Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Windows Live Search goes Live

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the when-giants-collide dept.

546

novus ordo writes "Microsoft has launched the Windows Live Search. Among the reports, Microsoft Search Senior Product Manager, Justin Osmer says that "The beta, and a revision expected in a few months, will challenge market leader Google."" I like the more dynamic image searching tool. It seems really slow- I'm not sure if that's the dynamicness (is that a word?) or just standard launch lag.

cancel ×

546 comments

From-the-before-the-beginning-of-time dept. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14875057)

See, this is the differance between MS and Google. All of google's products are Beta and work perfectly.
But when microsoft says Beta they mean: "In the beggining there was nothing, And God said Let there be light..."

-first post?

Re:From-the-before-the-beginning-of-time dept. (1)

Akoma The Immortal (36474) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875161)

Yep, first post. And its already sllllllooooooowwwwwwwwwwwww. Whats wrong with this picture? Google loaded an infinite number of time since i click on the www.live.com link from above. Ho, i got the answer right here:
Server is too busy
Fantastic! Google is trembling like a Virgin in front of the Altar.

Ho and now its up... Nice.....Unreliadble liek always.

Tipical

Re:From-the-before-the-beginning-of-time dept. (3, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875174)

All of google's products are Beta and work perfectly.

GMail hasn't been working all that great for me since they introducted GTalk. I had been having laggy service when logging in including errors that I should wait a while and try refreshing. Since then, I have been communicating with GTalk people via bitlbee and have it disabled in GMail (click the link at the bottom). That solved my issues.

While I believe that Google's "Beta" products are generally in perfect working order, I won't say that they are all "working perfectly".

Re:From-the-before-the-beginning-of-time dept. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14875188)

slashdot google fanboys suck Page cock anonymously. what fucking google product works perfectly?!?!?!?! ur a homo.

Re:From-the-before-the-beginning-of-time dept. (2, Insightful)

space_dude_27 (838047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875211)

If you're going to compare this this with Google then at least be fair and compare it with Google Video ;-)

It doesn't work at all for me in Firefox and when I ty it in IE, I find that it does work but the UI sucks. Great work, guys...

Re:From-the-before-the-beginning-of-time dept. (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875326)

Not saying that the UI doesn't suck, but it does work on Firefox. At least here it does. That is Firefox on Windows. If I understood it correctly, Google Video uses Flash to display videos and if you have flash disabled (often on Linux, for example) or use some ad-blocking extentions it might interfere because of that.

Re:From-the-before-the-beginning-of-time dept. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14875292)

The worst thing about this isn't the beta-ness, but the same problem that blighted .NET and a thousand other Microsoft products; what the hell is it for? Is it a replacement for Google? Is it an RSS tracker? Just what in shitting crikey is this site supposed to be?

MS create a few barely function sites and put 'beta' in the name and suddenly think they're Google...another fine example of Microsoft failing to 'get it'.

Try Searching on Miserable Failure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14875300)

for both Google and MS Live search engines. Interesting results.

Re:From-the-before-the-beginning-of-time dept. (2, Informative)

RDW (41497) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875376)

Nasty UI, doesn't work properly with the two non-IE browsers I've tried, and rather ironically a search for 'Windows' gives me (as the first four hits, & the only ones displayed by default):

(1) VLC media player for Windows
(2) Windows downloads from The Register
(3) A Windows font survey at codestyle.org
(4) Oracle on Windows

cf Google:

(1) MS
(2) Windowsupdate
(3) windows.com
(4) wincustomize.com

Dynamicness? (-1, Offtopic)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875072)

I prefer President Dubuya's "Dynamicality"

Server is too busy (3, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875077)

*gasp*

We /.'ed MS?

Gotta be glad now they don't operate out of the UK.

Re:Server is too busy (5, Funny)

farlcow (671869) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875281)

I just get a "Loading..." message that keeps spinning. I'm pretty sure its just pre-caching the internet for faster searching.

Already Slashdotted (5, Funny)

Buzz_Litebeer (539463) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875085)

Well, that was an interesting product demo, I got the "server busy" message. At least it wasnt blue.

Re:Already Slashdotted (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875243)

You should've seen the infinite "loading..." message; it was exalting!

can it get me to google? (-1, Flamebait)

wardk (3037) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875087)

people just want to get to google.

MS is being silly trying to compete, like always, their stuff just sucks.

it does, we all know it.

some of us just hold our nose and pretend it doesn't.

but it does.

MS should just put a @#%$%& google logo on their desktop and declare victory.

Re:can it get me to google? (0)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875145)

Well, more standard MS ripping and Karma Whoring. But think about it... Have you ever paid money to google? I use their services all the time, and have for years, yet I have never clicked a paid link. I don't even notice their ads anymore. But like it or not, I have paid for a lot of MS stuff.
Do you really think that MS doesn't have the personell necessary to create a great search? Just because google has a "fun" work environment doesn't make them the greatest.

Re:can it get me to google? (4, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875348)

Do you really think that MS doesn't have the personell[sic] necessary to create a great search? Just because google has a "fun" work environment doesn't make them the greatest.

Actually, Google has a lot of the best people because of their work environment and because they are very picky. The strategy is not so different from my current job. Relax the environment, no dress code, free snack food and soda, free beer in the fridge, no one checking what hours you work, a couple couches is you need a cat nap. What does this cost our company? Probably less than the salary difference of one high paid employee if they decided to move to the job that just paid the best. People work here because they want to and because they are smart enough to realize that money isn't everything and if you're going to spend a huge portion of you life working, doing so in a fun environment while working on interesting projects is a better choice than retiring two years earlier all stressed out and hating your field.

This means we have to hire motivated people, but also means the really smart ones want to work here. We have some ex-MS employees here. We also have had Google steal away a guy. MS has a lot of people, including some very smart ones, but their culture makes it hard for them to really get anything done right. Throwing money at a problem and hiring a dozen managers who get in each other's way and are constantly modifying what you are working on is not the best way to get things done.

Re:can it get me to google? (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875375)

Whether they can make a good search tool is irrelevant.
It's about whether they do make such a tool.
Google did, Microsoft didn't.

What is up with the scroll bar? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14875088)

That scroll bar is horrible. Nice UI design Microsoft.

Re:What is up with the scroll bar? (5, Insightful)

Lewisham (239493) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875126)

Agreed. It's impossible to know where you are in the list, I can't use my mousewheel on it, it's not where I expected it to be... pretty much every single mistake Flash designers were making back in the late 90s.

Just because it's in AJAX doesn't make it any more of a good idea.

I guess what they were trying to do was just get the adverts always in view, something that could have been achieved with CSS and web browsers that support CSS properly. Oh wait, hang on...

Re:What is up with the scroll bar? (1)

slizz (822222) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875204)

haha, it looks like in an attempt to be creative, they stole the scroll bar from picasa, google's photo organizer. nice one

Did they #%^ing kill google? (5, Funny)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875089)

I searched for "google" and got a long wait, then an error popup

Re:Did they #%^ing kill google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14875273)

If they did, they offed Yahoo too. Nothing comes up from that search either. Bias! The other two each allow searching for the others! Sounds like a narrow view of the internet is being searched.

Submission password image is 'idiotic'. fantastic

Nis

edit: they both work now. Guess the system was getting harassed by /.

Re:Did they #%^ing kill google? (1)

farlcow (671869) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875320)

I searched for "Windows Live" and the actual Windows Live search page didn't even come up first on the list. I think they are predicting their own doom.

Wow that is SLOW! (5, Funny)

DebianDog (472284) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875092)

We /.ed a search engine? or is it this slow by design?

Hmm (5, Funny)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875093)

MAybe its becuase we are using non-ms browsers?? can you imagine their logs.. stating that the firat 80% was firefox or others?

I better go download IE then (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875120)

I've been wanting to search the internet for *years, and if I just download IE I can!!!! Wheee!!!

Re:Hmm (1)

Spurion (412996) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875257)

I'm not using a non-MS browser, and it's still dog slow. Windows Live? Only just. Windows Terminally Ill, perhaps.

Re:Hmm (1)

daranz (914716) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875287)

Maybe now they'll develop a scheme to limit the browser window to 300x300px, unless you're using IE under Vista; and a special, Mousewheel Access Protection enabled MS mouse, to use the scrollbars!

Still waiting... (4, Informative)

Reeses (5069) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875098)

The page still hasn't loaded, and I had time to type this response.

It's got some custom Java/ActiveX thing that won't load in my browser.

Oddly enough, Google just has plain HTML, and it works fine. I can't imagine that there's a connection.

That's sarcasm, for the impaired.

Still waiting for it to load....

Re:Still waiting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14875220)

"You must suck"TM worked perfect. Long live M$.

Re:Still waiting... (2, Funny)

alx.slashdot (630590) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875340)

Still waiting for it to load....

It worked much faster here but with Internet Explorer. Here's the first search result:

Line: 3
Char: 25698
Error: 'Start.Const.FirstRunMode' is null of not an object
Code: 0
URL: http://www.live.com/

Quick test (5, Interesting)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875110)

A quick test I performed showed interesting results. I plugged in the word Galen in both Live and Google. Live returned 1,160,846 results while Google gave 13,200,000 results. Considering Live was just released the discrepancy isn't hard to understand. What was interesting was what the first result was. In the case of Live the first result was a photo studio run by Galen and Barbara Powell. For Google the first result was much more relevant: a link to the University of Virgina Health System which talked about the medical practice from the past of which Galen is listed in the links.

The second result for both Live and Google were the same, the Galen Institute homepage.

While one test doesn't a study make, considering Microsofts track record of returning results, I don't forsee myself using their service (especially with all the clutter on the screen).

As an aside, does everyone else get the weather forecast for LA in the lower left corner? I'm on the opposite coast so maybe it's related to where the servers are rather than what IP you come from.t

Re:Quick test (3, Interesting)

generic-man (33649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875167)

How do you know that 12 million of the Google results aren't just copy-and-paste clones of the first 1.6 million? Lately Google has been returning an awful lot of clone results: Wikipedia, "product review" sites, phony blogs, and so on. Makes me wonder how many useful pages they actually index.

Re:Quick test (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875256)

I absolutely agree. I just ran the test to see what would happen. I could have used Linux (as someone else has already done) or chose Britney Spears (ahhhhhhh!) but I thought I'd try something a bit different.

Had I taken the time to go through the first 50 results from each site I probably could have gotten a fair understanding of how many relevant links were returned. However, I'm too lazy to do that so I just posted my initial findings and let the rest as an exercise for the reader to consider.

Judge on first ten results (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875302)

It really doesn't matter if Google is returning a few million clones, so long as the first few links have what you're looking for (preferrably the first). I would HOPE a search engine would show me every single clone site recahable by different addresses - just not at the top of the list. Unless it was the really the most relevant...

Re:Quick test (2, Funny)

Aspirator (862748) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875316)

You'll have to wait for that answer,

I'm still scanning throught the first 1.6 million.

Relevant to Whom? (4, Insightful)

Cranky Weasel (946893) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875217)

In the case of Live the first result was a photo studio run by Galen and Barbara Powell. For Google the first result was much more relevant: a link to the University of Virgina Health System which talked about the medical practice from the past of which Galen is listed in the links.

Relevant to whom? Is this the first time you have used a search engine?

I'm hoping you at least tried "Galen and medical" before you decided that Live's inability to read your mind wasn't reasonable.

Re:Relevant to Whom? (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875359)

Nope, Galen it was. That's how I do searches. I start with as wide a search as possible and then filter from there.

Sure, Galen and medical would have been a better choice but I wanted to see how the two compared using the broadest possible search.

As I said in a post above, this was just a quick search to see the difference in results. It was not a full-blown test of either engine.

For the record, I just ran the search 'Galen medical' on both sites and on Live the first relevant link is sixth whereas on Google it is fourth. Using 'Galen and medical' returned the same results.

Re:Quick test (3, Insightful)

Tx (96709) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875290)

What was interesting was what the first result was. In the case of Live the first result was a photo studio run by Galen and Barbara Powell. For Google the first result was much more relevant: a link to the University of Virgina Health System which talked about the medical practice from the past of which Galen is listed in the links.

The Live result was just as relevant to your keyword as the Google result. Expecting psychic powers from search engines is a fools game, a search engine can only go on your keywords, it can't know which of the many contexts you happen to be thinking about for those keywords at the time. As you say yourself, one test doesn't mean much, but I don't expect that Google would do much better in the long run with the criteria you seem to be applying.

Let's try the opposite (1)

LoonyMike (917095) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875322)

I give you the ads that were shown, you try to guess my search expression:

Shop Chairs at Horchow
Horchow.com offers a vast assortment of unique items from around the...
www.horchow.com

Chairs for Business Quotes
Free quotes from multiple dealers - compare office chair options....
www.buyerzone.com

Desk Chair - Staples
Shop for desk chairs - free shipping on orders $50 or more.
www.staples.com

(especially with all the clutter on the screen). (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875361)

(especially with all the clutter on the screen).

Dude, you miss the point... this is supposed to contend with this: Google Customized Home [google.com] . Except Live.com actually came first. If you want to you can close all of the boxes and get a search page that is just as simple as the Google page - a "Windows Live beta" splash icon in the upper left hand corner (smaller than the Google logo), a search box in the middle of the page, and a very small "©2006 Microsoft | privacy | legal | feedback | support | Windows Live Ideas" at the bottom. Actually cleaner than Google's default page.

Screw you, accessibility. (1)

windex (92715) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875112)

Forward and back buttons do nothing. Yay.

Re:Screw you, accessibility. (3, Interesting)

Lewisham (239493) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875207)

I think it's about time Microsoft hired a UI team. Or if they have one, get them the hell back from the 10 year holiday they've been taking after Windows 95.

If you've played with Vista and see the magical disappearing menu bars and buttons, (TIP: hiding functionality under the banner of relevance is damn confusing to EVERYONE) you'll see that Windows Live seems pretty indiciative of a company that has no clue what thir UI should be doing.

That said, Google Video could have done with the GMail team's sparkle. Seems like a lot of companies are simply getting it wrong right now.

Doesn't work (1)

pubjames (468013) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875113)

I searched for "linux" and it didn't return any results!

If they want to challenge Google they aren't going about it very well...

Re:Doesn't work (1)

Zaatxe (939368) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875237)

Same to me when I searched for "google"...

Re:Doesn't work (1)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875250)

I searchee for slashdto . it asked me if I meant slashdot.. i said yes.. then it said lodaing... then that was it..its been a few minutes..

WOW!!!! (2, Interesting)

Menotti M (846491) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875118)

They certainly are competing with Google on response time.

I probably could walk cross-country to Microsoft and submit my search on paper quicker than this. Or maybe use the cans connected by string.

Re:WOW!!!! (1)

Zaatxe (939368) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875330)

They certainly are competing with Google on response time.

They just got confused on the criteria... they failed to see that the SHORTER the response time, the BETTER. That's because Microsoft thinks big.

In other news, Microsoft gets into microprocessor industry and will release the biggest computer chip of all time. It will be, according Mr. Gates, "totally awesome".

Simplicity ??? (3, Insightful)

hexa00 (319213) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875122)

I guess they didn't get the simplicity we like so much of google

why the hell do we need scroolsbars in the search window!! we have one in the browser.. can't event use page up /down

and so many cheap baby graphics, no wonder it's so slow

I hate it already

Re:Simplicity ??? (4, Informative)

Utopia (149375) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875200)

A more simpler page is on http://search.live.com/ [live.com]

Re:Simplicity ??? (1)

artg (24127) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875304)

Page up/down worked for me (in firefox), but then the browser Back button
gave a previously 'scrolled page' rather than the search entry page.

I hate it when they break the Back button ..

Already /.ed - Mirror here (5, Funny)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875123)

www.google.com

I know that's just pure nasty - I just couldn't help it.

oracle? (5, Informative)

Soothh (473349) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875124)

I got an error on the page... looks like they are using oracle as a backend?
Was ms sql 2005 to strong for such a simple search engine? :)

opera and live (3, Informative)

SolusSD (680489) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875128)

Hmm... Doesn't seem to work at all with opera. Just says loading.... loading.... i could have performs a dozen google searches in the time i waited.

Re:opera and live (1)

manastungare (596862) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875266)

And after a long wait, it brought me back to where I was. A screen that said "Windows Live Gallery: Unable to retrieve data, please try again." (Opera 9)

Re:opera and live (1)

iguana (8083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875283)

Doesn't seem to work too well with Firefox (Linux-Intel and Mac OSX-PPC), either. I just keep getting blank screens with "loading... loading... loading..." too.

Does it still use Flash? I don't install Flash because it cuts down on the annoying blinking crap and I'm too lazy.

Re:opera and live (3, Informative)

weg (196564) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875371)

Has nothing to do with Opera... I had the same effect with IE.

Broken (2, Informative)

omeg (907329) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875132)

Seems broken already; too much "loading" and "try again at a later time". It's hard to believe that this is because of their Live.com page being Slashdotted. The reason I like Google is because of how fast it is. I wouldn't tell people to go "Google it" when they need to know something if it took them more than 10 seconds to do so.

Okay, so it's a beta. I still expected a little more responsiveness from Microsoft's newest ace-in-the-hole.

Slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14875133)

This is just like my kids Windows - Slow as sin for no apparent reason.

/.'ed (3, Funny)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875154)

Maybe someone should post a coral link. Let off some of the load from MS.

Typical MS (0, Troll)

MERVERNATOR (589408) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875165)

look at that little spinning blue LOADING circle at the bottom of the page... looks like they stole it from Firefox. lol.

Re:Typical MS (3, Interesting)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875384)

it's also similar to Apple's OS X loading icon.

has anyone got it to work in Safari? just says loading for me.

Boobies (4, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875168)

Live.com:
Loading results for query boobies
images 1-15 of 3957
6/15 are of the bird

Google.com (SafeSearch Off):
Results 1 - 20 of about 51,700 for boobies (0.07 seconds)
4/20 are of the bird

I think the results speak for themselves.

Titties (1)

Tx (96709) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875377)

Live.com
This query has triggered our safe search filter.
Flexible settings are coming soon.
0 results

Google images
Results 1 - 20 of about 48,000 for titties (0.11 seconds)

So how come with Live, boobies get through, but titties are blocked? Google wins anyway.

miserable failure (5, Informative)

Menotti M (846491) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875171)

Interestingly enough, a search for "miserable failure" leads www.michaelmoore.com at the top, instead of Google's standard George W. Bush biography

scrollbar (1)

valadil (668748) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875173)

My search for linux did eventually get some hits. It just took a while. At first it only had 9 results, but after I sat there for a while more showed up. What really pissed me off and made this unusable from my point of view was the javascript (or whatever) scrollbar. It didn't respond to mouse wheel. Honestly, if everything else about this service somehow became better than google's offering, I still wouldn't use it just because of the lack of mouse wheel. I wonder if its worth booting into windows to see if they made some weird ass keybindings for the mouse wheel in IE....

still waiting in firefox (2, Informative)

cmorgan47 (720310) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875180)

and the explorer window finally showed something, then locked up and closed itself. truely beta. and it's still loading. i had time to type this, realize that my url was old, change it, try it in explorer, watch explorer crash, listen to some asshat at work try to be funny, at it's still loading.

Longer to load than Google. Less searches. Lame. (1)

GerbilSocks (713781) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875181)

Loading....

Site Slashdotted (4, Funny)

Iamthefallen (523816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875182)

Try using Googles cache [64.233.179.104]

Imitating Google's ... Microsoft style (1)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875183)

On my Mac running the current version of Safari, I get a plain search box and a condescending "help" text right below it:

Find anything using the new
Windows Life Search!


below that is Something that is Loading. What it is I cannot tell since it's eternally loading.

I tried searching for "Slashdot" and it's still ... loading.

So hmm. It's condescending and doesn't seem to work to boot.

Doesn't look like I'll be back.

D

Trying too hard to be an "application" (5, Insightful)

bitflip (49188) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875184)

The dynamic window showing the results...well, it just sucks. It doesn't show enough results, and the scroller doesn't give any kind of context as to where you are within the results. Its slow. That may be due to this computer being slow, but I don't have to worry about it on any other search engine. I'd almost prefer frames (not by much).

I was going to tell all of that to MS, but the "help us improve" link was 404 when I tried it...

First impression... (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875185)

What the heck is with the funky scroll bars? They're less acurate and slower than regular slow bars.

Also, while it's nice to have a more/less info slider on the right side, it doesn't really add much at this point.

Pretty colors, though.

yeah, the scrolling sucks massively (1)

Schlemphfer (556732) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875358)

On the plus side, it's a nice visual effect to have pixel-by-pixel scrolling. Very pleasing to the eye.

On the down side, scrolling should never have momentum! When I want to stop scrolling, I want the scrolling to stop immediately. I've only used the page for a couple minutes but it's already obvious that their scrolling implementation is a disaster. It feels like driving a car with bad brakes; you're always shooting past where you want to stop.

I did notice that my mouse's scroll wheel works on their page, and it does a nicer job than clicking on the arrows. But not that much nicer; it still sucks.

I don't know how they allowed this current way of outputting results to be released to the public. Regular HTML output is a thousand times more useful.

image search (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875191)

Gee, an image search function that makes me click a little 'next' arrow to see each result, one by one. How incredibly useful! With innovation like this, I wonder how companies like Apple and Google can still be in business...

Scrolling method (1)

guice (907163) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875192)

I really dislike the scrolling method they're using...It takes over my normal mouse scroll and goes really, really slow. If anything, that would prevent me from using the site.

I hate it when websites feel their users don't know how to use their own input devices and feel they should take over them for you to "assist you".

Re:Scrolling method (1)

k2enemy (555744) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875289)

not only that but you have to wait over a second for their "smooth scroll" to stop moving the text so you can read it. terrible usability in my opinion.

Google's still better (3, Insightful)

jotate (944643) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875198)

Simplicity is a virtue that Microsoft regularly ignores. The additional features on the main page and the loading graphics are just unnecessary. And apparently using a normal scroll bar isn't good enough to look through your results.

Their algorithm could deduce the meaning of life and I'd still use Google just so I didn't have to deal with that UI.

One long search results pane? (1)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875202)

I find the one long search results scrolling page to be quite overwhelming. I like the chunking effect of 10 or 20 results per page. While it definitely emphasizes the importance of position on the page, which might be unfair to #7, for example, at least it's mentally manageable.

Lame... As expected (4, Informative)

Kimos (859729) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875209)

First things I see: - Slow as hell - Non-standard scroll bar hard to figure out - Search results returning weird things No thank you MS. Try again.

Scrolling in the search window... (1)

Omicron32 (646469) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875223)

What's the deal with the scrolling in the search window!? I don't understand it, those slider bars are just annoying and (though I use a scroll wheel almost exlusively) not having the standard scroll bars down the side of my browser window is awful!

The image search isn't that good either, as I can't easily find a way of displaying thumbnails of all of them.

On the upside, it's returned more relevant results than MSN search so they seem to be taking a step in the right direction.

Think I'll be sticking with Google's clean uncluttered interface for a bit longer yet though - it has yet to fail me!

Re:Scrolling in the search window... (1)

Omicron32 (646469) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875284)

Ah, I found how to get all the thumbnails for images - just thought the front page one was it. Silly me! It's very slow though...

Been having a look at finding a solution for a problem I had a while back with udev not being happy with my nvidia card. Look at the differences in these results and tell me which is more useful: Live [live.com] - Google [google.co.uk]

It's made by Microsoft alright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14875245)

I did a search for Firefox. No results.

It does work ... (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875253)

I searched for 'Microsoft google" and I got as the first result a google page I have never seen before http://www.google.com/microsoft [google.com] , so I think it actually works!

Lame (1, Flamebait)

robyannetta (820243) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875259)

I did a search for the word "Linux" and what do you think the results were?

How to Remove Linux and Install Windows XP [microsoft.com]

Cut the crap. (2, Informative)

Cranky Weasel (946893) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875352)

I did a search for the word "Linux" and what do you think the results were?

Gee... let me try. I'll enter the single word "linux" into Live.

Nearly 100 million entries. And as far as I can tell, that one is no where near the top (I haven't found it yet). The first entry is a link to linux.org.

Something is lame here... but it ain't Live.

They must be shaking in terror down at google HQ (1)

ben_of_copenhagen (649118) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875268)

So far i have found nothing with this search engine but a piece of text called "loading..." Im not really sure thats what i want. It wont help me make guacamole, thats for sure.

sent back... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14875272)

I always get sent back to the page i had open before (wich was slashdot of course) when using firefox 1.5 under linux.

I like it!

Loading... (2, Informative)

qcs-rf.com (952717) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875282)

The first time I heard about Google, the first thing I typed into the search window was my name. And when some forum post I had typed up years earlier showed up, I was relieved that it worked. Then I typed in my business name, which showed up in the first page of results. Then I typed in my wife's name, and her Yahoo! profile showed in the list of results. From then I was hooked.

Likewise, I typed in all the same queries to MS's new search engine, and yes, I get results, but none of them are relevant. Searching on my name shows as a first result a message I posted to a club forum that I was in over six years ago. I hardly think anybody else has linked to that particular forum message, so is the whole concept of page popularity, like Google's PageRank, null and void in MS's new search engine? This new search engine reminds me of Yahoo! circa 1994 where any and every result would show up regardless of popularity.

And the "Loading..." reminds me too much of the rotating sand-timer in Windows. I can just see regular Windows users staring at the "Loading..." message for minutes without results, then thinking that their computer stopped responding, forcing a hard-reboot.

Loading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14875291)

Ok, so why does it say it's loading when I haven't done anything? I left it for 5 minutes and nothing new came up.

It also took a long time to get back to /.

And I'm using IE at work.

Complexity wrapper (2, Interesting)

ForwardThinker (958647) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875303)

This seems to me to be the normal MSN results wrapped up in adverts for other MS offerings. I remember Google being such a break through because of it's uncluttered, clear and fast results. Live seems like a step backwards to me!

Looks like firefox works better (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14875311)

I was puzzled as to why running the front page from firefox gives a different result then IE

turns out that the "Gadget Gallery" among others does not apper in IE 6 sp2 unless you click on and off of the "The Basics" section

shows up fine in Firefox, just a little ironic

why does ms make everything hard? (3, Insightful)

noopy (959768) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875314)

You know, the very first time I went to www.google.com, I knew exactly what to do. The very first time I do _anything_ with M$, I haven't got a clue. I think their google-killer suffers from a bit of UI-overload, don't you?

Searched for my name and my CPU pegged at 100% (1)

guysmilee (720583) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875328)

Searched for my name and my CPU pegged at 100%

If they're gonna compete (2, Insightful)

solidtransient (883338) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875335)

Microsoft is going to have to realize that not everybody in the world uses IE... They have gone to great lengths to make their UI clever and "cool", but when it doesn't work in Firefox or Safari or Opera, they're shooting their own foot. I realize its a beta, so the slowness doesn't bother me. I'm not a fan of the UI either... and I especially hate the scrolling mechanism. What ever happened to a simple, easy to use, search engine that returns good results? Oh wait, that's google.

Too lame (2, Funny)

GerbilSocks (713781) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875337)

I think Microsoft hired monkeys to build and design this site. It's utter and total crap!

it's working.. (1)

isnochys (566268) | more than 8 years ago | (#14875382)

perfectly here in germany..
it's not been on heise.de :))

--
http://www.isnochys.com/ [isnochys.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...