[rbanffy]

> He would be doing something immoral if he didn't do what was best for Microsoft

Look how loved the company is today. Was what he did really the best he could have done for Microsoft? Wouldn't a kinder, gentler Microsoft, one that helped a healthy market thrive, be better? Would the smaller slice of a larger pie be larger than Microsoft's current pie?

> they get a job in finance doing nothing of benefit to society

I suppose you assume VCs exist in a vacuum. No.

> He helped bring computers to the masses.

No. Jobs and Wozniak did. Jack Tramiel did. Gates did nothing like that.

[mfukar]

Really? What's the most popular OS, again?

[rbanffy]

Windows, but why is it relevant to this discussion? Windows appeared well after personal computers became popular. In fact, it only became relevant when business computers invaded the space previously dominated by home computers. Its dominance started in the 90's after 3.0 was launched.

On Tramiel thing, Commodore built some very popular personal computers that were incredibly capable for their prices. Many of us (I am not among them) got introduced to personal computers with Commodore boxes. He later moved on to Atari and brought some of the cheapest 32-bit home computers one could buy, years before 386s could be called home computers.

Attributing to Gates what others did does not help further your argument.

[mfukar]

I don't really see how one could speak about wide adoption of the personal computer and not count Microsoft in the equation. The "diverse", as other fellow HNers have kindly put it, computing environment of Atari, Apple, IBM et al was a complete nightmare for developer and user alike. Even if it weren't needed, since Z80, 6502, Motorola's 68000 as well as the variants of CP/M were entering oblivion, Microsoft slowly helped change that gradually, and slowly came to dominance with Windows (the reasons are obvious now, with hindsight).

Yet how one may deny that Gates brought the PC to the masses with knowledge of the above are beyond me. Maybe a comparison with GEOS is in line..

[rbanffy]

> The "diverse" (...) computing environment of Atari, Apple, IBM et al was a complete nightmare for developer and user alike

I don't think so. You had a handful of self-sufficient ecosystems to work in. Apart from having only one software ecosystem, I can't see why you may think we are better off now.

> how one may deny that Gates brought the PC to the masses with knowledge of the above are beyond me

Since it's your own assessment of your own shortcomings, I assume you must be right.

[mfukar]

It's not my assessment, I just happen to agree with it. You disagreed with it yet came to the same conclusion (Microsoft's dominance over desktop). I simply miss the logical step in that process.

PS. Also, there are plenty of "digital ecosystems" for us to play with, even today. Billions over billions of ad hoc, embedded, portable, desktop, mainframe and all the other platforms in between. Thankfully some unification now exists (where it matters).