Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Testing Rival to Google's Start Page

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the well-you-certainly-are-similar dept.

Microsoft 625

aer0 writes "It looks like Microsoft has quietly put up their version of Google's start page. It's interesting in several ways. First, the layout and use of javascript is strikingly similar to Google's. Second, one of the few major differences is that there is no MS equivalent banner or other flashing indication that it is an MS site."

cancel ×

625 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

oooops (2, Interesting)

yagu (721525) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227284)

for me, the last line on the page:

©2005 Microsoft &nbsp

kind of says it all... In their hurry to rip off the competition, they even forgot a semicolon... Tsk-tsk!

Re:oooops (1)

ForumTroll (900233) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227319)

That was one of the first things I noticed as well. In all their supposed testing I can't believe no one caught that...

Re:oooops (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227323)

It's called "only tested on IE". (IE will render '&nbsp' as a non-breaking space.)

Re:oooops (1)

ryanov (193048) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227436)

Which is particularly amusing to me because I don't even find Google's start page to be strikingly useful.

Competitive Awareness (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227285)

Note the default picks on the stock ticker: GOOG, MSFT, and YHOO. In that order!

2 months later! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227393)

Note their order, alphabetical. And this site has been up for some time now. See this [msn.com]

Back to the drawing board. (1)

bigwavejas (678602) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227286)

Start loaded noticeably slower for me than Google. Here are some site statistics.

http://www.start.com/3/ [start.com]
Total Size: 264510 bytes
Connection Rate/Download Time: 56K 54.12 seconds ISDN 128K 17.54 seconds T1 1.44Mbps 2.80 seconds

http://www.google.com/ig [google.com] Total Size: 17999 bytes
Connection Rate/Download Time: 56K 3.59 seconds ISDN 128K 1.10 seconds T1 1.44Mbps 0.10 seconds

I don't know about you, but for me one of the best features for Google is how quickly it loads. For MS to grab my vote they're going to have to simplify their site. The last thing I want when I boot up my browser is for it to spend more than a couple seconds loading my home page

Statistics from WebSiteOptimization.com.

Re:Back to the drawing board. (1)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227304)

Could that possibly be, oh I dunno, because Start is an experiment ran on experimental servers, where as Google's start page is a Beta ran on production servers?

Could it not also, possibly be because of a well known effect that's named for this very website?

Re:Back to the drawing board. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227335)

You are correct, it was fast before it went live.

Re:Back to the drawing board. (1)

jantheman (113125) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227449)

Experimental servers or not, total size is still over fourteen times larger.

maybe they'd better obfuscate it a bit.

Re:Back to the drawing board. (1)

Shaman (1148) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227324)

They made it with Frontpage.

Re:Back to the drawing board. (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227328)

Is that because of the slashdotting it's getting? Yes, I know. It's Microsoft. But perhaps this service is on a not-as-important server that isn't built to stand up to a slashdotting.

If that's your only reason to not use it, I'd wait a few days and try again ;)

Having said that, first time it timed-out. Second time it did it in a comparable speed with Google (if not a bit faster).

Re:Back to the drawing board. (1)

oneeyedelf1 (793839) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227443)

I think you are missing the point, the site is over 10 times as large as google. That and it has lots of shit to load and render...its like loading up a simple text editor vs a large word processor. Ya the second time its going to be just as quick, cause the shit is in cache.

Uh... (1)

l33t.g33k (903780) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227289)

It looks like crap. Sorry, it just does.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227368)

I must've missed the cylindrical shape and brown colour.

Re:Uh... (1)

ccandreva (409807) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227369)

Not just crap. It looks like the page you get when you mistype a domain, and some squater tries to bring you 'related' information, and paid links.

Re:Uh... (2, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227399)

If you like Google's page then this is a typical anti-MS stance and you'll most likely get modded up for it. But there is very little difference between Google's page and MS's. It also is more customisable then Google's (three skins, all very much the same except for a little colour difference).

ampersand non breaking space (1)

senzafine (630873) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227291)

and the missing ; after &nbsp

Re:ampersand non breaking space (1)

l33t.g33k (903780) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227317)

Interestingly, that problem doesn't occur in Internet Explorer. I wonder...

ATTENTION LIVEJOURNAL TROLLS! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227296)

Welp. (1)

CABAN (818466) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227297)

If it didn't load slow perhaps I would be interested.

Gay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227298)

Googel==Gay [transform.to]

SL-O-O-O-O-O-O-W (1)

gmac63 (12603) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227299)

Boy, is it slow. And I have Broadband!

Yes!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227302)

Alright, it's already showing a little lag. Quick! Someone submit this to collegehumor.com!

Why compare to Google (1)

geekee (591277) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227308)

when Yahoo had a start page long before Google?

Re:Why compare to Google (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227378)

Because it's very much built after Google's page (there are virtually no differences).

Re:Why compare to Google (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227411)

Because it works exactly like google's with draggable widgets and all.

I just don't like it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227309)

It can just never match the simple beauty of google's...

Better? Nah (1)

dotdan (902253) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227311)

It _looks_ better than Google, but is slow (bad javascript?)

But it doesn't support Linux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227313)

I have to laugh when I read about all of these countries that are
supposedly leaving Windows and converting to Linux. Do these people
even have a clue as to what they are in for?
Do they even realize the immense amount of retraining required to move
to Linux?
Do they realize that the chances of their vertical in house
applications working is nil?
Do they understand that much of their hardware will not be supported?
Converting to Linux was a disaster for my company.

I know I'll be modded 'troll' for this, but its the truth.

I suspect that the answer to all of these questions and many more will
be no because Linux looks like a great alternative, until one looks
closer and sees all of the holes and troublesome problems that Linux
introduces.

For my company, we would have had to replace over 2000 Brother
Multifunction printers with some model that worked with Linux. The
problem was that we could not find any equivilant.
We tried using the commercial version of Sun Openoffice and found it
buggy and totally incompatabile with Office. We tried sending
documents to our clients and they did not work too well.
It seems that Openoffice, even the pay for version has troubles being
read by Microsoft Office.

Another area that we had massive problems in was with video cards.
We were using ATI cards in our systems and it seems that Linux support
for ATI is pretty poor.

In conclusion, we have decided not to switch to Linux for the simple
reason that Linux does not offer us anything but headaches.
We don't want to downgrade out hardware to use Linux.
We don't wish to look like fools sends documents to clients and
suppliers that they cannot read.

Linux may be fine for some people, but it was a disaster for us.

Maria Quansett

Re:But it doesn't support Linux (1)

myamid (179896) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227390)

And how exactly does this relate to the story at hand...?? Don't get me wrong, I loved reading your little slice of life (even though I have to conclude that converting to Linux without planning & testing is downright stupid and shortsighted!).

other pages... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227315)

also try http://www.start.com/1/ [start.com] and http://www.start.com/2/ [start.com] ...

Sharepoint (1)

confusion (14388) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227316)

It looks remarkably like the sharepoint portal page. Guess they have to find SOME use for that technology...

Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org]

Holy Crap, IE7?! (1)

Eugene Webby (891781) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227318)

Look at the page, its standards compliant! They coded their pages like crap and now they start coding them with standards... maybe IE7 won't suck that much after all.

Nah.

oh god (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227321)

first post... or not??

And it's already slashdotted?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227325)

What kind of OS are they running their webservers on anyway? ... oh, nevermind

I like it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227326)

Nice site. I like how minimal it is. Just like this two liner :)

Doesn't work in Safari? (1)

burk3 (795975) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227327)

Didn't for me. Wonder why...

Re:Doesn't work in Safari? (1)

TheOtherAgentM (700696) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227396)

I got the same thing. It's just a search bar on Safari. I guess I'll have to find my content other places, not that most Mac Zealots like myself would ever do anything related to Microsoft, except Office, my mouse, and Windows Media Player.

Wow (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227329)

GOOG 299.19
MSFT 26.81

It's been a while since I looked at the stocks, but MS is kindof dipping low. Did they just split or something?

Re:Wow (1)

mattmentecky (799199) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227409)

Considering how Google has a volume of 7.3 million shares and Microsoft 138 million shares, I would say you are comparing apples and oranges by strictly looking at stock price.

Re:Wow (1)

aonaran (15651) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227478)

Considering how Google has a volume of 7.3 million shares and Microsoft 138 million shares, I would say you are comparing apples and oranges by strictly looking at stock price.

On the other hand...

GOOG +7.58
MSFT +0.89 ...is kind of amusing.

Re:Wow (1)

winkydink (650484) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227467)

You need to look at merket capitalization (number of shares outstanding * share price)

GOOG $83 billion
MSFT $289 billion

If you want to look at big numbers, look up BRK-A. Warren doesn't see the rationale behind stock splits.

Look at the market capatilazation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227474)

Share prices says nothing... market capatilazation is a better indicator:

GOOG 83.11B
MSFT 289.66B

Google has a long way to catch up to Microsoft, no matter how cool their technology is. Google is way overrated for the revenue streams it currently have. Sure, we can all hate Microsoft, but at the end of the day, they got steady incomes from multiple strong revenue streams.

Looks empty to me (1)

Peter Cooper (660482) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227332)

Weird. Just a "start" header and then a text box with a submit button. Really exciting. Oh, hang on.. it must be just like their old version which also doesn't do anything on Safari.

And why, oh, why, does MSN always give me results pages in Spanish? I'm in the UK darn it.

Can M$ do anything original anymore?!?!?! (1)

wobedraggled (549225) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227334)

I guess not. Sad.

Re:Can M$ do anything original anymore?!?!?! (1)

StonedRat (837378) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227401)

anymore? Since when have they ever done something original?

Re:Can M$ do anything original anymore?!?!?! (1)

l33t.g33k (903780) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227472)

they invented the internet. no questions. :-)

Microsoft wrote this? (1)

SeanTobin (138474) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227339)

There is no way that MS wrote that page. Let's look at why:
  1. There is dynamic content on the page AND it works in Firefox.
  2. If you click on the "Start" button in the upper left, they list Slashdot as a "staff pick" feed.
  3. I know that I might be on some kind of illicit substance here, but if you click on the "we're hiring" link at the bottom... they use transparent PNG's!

Aside from the domains and content, the only thing that makes it look like MS designed the page is the fact that it fails the W3C validator [w3.org] . Even then, it fails on rather irrelevant items.

I think MS just hired away some Google programmers out of China without them knowing about it.

Re:Microsoft wrote this? (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227375)

> There is no way that MS wrote that page. Let's look at why:

Yea they wrote it. Remember this is just a research project so they can use markup their current shipping client doesn't support. Before actually deploying it they would either change the markup or add what they need to IE. But something like this probably won't go production for a while so it would be daft to limit themselves to what is in their current browser.

Re:Microsoft wrote this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227444)

Just to dispell any conspiracy theories...
myshell]$ dig start.com
 
; <<>> DiG 9.2.3 <<>> start.com
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 46147
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 5, ADDITIONAL: 5
 
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;start.com. IN A
 
;; ANSWER SECTION:
start.com. 3417 IN A 207.68.182.254
 
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
start.com. 172617 IN NS ns1.msft.net.
start.com. 172617 IN NS ns2.msft.net.
start.com. 172617 IN NS ns3.msft.net.
start.com. 172617 IN NS ns4.msft.net.
start.com. 172617 IN NS ns5.msft.net.
 
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns1.msft.net. 151344 IN A 207.46.245.230
ns2.msft.net. 151344 IN A 64.4.25.30
ns3.msft.net. 151344 IN A 213.199.144.151
ns4.msft.net. 151344 IN A 207.46.66.75
ns5.msft.net. 151344 IN A 207.46.138.20

Amazing!! (1)

fsulawndart (860628) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227340)

all i get is a banner that say "start" and a text box.. maybe safari isnt supported?

Better (1)

someonewhois (808065) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227342)

I think it's pretty cool how it doesn't load everything at once. Faster, anyway.

Doesn't work with Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227343)

Seems to work with Firefox, but not Opera. Wonder if this is more artificial breakage on MS's part like with msn.com...

Nice place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227344)

To look for the ballmer video dancing like a monkey

Backspace Breaker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227346)

Why does MSN always make their sites so that the backspace key doesn't go to the previous page in Firefox?

MSN Maps does this, and so doe this start.com site, Google Maps doesn't seem to have this problem.

They (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227347)

Hmm. and they're hiring too.. wonder how many job applicants this Slashdot post will get them?

cool (2, Informative)

poppen_fresh (65995) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227348)

One cool new feature that Google's start page doesn't seem to have: when you click on a story, you can get a preview in a sort of popup window, without having to leave the site.

Even if this is Microsoft, competition is always good for us as it tends to make everyone improve.

Re:cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227460)

Not much of a feature.. If I click on a link, I've already read the title of the story and I don't need another article summary - lemme see the article!

christ (1)

Danzigism (881294) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227349)

GAY... c'mon MS.. what a total rip.. that drop down on the left, is awfully slow too.. does MS really plan on beating out google on all of this?? or is it just an attempt to make some extra pocket change??

i guess their search engine gets good promotion thanks to MSN.net customers, and all the bias turds that simply love their news.. well hell, this wouldn't be the first time they make a killin' off someone elses idea..

Research (2, Insightful)

alienfluid (677872) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227353)

It hasn't been "quietly" put up on the internet - it has been there for a while. MS uses it for testing and research. If you do notice, it is WAY better than Google's start page too - you can actually drag the various sections on the page and place them anywhere on the page. By the way, I mentioned the page before : here [slashdot.org]

Re:Research (1)

Danzigism (881294) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227400)

google's lets you drag the sections as well dood.. this is quite the cop-off.. and their personalized homepage has been available for months..

Re:Research (2, Interesting)

doubleyewdee (633486) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227405)

Correct. I've only been working here (MSN Search Ops) for about three months, but start.com was old news when I got here. It appears to have been in the sandbox for quite a long time. In general Slashdot form it's assumed that this is a copy of Google's thing, but I think they're both copies of Yahoo's thing this time. :) Still, start.com is fun to play with. It makes for a nice homepage.

Re:Research (1)

eric76 (679787) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227462)

It makes for a nice homepage.

From Opera 8.01 on Suse Linux 9.3, it makes for a rather useless, do-nothing homepage

Re:Research (1)

KaSkA101 (692931) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227410)

You can drag and drop with google's page too.

Re:Research (1)

masterzora (871343) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227441)

If you do notice, it is WAY better than Google's start page too - you can actually drag the various sections on the page and place them anywhere on the page.
Yes, and last I checked (which was, in fact, every day for the past couple weeks), http://www.google.com/ig [google.com] does allow you to move sections by dragging, in addition to allowing you to enter your own sections, and loading much faster. What part of that says "MS does it better"?

Copying aside, doesn't this seem impoved? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227354)

Having a variable number of columns and different "look and feel"s is a welcome improvment. I for one am glad to see this, becuase I wasn't too impressed by the barebonedness of Googles own offering. Now if I could just get this new start page with a google search bar!

Links' targets? (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227356)

I don't like the fact that links' targets don't show when the cursor goes over them. I never quite trust sites/links that do that.

Re:Links' targets? (1)

tgtanman (728257) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227382)

Cause they aren't actualy links - they lead to a popup with the beginnning of the story and then a real link

Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227357)

How does Google plan on keeping up with this? Microsoft's rocks!

not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227358)

How is a customizable page with dragable rss-fed news items like the google home page?

It's missing several things... (1)

Tuxedo Jack (648130) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227359)

Namely, the Shut Down button.

Slow and not beautiful (1)

gullevek (174152) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227360)

The MS page is slow and the design really ...erm sucks? I mean, this looks like some 15 yr old got the task to quickly put together a webpage.

The google one is at least in the google design, the MS one is ... erm ... like MS, never in design.

Doesn't work on Safari (1)

dhirsch226 (575367) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227363)

I don't know if the problem is the page not being really standards-compliant or if the page is truly standards-compliant but Safari is not, or if it's Slashdotted, but it doesn't fully display for me.

Not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227364)

Microsoft rips off everything. Why would this be any different?

XHTML? (1)

StonedRat (837378) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227365)



It attempts XHTML (although it's invalid) even though M$'s own browser doesn't offically support XHTML, will IE7 support the XHTML content-type?

definitions.microsoft.com (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227367)

Innovate. v. 1. Imitate.

Doesn't work in safari... (1)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227373)

As the title says, the site doesn't seem to render anything other than the search bar in safari. It works fine in firefox. Anyone on KDE care to comment on whether it works in konq?

Re:Doesn't work in safari... (1)

mehtajr (718558) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227437)

It looks like everything south of the search bar is draw in Javascript, which apparently Safari doesn't support.

I'm going to break the ice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227374)

I honestly think the microsoft site looks nicer. Its less cluttered and much more casual. However they didn't properly terminate the nbsp at the bottom. http://www.start.com/1/ [start.com] is also interesting.

Its MSN Branded alright (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227379)

"Second, one of the few major differences is that there is no MS equivalent banner or other flashing indication that it is an MS site."
...except for this at the bottom:

this site is not an officially supported site. it is an incubation experiment and doesn't represent any particular strategy or policy. for other incubation experiments, see
http://sandbox.msn.com. enjoy!
©2005 Microsoft &nbsp- privacy - why preview?


For the Anti-IE crowd (when you click on why preview):

Here are some of the things we're currently working on:
Firefox support
rest assured we haven't abandoned our firefox users and are working on the issues continuously

Microsoft looking to replace Google... (1)

Zweideutig (900045) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227383)

Is it possible by the time IE7 is released (and Vista's explorer for that matter) will default to MS content, and provide no way short of "cracking" to have something other than this site as the home page of Internet Explorer 7. A search bar that can't be turned off on the top of the page that only works with their own MSN search engine. Maybe they will have a clippy in the form of a "wizard" or something that is there to "remind" you about Microsoft's own version of different services provided by Google. Like this:
*User goes to www.google.com
Microsoft Helper: A superior search engine is provided by Microsoft, search.msn.com. Would you like to use MSN Search instead?
*User clicks No.
Microsoft Helper: WARNING: Using a third party search engine is dangerous because illegal content or viruses could be contracted. Are you sure you want to use a third party search engine?
*User clicks Yes
Microsoft Helper: Would you like MS Helper to tell you about superior iterations of third party services you use?
*User clicks No
Microsoft Helper: Too bad, I'm going to do it anyway. Have a nice day, and remember to use MSN Search.

to me (1)

hammeredpeon (572012) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227384)

the stocks show it all. google up 7, yahoo and microsoft up less than 1.

Re:to me (1)

cdills (879529) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227457)

To me, the stocks really do show it all.

Google: +2.53%
Microsoft: +3.32%
Yahoo: +1.62%

Oh wait, they don't. Slashdot stories about how Google is overvalued, Microsoft being a monopoly, Yahoo competing for anyone's time. Yeah, no, I don't think stocks show the whole story at all.

Standard HTML? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227385)

Is this "<![if !IE]>" (from the site) standard HTML?

Its not even Official Yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227388)

this site is not an officially supported site. it is an incubation experiment and doesn't represent any particular strategy or policy. for other incubation experiments, see http://sandbox.msn.com./ [sandbox.msn.com] enjoy!

Lets not jump the gun just yet..though I must say this is pretty crappy.

To start vs to google (1)

MavEtJu (241979) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227394)

Bad naming... "I've googled for it but nothing came up" vs "I've started on it but nothing came up".

Re:To start vs to google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13227425)

I don't think they were looking to make it a verb.

It's most likely because of the infamous "start" menu in Windows that they named the portal "start" also.

Multiple versions (1)

jkitchel (615599) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227404)

There seems to be multiple version of 'Start':
  1. Page 1 [start.com]
  2. Page 2 [start.com]
  3. Page 2 [start.com]

That should be - Re:Multiple versions (1)

jkitchel (615599) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227424)

There seems to be multiple version of 'Start':
  1. Page 1 [start.com]
  2. Page 2 [start.com]
  3. Page 3 [start.com]

New page same joke (1)

Elitist_Phoenix (808424) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227419)

New page same old tricks. Try searching linux ;)

firefox support!! intresting (1)

cloudreader (801693) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227428)

clickinng on the "why preview" button, the first bullet is Firefox support rest assured we haven't abandoned our firefox users and are working on the issues continuously

HTML error (1)

germanStefan (766513) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227433)

does anyone see their footer? "©2005 Microsoft &nbsp- privacy - why preview?"...did they have monkeys coding this : )? i mean &nbsp...they forgot their semi colon...did they do this in frontpage?

Blatant ripoff (1)

dimer0 (461593) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227434)

Hopefully google has some patents they've secured - this is sickening.

(Flattery by imitation?)

It's slick. (1)

clandestine_nova (620998) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227442)

I have to say, I'm rather impressed. Everytime I get a look at the so-called 'Start' pages that Microsoft provides, they seem to be doing something relatively interesting.

In this instance, however, I think their offering is better than Google's equivalent customized home. The implementation seems more intuitive, and it definitely seems like they took a look at some of the things people were complaining about with Google/ig and fixed them.

It's not perfect, but it's pretty good looking and seems functional. Kudos, Microsoft -- although I expect this is just something someone made up because they like XMLHttp.

And do you know why it hasn't been branded? (1)

jtwJGuevara (749094) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227445)

Second, one of the few major differences is that there is no MS equivalent banner or other flashing indication that it is an MS site.

That's because the marketing crew hasn't gotten ahold of this service yet. Wait till it gets filtered through the entire MS camp and then we will see where that current minimalistic approach goes.

MS Site? (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227446)

>>there is no MS equivalent banner or other flashing indication that it is an MS site

Wait... you might see a Google banner there. You never know how far MS can go!

2 months old (1)

e03179 (578506) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227461)

This particular site has been live for over 2 months. Start.com is a MS testbed. There are other versions of portals hidden on their site. MSN Search Weblog: http://blogs.msdn.com/msnsearch/default.aspx [msdn.com]

Your own start page (1)

Neticulous (900423) | more than 9 years ago | (#13227469)

I have always made my own start page, simple html programming, a bit of cgi, a google search box, all my favorite links... Its nice to have google as your start page, but if you want it really customized, just make your own little html start page with your daily links and such, maybe a few rss feeds for news and whatnot. The 20 minutes it takes is worth it, considering its what you view every time you load your browser.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?