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.'"

64 of 310 comments (clear)

  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 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....

    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Re:Dr. Who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, mathematically, yes.

    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. 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
    10. 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.
    11. 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!
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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
    15. Re:Dr. Who by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Funny

      87mph ought to be enough for anyone.

    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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!

    19. 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.

    20. 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...)

    21. 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!

    22. 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
    23. 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.

  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.

  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 UnixUnix · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    3. 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!
    4. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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 #!
  6. 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 ...

  7. 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."

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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...

  11. 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!
  12. 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."
  13. 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.

  14. 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 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.
  15. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  16. 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 :-)

  17. 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 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?

    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
  18. 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!

  19. 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

  20. 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.

  21. 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.
  22. 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.