Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 12th Feb 2010 22:55 UTC
Microsoft Sometimes, the sheer size of a company like Microsoft can make it quite hard to see and realise just how large and profitable such a company can really be. In these kinds of situations, there's nothing like a clear graph to make all those pretty numbers tangible. Up to a point.
Thread beginning with comment 409151
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Apple is like, psychedelic, man.
by jaklumen on Sat 13th Feb 2010 07:17 UTC
jaklumen
Member since:
2010-02-09

"At least Bill has some coding cred - unlike that acid-popping Steve guy in Cupertino."

What a way to end the article! "Well, at least Bill was never a hippie." Heh.

Reply Score: 6

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Bill co-wrote Microsoft Basic (v2.0 appearing on the Commodore 64). Everything from then on he bought and sold on (DOS included).

I would hardly call Microsoft Basic worthy of 'coding cred'. If you want cred, look at Woz's insane code in the Apple II, the guy was a programming wizard.

Reply Parent Score: 7

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Heey.. donĀ“t forget the first version of gorilla.bas :p

EDIT: Added "first" ... damn brain, thinking faster than I can type...

Edited 2010-02-13 20:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Bill co-wrote Microsoft Basic (v2.0 appearing on the Commodore 64). Everything from then on he bought and sold on (DOS included).


So, what's your point? That technology companies -- Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc -- acquire other companies and leverage their investments? That acquisition doesn't yield innovative products? You've got a tough sell there. Many, if not most, of the most widely used software products originated in acquisition targets. Quite frankly, I applaud any company that sees a shortcut to the future, and takes it, in the interest of getting an innovative product to market faster -- and leveraging the strength that comes from scale.

I would hardly call Microsoft Basic worthy of 'coding cred'. If you want cred, look at Woz's insane code in the Apple II, the guy was a programming wizard.


I don't think you fully understand the constraints that both Gates and Wozniak were operating under -- and it's the constraints that set them apart from today's innovation. Gates and Allen squeezed a full-featured BASIC interpreter + data into only 4K of memory. They did this with a variety of innovative tricks -- opcode alignment and jumps, self-modifying code, etc -- using 8080 assembly language. You may like to think that this doesn't give them "street cred" but, frankly, you're full of crap. Most devs today couldn't accomplish the same thing; especially, if they had to use the crude tools that Gates and Allen used at the time. It's a lesson in economy that modern devs would be well-advised to absorb. I'm not trying to minimize Woz, either. He was and remains a brilliant guy, and Apple wouldn't be where it is today without his contributions. Steve Jobs never had the "street cred" to create what either Gates or Woz created.

Edited 2010-02-13 21:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Writing an interpreter is hard enough but even harder when you don't have access to the hardware. Bill Gates wrote most of BASIC for the Altair on paper and then tested it in an emulator that Allen created. It took a lot of work and was a huge gamble. Sure it wasn't like the Woz who put together a computer in his garage but it was impressive for the time.

Edited 2010-02-14 00:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Bill Gates did code back in the day and wrote the Dos boot loader on the plane ride to the first client meeting where he had to demo Dos. The boot loader worked though the demo was also the first test of it.

Steve Wozniac was a hardware hacker that had been designing circuit boards the way the current gamers spend time playing through titles. He literally designed and build the Apple computers in the early days.

Steve Jobs was a charismatic kid with a nack for making deals and selling. He did the managing and the dreaming up of where products could go but no hard good development.

Bill had code cred though first blew out his street cred with the now famous open letter. Steve had hardware and code cred as the product development side of apple. Steve had the entrepreneurial drive to try and make it a business.

Then there is the investor that gave Apple the money to move from a garage chip board vendor to a personal computer manufacturer.

That is if lore holds true.

Reply Parent Score: 2