Microsoft to alter Vista

[Victor Hugo]

i tell you what, i thought i'd never say it but if the next version of windows is any worse, i'm moving to mac. it's all very well having embedded parts of the operating system which cannot be changed, but the search in vista is so badly implemented, like the previews load up the entire application and leave it lingering in memory etc, copernic has a much neater solution of a cut down preview (for example).

[b0m8er]

what a stupid idea! why am i supposed to choose my search provider in vista! i have buil in search, and it works fine! I don't want some third party BS on my system when ms' product does it!

[jmc777]

this is good for everybody who doesn't want to be stuck with microsoft's sloppy implementation of desktop search.

In what way do you feel that it's "sloppy"?

[ServerMechanic]

Idiotic...

Yet another reason for me to switch to a Mac in 2 months.

[Victor Hugo]

In what way do you feel that it's "sloppy"?

resource usage during indexing, why there needs to be so many processes involved in indexing is beyond me - just smells like a poor design. the number of built in filters for non-ms file formats is poor, indexing of email is poor - needs to have outlook open, no built in support for 3rd party email clients/browser and office suites, the preview of search results requires (in many cases) to have the application installed as the preview is rendered by the application itself (and subsequently the time taken to render the preview is high and sometimes the application used to render it lingers in memory), no fine controls over indexing, such as the amount of document to index - this is set as an arbitrary amount by MS and cannot be altered to a larger size.

[fishrman]

They probably caved in light of the risk of having to suffer from yet another anti-trust lawsuit...if Google did get them proven guilty, then they would probably find a way to twist it and call it a violatation of the prior anti-trust ruling in some way or another, and consequently, spell some deep **** for Microsoft. And, as much as I'd like to think they can stand up and maintain the status quo with all their money, it'd probably be a hell of a lot more trouble than they need.

My two cents, anyways.

[Xero]

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

Google is on Apples board of directors. Thats why.

[excalpius]

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.

Um, I guess you mean the default file search that comes with the base XP install? Note that the same MS desktop search you love in vista is available as a free download on the MS site for XP. So you can have it for both. I agree with you that once you use desktop search, you'll never go back.

, indexing of email is poor - needs to have outlook open

Just an FYI that this appears to be no longer the case. As far as I can tell, now you can open outlook once and then the indexer in the Vista version will add it to your list of search places, and then indexes it (and archive.pst if you have it open that one time). I tested it with a million+ email file and it seems to have gotten everything, even with Outlook closed now.

[amrinders87]

Oh well, its not like I am going to install Google Desktop Search. IMO, Vista's built in is way better.

[Victor Hugo]

Um, I guess you mean the default file search that comes with the base XP install? Note that the same MS desktop search you love in vista is available as a free download on the MS site for XP. So you can have it for both. I agree with you that once you use desktop search, you'll never go back.

Just an FYI that this appears to be no longer the case. As far as I can tell, now you can open outlook once and then the indexer in the Vista version will add it to your list of search places, and then indexes it (and archive.pst if you have it open that one time). I tested it with a million+ email file and it seems to have gotten everything, even with Outlook closed now.

i think it only works like that if you have outlook 2007, not 2003 (or older)

[metallithrax]

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)

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.

If the Wiki definition of Monopoly is correct, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly.

[Andareed]

If the Wiki definition of Monopoly is correct, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly.

The US courts concluded in 2000 that Microsoft had a monopoly.

[Linkinfamous]

The US courts concluded in 2000 that Microsoft had a monopoly.

Decisions like that shouldn't last for 7 years. A lot can change.

[Cloud Geek]

reminds me of real player lol real wanted that garbage in windows

[excalpius]

Decisions like that shouldn't last for 7 years. A lot can change.

Um it took like 7 years to be adjudicated, covering more than 7 years of prior criminal activity, and NOTHING in the marketplace has changed. In fact, if anything Microsoft has a worse monopoly, and is wielding it heavy-handedly, re: the ludicrous pricing model, and absurdly arbitrary segmentation of Vista. :)

[Evolution]

Microsoft isn't exactly a monopoly... when you have Linux... it may have the majority, but it's not a monopoly.

[CaKeY]

Microsoft isn't exactly a monopoly... when you have Linux... it may have the majority, but it's not a monopoly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

[Digitalx]

windows vs linux isn't a monopoly it's more a question of simplicity vs complexity. Apple and their OS have no real point in the same arguement. despite them changing to x86/x64 hardware they chopped there legs off since day one only allowing their OS on only their hardware, maybe if things change like with safari but i doubt it.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

resource usage during indexing,

It's far less than competing indexing engines (ie. Google who doesn't even back-off on user activity, CPU, or use background I/O).

why there needs to be so many processes involved in indexing is beyond me - just smells like a poor design.

Huh? I assume you're referring to the process isolation between the indexer, protocol host, and filter host. How does that "smell of poor design?" It's done that way for very, very good reasons. Doing it all in one or two processes would be a poor design.

SearchIndexer.exe runs as a system service. It's responsible for servicing queries and maintaining the index, and also contains the crawler.

SearchProtocolHost.exe is a sandboxed process that hosts the protocol handler for crawling a specific store (like the filesystem, or Outlook). It needs to be a seperate process because it sometimes needs to run with different credentials. For example, the SearchIndexer process, running under the SYSTEM account, cannot access your Outlook e-mail. So an instance of SearchProtocolHost runs in the context of the user in order to index that content.

It's also seperate because it hosts third-party code (like the Thunderbird protocol handler) which may not be trusted or reliable. So if that third-party code crashes, just the protocol host crashes - not the whole indexer. So the risk of index corruption is reduced, and queries can always be serviced.

SearchFilterHost.exe hosts the actual IFilters. This process is spawned by the ProtocolHost and is extremely tightly locked down. For example, it cannot even read the filesystem. It runs in Low IL (just like Protected Mode IE). Why is this important? Well think back to the WMF file vulnerability a year or so ago. Google Desktop Search would trigger the vulnerability whenever it indexed one of those such files. If you received it as an e-mail attachment, you would have a 0-click attack because they don't sandbox the indexing process. This wasn't a problem for WDS users because we have always isolated filtering to a seperate locked-down process.

Do you still think there are too many processes?

the number of built in filters for non-ms file formats is poor

Any examples? There are hundreds of supported file formats out-of-the-box, and many add-ins for obscure formats as well since WDS uses the same IFilter interface as the old Indexing Service and SharePoint.

indexing of email is poor - needs to have outlook open

Most search tools require this, as (like WDS) they don't actually index PST or OST files. They index via MAPI, which requires that Outlook be running. If it weren't running, you wouldn't be able to index in non-cached mode, and how would you get the user's credentials to access their mail accounts or PSTs?

no built in support for 3rd party email clients/browser and office suites

There's no built-in support for any of those, except that any e-mail client which uses MAPI (such as Outlook) is supported. Or mail clients that write their messages to the disk like Windows Mail / WLM. If there were built-in support for one client, other companies would complain that they weren't included. Fortunately, there are add-ins to support Thunderbird, Lotus, etc.

the preview of search results requires (in many cases) to have the application installed as the preview is rendered by the application itself (and subsequently the time taken to render the preview is high and sometimes the application used to render it lingers in memory)

That's completely untrue. The application is never used to generate the previews in Windows Vista. The previewers are implementations of IPreviewHandler and are hosted in the sandboxed prevhost.exe process. They are expected to be provided by the owner of the file format (ie. Adobe).

no fine controls over indexing, such as the amount of document to index - this is set as an arbitrary amount by MS and cannot be altered to a larger size.

What do you mean? All of the textual content of the document is indexed (there are of course theoretical limits, but you're never going to hit them).

[Ayepecks]

Microsoft was determined to be a monopoly because of all the integration and bundling it did with its operating system. It was the correct decision, but that doesn't mean Apple isn't a monopoly as well. Apple is just as much as a monopoly if you look at the Microsoft case and you still consider Microsoft a monopoly.

The largest complaint levied against Microsoft was that many of its products were being unfairly bundled into Windows, putting its competitors at a disadvantage. It was primarily the browser issue, with Internet Explorer being integrated seamlessly into Windows Explorer. This is no longer the case as Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer are completely separate.

Microsoft has appeased the court's ruling by breaking up how it does business. I don't think it's fair to call them a monopoly anymore. If it is, then how can the same not be said about Apple? Having Safari, iTunes and all the other iApps installed? How is that not a monopoly if Microsoft having its software preinstalled is a monopoly? Microsoft's products can now all be uninstalled if you don't wish to use them with Windows anymore. That used to be impossible.

Being the overwhelming leader in a field DOES NOT make you a monopoly (legally), so some of you really need to stop implying as much. When you use unfair business practices to create a stranglehold on an industry, that's another matter entirely. Yes, being a major leader in a field by an outstanding amount contributes to being a monopoly, but it is not the sole prerequisite.