Recommended Posts

OMG are you serious, microsoft was one of if not the first company to have an ancestrial form of desktop widgets so why should apple get away with that not to mention they stole the more recent idea from konfabulator. Furthermore MS has had search companion for many years desktop search is just quicker and more exposed with better indexing capabilities.

Err, you don't even know what changes or settings they're talking about.

What do you mean. In group policy you can change who handles your desktop searching but it requires you to provide the dll or something like that .So what other changes would they have to do besides making it easier to change?

What do you mean. In group policy you can change who handles your desktop searching but it requires you to provide the dll or something like that .So what other changes would they have to do besides making it easier to change?

Huh? There is nothing like that.

Wow, this is absolute horse*hit. Thank you DOJ for clobbering a perfectly good product because it was *too good* that Google couldn't "compete". Hobble the superior competitor because they're successful, way to improve the market for consumers.

Microsoft should build a fleet of spaceships, annex the moon to use as a base. And drop huge metal spikes onto stupid people from orbit.

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.

Okay- Apple controls the hardware and the software. I don't care what you think about market share. Microsoft has little moderate, but not absolute, influence on hardware, other than telling manufacturers that if they want Windows to run on their hardware, it has to be x86 or compatible, and they have to write drivers for it... and if you want our approval, then we have to test them. Microsoft allows that flexibility.

Now, you concede three main players- Microsoft, Apple and Linux (collectively)... but these are Operating System producers. Is Apple suing Microsoft for interoperability? Is Linux (as a whole) suing?

Nope.

Apple does things Apple's way.

Linux does things Linux's way.

Google just want's Microsoft to roll over and isn't giving Apple or Linux a second thought... yet.

If you ask me, Google's behavior is anti-competitive- force Windows users to be exposed to Google because "we think we're better".

I bought a laptop which had Google Desktop Search and Google Toolbar pre-installed. I uninstalled them both and was presented with a prompt on a webpage (why did I have to go to a webpage to uninstall software from my computer? Gator did that to another computer I was forced to remove software from.... what if I couldn't get on the 'net...?... I couldn't uninstall it.) When I was finally able to get online and complete the uninstall of the Google Toolbar and Desktop Search, I replied to their 'why did you decide to uninstall our software' box with something to the effect of "I don't like software being shoved down my throat. I have the choice to decide what software I want on my computer and I take offense to your tactic of negotiating with computer vendors to have your software pre-installed. I bought my computer because it has Windows installed and I like everything it does and how it does it. If I wanted your software installed, I would've appreciated the option to chose between Google and Microsoft, and all of the other solutions out there. Maybe, having been given that choice, I would've chose your software, but you have seen fit to negotiate my freedom of choice out of the equation. You're behavior is as anti-competive as Microsoft's, since I wasn't given the choice between Google and their software when I first booted the computer. I will never buy a computer from HP again, until I know that I will be given the choice when I turn it on."

It's one thing to complain about not having a choice and forcing the user to choose, but when the user doesn't get to choose and it goes straight to google, as was my case, that makes the accuser as bad as the accused.

G'night.

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

OSX isn't a monopoly. People F*** with MS because they have a monopoly on operating systems. Isn't it some crazy number like 90%? Because MS can easily crush software companies like a bug if they do something. (for example a blanket ban on anything Google, including the website)

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.

Apple and Linux don't have a monopoly since they're not installed on the vast majority of computers world wide. I don't think you could ever actually accuse Linux itself of being a monopoly, since its up to distributors to decide what packages to include. But it wouldn't surprise me if Linux allows you to change search already.

As for Apple.. well.. they don't need to, but I think they should to show that they're interested in being a good guy.

It's one thing to complain about not having a choice and forcing the user to choose, but when the user doesn't get to choose and it goes straight to google, as was my case, that makes the accuser as bad as the accused.

I agree, I hate vendors forcing a solution. But it's very likely any solution implemented will be a choice one. Hell I dont even see MS shipping a google engine as part of vista, but they will likely open it up so that Google can tap in and replace the Vista engine if downloaded seperatly.

I have a HP laptop and the first night I spent a few hours uninstalling their cr&%

Actually, since the built-in Vista version of the Windows Search gives one even less control over it than the free XP counterpart, I'd be more than happy to replace it with something better. For example, Vista's Window Search ALWAYS runs, even when you are trying to play games. Now, if you've ever tried to maintain a steady FPS for competitive play while something is accessing your hard drive, you know what I mean when I say, "WINDOWS SEARCH IS F**KING P*SSING ME OFF!!!"

And while creating batch files to stop and restart this service is somewhat helpful, understand that unless you DISABLE it permanently, Windows Search will automatically start itself up again a few minutes later...usually, right in the middle of a game.

So, if Microsoft would be kind enough to tell the service to actually PAUSE (the XP behavior) instead of just SLOWING DOWN (the current Vista behavior) when someone is say, playing a game, or running any full screen high CPU application, then I'd gladly keep it running on my Vista machine. But until Microsoft sees fit to return the functionality they REMOVED from the XP version, and/or decide to make their product more end user friendly, I'm one of the people who is looking forward to replacing Windows Never Stops Searching with ANYTHING ELSE.

/rant

Assuming that nothing really changes for those who don't want it to, I dont see the harm in letting other providors hook their own desktop search mechanisms "in between" the FS and all the places it's used in the UI.

That said, it'd also allow malicious software to do the same thing. =/

Actually, since the built-in Vista version of the Windows Search gives one even less control over it than the free XP counterpart, I'd be more than happy to replace it with something better. For example, Vista's Window Search ALWAYS runs, even when you are trying to play games. Now, if you've ever tried to maintain a steady FPS for competitive play while something is accessing your hard drive, you know what I mean when I say, "WINDOWS SEARCH IS F**KING P*SSING ME OFF!!!"

And while creating batch files to stop and restart this service is somewhat helpful, understand that unless you DISABLE it permanently, Windows Search will automatically start itself up again a few minutes later...usually, right in the middle of a game.

So, if Microsoft would be kind enough to tell the service to actually PAUSE (the XP behavior) instead of just SLOWING DOWN (the current Vista behavior) when someone is say, playing a game, or running any full screen high CPU application, then I'd gladly keep it running on my Vista machine. But until Microsoft sees fit to return the functionality they REMOVED from the XP version, and/or decide to make their product more end user friendly, I'm one of the people who is looking forward to replacing Windows Never Stops Searching with ANYTHING ELSE.

/rant

And this is the main reason why searching in XP was a waste of time and an utter joke. You couldn't find anything, Vista's search actually works.

*sigh* You already can change the search engine, so this can't be a good thing.

No, you can already change the WEB BROWSER'S preferred search engine. You can't change the DESKTOP SEARCH engine...yet. Which is what this post/article is actually about.

The *sigh* is returned to your side of the court. 8P

this is good news. i hope this means that 3rd party search tools will have the same level of integration as microsoft's offerings.

this is good for everybody who doesn't want to be stuck with microsoft's sloppy implementation of desktop search. sure google isn't the best but it will inspire others to make something much more usable.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
    • I think he means you haven't reviewed previous UFC games. Of course it doesn't matter... Every time you just report on something that involves the President even if just simply what happened you guys usually get accused of being anti-Trump. We live in fun times.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      agatameier earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!