Google says Vista search changes not enough!

[markwolfe Veteran]

As much as I hate quoting myself, but here goes. Just to explain that is what I meant with the insignificant marketshare.

If you think this is all about making Microsoft comply with the DoJ, then you are deluded. Lawyer and legal encounters cost money, and therefore are never made without something to gain. The Antitrust ruling may have been used as a vehicle to take action, but to think it was the reason action was taken at all is naive.

No, I never said that this incident is all about making Microsoft comply with the DoJ. The motives of corporations is always money.

My post was a reply to the question as to why Microsoft, and not Apple. And it is simply because Microsoft has a legal decree over their heads that can be used to try to make them dance like a marionette. Apple does not, so this process would not be as easy on Apple, as there would need to be a whole legal battle to prove Apple is also a monopoly, and then use a similar consent decree on Apple.

Making it sound like my post was on anything other than an explanation on the difference between Microsoft's legal position and Apple's legal position is disingenuous.

[Punio4]

It's about time for a class-action counter-suit against Google for not allowing other search engines' results to be returned on google.com.

It's completely unfair that I cannot get live or yahoo results on google's page. That is noncompetitive behavior.

LOL! Best reply in this thread :)

[XerXis]

Despite the mis-informed opinions of people who didn't even read the summary in the first post, this isn't because "Apple is insignificant in marketshare". The Google request is aimed directly at compliance with the US DoJ Concent Decree which is a result of a legal process. Apple has no such Consent Decree, as they weren't the subject of an anti-trust trial. That's all.

Doesn't change the fact that it's unfair apple is allowed things microsoft isn't :). Google should either go after both or stfu. You know that, everybody with a logic mind knows that. The fact of the matter is, google is afraid that microsoft is going to turn that little search box into an online search, which would seriously hurt google's dominance in the market.

[betasp]

Doesn't change the fact that it's unfair apple is allowed things microsoft isn't :). Google should either go after both or stfu. You know that, everybody with a logic mind knows that. The fact of the matter is, google is afraid that microsoft is going to turn that little search box into an online search, which would seriously hurt google's dominance in the market.

Unfair has nothing to do with it. The courts have ruled that MS's unfair business practices is what drove it into the monopoly it is today. You are right, Google is afraid of MS turning the search box into an internet search which would be an abuse of their monopoly.

[tao muon]

Google is afraid of MS turning the search box into an internet search which would be an abuse of their monopoly.

It already can.

Type something in and look above it: A little link that says "Search the Internet"

[HawkMan]

Then allow search engines to link that link to their search engine y statign a default search engine in the OS.

in fact, if you type somethign in the search box and hit "search the internet" with google set as the default search engine in IE. does it use live or google then ?

either way, the desktop search itsel as as has been stated earlier int his thread, not a separate program for the OS like a media player or mail read or browser or whatever, it is an integral part of the OS. for other companies to demand to be able to rpelace key OS components with other unknown untested and probably unsecur components isn't only illogical but stupid as well.

[Chode]

For you Google.

You know what, I have to echo above posts about live.com been a decent replacement. In fact, these days the majority of my searching is on either wikipedia or youtube, and live is already the search engine in my IE. I might as well make it my search in Opera.

Bye bye Google.

[jmc777]

Then allow search engines to link that link to their search engine y statign a default search engine in the OS.

in fact, if you type somethign in the search box and hit "search the internet" with google set as the default search engine in IE. does it use live or google then ?

It uses whatever you have set as the default in your browser.

[Allan]

www.DogPile.com searches ALL the major search engin's ...

I'll use www.Live.com at work for now, and at home I have http://start.visitallan.biz ...

[theyarecomingforyou]

I support Google here. It is Microsoft's responsibility to create and document APIs to aspects of the OS, particularly ones so important as desktop search - this is because Microsoft is a monopoly and it has to be accountable. When you are talking about an OS run on 90%+ of computers (Windows, not Vista - though obviously Vista will absorb most of those users over time) these changes can have a huge impact upon the economy and upon competing businesses. Microsoft has already been tackled by the DOJ and EU for unfair business practices so it is even MORE important they be accountable with new additions. The desktop search is clearly a move to muscle out Google - I have no problem with that but they must allow Google to compete fairly and they haven't done that.

When you are talking about things that affect hundreds of millions of people there is no room for "it's Microsoft's software - they can do what they want with it!" style attitudes. You don't have to like Google but you should respect their right and desire to compete and earn their place. I believe the same should happen with Apple and their desktop search, though obviously they're not a monopoly and not required by law to do so.

[HawkMan]

The desktop search isn't really an attempt to muscle out google as such. desktop search itself is somethign that's a key part of the OS, and not something that should or can be lightly replaced. it's MS' responsibility to keep the OS safe secure and operating properly and fast. if they allow others to replace key OS components like the search then they can no longer guarantee any of this, but they will still be the ones to get the blame when the **** hits the fan.

And as jmc777 confirmed here, the parts of the desktop search that links to the internet, will use the default search engine from your browser. So google can't claim they're loosing marketshare from that.

Would you even imagione Apple who prides themselves on having everythign in the OS uniform and workgin perfectly with each other to allow anyone to replace spotlight ? hardly.

[Digitalx]

lol they can @#%$ off and make their own OS if it isn't enough!.

[theyarecomingforyou]

desktop search itself is somethign that's a key part of the OS, and not something that should or can be lightly replaced. it's MS' responsibility to keep the OS safe secure and operating properly and fast. if they allow others to replace key OS components like the search then they can no longer guarantee any of this

Much like Internet Explorer was an integral part of the OS? Give me a break. Desktop search was built onto the codebase of XP / Server 2003 - there is no reason why it shouldn't be able to be swapped out with minimal effort. The point is Microsoft has been useless at competing with Google on a level playing field and so has leveraged its huge influence as an OS developer to attack Google's market share. Obviously the desktop search is a good feature and benefits the user and it should of course default to Microsoft's own service but Microsoft should (and, judging by the previous responses by the EU, is legally required to) make it open to third party products.

You can't just have Microsoft destroying the market for other products - it's not good for the consumer, hence why there are so many laws and restrictions relating to anti-competitive behaviour. It would be great if Vista had built in anti-virus technology as well but do you think it would be acceptable to block third-parties from leveraging that feature? Of course not, even if Microsoft's touted the security card.

[Linkinfamous]

The desktop search is clearly a move to muscle out Google - I have no problem with that but they must allow Google to compete fairly and they haven't done that.

How? Windows Desktop Search came out at the same time as Google's desktop search. It was only logical (read: freaking obvious) that the next iteration of Windows would have such an important file finding feature integrated.

[argonite]

It's all nice and dandy when you're changing part of the Windows shell to comply with a legal order. But you have to remember that Microsoft is responsible for making this work. As some of you have noticed, most of Vista's problems are actually due to 3rd party drivers, but are blamed on Vista ("oh, yeah, I know it's the other guys, but I just want it to work!!!"). If Google screws up their implementation, it will likely fall back on MS and make more people angry that "Google just doesn't work! it's vista's fault!", and Google will again blame MS for not opening up enough.

Remember, too, that the more you open up your OS, the more vectors you have for attack, more support costs, more development time, and more chance for people to write crappy implementations that compromise the system more than if you just left it as it is.

Sucks to be a monopoly.

[Boeing 787]

Stop saying they innovate, vista search is pretty lame:

1. I can't index all my filenames in a single night, it takes days and is rather slow.

2. Filename and content search should be two different things. Most people just need to find a file on a 500 gig hdd.

3. I can't pause or stop the indexing until another time.

4. I can't schedule a indexing when I want it to occur like when I'm sleeping.

5. I can't index only certain groups like pictures or documents if that is all I wanted.

I could go on and on but I think you guys get the picture that Vista Desktop Search is far from the best it could be.

PS: I just used Avafind to index every file on my hard drive and it took minutes not hours or days.

[theyarecomingforyou]

It's all nice and dandy when you're changing part of the Windows shell to comply with a legal order. But you have to remember that Microsoft is responsible for making this work. As some of you have noticed, most of Vista's problems are actually due to 3rd party drivers, but are blamed on Vista ("oh, yeah, I know it's the other guys, but I just want it to work!!!"). If Google screws up their implementation, it will likely fall back on MS and make more people angry that "Google just doesn't work! it's vista's fault!", and Google will again blame MS for not opening up enough.

Yes, but it's Microsoft's responsibility to design the APIs so as to not affect system performance / reliability. If Google screws up its implementation then Vista should recognise that and either prevent it or inform the user. It doesn't really matter how it's does, just that it is. Microsoft is an effective monopoly and has to stand up to much close scrutiny. Slapping in desktop search with no thought to the competition is just wreckless - it's not an omission but a deliberate attempt to gain market share unfairly.

[kheldorin]

Stop saying they innovate, vista search is pretty lame:

1. I can't index all my filenames in a single night, it takes days and is rather slow.

2. Filename and content search should be two different things. Most people just need to find a file on a 500 gig hdd.

3. I can't pause or stop the indexing until another time.

4. I can't schedule a indexing when I want it to occur like when I'm sleeping.

5. I can't index only certain groups like pictures or documents if that is all I wanted.

I could go on and on but I think you guys get the picture that Vista Desktop Search is far from the best it could be.

PS: I just used Avafind to index every file on my hard drive and it took minutes not hours or days.

I rebuild the index for my PC and it took minutes, instead of 'days'. And this is when I am actively using my computer. If I had not, it would have gone much faster.

Have you actually explored the Indexing Options? All of the options are there except for scheduling which can be done via the Task Scheduler. They probably felt that scheduling is unnecessary since the indexing would cede resources when it needs to since it has background priority. Avafind is alot more intrusive in that respect.

[Express]

Google, Real, Symantec all using the legal system to promote their crap product.

[tao muon]

Let's address these one-by-one:

Stop saying they innovate, vista search is pretty lame:

Nice, informed comment. Google started as a company in 1998 (Read here.) MS-DOS had the ability to search text within a document with the 'find' command and search the file structure for particularly named file using 'dir' since MS-DOS came about.

1. I can't index all my filenames in a single night, it takes days and is rather slow.

You give no indication of how many files you have and of what type they are (text files, word documents, excel spreadsheets, emails, etc.) so that claim is irrelevant.

2. Filename and content search should be two different things. Most people just need to find a file on a 500 gig hdd.

They are different. You can open a search window and query for files whose name contains "blah" or search for files whose contents include "blah" or you can do both simultaneously.

3. I can't pause or stop the indexing until another time.

The process runs at a low priority and as such does not block any other threads from running or requesting up to 100% of the processor. Also, you CAN pause it if you go into the services management console.

4. I can't schedule a indexing when I want it to occur like when I'm sleeping.

Read my above comment. It is a low priority thread.

5. I can't index only certain groups like pictures or documents if that is all I wanted.

Apparently, you don't know what you're talking about. Go to the Control Panel | Indexing Options and you can choose which locations to index as well as, when you click the 'Advanced' button then the 'File Types' tab, choose which types of files to index as well as whether or not to index the properties and / or contents of the file.

I could go on and on but I think you guys get the picture that Vista Desktop Search is far from the best it could be.

Thank you for stopping when you did. There's only so far one's foot can go into one's mouth.

[theyarecomingforyou]

The process runs at a low priority and as such does not block any other threads from running or requesting up to 100% of the processor.

That may be true in theory but in practice I often find the indexing affecting system performance, spiking up towards 100%. I find it does have an impact upon performance.

[tao muon]

That may be true in theory but in practice I often find the indexing affecting system performance, spiking up towards 100%. I find it does have an impact upon performance.

I'll be honest and say I've seen the indexer max the processor too. But, when I move the mouse or press a key, the process releases the CPU and memory.

[libertas83]

Much like Internet Explorer was an integral part of the OS? Give me a break. Desktop search was built onto the codebase of XP / Server 2003 - there is no reason why it shouldn't be able to be swapped out with minimal effort.

Desktop Search in XP is not 100% the same as in Vista. There are three key parts to Desktop Search: the indexer, search bar, and the results.

First, the indexer has been built into XP from 2001 but was disabled because it was a huge peformance nightmare. Windows Desktop search initially brought in a new indexer that was much improved and then in version 3.0 they ported the Vista indexer to XP. When they did this, they actually replaced the built-in indexer. In other words, they took advantage of what was already in the OS.

Second, the search bar and results are the primary reason Google is truly upset. In XP, we now use the Vista indexer, but still have horrible search bar that sits on the taskbar. In Vista, they integrated it into the start menu and made it a primary function of how the start menu operates. Meaning it is not just search your desktop!!! Then, Microsoft integrated into Windows Explorer as a primary function of how you would navigate to your files and folders.

This is not simply search to find documents, this is about interacting with your file system which is a core function of an OS. Anybody can create better programs to compete. Should File Commander, or whatever other Explorer replacements sue MS because no one is interested! Should Stardock sue MS because everyone uses the start menu instead of objectdock.

----How to Compete in Desktop Search--------

1.) Build your own indexing component.]

2.) Build Windows Explorer replacement

3.) Build integrated results in Windows Explorer replacement

4.) Build Start Menu replacement

The game has changed. The nature of business is to innovate and adapt or die!!!!!

[tao muon]

<snip>

Should Stardock sue MS because everyone uses the start menu instead of objectdock.

----How to Compete in Desktop Search--------

1.) Build your own indexing component.]

2.) Build Windows Explorer replacement

3.) Build integrated results in Windows Explorer replacement

4.) Build Start Menu replacement

The game has changed. The nature of business is to innovate and adapt or die!!!!!

Hmm... a Windows Shell replacement? Wasn't that already suggested?

And Stardock won't complain since they have DesktopX which can replace Explorer as the shell. A lesson Google should learn.

[HawkMan]

Yes, but it's Microsoft's responsibility to design the APIs so as to not affect system performance / reliability. If Google screws up its implementation then Vista should recognise that and either prevent it or inform the user. It doesn't really matter how it's does, just that it is. Microsoft is an effective monopoly and has to stand up to much close scrutiny. Slapping in desktop search with no thought to the competition is just wreckless - it's not an omission but a deliberate attempt to gain market share unfairly.

Seriusly, you need to read up on the Vista desktop searchbefore you talk. You can't just blindly compare the XP and Vista desktop search and say they are the same. the win XP WDS is an addon product. In vista desktop search is integrated fully into the OS with hooks into file operations for real time indexing during file operations and integration into the start menu and it IS a integral and important part of how Vista oeprates as an OS and is a key Feature of Vista itself.

demanding that MS allows other peopel to replace this component would be like demanding that google let peopel use the live.com search engine when searchgin witht he google page, well except google would still get the ad revenue so...

And no you can't compare how itnegrated explorer is with how WDS is itnegrated into Vista, and besides if you're goign down that route. IE and Explorer while they use two different launcher exe files, they are the same program, and explorer IS a rather big part of your Widnows OS, one you can't really replace without replacign the whole shell, wich it actually is. so you're comparison sort of sucked.

And while you're crusadign for MS to design API and all that crap to let everyone replace every key core component of widnows with other unsesure components MS can't possibly vouch for. Why aren't you demanding Apple allow you to fully replace Spotlight ? or how about finder ? can you even replace the shell in a Mac ?

Google is way off on their demands this time.