Google says Vista search changes not enough!

[+Fahim S. MVC]

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

Indexing Services were also available in NT4.0 IIRC.

[Boeing 787]

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

That indexer still exist in Windows Vista and is different from Vista Desktop Search. The Vista Desktop Search is taken from MSN Desktop Search.

[Boeing 787]

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

The emphasis on 'Dirty', Microsoft has done everything in their power to keep their monopoly.

Also creating an Operating System is no small feat , this reminds me of people who say that CLEC should be forced to run there own last mile installs knowing full well that it would cost BILLIONS of dollars and they would never recup their money. The phone system was built in simpler times with the help of the government and Microsoft built their Operating System in simpler times when the industry was just starting out. It just can't be done overnight and it would be very hard to ever get people to switch from Windows unless you create an Operating System that worked exactly like Windows.

The bottom line: If Microsoft is forced to open up Vista Desktop Search it will be better for us the users and better for Vista as well.

[Express]

That indexer still exist in Windows Vista and is different from Vista Desktop Search. The Vista Desktop Search is taken from MSN Desktop Search.

And according to a channel9 video: MSN Desktop Search used the same codebase; as that of the Windows Index, SQL Server index, Site Server index etc.

What is the name of indexer that you claim is in Windows Vista which is different from Vista Desktop Search indexer.

Vista Desktop Search uses 'Windows Search' listed in the services mmc.

[rado354]

Google is the devil

[gameboy1977]

here is funny picture of google. LOL!

[draklin]

The one thing I hate about these forums is that they are filled with flaming fan boys. "Google's the devil!" or "M$ is the Evil Empire". Just calm down and think about what this particular issue is about. Google is not saying that Microsoft can't have it's own search in Vista. What they are saying is that they are prevented from allowing users to install and use Google's search instead of Microsoft's. It's like how Windows handles zip files. Microsoft handles the zip file in the OS and it works well. However, some people would rather not use Windows for zip files and instead use WinZip or WinRar. In that case, the user installs the other program and everyone is happy. However, what Google is saying is that if a user CHOOSES to use Google's Search(and no one cares if you think Google is crap, lots of people love it. In fact, lots of people love Real, but to say so in here would invite everyone to flame), then google's search does not replace window's search. Think of it this way, I buy a new Ford. It comes with a radio, but i would rather get an Alpine instead. However, I can't remove the radio that came with Ford, I can only install it along with my new radio. Also, sometimes I will have to use the Ford radio as well. I can't replace it and only use the Alpine. That is the problem and since Google's claim to fame is searching, then it makes a lot of business sense to get google search to handle as much as possible. And since Google does not have an OS of it's own, it can't force anyone to use their search. Microsoft can.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

The one thing I hate about these forums is that they are filled with flaming fan boys. "Google's the devil!" or "M$ is the Evil Empire". Just calm down and think about what this particular issue is about. Google is not saying that Microsoft can't have it's own search in Vista. What they are saying is that they are prevented from allowing users to install and use Google's search instead of Microsoft's. It's like how Windows handles zip files. Microsoft handles the zip file in the OS and it works well. However, some people would rather not use Windows for zip files and instead use WinZip or WinRar. In that case, the user installs the other program and everyone is happy. However, what Google is saying is that if a user CHOOSES to use Google's Search(and no one cares if you think Google is crap, lots of people love it. In fact, lots of people love Real, but to say so in here would invite everyone to flame), then google's search does not replace window's search. Think of it this way, I buy a new Ford. It comes with a radio, but i would rather get an Alpine instead. However, I can't remove the radio that came with Ford, I can only install it along with my new radio. Also, sometimes I will have to use the Ford radio as well. I can't replace it and only use the Alpine. That is the problem and since Google's claim to fame is searching, then it makes a lot of business sense to get google search to handle as much as possible. And since Google does not have an OS of it's own, it can't force anyone to use their search. Microsoft can.

Although I do agree with you to a large extent, there is a slight flaw with your arguement with regards to the compressed files (folders?) feature of Windows vs WinZip/WinRAR/7-Zip/(insert your favourite 3rd party application here). That is, none of the above companies have demanded that they completely replace Microsoft's version of the feature, in fact the two will work side by side. In comparison a user can install Google Desktop to work side by side in very much the same way, in fact going a step further by disabling Vista Desktop Search (which I don't think you can do with Compressed Folders). One thing to be made quite clear is that Google Desktop runs fine on Windows Vista as a 3rd party program... Google are whining about the inability to completely replace the Vista Desktop Search, which there are arguements for and against doing.

[Mathachew Veteran]

Dear Google,

Make your own OS and incorporate your own file indexing and search mechanism. Don't cry about not being able to overthrow an OS tied feature. Your 3rd party program works fine as it is; so does the built in search in Vista. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. You're trying to fix what isn't broken. In other news, looking for another sharp and dashing developer to join your team? I can work from home... :D

Regards,

Mathachew

[draklin]

Although I do agree with you to a large extent, there is a slight flaw with your arguement with regards to the compressed files (folders?) feature of Windows vs WinZip/WinRAR/7-Zip/(insert your favourite 3rd party application here). That is, none of the above companies have demanded that they completely replace Microsoft's version of the feature, in fact the two will work side by side. In comparison a user can install Google Desktop to work side by side in very much the same way, in fact going a step further by disabling Vista Desktop Search (which I don't think you can do with Compressed Folders). One thing to be made quite clear is that Google Desktop runs fine on Windows Vista as a 3rd party program... Google are whining about the inability to completely replace the Vista Desktop Search, which there are arguements for and against doing.

My point about the zip files (while I admit it is not the best comparison, just the best I can think of) is that once you change the file extension to point to WinZip or whatever, the compression code in Windows is not touched for zip files. It is not removed, but rather effectively replaced. It may be used in other areas of the OS for things like compressing files on the hard drive.

Also, you have to admit that if WinZip or WinRar or whomever could, they would love to force Microsoft to open up the APIs so that they could replace Microsoft's compression code with their own so that any and all compression needs were handled by their code. Who wouldn't want that? Wouldn't they love to see "Microsoft Vista with compression by WinRar"?

[+Fahim S. MVC]

My point about the zip files (while I admit it is not the best comparison, just the best I can think of) is that once you change the file extension to point to WinZip or whatever, the compression code in Windows is not touched for zip files. It is not removed, but rather effectively replaced. It may be used in other areas of the OS for things like compressing files on the hard drive.

Also, you have to admit that if WinZip or WinRar or whomever could, they would love to force Microsoft to open up the APIs so that they could replace Microsoft's compression code with their own so that any and all compression needs were handled by their code. Who wouldn't want that? Wouldn't they love to see "Microsoft Vista with compression by WinRar"?

But that's exactly the point, Google aren't saying let our code run side by side with theirs (which it already does). It's saying let's take over their code.

I guess there is a massive difference between a file handler (which is effectively what WinZip is), and an entire search sub-system. The whole mechanism of entry via the Start menu and Explorer Windows is very different, but in my opinion this change sets a dangerous precedence across the O/S. Any time a part of the O/S fails, we blame Microsoft, who have put in a lot of work getting Windows as stable as it is and it has come leaps and bounds. Now if a precedent is set allowing full replacement, we are going to end up with an unreliable operating system because of poorly implemented integration... and Microsoft get the short end of the stick for it.

That's why this is a bad thing. No other O/S manufacturer would allow it, and to my opinion, this is an example of Google abusing the DoJ mandate over Microsoft because they can to give them a competitive advantage over a traditional solution which would be bolted onto the O/S.

[azz0r_wugg]

After reading an article on this I can see why Google are complaining.

However, it saddens me that Microsoft can't make there own OS as they want anymore, anyone can complain and they're bullied into changing things that are fine as they are or face fines.

Sucks.

[MrCobra]

My point about the zip files (while I admit it is not the best comparison, just the best I can think of) is that once you change the file extension to point to WinZip or whatever, the compression code in Windows is not touched for zip files. It is not removed, but rather effectively replaced. It may be used in other areas of the OS for things like compressing files on the hard drive.

If you install WinZip or WinRar to handle Zip files the zip handlers in Windows is still used for diplaying the contents of zip files in explorer.

Also, you have to admit that if WinZip or WinRar or whomever could, they would love to force Microsoft to open up the APIs so that they could replace Microsoft's compression code with their own so that any and all compression needs were handled by their code. Who wouldn't want that? Wouldn't they love to see "Microsoft Vista with compression by WinRar"?

They just need to impliment a compression/decompression library with the same exports as the MS implimentation and it would work for more than zips.

OT: Google needs to quit whining about everything as do other companies. There's functionality in any OS that could be replaced by something better but intrinsic routines should not be touched for the stability of the OS.