Stumble ThisDid Bill Gates just imply that he thinks Vista sucks ? From CES 2008 interview.
Featured Member Comment
Chris Matthews DESTROYS Right Wing Talking Head - “What a pathetic chump.” read more by dystopianfuturetoday
Chris Matthews DESTROYS Right Wing Talking Head - “What a pathetic chump.” read more by dystopianfuturetoday
Even Bill Gates Thinks Vista Sucks ! Related Videos
 My Whole Family (Thinks I'm Gay) |  Jonathan Cook Interview |  Bill Gates on The Daily Show |
tags:
Comments 
playlists with this video
Computers / Programming / Gadgets by Constitutional_Patriot
• Great Discussions by dag
who voted for this video
DrPawn
- kronosposeidon
- darkrowan
- fissionchips
- mkone
- Constitutional_Patriot
- schmawy
- karlee
- arsenault185
- joedirt
- kwaran
- Thylan
- MINK
- lavoll
- Chaucer
- cobalt
- legacy0100
- Lurch
- dotdude
- ant
- mizume
- calvados
- my15minutes
- doogle
- Fiver2
- dystopianfuturetoday
- Sarzy
- dag
- MarineGunrock
- eric3579
- choggie
- lertad
- snoozedoctor
- BicycleRepairMan
- Krupo
- Crosswords
- Mixaster
- Aemaeth
- punk225
- dgandhi
- Zifnab
- aidos
- JAPR
- gorillaman
- gerds
- jwray
- torodefuego
- Raigen
- nibiyabi
- dbot2006
- gwiz665
- MycroftHomlz
- sirex
- kulpims
- EDD
who has this post bookmarked
MINK
- lertad
more posts by DrPawn
|
Expose Yourself on VideoSift
Link Swap with VideoSift and get your Blog or Website in front of more than a millon unique visitors a month - for free.
Top New Videos by Vote
8.
he is such a slimeball. "we just make fun products and compete in the marketplace" my freakin ASSS.
Such a bogus slimeball.
What have you done lately ?
i do think he earned his fortune. and last time i checked, he's donated more of it than... hmm... anyone?
yeah. vista blows. so what? don't use it.
i didn't call him retarded, or a bad businessman, or ugly (!)
and i don't hate him out of "fashion"... damn what a weak defence.
I hate him for fucking up computing when he has the power NOT to. I hate him for pretending it's all fair competition. I hate him for trying to make the whole world use "the microsoft internet" or "the microsoft audio format" or any other of the countless other common public things he has tried to monopolise. I hate him for taking the credit for other people's work. I hate him for trying to invent a way to lock media files so you can't play them everywhere, even if you bought them legitimately, unless you pay him AGAIN. I hate him for every hour i have lost trying to make a website work on his poxy browser. I hate him for letting his single user OS onto the internet where it can become a spam bot in 30 seconds. I hate him for denying almost all his mistakes. I hate him for making his software LOOK bad, and for making it hard to use.
OH BUT HE GAVE MONEY TO CHARITY SO HE'S OK!!!!!
Fuck. The amount of money he's sucked out of the economy with his crappy software and 20 minute reboots is far in excess of what he's given to charity.
Computing innovation? The only innovative thing he did was find a way to tax every computer in the world before anyone realised there would be millions of them.
Slimeball. This video proves it, again. Look. He's insanely rich, he's laughing at you, and he's admitting his flagship product is crap. Riiiiiight.
(But then that doesn't really say much, does it.
MS isnt the worst, they happen to be the biggest, but not the worst. They are by no means perfect either which would be 100 open source and non-profit.. right?
But lets just forget all that, because MS isnt Bill Gates and Gates isnt MS. Bill Gates could, like most CEO's and bigwigs gone "fuck off, you cunts, I'll buy 52 skyscrapers and secure my family fortune in real estate." But instead he decided to do charity. Thats better than 100% of all trillionaires I know of, so fuck it if vista sucks. I use XP, big fuckin deal. they'll patch it and it'll be decent one day. Life goes on.
On a side note, I think MS has gotten so big it now functions much like the government. At the core you have an idea of innovation (or at least using other people's good ideas) and true progress towards something that will benefit everyone. But then there are a bunch of special interest groups that push their agendas, so when the final product comes out it's some neutered monstrosity with some ugly appendages stapled on.
Apple wouldn't do half the stuff they do if they weren't fighting a monopoly.
And anyway they put DRM in iTunes because otherwise the labels wouldn't deal with them. Come on, this is like internet arguing 101.
The "mac-only world" works great with every digital camera and mp3 player i have ever plugged in to my powerbook, regardless of manufacturer.
Bill Gates is "only the CEO"??? Riiiight.
Bill Gates is less selfish than other rich people, so... I should forgive him for making shitty products and monopolising the market?
"blue screen/malaria.. blue screen/malaria" ... jesus christ, if we took all the money wasted by his shitty software, it would add up to GAJILLIONS. That is money that should be in the economy doing something useful. You actually think the "inconvenience" of a blue screen of death is "paying" for malaria treatment? whoah, the economics on your planet are crAzY!
If you really want to help africa, give the cost of a copy of windows DIRECTLY to a charity and then install linux.
Fuck him. Go watch the other video where he brags about his Porsche. If you have a gajillion dollars, it is MUCH easier to give away a gajillion dollars (and of course you make sure you leave yourself a few million for beer money) (and remember to set up your own charity so you don't actually have to give the money away at all, other people might spend it "wrong")
(and remember that millions of healthy africans = millions of POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS!!!) i'm not even joking.
in a lot of ways you're right mink.. if i had infinite money, i could give away infinity-x money without losing too much sleep.. great, he did it, but i don't give out brownie points for someone doing something that i consider bog standard humanity.. good job, you're human, no cookie though
seriously.. he's gonna go home, sip on some martini type drink that probably costs 80 dollars to make.. made by a professional who is payed 80 dollars an hour to mix martinis.. slouch back in his leather recliner that cost about 5 thousand, or take a shower in his multi-jet-pwn-shower-system.. take a swim in his pool, go for a fly in his jet, do what-the-fuck-ever he wants to do, anytime, all the time..
then he'll write a cheque for a charity for 700 million dollars... fuck it, who cares? he can still afford to refuel his jet
get off the charity thing, in his situation it's either give something he won't miss and not look like an asshole, or keep something he doesn't need and look like an asshole
2 scenarios, (1) a world with no Bill Gates- uncertain, can't say how it would have turned out (2) a world with Bill Gates - personal computers and billions in charity. I'll take option 2.
you actually think bill gates invented the personal computer and nobody else was trying or able? omfg.
anyway here's some more explanation of exactly what "giving to charity" means in this context:
... he admits, Microsoft's image has benefited, "and maybe a few more users come along. There's nothing wrong with that at all." That the foundation shuns quiet altruism in favour of maximum publicity proves the point. It has flown journalists and photographers around the world to spread the word that Microsoft's chairman cares. "It's very important to us that we're not just seen for our great financial results," he says.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/feb/04/voluntarysector.guardiansocietysupplement
The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio and measles immunization and research worldwide, including in the Niger Delta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations to protect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France — the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the delta with pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States or Europe.
...
Like most philanthropies, the Gates Foundation gives away at least 5% of its worth every year, to avoid paying most taxes. In 2005, it granted nearly $1.4 billion. It awards grants mainly in support of global health initiatives, for efforts to improve public education in the United States, and for social welfare programs in the Pacific Northwest.
It invests the other 95% of its worth. This endowment is managed by Bill Gates Investments, which handles Gates' personal fortune.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story
I don't see anything mildly deplorable about what you've quoted MINK. Bill Gates' entrepreneurial skills and success gave him the capacity to launch his charity, how can publicizing your philanthropy and associating it with your former company then be viewed as a negative? Regardless, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is still the largest charity in the world. What oil companies need are more stringent regulations put upon them, that establish global pollution restrictions, not an outflux of investment.
i also don't see much wrong with how he is now choosing to use his financial power. however, it's not "giving to charity"... i mean it's giving to a big investment fund which you control. slightly different. also you can't deny there's a temptation to invest in companies that boost your business, even if they are polluters (forget global warming, pollution gives kids asthma/blindness/cancer etc ffs)
so 95% of this money he "gave away to africa" is invested in businesses of his choosing. Just giving some perspective, you know?
And anyway, the software still sucks, it doesn't matter to me how nice he is, he made sucky software, so he sucks. he didn't make sucky software with the aim of giving all the profit to africa. sheesh.
That said, yes, I'm still on XP. I'm sure Vista is good but the problem is XP is good too and there is no reason for me to switch.
He made more money than anyone else in the world, doesn't that make you think his products should be better than 99.9% of the others? Doesn't it matter to you that his products would be better if he didn't pursue failed strategies like DRM and browser lockin? That would cost him less.
By the way i had a job designing more than one windows software product. I have friends who work for microsoft, they say the dev tools are the best, and i believe them. I own an apple but I use PCs too and I hate all computers pretty much equally. OK? I just like not getting a virus when my girlfriend browses for hardcore japanese porn while i am out, and i like my system's resources to be used for doing stuff i actually need.
Come on, powerpoint sucks so much on its own, we shouldn't even need to discuss this.
I'll admit that, but lets face it, if Bill Gates and MS hadnt stumbled upon becoming the makers of the standard OS for all PC's, someone else would have done that job and they would have ended up Richest Guy/Biggest company etc and in a position to misuse their monopoly or whatever.
Now, what I'm saying is that they might have done things better, they might have done things worse, their owner/boss might have started the biggest charity foundation in the world, he/she might had not. But again, Microsoft is a COMPANY they are trying to make profit in a free-market world, that they use their position is entirely expected. If they didnt, they wouldnt even be where they were.
You may be against the whole capitalistic system for all i know, but in a free market, you dont become the biggest by playing nice.
I question whether an OS can ever be designed to be near universally compatible yet incredibly stable. I mean the sheer range of hardware Windows (XP not Vista, lets not go there) can support is mind numbing, never mind the fact it has a hiccup every now and then. Also my technical knowledge here is extremely limited but couldn't you consider the OS market a natural monopoly? Would it not be simply inefficient for software to have to be designed to run on competing operating systems?
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr62/en/index.html
I'm no expert on software, far from it, but I do a lot of music recording on PC and Mac. When I said I've experienced blue screens, I've experienced blue screens. Driver incompatibilities, sound card conflicts, audio plugins that crash my projects, you name it. Not on the Mac. Whether it's MS's fault, or the audio software companies product, I don't know. All I know is it's a pain in the rear.
My PC laptop recently got infected and crashed altogether. After a complete reinstall, despite saying it's connected to my wireless network on all the settings I can find, it won't connect to my wireless. So, I guess I am biased on the software, at least for the applications I'm using.
Apple/MAC, great over all. Their products hardware are somewhat *proprietary, which is good for full hardware compatibility and driver/software stability but lacks in providing affordable and available hardware. In my opinion, this is where Apple has made its standing as a stable OS but also restricting the end user from the newest graphics card or affordable RAM (have you seen the prices for that lately). There is not as much support for available software as those supported by XP/Vista(*not as much as XP but growing fast) as well.
Microsoft, on the other hand, IMO, has taken a different step in which they have great support for all new hardware and most software. Driver stability stands to test and most issues are due to people building their own workstations that have little clue of hardware compatibility or driver issues. I am far from being a MS fanboy as I own both, but I own several workstations, administer many, many more and administer a MS based server farm... all without these issues some of you speak of. I run Vista with all my applications and have not run into a problem not have I experienced any BSODs since my last hardware failure.
Both systems have thier own place in the market... but I prefer XP/Vista as I am an avid gamer in the off time.
Is Bill a slimeball? I hardly think so, unless all business men are, and if that is fact, then I guess I am as well. MS is a buisiness, look and treat it as others. Remarking on business practices because of admiration of one company or disdain for another is humorous at best.
Feel free to pick this apart and correct where I have been wrong, for I am not perfect, far from it actually.
in a free market, you dont become the biggest by playing nice.
you don't need to be biggest. so basically if you play dirty and get big, and kinda lie about it and squirm around in interviews instead of apologising... you're a slimeball.
there didn't have to be a monopoly. it's just the corporate snowball (fueled by people who arnt willing to try harder) once again took it's dump on the people trying to do something for the right reasons. sad, but its the darker part of the human condition.
Microsoft went public in '86. From then on they had public shareholders. "Increase shareholder wealth" is the mantra of the corporation, and its easier to do that if you're the biggest on the block. A simplistic analysis is, if you're not the bully you'll likely be pushed around. If Company A didn't lock out Company B, Company B would have locked out Company A.
i do know it's the rules but you don't have to play that game. Plenty of people do good in the world without being slimeballs along the way.
If he was honest about it, that would be another thing. But he's not.
Remember this is the man who wrote a book about the future of computing and didn't put the internet in it.