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

    • This sounds like underneath the nice marketing spin, either someone at Adobe got tired of their lazy devs and asked Microsoft to help them sort at least some of Adobe's ancestral spaghetti code to make it go faster, or Microsoft wanted Adobe's crap to run better on Windows to make it look better when compared to Apple, so they offered to intervene. Either way, GOOD.
    • My favorite file manager for Windows 11 finally gets a long-requested feature by Taras Buria Files is among the best File Explorer alternatives for Windows 10 and 11. This free app is packed with all sorts of features and conveniences, but there is one crucial feature that is still missing—Tree View. Fortunately, the latest update in the Preview channel finally delivers it. With version 4.1.4, which is now available for download in the Preview channel, developers implemented Tree View, a new mode that displays folders in an expandable hierarchy. Windows 11's stock File Explorer always had this feature, but it was nowhere to be found in Files until now. Starting with the latest preview update, you can expand each drive and its nested folders without leaving the current location and then open the folder you need in the main view. To try Tree View in Files, update the app to the latest preview version, then click the small arrow next to a drive to expand its content. The developers say they are rolling out Tree View in Preview first to gather feedback from users and improve the feature before bringing it to all in the stable channel. In addition to Tree View, Files 4.1.14 improves the Windows Fonts folder. You can now preview each font directly in Files with no need to open the built-in font viewer. For now, these two features are only available in the Preview channel. For those using the stable release, developers recently released version 4.1.3, with improvements for the built-in tag system, on-demand folder size calculation, and plenty of various fixes. You can check out the full release notes here. You can download Files from the Microsoft Store (paid version) or its official website (free).
    • Who is paying for this 30x scale-up? Its sounds expensive.
    • Millions of users to benefit from Windows 11's new performance boost on Adobe Photoshop by Sayan Sen Despite the advent of AI-generated imagery, Adobe's Photoshop remains one of the most popular tools on this planet. Adobe does not have a publicly reported total user count but it's probably not wrong to assume there are millions. As of 2025, Adobe Creative Cloud has had approximately 41 million paid subscribers, many of whom likely use Photoshop. In addition, more than 166,000 companies worldwide are apparently also using the app. These figures are according to a very recent report by SQ Magazine. Out of them, it is fair to assume that many are probably running Windows. As such, there is good news for these users as Microsoft has announced Photoshop is getting a big 20% performance boost on x86-64 (AMD64) systems and a 13% bump-up on Arm devices. This is definitely great news for them as many have complained about the slow performance and general sluggishness of Photoshop on Windows 11 ever since the advent of the latter back in 2021. If you are wondering how Microsoft managed to do this, the answer lies in a combination of compiler-level optimizations and a technology called Sample Profile Guided Optimization (SPGO). According to Microsoft, Adobe worked closely with the company’s Visual C++ team and adopted the latest MSVC toolchain enhancements together with SPGO to squeeze more performance out of Photoshop’s CPU-bound workloads. Unlike traditional Profile Guided Optimization (PGO), which requires developers to create special instrumented builds and run lengthy training workloads, SPGO gathers performance data directly from optimized release binaries. This means Adobe could collect real-world usage information which gives a major advantage to this technique, as companies could leverage data collected from actual customer workloads rather than only relying on synthetic benchmark runs. In theory, this should allow optimizations to better reflect how users interact with software in the real world. Thanks to this, there are improvements to code layout, function inlining, hot-and-cold code separation, and other low-level tweaks that help processors execute instructions more efficiently. Essentially the compiler is better able to identify “hot” code paths, those which are most frequently executed, and optimize them accordingly.
    • "The 2TB Samsung 990 PRO NVMe SSD hits lowest price in over three months¨ I'd prefer to see the lowest price in over a year
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      Jocimo earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      suprememobiles48 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      Prasann earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Prasann earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      521
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      174
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      90
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      81
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!