Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Challenges Google

Posted by michael on from the tyson-vs.-holyfield dept.

prostoalex writes "Microsoft's MSN division previewed a tool for desktop document search extending into the Web search, Reuters reports from Redmond, WA. The message to Google was clearly articulated in Steve Ballmer's speech: 'There's a lot of Google fascination out there and we share it, and we're going to compete. We're going to compete very, very hard.' Google News points to 63 more articles on the topics, MSN Newsbot provides tons of links as well. ComScore estimates Google's market share at 42.2%, Yahoo's at 38.8% and MSN's at 31.8% (numbers do not add up to 100%, since Internet users rely on multiple engines)."

111 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. Yahoo matches Google? by bfree · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can't believe Yahoo is in the same ballpark as google! Better go check my rankings over there!

    --

    Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

    1. Re:Yahoo matches Google? by gotr00t · · Score: 4, Informative
      Don't forget that Yahoo offers more than search, while google is really still just a search engine, with the possible exception of Gmail, which has not been made avaliable to the general public.

      Then again, "market share" is a very vague term, and I take it to mean the overall market share of these webportals.

    2. Re:Yahoo matches Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Keep in mind that the poll numbers were for multiple search engines. You must remember that Yahoo is one of the most popular web destinations. They already have a massive userbase. If a user is doing a search, and they're already on Yahoo, they will probably use Yahoo search. However, if they were not on Yahoo, the question is, will they use Yahoo or Google? This means that if they answer the poll, they will say "Yahoo and Google", even if they use Google more often than Yahoo (or vice versa.)

      So while the poll says that the numbers are "close", the actual hard numbers (i.e., number of searches / number of users) may be much greater for Google than you might see right off the bat.

    3. Re:Yahoo matches Google? by Echnin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just a search engine? Orkut? Google Groups? Catalog? Google News?

      --
      Lalala
    4. Re:Yahoo matches Google? by prostoalex · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yahoo has far more reaching international appeal. While Google runs international Web front-ends in chosen language, portals like Yahoo! Singapore are separate business operations with their own marketing, sales and so on. Pretty big brand name in Asia, from what I've heard.

    5. Re:Yahoo matches Google? by cmallinson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      99% of the people I know use google for searching every day. A few know about google images, but I would say that 95% of those people have never heard of google groups, news, catalogs, froogle etc.

    6. Re:Yahoo matches Google? by SlugLord · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't forget that until February, Yahoo used Google's search to power its search engine (under licence, of course).

      Yahoo then bought up some other search engines and put that technology into their search, but they also sell more-frequent placement into their search engine to website owners.

    7. Re:Yahoo matches Google? by marcellos · · Score: 2, Funny

      Google should get Linux code and fight back developing an OS !!!

  2. Oops, there's a typo. by Sj0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's a typo right there. You misspelled "We're going to send jackbooted thugs to the google CO and we're going to hit their knees. We're going to break their knees very hard".

    --
    It's been a long time.
    1. Re:Oops, there's a typo. by kerrbear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I get scared. I'm afraid the Microsoft will copy the Google ideas, "force" people to use it via their new OS, run Google out of business, then add in all the crap that Google left out (Ads, spyware, etc). But we won't be able to do anything about it because noone will be left to compete.

      Google better watch out they don't extend themselves too far like Netscape did. Otherwise the nightmare scenario will come true again.

    2. Re:Oops, there's a typo. by jared_hanson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is very true. Google recently bought Picasa which makes a Windows-based photo organizer. The Windows desktop application space is one where Google could sink a lot of money they can't recover simply because it would be too hard to compete with Microsoft on Microsoft's OS.

      Personally, I think Google and Apple should form a partnership to cross promote and integrate their products. iTunes and iPhoto are wonderful organizing and searching tools for personal media. Similarly, the upcoming Spotlight looks to be good for general computer-wide searches. Those things and Google make life much more simple. A partnership would link those technologies with Google and Google could promote them to their users.

      It also seems like the two companies philosophies are one in the same. Each strives for minimalist and simple to use interfaces. In addition, it would be much harder for Apple to directly target Google as they don't have the same resources MS does.

      --
      -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
    3. Re:Oops, there's a typo. by GoofyBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >Google left out (Ads

      Google is a serious innovator in serving ads.

      http://www.google.ca/ads/index.html

      >But we won't be able to do anything about it because noone will be left to compete.

      Why won't "we" be able to? You bring up the idea about how Netscape got crushed but what about Mozilla/Firebird? Have you've seen the excellent free content in Wikipedia?
      There are alot of people in "we" and some of us don't feel like we are helpless unless some big corporation is on ourside.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    4. Re:Oops, there's a typo. by Plutor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This was a good idea until you mentioned iPhoto. Picasa is iPhoto times a hundred. Seriously, I didn't believe it until I tried it, but even Apple could learn a thing or two. It's beautiful like iPhoto, but more importantly, it's _blazing fast_ even with thousands of pictures on five-year-old hardware.

    5. Re:Oops, there's a typo. by nmk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Has anyone seen the Longhorn preview screenshots. There's this big fucking vertical bar covering the right side of your desktop. When I say it's big, I mean its BIG. This bar has all shorts of shit in it that Microsoft can use to drive out competition. It's set up in such a way that it's always visible, even when you're running applications.

      Now, from what I can tell, there will be a number of functions you will be able to perform from here. I'm quite sure that internet searching will be one of them. So now the question is, will users continue to use Google even if there is an MSN search field in their direct line of sight every second that they use their computer. Hmm, maybe we should ask Netscape.

    6. Re:Oops, there's a typo. by It'sYerMam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With Microsoft, compete doesn't mean compete. It means throw money down a botomless hole until you end up with a product that no-one can refuse. The point is that instead of having to make a profitable enterprise, they can make an unprofitable one and then afterwards, once they've monopolized the industry either by shoving their technology down people's throats and holding it there, or by actually making a product, they can do whatever they want.
      At this point, Google's been run off the road and so we lose (once Microsoft has pumped their search full of ads/spyware/etc) the best engine.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    7. Re:Oops, there's a typo. by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How good are the ads then anyways if someone doesn't notice them? Isn't that the point?

      He's not seeing them because he's not looking for them. They're ads, but they're easily ignorable if you're not looking to buy something - Google's strategy is simple and unobtrusive - I don't see their ads either, unless I'm specifically looking to buy something, and then I know the ads will be relevant and worth my time to read. Other sites try to force 'Punch the Monkey' or GIFs and Javascripts designed to look like Windows, well, windows on you that you're forced to SEE. With Google, if you're just searching and not looking to buy, the ads are so unobtrusive that your mind doesn't SEE them.

      You are mistaking "is popular" with "can exist at all". And there is a big difference.

      I was referring to the term 'crushed' - Netscape used to be the main browser, then Microsoft crushed it - it still exists, but it's used by so few people (compared to Internet Explorer) that it's just a minor annoyance to Microsoft instead of a real competitor.

      Seeing as Netscape used to be the dominant browser and now even combined with it's offspring it struggles to get more than a couple of percentage points versus it's Microsoft equivalent, I'd say it was pretty crushed.

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    8. Re:Oops, there's a typo. by multimed · · Score: 2, Informative
      Ok thought I posted a reply to this but must've gotten lost in the ether. My interest was piqued by your endorsement of Picasa so I gave it a try. Installed it, tried it & thought it was quite cool. But when I logged in as user instead of admin it won't work. Checked out their support FAQ and sure enough, "To use Picasa in Windows XP, the user must be signed on as an Administrator."

      What's up with that crap? I use my admin user for admin things like installing hardware & software. My family uses the limited user accounts for everything else--for plenty of reasons. Playing with photo software no matter how cool is not going to work if we have to switch to the admin account every time.

      --
      Vote Quimby.
  3. Image by Billobob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just like Microsoft has became associated with "ease of use" (regardless of whether it's true), Google iw now associated with "accurate searches" in the mainstream media. It will be nearly impossible for Microsoft to over take them unless they have a truly revolutionary product - MSN only has such a high market share because it is IE's default homepage.

    --
    If you have to ask, you'll never know.
    1. Re:Image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean just like the way Netscape is associated with the World Wide Web?

    2. Re:Image by dpuu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This may be true, but I'm sure Google will not be so foolish as to believe it. When a company like Microsoft declares you as a high priority target, you have to take it as a serious threat.

      --
      Opinions my own, statements of fact may contain errors
    3. Re:Image by SlashDread · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "because it is IE's default"

      Dont underestimate the power that is "IE default"

      "/Dread"

    4. Re:Image by chris_mahan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      yeah. like it wasn't one before.

      You think that just because bouncy ballmer announces competition the google team will get all frazzled? They've been competing with the likes of MS for 5 years now (and putting the boots on to deliver the proverbial kick in the pants).

      I just think that ballmer is saying this to appease skittish shareholders.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    5. Re:Image by gdr · · Score: 5, Insightful
      No, Microsoft searches only have to be "good enough" so the average user sees no need to change the default search engine. Then Google is dead.

      You might say that "it's easy to change your default search engine" but it's not always easy for the average user to do this. And Microsoft are hardly likely to make this any easier.

      This is why anti-trust laws exist. Microsoft can destroy another company not by producing a better product, but by producing a slightly worse product and using their existing monopoly/monopolies to push their product down the customers throat.

      I see three posibilities for the next five years.

      • Microsoft decide that the search engine market is not profitable enough and pull out.
      • The DOJ intervene and stop Microsoft from entering the search engine market.
      • Google becomes the next Netscape.
    6. Re:Image by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dont underestimate the power that is "IE default"

      I think he meant that MSN Search is already the IE default but still has a lower share than Google, hence MS need to do something truly revolutionary to overtake Google's lead with its good reputation with accurate searches.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    7. Re:Image by Krow10 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Dont underestimate the power that is "IE default"
      Microsoft shouldn't overestimate it either, because recent security issues could take a huge chunk out of that IE dominance, not to mention the assumption by the unwashed that MS is successful because it's the best. Almost none of my family in the "free tech support" circle had asked me about alternatives to IE one year ago. Now almost every one has, with some asking me about alternatives to Windows as well. Microsoft can't put out a "good enough" product and expect it to become the standard just because it's the default search to for IE/MSN anymore. It will have to be perceived as better than Google. And that will be no simple task.

      Cheers,
      Craig

      --
      Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    8. Re:Image by kalidasa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now there's an idea: a Google-branded browser, based on Firefox.

    9. Re:Image by danharan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=116309&cid=984 5392

      The "GoogleFox"? :)

      It simply would make a lot of sense, especially with IE stagnating and msn being its default. If Google wanted to contribute back to the OS community, they'd get more geek cred (not that they actually need more...)

      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    10. Re:Image by nmk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I find it fascinating that MS has managed to get such a large market share just by setting the IE default homepage to MSN. Just think what will happen when Longhorn comes out, with its so called integrated internet services. There will always be an MSN search field on your desktop. It'll be there when you're using Excel, Word, Powerpoint. It'll be there when you're editing graphics in Photoshop. It'll be there when you're watching porn. Make no mistake, MS is taking it to the next level with Longhorn. The days of IE defaults are over. It's now going to be part of your desktop, shoved in your face. Can anyone stand up to that. If the average computer user knew more about their computer than my dog, perhaps. But they don't.

    11. Re:Image by dublin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh, come on. Do you really believe that the bloated piece of junk known as Netscape 4 was somehow better than IE4?

      I don't just believe it, I *know* it. I was Software Program Manager half of Dell's brands when MS forced the not-ready-for-prime-time IE4 on the market so they could get it in place as "an integrated part of the OS" before the DoJ could stop them. IE4 is and was unquestionably one of the lowest-quality pieces of code ever to be publicly released, and if you had any idea how bad we knew it really was, you'd be shocked. (In fact, it was ethical problems like this that led me to leave the company after I was ordered to ship code that was *known* to corrupt hard disks.)

      NN4 had warts, to be sure, but was *clearly* better than IE4. You've got to remember, most people think of IE as the later versions, and even those thinking of IE4 forget that there were dozens of huge "updates" that more or less totally replaced the original IE4 (along with ripping up and replacing huge chunks of the Win9x operating systems, too.) In reality, IE4 was an unmitigated pile of crap. A very pretty pile of crap, maybe, but that's all. (Remember, the chief goals of IE4 were to establish it as the dominant browser through OEM bundling (thus killing Netscape and non-poisoned Java as alternative application platforms), and to kill PointCast and other "push" thechnologies via Active Desktop. It succeeded marvelously at both, setting the stage for later similar conquests by Media Player and its ilk.

      It's popular to bash NN4 now, because it's still distressingly widely used and mangles web standards, but it I think you can make a legitimate claim that it was the best browser out there until IE5.5. There is no question that it was more functional and stable than IE4.

      Even Mozilla is only just now starting to really get better than IE6, and IMO Firefox and Thunderbird still have a long way to go - Firefox is an impressive start, but only supports a subset of the functionality of either Mozilla or IE. I say that as someone who has been in the Netscape/Mozilla camp through the entire battle - I have never used IE as my primary browser for more than two weeks at a time, since real bookmarks support is too important.

      (Bookmark management was area where NN4 really shined - it's bookmarks support was the best ever in any browser: even Mozilla/NS6/7 are missing important bookmarks functionality that was in the old Navigator code. Don't believe me? Try this: With a non-trivial bookmarks file using multiple levels of folders, search for a bookmark. Now tell me which folder it was found in: There is NO WAY to get that information in Mozilla-based browsers, but it was easily visible in a tree-viewer in the old NN3/4. There are many more similar botches in Mozilla-based bookmarks code, but it's still somewhat better than IE's hamstrung "Favorites".)

      Not all that's new is better - IMO, Mozilla has just finally caught up with where it should have been years ago - and we're still missing things like SVG support or any reasonable way to search e-mail messages other than having to re-do searches to look in multiple files or mail servers. Let's hope we finally get 2000-worthy browsers by 2006 or so...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    12. Re:Image by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Both NS 4.0 and IE 4.0 were crash-prone, buggy piles of crap. (probably due to their competing rush to market) However, MS released IE 5 soon afterward, which solved most of the problems with IE 4. Netscape, meanwhile, scrapped their 5.0 browser and languished for years releasing point upgrades to the borked 4.0 codebase. In public memory, IE 4 is but a distant memory. But it seems Netscape will be forever associated with their 4.0 brower.

    13. Re:Image by Trelane · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It's popular to bash NN4 now, because it's still distressingly widely used and mangles web standards


      My impression was that NS4 didn't "mangle" web standards; it merely pre-dated the new ones we want (XHTML, HTML4, CSS). They bet on the wrong horse (layers and such), and were left with their pants down when they couldn't update quickly enough.

      When competing against Microsoft, and when Microsoft has determined that it will gain your marketshare, you must play a perfect game just to survive. You mess up, you start down the slippery slope to obsolesence.
      --

      --
      Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
    14. Re:Image by gdr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But what happens when Google is dead and the search engine market is cornered my Microsoft? Then the Microsoft search engine has little or no competition and development of search engine technology stalls.

      Microsoft might even start charging for searchs, now the competition is out of business and the barrier for entry into the search engine market is high what's to stop them?

      Or maybe "Microsoft Search" won't work with other browsers or operating systems. They could use each of their monopolies to support the others. Sooner or later you need to use a Microsoft search engine with a Microsoft browser on a Microsoft OS just to use the web effectively.

      If you think this is unlikely, consider how much this would benefit Microsoft and how ineffective the DOJ has been in controling their illegal activities.

      A well integrated search engine might be convienient for you now, but think of the future you would be commiting yourself to.

    15. Re:Image by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're right that the original IE 4.00 was a horrendous piece of shit. However by the time it got to IE 4.01 SP1 (which shipped with Win98), it was clearly way above and beyond Netscape in terms of both speed and stability. This was all done in a fairly short period of time - maybe a year at most.

      Meanwhile Netscape users suffered through 4.00 (also totally unusable), 4.01, 4.02, 4.03 ... 4.5, 4.51... 4.6 ... 4.7 ... and even after it's users had suffered a gazillion new versions for years and years, the browser never stopped leaking tons of memory and crashing all the time. Netscape just wore out its users and caused them to lose faith. Finally, when Netscape 6 shipped in a totally broken state, the last diehards gave up, and their marketshare dropped almost immediately from ~20% to 2%, where it is today.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
  4. MSN search misleading by QuantumRiff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Any Joe Sixpack who types in an incorrect domain name, because he's got too much BBQ Sauce on his fat fingers, does an MSN Search if there using IE.l..

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    1. Re:MSN search misleading by bheer · · Score: 2

      Choosing to install the Google toolbar will reset your default search engine to Google, unless you uncheck a checkbox.

      --
      Go somewhere random
    2. Re:MSN search misleading by Grant29 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most people install the Google Toolbar because they want pop-up blocking. Soon, once this is incorporated into IE, I assume more people won't install the Google toolbar.

      --
      3 Gmail invitations availiable

  5. Compete very very hard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ..by which they just dump money into their search engine until google fades away.

    OR they force windows users to use their engine.

    OR they do something else that's typical of m$.

  6. Google's Advantage by ziondreams · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Google embraces the things that geeks love to have in a company. This is something that Microsoft just doesn't get and will not in the near future, IMHO. The only ground that MS has to compete on is that of the "average" soccer mom computer user that doesn't know about Google.

    I don't know how many times I've given out my gmail address to geeks the gotten the response "Oh, cool. Gmail!" But, to the average person, it just means nothing.

    --
    01000001 01011001 01000010 01000001 01000010 01010100 01010101
    1. Re:Google's Advantage by OYAHHH · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > the "average" soccer mom computer user that doesn't know about Google

      I don't know where you are but I'll say this, Google is ALL the rage with Northern Alabama Grandmoms. And that is saying a LOT.

      My mother's (a granny lady, 60 years plus) favorite phrase for a while was, "Why Yahoo! when you can Google".

      In the spring when she isn't surfing the web she's entertaining herself by picking the tater bugs off her potato plants (she has an acre of the darn things). I kid you not! Poisons no longer work if you're wondering why...

      We are talking about people who grew up with no electricity or in-home plumbing are embracing Google as much as they do Walmart. It's not just geeks.

      If MS can present a clean, uncluttered, unbiased search then they MIGHT stand a chance. What's the likelihood of that happening though?

      --
      Caution: Contents under pressure
  7. Microsoft needs to remember one thing. by AltGrendel · · Score: 4, Insightful
    MSN Newsbot provides tons of links

    Quantity != quality. Especally on the Internet.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  8. Google has won by fleener · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I'm a big arguer that Google is overextending its reach. It being wrong for Google to expand outside the 'just search' business. And I believe Google is partially evil now and will become entirely evil within the next few years.

    That said, Microsoft has assured Google's success. Slaves across the world are looking for any alternative to M$. Linux hasn't pushed that envelope. But web services? Everyone can safely and easily embrace Google over M$ for web services. Make me choose between Google and M$ and I'll choose Google every time.

    1. Re:Google has won by mirko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your comment reminds me of Netscape's supporters comment, years ago...
      Of course, Nestcape 3 was the most advanced and MSIE3 would not achieve a better penetration rate...
      We all know what happened, then...

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    2. Re:Google has won by tlpalmer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why does google expanding make it evil? I don't see the problem with it.

    3. Re:Google has won by mcc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It being wrong for Google to expand outside the 'just search' business.

      In the last few weeks I've started regularly reading Google News and have found it more rewarding than any website I've found in a really long time. It's useful, good at what it does, a pleasure to use, and, well, it has made me happy. I now load Google News much more often than Google itself. If Google's additional expansions are of the same quality as this, I say they should go for it.

      (That said: How exactly, if at all, does Google make money from Google News? I don't see any ads.)

      --
      Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
  9. It searches email too... by saderax · · Score: 2, Funny

    but can it search my gmail?!

  10. Yahoo's popularity by BillsPetMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is because Yahoo is the Internet to many people - in Japan!

    Gosh. I feel exhilerated every time I get to add "in Japan" to my posts. But seriously, Japanese is the second most prolific language on the Internet and Yahoo is the most popular search engine for Japanese surfers.

    --
    "It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
    1. Re:Yahoo's popularity by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is just another stupid Slashdot fad that will hopefully die quickly before it catches on.

      ...in Japan.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. MSN percentages by Coryoth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So how much of that MSN percentage is coming from all the Internet Explorer users who automatically end up searching MSN whenever they mistype a web address etc.? Surely that's pushing the numbers up a little.

    ITFacts.biz just gave results, with nothing on methodology (did they just count hits or what?)

    Jedidiah.

    --
    Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
    1. Re:MSN percentages by Bazzargh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its a sample of 1.5 million, not 1.5 million. That paragraph basically says they did a telephone survey, probably about 1000 users.

    2. Re:MSN percentages by MS · · Score: 2, Informative
      They counted "users", not "usage"!!!

      An example why this makes such a big difference:

      • I use Google 10 times a day, MSN and Yahoo only once a day.
      • My wife uses Google 2 times a day
      • My brother uses Altavista (now Yahoo) once a day
      This gets counted as: 3 users, of which 66% use Google, 66% use Yahoo and 33% use MSN.

      But usage numbers are quite different: out of 15 searches, 12 are made through Google (80%), 2 by Yahoo!(13%) and one by MSN (7%).

      So, while there may seem equally many users of Google, Yahoo and MSN, the real usage if heavily pro Google.

      ms

  12. Scortched earth policy by ZurichPrague · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft has really never innovated but instead looked around at what was successful and duplicated it. The problem is, they often then bury the innovator in doing so. Now look at the state of the software industry. There are so players and innovation is stifled. I mean who wants to be Microsoft's R&D department. And they, in turn, have no one to duplicate. They think they're successful, but only in the near term. This type of scortched earth policy simply can't sustain itself.

    1. Re:Scortched earth policy by wolfemi1 · · Score: 2

      "Microsoft has really never innovated but instead looked around at what was successful and duplicated it. The problem is, they often then bury the innovator in doing so"

      The problem is, I think they can keep doing this. There will always be an upstart small company with a good idea, which, when proven successful, will be bought out or forced out of business by Microsoft. They've been doing this for years, and they're really, really good at it.

  13. Objetivity by saned · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Google is where it is, because its search engine is as objective as possible, without post-processing and/or filtering of the output.
    MSN Search on the other hand, only returns whatever MS wants you to see.

    Try yourself to look for, say, 'Linux' on MSN and on Google.

    -P@

    --
    signal_connect(0, "test_top.dut.my_sig", "clk");
    1. Re:Objetivity by proj_2501 · · Score: 3, Informative

      top 5 results for 'linux' search
      on google:
      1.) linux.org
      2.) linux.com
      3.) redhat.com
      4.) debian.org
      5.) kernel.org
      on msn:
      1.) linux.org
      2.) linux.com
      3.) redhat.com
      4.) kernel.org
      5.) debian.org

      msn even links to google's specialized linux search later on.

    2. Re:Objetivity by Otter · · Score: 2, Informative
      I think what he's thinking of was a preview of the new MSN search engine that was linked here a while ago, that seemed to weight domain names containing "linux" much higher than Google does, so that redhat.com placed below, say, linuxtoday.com. That sent the tinfoil hat crowd into a frenzy, although I'm not quite sure why.

      What's live at MSN now is clearly a different ranking method than that one.

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
  14. and in other google news... by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Informative

    And in other google news you're not likely to see here on slash, the CFO of google is being investigated by the SEC. Seems his old employer, SkillSoft/SmartForce, had to restate...uh...3 and a half years of financial figures...something that earned them the loosing side of a $30M class action lawsuit.

    The suit said SmartForce officers and directors, including Drummond, ''acted knowingly or in such a reckless manner as to constitute a fraud and deceit" upon shareholders. Drummond, as chief financial officer, had been responsible for SmartForce's financial reports.

    Meet the new boss- same as the old boss.

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
  15. Re:Others than Google? by A1miras · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm SICK and TIRED of people asking for information things that would take just 1/2 a second of googling to find. This is the last time:

    Yahoo
    msn

    --
    Take Care

    A1miras
  16. Early Preview by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Funny

    Even more detailed preview of new MS search technology.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  17. Do we really need desktop search? by Maestro4k · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I know Microsoft especially is really touting this as the next greatest thing since sliced bread but how many of us really need desktop search? I know I personally save all documents with a descriptive name, include the creation date in the name and have a directory structure for types of documents under my main document directory (personal, business, orders, etc.) I suspect most people are the same way (at least most people that create lots of documents). So where's the huge need?

    This looks an awful lot like the big push for push technologies several years back, there was no real need then and the market collapsed. Users just didn't want content shoved down their throats. Likewise I doubt users want new tools shoved onto their desktops (Longhorn) that do things they don't need.

    1. Re:Do we really need desktop search? by khendron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I most often use desktop searching to find my way through source code that I haven't written myself. Recursive grep is one of my favourite tools. I know, this is not a meanstream use. But I do think that desktop searching has its place.

      And I think you are mistaken in what killed push technology. It was not the lack of need (I think the need is huge) but the fact that the so called "push" technologies were not push at all, just scheduled pull.

      What is interesting me most about the developing Microsoft vs. Google battle is that I don't think Microsoft is targeting the right market that Google is targeting. Microsoft want to control the desktop. Google wants to *eliminate* the desktop (the local desktop, that is). The message I am hearing from the new Google services, such as GMail, is "Don't store your information at home, store it with us!" In other words, Google wants to move the desktop out of your house and onto their servers.

      This should prove interesting.

      --
      Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
  18. This is an advantage exactly how? by GuyMannDude · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't know how many times I've given out my gmail address to geeks the gotten the response "Oh, cool. Gmail!" But, to the average person, it just means nothing.

    Let me get this straight: you are claiming that the fact that Google has no name-recognition with the average person is some sort of advantage in ensuring the majority market share?

    Google embraces the things that geeks love to have in a company. This is something that Microsoft just doesn't get and will not in the near future, IMHO. The only ground that MS has to compete on is that of the "average" soccer mom computer user that doesn't know about Google.

    There are more "average soccer moms" then "geeks". If Google concentrated on embracing things that geeks love and Microsoft has superior name recognition among soccer moms, Google will lose.

    GMD

    --
    watch this
  19. Sherlock anyone? by raddan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Apple did this awhile back with Sherlock... 1997, I think? On my computer, though, (200 MHz 603e) it was abyssimally slow. Apparently you can still do this and more with Apple's new Sherlock in OSX. It would be nice to integrate the Finder search with email search, but I'm pretty happy with Apple Mail's search capabilities as it is...

  20. question by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why doesn't microsoft just buy Google?

    1. Re:question by Richardsonke1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They can't. A hostile takeover is impossible unless one of the two original owners wants to sell (each owns 30% I believe). And they would never do that. No amount of money MS could offer could beat what they may make in the future.

      --
      "Men lie."
      "Yeah, about sleeping with other women, but never about bioluminescent plankton."
      -Dan Brown
    2. Re:question by Xeth · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because the current owners are keeping enough stock to make sure that's impossible. Perhaps for just such a reason.

      --
      If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
  21. Market Share - Hogwash by stevenmusumeche · · Score: 4, Informative

    I control many sites with hundreds of thousands of visitors a day. Here are the stats for search engine referers:

    google.com (54.8%)
    yahoo.com (10.3%)
    msn.com (4.2%)
    aol.com (2.3%)
    ask.com (1.8%)

    disclaimer: MSN and Yahoo are inflated because of Overture PPC traffic.

    1. Re:Market Share - Hogwash by ad0gg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Depends on the sites your running. Nerds like me and you use google. People like my Grandmother see yahoo ads on tv and use that.

      Check out the top searched words on the scrolling banner Its quite funny to see people searching for ebay or google as their search string.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

  22. Yet another Bundling..er Bungling by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    How long before the first huge hole is found in this? Problems will be:

    Find documents on the web with worms/trojans/virii and open them for you. How thoughtful!

    Keep track of your favorite searches, so when it is exploited someone can sell this for marketing

    Like the Windows search it will use up about 90% of your CPU while running, because Microsoft still doesn't get the multitasking thing.

    Won't have multiple exclusions, so you always waste time searching through directories where you shouldn't be looking.

    Will be too ambitious, searching multimedia, etc.

    Will focus on Microsoft Friends first, 'inadvertently' avoid Microsoft Enemies ('Honest, we wouldn't have it avoid OSS/Linux/Sun/etc. sites, we'll look into it right away!'

    Will be built into all office products, thus bloating them further, introducing more instability and requiring numbnut PHB's to shell big zorkmids to, yet again, upgrade.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  23. Google might be toast. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Think about this MSN in its crappy state that its in right now has 31%. Thats incredible, considering how terrible it is at finding relevent information. If they make it anywhere near Google or Yahoo's quality they will end up crushing them.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Google might be toast. by catch23 · · Score: 2, Informative

      31 percent means almost 1 out of 3 people use MSN for their daily searches. If you went out in public and asked that question, I don't think you would get 1 out of 3 people. I'm pretty sure those numbers are highly inflated. My mom doesn't even use msn. It comes up on the front page, but then she just goes to google.

  24. Am I the only one who thinks google sucks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I use google quite actively. Google toolbar in Firefox, etc etc. But you have to admit, the google system, while it might be "the best" engine out there, does pretty much suck.

    There are entirely too many stores being used in the search engine for results. You want to look up information for a DVD player model # and you'll get hundreds, if not thousands of links to stores before anything else.

    And God knows how many sites are just spam houses instead of actual sites with content. I can't even name how many times I've searched for something, clicked the link to see something like "The Bottled Water Taco Bell is great with Viagra Dell Computers. It adds 100 to your Microsoft Xbox Vivid Video while your Sony Cable Descrambler downloads FREE SOFTWARE! cock shit pussy cunt fuck lesbian girl girl shit black interracial anal"

    Google needs some competition, because they've been stagnating for way too long.

    1. Re:Am I the only one who thinks google sucks? by LrdHlmt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As it is in almost any business, competition is always good for the consumer. And in this case the consumers are not only us using the search engine for free, but the companies that actuallt buy services (ads, etc.) from Google, Yahoo and MSN. These are the ones that would actually benefit from a price war.

      I'd like to see how MS muscles out Google in this particular aspect.

    2. Re:Am I the only one who thinks google sucks? by solive1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, competition is good. However, what kind of competition is there going to be when Microsoft throws its weight (i.e. $$$) around? That's what I'm worried about. Is Google going to be able to keep up if MS throws money at this new search technology like it has at the X-Box? Because, let's face it, the X-Box is still here because MS is still funding it. MS refuses to be beaten, and I have a feeling the "search war" is going to turn out similarly.

    3. Re:Am I the only one who thinks google sucks? by nkh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You've forgot links to: local search engines! Any word in Google will show you pages like You've searched for product ... No results found.

    4. Re:Am I the only one who thinks google sucks? by presarioD · · Score: 2, Informative
      You want to look up information for a DVD player model # and you'll get hundreds, if not thousands of links to stores before anything else

      You know there is this thing called BOOLEAN operator that you can use to eliminate search results pretty quickly. If all you type is

      DVD model #

      well good luck!

      But if you type

      +"DVD model #" +put_manufacture_company_here -buy

      as an example on top of my head you pretty much calibrate the search to what you want.

      Then again you posted this anonymously so you probably do not care for the solution...

      --
      Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
  25. USPTO Patent #42424242 by Doug+Dante · · Score: 2, Funny

    Applicant: Microsoft Invention: Method of searching documents on a computer information system and interactively displaying results. Patent Clerk Comments: DENIED. Previous art: "grep -R" Slashdot users, stop e-mailing me.

    --
    The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
  26. Why Microsoft cannot compete with google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From a technology perspective, Microsoft cannot compete with google.

    The problem is the culture of Microsoft. All outside ideas are rejected. You are a worthless grunt until you have worked at Microsoft at least 4-6 years.

    It doesn't matter how much experience you have at other companies. So assume MSFT hires 5 top guys from google.

    They will get inside the company and the manager/architect with 10 years experience drawing icons will override all their technical input.

    That's the Microsoft way. And it sucks to work here.

  27. This could be very bad. by asoap · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The hope that I have is that people have become so used to google, that they will ignore whatever Microsoft puts into there operating system.

    But this scares me, like linux should scare Microsoft. The problem is that as long as Microsoft controls the root of people's machines, they can put there search ahead of google.

    In other words, if people turn on there machine, and find a search box right on the desktop, they are going to start using that first before heading over to google. I really believe that the "average" (that's not the /. community) person won't give a damn about accurate results, because they won't be able to tell the difference. If that is the case, then Microsoft will have 0 problem overtaking google.

    I hope that I'm not giving the average person enough credit to tell the difference between an accurate result and a non accurate result. Then again, I've seen news reporters claim that because they typed in the word "Botox" into google, that there are 750,000 sites of doctors that do Botox work. You would think that a reporter would be able to understand the basics of how a search engine works. They should obviously be a little smarter then the average bear.

    Then again, I guess not.

    -asoap

    --
    Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
  28. Which is exactly why Google stock is a "Bad Idea" by wamatt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Hate them all you want, but dont underestimate Microsoft, when they want to get there way.

    I think anyone who pays >$100 per share for a peice of Google is nuts. http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journali d=22356775&brk=1. They are #1 and only have direction to go.

    History will repeat itself, remember when Web Crawler was king, then Yahoo tookover and looked to be "unstoppable".

  29. What will Microsoft run their "google" on? by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It has been shown in the past when Microsoft bought Hotmail, they tried several times to put Microsoft NT servers in place of the *NIX servers it ran on. I don't know what the current state of Hotmail is now, but last I remember hearing was the best MS could do was to put an NT box up front for the UI stuff and left *NIX handling the load of mail I/O.

    I cannot imagine what A MS version of Google would run on... could it really be 2003 server or whatever?

  30. What's MS going to need to compete with Google? by Enigma_Man · · Score: 5, Funny

    Developers, developers, developers, developers...
    DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!!!11ONEONE

    -Shteeve

    --
    Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
  31. DOC format advantage? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since Microsoft keeps changing their (Word) DOC format, and hasn't documented it completely, does that give them an advantage over Google, and others, in searching that type of data?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  32. I almost begin to think by mcc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that if Google has any sense, they'll try to start donating money in an attempt to influence the November elections... so that they can try to ensure once Microsoft's "competitive" push against them begins sometime next year, the person running the executive branch of the United States of America is someone who actually believes in, you know, ENFORCING our antitrust laws...

    --
    Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
  33. Not quite... by Azureflare · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It really depends on what they were measuring on those search engines. Do those percentages represent the percentage of users who use that search engine, or the number of times they have used that search engine (i.e. outbound/inbound traffic to that site). If it measures hits/traffic, then it would be interesting to see the ratio of the users to the traffic; I'm guessing that it is harder for people to find things on MSN/Yahoo (gosh that sounds good together), so maybe that is why their numbers are so high, and don't reflect what we expect?

    Also consider that many people do not use MSN search by choice; it is integrated into internet explorer.

    The same could be said of firefox; google is integrated there, so perhaps as more people switch to firefox, we will see the google numbers climb?

    I'd really like to see a better study than this one. This is a very interesting topic.

  34. Look past the marketing please by Neil+Watson · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Make me choose between Google and M$ and I'll choose Google every time.

    If you are choosing your services based on branding then you are just as ignorant as those soccer moms who run IE because it is set by default. Don't be driven by marketing sizzle.

    Use a product for what it actually does not becuase it's popular. That being said, Google still seems to have the best search engine. If that changes, I'll change my search engine, even if it's to the MSN home page.

    --
    UNIX/Linux Consulting
  35. Hmm, this looks by sabNetwork · · Score: 3, Informative

    familiar.

    No one can blame Apple for being a little prophetic.

    --

  36. Monopoly by christurkel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    MS simply will bundle its search engine into the OS and that will be the end of the story. Its a sad fact of life that most people will not change the default anything on Windows.

    --

    CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
  37. Obvious Simpsons reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Kent Brockman: The results are in: for Sideshow Bob, one hundred percent; and for Joe Quimby, one percent. And we remind you there is a one percent margin of error.

  38. Isn't this how they crushed Netscape? by bretharder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They bundled IE with Windows to crush Netscape.

    Now they're bundling a web search into the desktop to crush Google.

    If MS really wanted to be innovative they would
    let the user choose one or more search engin(s)
    to use with this feature.

  39. You feel somewhat dizzy... by pepeperes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Me too I have enough spare time, and have just found out that something is terribly wrong out there... expanding your investigation I searched for "windows" on both of them... guess what happened...

    MSN : Results 1-15 of about 34568019 containing "windows"

    Google : Results 1 - 100 of approximately 121,000,000 for windows. (0.22 segundos)


    I guess google are being seduced by the dark side ???

    --
    ... from the forgotten corner in europe
  40. Clarification on evil by fleener · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Mere expansion isn't evil. As a company grows, begins taking shareholders, has more and more competitors on a global scale, etc. it becomes difficult to stick to a moral and ethical mode of conduct. Not impossible, but difficult.

    This is not a new idea. Read this Wired.com piece, Google vs. Evil. Subhead: "Now the geek icon is finding that moral compromise is just the cost of doing big business." Or anti-Google sites like Google Watch. I'm not saying Google is evil, but they're doing things that start to raise eyebrows.

  41. MSN loves Google by PeterHammer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone ever try to search for the "best search engine" on the Web. I find that Google and MSN have something interesting to say about that.

    Not even Google presumes to put themselves as the first search result (a.k.a. the "I'm Feeling Lucky" link). The winner is a somewhat informative article that breaks down each engines strength depending on what you are looking for.

    Not so at MSN. Google Google Google. That is their chant for the best engine. Now is that a bug or a feature?

  42. Who cares about market share? by rokzy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think it's unreasonable to state as fact that Google is better than MSN and will be for at least the near future.

    even if MSN could get their speed and accuracy comparable to Google, they will NEVER produce such a clean and simple interface as Google because it just isn't what they do.

    and even if they did, I'd still use Google because it's integrated into Firefox. even if hell froze over and they integrated it into Firefox, I'd still stick with Google because I trust them more than MS.

    basically, MS is unwilling and/or unable to provide what I want. I will continue to use Google, just like I will continue to use linux. and to be honest I don't give a sh*t what the "average user" uses. whether Google has 1% or 100% market share, I will be one of the ones using it.

    maybe if lots of "ignorant" people start using MSN, tw*t webmasters will focus on cheating their algorithm instead of Google's and it will get even better?

  43. Search.yahoo.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Then do not load your browser to www.yahoo.com(the Yahoo portal with a search engine box) go to the search engine: search.yahoo.com

    I like Yahoo's search interface even more than Google's.

  44. Yes, truly. by Douglas+Simmons · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Google's got a golden brand. It's making its way as a verb into our dictionaries. People won't forget that it was the first engine not to be stuffed with clutter. People appreciate that their ads have been relatively tolerable and pretty well targeted, and I believe they will continue to associate these things with the Google brand despite what MS does so long as it's [barely] legal in regards to IP and antitrust territory.

    Also, Linux *caugh Debian* is gaining enough marketshare that it is a very real threat on Microsoft's radar. As that continues to ascend, there will be a lot of people w/o MS search integrations. Moreover, IE has begun to go south in marketshare. People are realizing that there are some badass alternatives to IE and even without being marketed to use them by any form other than word of mouth. People may extend this logic to software beyond the web market, and who knows, maybe one day people will be comfortable with the .swx format.

  45. Re: Apple and Google by MinutiaeMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's a very interesting idea, and as an Apple user I'd certainly like to see more alliances of that sort. However, I question the practicality of an Apple-Google relationship, because Apple clearly is already working on their own desktop search functions to integrate into Tiger. Why gerry-rig someone else's program to fit your needs when you can write your own from scratch?

    That being said, maybe Apple could use something like Google's algorithms for ranking results, so that the more useful documents get returned first. Not sure how well that would translate to the desktop, however. After all, Google does what it does so well because it relies on PageRank. There's no similar hyperlink structure among documents on a hard drive. The only thing you could maybe base a ranking system on would be the number of times a specific document has been opened. (But maybe Tiger already has something like that, I don't know.)

  46. correction by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Informative
    CFO of google

    Oops, had that wrong. Drummond is "vice president for corporate development, secretary, and general counsel" for Google.

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
  47. False! by _14k4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    (numbers do not add up to 100%, since Internet users rely on multiple engines)

    No, that's a lie. I only use Google. :)

  48. Google. Save Yourself! Escape the desktop! by manmanic · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Time and time and time again, Microsoft has crushed anybody who's tried to get a significant presence on the desktop, by incorporating a competing Microsoft technology into Windows, which controls all the desktops. No matter how much better Google's technology is, this time will be no different.

    Google's main hope is to control the market for supplying results to other places. They can use RSS for website integration, SMS for mobile phones, voice for telephones. This won't help them this year or the next, but it will save them over the long term.

  49. The Impact Of Microsoft. by polyp2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I cant help but wonder what would be the impact on the internet as a whole if Microsoft were to take over google's position.

    here are a few random thoughts and speculative stab's in the dark.

    I think that the first sign of a downward turn in googles fortune might be an increased reliance on advertising. Advertising on google is handled very well. As soon a someone like Microsoft start to eat into google's revenue margins; I'd predict google depending more and more on advertising to recoup the losses. In turn that will drive users away. In other words competition from Microsoft could make google shit.

    Joe Sixpack , Soccer Mom, and Fred Bloggs; dont care about unbiased and accurate results will continue to use MSN Search none the wiser. They will never have the pain of even knowing or understanding that their default search engine is a hodge, podge of paid-for rankings and Market Influencing (In the favor of big corps) search filters. They'll never question otherwise, they dont expect anything else.

    There is'nt a whole lot that can be done by us geeks to avoid the sad fact that there are more dumb computer users than there are geeks, hackers and developers. Sure Sys Admins and "Local Geek's" can continue to install systems for businesses and friends and set Google up to be the default home page, but if the time comes when google is not a sound choice any more then what ?

    Very few people realise the importance of Googles unbiased and accurate search result. Its impact however is much more than that. It is, in effect a gateway to the internet, to such an extent that some people regard google as "the internet".

    I think that if Microsoft were allowed to dominate the Search world its impact on the internet as a whole would be far reaching and difficult to imagine. Its not just a case of anti-microsoft on my part; but I feel that we cannot allow a corporation , any corporation (not just microsoft) that has its fingers in so many pies to distort the only remaining level playing field we have left. Nobody should have the right to pick, choose, and influence Internet search to the kind of degree that MSN does and will. It is giving up control and giving up freedom. Its just a terrible thing that so many people who live in this world have the belief that we live in a free world; when quite frankly we dont. Many people might say but we do live in a free world (well most people in the western world!); that is just perception, and so long as there are people that perceive they live in freedom there will be less reason for them to fight for the cause of true freedom. Maybe when they start to realise that every where they go and everything they , and every eletronics gizmo they buy has Microsoft stamped on it; they might start to think about freedom and choice again .. who knows ?

    Imagine a world without google, where search results filter out websites such as this one, or those of people developing Open Source Programs? Imagine a world where searching for .iso 's is a filtered search term; and its impossible to find an alternative unbiased search engine because MSN decided to omit those results from your search.

    Okay these thoughts may be a tad sensationalist. But if just one or two of those things happened on however small a scale. Ask yourself , who to do you want to trust today ?

    Nick...

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  50. Search results in URL names by rd_syringe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For the last year, search results have been close to useless for me, because I often get those "search_term_in_url.html" results. Google's algorithm places higher relevance on pages whose filenames contain your search terms, so this gets me a lot of completely irrelevant junk sites that are just spamming Google with their ugly URL names.

    Google should disregard URL filenames. It's the content of the site that matters, right? Not the filename. Google does need some competition, and I bet Microsoft is just smart enough to provide.

    Also, I wonder if anyone's made the connection that the new MSN search and the WinFS local search in Longhorn will probably share technologies? You'll probably be searching the web and searching your hard drive using the same engine.

  51. you forgot something. by twitter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You misspelled "We're going to send jackbooted thugs to the google CO and we're going to hit their knees. We're going to break their knees very hard".

    It should be followed by "Next Year" as they have been making the same stupid promisses for the last ten years. "An Integrated Browser.", "All of your data at your fingertip." Yawn. Yet all they can do is put other people, who deliver on those promisses, out of business. They could not buy Google, so they will break them if they can.

    This time, I think they are up against something that's bigger than they are. They squashed OS/2 by making it more expensive than winblows. IBM could not do much about that with cross licensed and closed source code. Having vanquished reasonable competition on commodity hardware, they were free to crush Netscape because people felt they had no alternative to M$'s OS. All that's changed today. It's easy to swap the OS right out from under M$ and word is getting out that Microsoft is nothing but pain to the user. M$ wanted the world to be it's slave but the world has other ideas.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  52. Hotmail runs on NT by rd_syringe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hotmail's been running on Windows servers for a long time now. Lots of rumors flew around about FreeBSD, but those were mostly relegated to Slashdot posts (of course).

    Microsoft's been pretty open about the conversion process they undertook. They even wrote a paper about it and released it online.

  53. Search engine stats for my sites by theluckyleper · · Score: 2, Informative

    I control 5 domains with a few thousand visitors per day (nothing like the traffic you have!), but I figured I'd chuck my results in too:

    Google (74.96%)
    Yahoo (16.06%)
    MSN (4.79%)

    I, too, was shocked by those market share numbers!

    --
    Visit the Game Programming Wiki!
  54. Why The Desktop? by curry_bean · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why Google would try to compete with MS on the desktop is beyond me. They have the greatest distributed file system (or "super computer") in commercial use today (see gmail). Challenging MS on the desktop would put to sleep Google's best asset, which COULD be used compete WITH the OS instead of having to DEPEND on it. Google WILL become the next Netscape if they don't leverage the tools they already have. Here's a thought: Google has a complete copy of the internet under their roof; why not build on that vision? 1 GB email is great... why not 20GB of "free" file storage? Use their massive distributed capabilities to get off of the desktop instead of developing new technologies to get on it.

  55. Re: Apple and Google by jared_hanson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Glad you find my comment interesting. I wanted to address some points you made.

    Why gerry-rig someone else's program to fit your needs when you can write your own from scratch?

    I think the issue at hand is that computer-wide searches will be much more relevant the more closely they can be tied to the OS. For example, updating the index when a file changes would be easiest if you can get notifications from the base level. As such, Google doesn't have a consumer OS, only Microsoft and Apple do. I'm disregarding Linux for now as I don't find it "consumer ready," but I do run it along with Mac OS X myself.

    That being the case, Google can choose to write its own desktop search, without direct access to an OS, or it can choose to partner. An Apple partnership makes more sense to me than a Microsoft one. Sure, Apple has done a lot of work in this area, but the point of the partnership is to bring two companies together. Google, I'm sure, could come up with some killer ideas for Spotlight, and Spotlight could have a "Powered by Google" logo slapped on it. Its a win for both Google and Apple. In addition, searches done locally could be linked to Google with a simple button click (I'm thinking the arrow iTunes uses to go to artist and album pages on the store).

    The page rank doesn't translate directly to most local documents, but that leaves room for innovation. Based on personal habits, I usually have related documents open at the same time. Keeping statistics of what documents are open at the same time, and cross-referencing that info, could lead to a pseudo-PageRank sort of indexing scheme. That's just the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure.

    --
    -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
  56. Comparison by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    MSN Search is for the people who don't change their IE start page (if they use IE at all), or people that entered mistyped domains that haven't been taken by the cybersquatters and porn redirectors. Yahoo! is used by Joe Surfer for ease of use. I use Yahoo! Mail and Briefcase for homework, but I personally prefer Google as a search engine. Google is used by the web-surfers who know what they're doing and want to find what they're looking for. Everything else (Excite, Lycos) is just niche surfing.

  57. Unless.. by fire-eyes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unless they provide a search engine that gives unbiased results, without flooding the page with annoying flash / other graphical ads that annoy, they won't get far.

    At the same time I welcome this, both parties will get better.

    --
    -- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
  58. Google is slipping.... by polymorpheus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and they know it, hence the IPO. Quality of searches is way down, outages due to viruses, stiff competition. polymorph

  59. MS's IPO present to Google? by otisg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm surprised nobody mention this... but is this a well-timed pres release from Redmond, or what! I wonder what that will do to GOOG's IPO price. It's good to have competition.

    --
    Simpy
  60. Ha-ha, It is to Laugh by serutan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I work mostly as a contractor on projects for Microsoft on Microsoft dev platforms. To find documentation on various MS widgets, I type the name of the object/method/whatever into Google and it returns a wealth of useful references. A lot of these point to MSDN, but MSDN's own search engine returns a load of useless irrelevant crap. Ballmer will have to do a lot more than make a speech to convince me that Microsoft has figured out how to write a decent search engine.