Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Justice Dept. Defends Microsoft Against Google

Posted by Zonk on from the friends-in-high-places dept.

Frosty Piss writes "The Seattle PI reports that Google has complained to US antitrust officials about the hard-drive searching tool built into Windows Vista, saying that it stymies Google's similar search program. The complaint, lodged late last year, was revealed Saturday by The New York Times in a story about the Bush administration's handling of Microsoft antitrust issues. The real story, though, is not the Google complaint itself, but how the Justice Department is failing to enforce the Microsoft anti-trust decree. According to the story, Thomas Barnett, the assistant U.S. attorney general in charge of antitrust issues, sent a memo last month to state attorneys general across the nation, seeking to persuade them to reject Google's complaint."

62 of 329 comments (clear)

  1. google is EVIL! by wwmedia · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So Google is demanding that Microsoft remove Vista's desktop search feature, a feature that other OSes already ship? If other OSes can ship it then so can Microsoft. Hell, if I'd been in charge of Microsoft, I would've been bundling Windows Desktop Search with XP for years now.

    Or worse yet, Google is demanding that Microsoft bundle Google's crapware?

    To hell with Google. This is the same company that made a deal with Apple to have Safari's web search box locked into Google so you can't change the default or even add secondary search providers (as if that doesn't harm competing search engines on the Mac platform), and has made deals with numerous software companies to install Google toolbar and/or desktop when installing a software package, with the option to install Google's wares pre-checked (my mom has asked me multiple times why Google toolbar keeps reappearing on her computer) and they have the nerve to complain about an OS desktop search feature? (Not to mention that Google's desktop search sucks anyway.)

    Oh, and those fools cited in the article are comparing this with the Netscape case? Well, last time I checked, Microsoft is still bundling IE and not Netscape, and is being allowed to do so. So if they want to make that comparison, go right ahead. OEM's can still bundle Google Desktop if they want, just as they can Netscape (Dell is already forcing Google Desktop down its users' throats).

    Google has no real case here; maybe Microsoft will be forced to add Google's Desktop Search to the Set Program Access and Defaults control panel (that's what it's called on XP, I don't know what it's called in Vista); in other words, be forced to add bloat for the sake of the invincible Google (so invincible that they need to go whining to government every chance they get), but that's about it.

    1. Re:google is EVIL! by Phil246 · · Score: 5, Informative

      rtfa.
      Google is asking that microsoft provide a way for the user to disable it, so that other competing desktop search programs dont battle each other for system resources and ultimately both slow the computer down.
      They arent asking for it to be removed outright

    2. Re:google is EVIL! by mabinogi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is not that Microsoft include a search tool.
      The problem is that there's no way to turn it off, and running Google desktop simultaneously therefore causes the computer to slow down enough that no one would want to install Google Desktop.

      There should never be anything wrong with including something with the operating system, it's preventing competitors from competing on merit that's the problem - even the Netscape issue was never purely about the bundling of IE - as much as the overly simplistic coverage often implied that - it was about Microsoft using the threat of cutting off OEMs who installed Netscape as an alternative.

      This is a fair bit weaker, as it's more of a technical issue than anything else, though it bugs me that Vista's indexer can't be turned off regardless of whether or not it affects Google Desktop.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    3. Re:google is EVIL! by frinsore · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some corrections to the parent:

      1. Google doesn't care if the search tool is bundled or not, they just want MS to expose some why to turn the thing off. Having both indexing tools running at the same time hinders performance more then having just one run. Given that you can't disable Vista's most people will opt for disabling Google's. Hence anti-competitive.

      2. It's similar to IE & Netscape because the end user / OEM can't remove IE from a machine and replace it with an alternative.

      3. Everything else you said? Google toolbar is off topic (for what it's worth I'm sick of applications trying to install it too). Also if Google makes any headway with their talks with Microsoft Vista will actually have less bloat then before as the file indexing service can be disabled.

    4. Re:google is EVIL! by nanosquid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So Google is demanding that Microsoft remove Vista's desktop search feature a feature that other OSes already ship? If other OSes can ship it then so can Microsoft.

      No, they are demanding that Microsoft lets people disable it. You know, like you can do on any other operating system.

      Hell, if I'd been in charge of Microsoft, I would've been bundling Windows Desktop Search with XP for years now.

      In fact, I think it's perfectly reasonable to demand that no operating system "bundle" desktop search, web browsers, or other software like that and instead give users the option to pick and choose what components they like.

    5. Re:google is EVIL! by Deviate_X · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or worse yet, Google is demanding that Microsoft bundle Google's crapware?

      The worst thing about google software is that they distrubute it like malware, in the sense that its hidden in other software like Adobe Reader, Java, and Firefox. If your not careful you can end up with goodle toolbars, sidebars and whatnot installed on your machine.

    6. Re:google is EVIL! by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If other OSes can ship it then so can Microsoft. Correction: If other OS publishers who've been convicted of abusing their monopoly can do it, then so can Microsoft.

      For convicted monopolists, there are different rules then for non-convicted monopolists and everyone else. This is partly because you can't throw a monopoly into jail, and partly to keep the market fair and free (if you want a totally free market then we have to get rid of copyright laws, therefore most companies don't want a completely free market and as such rules coming into the market must exist).

      So no, just because others can do it doesn't mean Microsoft should be able to do it. Microsoft made the choice to break the law and abuse its monopoly, and it was caught. Now it should suffer the consequences, which is having to work under rules that no-one else the market is followed to force.

      Unfortunately this won't happen as the Bush administration is pro-Big Business and pro-monopoly abuses. This is why under the Democrats Microsoft was convicted and under the Republicans they have not been punished. The swap of power was quite unfortunately timed for software developers.

      This is the same company that made a deal with Apple to have Safari's web search box locked into Google so you can't change the default or even add secondary search providers (as if that doesn't harm competing search engines on the Mac platform), *sigh*

      Its shit like this that really makes me want to leave Google. Does anyone know of any comparative services from companies that aren't as evil? I use:
      * Gmail (so I'd like a web-based interface that's as rich as this)
      * Google Personalized Homepage
      * Google Docs

      I might not switch, but I'm certainly considering it as more and more of Google's shit comes to light.
      --
      Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
    7. Re:google is EVIL! by Deviate_X · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is not true. You can disable built in indexing by unchecking indexing of the indexing locations (i.e. Outlook or the Hardrives) or by disabling the indexer in windows services list.

    8. Re:google is EVIL! by wwmedia · · Score: 3, Funny

      I dont know whats worse:

      one one hand Microsofts monopoly on THEIR operating system!

      on the other hand Google's attempts to have their spyware installed on every computer so they can collect even more data!

      kinda ironic that microsofts monopoly is making SPYWARE run slow, lol

    9. Re:google is EVIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
      from TFA :

      Google has asked the court overseeing the antitrust decree to order Microsoft to redesign Vista to enable users to turn off its built-in desktop search program so that competing programs could function better, officials said. from the other article:

      There is no simple way for PC users to turn off Windows Vista's built-in desktop search program. Google has asked the court overseeing Microsoft's antitrust compliance to require the company to let users turn off the built-in search program, the New York Times reported. Granted there are *ways* to do it but they arent necessarily simple for clueless users
    10. Re:google is EVIL! by skoaldipper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anti competitive? What's next? Norton sues Microsoft because their AV may occasionally cause Virtual Memory error messages? Hey, let's just disassemble the OS entirely piece by piece by lawsuits, one step at a time (like Johnny Cash says), and put it all back together with 3rd party craplets.

      --
      I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
    11. Re:google is EVIL! by NSIM · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google is asking that microsoft provide a way for the user to disable it, so that other competing desktop search programs dont battle each other for system resources and ultimately both slow the computer down. They arent asking for it to be removed outright
      If that's all Google wants, then they could have saved themselves a lot legal fees. Windows Search is a service, it can be stop, started, disabled altogether from the Services management applet, or the command line, and there would be no problem in stopping it as part of an install for Google Desktop Search.
    12. Re:google is EVIL! by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Insightful
      In fact, I think it's perfectly reasonable to demand that no operating system "bundle" desktop search, web browsers, or other software like that

      I don't.

      I believe operating systems should have had effective file management, including searches, version control, and virtual folders more than a decade ago.

      The only reason an ecosystem of third-party utilities has sprung up is because Microsoft has been so sluggish at improving their OS. Let's face it, database-like file management was available in systems like BEOS since 1995. Unfortunately, now a wealth of third-party fixes to Windows limitations has sprung up, and MS can't implement what should be basic functionality without running foul of antitrust issues.

      It's their own laxity that's brought them this trap, so I have little sympathy.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    13. Re:google is EVIL! by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 2, Informative

      The complaint is about the fact that you can't even turn off the Windows Live search, causing any competitor's search software (e.g. Google's) to slow down significantly.

      Are people really this retarded, cause I see this repeated?

      Click Control Panel - Indexing - Uncheck the locations it searches.

      Method two: Set the Windows Search to 'Manual' or 'Disabled'.

      Both of these are EASY for the user, and something EVEN a Google Installer could do automatically for a user if the user chose to do it.

      This is not Something that can't be turned off and doesn't run all the time if you don't want it to.

      I can't believe people read the Google crap and are so retarded they think it is accurate or even a legitimate complaint.

    14. Re:google is EVIL! by Deviate_X · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is already an API to the Service Control Manager API for google or anyone else to use.

    15. Re:google is EVIL! by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your post, enhanced via Slashdot vision TM

      I dont know whats worse:

      blah blah blah blah Microsoft blah blah blah blah blah !

      blah blah blah Google blah blah blah blah blah blah !

      Shoot, I'll go for the Microsoft one, it must be the worse one.

    16. Re:google is EVIL! by rbanffy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "So Google is demanding that Microsoft remove Vista's desktop search feature, a feature that other OSes already ship? If other OSes can ship it then so can Microsoft. Hell, if I'd been in charge of Microsoft, I would've been bundling Windows Desktop Search with XP for years now."

      Since Microsoft has an effective monopoly on operating systems for commodity hardware, they have to play under different, more restrictive, rules. If Apple locks down Safari search it affects about 10 percent of users, 50% of which use Firefox, anyway. When Microsoft introduces new features into Windows, if affects 90+% of the market.

      It's also illegal for Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on desktop OSs to gain a monopoly on other existing markets (like web browsers, office suites, corporate e-mail, file and print servers, anti-virus and, yes, desktop search). And, mind you, since being judged guilty of extending their monopoly in the anti-trust lawsuit, they _have_ such restrictions in place and the DoJ _should_ be doing something about it.

      While it may look obvious they should be able to extend their products at will, it should be noted that by doing so in an unrestrained way, they can harm the market in very severe ways.

      Of course, if all things continue the way they do, Google's time under the microscope is coming, but that doesn't mean Microsoft can do whatever it wants.

      --
      http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
    17. Re:google is EVIL! by bdjacobson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The complaint is about the fact that you can't even turn off the Windows Live search, causing any competitor's search software (e.g. Google's) to slow down significantly.

      Are people really this retarded, cause I see this repeated?

      Click Control Panel - Indexing - Uncheck the locations it searches.

      Method two: Set the Windows Search to 'Manual' or 'Disabled'.

      Both of these are EASY for the user, and something EVEN a Google Installer could do automatically for a user if the user chose to do it.

      This is not Something that can't be turned off and doesn't run all the time if you don't want it to.

      I can't believe people read the Google crap and are so retarded they think it is accurate or even a legitimate complaint. How many people are going to know this? Or even know that this is the problem? You give far too much credit to the average user.

      They're going to see a link on google's homepage for the newest greatest google program they can download. They're going to click through install as fast as they can not reading anything like they always do. Then they're going to notice that their computer is going a whole lot slower. They're going to think "hm, the only thing that's changed since it's been going slow is I installed the google desktop thing. Must be that." So they uninstall the google program and then tell their coworkers how bad it is, and to stay away from it, etc.

      This is how it is anti-competitive.
    18. Re:google is EVIL! by Punchinello · · Score: 3, Informative

      I cannot see how leaving Windows Indexing Service enabled hinders performance. It automatically goes idle when you are using your PC.

      --

      Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=

    19. Re:google is EVIL! by nine-times · · Score: 2, Informative

      IIRC Google uses some of the spotlight stuff (memory is hazy so I can't say how) to their advantage. It's not as simple as "a different front-end for spotlight with Gmail indexing added", but it makes use of some of the spotlight mechanisms to index local resources.

      So I guess one question would be as to whether Windows' indexing is open enough that Google can make use of any of it. Is that the difference?

      Also, AFAIK, Apple wasn't determined to be a monopoly guilty of anti-trust violations. Is that the difference?

    20. Re:google is EVIL! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What about Mac os X spotlight? Google also has a desktop search for the Mac but they aren't asking for Spotlight to be remove or disabled.

      You expect Google to ask antitrust officials to look into Apple's activities with regard to OS X? Apple does not have a monopoly and they certainly have not been convicted of abusing that monopoly to the point where antitrust officials are supposed to be regulating their behavior.

    21. Re:google is EVIL! by edumacator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two points.

      1. Is it possible that there are more technical issues that aren't expressed clearly in the story? I have a hard time believing Google, no matter what your opinion of them, would complain if the fix was as easy as you claim.

      2. Why are so many people screaming at Google over their security issues. If you don't like the way they handle their security, avoid using Google or Google products. Some people might be willing to take a chance on Google's data collection in order to have products, ads, search results that they perceive to be more relevant. People scream at Google as if they were invading our living rooms uninvited. It seems to me that a lot of people just want to jump on the hate Google or hate Microsoft bandwagons, so they can have something to scream about. If that's the case, then let me know. There are some serious things going on in the world that need a few more ardent advocates.

      --
      An important change for education.
    22. Re:google is EVIL! by nanosquid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe operating systems should have had effective file management, including searches, version control, and virtual folders more than a decade ago.

      Quite right.

      The only reason an ecosystem of third-party utilities has sprung up is because Microsoft has been so sluggish at improving their OS.

      Yes, and why do you think that is? I'll tell you: because, currently, meaningful competition for desktop features is impossible; you may get a bunch of small shareware vendors, but Microsoft can kill them whenever they want. Therefore, nobody invests serious amounts of time or money in making the Windows desktop any better.

      Let's face it, database-like file management was available in systems like BEOS since 1995.

      Database-like file management has been available since the 1960's. It hasn't caught on because people haven't quite figured out how to make it work well for end users. There is still a lot of R&D investment to be done before this is going to work better than current file management, but nobody has an incentive to do that kind of investment as long as Microsoft can simply control what's on the desktop.

      Unfortunately, now a wealth of third-party fixes to Windows limitations has sprung up, and MS can't implement what should be basic functionality without running foul of antitrust issues.

      Even if there were no anti-trust issues, Microsoft simply has no economic incentive to do a good job. In the end, a bunch of Microsoft engineers will come up with some gee-whiz features that pay lip service to "database-like file management", but it makes no difference to Microsoft's bottom line whether it actually works or not.

      We need serious competition for desktop features, user interfaces, kernels, etc., and that's only going to happen when the market can pick and choose operating system components.

    23. Re:google is EVIL! by Keeper · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, they are demanding that Microsoft lets people disable it.

      Then what are they complaining about? It can easily be disabled.

      Not only can the service be turned off, and not only can you specify which locations should/shouldn't be indexed, but there is a public api available that any 3rd party piece of software can use to turn it off or configure it.

  2. Thomas O. Barnett by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From the article :

    The official, Thomas O. Barnett, an assistant attorney general, had until 2004 been a top antitrust partner at the law firm that has represented Microsoft in several antitrust disputes. At the firm, Justice Department officials said, he never worked on Microsoft matters. Still, for more than a year after arriving at the department, he removed himself from the case because of conflict of interest issues. Ethics lawyers ultimately cleared his involvement.

    Seems strange that they'd hire someone from a law firm associated with Microsoft for the Justice Dept. and then put him in a position to comment on an MS case.
    1. Re:Thomas O. Barnett by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why does it seem "strange" that Bush would appoint a Microsoft lawyer to the Justice Department that was supposed to stop Microsoft from abusing its monopoly, after the Clinton Justice Department got the court to declare Microsoft an abusive monopoly that had to be stopped? "Unjust", maybe, but how strange is it for a Justice Department that's got its chief, Attorney General Gonzales, lying to Congress every day to coverup Bush's political purges and cronyism? Not to mention all the Patriot Act travesties Bush's DoJ has committed. Haven't you heard what a zoo they're running over there?

      What you might not have heard is that Jack Abramoff, the crooked lobbyist who helped build Bush's crooked Republican Congress, got his start lobbying out of Bill Gates' father's law firm, Preston Gates. It would seem strange if Microsoft weren't getting the benefit of the crooked system it's helped train and build.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Thomas O. Barnett by andydread · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How the hell is this strange. This is the Bush administration.
      They put oil executives in charge of the EPA
      they put antitrust defence lawyers in the Justice Dept.
      They put drug company executives in charge of the FDA

      I mean really now. Take a look here. http://www.iraqtimeline.com/bushcab.html

      And maybe someone can lookup these clowns and see what their prior industry affiliation is http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html
    3. Re:Thomas O. Barnett by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What makes this wrong?

      It's a conflict of interest.

      Look at it this way, why don't we take your idea here and run with it. Let's put the rapists in charge of crisis centers and murderers in charge of prisons, after all, they have "background" in the field.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    4. Re:Thomas O. Barnett by AdamKG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See, crazy me, I'd want a anti-trust prosecutor running anti-trust prosecutions.

      But that's just me.

      --
      groupthink: It's good for self-esteem.
    5. Re:Thomas O. Barnett by SoulRider · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah! And how about people who have committed suicide in charge of suicide prevention hotlines...oh wait!

  3. Grep against Google by Esteanil · · Score: 5, Funny

    On another note, Google has ordered all Open Source programmers in their employ to issue weekly "patches" that include disabling grep from all linux/BSD distros.
    "Grep is an evil command, and as a company that will do no evil, we must have evil commands removed." said a Google spokesman, before returning to his weekend pasttime of clubbing baby seals.

    --
    I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
    1. Re:Grep against Google by hachete · · Score: 2, Informative

      no.

      1. The indexer runs in the background continuously

      2. No API to turn it off.

      Why is slashdot full of MS trolls today? I notice they're avoiding the question of why the US govt is now part of MS's out-reach program.

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    2. Re:Grep against Google by figleaf · · Score: 4, Informative

      1. The indexer only runs when no other applications are using system resources.

      2. Its a Windows Service you can easily turn it off.

      Why is slashdot full of trolls today?

    3. Re:Grep against Google by HeroreV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is slashdot full of trolls today?
      Why would today be different from any other day?
    4. Re:Grep against Google by Macthorpe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Instant Search merely interacts with the indexing service. If you turn Windows Search off (which is trivial) then indexing stops and the Instant Search reverts to doing a file-by-file search a la Win98/95, which is exactly what Google's Desktop Search doesn't do.

      You're right to say that the Instant Search box cannot be removed, but Google are saying that the indexing that is being done interferes with their own indexing, which in fact it does not as Windows Search indexing only occurs on idle CPU cycles, so Google's will be given a higher priority. They're also saying you can't deactivate it, which you can - GDS modifies the Services when it sets itself to start on boot, so it's once again trivial to include in that a method of deactivating Windows Search. As I mentioned in another post, they tacitly admit that GDS works fine by providing Sidebar plugins and other miscellaneous extras that are designed specifically for Vista.

      Google's arguments here are disingenuous at best and deliberately misleading at worst - I have a feeling they're trying to get Windows Search removed merely to cripple Windows searching and create a niche which doesn't currently exist for them in Vista.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    5. Re:Grep against Google by All_One_Mind · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, I for one have run Vista, and quite extensively, and I can speak from experience that turning off the search indexing in Vista is a trivial task that can be accomplished through disabling the service, which as many have noted, is a relatively simple task for any human and/or installer to do.


      I'm not trying to defend Microsoft, it's just that in this case, Google are being complete idiots.

  4. You can find out how to turn it off by Dude+McDude · · Score: 5, Funny

    by doing a Google search.

  5. Just goes to show what I always say... by F34nor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Its cheeper to buy a congressman than to fix your business model.

  6. Re:Euphamism by Dogers · · Score: 2, Informative

    You don't need to go through the file associations menu to change what apps open what.

    Right click a file of the type you want to change, choose Open With and make sure you tick Always Open Files of This Type With.. option

    Programs will always steal the file types, because they play them and you specifically chose to download and install it, therefore you want it to work.

    Simpler way would be to stop clicking blindly through an installation, that's a good way to get crap on your system you don't want or need.. ;)

    --
    I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
  7. Re:Euphamism by victorhooi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Err, I'm sorry to say this, but you Sir, are an a*sehat...

    Google is asking for a way to disable the Windows Indexer, which currently can't be disabled. And having *two* indexers running at the same time introduces a

    And guess what, if somebody is actually installing Google Desktop, gee, gosh...maybe it's cause they want to actually try Google Desktop, rather than run it and the Windows Indexer at the same time. It's called making life easier for your users - you run the Google Desktop installer, and gosh, it installs it for you and turns off the in-built Windows Indexer. You un-install Google Desktop, and it turns the Windows Indexer back on. Not that hard, mate, really...(and yes, gee golly gosh, you can script something like that in an uninstaller).

    Seriously, what is it with Google bashing lately, anyway? Everybody's making it sound like Google is seeding some kind of spyware that disables Windows Search (which, not that relevant, but I actually dislike it. I don't like Google Desktop either, or Spotlight...still haven't found the perfect search, and Beagle is a hog...lol), no, they're letting users who choose to install Google Desktop disable it so it doesn't slow your computer to a crawl.

    Victor

    PS: And for the record, it's spelt *euphemism*.

  8. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All this shows it that Microsoft paid more for their politicians than Google did.

    1. Re:So? by JamesRose · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shouldn't've used froogle.

    2. Re:So? by mh1997 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All this shows it that Microsoft paid more for their politicians than Google did.

      Actually, all this shows is that Microsoft should have paid for their politicians a couple years ago, then there would have been no anti-trust case at all.

      If the government really believed that Microsoft was a monopoly and doing evil, then why, when dealing with the government, do all documents have to be in Microsoft Office format? The US Government is large enough that if it switched to any other software, Microsoft's domination of the market would be severely cut.

      Instead of fixing the "problem" without a lawsuit or legislation, politicians punished Microsoft for committing the greatest sin in politics - not paying off congress to the level that congress thought was required.

  9. What do you mean you can't turn it off? by anss123 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you disable the indexing service it's by all means off or are you referring to the search box itself? It is not possible to remove the search box as far as I know, but if the index service is off it will only search the hard drive the old fashioned way (the Win95 way).

    1. Re:What do you mean you can't turn it off? by Temporal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Can you point to any evidence whatsoever that Google sells personal data? The article you link does not make this claim.

      The argument that you seem to be making is "Google must sell personal data because they are evil, and they are evil because they sell personal data.", which is a circular argument.

  10. Something Important is missing here.... by 3seas · · Score: 2

    ... like CONSUMER CHOICE!

    Consumers/buyers are the ones with the loudest voice, they are the ones the politicians are really supposed to listen to, but if the information that allows the consumer to check it out for themselves and express their choice and concerns, is kept confidential and away from the consumer then there is one question to ask: Why?

    What is it that Microsofts search engine is looking for that it is always running and why is the initial political response backing this?

    Sidebar:
    IS there some connection to spying on the public, which in this case would be the public even outside of the US?
    If it is then I suspect, due to the easy to hypothisize of the 6 billion or so people in the world, it is some fraction of 1 percent that are in positions of warmongering and in general causing problems that otherwise do not exist. If it is for spying then that a lot of funding that could be better spent fixing real problems and removing the excuses of these major wrong doers.
    End of sidebar:

    Back to the MS search engine. Why is it always on?

    1. Re:Something Important is missing here.... by JamesRose · · Score: 2, Informative

      It indexes your files, firstly, to do correctly, and without slowinng you r computer alot that takes a long time, secondly while you are using your computer you are modifying files, when you modify them, they need re-indexing. If really necessary ctrl+alt+del, find the process, shut it down, its no vital, but that's not a permanent solution.

  11. Re:Euphamism by Negatyfus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Uhm, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but in true Slashdot fashion, you've totally misunderstood what the article is about. I would like to add that I came to this conclusion without actually reading the article myself, of course.

  12. I don't know whats more disturbing by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google lying to push their desktop search with its close to the bone privacy policies or the way that most people so far have just taken whatever Google say about their major competitor as being fact. I know this is Slashdot but I would expect a supposedly clued up technical audience to be aware of how easy it is to disable windows search in Vista. Whats next? Will Google want Yahoo messenger disabled as well because it's a bit of a resource hog and that might impact on Google desktop search performance?

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  13. Even If google is evil! by 3seas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what does google have to do with MS's search engine always running?

    Even if google was evil, I'd still want to be able to turn off a search engine created by a proven anti-trust violator.

    Wouldn't you?

    Just because people claim google is evil is no reason to dismiss an act of a part that has been proven evil.

    There must be a lot of MS supporters responding to the article, for who could miss the obviousnesss of this.

    The party bringing out the fact that MS's search engine is always on is itself not an evil act. Unless you work for MS.

    1. Re:Even If google is evil! by figleaf · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can easily turn it off. There are multiple ways to turn it off. Its Windows Service you can turn it off the control panel or the search options.
      If you like like the command-prompt then type 'net stop "Windows Search"

    2. Re:Even If google is evil! by MickDownUnder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's called the windows indexing service.

      http://www.xefteri.com/articles/show.cfm?id=2

      It's been around for many years. You can switch it off.

      Google is basically demanding Microsoft pull a service that has been around for pretty much ever. Well before google desktop search was even around. I think the US justice department is actually being quite sensible.

      Nice try Google. I guess that'd be "Do no evil" with the caveat "Unless it's Microsoft then kick em where it counts."

  14. hmm by um...+Lucas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Without having read the article (sorry, i haven't had coffee yet), i have to say, I'm with Microsoft on this one. I can definetly see the anti-competitiveness of grafting a web browser or media player into the operating system, BUT for google to complain that the operating system includes a means of searching for files on the computer it's running on... that seems a bit babyish. Am I missing something? Should i read the original article?

    1. Re:hmm by keithjr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're not missing much. This is the argument that MS would use if this case were to ever come to fruition. It's the same way they dodged the Netscape suit: claim that the product being complained about is actually an integral part of the functionality of an operating system in today's computing model.

      This worked with Netscape thanks to the sharp rise in internet use by the common user when IE started coming bundled with Windows. At that point, a web browser was indeed an intergral part of the OS and thus not criminal for the OS provider to provide one. This is the line of reasoning that can be leavied against Google: search functions are now necessary for day-to-day use.

      But then again, it will never come to that, thanks to Microsoft's clever investments in government.

  15. Lesser of two evils...? by jihadist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wait, which is the lesser of two evils here? Google are privacy-destroying voyeurs, and Microsoft are omnivore IP hogs. I'd like to find the lesser of two evils. Except, when I look into it, all they're doing is advancing market share so their shareholders are happy and everyone from the CEO to the janitor goes home richer. So are the people behind Microsoft and Google the evil? Or is it the system?

    Why can't we admit that capitalism and good design are oppositional forces, and that we the people through our greed defeat ourselves?

    --
    Anti-Globalism
  16. Why are they not complaining about OSX? by QunaLop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know they don't provide an indexer for osx, but the indexer in osx was conceived after ms's vista (longhorn i suppose)'s i think google is way off base to begin with, and not saying anything about osx really cuts the legs out of the argument imho.

  17. Re:Netscape, Part Duce by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, Carter was a terrible President, but there is a qualitative difference between "fish out of water" and "corrupt to the core."

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  18. This is what Microsoft normally does by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Historically, Microsoft has moved widely needed functions into their operating system and thereby eliminated the market for alternatives. When they did that for disk compression, Stacker went out of business. When they did it for TCP/IP networking, Trumpet Winsock disappeared. When they did it for email, Eudora stopped being a viable business. When they did it for browsers, Netscape Inc. went from a dot-com success to collapse.

    Right now, they're doing it for anti-virus tools, which threatens McAfee, and desktop search, which threatens Google. They'll probably win on both of those, because there's little incentive to install a competitor's tools if those come bundled with the operating system, and because those tools can be tightly integrated with the operating system.

    1. Re:This is what Microsoft normally does by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      .....

      Which is why as a software company (if I were one), I'd never write a damn peice of software for Microsoft ... EVER. If whatever innovative software I created was targeted by MS, I'd have no chance to compete.

      Dance with the devil, then you can expect to rot in hell, when you no longer serve his purposes.

      Sucks doesn't it? Why any company would write software for MS who can and often does poach designs and ideas from other companies, is beyond me. Seriously.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:This is what Microsoft normally does by DavidD_CA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This argument has been going on for almost a decade now.

      As a consumer, I say GOOD. Because if all that stuff wasn't bundled into the operating system, then I'd have to get it all myself, and often pay for it.

      The MacOS includes all that stuff, and more, for free when you buy OS X. Why can't I have that when I buy Windows Vista?

      And there is nothing stopping me from deciding to 1) purchase a competing product and installing it, or 2) not purchasing Vista at all and getting a machine with Linux.

      --
      -David
  19. silly fool, nothing to see here by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

    What you might not have heard is that Jack Abramoff, the crooked lobbyist who helped build Bush's crooked Republican Congress, got his start lobbying out of Bill Gates' father's law firm, Preston Gates. It would seem strange if Microsoft weren't getting the benefit of the crooked system it's helped train and build. Correlation does not equal causation. This is just one in a series of curious coincidences where the interests of the Bush administration and those who have backed them have coincided by mere happenstance. There is simply nothing more to it than that. Now if you will excuse me, there's a party operative at the door with a bundle of cash for me; coincidentally, mind you.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  20. The morons are out in force at /. today by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The entire first page of posts is one repetitive list:

    Moron 1: Google didn't say that - they said allow it to be turned off.

    Moron 2: You CAN turn it off.

    Moron 3: Google didn't say that - they said allow it to be turned off.

    Moron 4: You CAN turn it off.

    Moron 5: Google didn't say that - they said allow it to be turned off.

    Moron 6: You CAN turn it off.

    Moron 7: Google didn't say that - they said allow it to be turned off.

    Moron 8: You CAN turn it off.

    Moron 9: Google didn't say that - they said allow it to be turned off.

    Moron 10: You CAN turn it off.

    Moron 11: Google didn't say that - they said allow it to be turned off.

    Moron 12: You CAN turn it off.

    Moron 12: Google didn't say that - they said allow it to be turned off.

    Moron 14: You CAN turn it off.

    Moron 15: Google didn't say that - they said allow it to be turned off.

    Moron 16: You CAN turn it off.

    There's your whole first page...

    Morons...

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!