow into fortune 500 companies and employ thousands of people and a few VP's.

      "Poisoned soul" doesn't mean anything. You should make an argument to everyone also to convince also them that people have souls prior to making any assertation towards the condition of that soul.

      There is an over-reliance on slashdot on academic-style articulated rationality, as if words drove reality, and weren't merely a best-efforts attempt to reflect reality. 'Soul' can be taken as shorthand for the collection of attitudes and philosophies one operates from, with the 'poisoned soul' to mean holding a set of ideas that lead to a stagnant or decreasing quality of life.

      This is of course part of what I spoke of- a thousand underlying premises that make these discussions difficult at best.

      Wealth is a zero sum game, a game where the wealthy get the sum and everybody else gets as close to zero as possible without revolting against the wealthy class.

      Considering that the wealthy, the middle class, and much of the poor (who still drive cars, have air conditioning, and posses multiple TV's in the US) posess material wealth of a manner and quantity that didn't exist 100 years ago, who did they steal all that wealth from?

      Wealth is a limited sum game, but the limit is constantly increasing as human effort is added into the pool of wealth. Limited, increasing sum != zero.

      I'm terribly sorry to do this point-by-point response, as I generally find it tiresome and cosntantly spiraling, but there it is.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    9. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      You touch on my position in your own response: It just changes form and that is all.

      A balance of inputs and outputs- this is what you talk about, correct? Sure, it's changed form, but hey, the materials were always here, right?

      How can we generate wealth if we've got a limited set of components to work with?

      Is that your position? The basis of your statement? The notion you rest 'zero-sum wealth on'?

      If:
      raw materials = product
      then that supports your idea that the amount of wealth in the world is stable, and one may become wealthy only by depriving another.

      I believe it's more like this:

      raw materials + human effort = product + wealth

      Roughly speaking, of course.

      Where does the effort humans constantly add into the world figure into your equation?

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    10. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 0, Troll

      "The wealth another man has or controls is irrelevant if his posession of such does not prevent me from generating enough wealth to meet my needs."

      It's called political campaign donations. It's called monopoly and cartels. It's called comparative advantage. It's called out-bidding. It's called privately funded education and private tutoring. It's called back room deals. It's called buying advertising. It's called getting lots of tries to get it right. It's called keeping the others desperately poor so they have no choice but to deal on your terms and be cheap labor.

      From:
      "The Mythology of Wealth"
      http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402
      """ ... First of all, "hard work" is only a small piece of the equation. In reality, success in the market is about market position. It isn't about what you do, but about what you control. The hardest work is actually done by people whose market position makes their daily wage minimal. The person who profits most from their labor is the person who owns the factory they work in. While there are certainly examples of factory owners who started with nothing and rose to be "captains of industry", for the most part our captains of industry started out a lot further ahead of the game.
      This is the difference between say, George W. Bush and you. Dubya went to prep school. You went to the public high school. Dubya went to Yale - ahead of someone with better credentials because he had family connections. Dubya had wealthy friends, through family, "skull and bones", etc, who bankrolled his oil drilling business. Ask some of his friends to bankroll your oil business. Let me know if they stop laughing before their bodyguards throw you out. Even if you managed to persuade an investor to bankroll some enterprise, you're going to have exactly one shot. If you lose, you won't be getting a second chance. Dubya, on the other hand, went broke, and then his friends bankrolled him again, before finally getting him a one percent share of the Texas Rangers.
      See how it works? People with money help each other out. They don't help out people who don't have any. Many cheap-labor conservatives don't want to help out the destitute at all. They say government assistance to people will make them "dependent". They say it breeds "inefficiency" and "laziness". They say that a harsh "got mine, get yours" social environment breeds "market discipline" by rewarding the most resourceful and competitive. Some extreme cheap-labor conservatives don't even believe in public education. They say it is the family's responsibility. If your family can't afford to send you to school, well, that's not their problem.
      Of course, wealthy elites shower their own with benefits - and enjoy a plethora of government benefits and services. They know the value of education, that's why they keep expensive private schools like Andover in business. In fact, they do everything they can to give their own children every advantage money can buy, because they absolutely understand the value of a "head start" in the fiercely competitive social jungle they have created. They talk about "competition", but they actually fear it, and do what they can to make the playing field as unequal as they can. Then they tell the wage earner that his position is "his fault", and that he just needs to work harder - in their factory. He needs to more "disciplined" and "thrifty" if we wants to "get ahead".
      """

      There are always exceptions to these general trends. Steve Jobs, for example, is something of an exception. He got lucky (even though he is also, like Bill Gates, hard working and talented). But you can be sure Steve Jobs has been doing his best for a long time to make sure a lot of other potential Steve Jobs' In never get their chance to run the next Apple. It's a crazy way to run an advanced technological society where war over economic issues could quickly lead to Arm

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    11. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by dfenstrate · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are engaging in an ad hominem (personal) attack and creating strawmen arguments, and saying there is no point to dialog, which all suggests your points are weak.

      The differing underlying premises we operate from, and how that will generally make us talk past each other, is detailed in part by Thomas Sowell in A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles.

      Unfortunately, I don't have the time or inclination to write a book, so I merely allude to the fact that the premises underlying our positions are drastically different and vitally important.

      As for the rest of your post, you evidently place a great deal of confidence in specific articulated rationality. Unfortunately, much of what you rely on is unproven theory, or merely opinions, as it is not positited in any way that can be tested.

      Tossing around rhetorical terms like 'ad hominen' imply a preference for a specifically rational methodology, but the way to verify the rationality in all those grand-sounding thoughts is sorely absent.

      These opinions masquerade as social science, but the prerequites of science are lacking- making them again, no more than opinions.

      Further, most of these opinions are not even based on experience in the market or effectively governing a country, but merely a twisted wreckage of baseless half-logic that sounds good on paper.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    12. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      Re: Competition: The winning and losing involved in competition is not a permanent, one-time state. The person who loses today may better themselves and win tommorow. In denigrating competition, you miss this vital point.

      They don't help out people who don't have any. Many cheap-labor conservatives don't want to help out the destitute at all. They say government assistance to people will make them "dependent". They say it breeds "inefficiency" and "laziness".

      Do you actually know anyone on government assistance? I do. He is dependant, self-centered, unreliable, and often lazy. You have an opinion, I have experience.

      A market cannot function humanely without the wealth spread around fairly evenly

      Your use of subjective terms like 'humanely' drive your-and kohn's- position back into the realm of idle speculation.

      Generally speaking, 'humanely' is a worthwhile goal, but you can't dip your toes in and out of hard logic & numbers at your convienence, and then expect any deference from me.

      At this point I would suggest reading the sowell book I linked in another response to you (I think it was you.) I could type more but I'm not sure you understand my philosophical basis- you likely think I'm a 'rube' for 'the man'

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    13. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 0, Troll

      "Considering that the wealthy, the middle class, and much of the poor (who still drive cars, have air conditioning, and posses multiple TV's in the US) possess material wealth of a manner and quantity that didn't exist 100 years ago, who did they steal all that wealth from?"

      You're certainly right in suggesting that the organization of matter into forms humans desire is the creation of wealth (the poster you are responding to got that wrong). And you are certainly correct that we have more stuff in the USA than ever (See Cato Institute's Brink Lindsey's "The Age Of Abundance").

      But, as financial prospectuses always say: "Past performance is no guarantee of future results". You can't conclude from the poor having more stuff now that things won't change dramatically in the near term unless we actively try to reform a winner-takes-all social ideology. Reforms might include instituting a "basic income" to keep the market working (funded by a wealth tax perhaps or other means), helping gift economies prosper like GNU/Linux by more supportive laws like shortening copyright length to a few years or limiting its scope to only commercial transactions, and helping people be more productive locally in various ways where they keep or share the results of their own production from home 3D printers or neighborhood TechShops or local farms by helping individuals relearn productive skills and have access to the resources they need to do that.

      Also, while we have a lot more stuff, so much that we are getting buried in it in the USA and people make movies like WALL-e that don't even sound too far fetched, we also have a lot more cancer (half of which comes from environmental causes) and a lot more risk of global Armageddon from nukes, bioweapons, killer robots, and global financial panics. We also have a lot less species and less nature. One can argue if that was a good trade overall, but in any case, it is a done deal. But here is another way to measure progress than Brink Lindsey's approach:
      http://www.rprogress.org/sustainability_indicators/genuine_progress_indicator.htm
      "We believe that if policymakers measure what really matters to people--health care, safety, a clean environment, and other indicators of well-being--economic policy would naturally shift towards sustainability. Redefining Progress created the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) in 1995 as an alternative to the gross domestic product (GDP). The GPI enables policymakers at the national, state, regional, or local level to measure how well their citizens are doing both economically and socially."

      Is Bill Gates lobbying for any of that? No, he is busy moving his R&D to India, trying to get more staff under H1B visa indentured servitude to get the most for the cheapest labor costs, trying to pay less taxes to support those workers that improved productivity from software makes redundant, and likely trying to extend the scope and duration of patents and copyrights he owns -- at least, until, like the Grinch who stole Christmas, he has a change of heart. Then, his vast talent and skills could help renew our society, physical infrastructure, and our ecology, like happened at the end of the movie WALL-e (if you stayed for the credits):
      "WALL-E Credits"
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6wgicmUAfw

      The issue is, where do we go from here? Mainstream economists ignore the value of social capital, like intact extended families and intact neighborhoods. Brink Lindsey ignored social trends, for example, how the USA has one of the lowest scores on life expectance and childhood happiness of the industrialized nations, and how hundreds of years earlier the natives had a socialist economic system that was working so well that Benjamin Franklin borrowed lots of ideas from the Iroquois Confederacy to write the US Constitution. They also ignore systemic

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    14. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I think you are referring to cost of living? I'll agree, has gone down with the use of technology, but I don't attribute that to wealth. It's not like we have more rich people. We just have more people who can afford plumbing, big screen televisions, etc because they are getting cheaper to make.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    15. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1, Insightful

      One anecdote about a person on welfare (possibly burned out or damaged from the current economic system or schooling) does not a case make.

      You said previously that another person's vast wealth does not bother you unless it affected your ability to make a living. I then gave a list of things from campaign donations through advertising and getting multiple chances that suggests a vast wealth disparity would impact your ability to make money. And that's even without considering how many workers can be replaced by increasing automation (including robots and AI) and better design. Then you changed the subject. :-)

      In an age of robots, an "L-Curve" society can't function if the only reason people have a right to consume is having a job.
          http://www.lcurve.org/

      The global economy has just crashed (or rather, is *starting* to crash in a big way). You are suggesting the same mainstream economists who defended it's current structure know how to fix it? Give examples of these people who are so effective at governing countries? The USA is second from last in child wellbeing of industrialized countries, and that is only because the UK is last as (it's said) a poor version of the USA. So, how about, say, Iceland as a model, a big neo-conservative poster child for a time as a well run economy? Markets have a lot of good points, but they often fail at dealing with positive and negative externalities, managing systemic risk of market failure, and equitable distribution of market production if the economic wealth distribution is very unequal. I stuck in "humane" is "markets need a wide spread of wealth to function humanely", but the fact is more like, they need a broad distribution of wealth to function at all (as we are seeing now). Why did the USA have so much economic growth when top tax rates were around 94%? Because it spread the wealth around. There is a law of diminishing return on great wealth, where it just becomes easier to park your wealth in Treasury bills and finance wars than actually run businesses.

      From Marshall Brain's "Manna":
          http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
      "As the robots took over in the workplace, the number of welfare recipients grew rapidly. Manna replaced tens of millions of minimum wage workers with robots, and terrafoam housing became the warehouse of choice for them. Terrafoam buildings were not pretty, but they were incredibly inexpensive to build and were designed for maximum occupancy. They clustered the buildings on trash land well away from urban centers so no one had to look at them. It was a lot like an old-style college dorm. Each person got a 5 foot by 10 foot room with a bed and a TV -- the world's best pacifier. During the day the bed was a couch and people sat on the bedspread, which also served as a sheet and the blanket. At night the bed was a bed. When I arrived they had just started putting in bunk beds to double the number of people in each building. Burt was not excited to see me when I arrived -- he had had a private room for 10 years, and my arrival was the end of that. At least he was polite about it."

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    16. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The market is failing for several mathematical reasons, so Sowell, even though wrong about many historic psychological things, is irrelevant (look up Marshall Sahlin's work on "The Original Affluent Society" or Alfie Kohn's work on motivation with lots of references to the scientific literature).
      http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html

      The market does not account well for positive or negative externalities (stuff like pollution).
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
      The market can not price in its own systemic risk of failure from bubbles or banking failures.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_risk
      The market can not distribute income widely when a few players have most of the capital, resulting in unmet human needs and starvation.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
      The market needs human labor less and less because of automation and better design, producing falling wages and increasing unemployment, given limited demand for most consumer goods in the long term beyond some basic saturation level that the USA has already overshot and the globe will soon catch up with.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobless_recovery
      Cheaper computers are driving the cost of everything towards zero by supporting better design and smarter devices, but even cheap stuff is too expensive if you don't have a job.
      http://www.shirky.com/writings/divide.html
      Real markets (as opposed to theoretical ones) often have the richest players changing the laws in their favor (and even in a libertarian ideal, the richest can become the government through purchasing military might or votes).
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
      All these factors are creating market problems. The current economic collapse is one aspect of that. Things will only get worse in all of these ways. The market has many virtues, but those virtues can not be realized in an extreme form without various controls on the market (legal, social, religious, whatever).

      There are many economic simulations about these issues. There are many negative real examples (Iceland) and positive examples (Western Europe with a stronger social safety net is doing better in the collapse; all industrialized countries that have comprehensive medical care pay less for medical care that has better outcomes; kids are happier in most other industrialized countries, etc.). The USA is even getting to be a less and less happy place for the rich who can afford health care, as emergency rooms go on diversion and epidemics get spread through poor people who have less resistance. And even if you are wealthy in the USA, it is only too easy to lose it all, as Bernie Madoff's clients can attest to. But the fact is, for most people, losing money to Madoff is a fantasy, and they live paycheck to paycheck, and the social tension is rising right now with rising unemployment and collapsing social institutions (even the shelters are closing for lack of money). We are just in the beginnings of this unless we take serious action as a society to deal with these *structural* issues with a failing economic control system and a dysfunctional (fossil fuel based) physical plant.

      You are asking for a higher level of proof than created the current disaster. That's a good thing to do, I agree. It is a fair demand. That kind of evidence is the kind of thing someone like Bill Gates could make real inroads into with more computer simulations and with his foundation funding regional alternative experiments (like a basic income in a town), if he had a tr

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    17. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I'll agree that not everyone can be wealthy, but that doesn't make it zero sum. If it was a zero sum game, we could not have far more wealthy people than the world has seen before, and we could not have a vast majority of western countries with citizens who enjoy material wealth not even possible 100 years ago.

      That's a mighty vague definition of "wealth" you have there.

    18. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      The term "financial obesity" comes from the author James P. Hogan, who is one of the most optimistic people around, believing strongly in the value of learning and effort and advanced technology. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_from_Yesteryear

      And one of the few books around that describes what an Open Sourced society might look like - very interesting read.

      Why the fuck is this ++Insightful comment modded as a troll? I see nothing trollish in it. It's ironic though that the behavior exhibited, to suppress that reality by a minority in the world with some power, is reflected in the microcosm that is slashdot. Being able to face the painful reality is the first step in being able to address the issues at hand.

      One can only hope there are enough moderators reading this comment will be able to evaluate it's "truthiness" with the sincerity it deserves. or in other words:

      MOD PARENT UP

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    19. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by Backward+Z · · Score: 1

      This is of course part of what I spoke of- a thousand underlying premises that make these discussions difficult at best.

      I'm terribly sorry to do this point-by-point response, as I generally find it tiresome and cosntantly spiraling, but there it is.

      You're right, you're way smarter than all of us unwashed masses who don't deserve the benefit of your supreme insight.

      How do you even take yourself seriously?

      "Nothing is easier than self-deception. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true." -Demosthenes

    20. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Ok, obviously someone is abusing the moderation system here to have a go at this guy or we have a moderator that is on a bad acid trip. I'll be flagging it as such and maybe some other moderators will redress the situation.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    21. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Flagging moderator abuse - how pathetic and obvious

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    22. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by Backward+Z · · Score: 1
    23. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by MrKaos · · Score: 1
      This is the most blatant example of moderator abuse I have seen on slashdot, every comment modded a troll. puuulease. It looks like the signs that Benjamin Franklin were talking about are happening right here and trite now, how glib.

      This sort of abuse illustrates that freedom of speech will be sacrificed to maintain the status quo. Dissent will not be tolerated and there will be enough 'Useful idiot's' out there to help crush that dissent. What a ironic example of how freedom is an illusion. You are free to comply, you are free to agree. If anyone is wondering what life was like just before Hitler came to power now you know.

      So buy more, STFU and die, that is all that is required of you.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    24. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      Thanks. My sentiments exactly. :-)

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    25. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --raw materials + human effort = product + wealth--

      You could just as easily have said this:

      tobacco (Jamestown America) + human effort = dope
      dope = wealth

      It would not matter. We don't seem to important to the way the rest of the universe operates or anything.

      --Where does the effort humans constantly add into the world figure into your equation?--

      I don't know but the historical record doesn't look that well right now. Hopefully, we can do better because we must.

      What didn't you really agree with?

    26. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by Backward+Z · · Score: 1

      This is the most blatant example of moderator abuse I have seen on slashdot, every comment modded a troll. puuulease.

      I was thinking the exact same thing.

      dfenstrate is a dolt, yet every post he makes gets rated +5...

    27. Re:financial obesity? illness? What gall! by MrKaos · · Score: 1
      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  38. But it's a shame... by WheelDweller · · Score: 0

    The winner of this digital explosion also shut it down for the last 20-25 years by 'partnering', crushing, or outright STEALING such good ideas that you just can't get investor money for Windows-based projects.

    Why do you think the internet, with it's web-based, not Windows-based tech continues to grow?

    Linus might think it a 'disease', but I have a hard time being 'fair' when it comes to a people that very nearly shut down the tsunami so all the profits could be theirs. Work for a company shut down by their lawyers (or their fragile software) and you'll feel the same way.

    So I'm charmed to hear what he remembers of those days. Imagine the thousands of employers unable to remember their early days, bringing technology up, because they never got to grow under the thumb of the modern "Phone Company". (AKA monopoly, for you young kids out there.)

    Maybe it's time to let others think, work, and grow too?

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  39. Ah, the late 70's by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Imsai 8080 that my dad built from a kit. The TV Typewriter terminal. The Pickles & Trout video interface. Loading an ill-gotten copy of 4k BASIC by pulling punched tape through a reader, later loading Extended BASIC via a Kansas City standard cassette tape interface. Building wire harnesses in the garage for Synetic Designs' FDS-1 dual 8-inch floppy disk drive system (and getting paid $20 per!). Hunt the Wumpus, Hammurabi, even Star Trek!

    Those were the days.
    Now get offa my lawn, you damn kids!

  40. WAIT 6502,0 by itsdapead · · Score: 1

    Since the Commodore PET, the Trash-80 Level 2 and various other circa-77 computers ran Microsoft BASIC I rather think BillG knows about them.

    The point of TFA is not that 1979 marked the birth of the personal computer, but was the point at which things really started to mushroom. Sounds about right to me.

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    1. Re:WAIT 6502,0 by McNihil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well... I would say that it really mushroomed when the Sinclair ZX 80 was made and later on ZX 81 (Timex here in North America.) 99% of my computer literate friends started on these (yes this be Europe.) Note also that these were not running MS Basic.

      I was not dissing Billy not knowing about PET... he definitely knows (how could he not?) I was just referring to the blatant and consistent laps of showing "credit where credit is due." If it wasn't for inexpensive computers like Commodore and Sinclair we might have still worn lab coats at work to operate the monsters (AS/400 et.al) regardless of Billy and his associates. Now Jobs et.al. is an other matter... more in the veins of expensive jewelery more than anything else... iPhone being the epitome of this.

      Note: I am happy that current "jewelery" is running Unix quite well :-D

    2. Re:WAIT 6502,0 by DocMAME · · Score: 1

      CBM BASIC = MS-BASIC? I didn't realize that... POKE 53280,0: POKE 53281,0

    3. Re:WAIT 6502,0 by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      CBM BASIC = MS-BASIC? I didn't realize that... POKE 53280,0: POKE 53281,0

      Uh... was that something to do with switching between lower-case and graphics (or was that POKE 59468,1)?

      Anyway, WAIT 6502,0 would fill the screen with the word "Microsoft!".

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    4. Re:WAIT 6502,0 by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      Well... I would say that it really mushroomed when the Sinclair ZX 80 was made

      So, around 1979-1980 then?

      I'd agree that's when affordable, pre-assembled all-in-one home computers - with keyboards, video output and BASIC in ROM started to appear. Before that, it was a choice between soldering irons, hex keypads and Teletype 43s at dawn or finding a small fortune for a PET, Apple II or TRS-80.

      Note also that these [Sinclair] were not running MS Basic.

      But other cheap options - such as the OSI Superboard/UK101 - did. Ditto Commodore VIC, 64 etc.

      I think the UK was a bit of a microcosm because the "cross off the Dollar sign and write a Pound sign" export strategy was already going strong and kept Commodore, Apple and Tandy stuff outside many people's price range. So in the UK, you soon had Sinclair, Acorn and Amstrad pw3ning the market niches occipied by Commodore and Apple in the US.

      I'm quite willing to give BillG a lot of credit for contributing to the early years of the PC. Even showing that you could make money by producing PC software was a contribution. Things didn't really go runny until IBM (remember when they were the evil monopolists?) belatedly got involved, took a mediocre 8088-based beige box running a CP/M knock-off OS, somehow convinced the world that it was wonderful and locked the industry into a closed, proprietary and pathologically non-scalable architecture.

      Now Jobs et.al. is an other matter...

      You seem to be forgetting about the Apple II. Not the first PC but one of the first (within a six month period) "buy it and plug it in" PCs and hugely influential in the early years and went on to popularise (if not actually invent) the spreadsheet, the GUI, desktop publishing, laser printing, local area networking, Photoshop et. al... Hell, it was even Apple who got USB off the staring blocks after it had been sitting unused on PC motherboards for ages, despite it being an Intel invention that competed with their own Firewire...

      Note: I am happy that current "jewelery" is running Unix quite well :-D

      Yup - Apple finally got ordinary people queueing up to run Unix on the desktop. That counts as an Achievement.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  41. Thats too bad by ijakings · · Score: 1

    Thats too bad, because ive got love for you..... if you were born in the eighties.

  42. I Have by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1

    How many of you have actually used Vista on decent hardware (post-2004) and had problems with it?

    I have, but the problems were very mild and the computer really did feel faster than XP. Copying gigs of data through identical versions of iTunes was significantly faster. I also enjoy looking at Vista much more: no more 1-pixel-wide fonts when using 1920x1200 resolution. It still lags behind a modern Linux distro in the look and feel department, but it's clearly an improvement over "Windows 2000 with a blue Start Bar."

    Ultimately, I reverted to Windows XP because of sound latency issues with Vista. I'm only using Windows on that machine to run Traktor DJ software, and Vista with its new audio driver model introduced latent and choppy sound that I did not have with XP. Also, my cheap MIDI-to-USB converter had significant and sporadic delays in Vista - sometimes close to half a second - that are almost unnoticeable with XP. It's really fast hardware, but I think Vista's DRM-laden driver models are way too eager to delay that information long enough to make the OS useless for my purpose.

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
  43. Found It! by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1

    Can someone help debug my php? 20 $i = 1; 30 while ($i != 10) { 40 $i++; 50 }

    I found the problem, you don't have any GOTO in your BASIC, err, PHP code!

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
  44. Last week Gizmodo by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    admitted they're really scraping the bottom of the tech blog barrel.

  45. Nothing like programming with line numbers by xswl0931 · · Score: 1

    10 Sin 20 Goto Hell

  46. Bill Gates Remembers 1979 by awpoopy · · Score: 0

    Who?

    --
    I say things which affects my Karma negatively. (and I don't care) For instance; All religion is false.
  47. Windows tech support by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 1

    I remember during the Windows Vista launch period how Microsoft were touting it as a feature just how many new jobs would be created in the IT sector doing Windows Vista support.

    If Vista had have taken off, he would have been spot on the money. Whether or not this is a good thing, I'll leave up to the reader to decide.

  48. I'll let you know.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... once the laptops I have to fix allow people to do any useful work.

    The amount of disk trashing Vista and its applications does is truly appaliing.

    We are talking about machines with 1 GB of memory and recently modern (less than 3 years old).

    I put Ubuntu on the same machine for my personal use and have not experienced all the latency other people with Vista in the same hardware are.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  49. So how does that support your point? by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    We just have more people who can afford plumbing, big screen televisions, etc because they are getting cheaper to make.

    And widespread access to the creature comforts of life supports your argument how? What is wealth for? Specific dollar numbers are going up and down, but access to the modern benefits that wealth provides is quite widespread....

    So what are you complaining about again?

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  50. Oh, come now. It's simple. by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    That's a mighty vague definition of "wealth" you have there.
    Money, and what you can buy with it. Simple enough for you? We exchange money for goods and services, so 'wealth' might include the ability to use goods and services as you choose.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  51. Re: been using Vista, no problems except... by neonsignal · · Score: 1

    Oh don't eat me, I'm too little I am. Wait a bit until the second Billy Goat Gruff comes. He's much bigger.

    And no, I've never used Vista. The grass on the hill over the other side is much lusher.

  52. Re:POKE 53280,0: POKE 53281,0 by DocMAME · · Score: 1

    POKE 53280,0: POKE 53281,0 = Fade to black.. well, really quickly like instantly... :)

  53. RuUun Gates is an Alien Hybrid !!?!?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was not 13 in that original pict, IT WAS 11 !!!

    How our minds EXPAND things as we get old and senile !!

    Does anyone besides me think Gates is an alien hybrid, loook into those BUGGY EYES !

    http://blogs.msdn.com/mithund/archive/2008/06/27/before-after-the-original-11-who-started-microsoft-albuquerque-picture.aspx

  54. Re:POKE 53280,0: POKE 53281,0 by itsdapead · · Score: 1

    Ah. the good old days of POKE.

    I remember having a BASIC program crash and finding it was because the Starship Enterprise had flown off the screen and embedded itself in a line of code. This was on an OSI Superboard which had a character set filled with useful stuff like aliens and spaceships instead of lower case letters. The downside was that nobody told Microsoft this so you'd get messages like "S[front-half-of-a-spaceship] Error at line 110".

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.