Google says Vista search changes not enough!

[Knight85]

Google.... go screw yourself. Stop trying to be a whiny SOB (ahem... Apple).

I used to like Google as a company but that is changing. They used to be innovative, but now it seems as though they want their hands everywhere.

[argonite]

Google.... go screw yourself. Stop trying to be a whiny SOB (ahem... Apple).

I used to like Google as a company but that is changing. They used to be innovative, but now it seems as though they want their hands everywhere.

I think they made it so when they began with a broad mission statement, something along the lines of collecting and organizing all the world's information.

[Smigit]

I swear google. Go Away.

They want Microsoft to cripple their search so that they can come in as saviors to Windows Users, and offer a nice solution to a problem that they themselves (unknownst to the users, of course) created.

How is having an added option so you can disable or use a 3rd parties search (not necessarily googles either) going to any way cripple the Vista Search? All it involves is an extra option or two that you dont even need to look at. Hell Web browsers let users choose and I dont see how they are crippled. If a user didnt want to use googles then they wouldnt notice any difference.

I dont think MS should HAVE to allow them to tap right in but I also dont see why it would be a bad thing if google and other companies could offer a drop in replacement. As long as their engines were able to work with applications as well as in the desktop itself then I think it would be nice to have the choice. I'd personally use Vistas, but hell I don't think giving users the choice is too often a bad thing.

[Antaris Veteran]

The thing which gets to me is the fact that the Google Desktop Seach product was a clear move to produce a new innovative peace of software before Microsoft could release their new OS. Instant Search was announced before GDS and Spotlight were even started. Because of this, Microsoft in turn was forced to produce and release (a bit slapdashingly) their own desktop seach product (Windows Desktop Search), they were forced to rush to market with it. It's because of Google and Apple that this has happened, and now Vista has been released and includes what was intended from early Longhorn days (now Instant Search), they aren't happy with it. In a way they have created this 'middleware' product market by force, and because Vista comes with it inbuilt, Google is complaining. I have no sympathy for them, they stole the idea, pushed the market, and now are forcing Microsoft to change their product. Shame on them.

What it adds up to, is that in this field, Google can't compete with Microsoft. Microsoft are levereging features of their OS to allow a great level of functionality. So Google will make little inroads into Microsoft's products to establish themselves in the hopes that if it happens enough, they can topple the giant.

I will agree that if Microsoft start integrating search results into the Instant Search feature, then this whole argument would have taken another twist, but as for now, I have pretty much lost all respect for Google...

[FloatingFatMan]

I gotta ask, why are Google wanting to compete in the desktop seach market when there IS no market as such? Their desktop search product is free as far as I know, so how are they hoping to make any kind of revenue from it? It's just loss making which isn't sensible business.

Unless they ARE making something from it; such as revenue from embedding adverts into it, for which they can shove RIGHT off.

And another thing, a desktop search app, to be of any use, needs to be able to search all files and folders, including ones which will require elevation via UAC. Give a third party admin access to critical parts of my OS, or private files? A third party who already spread there software around in ways similar to spyware vendors? I don't think so!

[Smigit]

I gotta ask, why are Google wanting to compete in the desktop seach market when there IS no market as such? Their desktop search product is free as far as I know, so how are they hoping to make any kind of revenue from it? It's just loss making which isn't sensible business.

All their products are "free" in a sense. Its about brand recognition and the like. Also by having their app as the default they could potentially link back to other areas of google or alternatively integrate closely with other apps like gmail (given account details) or picasa/picasa web ect too.

[theyarecomingforyou]

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.

And the same thing was said about IE and that was a complete lie. The point is that it was added on top of an established codebase, not a feature that was in there from the ground up. Microsoft knows it has to allow the competition access to APIs and many parts of the OS - not allowing third-parties in was as much a way to get one up on Google as it was to benefit the consumer. Microsoft had to add options to change Windows software for internet, email, media players, etc - why did it expect it to be any different with desktop search, particularly when Google and Microsoft already have products in that area. Microsoft is using its position as market leader in operating systems to unfairly influence the market in other areas and that is NOT good for the consumer and I'm sure the EU/DOJ will have something to say about it.

This has absolutely no bearing on what I think of Google as a company. I don't like how powerful Google has become, as it now has access to a LOT of personal data and their privacy policy has been far from transparent. However, I don't want Google to be ousted by the even more powerful Microsoft unfairly. If Microsoft can compete on a level playing field and destroy Google then that is fine by me but not like this.

[XerXis]

And the same thing was said about IE and that was a complete lie. The point is that it was added on top of an established codebase, not a feature that was in there from the ground up. Microsoft knows it has to allow the competition access to APIs and many parts of the OS - not allowing third-parties in was as much a way to get one up on Google as it was to benefit the consumer. Microsoft had to add options to change Windows software for internet, email, media players, etc - why did it expect it to be any different with desktop search, particularly when Google and Microsoft already have products in that area. Microsoft is using its position as market leader in operating systems to unfairly influence the market in other areas and that is NOT good for the consumer and I'm sure the EU/DOJ will have something to say about it.

This has absolutely no bearing on what I think of Google as a company. I don't like how powerful Google has become, as it now has access to a LOT of personal data and their privacy policy has been far from transparent. However, I don't want Google to be ousted by the even more powerful Microsoft unfairly. If Microsoft can compete on a level playing field and destroy Google then that is fine by me but not like this.

i still don't get how you can think about searching files on your computer as a product. Windows search has always been an important feature of the shell (not only in windows, all operating systems have a search function). The fact that it can now do indexed searches changes nothing about that. If google want their own shell running on windows they can, what do they want more. This is complete bull****.

[MrCobra]

Plus Apple isn't trying to make it's own web search engine, like Microsoft does, thus they're not cutting into Google's market share. In both cases they're no competition.

If there's no real competition from either Apple or Microsoft then Google shouldn't have a problem. If want to use google for searching then I will use them to search the web. The filesystem search should be left alone to the makers of the OS. The last thing people need is for a buggier 3rd party app to replace system components and screw the system.

I think the other search providers should file an anti-trust suit against Google. Google is a monoploy and should be treated as such.

[Boeing 787]

Let's address these one-by-one:

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.

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.

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.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.

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

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.

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

1. 500 Gig Hard Drive filled with files and I'm talking about indexing every single filename not just ones in a couple of profile folders.

2. I want to setup a new machine and fast index all the filenames right there and then like avafind does then schedule a content index for when I'm asleep and select that it only content indexes pictures, documents.

3. I've been into the control panel > indexing options and it sucks. I don't want to spend hours setting up every filetype. It's a terrible dialog control. Can't select groups like pictures, music, documents all across the entire hard drive. You need to try and select filetypes which is a pain.

[Chode]

1. 500 Gig Hard Drive filled with files and I'm talking about indexing every single filename not just ones in a couple of profile folders.

2. I want to setup a new machine and fast index all the filenames right there and then like avafind does then schedule a content index for when I'm asleep and select that it only content indexes pictures, documents.

3. I've been into the control panel > indexing options and it sucks. I don't want to spend hours setting up every filetype. It's a terrible dialog control. Can't select groups like pictures, music, documents all across the entire hard drive. You need to try and select filetypes which is a pain.

1) 2 x 500GB + 1 x 320GB, indexed entirely within 75 minutes.

2) The indexer pauses when the cpu is in use my another product. Unless you are leaving 3D Mark on loop overnight, your processor is free and hence it will index. If you start a game, it will stop. Simple, aye?

3) Then select which folders to index. If you bother to use the simply Documents/Pictures/Videos/Music folder structure, it's a dream.

[Boeing 787]

1) 2 x 500GB + 1 x 320GB, indexed entirely within 75 minutes.

2) The indexer pauses when the cpu is in use my another product. Unless you are leaving 3D Mark on loop overnight, your processor is free and hence it will index. If you start a game, it will stop. Simple, aye?

3) Then select which folders to index. If you bother to use the simply Documents/Pictures/Videos/Music folder structure, it's a dream.

There is not a snowflakes chance in hell that it index 1320 Gigs in 75 minutes. You are mistaken because you did not have it index every single file on those hard drives, it is skipping 98% of them and that is a problem with how the feature is designed. You need to look at the folders you have chosen to index because most are NOT being index at all.

You will just have to accept that the product is NOT perfect for everyone. I see a lot of room for improvement. With Avafind and X1 Vista's little search toy is sad in comparison and I don't even think that Avafind and X1 are nearly perfected yet. I see improvements that could be made in both of those products.

[Chode]

There is not a snowflakes chance in hell that it index 1320 Gigs in 75 minutes. You are mistaken because you did not have it index every single file on those hard drives, it is skipping 98% of them and that is a problem with how the feature is designed. You need to look at the folders you have chosen to index because most are NOT being index at all.

You will just have to accept that the product is NOT perfect for everyone. I see a lot of room for improvement. With Avafind and X1 Vista's little search toy is sad in comparison and I don't even think that Avafind and X1 are nearly perfected yet. I see improvements that could be made in both of those products.

For the record, it was 1229.6 GB. Drive C (1st 500) had 380GB worth of data on it. Drive D (2nd 500) had 290GB. Drive E (320) had 280GB on it, so collectively it indexed approximately 950GB of data in 75 minutes. And it was every file (except for program files and windows, no need to index these locations), I custom selected folders and filetypes the second it finished installing. Noticed close to these speeds in RC1 and RC2. Timed it as well to compare how it was compared to the XP implementation of WDS.

Don't let your fanboyistic tendencies call me a liar, mac.

[gameboy1977]

HAHAHAHAHA! Google is biggest baby crying! HAHAHAHAHA!

Leave Alone Windows Vista or XP, Google!

gameboy

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

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.

QFT

[Chode]

How can it be truth when Microsoft announced their product before Google launched or even announced theirs?

[kheldorin]

"There's just one problem. That wasn't really the end of the story. Google, as it turns out, had another complaint. According to court records, Google complained secretly to the US Department of Justice (DOJ) in December 2006 (after Vista was finalized) that the Instant Search feature in Windows Vista was anti-competitive. This complaint, which wasn't revealed publicly until June 2007, is wrapped in controversy. Not only was the complaint made in secret and withheld from Microsoft until April 2007, the DOJ's top antitrust official, Thomas O. Barnett, apparently undertook a secret campaign in which he attempted to coerce the various US states involved in the Microsoft antitrust settlement to not pursue the matter.

Think about that for a second: The DOJ, which previously spearheaded the US antitrust battle against Microsoft, was actually secretly campaigning for the company behind the scenes. It turns out that Barnett was formerly employed by the law firm Covington & Burling, which represented Microsoft during its US antitrust settlement. Barnett says that he did not participate personally in that settlement, though he did represent Microsoft in other matters. Furthermore, Barnett says he was cleared by DOJ ethics officials to work on the Microsoft decree at the agency. But this revelation was never made to the US states, which were shocked when they were privately petitioned to ignore the Google matter.

In fact, the US states were so appalled by this apparent ethical lapse that they might have given the Google complaint more merit than it deserves. Faced with a full-fledged rebellion, the DOJ then reversed its decision to support Microsoft in this matter and began working with the states. While not unprecedented, such a change of heart is apparently quite rare at the DOJ."

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvi...gle_changes.asp

[Danrarbc]

How can it be truth when Microsoft announced their product before Google launched or even announced theirs?

Exactly. How on earth can this be a move to muscle Google out of the market? They've been planning the feature since WELL before Google even entered said market.

[Boeing 787]

Exactly. How on earth can this be a move to muscle Google out of the market? They've been planning the feature since WELL before Google even entered said market.

Maybe because the idea of index search isn't new. Unix had a feature called Locate that worked pretty well. Google probably had been working on a product for the desktop for months or perhaps years before Vista. Yahoo uses X1 and Avafind has been around for quite a few years.

The MAIN problem that any competitor faces with Microsoft is the fact that since they don't have access to Windows the way Microsoft does they cannot fully embed products like Microsoft can. Remember MSN Desktop search and the ability to add a search field to the task bar and with VISTA no one else can add search fields where they want them even if they had a GREAT idea.

Having a search field in the start menu is a great idea but why should ONLY microsoft have access to that ?

Does anybody doubt that other software creators may design and build a better product then Microsoft only to be blocked because they cannot access parts of Windows ?

The Bottom Line is that Microsoft is selling the windows platform and why would they not allow others to help make it better ? :yes:

Someone else may create a indexer that is:

1. Faster.

2. Better features.

3. Easier to operate.

4. Ability to index other media as well.

What do Neowin members have agianst that ?

[Linkinfamous]

Maybe because the idea of index search isn't new. Unix had a feature called Locate that worked pretty well. Google probably had been working on a product for the desktop for months or perhaps years before Vista. Yahoo uses X1 and Avafind has been around for quite a few years.

And Microsoft had an indexer that dated back to Windows 2000. It just wasn't very good.

[kheldorin]

If someone does create a better, easier to use interface for the Desktop Search, should MS be allowed to use that interface too? I like Firefox's interface but prefer Opera's rendering engine, should Mozilla allow an option for users to choose the engine?

If Google allows its Desktop Search to integrate with its Web technology, should MS be allowed to do the same? Would Google be willing to integrate is Desktop Search with Live search instead of Google Search?

Because of Google's Search integration with the Web, it opens up more vulnerabilities. And if Google's Search is going to be as tightly integrated to the OS as MS's, if there was an exploit, who is going to be blamed?

[SharpGreen]

The funny thing is, Microsoft's search indexer in Vista is really very easy to turn off. All you gotta do is stop the service that it runs under. So you could stop the windows search service, and install Google's POS desktop search, and there would be no problem.

[kheldorin]

The funny thing is, Microsoft's search indexer in Vista is really very easy to turn off. All you gotta do is stop the service that it runs under. So you could stop the windows search service, and install Google's POS desktop search, and there would be no problem.

The problem is that they want access to the Start menu as well as the Explorer.

[+DKAngel Subscriber²]

omg call the waaaaaambulance for google

[spenser.d]

If google wants to compete fairly, they should be forced to create their own OS just so they can put desktop search in it. That seems fair to me. The way it is now, MS has done all the dirty work by creating the OS itself and google is just whining because a feature of this OS happens to be something they offer without actually offering an OS to support that feature.

-Spenser