I'll reply with my perspective as another ms employee. I've worked at microsoft since '98, on visual C++, C# and most recently the visual studio debugger/diagnostics teams. by and large I've enjoyed the experience, though naturally it has had its ups and downs. I came from a rather non-ms background (was a self-taught demo-coder, among other things) and really wasn't interested in working here long-term; I only accepted a full-time position because it was on the C++ team and I thought it would be an interesting product to work on.
I know several people that work at google (a previous intern of mine works there, as well as former co-workers). as I see it, many of the downsides of microsoft are the upsides of google and vice-versa, but in either case you're going to have a good benefits package and a chance to work on many different types of projects. google and microsoft treat "internal transfers" completely differently, but both companies have lots of projects going on in many spaces and smart people don't have a problem moving among projects as they want/need. of course, things aren't always as interesting as they seem from the outside, but that's life.
it is true, as other posters have noted, that most groups at ms don't try to work you to death (any more). the windows and sql teams still do have that reputation though; I don't think I'd go to work for them. I have heard that google works people harder, but the employees I know don't seem to mind.
some up-sides of microsoft include the location, the work environment and the people, though I imagine google shares in all of these but the location and adds its own (free food yada yada yada). and some people consider it a good thing on the resume to have spent time at the largest software company on the planet.
the biggest down-side of microsoft is the huge, monolithic corporate environment. this didn't bother me so much for the first few years, but as you progress in your career you're forced to deal with it more and more. *everything* at ms is ultimately politics and the longer you're here, the more you have to "play the game". that's not unusual for a large company (or even a not-so-large company), but it is frustrating as a software developer who could care less about politics. when I first started working here I used to laugh at Dilbert cartoons and think "thank god I don't work there". now I laugh at them because I DO work there...
if it were me, I'd choose google, but that's just because I spent most of the last decade working for ms and I'm a bit tired of it.:)
I'm sure you can't go far wrong with either choice. I would recommend that you plan on spending at least 2-3 years at whichever company you choose, so that you get well settled in, and then assess your options every year or so from then on; it's too easy to get stuck somewhere that you're not really happy, and not realize it. good luck!
personally, I suggest "The Way Things Work: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Technology" volumes 1 and 2, translated by C. van Amerongen. I would have loved it if someone would have bought these for me. instead I had to go dig them up myself.
okay, so they are out-of-print and out-of-date (last published in the 70's), but where else can you find lucid and succinct explanations of everything from ball-point pens to nuclear reactors. I often just grab one these off the shelf, turn to a random page and start reading.
as a developer working for ms, i find that the thing that irritates me the most about these types of articles is the portrayal of billg as some sort of "grass-roots hero to the development masses". they continually repeat the myth that bill talks to and meets with "actual developers" and is in touch with everything that goes on at the company at a micro-level.
case in point: hillel cooperman, who is mentioned as a "developer" running a meeting with bill (and how great that is), is actually a "group manager", closer in the management chain to bill than to an actual "developer". they go as far as to say that there was only one "manager" present, whereas the truth would be that everyone present was a manager of some kind.
as someone who worked for N. as a GPC during the NES days, my $0.02 on the flashing screen:
bad connections. 9 times out of 10, it's due only to the connectors being dirty, which can be fixed with some q-tips and rubbing alcohol. clean both the internal NES connectors and *all* your carts, being careful not to leave any of the cotton from the q-tip on the connectors.
occasionally the connectors have actually been damaged, usually by someone jerking the carts around while they're in the unit. not too much you can do about this unless you want to take the unit apart and try to replace them.
NES was a pretty amazingly well-built piece of equip, IMO. we had units come in for repair that had been thrown in swimming pools and left for months which only needed a serious cleaning to be up and running again. of course we also had lots of units come in with bullets and bullet holes in them...
Slashdot Mirror
I'll reply with my perspective as another ms employee. I've worked at microsoft since '98, on visual C++, C# and most recently the visual studio debugger/diagnostics teams. by and large I've enjoyed the experience, though naturally it has had its ups and downs. I came from a rather non-ms background (was a self-taught demo-coder, among other things) and really wasn't interested in working here long-term; I only accepted a full-time position because it was on the C++ team and I thought it would be an interesting product to work on.
:)
I know several people that work at google (a previous intern of mine works there, as well as former co-workers). as I see it, many of the downsides of microsoft are the upsides of google and vice-versa, but in either case you're going to have a good benefits package and a chance to work on many different types of projects. google and microsoft treat "internal transfers" completely differently, but both companies have lots of projects going on in many spaces and smart people don't have a problem moving among projects as they want/need. of course, things aren't always as interesting as they seem from the outside, but that's life.
it is true, as other posters have noted, that most groups at ms don't try to work you to death (any more). the windows and sql teams still do have that reputation though; I don't think I'd go to work for them. I have heard that google works people harder, but the employees I know don't seem to mind.
some up-sides of microsoft include the location, the work environment and the people, though I imagine google shares in all of these but the location and adds its own (free food yada yada yada). and some people consider it a good thing on the resume to have spent time at the largest software company on the planet.
the biggest down-side of microsoft is the huge, monolithic corporate environment. this didn't bother me so much for the first few years, but as you progress in your career you're forced to deal with it more and more. *everything* at ms is ultimately politics and the longer you're here, the more you have to "play the game". that's not unusual for a large company (or even a not-so-large company), but it is frustrating as a software developer who could care less about politics. when I first started working here I used to laugh at Dilbert cartoons and think "thank god I don't work there". now I laugh at them because I DO work there...
if it were me, I'd choose google, but that's just because I spent most of the last decade working for ms and I'm a bit tired of it.
I'm sure you can't go far wrong with either choice. I would recommend that you plan on spending at least 2-3 years at whichever company you choose, so that you get well settled in, and then assess your options every year or so from then on; it's too easy to get stuck somewhere that you're not really happy, and not realize it. good luck!
personally, I suggest "The Way Things Work: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Technology" volumes 1 and 2, translated by C. van Amerongen. I would have loved it if someone would have bought these for me. instead I had to go dig them up myself.
okay, so they are out-of-print and out-of-date (last published in the 70's), but where else can you find lucid and succinct explanations of everything from ball-point pens to nuclear reactors. I often just grab one these off the shelf, turn to a random page and start reading.
there's a word for the color "blacker than black": fuligin.
as a developer working for ms, i find that the thing that irritates me the most about these types of articles is the portrayal of billg as some sort of "grass-roots hero to the development masses". they continually repeat the myth that bill talks to and meets with "actual developers" and is in touch with everything that goes on at the company at a micro-level.
case in point: hillel cooperman, who is mentioned as a "developer" running a meeting with bill (and how great that is), is actually a "group manager", closer in the management chain to bill than to an actual "developer". they go as far as to say that there was only one "manager" present, whereas the truth would be that everyone present was a manager of some kind.
as someone who worked for N. as a GPC during the NES days, my $0.02 on the flashing screen: bad connections. 9 times out of 10, it's due only to the connectors being dirty, which can be fixed with some q-tips and rubbing alcohol. clean both the internal NES connectors and *all* your carts, being careful not to leave any of the cotton from the q-tip on the connectors.
occasionally the connectors have actually been damaged, usually by someone jerking the carts around while they're in the unit. not too much you can do about this unless you want to take the unit apart and try to replace them.
NES was a pretty amazingly well-built piece of equip, IMO. we had units come in for repair that had been thrown in swimming pools and left for months which only needed a serious cleaning to be up and running again. of course we also had lots of units come in with bullets and bullet holes in them...
josh