Vista, the osx wanna be....?

[fryke]

Ah, we're mixing up history again once more. ... (IBM wasn't dominant in personal computers back then. Dominant, but not in the PC world. Apple was with the Apple II, if anyone was.)
But let's look at things as they are _today_. And while it's true that designing the hardware for their OS is a good reason for Mac OS X' stability, that shouldn't matter for the user –*unless if you mean that they should actually _buy_ Macs.

"Macs are only better because Mac OS X has only got to support a specific range of machines." – "So you agree they are better, then." That's how these discussions should go.

[CincyJim]

Originally Posted by rhisiart

... ... I'm not sure that Gates really made a mistake when he stuck to selling only his OS.

I did not mean that "Gates ... made a mistake" but that his decision was luck leading him to be the world's richest man.

[Rhisiart]

You can say that again.

[hawki18]

Originally Posted by CincyJim

I did not mean that "Gates ... made a mistake" but that his decision was luck leading him to be the world's richest man.

Why is everything with Bill is always luck or screwed up. He bought dos for 50k and sold to IBM and was smart enough not to give them total rights to the os. That is what got him started on being the Wold Richest man. He a very sharp business man, I don't get why mac users always got to find issues with him. I guess the old book The Cult Mac expalins it better than anything.

[fryke]

... when it says that...?

[Mikuro]

I think it is simply a backlash against the all-too-common sentiment that wealth = virtue/merit/intelligence/whatever.

Both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs get far too much credit. That's not to say they're not sharp businessmen, but they are not computer geniuses. Or, dare I say it, any kind of geniuses.

[bbloke]

My perception is that Bill Gates did the best he could with what he had at the time, and was shrewd enough to make some wise decisions back then. I don't think he could have foreseen how well it would turn out and how rich it would make him, but I don't think it was a complete accident either. Perhaps a case of making smart moves at the time and then seeing how the future pans out. If you keep playing your cards right, you can build and build.

It's also like scientific progress. It would be extremely rare (if ever) that one person, out of the blue, comes up with a world changing discovery out of thin air. Each person's own work is based on the background of research done before them, and they will rely on input from those around them. Isaac Newton once said "If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants." For significant progress, it tends to require background from work that has taken place prior, the right kind of people working around you, and vision.

I think Steve Jobs is a person with vision and who seems to be able to spot good ideas. He doesn't necessarily come up with them himself, but he seems good at noticing the right things. He may not be the sole brains behind Apple, but this ability is very useful and he seems to work with good people (eg. Jonathan Ive). Similarly, looking back at the origins of Apple, I think Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs formed a good team, with complementary traits.

I think Bill Gates probably saw the enormous possibilities by licensing an OS. Things really took off, he has played the business very well for years, he's been able to build an empire. It certainly wasn't a complete fluke but, like with all things, a certain amount of good fortune was required too. This applies to any company or CEO, though. We can make educated judgements, but we can't foresee the future and so are not able plan too far ahead. Life's never linear like that!