Sergey Brin: Only 20% of Googlers still on Windows Google co-founder Sergey Brin has said that only about 20 per cent of Google's employees are still using Microsoft Windows, and that all of those users are on Windows 7. He stressed, however, that he is not sure of the exact percentage. Rumors had indicated that within the company, Google had almost entirely banned Windows. …
A lot of people follow Google and what they do or say can have an effect on the decisions of a lot of people. MS do not need one of the biggest tech companies in the world bad-mouthing and dropping their flagshop product, sends out a bad message. Even the most tech-illiterate have used Google and MS products, they know that Google is useful to find info and PCs run Windows, that's the limit for most users. When of those two makes a noise, people may listen and think.
Personally I don't care either, I find both Google and MS products distasteful but some people do care and the ad-men in MS are probably none to happy if this news hits the mainstream media.
I dunno. I think a lot of people might care enough, say, to open a GMail account, and use Google's search engine, and Google Maps.
But care enough to "rent" a laptop with a Google operating system?
I'd probably have been interested just out of curiousity 3-4 years ago, but not enough to shell out cash to an advertising company, and certainly not now that I've got more gadgets and OS's to deal with than I'm actually comfortable with.
But hey, maybe I'm a minority and you'll be proven right.
Geez, what replies :) I was referring to the impracticalities of using a system on which you are limited to using one, sub par Spreadsheet application, in this case Google Docs Spreadsheet. Spreadsheets have been known for decades for representing and calculating tabular data and they really are mature at this day and age. They are also very common in use for wide variety of purposes, from project management, analysis, financial and other things. To go into 2011, and not be able to use it, is actually like going back into 1989.
I don't like the arch of win compared to unix but telling something is insecure because it needs patches is absurd.
You can install the latest service pack, run windows update automatically and it will function same way as chrome, you won't even care whatever update shipped.
On Windows and OS X, you have full control over your machine and you can purchase a top end security suite (or get free one) and have way better security than Chrome OS.
Chrome was recently exploited by French with all the known security features enabled. Why? Because Mr. Google really hurried with some stuff to show off 3d on Web.
Putting all your data to Google and bragging about how secure your system is also sounding bad.
As laughingly 'reported' on 9-5 google, most people who were *photographed* had Mac gear.
Credit to 9-5google, as it's a direct C+P of pretty much their entire article:
"It’s a familiar scene. *MacBook-toting journalists, bloggers and guests* providing Apple with omnipresence and free advertising at rivals’ events, thanks in large part to the glowing Apple logo on the well-designed notebook family. Who knows, this time next year some of these folks might carry around machines with the Google logo on them if there’s any substance to the whispers of subscription-based Chrome OS notebooks. Check out seven additional Apple sightings below the fold and meet us in comments."
My asterisked highlight, as it says nothing for Google staff themselves, only people who had showed up, regardless of who they were.
The rest of the article is captions to seven photgraphs. Hardly a network scan showing that 80% of Google staff were using Apple gear.
Doesn't meant jack shit with regards to what they use internally, either. I'd wager it's mostly commodity hardware + GoogleOptimisedLinux, especially seeing how much *nix gear they have to run their primary business models.
But then, unlike the above commentard, I refuse to pass this on as some kind of authorative fact - it's simply observational assessment. Journalists and bloggers != Google itself. In the same way that me using an iPad to show someone some pictures at work is totally misrepresentative of the four Linux workstations, and one Xenserver box with three Windows VMs and five Linux VMs I have at home for actually *doing stuff*. Not that I'd turn my nose up at a Macbook, mind...!
So the idea that 80% of Google staff, who aren't using Windows, are actually using Mac OS, is on this evidence, an entirely baseless suggestion. I might as well suggest that the 50% (specualtive) or so of people who don't die of natural causes die of Claymore mine wounds, simply because I've seen a few pictures of people in Sierra Leone who have had their legs blown off - it's an equally valid supposition in this case, and equally baseless.
Steven R
Why DOG food? Why not just say eating your own food? Shorter and more sensible?
It makes sense at Microsoft: it would be offensive to say eat your own shit so they had to pick other brownish foul smelling substances to represent their products.
But I don't think that's what most companies should aim for.
MS definition:
"Dogfood — Microsoft concept for internal testing of software that’s not fit for public consumption, but good enough for internal purposes. Very unrefined and buggy, but containing basic nutrients."
So calling it “dogfood” is an indication of quality (not fit for humans). It means more than just “use what you build”. The term is intended to mean “use what you build as early as you can” (i.e. before customers do).
You seem to like definitions, and by them dog food would be a fully prepared product ready to serve to a dog. Are developers not human?
If you want to mean food that is not ready yet, then use something like part cooked, half baked, tasting the broth or even tasting the dough. But dog food it is not.
It's curious how language develops organically, not from a linguist's rulebook or an advertising agency's plans. What's the sense in "pineapple"? Perhaps the origins of the phrase predate Microsoft?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food#Origin_and_alternatives
That was really hard.
Microsoft famously used to use all their own tools, write all their in house systems and so on. Once they changed they were saving vast amount of time and money.
Few companies tend to use their own software internally, it creates a lot of distraction as there proper support protocols can be bypassed and crucial developer time can be spent fixing up simple problems in software.
Google is a software company, and many of its employees spend their time programming. I've never heard of any serious web-based IDEs or other programming tools. I wonder if Google has something they're not telling us about --- or else, maybe only support staff will go to ChromeOS.
Where does it say they use Chrome OS internally?
Just says 80% don't use Windows, so it can be OSX, Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc, anything really. Why are you assuming it's Chrome OS?
From the article: "Brin said that Google hopes to move most of its employees to Google's Chrome OS"
Good luck with that Brin. But that actually tells us most actually aren't, so the other options I mentioned are more likely.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
