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!

Google Says Vista Search Changes Not Enough

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the meeting-demands dept.

Google 282

akkarin writes "Following Google's complaint to Microsoft regarding Vista's 'desktop search,' Google claims that Vista's search has not changed enough: 'Google said yesterday that the remedies don't go far enough. Google chief legal officer David Drummond said in a statement, "We are pleased that as a result of Google's request that the consent decree be enforced, the Department of Justice and state attorneys general have required Microsoft to make changes to Vista."'"

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

huh (0, Flamebait)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 7 years ago | (#19602793)

I really like Google. I don't understand why they have to do this though.

TLF

Re:huh (0, Flamebait)

nlitement (1098451) | more than 7 years ago | (#19602819)

To vanquish the evil of Microsoft.

Vanquish? (3, Insightful)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603695)

Google will modify its motto to "Do no evil, but let a little justice slip out occasionally" and keep MicroSoft alive.
Why? Because to vanquish would be merciful, and Redmond deserves to wallow in the wreckage of its APIs for as long as possible.

Re:huh (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 7 years ago | (#19602849)

I don't understand why they have to do this though.

Wait till they become a patent troll...

Re:huh (0)

countach (534280) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603245)

There's a sense in which Google is being unreasonable. On the other hand, what goes around comes around, instant Karma and all that. I don't mind Microsoft getting a jab in the heart.

Re:huh (2, Interesting)

rwven (663186) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603315)

While I agree with your sentiment, I do have a problem with grown-up software companies walking around acting whiny spoiled children. As much as Microsoft may deserve a "jab in the heart" on some level, Google needs to get over their emotion driven "issues" and move on to more, truly important, things.

Re:huh (1)

alisson (1040324) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603795)

But on another level, microsoft should be kept in check. Why should their patent violations go unnoticed, when they're such patent-hounds. I don't mind following the rules, as long as you have to as well :)

Re:huh (1)

MontyApollo (849862) | more than 7 years ago | (#19602901)

They want to "upgrade" the operating system. You know like Norton and AOL.

Re:huh (5, Insightful)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603019)

You don't understand why they are doing this from a logical perspective or from their "do no evil" perspective? Logically they are attempting to further their own product by attacking a competing product using abuse of the legal system. Seems easy enough to understand although of course it is pretty evil, abusive and all that. So I guess their new motto is "Do no evil unless it gives us money."

Didn't MS also have geek cred back in the day only to lose it as they became a big company?

Re:huh (4, Interesting)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603205)

I don't understand why this was moderated flamebait. I suppose it could have been worded differently, but there is a valid point. Some people loved Microsoft in the late 80s and early 90s. Microsoft provided the software that was an alternative to Mac OS. People who hated Apple loved it.

Microsoft agreed to make changes. Why push it further? I don't like Microsoft's business practices, but I don't see how google is all that much better as of late.

Re:huh (1)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603531)

Microsoft agreed to make changes. Why push it further?
Because whenever Microsoft is caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they offer to "punish" themselves by taking some more cookies.

Re:huh (4, Insightful)

enrevanche (953125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603789)

Why push it further? Are you kidding, They should keep pushing it. Each time Microsoft comes up with a remedy, it is so half-assed that it is usually no better than before. They will make it annoying as they can get away with to use any competitor's product. This is exactly what is wrong with a monopolistic business. Their business model has nothing to do with competing for a customer by providing a better product. They use their product to control and limit because most customers do not have another practical choice.

Re:huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19603503)

Didn't MS also have geek cred back in the day only to lose it as they became a big company?

I don't really recall MS having geek cred [outside of Bill being considered a geek]. They had business cred. And sometimes hobbyist cred [e.g., the Altair BASIC interpreter] which maybe is just splitting hairs. I always thought of them as the guys that wrote a fairly primitive BASIC interpreter that happened to run on a few machines I either used or owned. DOS was clearly a CP/M clone [better than CP/M in some ways].

If I think of geek cred from those days, I think of BYTE Magazine [back when it carried Ciarcia's Circuit Cellar] and other hobbyist mags that had schematics and assembly/hex code in them.

Re:huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19603539)

People read too much into "Do no evil".

See, keyword there is evil.
Their motto isn't "Don't be kind-of a dick".

So between being evil and not evil, there's a HUGE range of grey.

Re:huh (1)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603555)

Logically they are attempting to further their own product by attacking a competing product using abuse of the legal system.
Microsoft is violating a black letter agreement - blatantly. Google is calling them on it. Would you care to elaborate on what aspect of this is abuse?

I'm sorry, but it looks like we're going to have to reject your biased characterization unless you can come up with, you know, a logical argument.

Re:huh (1)

h2_plus_O (976551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603643)

Microsoft is violating a black letter agreement - blatantly
Are they? The DOJ seems satisfied with their remedy. From tfa:

The DOJ and all 17 state attorneys general agreed with Microsoft's proposal. "Plaintiffs are collectively satisfied that this agreement will resolve any issues the complaint may raise under the Final Judgments, provided that Microsoft implements it as promised," according to the joint filing.

Re:huh (4, Interesting)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603635)

> "Do no evil unless it gives us money."

I think you're jumping the gun here. Microsoft is like a fool with a rope; Give 'em enough, and next thing you know they want to be Cowboy Neal. Microsoft has enough money to buy just about any legal outcome they want - and don't fool yourself, they do. Google knows this and is nipping the problem in the bud right now. If they don't, before you know it, you won't even be able to use Google with Vista. Clippy will pop up and direct you to Vista Search instead (or some other such idiotic nonsense that the population seems to lap up). Being that Baldy is going to "Fucking kill Google"* I would be handling this with a wary eye as well. Google is playing it smart.

[*] - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/05/chair_chuc king/ [theregister.co.uk]

Re:huh (5, Insightful)

NF6X (725054) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603171)

I don't get this, either. I'll openly admit to disliking Microsoft and most of their products with a passion, and I'm a happy user of various Google products and services. So it's safe to say that I have a pro-Google/anti-Microsoft bias in general. Still, I don't see why Google or anybody else should have much if any say in the features that Microsoft is allowed to put in their products, as long as Microsoft isn't plagiarizing other folks' stuff.

Would I personally be annoyed by their search feature if I was a Vista user? Maybe, maybe not, but they're not obligated to give me exactly what I want, just like I'm not obligated to buy their product. I happen to have switched over to using a Mac recently (I was previously a hardcore Linux zealot and I still like Linux, but I decided that OS X would fit my needs better for general-purpose use a few months ago, and so far I've been happy with that decision). OS X has its own hardwired-in search feature. I'm free to whine at Apple if I don't like it, they're free to ignore me if they want to, and I'm free to vote with my wallet if I don't like their response. That's the way I think it ought to be, and I don't see why it should be any different with Microsoft/Vista.

If Microsoft does Bad Stuff in their business practices then go after 'em, but I've never seen the logic in forcing them to change their operating system (even back in the old browser war days). I'll accept that using pricing and contracts to try to force their OEM customers to stay away from any other OS vendors may be illegal, anti-competitive and just downright mean, but I don't see anything wrong with Microsoft designing their operating system to not play well with others. I think that hurts them more than anybody else, because it makes folks like me get fed up, wipe their hard drives and install Linux instead, or even go buy Macs rather than facing the prospect of using their next OS release.

Re:huh (1)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603255)

So it's safe to say that I have a pro-Google/anti-Microsoft bias in general. Still, I don't see why Google or anybody else should have much if any say in the features that Microsoft is allowed to put in their products...
How about the reverse: if a google page had a one-click option to modify vista so that Google was the preferred search engine?

Re:huh (1)

Zak3056 (69287) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603293)

How about the reverse: if a google page had a one-click option to modify vista so that Google was the preferred search engine?

Err... don't they? ie6 (I think) and ie7 (for sure) have a box in the top right corner when you visit the google home page that says "Click here to install the google toolbar" which will also make Google the default search provider.

What colour is the sky on your home planet? (1)

baomike (143457) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603399)

eom

Re:huh (3, Insightful)

codename.matrix (889422) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603455)

Google simply wants to be able to replace the desktop search with the google equivalent. The idea is to give the user a choice which desktop search he wants to use - this doesn't mean just MS or Google but also others like Yahoo would benefit from this. AFAIK the indexing of vista can be disabled but there is currently no way to replace the feature with another application. I personally like the way it is working right now. It's like the old story with the browser and the media player. I wonder why Microsoft doesn't make more of these features as seperate applications that integrate into the system using public apis. It would give them a lot less trouble with the competition and anti-trust battles and it would be easier for them to enhance such features because they aren't integrated so deeply into the system. well, just my 2 cents.

Re:huh (1)

Mr. Vage (1084371) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603477)

"Google's complaint came just a few days after Microsoft called for antitrust regulators to scrutinize the search company's planned $3.1-billion (U.S.) acquisition of online ad service DoubleClick Inc."

That may have something to do with it.

Re:here's why google is doing it, guys: (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19603567)

Google is scared shitless of Vista's search capabilities, and here's why:

Vista Search (which is about 100 times better than Google's Desktop Search) is only one step away from searching ON THE INTERNET, just as it searches on the desktop now.

If Microsoft gets users used to Vista Search, and then makes it easy for people to use that same GUI to search the internet, Google is suddenly out of business overnight.

Google's popularity right now is based largely on momentum and the "fad" of using its name as a verb. Yahoo's search, for example, is pretty damn near as good as Google's. Since Google's entire business model of search supremecy relies on user laziness and momentum (like most monopolies that aren't enforced by governments like utilities, etc) then their ultimate worry is that Microsoft will incorporate search directly into the OS which will be the ultimate "lazy" option for users.

Why do you think Google pays Adobe $1.25 for each download of Flash or Acrobat which default installs their search toolbar? Why do you think Google pays dell 5 dollars for each install of Google toolbar that ships with all Dell computers? Because Google knows that the way to keep their search monopoly is to make it so the user doesn't even HAVE to make a choice of search engine- it will be there in their face when they update Acrobat or buy a new Dell or download Firefox.

But if Microsoft can make it even EASIER for people not to even need a concept of a third party search engine, then Google is finished.

This is why Google will fight this battle to the very end- they will spend every penny in their coffers to try and stop microsoft from getting users to stop thinking of search as a "site you go to" rather than something that is just built into the OS. I mean literally- Google has absolutely nothing to lose by spending every penny they have to fight this- because if they lose, then the company might as well fold up shop and go home.

This is why Microsoft's OSes suck (4, Insightful)

MasaMuneCyrus (779918) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603629)

Any time they try to do something good, the government steps in and says it's anti-competitive. Meanwhile, Apple and Linux implement similar features and brag about how Windows doesn't have them.

I'm not trying to take sides in the OS wars, but I'm really getting sick of the government bullying Microsoft. If there's anything worse than a company bullying someone, it's the government bullying someone, regardless of who they are.

blah blah blah (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#19602801)

Just cuz most versions of windows come with paint doesn't mean people don't buy photoshop and you couldn't pay me enough to use that crappy wav editor that comes with windows instead of Wavepad. If you think your product is better, don't complain that something like it comes with Vista cuz it won't matter. And if you know your product is worse and want to get rid of the better one, then you can also stop complaining because it's your own fault people won't use it and you shouldn't try to elimiate your competition. It's idiotic in general to say you want your main competitor's product eliminated (so you're the only one left) for antitrust reasons.

Re:blah blah blah (5, Insightful)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603027)

Well technically its about abusing a monopoly position to gain an unfair advantage over competitors.

Microsoft did it previously with Internet Explorer. Since it is bundled with every single copy of windows since I think 95. To Joe Average user seeing a little 'e' icon on the desktop and equating that with the internet is all you need to do in order to gain an unfair advantage over other web browser companies. Since IE doesnt typically catastrophically fail (it only allows every tom, dick and harry spyware maker to put their crap on your machine) most users never see a need to change.

Apply this reasoning to a Vista drive search thing vs Google drive search thing and you can see where this is heading. It's also the reason that Microsoft didnt automatically push Windows Defender onto XP machines. Even though Norton, Avast! or Kapersky is better most people will refuse to use them because they'll see the little windows defender icon and go 'cool theres my anti-virus'.

A little more specific (3, Insightful)

Gription (1006467) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603209)

Yes, it is pretty obvious that the little blue 'e' was an abuse of Microsoft's total control of the OS market but I always though the clear cut, slam dunk antitrust violation in that regard was that they made it impossible to use a different browser to download updates for their OS.

They basically said, "Sorry but you can only get support for our OS if you use our browser..." Now how did that get past the DOJ and why hasn't it been nuked out of Windows since then?

Re:A little more specific (1)

sid0 (1062444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603223)

why hasn't it been nuked out of Windows since then?

It has. Vista uses a separate app for downloading updates.

Re:blah blah blah (3, Insightful)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603211)

Actually, in all technicality, an OS should include a web browser - without IE for Windows, how do you expect to download from the website Firefox or any other browser?

I've always thought the "browser war" thing was a bad example.

(Before you suggest "have a repository like Synaptic or Yum with all third party browsers and even IE so people have a choice" let me mention three words that'll shoot that down: InstallShield Corporation. Lawsuit)

Re:blah blah blah (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603373)

Well technically its about abusing a monopoly position to gain an unfair advantage over competitors.

Sure, but we can't have it both ways, bitch that Microsoft OS doesn't even include a decent file search (what a bunch of incompetents, it must be all the free Starbucks they drink), and then bitch that they do.

Re:blah blah blah (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603641)

So if you made such a good (lol, but still) OS that almost everyone uses it now, you can't make any other software for it? You have to keep it the way it is and never change it and never add features? The same people who complain about windows security problems say Vista can't come with a default antivirus, etc. Why don't people like that keep their "I hate Windows" crap to themselves and more importantly, out of the courtroom.
Let's say Microsoft makes their next OS come with awesome media editors, near perfect antivirus and anti-spyware stuff, great searching, and an awesome web browser. So you get your computer and you're all set and everything's great. People who say there's anything wrong with that must not use computers often or something. I'm sick of non-working, ad stuffed, third party crap that somehow gets popular cuz it's the only option and companies get rich off it. The designers of the Photoshop GUI should be shot but there's really no other choice cuz apparently it's the most popular so it became the standard.

Windoze is the thing to avoid. (1, Interesting)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603485)

ILuxRamen would taunt Google with obviously false blather.

If you think your product is better, don't complain that something like it comes with Vista cuz it won't matter.

No one can really be oblivious to the actual problem here: M$ has sabotaged yet another competitor on "their" OS. It does not matter how good your program is when you try to port it to Winblows and M$ decides they want your "market". Remember DRDOS, Lotus, Word Perfect, Netscape and non M$ antivirus programs? All of them were far better than the M$ junk that eventually triumphed due to sabotage and vendor manipulation. Their demise has been meticulously documented in several anti-trust trials. This is no longer a matter of partisan bickering or fanboy ranting, it's court proven fact.

Protecting real competition is what antiturst is all about. The judgement and findings of fact against M$ were supposed to take care of these problems but did not because they left M$ intact. Their attack on Google, iPod anti-virus makers and even Wikipedia is more of the same. All of these other companies are just as legitimate and important as M$ and all of them are going to be slaughtered if things go as they did before. That's people who lose their jobs so that M$ can rack up more monopoly rent. Government action has failed miserably.

Fortunately, the market is correcting itself. People are avoiding Vista even though that means using ancient software on aging hardware. Dell is still selling XP, despite M$'s wishes, because people just don't want Vista. It's hurt hardware sales and everyone who trusted the usual business predictions are feeling the burn. Businesses and government offices continue to look for escape and they are finding it in Mac and free software that runs their existing equipment. With vendors like Dell selling free software, the dam has burst on M$. There's a reliable hardware path out of the mess. People who want what competition really has to offer are going to steer clear of M$ for the forseeable future.

All M$ can do is advertise, but that's not working like it used to. They can't polish the Vista turd. After six years, they can't produce much better, so it's all downhill from here. Everyone knows it too. Bye Bye M$.

Re:Windoze is the thing to avoid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19603545)

it's court proven fact
 
the same courts that most slashdotters say know nothing about technology? that's rich.

not component based? (4, Interesting)

flukus (1094975) | more than 7 years ago | (#19602815)

Is it really that hard to make an open api with replaceable components. That way google could just plug in their search and have it open to the whole os. MS still seems to be stuck in the monolithic, tightly coupled programming era.

Re:not component based? (4, Informative)

Shippy (123643) | more than 7 years ago | (#19602925)

Yes, actually it is really hard if you want it to be reliable, well documented, etc. Usually why APIs stay closed is because they don't meet the bar of documentation quality and in order to use it you have to overcome several idiosyncracies and have tight communication with the team that wrote the API. Probably MS didn't have enough time to make it as extensible and documented as they would've liked and maybe they figured it's just file search so keep it closed and avoid the support can of worms you would have to deal with when you open an API that isn't ready for the increased traffic.

Re:not component based? (3, Insightful)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603351)

Well, it sucks to be them.

The monopoly they have has made them incredibly, incredibly rich. With it comes a cost. Things like this.

In my opinion, de facto-standard operating systems are no different than phone companies -- they tend to be natural network monopolies. It is in everyone's interest to have them open and modular so that there is competition for everything practicable. Web browsers, media players, search utilities. Just about everything but the kernel.

I guess I am the only one here wishing the government was even more aggressively leveling the playing field.

Google may be big and powerful, but they don't have a network monopoly....in almost everything they do, they compete on their merits, not on their network advantage. That is a very important difference.

Re:not component based? (5, Interesting)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603365)

No. Google is stuck in the, "We can force MS to ask their users to install our software in place of theirs because MS is still percieved as a monopoly" mode. Let's see Adobe publish open APIs for their entire Creative Suite. Let's see the Mac OS publish open APIs for their entire OS.

The idea that Google is still an underdog to MS is pure fantasy. But Google's gonna milk the perception for all it's worth.

Re:not component based? (4, Informative)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603525)

Let's see the Mac OS publish open APIs for their entire OS.

Well they do have an API that lets you run programs on their OS, so I guess they do. Their OS isn't "open source," though their kernel is and a bunch of the underlying services are.

And FWIW, Mac OS X has an extensible public API for File Search [apple.com] .

Re:not component based? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19603783)

Well, although it's not open, Apple does have an API, in the form of an entire programming language and its' library, Objective-C.

PENIS!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19602821)

P3NN11SSS

They have a problem with this *now*? (4, Informative)

Osty (16825) | more than 7 years ago | (#19602839)

Where were they during the 5 years of Vista's development? Microsoft was touting the integrated, universal search abilities pretty much since day 1 of Vista development. There's no excuse for Google not to know about this, since there were preview and beta builds of Vista available for nearly two years prior to release. If they had a problem with this feature, they should've brought it up then, not 5 months after Vista shipped.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19602915)

Um ... perhaps they did? Or perhaps Microsoft did the unthinkable and released a product that didn't entirely match up with the reality of their prior claims?

Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (1)

sid0 (1062444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19602981)

The search had been as it is for at least a year before release.

I'm quickly losing respect for Google.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19603149)

You still have some left? Hell, the only reason I still use Google's search engine is because it's still the best choice available, despite my attempts to try out the other offerings.

Google finally sees that it can't automatically dominate in an area of the market (in this case, desktop search) based on their name alone, and it's scared. So the sue sue sue and hope their image of "the little guy" is intact enough to get the U.S. government to side with them over Microsoft.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (1)

lakeland (218447) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603739)

And, if you'd bothered to read TFA, you'd find Google complained about it more than a year before the release of Vista but was told repeatedly 'that isn't how the final version will be'.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603037)

Of course they knew about it, everyone did. This is nothing more than free PR at Microsoft's expense, which isn't hard. It may be true that Microsoft has no one to blame but themselves, but this is just two mega-huge faceless corporations working the press.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (2, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603759)

To be more accurate this free PR at M$'s expense seems to have turned around and bitten goggle on the arse, hard disk search, and file indexing is seen pretty much as normal part of an OS, if you do a lot of disk searching you enable it, if you don't you disable it and you use those resources for other applications.

Google is a web search engines, that keeps track of your searches, it is an email service that data mines your email, it is a micropayment service that tracks your payments, it is an advertising service that tracks you browsing the net, should it really be a disk searching service that tracks your searches on your own media and data mines that.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (4, Funny)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603131)

In google's defense, they had no idea that Vista would actually be released in '06.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (2, Insightful)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603181)

Why is this such a big deal? Does Vista prevent 3rd party apps from opening files and reading contents? Or start/stop system services? I really don't see what the big deal is.

As for integrating 3rd party program into the `os search' feature, that's not MS's responsibility---Google isn't paying Microsoft's developers to make such integration possible.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (2, Informative)

75th Trombone (581309) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603197)

As I understand it, their main complaint is that Vista search uses undocumented APIs to get a performance boost, which they're claiming is an unfair, monopolistic advantage. And one that they wouldn't necessarily have known for sure about until Vista's release.

But I may just be getting that from random ignorant Slashdot comments that don't know what they're talking about, so y'know.

(captcha: "proviso")

Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (1)

Zak3056 (69287) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603349)

As I understand it, their main complaint is that Vista search uses undocumented APIs to get a performance boost, which they're claiming is an unfair, monopolistic advantage. And one that they wouldn't necessarily have known for sure about until Vista's release.

With two years worth of betas and previews, it's rather difficult to claim that "we didn't know it was going to worth that way."

Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19603391)

How exactly do you understand this? Facts please....

So, the "main complaint" keeps changing (1)

sid0 (1062444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603403)

First: that MS indexing can't be turned off in Vista.

Debunked. At least 3 ways to do so.

Second: that the search box does not show Google results even when MS search is turned off. (It reverts to an XP-like slow search instead.)

No shit. I would expect MS results if I'm using MS's search program. If I wanted to use GDS I would use Google's program.

Now: that Vista search gets a performance boost.

Hereby debunked. Vista search runs at a low priority -- both CPU and I/O. So if GDS doesn't use low priority, GDS will get a performance boost compared to MS indexing.

Next?

Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (5, Insightful)

Justus (18814) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603203)

My guess is that they're complaining about it now because it's a much more convincing (from a legal perspective, anyways) to complain about something that has been or is being done now, rather than something that will/may be done in the future.

After all, it would be rather simple for Microsoft to say that every feature in Vista was subject to change (which they did say, and did change many features, I might add). Then, after the issue had been dismissed once, Google would have had an even harder time bringing it up again. Now, as to whether or not this is a good move, I'm somewhat split.

I suspect that Google doesn't want to be the next Netscape and give up their leadership position due to, well, a combination of things, one of which was Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position. I don't necessarily agree with the way they're handling it, but I suppose they've got to spend their lawyer dollars somewhere--at least they're not attacking a random open source project for infringement of some sort.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (1, Troll)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603257)

Not only that... but file searching has been a part of windows since the beginning. It has also been a very basic part of all OS's.

Just because now, search engines are trying to take over the desktop... doesnt mean MS has done anything wrong.

Google's completely wrong on this, and google's desktop search sucks period. Who the fuck wants to search for files on their pc with that google web ui? Its terrible. MS desktop search is better on XP and Vista.

Google's not bitching about Apple's search either... so.. Fuck Google.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (4, Interesting)

tapo (855172) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603261)

Supposedly Google suddenly started complaining about Vista's integrated search four days after Microsoft complained to the FTC about Google's acquisition of Doubleclick. It seems to be a "Oh yeah? Well fuck you!" move.

Stop crying about it. (4, Insightful)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 7 years ago | (#19602857)

"Google says Vista Search Changes not Enough"

Oh good God fuck off already. I hope Microsoft undoes any planned changes just to put Google back into its place. Now they're just whining like babies. It's an operating system. I can understand concerns over Windows Media Player but the file searching mechanism in Vista is almost a necessity when it comes to finding your files. Since when was including a file finder an antitrust violation?

Re:Stop crying about it. (3, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603015)

Oh good God fuck off already. I hope Microsoft undoes any planned changes just to put Google back into its place.

Exactly.

And doing that will let any other third party considering adding value to the Windows platform know exactly where they stand.

Any investments you make on Windows will be wasted if Microsoft decides they want to "fucking kill" your company.

Re:Stop crying about it. (0, Redundant)

p_quarles (1094847) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603071)

Okay, but it's only a "necessity" because you can't turn it off and use Google Desktop instead. I think that's the point that Google is making. Even better, when I installed Google Desktop on Vista, I quickly discovered that searching it automatically called up MSIE, even though Firefox was my default browser. So, not only did they introduce a new uninstallable "feature," they reintroduced an old one. I'm no fan of the direction Google's going in these days, but they've got the high ground on this one.

God damn it. (3, Interesting)

sid0 (1062444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603145)

you can't turn it off

YOU CAN.

I quickly discovered that searching it automatically called up MSIE

I have no idea why that happens. I don't have GDS (no need for it), but I tried to set Firefox as the default and EVERYTHING passed to Firefox. Search results from the Start menu, URLs in emails, HTML files, EVERYTHING. The problems actually does seem to be GDS.

Re:God damn it. (1)

p_quarles (1094847) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603345)

I have no idea why that happens. I don't have GDS (no need for it), but I tried to set Firefox as the default and EVERYTHING passed to Firefox. Search results from the Start menu, URLs in emails, HTML files, EVERYTHING. The problems actually does seem to be GDS. I have no idea why it happens either, but it didn't do that in XP, so I don't think it was GDS's problem. Doesn't matter, though: Vista drove me to Linux, and I haven't looked back.

Re:God damn it. (0, Redundant)

YU Nicks NE Way (129084) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603549)

Um, no. You can't. The indexing service isn't behind WDS, apparently. (Hell if I know why, but that's what Microsoft's own documentation says.)

If I want to install GDS, I want *it* to run at low priority. I don't want it to interfere with my work, just like I don't want WDS to interfere with my work. If Google can't turn WDS off entirely, then GDS will be de facto slower than WDS through no fault of its own. That's the objection to this solution -- it requires that each alternative search provider make a choice between slowing down all the user's work and being artificially slowed down by WDS. Neither choice is acceptable.

Re:God damn it. (1)

sid0 (1062444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603623)

You can. If the index is turned off, an XP-like slow, non-indexed search is done when you type something in the search box. The index is OFF, period.

What's so hard to understand? I'll repeat it: The index is OFF, period. The index is OFF, period. The index is OFF, period.

You want GDS to run at a low priority? Tell that to Google.

Re:God damn it. (1, Troll)

YU Nicks NE Way (129084) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603679)

No. The indexing *service* is off. WDS (now read carefully) DOES NOT USE THE INDEXING SERVICE. It uses a different service, and that service cannot be turned off.

If WDS used the indexing service, you'd be completely correct. that's the problem -- it doesn't.

How would you explain this? (1)

sid0 (1062444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603741)

So, how would you explain that on this computer, the indexing service is disabled, and there is no index AT ALL? Anywhere? How would you explain that when I type in a couple of letters into the search box in Explorer, it actually searches the directories instead of the index, and tells me that indexing is off, and to turn on the index for faster searches?

Re:Stop crying about it. (3, Interesting)

Dude McDude (938516) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603153)

Even better, when I installed Google Desktop on Vista, I quickly discovered that searching it automatically called up MSIE, even though Firefox was my default browser.
Don't go blaming Microsoft on Google Desktop calling up IE! Feel free to set FF as your default browser and use Vista's start menu "Search the internet" feature; you'll find that Vista's search respects your default browser setting.

Come on... (4, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603013)

Look, Google, release your own OS already, and shut up. We know you've been working on one.

Re:Come on... (1)

Drew McKinney (1075313) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603143)

Well, they do have Google Desktop...

Or... (1)

adona1 (1078711) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603035)

They could stop complaining and get back to developing web-based apps that crap over anything MS has to offer (I'm thinking search engine, image search, webmail etc). Not to go Web 2.0 on anyone, but why do they care about the desktop? No advertising dollars there (yet).

Re:Or... (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603283)

Yeah cause thats what consumers want... to be spammed while using applications through out the day. No thanks. Web 2.0 sucks. Please keep the corporate logo's and spam off my computer.

Addendum (2, Funny)

mushupork (819735) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603045)

Sec 12 Para 2: "Vista startup sound must now be sound of someone getting spanked."

MacOSX? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19603081)

Why doesnt Google go after Apple for putting SpotLight into MacOSX? They havent even tried to run their desktop search on a Mac, would love to see how SpotLight handles priority of Google Desktop Search.

Re:MacOSX? (1)

MrDanW (1109815) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603225)

Google has already released Google Desktop for the Mac (it's in beta, but this is Google...)
http://desktop.google.com/mac [google.com]

Re:MacOSX? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19603499)

At guess I would say it is because Apple isn't under a consent decree that is supposed to make it possible for the user to choose the default application for certain functions. Remember when there wasn't a little application in XP that let you choose your default browser? Microsoft didn't put that in because it wanted to, it was part of their agreement with the government.
Everyone keeps saying they don't understand why the government should be able to tell Microsoft what is or isn't built in to their OS. They can do it because Microsoft is being punished. Read that again.
Microsoft is being punished.
They did bad things, they broke the law, they were convicted, this is their punishment. Google may be whining, but they are on firm legal ground. Microsoft is no longer able to build features into the OS as they see fit because in the past they damaged competitors by illegally pressuring customers like Dell, Intel, etc. into not working with those competitors. It isn't that complex.

Google is digging their own grave here (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19603099)

Let me turn this around.

What if Microsoft turned around and demanded that Google open up their online sites/applications so that the default search engine could be changed to Live search?

Or what if Google is setting a precedent to allow some other spyware developers to demand that Mac OS X or another operating system must have an easily extensible framework for crapware to hook itself into?

It is Microsoft's operating system and the modularity of the system should be entirely up to Microsoft to decide. If Microsoft don't want anything modular/replaceable in Windows then that is fine by me. It is time that people became responsible for their software purchasing decisions. You want to be able to install 3rd party replacements for various software components? Choose a modular operating system. You are worried about your traditional applications not working on the new operating system? Get out of vendor lockin before the problems get even worse. Choose file formats which are open and standardized.

Also, it is hardly as if Google isn't playing some of the old Microsoft tricks with getting their search engine made the default in Firefox, bundling spyware installers with other applications (which are checked ON by default), etc.

Re:Google is digging their own grave here (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19603267)

You are really dumb. Windows is a MONOPOLY. This is beyond dispute. What don't you get about that? The fact that it is a monopoly means that Microsoft needs to play fair. Otherwise, they could kill every single vendor out there by offering every feature for free, and then once the competitor closes shop, Microsoft would turn around and charge for it. You don't think that's the case? If not, you're a moron.

What Microsoft is attempting to do is add features that interfere with how other applications work, namely their #1 rival for mindshare which is Google. Microsoft and Google do not really compete, at least not in each other's bread-and-butter. But Microsoft wants to have the mindshare amongst people that they are the king of the hill, and Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates are desperately worried that sooner or later Google will produce software/web os/something and will be competing. So, they want to snuff out anything Google does that is desktop related, make their software seem shitty so that the impression is "Well Google is great for the Web, but their software sucks."

Their plan is obvious because they've done it before.

Re:Google is digging their own grave here (2, Insightful)

daskinil (991205) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603361)

I'm gonna sue cause I can't replace the window manager with fluxbox. Or maybe if i could just run X11 on top of the NT kernel. =P They are pretty much suing because they can't replace the search entry in your normal folders to be google search. Um,... i kinda agree with everyone that think WTF? It would be nice if every component had a nice API to replace parts. I'd like to replace the start menu for one. But i don't think i should be able to sue because i can't.

Re:Google is digging their own grave here (2, Insightful)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603511)

And let me straighten you out.

What if Google were a monopoly and therefore conceivably obligated to start sharing? Well, they fucking aren't.

Thank you, come again.

Does no one remember Stacker??? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19603175)

Why is everyone calling Google cry-babies? Does no one remember history?

You kids are probably too young to remember Stacker, but basically it was a way of compressing files to increase harddrive space by compressing on-the-fly. They were doing great until Microsoft decided to include a similar product in DOS, and then they were fucked. Victims of Microsoft's "Oh, sorry about including a feature that fucks up your business" mentality.

This is Microsoft's modus-operandi. I do not put it past Microsoft to have deliberately fucked with Google's desktop software on purpose because they have done this before. They know they need to get a leg-up on Google any way they can, and by limiting Google's desktop software, it represents a small victory at decreasing Google's brand. Look up anything related to Dr DOS, etc, and look at all the secret APIs that Microsoft would use to fuck up their competition.

I applaud Google for leveraging the anti-trust settlement to force Microsoft to be more open and fair.

Re:Does no one remember Stacker??? (2, Insightful)

teh_commodore (1099079) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603233)

With Google's wide array of various products/services, I seriously doubt this is going to turn them into victims.

Re:Does no one remember Stacker??? (3, Informative)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603265)

Why is everyone calling Google cry-babies? Does no one remember history?

You kids are probably too young to remember Stacker, but basically it was a way of compressing files to increase harddrive space by compressing on-the-fly. They were doing great until Microsoft decided to include a similar product in DOS, and then they were fucked. Victims of Microsoft's "Oh, sorry about including a feature that fucks up your business" mentality.


Obviously, you don't remember your history that well, either, because this case was much worse than you say here. Anti-trust wasn't even a factor in the Stacker case.

MS didn't include a product similar to Stacker in DOS. MS included Stacker itself: they actually copied Stac's code outright. Stac of course sued for copyright infringement et al, and MS finally lost the court case, but it was too late for Stac, which went under. The judgment probably got split up amongst the shareholders, but in the end the company died, and MS had succeeded in putting a perceived competitor out of business as they intended, though it came at a small (to MS) monetary cost.

Re:Does no one remember Stacker??? (2, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603325)

At the same time... just because a feature exists out there, doesnt mean microsoft should be barred from copying it. We wouldnt have GUI os's if that were the case.

Re:Does no one remember Stacker??? (0)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603597)

Wrong again....

If this was 1985, I might agree with you. But after MS became a monopoly on the desktop, no, they don't get to play by the same rules as everyone else. Antitrust law exists specifically to prevent companies from using their monopoly power to further hurt competition.

MS is (and has been for a while) a monopoly, and worse, has been convicted of abusing their monopoly power to stifle competition. Therefore, they deserve continuing punishment and restraint of their actions.

If we ever get to the point where they have less than 50% marketshare, then they can go back to doing whatever they want (legally, and no longer hindered by antitrust law). But while they continue to enjoy 90% or more marketshare, no way.

Re:Does no one remember Stacker??? (4, Informative)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603573)

"MS didn't include a product similar to Stacker in DOS. MS included Stacker itself: they actually copied Stac's code outright"

Wow, that'd be pretty bold of Microsoft, if it were true. How do you know he is right? But of course! He said "Obviously, you don't remember your history that well, either"! He must be right. Let's mod him up!

Of course, actually Microsoft didn't include Stacker "itself", they licensed and included Vertisoft's DoubleDisk, a product competing with Stacker.

Stac of course sued for copyright infringement et al

No, they sued for *patent* infringement on the compression algorithm. I say, however: copyright infringement, patent infringement, it's all the same, who'd notice, right. Microsoft was ordered to remove DoubleDisk, and later on they created DriveSpace, which used different compression method.

I saw, bravo, about contributing to the Microsoft FUD some more. We ought to fight them using any means at all: they're EVIL, right.

Re:Does no one remember Stacker??? (5, Informative)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603615)

Obviously, you don't remember your history that well, either, because this case was much worse than you say here.

The irony...

MS didn't include a product similar to Stacker in DOS. MS included Stacker itself: they actually copied Stac's code outright. Stac of course sued for copyright infringement et al, and MS finally lost the court case, but it was too late for Stac, which went under. The judgment probably got split up amongst the shareholders, but in the end the company died, and MS had succeeded in putting a perceived competitor out of business as they intended, though it came at a small (to MS) monetary cost.

In actual fact, Microsoft v Stac [wikipedia.org] was a patent case and had zero to do with copyright. Software patents are bad, remember, so Stac *should* have lost the case.

Also, as I said elsewhere, what killed Stacker (along with the 3 or 4 other identical programs that were on the market at the time) was plummeting hard disk prices, massive disk growth and a fundamentally fragile-and-prone-to-catastrophic-data-loss application design. Unfortunately for Stac, their buggy whips were no longer a compelling product in the days of the horseless carriage.

Re:Does no one remember Stacker??? (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603575)

You kids are probably too young to remember Stacker, but basically it was a way of compressing files to increase harddrive space by compressing on-the-fly. They were doing great until Microsoft decided to include a similar product in DOS, and then they were fucked. Victims of Microsoft's "Oh, sorry about including a feature that fucks up your business" mentality.

Stac was killed by plummeting storage prices, incredibly fast drive size growth and fragile, easily-catastrophically-broken software. Exactly the same reasons that people stopped using MS-DOS's and DR-DOS's equivalents. Who in their right mind would roll the corruption dice with Stacker (or Double/DriveSpace or SuperStor) when disks were suddenly dirt cheap ?

I *do* remember Stacker. I bought it - cost significantly more than DOS itself from memory (although still cheaper than buying more hard disk space in about 1991). I've even got one of their 16-bit ISA "compression coprocessor" cards at home somewhere.

Re:Does no one remember Stacker??? (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603765)


Victims of Microsoft's "Oh, sorry about including a feature that fucks up your business" mentality.


What about Apple & Konfabulator?

crybaby? (2, Interesting)

dwater (72834) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603243)

Has this tagging thing been opened up again?
For a while there, the tags almost meant something.

Crybaby! (1)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603297)

Stop crying about the tags.

Re:crybaby? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19603451)

I'm pretty sure that the tagging system is one of those things that is currently in development. So, its usefulness will be hit or miss depending on the operational version. :P

See the post by Jamie in this journal [slashdot.org] .

This is an intentional AC karma whore.

Googles app is just crapware (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19603247)


I just treat googles toolbars/desktop search the same as any other crapware/adware/spyware when i find it on a customers machine and remove it, 99.9% of ordinary users have no idea it was installed except that their system runs like crap due to the hundreds of apps that insist on adding themselves to HKLM run/ startup
if they didnt bundle it in things like Adobe Acrobat (with the install boxes already ticked on the installer) and the like i would probably treat it differently but as they use the same tactics as many of the crapware suppliers they get treated like one after all you lie with dogs your gonna get fleas
iam still suprised commerical Spyware removers dont flag it, why anyone in their right mind let an advertising company install anything on their machine is beyond me

the crybaby tag (0, Redundant)

2helix (523755) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603259)

lol @ the crybaby tag....that's a riot.

Re:the crybaby tag (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603331)

yeah, for a while there, the tags actually were useful.

have they opened them up to abuse again?

Re:the crybaby tag (1)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603705)

No, it's just that high-karma tags tend to stick because the editors approve them.

Chevy vs ford (1)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603269)

Wish it was easy to take a chevy 350 motor and dump it into a ford pinto.

Maybe I should piss moan and whine until ford retrofits any new vehicle they make to allow whatever engine I want to put into it...

Better Headline... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19603387)

Google Actin' Like a Whiny Little Bitch

*sigh*, you guys always fall for the cheap tricks (0, Troll)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603461)

Microsoft pulls the same cheap trick every time they find themselves in this jam. To wit, the progression of the standard MS anti-antitrust gambit:

1 Competitors: "Hey, MS is violating black letter contractual obligations established by their last antitrust settlement."

2 Microsoft: "Fuck off, crybabies. We aren't a monopoly and if we are it's because you suck."

3 Competitors: "DOJ, are you hearing this?!"

4 DOJ: "MS, abide by the terms of your agreement. We're on your side and we'll try to find some way to help you out of this pickle, but you guys make it tough by being so blatant and intransigent."

5 Microsoft: "OK, we'll pretend that such-and-so self-selected half-ass measure is sooooo hard on us and bitch, bitch, bitch. Why don't you try being us for even ten seconds? Believe me, it's... not very good and all these legal bills would put you in the poor house. Seriously. Freedom to innovate, faggots!"

6 GOTO 1

Are the Do No Evil days dead and gone? (1)

grapeape (137008) | more than 7 years ago | (#19603655)

something in the news that Google is doing that is just plain stupid, ethically questionable or outright wrong. From the jacked up toolbar installs, recent privacy concerns, the bush league promotional attempts at EBay's conference, to whining about MS features that were part of the OS's plans since day one. How long will it take before the "Google are the good guy's" sentiment is going to wear thin? Surprise Google wants your desktop, they want your eyeballs, they want to pummel you with ads, they want to control your online experience, and they want to control your email and documents. Google may have started years ago with the best of intentions but as it went public it had to answer to shareholders which are for the most part greedy bastards by nature if they care about their money. I like Google, I even liked the toolbar until they kept bloating it with crap, bundled software and "customer experience" features but lately things have changed. In the long term, I think there is more to fear from Google than there is from Microsoft. Yep MS wants you to buy stuff, but Google wants to give it away in the hopes of getting so engrained that they control every aspect of your online life and when it gets to that point its already to late. The worst part is they seem to be willing to use any tactic available to get there.

I sincerely hope it's just the tinfoil hat in me that's talking but I do worry that one day Google will be synonymous with Tyrell or Skynet only this time it will be real.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?