Should Bill Kill Windows?

by Chris Howard Jul 06, 2006

Bill Gates, philanthropist. Cough, splutter. Doesn’t sit easy, does it? But if you dig back into his past you’ll find it’s not out of character. When IBM was looking for an operating system, Bill did point them in Digital Research’s direction. When DR turned IBM down is when Bill then decided to do it himself. In hindsight, seeing how much money he’s made, that generous gesture almost proved extra-ordinarily costly.

Now Bill is back on the generosity bandwagon, planning to step out of Microsoft in a couple of years time to devote all his time to his philanthropic work.

Preston Gralla from O’Reilly Net, makes the insightful and interesting observation that Bill Gates will in the future be known and remembered for his philanthropic work rather than Microsoft or Windows.

But should Bill be remembered that way? Is it okay to spend the better part of your working life building monolithic money hungry corporations that pursue financial gains at the cost of human spirit, and then late in the game, switch sides and become a philanthropist, using your ill-gotten gains to help the poor and needy in the world?

Because the problem is… those who do, leave behind the mechanisms that are making the divide between rich and poor grow deeper and wider.

To paraphrase an old saying:
Give a man a fish, and feed him for a day;
Teach him how to fish, and he can get a job working for pittance for a multi-national fish harvesting company.

I’m not against any rich person becoming a philanthropist, but wouldn’t it be better for Bill to spend a fair wad of his money campaigning against the wrongs being perpetrated by mega-corporations on people? For example, who’s bank keeps increasing fees and cutting staff despite record profits?

But enough of the philosophizing, lets get down to tin-tacks and talk computers.

Kill Windows
Although I’m not against the obscenely rich giving away their money, what concerns me is that they leave behind the monsters they created to get wealthy in the first place. In Bill’s case, one of those monsters is something called Windows.

When Bill Gates steps away from Microsoft in 2008, he will leave behind a PC world in a mess, struggling under the weight of a patchwork OS that carries legacy support from back when he was still only a millionaire.

Dictionary.com defines philanthropy as: The effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind, as by charitable aid or donations.

If Bill really wants to “increase the well being of humankind” he should kill Windows. Wouldn’t the world be better served by Bill accepting that Windows is a disaster and using his money to put us out of its misery? If he did kill Windows, there are a couple of options open to him.

Option 1: Support OS X and/or Linux
The first option is pulling Microsoft out of the OS business altogether and promoting OS X and/or Linux to fill the void. There are pros and cons for each, but obviously as a Mac user, I’d be preferable to Microsoft backing OS X. (From a philosophical point of view, I might have to say Linux.)

In the early 80’s, Bill believed that Macs were the way of the future. It’s time he revisited that opinion. If he really wants to make a difference he needs to work with Apple to bring the best computing platform to the masses. With virtualization in Leopard and Intel in Macs, the transition could go quite smoothly.

Option 2: A new Microsoft OS
The second option if Bill’s reluctant to get Microsoft out of the OS business, it’s time he bit the bullet and introduced a new OS entirely, and preferably one with Unix under pinnings. Apple did it with OS X. Microsoft could do it. Microsoft needs a totally new OS just as Apple did. With Virtual PC, Microsoft has no reason for not building a new OS, as any legacy Windows programs could be run in it. That is afterall why it acquired Virtual PC.

We do know Microsoft is beavering away on an OS called Singularity, but there’s no real indication yet whether it is intended to be Windows successor, it is still simply called a “research project”.

What do you think?
What do you think? Should Bill EOL (end of life) Windows? And if he does, should he back the Mac, the Penguin or a new Microsoft operating system?


Information used in compiling this article was sourced from the following websites:
Wikipedia on Bill Gates
VoteView on Bill Gates

Preston Gralla of O’Reilly Net on Bill Gates’ legacy
dictionary.com on philanthropy
Apple Matters on Singularity
Parts of this article appeared on my own blog, QwertyRash on Bill Gates’ legacy


Comments

  • It’s one thing to bash an operating system, it’s quite another to bash a human being.

    Bill Gates’ resignation from Microsoft proves that he is not really essential to its operation. There are thousands of developers working on Windows and millions of lines of code (which in itself is part of the problem); Bill Gates has never been in charge of the effort. Microsoft is such a huge company and Windows is such a huge project that no single person can possibly micromanage it. I work with people at Microsoft every day. I don’t like their products, but they are all nice, well-meaning people. Microsoft is a Great Dane that still thinks it’s a puppy. Many things, such as saving files in PDF and bundling applications, are ethical for Apple but unethical for Microsoft only because Apple has a small marketshare and Microsoft has a huge one.

    Bill Gates is a philanthropist; no one should take that away from him. He has not been responsible for the day-to-day operations of Microsoft for a long time and he has never been in charge of or a developer of Windows.

    Meanwhile, Steve Jobs actually manages Apple and is responsible for its superior products. He can afford to be a philanthropist, but so far as we know he is not. Unlike Microsoft, Apple has no computer learning labs to prepare inner-city kids for IT careers. I’d feel even better about my Macintoshes if Jobs were a philanthropist and Apple had programs for the economically disadvantaged.

    My point is that we aren’t dealing with angels and devils, but with human beings who possess a mixture of virtues and vice—not to mention computers, which are inanimate objects. As computer purchasers, Jobs’ virtues are more evident to us. But that is no call to trash the world’s greatest philanthropist as a devil or to worship the world’s best IT manager as a god.

    Hugmup had this to say on Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 40
  • Hmmm, Interesting comments, but you are the pot calling the kettle black.

    You criticize the author for belittling Gates’ philanthropy, and then belittle Jobs with little or no knowledge of the man’s activities.

    By all accounts, Jobs, too is quite the philanthropist;  he just doesn’t head up a non-profit that just netted the largest donation in history.  His philanthropic activities are, by design, quieter in nature - he likes it better on the QT, without his name in lights.

    All in all, I think that’s a better way to do it, don’t you?

    rahrens had this to say on Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 18
  • It wasn’t my intent to belittle Jobs, I did say, “so far as we know.” It was my intent to point out that both men are human.

    I’m heartened to find out that Jobs is involved in philanthropy, and I agree, it is better to do it more quietly.

    I might add I think it is a scandal that the world’s richest nation even needs philanthropists.

    Hugmup had this to say on Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 40
  • You may not have intended to, but the tone of your remark made it sound that way.  Not something that I can quote directly, but it sounded that way to me.  YMMV.

    I think, myself, that the idea of our country needing philanthropists is better than the alternative.  What’s the alternative?  Letting the government do it.

    It comes down to the question of:  “Who decides?”

    Most Americans agree that it is better for each of us to decide for ourselves where our money is better spent.  That’s why you have the ability to decide whether to send your money to either Planned Parenthood or a Catholic charity devoted to taking care of unwanted children.

    I really, really don’t want the government to tell me where my donation money’s going (as opposed to taxes) !!!  Do you really want the currrent crop of Senators and Representatives making that decision for you?  With their track record on earmarks?

    I may not like the company that Gates built, nor the marketing strategies that he used to obtain and maintain its monopoly - but the man balances that with what I understand is a remarkable tendancy to give away a lot of money each year.  That, in my book, gives him the right to decide where it goes, and to me, that’s what makes this country great.

    rahrens had this to say on Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 18
  • The mess that is Windows, and the enormous difficulties Microsoft has and STILL has in getting Vista out the door, show that Microsoft have actually shot themselves in the foot over fighting so hard to avoid being split up (as punishment for their monopolistic abuses).

    If Bill had voluntarily split Microsoft in to an Applications company and an Operating System company then they would be both be far better off.

    John Lockwood had this to say on Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 4
  • I agree with John on the splitting up of Microsoft. But into Three divisions. Operating systems, Office and games companies. It would really unlock the stocks potential

    mcloki had this to say on Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 25
  • Teach him how to fish, and he can get a job working for pittance for a multi-national fish harvesting company. C.H.

    Hah, hah! ‘Love that new twist of the old adage!

    If Bill really wants to “increase the well being of humankind” he should kill Windows -C.H.

    Now, that is an aggressive call even for a M$ basher (like myself). How in the world one can just wittle an >90% share of the world’s PC shipment without a fight? You are implying then for M$ to just go ahead commit suicide and bleed her market share until dead. Now that wouldn’t be fun even if Bill will rekindle his lost crush - the Mac OS. What would Mac faithfuls think of the new profound state of euphoria? Will we think it is deserved? Or we’ll just noddingly give all the credits to the philanthropist Bill, instead of the Steve?

    To keep the Steve and Apple on their little toes, Windows or her future progenies, have to be alive and well. I am not at all opposed to the idea that their market share must come down to near 50% for a good fight with OSX and Linux. If by then OSX has near 20% of share then, all of a sudden, we are back to the heydays of PC in the 1980s.

    If splitting M$ is Bill’s final orders before hitting the open road of Philanthropia (and why not, $35B is at stake!) then I can agree with mcloki‘s take. M$ investors and loyal employees will be better off if Bill decides to split the monolithic M$ into an OS, Applications (Office, Servers, Tools), and hardware (Xbox, keyboards, mice, gadgets, games software) divisions. They can keep the M$ emblem but they must be all independent from each other’s executive control.

    Robomac had this to say on Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 846
  • There are pros and cons for each, but obviously as a Mac user, I’d be preferable to Microsoft backing OS X.

    Replacing one giant greedy monolithic corporation with another giant greedy monolithic corporation is not my idea of a solution.

    I’d say instead of killing Windows, maybe release it as open source, along with Vista.  Make it free and let others provide fixes and new interfaces, etc.  The advantage over Linux would be that everyone already has Windows and software that runs on it.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 2220
  • By all accounts, Jobs, too is quite the philanthropist;

    By what accounts would those be?  I’ve only heard this from Jobs’s defenders who assume that he’s philanthropic but anonymous; but that anonymity itself would belie any direct knowledge of his generosity.

    His philanthropic activities are, by design, quieter in nature - he likes it better on the QT, without his name in lights.

    All in all, I think that’s a better way to do it, don’t you?

    Assuming he has philanthropic activities (and I’m reasonably certain he does but no one seems to know how much), I don’t see what’s “better” about keeping it a secret.

    Gate’s high profile, and that of celebrities who attach their names to charities, bring attention and awareness to those issues and encourage others to donate.  It’s all well and good to be anonymous, but there’s nothing “better” about it if those charities don’t get the publicity they need for their fundraising efforts.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 2220
  • ...it’s time he bit the bullet and introduced a new OS entirely, and preferably one with Unix under pinnings -C.H.

    I agree with you completely, Chris. Windows has gotten so unimaginably huge (>35 million lines of code and counting) just trying to haul every compatibility basket that M$ ever came up with from the DOS days, Windows 95-Me, 2000, and now XP. Do you think they can even make another OS that will require a much bigger basket that is Vista?

    Vista is the end of the road for the “compatibility” empathy for M$. They have hit the brick wall and to proceed beyond this brick wall, they must drop all the baskets and start anew.

    So, will they pick up from the carcass of then Brad Silverberg’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Silverberg) Singularity pet project? Who knows. If the OS managers have been awake and sober during the past 5 years, they should already have the realization that any new platform must have a Unix underpinnings. Why reinvent the wheel when one is already available for a good price - FREE! (almost).

    Although, “borrowing” is not presently on M$ veins (and I’m not talking GUI here), they would be served nicely if they use BSD or other rock-solid foundation *nix kernels. They would not have to spend many years perfecting the “perfect” kernel. They can use that time to polish the mid “service” layers, then spiff up the upper “presentation” and “application” layers.

    As for system security, BSD is one very tough dude! BSD Unixes measure MTBF (mean time between failures) not by weeks or months, but in years and decades!!! Why do you think critical-mission systems (NASA, power plants, financial entities - banks?) ALL rely on BSD and variants? You got it. M$ should watch and listen.

    Now, that notion of M$ licensing Mac OSX starts to sound pretty damn good, isn’t it?

    Robomac had this to say on Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 846
  • Replacing one giant greedy monolithic corporation with another giant greedy monolithic corporation is not my idea of a solution

    Thanks, Beeb. I knew I could count on you. I knew as I wrote this I sounded a little hypocritical, and I agree with you there are concerns with this happening, which is why I did include the aside, “From a philosophical point of view, I might have to say Linux.” [MS supporting Linux as the desktop OS of choice]

    Hugmup, I think you missed all my points! smile I didn’t want to spend too much of the article discussing the philosophies of modern capitalism and how it stomps all over people and their livelihoods. So I guess that’s why you felt I was Bill bashing. I certainly had a dig at him, but I think bashing is too strong a word. I did afterall point out that philanthropy is not out of character for him. On the other, I certainly am bashing Windows and Microsoft. And as Beeb points out, Apple should come in for the same.

    As I said, I’m not against Bill’s philanthropic works, but I would like to hear that he is doing something to save us from Windows. Because that would make a lot of people in the world’s enjoyment of their day to day life a lot better. People who don’t need his money, but just want to take some of the slog out of their lives.

    I agree with both Robo and Beeb about whether philanthropic work should be done on the quiet, or publicly.

    I respect either, but someone who does it publicly, such as Bill, shouldn’t therefore be absolved of their sins of the past.

    Bill Gates does bear a significant amount of responsibilty for both Windows, and the nature, culture and behaviour of Microsoft.

    He also has the power and influence to change things.

    Finally, I do get riled when people say “Isn’t so-and-so so wonderful for gving so many millions of their dallars to charity!” (not that you said that Hugmup)

    Excuse me? But they can afford it. I remember a few years ago an Australian billionaire receiving that sort of praise for his one million dollar donation. And then just a few months later I read that he regularly gambled several million dollars at casinos - just for fun. It was all lose change to him.

    Warren Buffet it’s said plans to give away half his billions.

    If he does, how will it affect his lifestyle? Zip.

    Whereas, if a person with only $100,000 gives away half, they won’t be able to take the holiday, or buy the car they wanted, they’ll have to live a little more frugally.

    If a person with a only $100 dollars gives away half, they won’t be able to buy a new coat to keep them warm on the streets in winter.

    If a person with only $10 gives away half, they’ll go hungry a couple a couple of meals sooner.

    And people in those last two examples live on our streets. Bill doesn’t have to go overseas to make a difference. The refuse of mega-corporations wander our streets.

    I’d be more excited if Bill and Warren and Steve etc spent their money changing the corporate (and government) mentality to improve people’s livelihoods instead of the current “dollar at any cost” that pervades and poisons our Western society.

    We’ve gone beyond Capitalism, we are now in a state of Corporatism.

    See! Now you know why I didn’t say much in my piece. smile

    Chris Howard had this to say on Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 1209
  • Does anyone else see a problem with the way every issue is turned into an attack on Windows? Personally I find it pretty disgusting that a philanthropic mission dedicated to improving 3rd World healthcare (and other good causes) is criticized because it ISN’T working against windows.

    There are serious problems out there folks, i don’t know about you but for me

    Malaria > windows crashing now and then

    simo66 had this to say on Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 78
  • Warren Buffet it’s said plans to give away half his billions.

    Actually, Buffet is giving away $44 billion, or 85%, of his wealth.  That still leaves him a billionaire; but $44 billion is still pretty huge.

    I agree, however, that it does not absolve them of their transgressions.  However, I do believe that Windows at this point is largely out of Gates’s hands, just as Apple was out of Jobs’s hands when he left, or any number of giant corporations that outgrow the vision and guidance of its founder.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 2220
  • Malaria > windows crashing now and then

    Heh.  I agree, but I think Chris is suggesting he do BOTH, not one instead of the other.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Jul 06, 2006 Posts: 2220
  • ...we are now in a state of Corporatism -C.H.

    Hah, hah…another Chris-inspired mumbo-jumbo, but I like it. Do I sense another Chris H. article of the same? That would be a Beebx playground. I’m staying clear of that one… smile

    Robomac had this to say on Jul 07, 2006 Posts: 846
  • Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >
You need log in, or register, in order to comment