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

    • Can you read? I've said I'm willing to pay more for a notchless (no notch) 3:2 screen.
    • Not even an OLED display on the laptops. Also it seems that the laptop design isn't the same as the Surface Ultra model. Looks like bargain bin at high prices.
    • make your own notch - it's not that hard
    • VirtualBox 7.2.10 by Razvan Serea VirtualBox is a powerful x86 and AMD64/Intel64 virtualization product for enterprise as well as home use. Targeted at server, desktop and embedded use, it is now the only professional-quality virtualization solution that is also Open Source Software. Presently, VirtualBox runs on Windows, Linux, macOS, and Solaris hosts and supports a large number of guest operating systems including but not limited to Windows (NT 4.0, 2000, XP, Server 2003, Vista, 7, 8, Windows 10 and Windows 11), DOS/Windows 3.x, Linux (2.4, 2.6, 3.x, 4.x, 5.x and 6.x), Solaris and OpenSolaris, OS/2, OpenBSD, NetBSD and FreeBSD. Some of the features of VirtualBox are: Modularity. VirtualBox has an extremely modular design with well-defined internal programming interfaces and a client/server design. This makes it easy to control it from several interfaces at once: for example, you can start a virtual machine in a typical virtual machine GUI and then control that machine from the command line, or possibly remotely. VirtualBox also comes with a full Software Development Kit: even though it is Open Source Software, you don't have to hack the source to write a new interface for VirtualBox. Virtual machine descriptions in XML. The configuration settings of virtual machines are stored entirely in XML and are independent of the local machines. Virtual machine definitions can therefore easily be ported to other computers. VirtualBox 7.2.10 changelog: VMM: Fixed issue when CentOS 10 VM was not booting due to the message "Fatal glibc error: CPU does not support x86-64-v3" (​github:gh-642) Devices/EFI: Fixed booting issue when ARM VM had less than 1024 MiB of RAM assigned (​github:gh-679) USB: Fixed issue when it was not possible to attach USB device to headless VM on Apple Silicon/macOS 26.4.1 (​github:gh-631) Storage: Fixed issue when VIRTIO-SCSI device was not recognized as SSD device by guest system (​github:gh-634) Network: Fixed issue in E1000 emulation code which triggered debug log creation (​github:gh-645) Network: Fixed issue in E1000 emulation code which prevented OS/2 guest from booting (​github:gh-683) Linux Host: Fixed issue when VMs could not be started due to kernel oops (​github:gh-639) Linux Host and Guest: Fixed issue when kernel modules were failing to build with openSUSE 16.0 kernel Linux Host and Guest: Added initial support for kernel 7.1 Linux Host and Guest: Added extra fixes for RHEL 9.8 kernel (​github:gh-676) Linux Host and Guest: Added possibility to build source code using NASM instead of YASM as the assembler (​github:gh-520) Linux Guest Additions: Added initial support for Extended Data Control Protocol for clipboard sharing with Plasma on Wayland guests (​github:gh-33) Linux Guest Additions: Added extra fixes for preventing vboxvideo kernel module build with kernel version 7.0 and newer (​github:gh-655) OS/2 Guest Additions: Fixed issue when Shared Folders automount and clipboard sharing stopped working (​github:gh-551) Download: VirtualBox 7.2.10 | 170.0 MB (Open Source) Download: VirtualBox 7.2.10 Extension Pack | 19.1 MB View: VirtualBox Home Page | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • OK, now ask yourself how are they going to enforce that law? By requiring every single adult to prove their age and provide their legal identity documents to an UNREGULATED 3rd party company that already has a long track record of multiple data breaches. Not to mention, parliament have voted AGAINST this ban, twice, and Starmer is going ahead anyway. So, where's the democracy here, because that looks like dictatorship to me. The solution here is parental responsibility, not government control. Run some public service announcements on TV and UK social media teaching parents how to setup parental controls. That's already been proven to actually work. But the, this is not and has NEVER been about keeping kids safe. It's about control and monitoring. Watching what you're doing online and controlling what you can see and what you can say.
  • Recent Achievements

    • 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
    • First Post
      Dys Topia earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      525
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      180
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      105
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      90
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!