The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
Contrarywise, DEC developed most of the Operating Systems for their hardware (PDP, VAX, Alpha), as did IBM (mainframes) -- just not a consumer-grade OS. Those Operating Systems don't run on hardware it wasn't developed for and you can't just go to a store and buy parts to assemble a compatible system.
On the other hand, there are rumors that HP may release a version of OpenVMS that runs natively on x86, but lacking that there are emulators.
The OP asked about Steve Jobs vs Bill Gates, not Apple vs MS. From a software perspective, Steve Jobs took the ideas from Xerox PARC and brought the desktop UI to the masses. Bill Gates ran down the street and bought the rights to DOS. Later on, Steve Jobs brought us the iPhone while Bill Gates was retired or something.
I really don't think its even close.
“Steve doesn’t get Pixar,” Pam went on. “We’re artsy and creative. We’re like a family. We hug. And we’re not a top-down organization; everyone here has a voice.”
“Steve is the guy who owns us—but he’s never been one of us,” Pam explained. “We’ve long felt unvalued, unappreciated. People worry that if he gets too close, he’ll ruin Pixar, and destroy our culture. And now, you’re the guy he has sent to whip us into shape.”
“Plus,” Pam added, “He’s broken promises. And people are angry about that.”
Surely you're not suggesting that every Microsoft employee has always been 100% happy?
No, just thought it was interesting. I read (last month) Paul Allen's autobiography[^] and it detailed a lot about Gates personality that was similar to Jobs and it finally drove Allen to leave the company.
However, I do think Gates seemed to learn / examine what his personality did where it seems like Jobs just kept driving down the same road.
thanks, that was a nice read.
Oh but I so want to jab about my view that having stocks and investments is a totally meaningless value until sold.
The prospect of having a billion is not the same as having a billion.
I got 2 bitcoin. It is worth (what ever value is now) to someone else. I do not have that money.
From a consumer point of view Jobs comes out on tops, largely because of marketing and because he is able to persuade his followers that it's not that the phone is trash it's that they are holding it the wrong way and if they insist on holding it the wrong way they can wrap the phone in a condom to get it to work.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
All the real work was done by the developers who made things useful, both within their respective companies, and by far more importantly, everyone else who developed. The "open source" for computer parts (for those products, i.e., IBM PC style) allowed reduced pricing via competition and thus increased accessibility ===> popularity.
So give the Kudos to IBM and the others who made a "PC" template that stuck!
Neither. By all accounts they both encouraged a 'corporate culture' of 80-hour work weeks and at-all-costs delivery schedules that destroyed the personal lives of far more engineers than they ever made wealthy.
Gates because he could program, and so valued software... built a ~Bliinndingly! Successful business around faith in it, and the value it can create. Jobs sold hardware. Software was a means to that end for him, not the end. I always hated how closed and controlling Apple was/is. It's too arrogant of a position for my tastes.
Most of the focus was on the businesses of Apple and Microsoft.
No one mentioned Gates shift toward philanthropy once he could (mostly) leave Microsoft to its own devices and give curing the next (insert what being worked on now). Contrast that with Jobs which had not signed up to the Giving Pledge group.
As people - lots said about Jobs' personality, but some comments provided that Gate's not a shining angle either.
And i will leave this final thought: If one of them had not existed, would the other be as successful in their own right as they have been?
Who has provided more influence in the tech industry?
Steve Jobs. Gates gave us BASIC and an OS he stole from Jobs (who copied it from Xerox).
Which was better at pong?
I would guess Jobs because he once worked at Atari, but I don't say that with authority since I never saw either play.
Who was the better CEO?
Jobs. A good manager gets his workers to do what he wants, regardless of the method (rewards, threats, whatever). Apple WAS Jobs; Microsoft had various factions infighting.
Who have helped the world better with their technology solutions?
Gates probably helped developers more; after all, he complained about open source, created the idea of software licensing, etc. Jobs provided more to society. Apple provided the first commercially successful microcomputer, the first commercially successful GUI, the only commercially successful "music box", and the model for EVERY cellphone today (Android is more popular than iPhone, but anyone saying it didn't start as a copy of iPhone is just lying).
Who was smarter?
Bill Gates. Created an empire; perfected "embrace, extend, extinguish"; still looked like a rock when compared to Jobs' charisma, salesmanship and con-man ability.
Which looked better in a black turtleneck and blue jeans?
I've seen a lot of different women named, and I'd agree with ANY of them over these two.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njos57IJf-0"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njos57IJf-0">Steve Jobs vs Bill Gates. Epic Rap Battles of History - YouTube</a>[<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njos57IJf-0" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>]</a>[<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njos57IJf-0" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>]
Last Visit: 6-Jul-20 16:52 Last Update: 6-Jul-20 16:52