比尔盖茨17分钟 [英] 17 Minutes With Bill Gates

问题描述

他一整天都在做什么？


在这里找到：

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=163166

解决方案

我肯定比尔确实有软件将要去的宏伟计划以及他的承诺计算机为最终用户工作...但现实是：


1.尽管他很少或没有任何权力，但他是我们喜欢责备的人

更多

2.他对现实的看法过着分离的生活

3.他对更好的最终用户体验的看法被
$所摧毁b $ b机器被称为微软

4.微软像历史上所有大型组织一样，已经变得非常大，因为他们自己的利益太大了


我认为微软需要做的是多元化 - 如果只是为了获得对现实世界的教育，那么。


我想从比尔看到什么和微软一样，有人认为他们需要通过识别他们的缺陷并停止指责结束

用户&开发人员。不要提升刚刚发生的愿景

包含一个高利润的商业模式，以高额成本提供足够的b $ b我们需要的商品。通过使您的产品更简单赚钱

简单，而不是更复杂，因此您可以收取订阅的费用优惠。


1人中有5人拥有电脑并实际上使用互联网 - 如果比尔需要

来做某事，他需要意识到出现了问题。方式和

问一个问题为什么只有五分之一的人拥有电脑28年后他们被引入群众？如果他想对他的完成程度进行评分，这是一个失败的分数恕我直言。


" John Bailo" < JA ***** @ texeme.com>在消息中写道

新闻：JJ ******************** @ speakeasy.net ...

<他/她一整天都在做什么？

在这里找到：

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=163166

我假设你是一名开发人员，每天都使用逻辑的人。

如果是这样，我对以下陈述感到困惑，你是断言为

现实 -

1.他是我们喜欢责备的人，即使他很少或根本没有权力
更多


谁是谁"？我们"思考的人不要爱责怪。任何人，无论是什么，你说我们喜欢责备，是否是b $ b（未提及）他为... blame没有地方

在逻辑上，也没有任何爱的地方。

肯定是诊断和识别来源的元素

*具体问题*。


什么这是权力吗？你说的？是什么让你觉得他有更多或更少的b

2.他对现实的看法过着分离的生活


我甚至无法解析这句话。愿景不是过一种生活。你可能意味着比尔盖茨过着独立的生活。但是你不能从它分开的东西中识别它们，也不知道为什么它是分开的。并且您提到他的实际愿景#BOB
因此充其量是模棱两可的。事实上，我会假定地球上的每个人都可能被认为具有独立的现实视野。只有年轻人，无知者和那些在他们的思想中懒惰的人才能想象他们的现实视野。和其他人一样，确实是和b $ b一样。我猜你是年轻的。年轻人

有属于的愿望。对某一类人来说，他们可以用b $ b来识别。这是我们物种的社会性质的一部分。


年龄越大，越聪明，这种区别越小，b $ b变得越来越重要，并且作为一个成熟，人们意识到我们对人们的任意分歧和我们对它们的看法只是那种 - 任意的。事实上，人们就像雪花一样 - 没有两个是完全相同的。因此，唯一的

逻辑部门是将我们分为两组：人类，以及

个人。因此，这个简短的话语是没有意义的，除了你自己的b $ b。

3.他对更好的最终用户体验的看法被
机器摧毁了。被称为微软的微软
4.微软就像历史上所有大型组织一样，已经变得太大而不能为自己带来好处


综上所述，我认为这两个陈述是暗示某些想法或多或少都是真实的。所有大型组织都面临着成为自然民族风险的危险，仅仅由于人类的本性而无法做到这一点

这对个人来说是有利的，而不是对所有人来说最好。

微软一直在努力解决这个问题，最近有一些证据表明他们并没有完全成功。


然而，他对更好的最终用户体验的愿景得到了摧毁b * b的声明不准确。也许更准确的说法是比尔盖茨的想法是概念性的，并且经常被污染或者在被玷污的过程中受到污染的危险。过滤到

特定的应用程序开发级别，由于规模和侵犯

beaurocracy危及微软保持其创新的能力
和敏捷的性质。

我认为微软需要做的是多样化 - 如果只是为了获得对现实世界的教育。


我们再来一次真实世界东西。我们中间谁有现实世界的教育？b $ b？该陈述是如此广泛和非具体，以至于无意义的b $ b。这意味着什么，但你永远不会解释它应该是什么意思

暗示。至于需要多元化，这也是模棱两可的，而不是b $ b解释。你会以什么方式推荐多样化？

多样化的所有

种类（或者可能是多样化的种类更合适）。

通过使您的产品更简单，而不是更复杂来赚钱，这样您就可以收取订阅的费用。溢价。


现在，这是让我相信你要么不是开发人员，要么非常年轻的陈述之一。单词simple，当应用于

软件时，充其量是模棱两可的。在将软件描述为简单时，可以使用几种不同类型的简单的

简单性。一个是

简单易用。这样做的问题在于真正使软件简单易用。必须限制其功能。例如，简单易用
计算器不能进行科学计算。取决于

您希望它变得多么简单，您可以将其限制为添加，

减法，乘法和除法。但是你如何处理合理的
数字呢？人们在哪里划线简单易用。什么是

不是？


在现实世界中人们希望他们的软件做所有可能的事情

他们可以用它来想象。这是因为他们不知道这种扩展功能的后果。首先，这意味着

软件必须具有适应所有这些功能的用户界面。

这应该是什么简单易用？其次，这意味着

软件本身必须包含大量代码才能以各种配置执行所有这些操作。而这需要花费大量的金钱，并花费大量时间来制作。


第二种类型的简单 功能简单是指功能简单。这意味着更少

的功能。再一次，你在谈论Catch-22的情况。微软

实际上是针对这些问题的解决方案，通过发布各种不同版本的软件用于不同目的。有一个

可用的六个不同版本的Visual Studio.Net，以及一些

它们是免费的。现在，您将如何解决这些问题？确定问题是好的和好的，但批评别人的解决方案，而不是提供你自己的解决方案是虚伪的。


我没有时间批评你的其他帖子，但是我只想说

结论如果你想成为一名开发人员，你就会去

必须训练你的思维过程。在这个

帖子（1）中表达的想法并不是很好，从逻辑的角度来看，（2）因为没有说服力，所以不会令人信服，除非是无知，没有纪律，没有纪律，而且心胸虚弱，而且（3）都是虚伪的，因为你没有提供任何好的解释，经过深思熟虑，现实的，或可行的解决方案。


将比尔盖茨放下来可能会很受欢迎，但是它的受欢迎程度是否已经全部破解了？b $ b b？我在美国的路上仍然看到很多SUV这些

天，对于我的生活，我无法弄清楚这个想法过程

催生了他们。它们显然是某种身份象征，但是我看到的唯一一个

状态是一个没有思想的人，有一种错误的优先感，他显然想要给其他不假思索的人留下深刻印象

错误的优先事项。这对你很受欢迎。


-

HTH，


Kevin Spencer

微软MVP

..Net开发人员

你想要的茶吧

a作为钱包受伤了。

Rob R. Ainscough < RO ***** @ pacbell.net>在消息中写道

新闻：u7 ************** @ TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl ...我肯定比尔确实有软件的宏伟计划将继续他的承诺，让计算机为最终用户服务......但现实是：

1.即使他很少或没有力量，他也是我们喜欢责备的人
任何更多
2.他对现实的看法过着分离的生活
3.他对更好的最终用户体验的看法被机器所摧毁。微软就像微软一样，历史上的所有大型组织都已经变得过于庞大而无法实现自己的利益。我认为微软需要做的是实现多样化 - 如果没有更多的话而不是为了获得对现实世界的教育。

我想从比尔和微软那里看到的是，通过认识到他们的缺陷并停止了解我们需要什么的人责备结束
用户&开发人员。不要提升刚刚发生的愿景，即采用高利润的商业模式，以高昂的成本提供我们所需要的足够。通过使您的产品更简单，而不是更复杂来赚钱，这样您就可以收取订阅的费用。五分之一的人有电脑并且实际上使用互联网 - 如果比尔需要做某事，他需要意识到一路上出了问题
并要求问题为什么在向群众介绍之后，只有五分之一的人拥有电脑28年？如果他想评分他的表现如何，这是一个失败的分数恕我直言。

John Bailo < JA ***** @ texeme.com>在消息中写道
新闻：JJ ******************** @ speakeasy.net ...

什么他一整天都在做什么？

在这里找到：

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=163166

Kevin Spencer写道：

2。他对现实的看法过着分离的生活

我甚至无法解析这句话。愿景不是过一种生活。你可能意味着比尔盖茨过着独立的生活。但你不能确定它与它是分开的，也不是为什么它是分开的。你提到他对现实的看法因此充其量是模棱两可的。事实上，我会假设地球上的每个人都可能被认为具有独立的现实视野。

打扰我的部分是当他说他不看电视时，

而他很少看DVD。


这来自一个想成为所有媒体之王的公司的首席架构师的人！

What does he do all day?

Find out here:

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=163166

解决方案

I''m sure Bill does have grand plans of where software will go and his
commitment to make computers work for the end user ... BUT the reality is:

1. He is someone we love to blame even though he has little or no power any
more
2. His vision of reality lives a separated life
3. His vision of a better end user experience gets destroyed by "the
machine" known as Microsoft
4. Microsoft like all large organizations through out history have become
too large for their own good

I think what Microsoft need to do is diversify - if nothing more than to
gain an education of the real world.

What I would like to see from Bill and Microsoft, is someone that
understands what we need by recognizing their flaws and stop blaming end
users & developers. Do not elevate a vision that just happens to
incorporate a highly profitable business model that provides "just enough"
of what we need at a premium cost. Make money by making your products more
simple, not more complex so you can charge a "subscribed" premium.

1 in 5 people have computers and actually use the Internet - if Bill needs
to do something, he needs to realize something went wrong along the way and
ask the question why do only 1 in 5 people have computers 28 years after
they were introduced to the masses? If he wants to grade how well he''s
done, this is a failed score IMHO.

"John Bailo" <ja*****@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:JJ********************@speakeasy.net...

What does he do all day?

Find out here:

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=163166

I''m assuming you''re a developer, someone who employs logic on a daily basis.
If so, I am puzzled by the following statements, which you assert as
"reality" -

1. He is someone we love to blame even though he has little or no power
any more
Who is "we?" Thinking people don''t "love to blame" anyone for whatever it is
(not mentioned) that you say "we love to blame" him for. There is no place
for "blame" in logic, nor is there any place for loving to do so. There is
certainly the element of diagnosis and identification of the source(s) of
*specific problems*.

What is this "power" you speak of? And what makes you think he has more or
less of it?
2. His vision of reality lives a separated life
I cannot even parse this sentence. A vision does not "live a life." You
might mean that Bill Gates "lives a separate life," but you don''t identify
from what it is separate, nor why it is separate. And your reference to "His
vision of reality" therefore is ambiguous at best. In fact, I would
postulate that every human being on the planet might be said to have a
"separate vision of reality." Only the young, the ignorant, and those who
are lazy in their thinking imagine that their "vision of reality" is exactly
the same as someone else''s. My guess is that you are young. Young people
have a desire to "belong" to a group of some kind, with which they can
identify. This is part of the social nature of our species.

The older and wiser one becomes, the less important this sort of distinction
becomes, and as one matures, one realizes that the arbitrary divisions we
place upon people and our perception of them are just that - arbitrary. In
fact, people are like snowflakes - no 2 are exactly alike. So, the only
logical division is to divide us into 2 groups: Human beings, and
individuals. Therefore, this abbreviated utterance is meaningless, except to
yourself.
3. His vision of a better end user experience gets destroyed by "the
machine" known as Microsoft
4. Microsoft like all large organizations through out history have become
too large for their own good
Taken together, I see these 2 statements as alluding to some idea that is
more or less true. All large organizations experience the danger of becoming
beaurocratic in nature, due simply to the nature of human beings to do that
which is expedient to the individual instead of that which is best for all.
Microsoft has been struggling with this problem, and lately there has been
some evidence that they are not entirely succeeding.

However, the statement that "His vision of a better end user experience gets
destroyed" is not accurate. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that
Bill Gates'' ideas are on a conceptual scale, and often are tainted or in
danger of being tainted in the process of being filtered down to the
specific application development level, due to the size and encroaching
beaurocracy that endangers Microsoft''s ability to maintain its innovative
and agile nature.
I think what Microsoft need to do is diversify - if nothing more than to
gain an education of the real world.
Here we go again with the "real world" stuff. Who among us has "an education
of the real world?" The statement is so broad and non-specific as to be
meaningless. It implies something, but you never explain what it is supposed
to imply. As to a need to diversify, that too is ambiguous, and not
explained. In what way would you recommend diversification? There are all
sorts (or perhaps "diverse" sorts would be more appropriate a term) of
"diversification."
Make money by making your products more simple, not more complex so you
can charge a "subscribed" premium.
Now, this is one of the statements that makes me believe that you are either
not a developer, or are very young. The word "simple," when applied to
software, is ambiguous at best. There are several different types of
simplicity that one may use when describing software as simple. One is
"simple to use." The problem with this is that to truly make software
"simple to use," one must restrict its functionality. A "simple to use"
calculator, for example, cannot do scientific calculations. Depending upon
how simple you wanted it to be, you might restrict it to addition,
subtraction, multiplication, and division. But how would you handle rational
numbers? Where does one draw the line at what is "simple to use" and what is
not?

In "the real world" people want their software to do every possible thing
they can imagine with it. This is because they are ignorant of the
consequences of this extended functionality. First, it means that the
software must have a user interface that accomdates all of these features.
How is that supposed to be "simple to use?" Second, it means that the
software itself must contain a huge amount of code to perform all of these
various operations, in a variety of configurations. And that costs a lot of
money, and take s alot of time, to produce.

The second type of "simple" is "simple in functionality" and this means less
features. Again, you''re talking about a Catch-22 situation. Microsoft
actually has aimed at solutions for these problems, by releasing various
different versions of software for differing purposes. There are a
half-dozen different versions of Visual Studio.Net available, and some of
them are free. Now, how would you solve these problems? It is well and good
to identify problems, but to criticize the solutions of others without
offering your own is hypocritical.

I don''t have the time to critique the rest of your post, but let me just say
in conclusion that if you want to be a success as a developer, you''re going
to have to discipline your thinking process. The thoughts expressed in this
post (1) are not well-thougt-out, from a logical standpoint, (2) are
therefore not convincing, except perhaps to the ignorant, the undisciplined,
and the weak-minded, and (3) are hypocritical, as you do not offer any
well-explained, well-thought-out, realistic, or viable solutions.

It may be popular to put Bill Gates down, but is popularity all its cracked
up to be? I still see an awful lot of SUVs on the road in America these
days, and for the life of me, I can''t figure out the thought process that
spawned them. They are apparently some kind of "status symbol," but the only
status I see is that of an unthinking person with the wrong sense of
priorities, who is apparently wanting to impress other unthinking people
with wrong senses of priorities. That''s popularity for you.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
To a tea you esteem
a hurting back as a wallet.
"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:u7**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... I''m sure Bill does have grand plans of where software will go and his
commitment to make computers work for the end user ... BUT the reality is:

1. He is someone we love to blame even though he has little or no power
any more
2. His vision of reality lives a separated life
3. His vision of a better end user experience gets destroyed by "the
machine" known as Microsoft
4. Microsoft like all large organizations through out history have become
too large for their own good

I think what Microsoft need to do is diversify - if nothing more than to
gain an education of the real world.

What I would like to see from Bill and Microsoft, is someone that
understands what we need by recognizing their flaws and stop blaming end
users & developers. Do not elevate a vision that just happens to
incorporate a highly profitable business model that provides "just enough"
of what we need at a premium cost. Make money by making your products
more simple, not more complex so you can charge a "subscribed" premium.

1 in 5 people have computers and actually use the Internet - if Bill needs
to do something, he needs to realize something went wrong along the way
and ask the question why do only 1 in 5 people have computers 28 years
after they were introduced to the masses? If he wants to grade how well
he''s done, this is a failed score IMHO.

"John Bailo" <ja*****@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:JJ********************@speakeasy.net...

What does he do all day?

Find out here:

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=163166

Kevin Spencer wrote:

2. His vision of reality lives a separated life

I cannot even parse this sentence. A vision does not "live a life." You
might mean that Bill Gates "lives a separate life," but you don''t identify
from what it is separate, nor why it is separate. And your reference to "His
vision of reality" therefore is ambiguous at best. In fact, I would
postulate that every human being on the planet might be said to have a
"separate vision of reality."

The part that disturbed me was when he said that he doesn''t watch tv,
and that he rarely watches a DVD.

This from a person who is a Chief Architect for a company that wants to
be the King of All Media!

这篇关于比尔盖茨17分钟的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！