|
Gotta love the classics  .
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Influence in the tech industry - Gates but Jobs in other industries such as communication and entertainment.
Pong - Tie, they both sucked.
CEO - Gates was a better traditional businessman.
Helped the world with their solutions - Tie, both were instrumental in revolutionary changes in several industries.
Smarter - Gates but Jobs was more visionary.
Looked better in turtleneck and jeans - Jobs but then again I've never seen Gates dressed like that.
|
|
|
|
|
Seems about right.
Mike Mullikin wrote: Smarter - Gates but Jobs was more visionary.
Yes. But also "visionary" shouldn't be underrated. Consider the position of Apple with Jobs, then without, then with, then without.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
One created an OS that is found on nearly every end-user system, the other tried to sell something similar to an OS for a niche.
One is an actual programmer, the other was a salesman.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: the other tried to sell something similar to an OS for a niche
Are you Steve Wozniak in disguise? That's what he thought too.
Wozniak: ...the Macintosh, which wasn't really a computer, just a program that looked like a computer and led to big problems later on;
|
|
|
|
|
The only company that closes their operating system to their own produced devices.That's all.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Umm... Aren't _most_ Operating Systems hardware-specific?
Try running OpenVMS on an IBM system.
If you're talking about only _consumer-grade_ Operating Systems, then I still don't see a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no problem, Apple is very successful. I just don't like it.
Consider Microsoft windows. The possibilities to build a machine that will run it are endless.
Android is available on all kinds of different devices from thousands of vendors.
Apple has two or three iPhones, two or three laptops and two or three desktops, very limited opportunities to customise them. That is why I never bought personally an Apple device and use them only because my work requires it.
In other words, Apple is a hardware company first and I'm a software guy.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
IBM is a hardware company. DEC was a hardware company -- Compaq and HP... hardware companies.
Apple being a hardware company is not the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure what you are trying to say. None of these companies have their own consumer operating system. We are comparing apples and Microsoft. The other ones are not even fruits if you know what I mean 
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I gave up holding my breath for the HP "Machine" to emerge from the hype.
If it does materialize, what will it use for systems software (OS, compilers, database, application frameworks, etc.)? Linux?!
A little voice whispers "Itanium!"
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the black turtleneck winner is Jeff Goldblum.
Though, of course a turtleneck is not a manly look. So I guess Bill would win by _not_ wearing one.
modified 4-Dec-18 13:49pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You missed out a crucial comparison...who could jump over a chair like a boss?
|
|
|
|
|
It's neither, that would be Commander William T. Riker.
|
|
|
|
|
An interesting contrast:
Bill Gates became a Billionaire in 1987 (age 32) from his work at the company (Microsoft) he cofounded, making him the youngest self-made billionaire in history.
Steve Jobs became a Billionaire in 1995 (age 40) not from the company he founded but from Pixar.
Just now reading this article for the first time and it is very good:
How Steve Jobs Became a Billionaire[^]
Some very interesting quotes from the article:
Quote: “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.”
Quote: “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.”
Quote: “Plus,” Pam added, “He’s broken promises. And people are angry about that.”
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure what any of this has to do with comparing Gates' and Jobs' performance within their respective companies and industries.
Surely you're not suggesting that every Microsoft employee has always been 100% happy?
|
|
|
|
|
my intent with the opening was letting people compare how ever they want. Like does Forbes most influential list work, is it the number of followers on Instagram? I hope not.
|
|
|
|
|
OK... seems so vague as to have no purpose... but OK. 
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
maze3 wrote: The prospect of having a billion is not the same as having a billion.
So true.
|
|
|
|
|
My wife.
And anybody that has answered any other thing doesn't know her.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
