MovieChat Forums > Pirates of Silicon Valley (1999) Discussion > What did Bill write for Steve on the dry...

What did Bill write for Steve on the dry-erase board?


In the scene where Bill explains to Steve that Microsoft isn't stealing from Apple.

Bill writes a bunch of stuff (which isn't shown) on the board with a marker and it completely satisfies Steve into believing that everything is ok.

Anyone have any idea what he could have written?

reply

I suppose he was explaining (lying?) how Windows was not a Mac ripoff.

reply

Yeah, it's a similar thing you wrote on the board when your math teacher suspects you for cheating during exam

reply

If I recall, Macintosh was always a complete stand-alone Operating System whereas the first versions of Windows were actually a graphics wrapper over DOS. So really DOS was contolling the PC.

I am guessing he drew it up in a way that downplayed just how close the graphic navigation of Windows was to Macintosh and emphasized DOS was still running the computer.

reply

Yes, I never really understood why some people referred to early versions of Windows as an operating system. It was just a graphical shell on top of DOS; a different way of running software. Even Windows 95 still ran on top of DOS, as well as Windows 98. You could still exit out of Windows and run pure DOS with those versions of Windows.

I guess in the end, some computer users didn't really care. If someone could run in Windows all the time, then it's probably all the same to them. I thought Windows 3.x was cool, but there were things I really didn't like about it; in particular, it really slowed down my PC a lot, especially for things like games.

----------------
Roger, Roger.
You have clearance, Clarence.
What's our vector, Victor?

reply

[deleted]

Frankly, I'd LOVE to be able to run a Win3.1 environment on today's computers. I really don't need all the bells and whistles and integrations. I've been seriously contemplating getting away from these OS systems that simply pile junk on top of junk on top of the functionality.



"Atlas Shrugged- Part 1"- Coming soon to Canada and on DVD!

reply

[deleted]

Well how about a "Windows Light"? Just some sort of OP that doesn't demand so much from the system and clog up the hard drive?

Is Linux the way?


"Atlas Shrugged- Part 1"- Coming soon to Canada and on DVD!

reply

[deleted]

Code for the BSOD...little did Jobs know its power

reply

very true. This is digging way back, but I believe many games during that time, notably Doom and Wolfenstein (?) would suggest to run in MS-DOS mode instead of within Windows.

I don't it was until Windows NT and Windows 2000 that Microsoft got away from DOS. In the more recent versions of Windows today, the "command prompt" is more of a DOS emulator, as I understand it.

reply

very true. This is digging way back, but I believe many games during that time, notably Doom and Wolfenstein (?) would suggest to run in MS-DOS mode instead of within Windows.

Yes, I remember many games recommending being run that way, as DOS still provided the best speed for games, since DOS provided direct access to the hardware.

I don't it was until Windows NT and Windows 2000 that Microsoft got away from DOS. In the more recent versions of Windows today, the "command prompt" is more of a DOS emulator, as I understand it.

Yes, it was Windows NT that got rid of DOS, making Windows a true OS. But the command prompt isn't a DOS emulator - you're still in the native Windows environment, albeit at a command prompt. There are native Windows programs that don't have a GUI that you run on the command prompt - mainly system admin tools. 32-bit versions of Windows do provide DOS emulation and a DOS command prompt though. The difference is that for the Windows command prompt, you run cmd.exe and for the DOS command prompt, you run command.com. 64-bit versions of Windows don't include command.com or the DOS emulator because 64-bit systems don't support 16-bit software.

----------------
Roger, Roger.
You have clearance, Clarence.
What's our vector, Victor?

reply

He was showing Jobs how Microsoft was developing Windows which would go through several version eventually becoming Windows 8 with the Metro UI. Jobs saw how much the Metro UI sucked and was no longer worried about Microsoft.

reply

reviving a bit of a dead thread but whatever;

from what the powers that be have to say in hindsight, it appears that Gates did try to convince the CEO of Apple to allow the software to be licensed to other PC manufacturers and they wouldn't go for it.

Since Gates was convincing Jobs (or letting him convince himself) that he wanted to bring IBM down, it wouldn't surprise me if he actually spelled out on the whiteboard that Windows was going to be an intentionally inferior product. There would be no point in denying what it was when clearly Jobs already had a fair understanding of the basics of it. But the similarities would work in Macs favor if Jobs presumed a few things:

1. it was inferior to Mac OS
2. it was launched after Mac
3. software developed for it would be directly transferable to Mac.
4. the financial gains that MS received from their dealings with IBM would be used to finance the future software developments for Mac.

The idea of it being a guerilla war was in Jobs mind, and this kind of subterfuge looks like something he might buy into. With an inferior but similar product, IBM users would naturally gravitate towards Mac since it was more established and better than Windows. Mac's understanding of their contract with MS (which Bill references towards the end of the film) was that they could essentially utilize all of the features of Mac for Windows 1.0 only. They didn't launch a lawsuit until Windows 2.0+ was launched, at which point it became clear that the contract was a forever agreement. Since Mac wasn't aware of this, especially Jobs, it gave IBM no future going forward. They would be stuck with an inferior OS, launched after Mac, and couldn't develop anything further into the future with MS abandoning IBM for Mac, who they were already developing software for at the time.

The problem with these presumptions were that they weren't true.

1. While it was inferior to Mac OS it
2. arrived before Mac did in most major markets. It established the consumer base, and was not isolated to a specific vendor. Additionally, it was delivered at a lower price point (which is easier to do when you don't have the overhead of R&D)
3. software developed for Windows was directly transferrable to Mac, but people were more inclined to stick with software bundled as part of a family. All software from the windows family for instance.
4. the finances raised were not used to develop more for Mac. They were used to develop a better OS to compete even more with Mac.

It is incredible to see how easy it was for someone to play Jobs if they walked in with that as their intention. Gates love of poker allowed him to manipulate Jobs. While Gates sat back with his cards on his chest, Jobs was so over confident that he would lay his whole hand out on the table and then reveal what cards he was going to discard and how he would bet.

I think it would be interesting to see who left Mac for MS shortly after that master stroke was struck. I would imagine that most of Jobs' employees were pretty much done with him by that point, especially those on the Apple project.

reply

He drew the most detailed penis imaginable, that's why it took two hours. How the hell should we know what he wrote, we watched the same movie you did, numbnut!

Ballmer narrates over that scene that he was pacifying Steve Jobs with nonsense.




Opinions are just onions with pi in them.

reply

I suppose he was explaining (lying?) how Windows was not a Mac ripoff.


The thing is, Windows really wasn't a Mac ripoff. It's as Gates explains closer to the end: the "look and feel" of both Windows and the Lisa/Macintosh GUI were ripped off from Xerox. The code itself was completely different. The functionality was often quite different in hundreds of ways major or minor, depending on which system components you're talking about, and in many cases, the Microsoft functionality was more convenient once you got past the (more often than not) steeper learning curve.

"I don't deduce, I observe."

reply