I take the 'phase out thing' as another major sign of the continuing demise of Windows as an OS and Microsoft as a whole.
You are preaching to the choir. However as we all know 90% of the users out there are completely clueless about computers. The tech savvy users may be moving away from Windows ever so slowly, but for the general population, it will take at least 3-5 more upgrade cycles before Apple will even make a noticeable dent considering the enormity of the Windows install base..
What they are putting the closed system, big brother apple on their desktops in google, and then bashing the living daylights out of apple in public? Who would have thought they were the biggest hypocrites on the globe...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict
Can you guys read?
Google is NOT switching everyone to Macs running OSX. They have always had an option of which OS to use, and they are now dropping the Windows option. Employees now will have the choice of OSX, LINUX, or ChromeOS. I would also bet Windows developers will haver permission to run Windowes machines. No half qualified CIO is stupid enough to deny that when there is a legitimate case that outweighs the risks. I would not count on OSX becoming the dominant platform in Google. I am sure Chrome and Android will have a good chunk of the internal marketshare, if for no other reason, it would be a politicaaly smart choice for emplyees to make.
Android is not a desktop OS and Chrome is not even out, how are these options to develop on, a mobile os, and an os that's not even stable for release yet? It seems you are the one who can't read.
I bet google gets a good corporate volume discount.
From Apple!?!?!?
Sorry but unless things have changed in a major way in the past 5ish years Apple and 'good corporate volume discount' just don't get said in the same sentence all that often.
Isn't a copy of Windows running in Parallels pretty much protected by OSX? Or is it?
No, it's sandboxed in Parallels. If the hacker figures out you are running Parallels, and there are flaws in Parallels, they could essentially hack into your OSX box too. Not saying it's been done, and I'm not saying there are flaws in Parallels, but theoretically it's a link to explore/exploit. Same goes for VMware. It's a hypervisor, and if you can hack it, you could have control over the hosts in it. ESX may be more secure than the desktop version (like Fusion), but not immune to bugs and hacks.
no because you are actually running windows when you are running parallels. You have to purchase a version of windows to use parallels.
Usually you have the windows vm out on a partitian to reduce the risks of problems, but if you open up the mac harddrive from windows vm, nasty things can happen.
I run virus software on my parallels windows partitian.
Good move. Windows can be attacked regardless of whether it's running natively or in a VM.
The advantage of the VM is that it's easy to keep a spare Windows drive handy and replace an infected one.
The move created mild discontent among some Google employees, appreciative of the choice in operating systems granted to them - an unusual feature in large companies. But many employees were relieved they could still use Macs and Linux. ?It would have made more people upset if they banned Macs rather than Windows,? he added.
Umm that would be called BIAS. Anything they can do to make Microsoft bad and Apple good would par for the course here.
The move created mild discontent among some Google employees, appreciative of the choice in operating systems granted to them - an unusual feature in large companies. But many employees were relieved they could still use Macs and Linux. ?It would have made more people upset if they banned Macs rather than Windows,? he added.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando
Whilst Google does develop some desktop applications the vast majority of their stuff is web based. They are not Windows centric.
If you look at the videos Google releases, often they are demoing on Macs.
BS. Windows gets the consumer Google apps first. Even when there are Mac versions they tend to lack all of the features. Picassa took forever to come out on the Mac. Chrome was lagging behind as well. Today Chrome on the Mac still does NOT support Kerberose. Mac users that want to get through the proxy at work must use FireFox (also lagging behind the Windows version) since Safari does not support Kerberose either. However Chrome on Windows has full Kerberose support.
Google is not stupid, Windows still has 91% of the desktop market.
The article does not state that they are phasing out of the general company and getting rid of it where possible. The article states they are phasing out the operating system. it also states new employees just hired do not have the option of choosing windows operating systems. I'm telling you that i think that is bull.
The whole story is missing lots of FACTS. New employees can get Windows if they get permission.
This is not a win for Mac or Apple. Google employees will end up on Linux in the end or Google's version of it. They will have lots of test Windows boxes running in Virtual Box, and less Apple test boxes.
The real story is how the EFF did they get hit?? Running Windows XP with IE6 is flat out stupid. They are both 10 years old. I bet they were missing patches, I bet those users were full Admins on those boxes. The story is Google's IT security or LACK OF IT. So instead of firing the moron that let this happen they blame it on Microsoft? I wonder if they were running Vista or 7 with IE8 fully patched if this would have happened? Doubtful, very doubtful.
It of course makes for good blog headlines at Appleinsider.
What they are putting the closed system, big brother apple on their desktops in google, and then bashing the living daylights out of apple in public? Who would have thought they were the biggest hypocrites on the globe...
Android is not a desktop OS and Chrome is not even out, how are these options to develop on, a mobile os, and an os that's not even stable for release yet? It seems you are the one who can't read.
Right and you work for Google and know the status of Chrome? At Google the Chrome OS is beta, and it will be that way for 6 years.
Its reasonable to believe that some people at Google run it daily in its current form.
I'm not buying the premise of this story. Google is windows centric, not apple. They always release their products for windows quicker and better. Just not buying this rumor.
The real story is how the EFF did they get hit?? Running Windows XP with IE6 is flat out stupid. They are both 10 years old. I bet they were missing patches, I bet those users were full Admins on those boxes. The story is Google's IT security or LACK OF IT. So instead of firing the moron that let this happen they blame it on Microsoft? I wonder if they were running Vista or 7 with IE8 fully patched if this would have happened? Doubtful, very doubtful.
It of course makes for good blog headlines at Appleinsider.
I have many industrial clients still running xp with ie6. I tell them to keep it up because I charge quite a few extra hours of programming css to work on that old ie6 crap.
Google is not stupid, Windows still has 91% of the desktop market.
I agree, this is why i posted that I do not believe the premise of this story. Google will not shoot itself in the foot. Their web apps will be targeted Windows IE primarily and other browser secondarily ... at least until IE marketshare reduces to a point where it is no longer relevant to support it primarily. That will happen sooner than microsoft thinks.
BS. Windows gets the consumer Google apps first. Even when there are Mac versions they tend to lack all of the features. Picassa took forever to come out on the Mac. Chrome was lagging behind as well. Today Chrome on the Mac still does NOT support Kerberose. Mac users that want to get through the proxy at work must use FireFox (also lagging behind the Windows version) since Safari does not support Kerberose either. However Chrome on Windows has full Kerberose support.
Google is not stupid, Windows still has 91% of the desktop market.
Uh Safari supports kerberos just fine. Many Apple apps can use kerberos. Addressbook, iCal, iChat, Finder, VPN, and Safari all can use kerberos for authentication. You might want to re-investigate Safari.
I have many industrial clients still running xp with ie6. I tell them to keep it up because I charge quite a few extra hours of programming css to work on that old ie6 crap.
I hope you were (but fear you weren't) being sarcastic.
I wouldn't want you advising or providing services for my business as you're not doing what's in its best interest. You should at least inform your clients about the security benefits of upgrading from IE6.
There's an opinion expressed before that IT departments and IT technicians tend to do what's in their best interest, i.e. favour tech solutions they understand or have qualifications for rather than what's in their organisation's or client's best interest, i.e. more reliable tech or software which may require new effort from IT techs to understand and embrace.
I find your reaction to this story of Google throwing out Windows rather telling.
California State Highway patrol officers caught several Google employees throwing their cellphones into the Pacific Ocean. When accosted by the officers, the men and women of Google sheepishly admitted that they hated their phones that were powered by Android.
"All the Android Apps are so lame," said one young man who refused to give his name. Another young woman, who was visibly upset, said, "It is so hard to upgrade the OS on my phone. Why can't Eric just let us use the iPhone? It is so cool. My boyfriend has it. Thank God, he does not work for Google."
The officers warned the Googlers that polluting the Pacific Ocean with Android phones was a crime worse than causing an oil spill. If convicted, a person could be sentenced to life imprisonment. Without any hope of parole.
LOL !!
Heh. Thanks for the laugh.
Maybe they could plug the oil leak with Android phones? A win-win scenario?
Uh Safari supports kerberos just fine. Many Apple apps can use kerberos. Addressbook, iCal, iChat, Finder, VPN, and Safari all can use kerberos for authentication. You might want to re-investigate Safari.
Safari supports NTLM. In a 2008 R2 Active Directory domain Kerberose is required. Apple Support flat out told me Safari wont pass Kerberose properly unless the target can take NTLM. Apple support TOLD ME to use FireFox.
If Google is so worried about security then it should implement its own proprietary software. Wouldn't Google implement its own Chrome OS in beta form for its own company? Even if it weren't totally ready for the public it could let its employees have some basic functionality with the Chrome OS.
What does this say about Chrome OS if it is true? It says Chrome OS can't do regular business computing. I've seen the demo's of Chrome OS and it seemed to work fine. It might be buggy right now but it could do word processing and e-mail. What specialized tasks do the Google business people do that requires OS X that can't be done with Chrome OS? I'm curious.
It says nothing about Chrome OS. That's in beta. And it isn't really designed or optimized to serve the enterprise crowd.
Despite what AI forumers think, there's no hate war on at Google. They just don't see eye-to-eye on some issues. I am willing to bet that most Google employees (being of that creative, tech-wise type) probably favour and use macs heavily. I doubt any of them harbour such an aversion to Apple that they wouldn't use Apple products. To most of them it's all just business and healthy competition.
Comments
I take the 'phase out thing' as another major sign of the continuing demise of Windows as an OS and Microsoft as a whole.
You are preaching to the choir. However as we all know 90% of the users out there are completely clueless about computers. The tech savvy users may be moving away from Windows ever so slowly, but for the general population, it will take at least 3-5 more upgrade cycles before Apple will even make a noticeable dent considering the enormity of the Windows install base..
Can you guys read?
Google is NOT switching everyone to Macs running OSX. They have always had an option of which OS to use, and they are now dropping the Windows option. Employees now will have the choice of OSX, LINUX, or ChromeOS. I would also bet Windows developers will haver permission to run Windowes machines. No half qualified CIO is stupid enough to deny that when there is a legitimate case that outweighs the risks. I would not count on OSX becoming the dominant platform in Google. I am sure Chrome and Android will have a good chunk of the internal marketshare, if for no other reason, it would be a politicaaly smart choice for emplyees to make.
Android is not a desktop OS and Chrome is not even out, how are these options to develop on, a mobile os, and an os that's not even stable for release yet? It seems you are the one who can't read.
I bet google gets a good corporate volume discount.
From Apple!?!?!?
Sorry but unless things have changed in a major way in the past 5ish years Apple and 'good corporate volume discount' just don't get said in the same sentence all that often.
Isn't a copy of Windows running in Parallels pretty much protected by OSX? Or is it?
No, it's sandboxed in Parallels. If the hacker figures out you are running Parallels, and there are flaws in Parallels, they could essentially hack into your OSX box too. Not saying it's been done, and I'm not saying there are flaws in Parallels, but theoretically it's a link to explore/exploit. Same goes for VMware. It's a hypervisor, and if you can hack it, you could have control over the hosts in it. ESX may be more secure than the desktop version (like Fusion), but not immune to bugs and hacks.
http://pcworld.about.com/od/securit1...re-Drops-F.htm
no because you are actually running windows when you are running parallels. You have to purchase a version of windows to use parallels.
Usually you have the windows vm out on a partitian to reduce the risks of problems, but if you open up the mac harddrive from windows vm, nasty things can happen.
I run virus software on my parallels windows partitian.
Good move. Windows can be attacked regardless of whether it's running natively or in a VM.
The advantage of the VM is that it's easy to keep a spare Windows drive handy and replace an infected one.
Actually the FT article said this:
The move created mild discontent among some Google employees, appreciative of the choice in operating systems granted to them - an unusual feature in large companies. But many employees were relieved they could still use Macs and Linux. ?It would have made more people upset if they banned Macs rather than Windows,? he added.
Umm that would be called BIAS. Anything they can do to make Microsoft bad and Apple good would par for the course here.
Actually the FT article said this:
The move created mild discontent among some Google employees, appreciative of the choice in operating systems granted to them - an unusual feature in large companies. But many employees were relieved they could still use Macs and Linux. ?It would have made more people upset if they banned Macs rather than Windows,? he added.
Whilst Google does develop some desktop applications the vast majority of their stuff is web based. They are not Windows centric.
If you look at the videos Google releases, often they are demoing on Macs.
BS. Windows gets the consumer Google apps first. Even when there are Mac versions they tend to lack all of the features. Picassa took forever to come out on the Mac. Chrome was lagging behind as well. Today Chrome on the Mac still does NOT support Kerberose. Mac users that want to get through the proxy at work must use FireFox (also lagging behind the Windows version) since Safari does not support Kerberose either. However Chrome on Windows has full Kerberose support.
Google is not stupid, Windows still has 91% of the desktop market.
The article does not state that they are phasing out of the general company and getting rid of it where possible. The article states they are phasing out the operating system. it also states new employees just hired do not have the option of choosing windows operating systems. I'm telling you that i think that is bull.
The whole story is missing lots of FACTS. New employees can get Windows if they get permission.
This is not a win for Mac or Apple. Google employees will end up on Linux in the end or Google's version of it. They will have lots of test Windows boxes running in Virtual Box, and less Apple test boxes.
The real story is how the EFF did they get hit?? Running Windows XP with IE6 is flat out stupid. They are both 10 years old. I bet they were missing patches, I bet those users were full Admins on those boxes. The story is Google's IT security or LACK OF IT. So instead of firing the moron that let this happen they blame it on Microsoft? I wonder if they were running Vista or 7 with IE8 fully patched if this would have happened? Doubtful, very doubtful.
It of course makes for good blog headlines at Appleinsider.
What they are putting the closed system, big brother apple on their desktops in google, and then bashing the living daylights out of apple in public? Who would have thought they were the biggest hypocrites on the globe...
Android is not a desktop OS and Chrome is not even out, how are these options to develop on, a mobile os, and an os that's not even stable for release yet? It seems you are the one who can't read.
Right and you work for Google and know the status of Chrome? At Google the Chrome OS is beta, and it will be that way for 6 years.
Its reasonable to believe that some people at Google run it daily in its current form.
I'm not buying the premise of this story. Google is windows centric, not apple. They always release their products for windows quicker and better. Just not buying this rumor.
I don't think this is a rumor.
The real story is how the EFF did they get hit?? Running Windows XP with IE6 is flat out stupid. They are both 10 years old. I bet they were missing patches, I bet those users were full Admins on those boxes. The story is Google's IT security or LACK OF IT. So instead of firing the moron that let this happen they blame it on Microsoft? I wonder if they were running Vista or 7 with IE8 fully patched if this would have happened? Doubtful, very doubtful.
It of course makes for good blog headlines at Appleinsider.
I have many industrial clients still running xp with ie6. I tell them to keep it up because I charge quite a few extra hours of programming css to work on that old ie6 crap.
Google is not stupid, Windows still has 91% of the desktop market.
I agree, this is why i posted that I do not believe the premise of this story. Google will not shoot itself in the foot. Their web apps will be targeted Windows IE primarily and other browser secondarily ... at least until IE marketshare reduces to a point where it is no longer relevant to support it primarily. That will happen sooner than microsoft thinks.
I bet google gets a good corporate volume discount.
or buy a s**t load of PC's and hackintosh em...
BS. Windows gets the consumer Google apps first. Even when there are Mac versions they tend to lack all of the features. Picassa took forever to come out on the Mac. Chrome was lagging behind as well. Today Chrome on the Mac still does NOT support Kerberose. Mac users that want to get through the proxy at work must use FireFox (also lagging behind the Windows version) since Safari does not support Kerberose either. However Chrome on Windows has full Kerberose support.
Google is not stupid, Windows still has 91% of the desktop market.
Uh Safari supports kerberos just fine. Many Apple apps can use kerberos. Addressbook, iCal, iChat, Finder, VPN, and Safari all can use kerberos for authentication. You might want to re-investigate Safari.
I have many industrial clients still running xp with ie6. I tell them to keep it up because I charge quite a few extra hours of programming css to work on that old ie6 crap.
I hope you were (but fear you weren't) being sarcastic.
I wouldn't want you advising or providing services for my business as you're not doing what's in its best interest. You should at least inform your clients about the security benefits of upgrading from IE6.
There's an opinion expressed before that IT departments and IT technicians tend to do what's in their best interest, i.e. favour tech solutions they understand or have qualifications for rather than what's in their organisation's or client's best interest, i.e. more reliable tech or software which may require new effort from IT techs to understand and embrace.
I find your reaction to this story of Google throwing out Windows rather telling.
California State Highway patrol officers caught several Google employees throwing their cellphones into the Pacific Ocean. When accosted by the officers, the men and women of Google sheepishly admitted that they hated their phones that were powered by Android.
"All the Android Apps are so lame," said one young man who refused to give his name. Another young woman, who was visibly upset, said, "It is so hard to upgrade the OS on my phone. Why can't Eric just let us use the iPhone? It is so cool. My boyfriend has it. Thank God, he does not work for Google."
The officers warned the Googlers that polluting the Pacific Ocean with Android phones was a crime worse than causing an oil spill. If convicted, a person could be sentenced to life imprisonment. Without any hope of parole.
LOL !!
Heh. Thanks for the laugh.
Maybe they could plug the oil leak with Android phones? A win-win scenario?
Uh Safari supports kerberos just fine. Many Apple apps can use kerberos. Addressbook, iCal, iChat, Finder, VPN, and Safari all can use kerberos for authentication. You might want to re-investigate Safari.
Safari supports NTLM. In a 2008 R2 Active Directory domain Kerberose is required. Apple Support flat out told me Safari wont pass Kerberose properly unless the target can take NTLM. Apple support TOLD ME to use FireFox.
If Google is so worried about security then it should implement its own proprietary software. Wouldn't Google implement its own Chrome OS in beta form for its own company? Even if it weren't totally ready for the public it could let its employees have some basic functionality with the Chrome OS.
What does this say about Chrome OS if it is true? It says Chrome OS can't do regular business computing. I've seen the demo's of Chrome OS and it seemed to work fine. It might be buggy right now but it could do word processing and e-mail. What specialized tasks do the Google business people do that requires OS X that can't be done with Chrome OS? I'm curious.
It says nothing about Chrome OS. That's in beta. And it isn't really designed or optimized to serve the enterprise crowd.
Despite what AI forumers think, there's no hate war on at Google. They just don't see eye-to-eye on some issues. I am willing to bet that most Google employees (being of that creative, tech-wise type) probably favour and use macs heavily. I doubt any of them harbour such an aversion to Apple that they wouldn't use Apple products. To most of them it's all just business and healthy competition.