Hacker News Reader

Comment by evo_9 | Hacker News Reader

That actually seems high to me considering how cutting edge they are. I'd think Mac's would be the vast majority, followed by a fair number if linux machines. I'd of expected Windows boxes to account for a tiny amount of testing machines, and maybe a few biz/marketing hold-outs, but even those guys I'd expect to be predominately on OSX and running either bootcamp or VM'd for Windows.

View on HN

Google builds some of the most popular - and in my opinion, exciting - Windows software that has ever existed. Between Chrome, Earth, Picasa and others I imagine a decently large number of devs need to work on Windows machines for more than just "testing".

(also, in your post "I'd of" should be "I'd have")

No, I meant "I'd" to mean "I would", as in "I would think...".

> I'd of expected Windows boxes

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldof.html

I was actually referring to the first 'I'd think Mac's would be the vast majority...', not the one you didn't reference until above.

Thanks for the link, I'll keep that handy if my copy of The Chicago Manual of Style isn't handy (oh they have a nice website now too, cool).

Well it makes sense, given that Google is predominantly a linux-based company.

But it's a fallacy to equate "cutting edge" with "not Windows". Windows may not be as fashionable in the same way that Macs are with the Starbucks/college campus crowd, but it's certainly no less "cutting edge" a desktop operating system than OS X or Linux.

To me, leadership and overall direction indicates how cutting edge a company is; thinking about Apple, Google and Microsoft in these terms, and I think it's an apt statement.

I think you're being too loose with language here. The implication was that Google doesn't use Windows because Google is cutting-edge; this is a claim about the technical merits of Windows, not the direction of Microsoft's leadership.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com