Microsoft to alter Vista

By +wd40
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mentor

+wd40 Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted (edited)
Microsoft Corp. (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) has agreed to modify its new Vista operating system in response to complaints that its desktop search function puts Google Inc. (GOOG.O: Quote, Profile, Research) and other potential competitors at a disadvantage, a source familiar with the case told Reuters on Tuesday.

The U.S. Justice Department and Microsoft are expected to provide details of the proposed changes in a joint report filed in federal court later on Tuesday, the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The source provided no details on what changes Microsoft had agreed to make.

A spokesman for Microsoft had no immediate comment.

Source

Source 2

Edited by wd40
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/568360-microsoft-to-alter-vista/
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Smigit

Posted
Posted
as much as i not a fan of vista, this is stupid. they put features that people want (especially when they see things in other OS's) and when they do it, they are forced to make them crappier... make sense anyone?

Why does it have to be made crappier? All they need to do is release some API's and have a menu where you can choose what engine runs, as you would with a web browser. If people want Vistas then you'd see no difference but instead you could use googles. If dont right it should be transparent.

They could stuff it up, but it can be made to work too.

Proficient

Pierce28

Posted
Posted (edited)

They better not change Vista to make it worst on purpose, just because google is crying. For those who bought Vista, we paid at the very least $100. We deserve the quality that we paid for. If google wins this, I will never use them again, and I will be waiting for my $250 check in the mail.

Why in the hell would free software even expect to compete with expensive software?

Grand Master

neufuse Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Exactly! This is nothing but pure bs! :(

Someone is gona come in here and scream "antitrust thats why!"... which I think is BS also... if one company is forced to do it one way, and then another company comes and does it the way the one that was forced to orignally they should be required to follow the same ruleing...

Mentor

tao muon

Posted
Posted (edited)

I guess I should add that

IF,

in Google's Vista Desktop Search, the service agreement included the phrases...

(or something similar but posessing the EXACT same meaning):

"... desktop searches performed by the Google Vista Desktop Search Engine will only include Internet search results for the query string entered if you explicitly allow it by checking the box below the text box you have entered the query string in to"

and

"... absolutely none of your desktop search queries will be sent to Google for any reason without your explicit permission...."

and

"... permission to search google.com and return the results of a query are granted on a query-by-query basis, meaning that allowing the Internet query to occur one time does not give Google Vista Desktop Search permission to query the Internet every time you perform a desktop search...."

and

"... you have the option to change from Google Vista Desktop Search back to the system default search engine, or any other desktop search engine, without the requirement of justifying it to or by forcing logging in to Google's servers...."

and

"... Google Vista Desktop Search will neither record nor archive any history of any search nor will it retain any information relevant to the search such as the query string, and personally identifiable information such as user-name, computer name, ISP or I.P. address of the computer performing the query nor shall any results returned on said queries be retained on any of Google's servers for any length of time. Each search is a one-time event and will not be traceable to the originating computer or user. We belive in anonymity on the Internet and we appreciate your desire to search the web anonymously and respect your rights to do so. To this end, we will offer you this service without accountability on your part. We realize that we are providing this service for free and if we should present or offer unto you information which has been deemed illegal in your area, it is our fault for not restricting information appropriately and will assume any consequence from our action of offering that information to you and assume full liability for our actions...."

I might consider it allowable.

Edited by tao muon
Veteran

betasp

Posted
Posted
Someone is gona come in here and scream "antitrust thats why!"... which I think is BS also... if one company is forced to do it one way, and then another company comes and does it the way the one that was forced to orignally they should be required to follow the same ruleing...

http://www.albion.com/microsoft/

Mentor

tao muon

Posted
Posted (edited)
This means they should force it on OSX also...why do people always F*** w/ MS?

I agree.

For whatever extent you feel Microsoft has a monopoly on the personal computer market, Apple and Linux have a monopoly on their respective portions.

So, if one has to do it, all have to do it. Otherwise it's not fair. It's affirmative action in cyberspace.

Grand Master

Smigit

Posted
Posted
I agree.

For whatever extent you feel Microsoft has a monopoly on the personal computer market, Apple and Linux have a monopoly on their respective portions.

So, if one has to do it, all have to do it. Otherwise it's not fair. It's affirmative action in cyberspace.

While I agree with what your saying that if one company has to do it so should all, I do strongly disagree with your assertion that both Apple and Linux are monopolies, especially Linux. I mean monopolies of what? Linux in particullar uses the same hardware platform* as Windows so it certainly cannot be considered a monopoly. Even in networking and internet related applications Windows Server still ranks quite high in usage (I've read some claiming above Linux even but that seems to vary). Linux also isnt one company, its many many distros by many companies and all are free to fork the code if they want.

* I know Apple does too more or less.

I certainly wouldnt call Linux a monopoly. Hell I wouldnt even call MS a monopoly in todays landscape although if your going to use raw market percentage and ignore the fact the other 2 do have strong support then I guess you can still call it as such. I'll gratiously disagree and say there 3 main players, but thats my oppinion.

Grand Master

Simon Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted (edited)

What all of you are missing about OS X is that before Spotlight, there were no "instant search" applications AFAIK, and even now I think Google is the only one, and I think it's a beta. On Windows, there's a lot of search options, and there were before Vista came out.

And if they're talking about web search options ("desktop search" is a very vague term, it could mean search the desktop, or search on your desktop), then Apple already has done so with Sherlock. So... they don't have a problem.

Grand Master

BajiRav

Posted
Posted (edited)

If this update comes in, I am staying with Vista RTM :angry: Google SCREW YOU. DUMB ****ERS. DIE GOOGLE DIE.

.

.

.

calms down :p

What all of you are missing about OS X is that before Spotlight, there were no "instant search" applications AFAIK, and even now I think Google is the only one, and I think it's a beta. On Windows, there's a lot of search options, and there were before Vista came out.

Windows Desktop Search shipped 6 months before Spotlight shipped. And Longhorn search was shown at least 2 years before Apple said anything about it.

Grand Master

Simon Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted (edited)
Windows Desktop Search shipped 6 months before Spotlight shipped. And Longhorn search was shown at least 2 years before Apple said anything about it.

I meant there weren't any instant desktop search applications for OS X. I know Microsoft actually had the idea first and Apple just managed to release it earlier.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.