6 ms·

I worked at Microsoft for five years in the 90s. I dropped out of college prior to joining, so I was on the same trajectory as you are. I always say that Micro

by Todd 16y ago

I worked at Microsoft for five years in the 90s. I dropped out of college prior to joining, so I was on the same trajectory as you are. I always say that Microsoft is a great place to have worked. It's great for learning how to ship real software (large and small) with all of the attendant processes and politics that go with it. You will learn what you think is important to take with you and what is important to leave behind. Both types of learning are important, because as you move to startups, you will have a hand in determining the equivalents in your new microcosm of that world. One interesting quality I see from many people who have worked there is that there is a perception that life after (i.e., outside of) Microsoft is scary. That's partly because you can change jobs there endlessly and never actually leave. You can go from working on operating systems to large binary (client) applications to Internet apps to video games, etc. I've had to assure several of my friends that were contemplating leaving that the water outside is safe and warm. Every one of them has thanked me afterwards. Another poster made a good point about some companies' HR departments not taking a second look at you. That's true. However, I generally wouldn't want to work at those companies anyway. I've never had a problem finding work at great places. In fact, I've never had to apply for a job since I left. If you're good, and your network is sound, people will reach out to you--degree or not. Microsoft is a great foundation on which to build your resume.

earl 16y ago
ps -- MSFT has no clue how to ship software. At Scribd, we often shipped software ten times a week. That's slow compared to lots of web startups that deploy continuously -- see the advocates at IMVU for example. Nonetheless, most web startups deploy more than daily to production. I've worked on classic desktop software with a 6 month release cycle and it's very different. pps -- deployment process? hah. rake specs rake deploy production
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > MSFT has no clue how to ship software. Come again ? Microsoft has shipped more software than any other company on the planet. > At Scribd, we often shipped software ten times a week. I'm not even aware of a single piece of scribd software that has been released, aren't you confusing server side deployment with shipping software ?
  - gphil 16y ago
    > Microsoft has shipped more software than any other company on the planet. Do you know this as a fact or are you just speculating? (I don't care if it was speculation, I would just like to know if this is true and how it was measured if you know.) I would imagine it would have to be either Microsoft or IBM who have shipped the most software in history but I'm not sure the best way to measure the "most" software (does one count titles, licenses, revenue, etc.)?
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      Microsofts cumulative revenues since their start is roughly 390 billion dollars, the vast majority of that was software. http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company.htm http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company.h... (crappy, but convenient page and the numbers seem to be ok, it only goes to 2005, so I've added another 150 billion) IBM has a much larger total revenue but the vast majority of that was hardware leases during the mainframe years (and it probably still is), as well as consultancy. Software was a huge component compared to other manufacturers but I doubt it comes close to what microsoft has made. I can't find a good breakdown of IBM revenues that splits it out by category though, if someone else has access to that it would be nice to know.
      - jwegan 16y ago
        Also IBM mostly does enterprise software. Microsoft has been successful in many different types of products: video games, operating systems, software development (IDEs, programming languages, etc), search engines, office applications (word, excel, etc), just to name a few. I think regardless of how much IBM has made from software compared to Microsoft, it is safe to say Microsoft has been much more successful at delivering products in a whole gamut of industries.
  - aquateen 16y ago
    Just because it's not plastic wrapped in a box doesn't mean it's not software.
- hello_moto 16y ago
  Don't be too cocky earl. Be humble. Are you aware that you are representing Scribd when you say this? Just... not cool.
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    Most people can separate between an organization and people who work(ed?) for that organization, even without an explicit disclaimer. Those that can't are the reason why we get overly paranoid corporate communications departments, which is why it's virtually impossible to talk to an actual human being at many big companies.
    - earl 16y ago
      worked in this case, but yes. But if it makes whiners happy, I could add something like this: The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employers'; past, present, or future; views in any way. Etc etc. I could go on in that vein at length or, you know, people could be adults.
    - AmberShah 16y ago
      We can distinguish them, of course, and I don't care about it from a legal standpoint. It just makes Scribd look stupid that they've hired a moron.
      - nostrademons 16y ago
        Most people can also realize that someone can be really good at one thing (say, writing software) and really bad at another (say, understanding what Microsoft does when they've never worked there). No, what made Scribd look stupid was that they decided to replace one flawed Adobe technology (PDF) with an even more flawed Adobe technology (Flash). At least they rectified that eventually.
  - earl 16y ago
    clutches pearls and faints
  - 16y ago

by Todd 16y ago

earl 16y ago

ps -- MSFT has no clue how to ship software. At Scribd, we often shipped software ten times a week. That's slow compared to lots of web startups that deploy continuously -- see the advocates at IMVU for example. Nonetheless, most web startups deploy more than daily to production. I've worked on classic desktop software with a 6 month release cycle and it's very different. pps -- deployment process? hah. rake specs rake deploy production

jacquesm 16y ago
> MSFT has no clue how to ship software. Come again ? Microsoft has shipped more software than any other company on the planet. > At Scribd, we often shipped software ten times a week. I'm not even aware of a single piece of scribd software that has been released, aren't you confusing server side deployment with shipping software ?
- gphil 16y ago
  > Microsoft has shipped more software than any other company on the planet. Do you know this as a fact or are you just speculating? (I don't care if it was speculation, I would just like to know if this is true and how it was measured if you know.) I would imagine it would have to be either Microsoft or IBM who have shipped the most software in history but I'm not sure the best way to measure the "most" software (does one count titles, licenses, revenue, etc.)?
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Microsofts cumulative revenues since their start is roughly 390 billion dollars, the vast majority of that was software. http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company.htm http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company.h... (crappy, but convenient page and the numbers seem to be ok, it only goes to 2005, so I've added another 150 billion) IBM has a much larger total revenue but the vast majority of that was hardware leases during the mainframe years (and it probably still is), as well as consultancy. Software was a huge component compared to other manufacturers but I doubt it comes close to what microsoft has made. I can't find a good breakdown of IBM revenues that splits it out by category though, if someone else has access to that it would be nice to know.
    - jwegan 16y ago
      Also IBM mostly does enterprise software. Microsoft has been successful in many different types of products: video games, operating systems, software development (IDEs, programming languages, etc), search engines, office applications (word, excel, etc), just to name a few. I think regardless of how much IBM has made from software compared to Microsoft, it is safe to say Microsoft has been much more successful at delivering products in a whole gamut of industries.
- aquateen 16y ago
  Just because it's not plastic wrapped in a box doesn't mean it's not software.
hello_moto 16y ago
Don't be too cocky earl. Be humble. Are you aware that you are representing Scribd when you say this? Just... not cool.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  Most people can separate between an organization and people who work(ed?) for that organization, even without an explicit disclaimer. Those that can't are the reason why we get overly paranoid corporate communications departments, which is why it's virtually impossible to talk to an actual human being at many big companies.
  - earl 16y ago
    worked in this case, but yes. But if it makes whiners happy, I could add something like this: The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employers'; past, present, or future; views in any way. Etc etc. I could go on in that vein at length or, you know, people could be adults.
  - AmberShah 16y ago
    We can distinguish them, of course, and I don't care about it from a legal standpoint. It just makes Scribd look stupid that they've hired a moron.
    - nostrademons 16y ago
      Most people can also realize that someone can be really good at one thing (say, writing software) and really bad at another (say, understanding what Microsoft does when they've never worked there). No, what made Scribd look stupid was that they decided to replace one flawed Adobe technology (PDF) with an even more flawed Adobe technology (Flash). At least they rectified that eventually.
- earl 16y ago
  clutches pearls and faints
- 16y ago