@Grikath Re: Will anyone wheel out dusty Win98 CDs when Gates and Ballmer cash in their chips?
I was struck by the same paragraph as you: Both sides cringingly came together when Windows 98’s launch was soundtracked with "Heroes". Still, we’ll all be playing "Heroes" today. Will anyone wheel out dusty Win98 CDs when Gates and Ballmer cash in their chips?
That's some outstanding cluelessness right there. I mean, I understand that the writer was probably a Bowie fan and all that, but he needs to have maybe just a little bit of sense.
Bill Gates during his Microsoft days and now with his philanthropic efforts has and continues to change the world in a variety of ways, some of which are profound.
David Bowie, on the other hand, made some recordings that some people enjoyed. Apparently some people think that his records are more significant than Bill Gates' record of achievements. If you compare the two - an imbecilic idea in the first place - then anyone with even a vague understanding of how the world works will immediately see how trivial the Bowie record is, not only when compared to Gates' but on its own "merits". (Nota bene: I will be gladdened and amused to read any comments bashing Gates, Ballmer, Microsoft, and Windows, while not bashing Bowie for letting them use "Heroes" to sell Win98.)
Let me put this another way: Still, we’ll all be playing "Heroes" today. Will anyone wheel out dusty Win98 CDs when Gates and Ballmer cash in their chips? Literally billions of people use Windows not just today, but today and every day. The significance of what people will do when using Windows, just today and only today (and not this week, month, or year, or the course of their entire lives), so far outstrips the significance of however many people listening to Bowie's records today, that the comparison can only serve to denigrate Bowie's memory.
Here's my favorite - and I use the word ironically - quote from David Bowie. "This isn't rock and roll, it's genocide". Probably tells us more about him and his outlook, his superficiality and shallowness, his self-absorption, and his need to generate attention-seeking gimmicks (very well-developed!) than anything else that he's ever said or done.
It's unfortunate to have to bash the dead like this. But then again, eulogies when sufficiently preposterous only serve to ridicule the memory of the deceased.
PS: The "techie" claims in the article are laughably weak.